Booting Joe Lieberman Would Be a Sign of Weakness

[liberalpragmatist]

I fully expect much of the board to disagree vociferously with what I'm about to write. I ask if you do you keep it civil.

I am not happy with Joe Lieberman's position on the war and on terrorism. I don't like his hobnobbing with Sean Hannity and his being quoted by Republicans and by Bush as a Democrat who "gets it."

Lieberman is in the same position for Democrats as Chuck Hagel is for the Republicans. Hagel has a very solidly conservative voting record, just as Lieberman has a very solidly liberal voting record. Hagel breaks with his party on a few key issues, notably the war. As such he is cited repeatedly by Democrats - Kerry cited him repeatedly during the last campaign. Lieberman is in a similar position.

This would matter IF Lieberman represented a movement larger than himself. Lieberman would be doing real damage to the party if he were leading a large accomodationist faction. But despite the claims of some on DU, that is not the case. Even DLC'ers like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are much more party-line than Lieberman. Even Evan Bayh has been very party-line over the past year and a half.

In that context, any attempt to get rid of Lieberman would be a sign of weakness for Democrats and Liberals. A strong political party is one that is able to tolerate dissent from a few members. A weak political party is one that is being either a) wracked by factionalism over ideology or b) one that is so ideologically insecure it has to hunt down and extinguish lone dissenters.

And a lone dissenter is exactly what Joe Lieberman is becoming. Even people like Hillary Clinton are shifting on the war. The progressive stands on the war issue is moving towards becoming the main Democratic Party position on the war. If Lieberman is a lone dissenter, so be it. If we disagree with his message (which we do), then we show more strength by showing that his views do NOT frustrate us and that we're able to ignore and tolerate him. If we can show that well over 90% of the elected Democrats support the alternative position - people with credibility like Jack Murtha - then Lieberman doesn't matter.

Claiming he is destroying the Democratic Party is shrill and untrue. And if it were true it would just demonstrate that we're weak. How weak would a major political party have to be for a single senator to be the cause of a party's downfall? If we're strong we can handle a thorn in our side, and it's important to remember that Joe Lieberman isn't even as strong a thorn on our side as he could be. He has a reliably party-line voting record, is excellent on environmental issues and social issues like choice and gay rights, and he votes for Harry Reid for majority leader. Did Henry Jackson's dissent on defense issues destroy the Democratic Party? Is Chuck Hagel single-handedly destroying the Republican Party? Frankly, did even Zell Miller destroy the Democratic Party? I know of not a single vote that was swayed by him except perhaps a few in Georgia where we were losing anyway and most people correctly recognized him as a lone nut.

Our resources in 2006 would be better directed elsewhere - to seats where we can actually defeat a REAL Republican. And frankly, I hope we never come to the point where we have to start eliminating lone dissenters because, as I said, that's typically the sign of weakness and insecurity on the part of any group or party.

[onehandle]

1. Agreed. nt

[blm]

2. It needed to be said - I appreciate how well you said it.

.

[Mend]

3. I, for one, will donate money to any Democrat who runs against

joe if there is a primary in CT. If not, I will continue to abhor him. It is one thing to go against the party but he is supporting an illegal, immoral war which has killed 100,000s of people,. That is the biggest deal of all.

[onenote]

10. so you think that money would be better spent fighting Lieberman

than fighting an incumbent repub whose defeat would help the Democrats recapture the House or Senate and be able to block the bush agenda?

Seems a bit short sighted to me.

onenote

[Mend]

27. I believe an excellent Democratic candidate could beat joe

and go on to beat the repuke who was running.

[SaveElmer]

36. That is beyond naive...

Aside from the Republican Governor, Lieberman is the most popular office holder in the state..

What Democrat are you gonna be able to run against him that would be as or more popular...

Just deal with the fact that Lieberman is gonna be in the Senate for as long as he wants to be.

I am not part of the "immediate withdrawl" crowd, nor do I like Liebermans cheerleading of the war...but he has influence over nobody on this issue...let him spout off about it...it affects nothing and nobody.

On other issues he takes solid mainstream Democratic positions. I'd rather have that than take the chance of handing this safe seat over to the Republicans!!!

[rockymountaindem]

4. Thank you

Your post sums it up. Besides, Lieberman is good on the environment and other domestic issues.

[Javaman]

5. What I really think will happen with repuke joe...

if the amount of the seats the Democrats win back next year is close, be prepared for asshole joe to switch sides to give it back to the repukes.
The repukes are still pissed off because of Jeffords going independant.

[onenote]

12. never in a million years squared

Lieberman is pro choice, pro environment, pro gun control. You think he's going to join the repubs? I don't think they'd have him. And there is no way he gets a better committee position from the repubs (who'd have to push him ahead of a real repub) than he can get from the Democrats, even if the Democrats decide to "punish" him. (Of course, if they punish Joe, they'll have to punish a bunch of other Democrats who haven't toed the line perfectly...not sure there are enough "pure" Democrats to fill all the committee chairs. Maybe we could give some to the repubs.

:sarcasm:

onenote

[NightOwwl]

6. Baloney. Dems need to stand up for themselves....

and that means eliminating from the party those that want to do them harm.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, and as such, does not deserve to remain in the party.

BTW, the thread title eerily reminds me of another quote..."Leaving Iraq now would be seen as a sign of weakness." Gee, it's almost identical.

[0007]

15. I agree with 'ya and find it ironic that said poster doesn't show

transparency, and doesn't take a free star from persons that are donating them.

[liberalpragmatist]

32. Why?

Not showing transparency? This is an anonymous forum and I like my anonymity, but I'm perfectly willing to be open with people. I've been on this board for a long time.

And I know of no setting that prevents me from getting a free star. But I don't think it's honest to accept stars that I did not donate for. I don't donate because I'm relatively young (20), don't have a credit card of my own except using my parents' account for essential purchases and don't feel comfortable making online donations until I have my own credit card. How is that showing a "lack of transparency"?

[liberalpragmatist]

33. Just because they use the word "weakness"?

Aside from that, the statements are speaking of completely different things. One is referring to a simplistic view of military conflict, one to political organization. And historically if you look at parties and political groupings, it's weak parties that have to become ideologically pure. Every strong party has lone dissenters - even FDR's New Deal Democrats had plenty of people who would leave the reservation.

[kcwayne]

7. But Lieberman is a real Republican

Who gives a shit if he attached himself to the Democratic party if he is going to vote like a Republican NOW? I don't give a damn that he has a liberal voting record. His Republicanism is getting people killed and endangering our safety. It should be terminated.

[onenote]

9. do you actually know anything about Lieberman's voting record?

It doesn't sound like it. Here's a link that compares Lieberman to some DUers favorite repub, Sen. Snowe. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2285245#2285289

So if this is how Lieberman measures up against the most moderate repub out there, exactly how do you come to the conclusion that he's a "real republican" (other than by ignoring the facts).

onenote

[kcwayne]

44. The facts on which I base my opinion are what comes out of his mouth

which a non-stop stream of Reich wing fantasy, the latest of which is his vile regurgatation of White House talking points on Iraq which he shared with Imus.

Comparing this twit to a moderate Republican is irrelevant to this calculus.

[OKNancy]

8. Good thinking

I especially like your comparison to Chuck Hagel. He's no more a Democrat than Lieberman is a Republican. Even though I can't stand him, he is one of our black sheep, and he votes with us on all the other important matters.

[aquart]

11. Give him primary opposition.

And let the Democrats in his state decide who would serve them best. Probably they'll go with the senior Lieberman. But you never know.

What would be wrong, is letting him go unchallenged in a safe seat. It gives the Democrats of his state no choice. He may well be their exact voice. I suspect, sadly, he is.

But I would like to see a challenge that gives the Democratic voters more opportunity.

[onenote]

13. and I'd like to see Democrats spend their $ fighting repubs not each other

The party doesn't have enough money as it is; why in heaven's name use it to fight each other.

onenote

[aquart]

28. I dunno. Because we believe in democratic principles?

Would that be it?

[LynneSin]

57. Ok, two questiosn about having a primary

First, I have no problem with a primary. Joe Lieberman is NOT my senator, to me he's just another "D" on the democratic side that helps get us to a democratic majority. So please don't think I'm saying there should be no primary.

But my questions are as followed:

How much time, money & effort do we put in the primary race? We are not of infinite money resources and we're talking about a senator with a 69% approval rating in his home state. If Joe was at 40% I could see the importance of a primary and investing time & money into it but right now I think we need to focus on seats where we can remove republicans.

Second - what guarentees can you give me that if for some bizarro reason we're able to unseat Joe Lieberman in the primaries that we could guarentee holding onto that seat in the general elections. Connecticut is one of those funny states were approval ratings aren't dictated by the party you belong to. Jodi Rell is their republican governor and is equally as popular. We also know that primaries also have lower turnout and only democrats would be voting in it so even if someone were defeat Lieberman doesn't mean we can guarentee victory in 2006. When I do the math for 2006 for the senate I see Connecticut as a safe "D" state. Joe is popular, Joe wins big, Joe won in 2000 by 29% and he never really bothered campaigning since he was also running for Vice President. So if I edge out an upset on Joe suddenly our "Safe D" state becomes a tossup. And now, money that could desparately be used in states like Minnesota & Maryland where we are desparate to keep those seats being opened up from retiring democrats, now we have to relegate our efforts over to Connecticut. Any other real I wouldn't really care, but when we need 6 democratic seats - that's 6 new seats without lose any of our current ones.

So yes, bring on a primary to Joe. And if people who live in Connecticut want to volunteer time & money all the better. But if we're looking for the hot races of 2006, let's not make it harder by shoving a "Safe D" state into the fire.

[ToeBot]

14. It's not within the purview of this forum to "boot" anyone...

either out of office or the party. Lieberman is allowing his name to be used by the opposition to further its agenda, presumably with his blessing. He should be called out on it. He should be publicly berated by his own. If the Democrats are just a loose affiliation of disparate points of view, what's the fucking point?

[BlueEyedSon]

46. Nonsense, this board is about advocacy and action in addition to

info & discussion

[DODI]

16. Thank you for your post. I feel better now.

Joe drives me crazy -- I just keep saying to myself -- he is strong on the environment, he is strong on women's rights and now your post gives me one more + to add to my mantra. He is not going to be in a primary in CT -- he brings in TONS of money to the party. I agree, our resources would be better spent elsewhere -- against Johnson and Simmons in CT for one.

Thank you.

[Neil Lisst]

17. Can I boot him AND keep him?! He needs a swift kick in the butt.

But not out of the party.

He's such a friggin Fox News Quisling these days.

Joe, is it really that important to have the likes of Fox News kiss your ass for being a Benedict Arnold?

[jobycom]

19. LOL! Sounds like a fair compromise! nt.

[jobycom]

18. Just having that D in front of his name in the Senate can help us.

The party with the majority in either house of Congress gets to set the rules for that house. That's why we can't get anything done. We can't get bills through committee or bills introduced on the floor or rules changes or investigations or even press coverage without Republican approval.

If we wind up with more Ds than Rs after 2006, that all changes. Just having a D in front of Lieberman's name, or even Miller's name if he were still there, would help us gain control of the Senate, even if Lieberman proceeded to vote against everything we wanted after that. We would control what was even voted on, and the Repubs would have to compromise with us.

So booting Lieberman would be the height of stupidity. What if we boot him, he runs as a Republican, and winds up the vote that helps Repubs maintain control of the Senate? We've sunk ouselves, and maybe our nation to boot.

Lieberman's not so bad. He's on our side more often than not. He's just against us on some very big issues. I'll never love or respect him because of that. But I'll damn sure like him better than I like any damn Republican in the Senate.

[question everything]

20. Thank you. I posted something similar on GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5495561

[Qibing Zero]

21. A lot of people are going about this the wrong way.

He's not a republican, he's a shill for the current administration. Call him a neo-con if you want, but honestly I think he just supports Israel, so he supports our alliance with them and our clearing out of any potential threat to them in the middle east - not that all that is a good thing at all. Personally I think that his support is damning enough, but apparently some of you don't.

I personally disagree with a large amount of what the man does, even if he supposedly has a good voting record. He's constantly going after non-issues and trying to play the repukes' morality game, and this war nonsense is just unforgivable. I am with the folks who think that the war is the biggest issue we've faced in a long time, and as long as people are supporting the murder, torture, and corruption happening on a daily basis, they have no right to be in our government.

Then of course you have the 'but we need to use our resources on something more productive!' crowd. That's fine, do what you wish. I don't have many resources to give anyhow. Call me an ideologue, but I just can't stand for it, nor give my small amount of support.

[Generator]

35. Great post

I can see the other side too-we must win back the congress.

But I tend to be in your camp. What is most irritating about Lieberman is that he is always OUT THERE shilling for the other team. Even if, on his own beliefs he thinks that this war is "just", he is spending his energy, thus our energy as Dems supporting what we do not support. Non-issues indeed. War and our resources being spent on the war do tend to top all others.
He can be his own man, but his name and longevity give a legitmacy that kills us. He was a vice presidential candidate. Steps from the White House and he thinks BUSH IS A GOOD GUY. Is that what we want from an opposition party? It's not 1990 folks, there is a new President in town and he is an incompetent possibly mad fundamentalist Christian that doesn't listen to anyone and seems to be trying to ruin America and endangering lives all over the world. I don't want anyone from MY SIDE enabling Bush. It's just that simple.

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. A one-party system scares me whether it's the Republicans OR

the Democrats. I want diversity within the parties and power distributed in order to keep debate open and respectful.

No disagreement from me. If anything, rogue elephants like Miller and Lieberman serve as a defining counterpoint to the mainstream Democratic viewpoint. The invitation to criticism, hopefully cordial, by others of their own party is an opportunity for discussion of the issues.

Who would know what the Democratic position on certain issues were if break-aways didn't provide the opportunity to react?

[bvar22]

23. Having the "D" after name helps us,

but letting himself be USED by bush* and the CorpoMedia really, REALLY hurts us!









The Democratic Party SHOULD bring Lieberman out to the Woodshed and tell him to keep his worthless mug OFF the TV and Talking Head Shows if he is literally going to KISS bush* and the Repuiblicans!.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Why is your profile disabled?

Just askin'... real civil-like...

NGU.

[liberalpragmatist]

31. Probably b/c I never made one

I could if you'd prefer. What are you insinuating?

[depakid]

25. This attitude is why the Dems have lost 6 elections in a row-

and are bucking for a 7th.

The evidence on that is pretty well undeniable at this point.

So long as the likes of Lieberman and Biden (and lately- even Hillary) are the ambassadors of the party in the media, that's what people will equate with voting Democratic.

Lieberman is the epitome of why the Dems lose. He backslaps Republican politicians- and backstabs Democratic leaders. He sat there at that table during the VP debates and made Cheney look like a kind and reasonable man, and four years later, tried to make Dean out to be a lunatic.

He continually crosses party lines to vote with the Republicans- and appears on "news" shopws to legitimize Republican policies- when in order to win- the Dems need to be doing the opposite- slamming them in a united voice- showing people in no uncertain terms what a corrupt, dishonest and irrational pile of crap that they are.

Lieberman hurts Democratic candidates in districts all over the country- and as long as he's in office and visible, he'll continue to hurt the Party immensely and keeps them from doing what it will take to become the majority again (or even relevant) and that is naionalizing the elections and tarring every republican out there with the failed far right agenda.

To the extent that the Dems won't do that- and let Lieberman off with no accountability for his actions- they look weak- and people percieve that they stand for nothing.

Considering all of this, even the loss of his seat to a Republican would be a big step toward winning back the House & Senate.

[Aaaargh]

26. It's not a question of "tolerance," but of representation

The fundamental concept of Joseph Lieberman's office is that he's supposed to represent his constituents. If Democratic voters in Connecticut are so fed up with Lieberman's support for the Bush administration on foreign policy issues, or on any other matters pertaining to his voting record and other activities, they're entitled to try and replace him with someone they prefer, and certainly shouldn't be scolded for doing so, especially with rhetoric about "tolerance."

This isn't about Lieberman living in the house next door to you or dating your daughter. It also isn't about anybody trying to take away his right to speak. If I try to run for Congress and people say they won't vote for me because they don't like my views, shall I accuse them of "intolerance" and of trying to silence me?

Lieberman's supposed to be doing a job of representation which he's, in effect, been 'hired' for by the voters. He doesn't have any sort of 'right' to the office -- with each election, voters have a chance to consider hiring him again, or not. "I don't like Lieberman anymore 'cause of his position on Iraq, so I'm voting for that other guy." Nothing in the world wrong with that. That's how it's supposed to work.

If you hire a guy to keep your lawn mowed, and he does what you feel is a bad job, and you fire him, is that "intolerance" and "a sign of weakness"?

Now, is this going to happen, Lieberman get toppled by a primary challenger? I doubt it. I understand he's a popular fellow there in Connecticut, though I suspect that for a large proportion of his supporters, this is in spite of his foreign policy positions, rather than because of them.

In fact, I myself feel that there are good political reasons for challenging incumbent Democrat hawks on Iraq in upcoming elections. Even unsuccessful challenges would serve notice that the war is going to continue to be an important electoral issue as long as it goes on -- and despite the current discussions about approaches to withdrawal and 'handover,' there's much reason to believe that we'll still be embroiled in the Iraq misadventure or other related missions when '08 comes around.

On the other issue being discussed here: I'd be really surprised if Lieberman ever switched parties. Though I've been surprised by the treachery of politicians many times before.

As for neocon godfather Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, I sure as hell wish Democrats in Washington state HAD voted that sumbitch out of office, or never put him in there in the first place.

[hippywife]

30. Excellent post and reasoning!

And welcome to DU!

[Redneck Socialist]

34. Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing

and welcome to DU. :hi: :thumbsup:

[ProudDad]

41. There's another good reason

he probably won't be challenged much in the primaries and it's spelled

M O N E Y

The bastards rolling in it...that's all they do up there on the Hill, raise M O N E Y -- the system's corrupt -- awash with the filthy lucre....

[Clarkie1]

29. You are absolutely correct.

If Dems start going after other Dems, the logical inference is that Dems are unable to defeat the Republicans.

As Clark has wisely stated, Americans will start believing Democrats when Democrats defend other Democrats. That doesn't mean we will always agree, but we to remember what unites us, not what the Republicans would like to use to divide us.

[leesa]

37. Disagree. It would be a sign of strength that we will no longer be the

tools of the Republican Party.

[onenote]

38. right. Gotta stop those pro choice, pro environment, antigun control tools

[adigal]

39. Sorry, I listen to Hannity a few times a week

and he LOVES Lieberman. Anyone who Hannity LOVES, I despise. He needs to go.

[ProudDad]

40. No boot

he should resign (or NOT run again next time) and allow a progressive to have his seat.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Unlikely. From his pov, there is no reason to

He is not a disgrace in his own eyes, just others.

You want him out, you're gonna have to kick him out.

All I ask is that there be a Dem butt in that seat when all is said and done. Doesn't have to be Lieberman's butt. Just a Dem butt.

[ProudDad]

54. I agree

[W stands for Wacko]

43. U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's Military vote record is right wing!

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman isn't getting it right.

Do you believe that his positions on issues of war and peace are representative of a majority of his constituents?

Here is a link to a few recent examples of his voting record on issues of war and peace:

http://www.peacemajority.org/dia/organizations/PeaceMajority/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=344

Perhaps there is another candidate for the 2006 democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate who is willing to have the courage to vote on behalf of their Connecticut constituency 100% of the time.

Lastly, while the Republican Party has held control of the U.S. Senate, Senator Joseph Lieberman has been voting, outside of issues of war and peace, as a liberal!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

Yet, we all know that he is not a liberal!

He is a wolf in sheep's clothing!

[W stands for Wacko]

55. Congressman Murtha's voting record demonstrates community representation.

U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's War and Peace voting record demonstrates statewide, wholesale misrepresentation of his electorate.

I challenge anyone anywhere to poll CT to see if on a per item basis the majority of CT voter eligible citizens are supportive of U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's military voting record (on issues of war and peace).

Congressman Murtha, on the other hand, represents a far smaller percentage of PA, and his voting record is representative of those in his district that keep reelecting him.

For a U.S. Senator to misuse his authority to subvert the will of his electorate on issues of War and Peace should be punishable by being voted out of office.

The only problem herein is that unless the Vote is protected, he will be reelected, even if every damned CT citizen voted against him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. The whole issue is moot

Lieberman can't be booted. He is the most popular Democrat in Connecticut, and no one has the nerve to run against him.

[ToeBot]

53. Nonsense, this board is about advocacy and action in addition to

info & discussion. Or so I've been told.

[No Exit]

47. Pulling out of Iraq now would be a sign of weakness.

We don't want the world to think the U.S. is WEAK, do we??

We have that wonderful, sterling, world-stage reputation to protect!

And we just know that the Democratic Party couldn't do anything weak--it has its current reputation as The Strong Party to protect.

If I could call the democrats the Anti-war Party, I could confidently say that I would NEVER vote for any other party again, in any election. (Not that I'm in danger of voting for republicans... but there ARE third parties out there, such as the Green Party...)

Joe Lieberman is not anti-war. So I'm glad he didn't get elected. If/when Gore runs again, he needs a new VP.

[bklyncowgirl]

48. Reid and Dean should take him out behind the Senate office building--

and you know--talkt to him.

Where I come from if someone's disgracing the family, the guys get together and--you know--talk to him.

The ex-boxer and the ex-wrestler ought to be able make him see the light. Throw the war hero John Murtha into the mix and you'll have Holy Joe singing the praises of a responsibly managed phased withdrawal in no time.

This of course is a fantasy--I do not advocate violence against any members of congress. Barring physical coercion I suppose that treating him like the crazy uncle in the attic--which Howard Dean seemed to be leaning toward with his--different drummer line on Leno the other night might be the next best thing.

[Zensea]

49. War is peace

freedom is slavery

[rniel]

50. I think the key is

Not to boot lieberman in favor or a republican, but run someone very strong against him in the primaries. This is what republicans do to their party members who don't vote the way they want them too.

[cascadiance]

51. Actually if a REAL Democrat can beat both Lieberman and the Rethug later..

that is a REAL sign of strength of Democratic values! It is a sign that the core Democratic values is what people want in an area, and they aren't going to sacrifice them just to compromise and get a DINO.

Chuck Hagel and some like him fighting with Bush are a sign that many are not happy with the way their party is going and are willing to split with them. That affects them on many issues where they can't get leadership to pass their own legislation now (social security, torture restrictions, etc.).

I don't want people in "lockstep" to be in the Democratic party, but if you can persuade a majority of people in an area to want core Democratic values, vote for it in their candidates and help that happen nationwide to get change legislation to happen when those candidates vote well to represent those people, THAT is strength!

If serving people instead of corporate special interests who are corrupting this country blind becomes a higher priority for politicians, that is a sign of STRENGTH in our Democracy too, and I'd like to think that when that happens, many more Democrats with core Democratic values will be elected as well. The finance issue is a more complicated problem though, and we need more campaign financing reform for it to really take place, but when that days, I think we start to get more people in this country participating in the voting process and their government's business too. That's a goal to shoot for.

[mmonk]

52. I disagee.

But I stand on principle more than the brand name.

[LynneSin]

56. Other than mis-identifying Joe Biden as a DLCer it sounds great

Joe Biden is not nor has he ever been a part of the DLC.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine. He's my senator and everyday he gets ripped to shread on something and probably understandably so. But please do not identify him with the DLC - he is not a member (although he counterpart in DE, Tom Carper, is like 2nd in command for the DLC).

I've been saying this for days and yet there are people who totally are clueless as to why Lieberman should not be chased out of the party. But we should let him go. He's doing his stuff without any support of the Democratic Party and they just let him go because hell they need him as a democrat and he has a 75% ADA rating for supporting democratic causes overall.

The simple fact is this: We shouldn't be the party that starts pulling out our measuring sticks and making decisions on who is and isn't a democrat. Joe has been one of our best advocates with Choice & Environment. When we got the democratic majority in 2001 it was Joe Lieberman as the chair of Government Oversite (a chair given to non-important senior members of the party mind you) who said we needed to investigate the Energy Crisis. That brought energy prices into control and exploded the Enron Scandal.

Republicans should be our target, if we give this much attention to key democratic races where we could pick up republican seats as we do with Joe Lieberman we should easily get the majority in both the House and the Senate!

[The Witch]

58. i agree and i disagree.

Lieberman is a dissenter and dissenters are important. But I wouldn't say we shouldn't oppose him. We should vote for candidates based on the merits. Now if you have other D politicians going on the air and denouncing him (as is so common in R-land), that's going over the edge, but for the people to decide who should represent them... that's our responsibility. If enough people don't like Joe's politics they will vote against him. :shrug:

I guess my question is who you are talking to. Are you saying that we shouldn't vote against him? Give money to orgs/candidates that oppose him? Are you saying politicians should denounce him? Use various tactics to get him out of office early? Some of that is necesary and helpful, and some of it is over the edge.

[AntiCoup2K4]

59. Did Henry Jackson's dissent on defense issues destroy the Democratic Party

Well, that's actually a loaded question.

Because the party, and Washington state, survived Scoop's crazy ideas when he was with us. But the demonspawn who ran with those ideas and mutated them into something far worse, are the very neocon PNAC shitheads who are on the edge of destroying the entire planet.

I just thank God I was never old enough to vote for him because then I'd really feel guilty.

[Zodiak]

60. OK...enough talk

Here is how Leiberman voted on my senator scoring scale (because ADA ratings basically suck, in my opinion).

leiberman (con)
-------------------------------------
voted to confirm Condi Rice
voted to confirm Gonzales
voted to deprive Americans of the right to class-action lawsuits
voted for the Bankruptcy bill
voted to confirm Negroponte
voted for the Cheney energy bill
abstained from the first CAFTA vote
voted FOR it the second time
would not stand up for Ohio voting rights
*voted against giving gun manufacturers immunity (woo-hoo!!)
was part of the group of 7 senators that ensured RW Bush judges would be appointed


That is what I have on Leiberman from three months ago. I should update this list so we can see what goodness Leiberman has done since then. This man is a turn-coat and his record shows it. Any other vote he cast during the 109th Congress had no effect on the American people. I only count votes when the rubber hits the road...not feel-good amendments and procedural votes that have no chance of being passed or affecting the American people.

[mwooldri]

61. Then get Liberman and Hager to swap parties.

No net loss, no net gain. Republicans get a DINO, we get a RINO.

Mark.

[onenote]

62. self-delete