Please don't flame but is the GOP endorsement of Lieberman

[saracat]

actually offering us two bites from the apple if he continues to caucus with us? Remember, even thought I lothe the guy, he did vote with the Dems 90% of the time. Is it remotely possible this gives us a win/ win situation and isn't this just the GOP making the best of a bad situation? Because if you take the war out of his voting record, Joe is fairly liberal.I support Lamont but I was just thinking about how pathetic this is for the GOP. This is painted as bad for the Dems but is it really? We have two choices and they feel they have none! Let's reframe this!

[MrModerate]

1. Well, if he wins in November, they've lost the political cover . . .

He lent them as a Democrat. I'm not sure he's going to be welcome to caucus with Dems, however. He's unreliable.

[saracat]

3. I wonder,.As I am not a fan of his anything is possible.But

I don't see Reid dissing him. Reid is even more conservative than Joe and no one is tossing him. This is a peculiar situation.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Reid WILL LOSE his Senate seat IF he doesn't disown Lieberman ...

It will be a "dedicated hobby" for many of us who are tired of the representatives serving THEMSELVES before their constituents to REPLACE their pseudo-Democratic butt in the next Primary. ;)

Vote Out Incumbents Democrats http://voidnow.org/

Force Congress to recognize that reelection depends on restoring responsible government and priorities back to the people.

snip

1) Congress deserves an "F" for its performance, particularly over the past few years. And this isn't just the Republican's fault; most of the worst bills received overwhelming "bi-partisan" support.

2) A 100% turnover in Congress would abolish the seniority system. Party and committee leadership would have to be earned, not inherited or bought. While the Democrats would probably become the majority, they would not be the same Democrats who are there today (they will have been kicked out along with the Republican majority). The new leaders that do emerge will be fully aware that if the American people can kick out the incumbents once, they can do it again. This would serve as an incentive to govern with greater responsibility and accountability.

3) Voting against the incumbent does not mean voting for the other major party candidate. It could mean voting for an alternative party or independent candidate. An organized anti-incumbent campaign will benefit smaller parties and independents. This brings more voices to the table, which is good for the republic.

/snip

[MrModerate]

16. I'm no fan of Reid . . .

But you can't vote him out until he runs again -- 2010, isn't it?

Could kick him out of the minority/majority leader's spot (depending on how November turns out). I'd certainly go for that.

Don't know who'd replace him though. Given that your aim of 100% turnover isn't possible (at least this cycle), who'd you propose for minority/majority leader?

[ShortnFiery]

22. Then if Reid doesn't find his spine, I'm willing to hold that grudge

and Kick his greedy corporate paid-off butt out of office in favor of his challenger in the 2010 Primary. :-)

Minority/Majority Leader? ... well, lets keep it simple somebody (KISS principle) - how about some Democratic Representatives who can individually show their dedication and integrity to both their constituents as well as The Democratic Party? We The People will welcome that for starters.

[MrModerate]

24. Well, we'll need a Senator for Reid's replacement . . .

John Kerry?

[ShortnFiery]

25. You just don't get how CORRUPT this Congress truly is, do you?

Sorry, we CAN vote in most ANY honorable "new democratic challenger."

Hello! What difference does seniority or chair of committees MATTER if it's only used to line the pocket of the Professional Politician.

Yeah, there's a need for NEW BLOOD to move in on the "sell outs."

Let's comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? ;) :applause:

THEY represent US! - Don't ever play down NOR forget that fact.

[MrModerate]

30. OK, I've wiped the spittle off my glasses . . .

'Bye now.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Not even close to funny ... we are being lied to by certain members

of both parties. Remember, it was The People, not The Democratic Party per se that mercifully extracted our beloved Soldiers from Vietnam.

"Yeah, we are truly in a World of Shit (named *Iraq-Nam*) as some insightful NonComs rue. Savor that spittle and use it to help clean your glasses,i.e., open your eyes to the truth.

[billbradley]

80. Vote Out Incumbents Democrats http://voidnow.org

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

84. Apparently you can't read.

Which is not surprising, because you also can't type.

VOID, to which you refer, is "Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy." Which, despite being a terribly, terribly named organisation, is non-partisan.

[jayctravis]

56. And if he wins, he's basically in their debt.

[theanarch]

57. presumably "he" refers to Leiberman...

...and no, he won't be in the debt of the Tory Democrats who supported him; he will, however, be indebted to the GOP and the corporate/ideological (AIPAC) special interests that bankrolled his entire career...in short, the same folks he's always been owned by.

[cally]

73. Assuming Lieberman wins (which I don't expect)

I agree with your premise. First, he can't be the Democrat on all the talking head shows that supports the Reps insane policies. He can't speak for Democrats anymore because he won't be one. Second, it looks like he won't get any committee chairmanships if the Dems take back the Senate. That's huge because he might have been chair of the Governmental Accountability Committee and could have blocked many of the investigations. I do think we won even if Lamont isn't victorious.

[onenote]

74. Reality check

If Lieberman pulls out a win as an independent, the following is likely to happen:
1. He will seek to caucus as a Democrat
2. The Democrats will accept him as part of the caucus and, if the Democrats have regained control of the Senate 51-49 with Lieberman as part of the caucus, Lieberman will get a Committee Chairmanship.

Get used to the idea because its a rock solid given. Why? Consider the Jeffords precedent. The guy ran as a repub, defeated a Dem, became an independent, which gave the Democrats control of the Senate and Jeffords was given a Committee Chairmanship.

While we might debate the fine point distinctions between the two situations here, I guarantee that no such hand wringing will take place among the Senate Democratic caucus, which will welcome Joe with open arms if he represents the margin by which the Democrats regain control of the Senate.

[ShortnFiery]

2. It's real bad for DEMS, Yes!

Lieberman, the Democratic Party TRAITOR should NOT be allowed to caucus with The Democrats within The Senate. NOT AT ALL! Even more, he should NOT keep *anything* he had as a Senate Democrat. :thumbsdown:

What's wrong the The Democratic Party Leadership? Can't they tell that us "rank and file" democrats are PISSED and WILL HOLD a GRUDGE if they cower in the political corner? :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

Newsflash DINO Lieberman Political Leaders - we will NOT take this act of Party Traitorism and ask "big brother" for another SCREW JOB to the Base. We're pissed and Lieberman MUST be exiled.

[saracat]

6. That was my initial reaction but I stopped and thought about it.

Why shouldn't we use this to our advantage? The repukes are trying to use it to theirs! I am not saying Joe should be elected, I am saying if we spin this to our advantage as another vote for us, the Repukes won't vote for him either! We must SPIN this to our advantage. The Dems need to outsmart the GOP.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Sorry, but acts of Traitorous Defections to one's beloved

Democratic Party do NOT have *any upshot* in the real world of Political Maneuvering. :(

Loserman is traitorous SCUM and many of us will NOT support the re-election of any Democratic Representatives who stabbed The Democratic Party in the back. They screwed US in favor of their career aspirations and hope for continued Military Industrial WAR Machine Pay Offs. As such, they are behaving just as TRAITOROUS to The Democratic Party as Joe Loserman. :grr:

Give it up! No acrobatics of spin by warmongering political operatives will change "The Truth."

[saracat]

32. Who asked you to support Joe? Not me!

I said we should spin this to our advantage as opposed to letting the GOP use it for theirs.You don't have any imagination do you? And don't put words in my mouth I haven;t said. One can support Lamont while pointing out the GOP doesn't have a real candidate so they are forced to support one of our former candidates! It isn't as balck and white or as simplistic as you see it but politics never is.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Spin don't cover LIES especially when they STINK.

There's no possible way to spin defections from The Democratic Party as ANYTHING positive. Well, unless you want us to "fall through the looking glass." :shrug:

The truth is quite clear. Those with integrety don't have to MANIPULATE = SPIN the facts.

Yes, I have quite a good imagination - I imagine great corruption within the ranks of our Congress. I imagine JUSTICE and a well needed House Cleaning. ;)

Screw SPIN - that makes us just as sleezy as the Republicans.

No, I will NOT go there. :(

[saracat]

34. Everything can be spun.And Dems damn well better learn the art

because we have been losing to the GOP spin machine.And you certainly have a problem engaging in a civil discussion of ideas.If you have ever read any of my posts I have been campaigning against Lieberman for years.And I told him what I thought of him to his face , which I am sure is more than you have done.Yet you are berating me as a supporter of Lieberman merely because I suggest a way of using this event to our advantage! Again, there seems to be a problem with imagination, and an obvious lack of any media savvy.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Screw SPIN a.k.a. art of deceptions. This is just more disinformation

Whether you're pro or anti- Lieberman, IMO this is some real sick and convoluted stuff you're peddling.

Basic Facts: Lieberman is a warmonger, i.e., this Occupation is illegal and immoral.

The above facts are ALL IMPORTANT!

Screw deceptive "mutual masturbations" called "the art of spin."

Instead we'll be ecstatic with "an ounce" of personal integrity from our Democratic Leadership. Some have admirably rose to this task. But NO POLITICAL MERCY for the artistic "smoke and mirrors" Democratic Spin Meisters as they keep their hands under the table for campaign contributions from the USA Military Industrial KILLING Machine. :thumbsdown:

You want to win against the GOP (as well as overcome The Corporate Media)?

Come into the world of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

And keep repeating The Truth, not SPIN. ;)

[saracat]

63. Spin doesn't have to be false. You don't understand a damn thing about

PR. And it happens I do.How many elections have you won? How many votes have you gotten for candidates or initiatives.If all it took was telling the truth, Al Gore would have been president. Elections are about marketing. They are no diffent then selling a movie(Yeah, I've done that too)Your candidate, your position and your party are all products that need to be sold. I understand you may not like that concept but since you are such a fan of truth, that is the truth.And by the way KISS is "spin".

[ShortnFiery]

64. Forgive me, but I will always be less than impressed with the

concept of PR. Of course you "know it all" or so you think.

BTW, I'm not berating you for I can't even begin to UNDERSTAND where you're coming from.

That's not from lack of education but a desire NOT to get involved in the deception of spin.

Good Bye, I need a break ... no disrespect but I can NOT even begin to relate to you. :hi:

[saracat]

65. Well, PR got the GOP elected. It is really too bad we don't at least try

to understand the concept. Karl Rove sure did. They made lemons out of lemonade with Bush. If we had good PR we would be in the WH.And as I said, spin is not necessarily about deception.It is about preception.Whatever.

[DCCyclone]

85. ShortnFiery, the problem is "messaging"......

No, not mAssaging, but messaging. Lieberman as an indy continues to get LOTS of media coverage, and he now is making public comments that directly conflict with the Democratic Party message. Lieberbush is "attacking both parties" and "decrying partisanship" while parroting the shallow Bush narrative on Iraq.

THIS is why Lieberbush's indy campaign ALWAYS was destined to hurt us: he HAS to run AGAINST the Democratic Party as part of his campaign. And the circumstances of this race are titilating so that the national media keeps covering it, giving Joe a louder voice than any Dem Senator or Senate challenger. Ned himself CAN rival Joe in national media coverage among Dem Senators and challengers, but ultimately Joe can only hurt us because he's off-message.

[AlinPA]

4. That is reasonable, but the "kiss" and all the sucking up to Bush**, the

pictures of him behind Bush** smiling is very hard to take. However, he may be about the same as Nelson (NE), Landrieu and Pryor and Lincoln. Landrieu votes with R's a lot, especially on the environment.

[sandnsea]

5. This could truly backfire on Dems

The bulk of the Dem campaign is against the "rubberstamp" republicans. If they're willing to endorse a Democrat, and one that supposedly votes Dem 90% of the time (which I don't believe), then that sort of takes the steam out of the "rubberstamp" label - doesn't it??

[saracat]

12. Now THAT is a good point.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Oh man, forgive me but I'll be back after I put on "MY WADERS"

If you get what I mean Vern. :thumbsdown:

[sandnsea]

37. Get enough for the whole country

They're the ones who wade through right wing shit and think it's a flower garden.

[sandnsea]

21. It literally just hit me

When I was reading your post. Lieberman has just been a thorn in the side for 6 damned years now, longer than that if you count the Clinton stuff. Aargh!

[Mountainman]

7. Can you put some more information about that phrase "voting with Dems 90%

of the time?" I think that is a phrase meant to take us away from the fact that Lieberman sides with the administration most of the time.

Does it mean that he sided with the majority of Dems when a vote was held 90% or the time? What does siding with the Dems mean? Dems do not vote as a block. The phrase is just too simplistic to mean anything really.

[saracat]

11. Lieberman's voting record is 90% in favor of Dem issues.

The only real issue he seperated from the party on was his "continued " support of the war and the Presidcent's stance on the war.If that is the only issue that counts, one doesn't allow a complete picture.I have other issues. Nonethe less, I support Lamont because he is supportive of those other issues as well as against the war.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Stop! He's a war monger and wants to allow HOSPITALS to

send RAPE VICTIMS to another facility if "their corporate conscious" bugs them.

Loserman is no Democrat to me AND the Democratic Voters in Connecticut. Damn, you spin! :puke:

[Zodiak]

71. This is false

Leiberman has gone against the Dems on far more than Iraq.

Please do not buy the 90% canard. Accepting that talking point already paints Lamont supporters as unreasonable witch-hunters.

1. He voted for Condi
2. He voted for Gonzales
3. He voted to take class action lawsuit rights away
4. He voted for Negroponte
5. He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
6. He voted for CAFTA
7. He did not stand up for voting rights in Ohio
8. He voted for cloture on Alito
8. He voted to extend the Patriot Act
9. He voted for the US-Oman free trade agreement
10. He voted for Roberts

To that, you can add his wilingness to embrace privitization of Social Security, his stance on raped women having to drive to another hospital, his willingness to look the other way on wiretapping, and all kinds of bad positions that I do not score voting-wise.

Take it from me, Leiberman is not 90% by ANY analysis I can think of. If you are a Lamont supporter, uttering that 90% canard is only aiding your opponent because it is demonstrably not true.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. ".... he did vote with the Dems 90% of the time"

That's kinda the official line on him and a few others. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. Look at how he actually did the voting for Judge Slappy's confirmation way back in the day.

First he criticized dems for opposing Slappy, then he withheld his own vote until Slappy was slam dunk .... only then did Holy cast his own *for the record* 'no' vote.

He has a history of such parlimentary 'pranks' ... to say nothing of running for his senate seat as he was also on Al's team in 2000.

[Greyhound]

13. Exactly! As always, "the Devil is in the details".

How many of the 90% is pro-dem votes were on bills that had no effect, were unenforceable, or had no chance of passing? What were the effects of the 10% of the time he didn't?

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Edited to add; that Lieberman is far from alone on this disingenuous shell game. Look at the details of their voting records and see where/how they are using their votes to fuck the people, further enrich their corporate masters, and to hasten the death of liberty in America.

[ShortnFiery]

19. OH, you bring out the vivid facts.

Very nicely done greyhound1966. :applause:

[Greyhound]

26. Why, thank you very much.

:blush:

[ShortnFiery]

27. De Nada (You're Welcome) ... I like your taste in hounds also. :-)

[Zodiak]

70. I am immensely aware of it

I have been scoring these Senatorial votes, and I believe that about 15 of our Senators take turns screwing the American people over in favor of Bush policies.

And you are right...I do not care about amendments and procedural votes when I score Senators. I only want to know what they are doing when it REALLY counts. When one scores only those votes (nominations and bill passage), the corporate-enabling of some of the Democrats becomes dreadfuly apparent (see downthread for a list of Joe's bad votes).

And all of them are DLC.

[Zodiak]

69. I still see NO evidence

of this mythical 90% number that DUers accept withoutr any accompanying analysis. The 90% number comes from Leiberman's mouth, not any study of his votes that I know.

On bill passage and nominations (all important issues), Joe votes 40% with Democrats. Just 40%.
ADA and Progressive Punch, which use a methodology that artificially makes our Congress look more partisan, has Joe in the 70% range, so where does this 90% come from other than Joe's own mouth?

The 90% number is just plain wrong, but it sure makes Lamont supporters look like ideological purists on a witch-hunt, and that is why this canard needs to be stamped out.

Here is what Joe voted for in the last Congress. No percentages....just a string of bad votes.

1. He voted for Condi
2. He voted for Gonzales
3. He voted to take class action lawsuit rights away
4. He voted for Negroponte
5. He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
6. He voted for CAFTA
7. He did not stand up for voting rights in Ohio
8. He voted for cloture on Alito
8. He voted to extend the Patriot Act
9. He voted for the US-Oman free trade agreement
10. He voted for Roberts



Leiberman is actually a typical DLCer. He is NOT Harkin (the only Senator who votes with progressives 90% of the time).

I am on dial-up for the next two weeks (on vacation), so I really am only posting whenever I see this 90% canard uttered.

Sorry about replying to your post, Hubs....this is not directed at you specifically. I just see too many people use the 90% number because a number of Leiberman-suporting DUers were repeating that canard ad-nauseum after Joe uttered it at the debates.

[billbradley]

81. LEIBERMANS RECORD SUCKS

Leiberman has gone against the Dems on far more than Iraq.

Please do not buy the 90% canard. Accepting that talking point already paints Lamont supporters as unreasonable witch-hunters.

1. He voted for Condi
2. He voted for Gonzales
3. He voted to take class action lawsuit rights away
4. He voted for Negroponte
5. He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
6. He voted for CAFTA
7. He did not stand up for voting rights in Ohio
8. He voted for cloture on Alito
8. He voted to extend the Patriot Act
9. He voted for the US-Oman free trade agreement
10. He voted for Roberts

To that, you can add his wilingness to embrace privitization of Social Security, his stance on raped women having to drive to another hospital, his willingness to look the other way on wiretapping, and all kinds of bad positions that I do not score voting-wise.

Take it from me, Leiberman is not 90% by ANY analysis I can think of. If you are a Lamont supporter, uttering that 90% canard is only aiding your opponent because it is demonstrably not true.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I'm having a hard time trusting Joe in any way re if he wins.

If it is 50-50 Bush could give him an Administration position and the Republican Gov. will get to pick his replacement.

He can blackmail Dems to do what he wants or else he will switch. I'm sure the Republicans would give him a Chairmanship of some sort to retain control.

Think about how badly he undermined the Party when he was the Dem Senator from Conn. Imagine what he will do when it is mostly Republicans that "brought him to the dance".

I don't want to focus on him much anymore because we need to focus on the pick-ups but OMG is he grating on my nerves to an enormous degree. He is reciting Cheney/Rove TP.

I can try to play games with myself to reframe the Conn. Senate race but he really just disgusts me at this point.

I can't reframe it in my head.

I just don't trust him at all.

I think he will flip on a dime if it is to Joe's benefit because that is really all that matters to him.

[MercutioATC]

14. It's still a net loss for us if Lieberman wins.

No Republican has the ability to take that seat. The seat is guaranteed to go Dem, independent, or third-party.

The Republicans have put their backing behind the "Connecticut for Lieberman" third-party candidate so the Democratic candidate will lose. If they're successful, the Democrat loses.

This is OUR seat. Having our candidate lose to a third-party candidate is a net loss.

[dolstein]

42. Excuse me, but its not YOUR seat

The seat belongs to all the voters of Connecticut, not just the 15% who voted in the Democratic primary, much less the 8% who supported Lamont. If a majority of general election voters disagree with the preferences of a slight majority of Democratic primary voters, they get the final word. That's democracy.

[MercutioATC]

53. Dolstein! Imagine you responding to my post!

:eyes:

I believe it's a given that the seat was a guaranteed Dem seat in a two-party race. Even the Republicans realize that...that's why they ran a nobody with a gambling problem.

If the race in the general is Lamont/Schlesinger, Lamont (the Democrat) will walk away with it.

If the race is Lamont/Schlesinger/Lieberman, we have a chance that a third-party candidate (Lieberman) will take the seat.

This isn't about Dem vs. Repub...if it were, we'd win. It's about the possibility of a third-party candidate taking the seat away from the Dem who'd win it if it remained a two-party race.

A Lieberman win would be a net loss because we'd be losing the seat to a third-party candidate when a Dem could have easily won it in a two-party race.

[dolstein]

58. A Lieberman win would not be a net loss

You can play all the word games you want, but the fact of the matter is that the number of Senators in the Democratic caucus will be unaffected by the outcome of the Senate race in Connecticut. That is a fact. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to simply make up facts to suit your argument.

[MercutioATC]

62. Lieberman is a third-party candidate. He's NOT running as a Democrat.

He's said that he will caucus with Dems. That might even be true.



If I was basing my argument solely on opinion, as you seem to state, I'd just be asserting that Lamont would be better for the party than Lieberman. That's something I believe but you're right...that's just an opinion. The fact is that a two-party race would ensure that we keep that seat in the Senate. A third-party candidate (Lieberman) puts that seat in jeopardy. If Lieberman wins, we lose a seat in the Senate.

That's just fact.

[dolstein]

66. No, the fact is . . .

that the Republican nominee is a nonfactor in the race. The race is between two Democrats -- one the official nominee of the Democratic Party, the other a lifelong Democrat, 18 year incumbent and former vice presidential candidate on the national Democratic ticket.

Please point to a single poll that provides any support to your claim that Joe Lieberman's candidacy creates even the slightest possibility of a Republican winning this seat. Just one.

The truth is that Joe Lieberman is the ONLY reason why the Republicans aren't contesting the seat. They decided against fielding a strong candidate when Lieberman was the presumptive Democratic nominee, knowing that it would be impossible to beat him in a two-way race. And with Lieberman drawing enormous support from Republicans and Independents alike, the Republicans aren't even making an effort to support their official nominee or replace him with a viable candidate.

Those are the facts.

[MercutioATC]

68. Lieberman is NOT running as a Dem. He's a third-party candidate.

The race isn't between two Democrats, it's between a Democrat and a third-party candidate.

That's a fact .

I'd also like you to show me where I ever said that Lieberman's candidacy increased the chance that a Republican would win. I never said that. What I said was that his candidacy decreases the chance that the Democrat will win.

That's also a fact .

...and if Lieberman does win, we lose one Democratic seat in the Senate.

...and yes, that's a fact , too.

[dolstein]

75. A distinction without a difference

<<The race isn't between two Democrats, it's between a Democrat and a third-party candidate.>>

It's a race between two registered Democrats. One who is the formal nominee of the party, the other who is running under the banner of a third party that was established solely for the purchase of getting him a higher spot on the ballot that he'd have running as an independent.

<<I'd also like you to show me where I ever said that Lieberman's candidacy increased the chance that a Republican would win. I never said that.>>

You said this: "The fact is that a two-party race would ensure that we keep that seat in the Senate. A third-party candidate (Lieberman) puts that seat in jeopardy."

This is demonstrably untrue. If Lieberman had dropped out, the Republicans would have tried to replace Schlesinger with a viable candidate, and given Lamont's high negatives, the seat could very well be in jeopardy. But what we KNOW is that with Lieberman in the race, the Republicans aren't even bothering to try to contest this seat. So the seat will be occupied by a Democrat regardless of whether Lamont or Lieberman wins.

<<...and if Lieberman does win, we lose one Democratic seat in the Senate.>>

No we don't. If Lieberman wins, we have the status quo.

[MercutioATC]

77. Spin it how you will. If Lieberman wins, that seat becomes an (I).

It will no longer be a (D) seat. That's not the status quo.

It seems as if some Lieberman supporters are trying to explain away his third-party bid as "Oh, he's still a Democrat". The truth is that he's not. In this race, he's one of the opposition candidates and he's damaging the prospects of the actual Democratic nominee.

[dolstein]

78. You mean like Jeffords?

Funny, but when Jeffords chose to caucus with the Democrats, I didn't see people around here screaming that it wasn't a net pickup for the Democrats because there was still an (I) after Jefford's name. Nor do I see anyone around here claiming that a victory by Bernie Sanders (technically a socialist, but I believe he has the Democratic nomination) would result in a pick-up for the Democrats.

You can keep this up all you want, but you're beginning to sound a little desparate.

[MercutioATC]

79. Yes, like Jeffords.

If you'll remember, he used to be a Republican, but left them to caucus with their opponents. We like it because it worked well for us, but I don't remember the Republicans being too happy about it.

Lieberman used to be a Democrat. He's now running as a third-party candidate who supports the Iraq war, supports Bush's energy bill, and believes that we question Bush's decisions "at our own peril". He's using Republican talking points that 90% of us see as right-wing rhetoric to campaign against the Democratic nominee. Hell, he's more popular among Republican voters than he is among Democrats.

He supports the war in Iraq even though over 60% of the country (Dems and Repubs) are now anti-war. He supports Bush's "War on Terror" even though 90% of Americans believe that Bush's actions have either made no difference or made us more vulnerable to terrorism. He says ""If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again." when over 50% of the country wants a timetable for U.S. with drawl from Iraq.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

...and he calls the Democratic voters of Connecticut "left wing" because they agree with the majority of America.

Wanna tell me again how Joe's a Democrat?

[kentuck]

20. Bullshit.

But nobody asked me...

[ProSense]

23. Lieberman may (or may not) have voted with Democrats 90% of the time, but

his actions upon being defeated are despicable and 110% Republican.

I don't think it will be a win for the Republicans, who are simply exploiting Lieberman to give the appearance that their agenda has support. Looking at the administration's confused and dangerous actions in Iraq it's unfathomable that Lieberman has the gall to still support "stay the course."

[Zodiak]

72. The answer is "may not"

The only place that cites the 90% number is from Joe's own mouth.

My analysis puts him off by about 50% (he really votes around 60% in favor of Bush policies and appointments).

[RufusEarl]

28. There was a time in this country,

when republicans and democrats got along and worked in a bi partisan way to get matters of state done, those days stopped in 1994.

Now it's the repug way are the highway, i personally don't want the democrats working with these so-called politicians. And thats what Joe want to do, he believes he can work with these guys but he can't, and imho no opposition party can. Joe must go! as well as the majority of repugs.

A federal judge ruled today that Bu$h has violated the constitution with wiretapping by the NSA, the AG said they were going to ignore the ruling. I have a problem with that, and Joe Lieberman supports this guy. Joe must go!!

[LoZoccolo]

29. The GOP is making the best of a bad situation, in my opinion.

Schlesinger really doesn't have a chance; I heard he's at like 4% now. That would leave Lamont and Lieberman. If they endorse Schlesinger, it splits the Lieberman vote enough so that Lamont wins. It might be the difference between the Republicans getting 10% of what they want rather than 0%, but they're smart enough to take the 10% rather than the 0%. I'm not so sure we're as disciplined.

Last week I made the argument that painting Lieberman as a Republican is one of the biggest obstacles to a Lamont win; I think the GOP painting him as a Republican as well is basically a confirmation of that!

[ShortnFiery]

35. This is not our father's GOP

The present day GOP are filled with SCUM.

I honestly despise EVERY Leading Member of the RNC.

The Present day Representatives within The GOP (ALL OF THEM!) are beyond corrupt and begging for "a political purge" for justice - even if it only affects their dimwitted in-bred supporters.

[Wally101]

38. ShortnFiery

They make some really tasty decaffinated stuff nowadays, you might want to try a cup.

just my thoughts,

Wally

[ShortnFiery]

39. Welcome to DU Wally! You are too kind. :P

I take it as a complement that you created this ScreenName for the expressed purpose to SLAM Me.

Wow! I'm your first post. :yourock: ;)

Thank you buddy!

And ANGER, you damn well believe that I'm as angry as hell! Especially about this immoral occupation of a Sovereign Country beginning an "no holds bar" civil war.

No, I will not apologize for being compassionate and trying to save our beloved Military from SENSELESS killing and dying.

My Brother's best friend took George W. "Air Assault wannabe" Bush's place in Vietnam - his name is on the wall. He was a beautiful soul ... twice the man the sociopath in the White House will ever be.

No, I will not calm or back down until we receive JUSTICE.

Say it with me? "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Thanks again Wally101, :applause: for the reason you did what you did CONVINCES ME that I'm doing some good toward promoting An End of Murderous Warfare for USA Corporate Profit. :(

[Sparkly]

44. I guess ya gotta wonder

what's in that "decaf" some push... Perhaps it explains the discomfort with passion, and the pleas for happy apathy.

[ShortnFiery]

47. I apologize ...

I lost someone close to me a few weeks ago, and yeah, I am projecting.

Sorry. :hi:

[Sparkly]

48. Short? I was defending you....

I was on your side -- that was a snark at the decaf-pusher.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[ShortnFiery]

49. I know, I'm sorry, it's been a long month.

As much as I hate to admit it, one post Wally may just be right. :blush:

I need to disconnect for a few weeks and just grieve. Thank you for not getting mean, you had every right to.

[Sparkly]

51. No problem.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Don't apologize for your feelings, and know there's no right or wrong way to grieve. :hug:

(Also know that I often argue with people and can't quite recall later what we argued about. Ultimately we're all on the same side, in my view. And I prefer to agree than disagree!)

[ShortnFiery]

54. Thanks!

I'm so glad to be "absolutely wrong" about the past few posts.

Have a good week and please accept my genuine and humble apology.

Just want these horrible wars to end. :hi: :hug:

[Sparkly]

43. .

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

45. Self-Delete

:blush:

[Sparkly]

46. You misinterpreted.

See my post above, to you.

I was shrugging at our new friend -- perhaps a "wtf" would have been clearer.

(Actually I was happy to agree with you for a change.)

Peace.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Shit! Wally's absolutely right - I'm an emotional wreck.

I have to go grieve and not get involved in politics. The combination of the two does cause projection.

Peace, and my true appreciation for not getting nasty with my sorry emotional a**.

Bye :hi:

[Sparkly]

52. Take care --

and do what you need to do for yourself.

Don't worry about this little misunderstanding though. (Decaf isn't all it's cracked up to be, either!) :hi:

[dolstein]

40. I agree -- it makes the GOP seem more moderate

By supporting Lieberman, the GOP is trying to make the case that they are actually more open and tolerant than the Democratic Party that rejected Lieberman for voting the party line "only" 90 percent of the time.

They also think they could improve the chances of re-electing the three Republican representatives. Lieberman may not be especially popular these days among Democrats, but he's still pretty popular among independents, and he's probably polling better than Shays, Simmons and Johnson. I'm sure they'd love to catch a ride on his coattails. I'm not sure that's going to happen however, because the fact is that, unlike Lieberman, they caucus with the Republicans, and control of the House is really at stake in this election.

Of course, political benefits aside, the GOP is only doing this because they have absolutely zero chance of winning this race. If they had bothered to field a real candidate, and Lieberman has won the Democratic nomination, they'd be hammering Lieberman as hard as their hammering Lamont. Let's not forget that the GOP had no trouble whatsoever going after Lieberman during the 2000 election.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

41. If looserman won, would he be in a powerful position to sell his vote for

for potentially deciding control of the senate to either party for committee chairmanships?

[onenote]

76. If who he caucuses with decides control of the Senate

he will elect to caucus with the Democrats and he will get a Committee Chairmanship. Bet on it.

Why? First, of all, his position on a number of issues are anathema to repubs, so he's unlikely to be able to pursue those areas as a Repub committee chairman. Second, the Jeffords precedent.

[AZBlue]

55. No flames here.

But I think it's actually the GOP using any means possible to divide Dems further.

[Sparkly]

61. I agree -- and even more, Lieberman is a symbol of their Iraq policy...

That's what they want to hold up as victorious, over the supposedly wild-eyed "out of the mainstream" anti-war blogofascist supported Lamont. They want their policies to come out on top, casting our positions aside as radical and crazy.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Here's my fear -- Arrogant Joe wins the general, thus

making him Arrogant Joe to the nth power.

He then super-sizes his obsession with *appearing* moderate, and plays for all the attention with every decision -- expecting the Dems to kowtow to his every whim in return for agreement, and calling himself statesmanlike all the while.

[billbradley]

82. JOE WILL OWE THE GOPigs BIG

AND VOTE WITH THEM ANYTIME HE CAN.

HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.

[59millionmorons]

60. Exactly right

This is a no lose proposition for the Democrats.

[mmonk]

67. On major issues of executive power, the constitution

and it's checks and balances, the judiciary, he's rightwing right now which nullifies his past votes and anything progressive he may vote for in the way of legislation. Therefore, he is a net loss if he wins.

[billbradley]

83. lieberman.....HE IS no democrat.

HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.HE IS no democrat.