Is Joe Lieberman Forgiven?

[RestoreGore]

Joe Lieberman pissed on the will of the people of Connecticut in a primary to steal the General out from under the Progressive candidate by running as an "independent" (ha)... so is he forgiven for "The Kiss" now by the Democratic Party Establishment ( this added to clarify my meaning) because Democrats have the majority? Just wondering, because he's no Democrat to me and I don't trust him when he says he will "caucus with Democrats." Sure he will.

[DODI]

No. Not today, not ever. (He is an embarrassment to my state.)

[Zhade]

65. He's also broken federal election law.

On top of OTHER things he'd done.

We are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not forgetting that. Any conservatives here who support lieberman thinking we will? You're nuts.

He got in (like EVERY time he's been elected) by getting more votes from Republicans than any other group. Why do some fools think he won't be beholden to those voters?

He won this battle, but the war is far from over.

[barb162]

129. What federal election law did he break?

And who is "WE"
BTW, he got in because he got votes from DEMOCRATS, Independents and Republicans. He represents a broad swath of CT. Lamont didn't. The voters of CT "spoke"

[zanne]

1. NO nt

[hippiechick]

2. Not by me, he's not ...

.... the Senate may still end up in a tie because of him jumping parties when he didn't get just go away quietly after losing the Dem Nomination to Lamont.

[cmkramer]

30. That has nothing to do with it

Joe has said he is caucusing with the Democrats so for all intents and purposes, he will be a Democrat. Same thing with Bernie Sanders. Even though he's listed as an Independent, since he's caucusing with the Democrats, he's considered a Democrat.

[Critters2]

56. I don't consider him a Democrat

but then, I barely consider him human.

[cmkramer]

105. As long as he caucuses with Democrats

he'll be considered a Democrat.

[Critters2]

112. He won't vote witih the Dems

Never has. Never will.

Traitor.

[Lurking Dem]

114. Have you ever looked at his voting record?

Or do you spout shit like this just to hear yourself talk?

[Critters2]

115. What a kind way to speak to someone!

I know his voting record. He votes with Dems on domestic issues. But on issues that start unjust wars, benefit Halliburton, and get young Americans killed needlessly, you can count on ol' Joe to stand with the pukes.

He's a Neo-con.

[Lurking Dem]

118. Then maybe that's what you should have said

instead of that he never had and never will vote with the Dems.

My mind reading hat is at the cleaners.

[barb162]

130. How do you explain the little fact that he's liberal on social issues

and the little fact that most of the time he votes Democrat.

[theboss]

134. Except on all social issues

And pretty much everything that's not foreign policy.

[barb162]

126. So why was he the Democratic VP candidate a few years back

Was the entire Democratic Party and Al Gore deluded or something?

[Seabiscuit]

106. When he was a Democrat, he was a DINO who still voted with the Repukes.

You don't seriously believe that's going to change, do you???

You can't count on him to keep his word about anything including his B.S. promise to "caucus" with the Democrats. He represents the tie-breaker. When he votes with the Repukes against any legislation, and assuming all Repukes vote against it, and all Dems and Bernie Sanders vote for it, Lieberman's vote creates a 50-50 tie on the legislation, handing the deciding vote to Dick Cheney.

He now has power to wield that he never earned and will never deserve.

How fucked is that???

The Dems and the pundits got it wrong - they didn't count on Lieberman winning - or they pretended in their minds that he would vote with the Dems if he won - in fact, us Dems needed to pick up *7* seats in the Senate for a true majority, not just 6. Now that we have 6, we still are in a tie with the Republicans at 49 seats each, with 2 independents, Sanders and Lieberman (who is really a wild card who can and will swing either way).

[barb162]

127. The Dems and the pundits did not get it wrong

and neither did Lieberman. He and they knew he had a lot of the Independent, Democrat and Republican voting. Lamont only had some of the Democrats and some others.

[incapsulated]

3. Never.

[RethugAssKicker]

4. How can so many be so wrong?

How could those assholes in CT vote that creep in ?

[katsy]

9. Just a guess...

Defense companies. United Technologies.

Hell no lieberman is not forgiven. He's not a Democrat.

[Pharaoh]

5. NO!

He needs to do some groveling to the left, like he groveled to the right......

[Arkana]

6. No.

Had he bowed out like he should have, Lamont would have won in a LANDSLIDE, and that would be one more solid Dem we could count on.

[truebrit71]

7. NO.

Netx bloody stupid question....

[RestoreGore]

12. I don't think it was a stupid question at all

Perhaps I should have phrased it like this: is Joe Lieberman forgiven by the Democratic Party Establishment? Looks that way to me.

[jonnyblitz]

8. hell FUCKING no.

:puke:

[AtomicKitten]

10. He ignored the will of the people.

As a citizen, that is unforgivable.

Unfortunately the Dems need him to eek out a majority, so there will be some schmoozing.

[Totally Committed]

11. I'll just say NO WAY to Jose!

Thank you. The man is a traitorous turd.

TC

[AnneD]

13. Thank you

to all the Conn. DEM's that stayed true. Last time I looked, it was more Independents and GOP that put Lieberman in office. His days are still numbered in this DEM's eyes.

[davidwparker]

14. NEVER. He is a traitor to the Dems, by-passed the CT will of the

people, and was funded by the repubs. Lamont would be senator today if it weren't for GOP funding.

[brentspeak]

15. We don't need to "forgive" him, but we DO need to drop the animosity against him

We want Lieberman on our side, not alienate him so much to the point that he feels no choice but to become Republican.

[RestoreGore]

19. Bull

He is an employee of the people, and one who ENABLED the murder of thousands of innocent people IN OUR NAMES. I don't have to drop anything.

[brentspeak]

21. Well, if you prefer not having sound Democratic legislation passed

then continue to marginalize Lieberman; though, you'll have to explain your reasoning to all the American citizens who are counting on the Democrats to improve things for the country.

[RestoreGore]

28. I don't have to explain anything...

I'm not the one who VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. WHERE'S HIS APOLOGY? And if he wanted sound Democratic legislation passed ( which imo isn't going to happen as long as Bush has veto power), he wouldn't have subverted the will of the people in Connecticut. This is about him to him and nothing more.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

66. So we should cave in to his extrotion attempts?

How do I put this?

FUCK THAT.

[The Magistrate]

72. Pretty Much, Sir, Yes

Thatbis the price of a Senate majority. No one likes it, but that is how it is....

"Paris is worth a Mass."

[Zhade]

74. Maybe to you.

I won't bow to extortion, and I won't encourage it. Ever.

Giving into bullies only guarantees more bullying. I will have no part of that. Period.

In fact, I'll work AGAINST it.

[The Magistrate]

76. Should That Be Taken, Sir

As a declaration you intend to work against the Democratic Party holding majority status in the Senate during the coming Congress?

[Zhade]

79. Right, like I'm stupid enough to fall into a ban-trap.

What it means, sir, is that I will continue to point out his errors in judgment and when he sides with the b*s* administration - just as I have for years.

I will not change that position. MY pointing out his wrongdoings is not working against a majority, and I will NOT be extorted into silence about his, or ANY politician's, actions. Period.

Let's see how far you want to extend this. If, in a year, lieberman starts making noises about flipping to get something he wants, and we point it out, are we "working against a Dem majority"?

Will we be told to shut up and take it just because lieberman is extorting the Dem leadership? We'll be held as being in the wrong when he's the one twisting the arms and threatening the majority status?

Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot criticize lieberman, OR ANY DEM, because the majority is so slim? Are you really trying to silence opposition based on your personal views?

No. I am not working against a majority - lieberman's extortionism is the cause of THAT threat.

[The Magistrate]

83. It Is A Simple Enough Question, Sir

Following quite logically from your words.

The uncomfortable fact is that the situation is what it is, and there is nothing that can be done about it. The Democratic Senators will make what accommodations are necessary to secure majority status, and no one involved will pay the slightest heed to criticism of their doing so.

[Zhade]

87. I will not work against a Democratic majority.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist party.

I will NOT, however, be silenced. When he does wrong, I WILL rightly excoriate him for it.

(I should hardly have to point out that, at this point, I simply CAN'T work against a democratic majority - even if I wanted to, which I don't, my words aren't what controls that. lieberman himself does.)

[The Magistrate]

90. We Will Both Do That, Sir

It is not anything special.

But the price must be paid for majoroty status in the Senate.

[Zhade]

92. I disagree, and you will not convince me that enabling extortion works.

You can't; I've seen the opposite too many times in my life to fall for that myth.

I will not be silenced. My words do not control the Senate makeup. I will exercise my right to free speech. When lieberman makes his first extortion attempt, I will call him on it.

Let's hope it never happens (yeah, right, and I'm Adonis).

[The Magistrate]

98. It Has A Grand Ring, Sir, Certainly

But does not seem to offer much by way of practical application. The choice remains, accept the man in the caucus and gain majority status, or exclude him, and fail to gain it.

[theboss]

133. It's a simple question

Do you hate Lieberman more than you love being in the Majority.

I am indifferent towards Lieberman.

I adore the majority.

Heck, I would make him Whip if that's what he wanted.

[barb162]

128. Compromise is not extortion

Harry Reid and most good politicians recognize that

[Pithy Cherub]

25. Nope it wouldn't be prudent...

Holy Traitor Joementum deserves the most scorn and ridicule possible! He's evil incarnate!

[Nederland]

38. Exactly

It's time to be practical and realize that we need him more than he needs us.

[Renew Deal]

123. I agree

I hate that Lieberman abused the rules to stay in power, but he wants to be a Dem and we should let him.

[primative1]

16. No way ...

Outside of the obvious, I shudder to think of the long term damage his escapades have done to our democracy as a whole.
In our system it is virtualy impossible to oust a bad incumbant in ones own party. Lieberman has proven that it is even harder than the likes of cynical me had imagined.
So in the future who will step up and even try?
Sad.
Lamont showed such promise.

[QShok]

17. Forgive? Why??

How about we just forget him. He won't last another compaign without DNC support.

Shok

[Placebo]

18. Hell, if Lieberman means Democratic majority in the senate...

I'd personally kiss his wrinkled ass myself.

Our leadership better offer him whatever the F he wants!

[RestoreGore]

20. Considering the political system we have...

I'm sure they will.

[CatFelyne]

60. :::shiver:::

Eeeew...that's a visual I don't EVER wanna have. :puke:

[ShortnFiery]

22. No! n/t

[deadmessengers]

23. Unfortunately

With a 51-50 split, I think we have to until 2008. In 08, when we can boot out a few more Senate Repugnicans, (including electing a Dem VP) we can tell Joementum to go fuck himself.

[Pithy Cherub]

24. Not in this lifetime!

He has to seek forgiveness first and acknowledge what he did was the ultimate betrayal.

[NoPasaran]

26. Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names. - John F Kennedy

[gumby]

27. NO

Lieberman will be a bigger asshole than ever. Since the Senate is so close, the Real Dems will constantly have to kiss his ass.

Lieberman will have tremendous power in the Senate and he will it use against the Real Democrats every "bipartisan" chance he can.

[98geoduck]

29. Please accept my apologize...

The REAL Lieberman Lesson....Please accept my apologize...

I volunteered for Ned's campaign on a real personal level. I lost two family members this year. My only sibling, my sister, died of melanoma at the age of 46, with no family history or background of cancer, leaving behind her two children at the ages of 15 and 18. My close cousin died of an artery blockage at the age of 47. And while my sister had health care by marrying a person with health insurance, my cousin did not. He was a carpenter, who lived paycheck to paycheck, and could not afford the enormous fees for self coverage. Instead, he went undiagnosed for his condition, since preventative health care wasn't an option, and was found lying dead on the ground by his father on a Sunday morning. Enough said about my personal vendetta with Joe Lieberman for his COMPLETE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE due to his influence of special interests which include Major Insurance Companies and the Pharmaceutical industry, as well as "belonging" to a state with one of the highest cancer rates in the nation and doing little about it. (don't drink the water and don't eat the fish)

So, here's my apologize for Democrats and Liberals that read my posts yesterday touting Ned's possible victory. I'm going to plagiarize from a person nicked sufi from http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4525 because I share the same feelings about all of it, and by my own admissions, I'm not that eloquent of a writer...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Typing through tears
by: sufi
Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:35:40 AM EST

I guess it hasn't sunk in yet--I guess I feel a bit stupid for not believing the polls. I kept telling fellow Lamont supporters not to be discouraged by the polls. I kept telling them that the polls are skewed because the people who respond are disproportionately older folk who mainly use landlines and also these polls did not include the opinions of over 80,000 new CT voters. I kept reminding them how Lieberman was down the polls just days before his victory over Lowell Weicker 18 yrs ago. I feel as though I gave them and myself some false hope and I feel bad about that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike Lieberman, I'll admit to my mistakes. Fortunately, mine didn't cause the deaths of thousands of innocent lives, both HERE and abroad. I'm hoping mine may have encouraged people, with conviction for TRUE Moral Values, to stop believing all the media hype, understand that Corporations SHOULD NOT dictate democracy, volunteer, and at the very least, get out and vote.

Polls, News "journalists", and pundits have been known to be wrong before. I'm Sorry for believing that they were, this time around...

[Joe Bacon]

31. No

I still have a fear LIEberman will jump

[God Almighty]

32. I disagreed with him on about everything. I never disliked him.

I hope he comes around.

[Nederland]

39. Everything?

He votes the party line 75% of the time...

[keopeli]

33. I can forgive - but I won't forget.

Lieberman will have many opportunities in the next two years to prove his loyalties. I suspect it won't be long before his Republican "rubber-stamp" mentality shows itself again.

[Arugula Latte]

34. Absolutely .............. NOT

He is a fucking traitor. I despise him. I'm not proud of that, but I truly do.

[madfloridian]

35. No, he has hurt the party.

.

[fujiyama]

36. Whether or not I like him or not

or forgive him or not for what he did, we need him on our side. I think he'll stick with us. After all, Reid no longer wants to be a minority leader.

[Nederland]

37. He better be forgiven

Because now is not the time to continue to shit on him. Bottom line: we need him far more than he needs us.

Oh, and Joe Lieberman did not piss "on the will of the people of Connecticut". He believed that the will people of Connecticut was for him to be their Senator--and he turned out to be right. The only people Joe pissed off is the 51% of Democratic primary voters that voted for Lamont, and apparently in the big picture of a general election their opinion doesn't matter much.

[RestoreGore]

61. He's a Bush enabler

And don't tell me what the time is for. I've had enough of Republican lites infiltrating the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[GreenArrow]

47. carefull...

someone will accuse you of being a bigot.

[calico1]

41. Most CT Democrats voted for Lamont.

He won I think because a lot of Republicans saw this as a chance to stick it to Democrats. They have not had the Senate seat for a long time and this was a chance to give us the finger. And of course there are a few people who buy into the idea that Lieberman is a good, principled man. :puke:

[Critters2]

57. Yep, the Republicans elected him

And what does that make him...?

[bigwillq]

42. No fucking way!

:mad:

[Ignis]

43. Hell no. Has he even ASKED for forgiveness?

I have no doubt he believes that he's in the right and that the "kamikaze suicide-bomber left" (in the words of our own LoZoccolo) needs to ask HIM for forgiveness.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2940010#2940749)

Dream on, Benedict Joe.

[Vidar]

44. No.

[Wiley50]

45. Losing the party primary, then being a traitor, he is you know

If you are of the Dem party, when you lose the primary then refuse
to graciously step aside for the party's choice
Then beating the party's nominee by soliciting support from the enemy party
is as low as a politician can go.
Joementum is filth in my book

The repuke candidate could never have won against Lamont
on his own if Joe had done the right thing and stepped aside
What Joe did was unethical, lowlife and plain wrong
any loyal party member knows this to be true

All of this being so, we have no choice but
dance with this devil.
But it sucks to have to fight a war
with a TRAITOR YOU CAN'T TRUST OR DEPEND ON
AS ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS.

A TRAITOR IN OUR RANKS

If This Traitor Gets To Keep His Seniority, I"M Triple Pissed Off

But I guess He'll blackmail the leadership
by threatening to vote with the Repukes
and maybe even get a party chair

They say Politics is a Dirty Business

I now have proof

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[TankLV]

46. Absofuckinglootly NOT!

FUCK JOE LIE berman.

Period.

He has a permanent place in my black list - along with halleluja ford...

[The Magistrate]

49. The Wise Course Now, Ma'am

Is to turn a blind eye to past offenses, and accept an arrangement of convenience....

[AtomicKitten]

52. of course

And I have found that saying so here precipitates insults being hurled, at least at me.

[RestoreGore]

62. Sorry, I have morals n/t

[The Magistrate]

77. Then You Have My Deepest Sympathies, Ma'am

There are operations available to correct that, you know....

[RestoreGore]

103. Yes, I'm sure it is a perk of being a member of Congress's healthcare plan n/t

[xchrom]

50. i don't EVER want lieberman to feel comfortable.

the answer is no -- i want him to feel hunted -- that every election cycle should be iffy for him.

he has a path to walk -- and i want to keep that path as narrow as possible.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Traitors are hung, not forgiven!

The man is a war monger and a Bush enabler. I don't care if he caucuses with the Democrats, forevermore Judas Joe will be a traitor and an object of our derision.

[The Magistrate]

53. Not Really, Ma'am

In the present circumstance, that would be a pointless and self-destructive exercise. We need the vote; he has it. That really is the end of it.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[AntiWarPoster]

59. you're a reasonable man, magistrate

there are some extremists on here who consider Lieberman a bush enabler, he isn't.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

75. YOU don't decide when the end of it is.

WE get a say too, and we disagree with cowardly accommodation of extortionists.

Don't like that we'll STILL try to hold lieberman accountable? Too bad. We're not going to stop just because YOU think it's over.

It's not, and you can't force us to ignore our conscience. Sorry, never going to happen. You don't have that power, and your argument does not convince - I've dealt with enough bullies in my life to know that giving in to them once means they'll bully until you make it stop.

[The Magistrate]

80. That Is The End Of The Calculation, Sir

Concerning what is best for the Party at this moment, namely the securing of majority status in both Houses of the Congress. Can you suggest a plausible alternative that will end with a Democratic Senator holding the Majority Leader's position next January? Put bluntly, nothing else regarding this matter concerns me.

[Zhade]

85. In your opinion.

It's not the end for all of us. You don't decide that for us.

Here's the thing - the majority is so slim that those like you will always be counseling giving in to his extortion.

Say he votes for further repression of civil liberties - oops, we can't call him on it, he might flip to the Republicans. Never mind that such a vote is a de facto flip of its own.

Now let's imagine lieberman's arm-twisting encourages other conservative Dems to try the "give me what I want or I'll go to the Republicans" game. Now we've got MORE extortionists fucking up progress on the issues I know we agree on.

Then what?

Do we just keep giving bullies what they want, in the hopes - HOPES, not assurances, not guarantees (I mean, you can't force lieberman to sign a paper saying he'll definitely side with the Dems every time) - that they'll go our way?

What if lieberman wants to block, say, Conyers, or an investigation into the lies that led to the war, into torture, into all of the heinous things the administration has done? Do we STILL coddle him, and thus lose the ability to prosecute them for their crimes, or do we kick him to the curb to the same effect?

You tell me what we're supposed to do when lieberman is the one to block all the progress we were promised we'd get when we held our tongues in some cases and voted to get the majority.

[The Magistrate]

91. It May Be An Uncomfortable Two Years, Sir, In That Regard

It is also possible that a point will come where the man will have to be told to do his worst, and be damned. But we are not there now, and that point may not come. No good is served at this time by looking at the fellow like he has scales and fangs, even if he really does....

[Zhade]

93. Sorry, I don't trust liars. It's a funny quirk I have.

I hope you're right; I sincerely doubt you are.

[The Magistrate]

96. What Is Trust, Sir?

One calculates interests, and capabilities.

[Zhade]

97. I agree to disagree.

EDIT: Actually, I'm going to try a more productive track.

How, in your considered opinion, can we neutralize the threat of extortion from lieberman? Simply hoping is not very proactive, nor is it viable.

So how do we ensure he CAN'T extort us? I'm open to ideas, because if one can be hit upon and enacted, HE can't work against a Dem majority, and that's what we want, right?

[The Magistrate]

99. Always A Pleasure To Cross Words With You, Sir

Doubtless we will do it again sometime.

[Zhade]

101. So you don't have any suggestions?

Come on, I know you're smart enough to come up with some if you're so inclined!

[chimpboy]

58. Surely if you are going to talk about "the will of the people"

... then you need to consider that the will of the people just got the man re-elected to the United States Senate, regardless of what the "will" of the democratic primary people might have been.

Forgiven? I dunno, but control of the Senate rests with him, so I'm thinking the democrat leadership is going to be very nice to him indeed.

[RestoreGore]

63. Then I will act accordingly towards the Democratic leadership n/t

[Seabiscuit]

64. Hell No! Once a traitor always a traitor ...

The democrats better tread carefully with Lieberman. The Dems will have to negotiate with Lieberman to break tie votes in essence giving him way too much power. The republicans have paid for Lieberman's win in Conn. and they are going to want payback (like Rove didn't figure this one into the scheme). Which way will Lieberman blow? Leiberman says that he'll vote with the democrats yet at last night's victory speech he said:
"I will go to Washington beholden to no political group, but only to the people of Connecticut and to my conscience." He said his victory represented "progress over partisanship" and "the mainstream over the extremes" --- the last part of this sentence is laughable given what he has done with the neocons in power.

The Dems meanwhile are going to have to think what will make Lieberman a happy camper to keep him voting with the Dems. Will they offer him a chairmanship? Will they keep his seniority (with benefits)in place?

I always remember a quote by Maya Angelou when it comes to these assholes in power including Lieberman "when people show you who they are believe them. Believe them the first time."

So Lieberman has shown all of us who he is, I hope the DEMS in Congress remember.

On a positive note (because there is always something to be positive about): Lieberman during his campaign for Indie Senator also focused on these issues: Affordable Healthcare for all, Woman's Rights, Climate Change/Protecting the Environment, Senior Benefits ...

[iamjoy]

67. What Is Our Option

If we do not forgive him and make peace, if we are stubborn and cling to our principles, we will remain the minority party.

I do not see a third option. We either offer Lieberman his Democratic seniority back in exchange for his agreement to caucus with the Dems or we refuse to forgive him and let him officially join the Rep party, which would give them control of the Senate.

We're at 49-49-2. Sanders is on board with the Dems, which puts us at 50. If Lieberman caucuses with the Reps, we're at 50-50 and since Cheney is the tie breaker, the Reps keep the Senate and all the chairmanships.

I don't understand why this is even a question.

[madfloridian]

69. He never lost his seniority..they were all pulling for him to win.

We are being asked to accept it as a normal thing to do, and if we don't he will run to the Republicans.

There's a name for that.

[iamjoy]

70. Being Pragmatic, Maybe? eom

[Critters2]

113. That, or extortion

Extortion. Definitely.

[RestoreGore]

104. You're right...

Discussing principles and morals is not even a topic for discussion on a political forum regardless of Party. I mean, how many of the Democrats in Congress still actually VOTED FOR the hell in Iraq, but today they are heroes because "they won". Some of them voted for the bankruptcy bill that will actually bankrupt working Americans, and torture, and warrantless wiretapping, and gifts to oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, and have allowed lobbyists to sway their vote, and have voted for every pick Bush ever made from Ashcroft on down to Alito, and have not stood up to speak out for the Constitutional abuses and lack of checks and balances that we still have today regardless of an election taking place... So what does anyone really "win" in the end once the soul of this nation has been taken? The chance to be the amoral unprincipled Party in the majority? Well, have at it, but if I personally don't see some REAL changes regarding really helping the American people, undoing the Constitutional abuses heaped on us these last six years, and holding turncoat Democrats accountable as well as amoral Republicans, I won't let the door hit my principled ass on the way out.

[iamjoy]

121. Good Point

when I mentioned being practical or remain the minority party, I was talking specifically about Lieberman, not about progressive principles in general.

However, since you bring up all these other principles, I could point out all the other instances of elected Democrats (and Democratic candidates) betraying Democratic principles. Why are we so happy Casey (who is not Pro-Choice) won in Pennsylvania? Why should we support any candidate or elected official who doesn't support full equality or a woman's right to choose? Why should we work for or praise any Democrat who agrees to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, or to "punish" people for poverty while rewarding unearned wealth?

Let's be consistent here. Why demonize or punish Joe while embracing other Democrats who were no more progressive?

We can change things, we can write to our Democratic leaders and ask them rather than pursuing impeachment, to pursue real lobbying and election finance reform. Then we can get the soul of our nation back.

[MalloyLiberal]

71. Fuck no

[leesa]

73. Nope, not ever. Want nothing to do with that POS.

[No Exit]

78. NO! I've had enough!!

[Clarkie1]

81. We need Lieberman on our side. He will caucus with us and vote with us on most issues.

We should not forget he abandoned the will of the Democratic Primary voters of Connecticut, but as patriotic Americans we must respect him as the Senator from Connecticut who has earned 50%+ of the vote of the people of his state.

If we can reach across the aisle to Republicans, as our new great leader Nancy Pelosi says we must, surely we can reach out to a wayward son. That is all.

[Zhade]

88. He's lied. Do you trust him to vote with us?

He didn't even do that on some very important issues before, and now he can extort the leadership to get his way.

Do you trust him? I don't. I can't. I don't trust liars.

And what if he decides to try to block Conyers or Waxman, or their upcoming investigations? Then what?

[Clarkie1]

89. I respect the will of the people of Connecticut, although I do not agree with their choice.

I do trust Lieberman to caucus with us, because I believe his heart is with Democratic party ideals, despite his disagreements with us on foreign policy.

Part of being a patriotic American is finding common ground with those with whom we disagee. In the case of Lieberman, we agree with him on more issues than we disagee, so that won't be difficult.

[Zhade]

95. Don't Dems like the environment?

He DID vote for the Cheney energy bill, you know - caused a lot of pollution in his own state.

Or choice - don't we support choice? Short Ride Joe doesn't support the right of rape victims to get EC if it offends some religious myths.

It's more than FP, though of course he is reprehensible on that.

(And please don't EVEN try to drag out the "patriot" stuff - I'm safe in that regard, and I will not have it impugned because I recognize the folly of enabling extortionists.)

[Critters2]

117. He's not on our side. He's on HIS side. nt

[Nederland]

132. And that makes him different from other politicians how?

[rpannier]

84. I'm not really all that happy about it

but, he won the Senate race in CT. He is their Senator.

Now we have a choice:
1. We can accept that he caucuses with us and we get his vote to be the majority Party in the Senate, thus we dictate how the Senate does things.

or

2. We can marginalize him further and push him out. This would make the Senate 50-50 and cheney would be the decider. This would give control of the Senate back to the republikkans.

We can debate his loyalty til the end of time. We can sit here and question whether or not we can trust him.
But, if we kick him out before he does something outrageous and lose control of the Senate in the process, we will look like the stupid 'horses asses' people like capt oxycotin and insannity claim we are.

[karynnj]

86. Apparently, he views it as we need HIS forgiveness

[windbreeze]

94. No, and not just NO...but Absolutely NO...NEVER..

hell will freeze over first...what he did to the voters in Conn. was unconscionable...I can only speak for myself...but I wouldn't like the feeling that my Senator had told me to kiss his ass, and that he didn't care what I thought as his constituent...I figure that's just what he did...IF I were in congress, I may have to work with him, but I would not forgive and I most certainly would never forget his actions...when dealing with him, I would always wonder...exactly what extremes he might go to, to get his way...In short, I would never be able to trust him...I hate that he won...and that whole situation does not sit well with me at all...pathetic...he won HOW???all the pubs voted for him??
windbreeze

[Jennicut]

100. No from this Connecticut resident

Joe is not forgiven here in Connecticut people! And please stop insulting all the good people of CT who did NOT vote for him! I am a registered Democrat and I voted straight Democratic yesterday and I am proud I did. I helped get Chris Murphy, our new congressman elected in my district! Joe Courtney might have beaten Rob Simmons in another district. However, our state is a moderate one, not liberal or conservative. Yes, we are in the Northeast but we have a history of electing people who are "independent" and moderate Dems and Repubs. We have a very popular middle of the road governor, Jodi Rell with lots of liberals and moderates from both parties in the state legislature. The Repulicans and some independents voted for Joe last night. Dems overwhelmingly voted for Lamont. It was not really close but it was no landslide either. My Dad, who is a registered independent is a rightwing nut job and though I love him he is crazy when it comes to politics said he voted for Joe. The Repubs had such a pathetic candidate so he said what can he do? He thinks Joe is more moderate them him but lots of Repubs voted for him. Joe was put in office by the Repubs and independents in this state. I think he WILL caucus with the Dems and so does my Dad because he thinks Joe would be stupid not to want to be the head of a committee and be in the majority where the power is now. This unfortunately means that Repubs and Dems alike will be falling at his feet for his vote. I think Joe will enjoy this, he doesn't care about either party. Its all about ego and power and his own needs. So, I don't forgive him but he is not stupid. He will REALLY piss the people in CT off who did not vote for him and those who still liked him but where a little unsure and voted for him anyways if he starts siding with Repubs. Plus he is socially liberal. But Joe is a jerk now to a lot of the Dems here in CT.

[tnlefty]

108. Welcome, Jennicut!

:hi: I'm sorry that this happened in your state. I don't care what Lieberman does, I will despise him for the rest of my existence.

Again, welcome.

[Donna Zen]

102. Why waste my time forgiving Joe?

If I wait a few days, he'll appear on some tv show to stab the Democrats in the back. Oh, just wait until Soc. Security makes the agenda again. I'll just save my forgiveness for someone who cares what I think.

[savemefromdumbya]

107. we'll see

[LoZoccolo]

109. No, he should be a Republican so we can lose our Senate majority.

OUCH! My foot!

[donsu]

110. No! Never!

the dems should give him the cold sholder

[grizmaster]

111. he's a turncoat

and will never have my respect or support because of that.

When democrats chose Lamont, and LIEberman said "fvck you" to his party and his constituents, he severed any chance of ever being trusted by me again.

[cadmium]

116. He has suggested that he would seek revenge

from the people that chose Democratic party loyalty over personal loyalty (to him Liebermann) on the Imus show today. Imus said something to the effect that he bets Liebermann is looking forward to getting revenge on some of those who abandoned him (ie supported Lamont). Liebermann replied "they say revenge is a dish best eaten cold"

Dems will have to work with him but no one should trust him.

[DemBones DemBones]

119. HELL NO!

Why should he be?

Remember that Joe made a point out of speaking out on the Senate floor about Clinton's sexual indiscretions.

That gave ammo to the GOP in their effort to bring down Clinton.


Remember that in 2000 Joe said on national TV that all military votes would be counted making no mention of eliminating military votes postmarked after election day or otherwise cast illegally.

After that, Gore either had to slap down his running mate and be accused of being anti-military or let those illegal votes for Bush be counted. My father was career military so I'm all for fair treatment of our military. However, you don't get to break the laws about voting just because you're in the military.


Also remember that in 2000 Joe ran to retain his Senate seat while running for VP with Gore, meaning his energies were split and his commitment to the Gore campaign highly questionable.


Joe's always been a Democrat and he should vote with the Dems as he owes the party his success in politics but he can't be trusted because he's a DINO.

[rep the dems]

120. Let me think

NO

[Jacobin]

122. No. He's a PNACing republican mole

He wants to contine the conquest of the Middle East and doesn't care how many American lives and how much treasure it takes to keep trying in his silly neo con dream.

He is utterly AWFUL

[barb162]

124. why did the people vote for him if he's such bad news?

Obviously the people of CT think he's good news

[enough already]

125. Never

F'him.

[riona]

131. No

He had no reasonable excuse for doing this to the primary voters and their choice, Lamont. It was insulting, mean-spirited and shows a definite lack of character.