Why All Americans should now OPPOSE Lieberman

[UnityDem]

The Lieberman "independent" bid in the general election threatens our democratic system.
Here's why: It completely undermines the primary system. It completely undermines the party system. It is a slap in the face to "real" independent candidates.
Very few people would have blamed Joe if had not run in the democratic primary preferring to take his chances as an independent in the general election.
However, his having his cake and eating it too philosophy should anger every American.
Should Joe win the general election, what signal will that send to other potential candidates and to the electorate?
Some states do not allow for candidates to do what Joe is doing by allowing a defeated candidate to run twice for the same office in the same year.
None should allow it.
This is a slap to every person who has ever voted for a democrat, republican, green, libertarian, or member of any party. There is a reason that people vote for members of a party. There is also a reason that they vote for a true "independent" that does not embrace any party.
There is also a reason why people work for candidates of parties by volunteering their time or giving money.
Bill Clinton's slogan that all primary voters should "fall in love, then fall in line" in the general election has real merit. Those of us who work in campaigns realize this. We operate under this system. If this system is abandoned, then nothing short of political chaos will ensue. Don't like that your candidate lost in the primary, then make them run as an independent in the general or just refuse to support your party's primary winner in the general (just "sit this one out").
The only LEGITIMATE argument that those who still support Lieberman have (in my humble opinion) is that they think that the primary system is antiquated and should be dispensed with. Otherwise, if you believe in the primary system, if you believe in party labels and party distinction, then you must oppose what Lieberman is doing. It is simply UNAMERICAN! As Republicans are so fond of saying, "elections have consequences" and that should include primaries. Joe, unfortunately, doesn't believe that truism applies to him. Giving him this "do-over" is a very bad precedent to set, no matter how you feel about Joe as a Senator or about Ned Lamont or any political candidate.

[NC_Nurse]

1. And besides..

he's a sh*thead.

[DCCyclone]

2. Here's why all Democrats should oppose him......

Average Americans outside CT simply don't give a rat's ass who wins a CT Senate race. That's a reality.

But Dems nationwide need to get wise about how Lieberbush's indy campaign hurts us: just look at the last week, and how Joe's message conflicts directly with the national Dem message. Liebs openly "attacks both parties" and "decries partisanship" and parrots the Bush line on Iraq. And because CT-Sen is such a titillating race, the national media won't stop covering it. Joe is given a louder voice than any Dem Senator or Senate Dem challenger.

And what too many Dems who have sat on the fence, supported Joe, or continue to support Joe don't understand is this: AN INDY RUN BY JOE ALWAYS WAS DESTINED TO CAUSE EXACTLY THESE PROBLEMS!!!

We need to be on message as a party to win this thing in November, and Joe now is this annoying gnat who can become a big enough distraction to take attention away from our party's message. Having somebody so off-message with such a big voice really threatens us in November. And if you're a Democrat and you want a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, you've got to learn to accept the reality-based campaign playbook and recognize Joe as a threat to us and actively oppose him.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

4. So should we support Republicans in red states?

After all, they're the candidates that are "capable of garnering the support of a majority of the electorate".

[dolstein]

5. We should support their right to run.

No party is entitled to have their candidates elected to statewide office unless they are willing to work to attract the support of a majority of the electorate.

[MercutioATC]

7. I'm not disputing Lieberman's RIGHT to run for office...

...I'm stating that he's not doing so as a Democrat, either in practice or philosophy.

I supported Bush's "right" to run in 2000. That didn't mean that I turned my back on my party and the ideals it stood for to support him.

[UnityDem]

8. Then why have primaries?

If you are allowed to run as both a member of a party (in the primary) and then not a member of the same party (in the general)?

[ima_sinnic]

6. plus he stands for nothing, is true only to himself, couldn't care less

about what We The People want. He questions nothing, goes along to get along, doesn't rock the boat, doesn't make waves, risks nothing. He is an unpricipled kiss-ass corporate whore who will do whatever he's paid to do, not what he is elected to do. Any American who is too stupid to see that, which is too obvious to miss, is too stupid to vote.

[Skittles]

9. it is chickenshit garbage at its worst

it is not accepting the will of the people and that is a disgrace

[Catchawave]

10. Joementum for Republicans !

It's so obvious they're worried about Lamont's progressive voice in the Senate, so they're rallying the GOP to back Joe! IMO, that makes Lieberman the Republican candidate! Keep an eye on those donations :mad: