Why demonize Lieberman?

[AntiWarPoster]

He had an ACU rating of 8 this year. Voted against the conservatives 23 out of 25 times.

For comparison purposes, Boxer and Feinstein both had ratings of 12 this year. Dodd had a rating of 8.

Higher ratings are worse.

Yeah Lieberman is for the Iraq War and the terrorism policy, but he's with us on almost everything else. He won. Now what the hell is the point of demonizing him when he controls our majority?

Firefighters endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. That means something to me.

[Rick Myers]

1. He does NOT control a Dem majority. eom

[DaveinMD]

2. if

he doesn't caucus with us, we don't have a majority. We need him.

[emulatorloo]

37. he has committed to caucusing w the Dems.

I beleive also it was a campaign promise.

[DaveinMD]

39. I know

I was just addressing the point that we need him.

[niceypoo]

44. He was rejected by HIS CONSTITUANTS

Not by the democratic party. He decided to say "fuck you" to the people he supposedly represents. Its all about Joe, yanno?

[DaveinMD]

45. that may be so

and I supported Lamont. However, we still need him to caucus with us or we don't hold the Senate.

[Inuca]

62. His constituents are not...

... just the democrats that vote in the primary, but all the CT voters. And they did not reject him, he won handily. I completely disagree with his stand on Iraq, but as the original post mentioned he is above average on almost any other issue, and demonzing him serves no practical purpose.

[xultar]

3. Sure he does. So demonizing him is not the way to go. Be smart.

[madfloridian]

4. Why did he demonize Lamont.?

Why did so many of our own party work against Lamont? Why did Joe have a website up called The Full Lamonty on which he attacked Ned over everything?

Why did all these Democrats support Joe after he lost the primary, and help him attack the Democratic candidate? Why?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/562

"Here is the list of the national Dems for Joe, the CT Dems for Joe are listed above them. Some seem not to believe the Democrats who are donating and working for Joe:

Former Senator David Boren, OK

Former Senator John Breaux, LA

Former Senator Richard Bryan, NV

Former Senator Dennis DeConcini, AZ

Former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, LA

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, NE

Former Congressman Norman D'Amours, NH

Former Congressman Buddy Darden, GA

Former Congressman Cal Dooley, CA

Former Congressman Ben Erdreich, AL

Former Congressman Mike Espy, MS

Former Congressman Don Fuqua, FLA

Former Congressman Frank Guarini, NJ

Former Congressman Peter Hoagland, NE

Former Congressman Ken Holland, SC

Former Congressman Earl Hutto, FLA

Former Congressman Jay Johnson, WI

Former Congressman and Mayor Ed Koch, NY

Former Congressman John Krebs, CA

Former Congressman Mel Levine, CA

Former Congressman Jim Lloyd, CA

Former Congressman Matt McHugh, NY

Former Congressman Ron Mottl, OH

Former Congressman Tim Penny, MN

Former Congressman Stephen Solarz, NY

Don Baer, Director Of Communications - Clinton Administration

Mark Brzezinski, Former Director of National Security Council – Clinton Administration

Ash Carter, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense - Clinton Administration

Bill Danvers, Senior Director for the National Security Council - Clinton Administration

Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to the President - Clinton Administration

Stuart Eizenstat, Former Deputy Treasury Secretary – Clinton Administration

Steve Elmendorf, Former Chief of Staff to House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt

Al From, Founder of the Democratic Leadership Council

Bill Galston, Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy - Clinton Administration

Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General - Clinton Administration

Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary Of State, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel - Clinton Administration

Max Kampelman, Ambassador to the CSCE - Carter Administration

Jim Kennedy, Former Spokesman for Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore

Simon Lazarus, Associate Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff – Carter Administration

Michael Levy, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs for the U.S. Dept. of Treasury – Clinton Administration

Abbe Lowell, Chief Minority Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives

Will Marshall, President and Founder, Progressive Policy Institute

Dana Marshall, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce – Clinton Administration

Mack McLarty, Former White House Chief of Staff - Clinton Adminstration


John Nakahata, Chief of Staff to Chairman of the FCC – Clinton Administration

Tom Nides, Special Counsel for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs - Clinton Administration

Leon Panetta, Former White House Chief of Staff – Clinton Administration

Tony Podesta, Clinton Transition Team, Former Counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy

Bruce Reed, Domestic Policy Advisor - Clinton Administration

Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator- Clinton Administration

David Rothkopf, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade - Clinton Administration

Richard Swett, Former Ambassador to Denmark - Clinton Administration

Ben Wattenberg, Aide and Speech Writer to President Lyndon B. Johnson

Jim Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA - Clinton Administration

[AntiWarPoster]

5. Madfloridian,

Lieberman lost the primary. He did not contest it. It is his right to run as an independent. He barely lost the primary and he sensed Connecticut residents still wanted him to be their Senator, and he proved that

He is the Senator for all of Connecticut, not just the Democratic primary voters.

[file83]

7. Don't expect the saltiness to leave our tongues so quickly, but I get your point

- keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer. (wink wink)

But seriously, Lieberman almost cost us the Senate majority - that's a BIG deal. His selfishness pissed a lot of people off because of the danger it put our party in.

However, now that we have majority - I get your point that we need to KEEP him on our side.

[AntiWarPoster]

12. How did he almost cost us the majority?

The Republican in the race got 10% in the vote.

We would have held the seat regardless of whether it was Lamont or Lieberman who won the seat.

[madfloridian]

16. Amazing you don't see it.

Totally amazing. And scary.

[file83]

49. Some people don't see a brick wall staring at them in the face....

...but hit it anyways. Go figure.

[madfloridian]

8. He ignored the Democratic voters.

I am really seeing pressure here on me today because I am standing up for what I believe.

[William769]

11. I agree with what you believe.

But Politics makes strange bedfellows. We lose Lieberman, we lose the Majority in the Senate.

[AntiWarPoster]

15. Hey madfloridian,

NEWSFLASH:

There are other parties represented in CT besides the Democrats.

[madfloridian]

17. Hey, newsflash, he was rejected in a Democratic primary.

This is sad.

[AntiWarPoster]

18. You're not the only one that matters

In fact, you and Lamont are irrelevant.

Should we decide all elections by going by primary results?

[madfloridian]

20. That's really nice thing to say. Thanks.

I think I know what you are doing. Flash...LOL..go ahead.

[AntiWarPoster]

23. i live in NY, but I donated to Lieberman

I really don't see what everyone is so upset about

we held a Democratic seat. He will caucus with Dems. I suppose you would have run a Dem against Sanders in VT too?

[madfloridian]

26. That's what is scary.

That you really don't understand why people are upset.

Even scarier is that you are comparing it to Bernie's situation. I have been accused of being politically naive, but even I know better than that.

[AntiWarPoster]

28. i know why people are upset

they are unjustifiably upset, in my opinion.

Joe's always considered himself an independent Democrat. So what's the big deal that he decided to run as one? If Lamont had run a better campaign, he would have beaten Lieberman. But Joe is too popular with Independents and Republicans and Joe won 1/3rd of Dem votes as well. So I guess those 33% of Dem voters that voted for Joe are naive too.

[TankLV]

54. Just join up to belittle us...

and a coward too - hiding your profile.

I doubt YOU are one of "us".

but nice try - not nice enough...

Didn't you used to post as someone else who was BANNED?

[zanne]

66. Don't try to piss in my pocket...

and tell me it's raining. He's nothing but a power-hungry opportunist with a kindly-looking face. Republicans supported his campaign and elected him. Don't try to put lipstick on a pig.

[WinkyDink]

59. Primaries are for......choosing candidates. Lieberman was not so

chosen.
You don't like the primary system?

[CTLawGuy]

67. so should the Dem 2008 presidential primary losers

remember that and run as indpendents?

I mean, shouldn't ALL the voters of America get to decide whether some particular candidate becomes president???

:eyes:

[WinkyDink]

58. PUH-LEEZE. Yeah, and Presidential candidates ought not to run

by Party, either.

And his "right" doesn't MAKE it right.

[The Magistrate]

6. No Good Is Served By Doing So, Sir

We need the vote: he has it. It is that simple.

The man is far from my favorite Senator. He has for years struck me as a mealy-mouthed hypocrite, and his embrace of the invasion of Iraq, and the line he took towards criticism of it, deserve condemnation. But none of that matters, against the the requirements of the political moment.

"States have neither friends nor enemies, only interests."

[William769]

9. Could not agree more with you.

[Old and In the Way]

14. I concur, Sir.

He's not anywhere near my favorite Democrat. I really don't think Joe will have the respect of the rank-and-file anymore, but the facts are we need his body in the caucus. He'll stick with the Democrats, for one simple reason...he want's a committee chair. Give him Homeland Security. He can have his soapbox from which to bore the American people there.

[madfloridian]

19. We heard that in 04 and 06...that there must be no deviation

from voting for the party. They said our party needs us. That's what they said. So we stayed. We voted Democratic because our party needed us.

The CT Democrats are a loyal and energetic bunch. They voted against an incumbent. That incumbent did not do as he and others had been preaching to us. He ran against the one who won and attacked him...even as the one who won was trying to be a party player and be honorable.

So, what incentive is there?

[William769]

25. I am curious, would the CT Dem's want Lieberman to caucus with us

Or the Republicans?

[madfloridian]

27. How would you feel if other incumbents do what Joe did?

Just said they did not value the voters and would do as they wished. And ran their own campaign and named the party after themselves.

I guess we might as well just not have a party.

[William769]

29. I would not be happy, and I'll say it again, I'm not happy with Lieberman!

But even though what he did was sleazy, I would still rather have him Caucus withe Dem's instead of the Republicans. I still worry about the possibility of more Supreme Court nominees from Bush.

[jonnyblitz]

10. because he LOST the DEM primary and we vote for the DEMS

to win here at DU! its not fucking ROCKET SCIENCE.

and who gives a fuck who firefighters endorse. damn.

[AntiWarPoster]

13. Yeah who gives a fuck who firefighters endorse

I didn't know Conrad Burns posted at DU

lol

For those who don't get that joke,

Conrad Burns was criticized for saying that some firefighters in MT did a piss-poor job of putting out a fire and that they were lazy.

[seaglass]

21. My husband is a firefighter. Even he told me that he thinks

the FF Union endorses candidates too early (I don't know when the FF's in CT endorsed Lieberman). In MA they endorsed Reilly for Governor and he lost the primary. We ended up getting a wonderful and winning candidate in Deval Patrick.

I LOVE firefighters but they can be wrong.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[AntiWarPoster]

32. Mike,

if you bothered to actually read my post,

you'd realize that i was defending firefighters and their endorsements. my title was complete sarcasm.

[beaconess]

22. Yes - who cares what the firefighter think? The views of sanctimonious Dems

who have the luxury time and resources to post their opinions on DU are much more relevant and important than anything a bunch of public servants who risk their lives every day could have to say.

[AntiWarPoster]

24. what a scummy post he made indeed, beaconess

nt

[Moochy]

35. Sanctimonious Dems?

or Sanctimonius Connecticut For Liebermann Party members?

[MalloyLiberal]

31. For somoene who calls themselves AntiWar

Shame that you hawk for a guy who wants more war and more innocent people to die.

[AntiWarPoster]

33. i voted for hillary too

i oppose the war, but that doesn't mean i can only vote for people who opposed it. the war was already voted on. clinton voted for it, liebrman voted for it, nad so did other democrats.

[Moochy]

36. I thought the "poster" meant like a wall hanging

then your screen-name would not compel you to be opposed to Lieberman's pro-war stance.

You know like an anti-war poster on my wall.


:yoiks:

[AntiWarPoster]

38. huh?

lol

[Moochy]

40. Make Love Not War!

:hippie: :grouphug: :smoke: :hippie:

[AntiWarPoster]

41. Ah

I didn't even think of the double meaningn when I created the name. No, I meant that I am a message board poster who is anti-war. I voted for pro-war Schumer in 2004 over an anti-war Green. I voted for Hillary yesterday over an anti-war Green as well. It is important to vote straight D in this times, even if they pro-war.

[Moochy]

46. I voted for Dianne Feinstein

I was playing dumb about your name, and just thought of the double meaning myself... :+

[No Exit]

64. I'm with you! To hell with Lieberman!

He's no democrat. He made that crystal clear when he rejected the man the DEMOCRATS wanted--Ned Lamont.

[Theduckno2]

34. IMO, Joe Lieberman won't be much of a problen for Senate Democrats.

It seems to me that "swing voters" only have real leverage when the legislative body is evenly split for LONG periods of time (some sort of steady state)

Given this large swing to a slim Democratic majority, there is a great likelihood of that majority being increased in 2008. :thumbsup:

So, if Joe Lieberman whines too much or foolishly votes with the Republicans he risks spending the remainder of his term after 2008 washing cars in the parking lot, should a larger majority of Democrats no longer need his support.

If the Republicans, in a major move, take back the Senate in 2008, they would quickly marginalize a Republican-voting, Joe Lieberman as being unreliable on so many conservative issues and he again would be washing cars in the parking lot. See above posters in regards to Joe's voting record.

For Joe Lieberman to actively whine, hold out for goodies or even vote Republican, he would have believe that the slim majorities would have to continue through the end of his term. Those are currently very long odds.

I also believe that the remaining 49 Democrats will not take too kindly to Joe getting special treatment while their needs are put on the back burner.

[LoZoccolo]

42. People on the Internet need something to do while avoiding real work.

Try asking people what they're doing to help the campaigns before the election and you'll be real surprised that this is a political message board.

[Moochy]

47. Nice broad brush there

Feeling superior are we?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Ah yes, the ol' "he's more loyal to Israel" meme...

...can't you come up with something new?!

[Lurking Dem]

68. It's hard to pick up a new meme

when you've had thousands of years of practice with this one.

[Rose Siding]

48. "Sure he beats me but he's never laid a hand on the kids"

I just hope the cost of his vote for majority leader isn't too dear.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. I respect the firefighters but they were naive in their endorsement

The Iraq War will cost us about $1 trillion before it's all said and done. That's $1 trillion that could've gone into healthcare, education, Social Security, Alternative Energy, American industry and jobs, etc. So while Lieberman claims that he's great on funding these issues, he supports sending the money to fund them over to Iraq.

You can't be good on domestic issues when you don't support funding them, period. While I respect the firefighters very much, their endorsement was naive. The money that Joe wants to continue shipping to Iraq is coming out of their healthcare, their pensions, and their kids' education.

[AntiWarPoster]

52. lieberman voted against the tax cuts

that money could have funded this stuff as well

not lieberman's fault

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Not without running a deficit

Even if we kept domestic spending up and didn't cut taxes, we'd still have to borrow to finance the war. That's debt that my generation will have to pay off.

Look, Joe is still redeeming in the fact that he is voting to put the Dems in power and that's a huge thing. But because Lamont supported getting us out of Iraq and therefore not pissing away a huge amount of our nation's money there, he was better on domestic issues than Lieberman. Boxer and Dodd are better than Lieberman on this regard as well.

The Iraq War isn't a simply one issue, it is THE issue that will determine the direction of our nation for many reasons.

[ProudDad]

55. Why?

"Firefighters endorsed Lieberman over Lamont. That means something to me."

WHY???

What's so f*cking special about people in uniform??

The firefighters in S.F. were some of the most racist, sexist people in the area until recently (allegedly) they changed. They were even fairly recently hit with Federal Court rulings forcing them into accepting women and people of color into their ranks.

The cops are mainly the homeland guard for the capitalist owners of amerika, protecting the goods and property of the rich.

The fire fighters, well I respect them a little more 'cause they help the homeless (their paramedics scoop up some poor folks in extremis at bus stops and doorways and take them to the local County Hospital for care) and once in a while, put out a fire... But they seem to have a primarily jock mentality...us vs. them...

The military are the storm troopers for the capitalist acquisition machine...not really a very laudable endeavor...

There's nothing special about "people in uniform" except their tendency (through their intensive training) to display very shallow, knee-jerk reactions to complex issues.

[springhill]

56. Because he lost the democratic primary...........

and very ungraciously at that.

[WinkyDink]

57. Reality check: Joe Lieberman turned his back on the Democratic voters

of Connecticut, telling them they could, in essence, go Cheney themselves with the candidate they nominated.
Unlike any other Democratic politician in my memory, Lieberman refused to accept his defeat, became a Party of One, and ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED AGAINST the duly-chosen DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Perhaps we need to work with him, but I hope none of his colleagues buy him lunch.

[many a good man]

60. He capitalizes on media distortions of the Dem Party

for his personal gain and diminishes us. 'Nuff said.

[SaveElmer]

61. What's past is now past...

He won...he is going to be part of this new Democratic majority...

It would be the height of self-indulgence for Senate Democrats to shun him in any way...

[No Exit]

63. Please do not act like the Bush supporters.

One of the most insidious obstacles I have faced (in these last 3 years), in trying to pry people away from continuing to support Junior and his crime enterprise, is the inability of some people to simply admit to themselves that they were WRONG.

I have admitted to myself that I was WRONG to support Shrub in 2000. Yes, I was a Shrub/Cheney supporter back then, and I was a firm supporter of them and of REPUBLICANS. I was DEAD WRONG. In the beginning of 2003, I realized with horror the HUGE mistake I had made. I've been learning ever since just how much worse that mistake was--even worse than I originally thought.

But I've found that other Shrub supporters cling to him even when it becomes absolutely crystal clear that he and his minions are working against their interests. It seems that they will do anything--even let Junior bankrupt, torture, imprison, or kill them or kill their children in Iraq--rather than simply admit they were WRONG.

Now I see some of this stubbornness in people who probably supported Lieberman as a part of the Gore team in 2000. My opinion: you guys got it half right (Gore). So you did a lot better than we did.

Since 2000, this Lieberman has done nothing but openly support and enable Shrub's ongoing assassination of America. He has made a great show of touting the president's "wisdom" and "vision", and he has backed this horrible, fraudulent set of wars--Iraq/Iran. And I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that Lieberman cares more about keeping his good thing going. (His good thing: being a senator, thus living off the fat of the land--or, more accurately, living off robbing us "little people", which is what, alas, I think almost all of our senators do).

Lieberman doesn't care if other people's children get their limbs blown off, or their heads blown off, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why he doesn't care, I don't know. Maybe he really is in thrall to the War Israelis, as some people think. (I say "War" Israelis, because I realize that not all Israelis are in favor of the callousness of using young Americans to protect their own sweet asses.)

Please--if you were a Gore/Lieberman supporter, you got it half right. And you showed ten times more wisdom than did those of us who stupidly supported Bush/Cheney. Isn't that enough for you? Please, please, consider the way Lieberman has enabled this evil tyrant every step of the way, and please reconsider your support for the backstabber Lieberman.

[sendero]

65. How many times do we have to go over this..

... he gets those good ratings CASTING VOTES THAT DON'T MATTER ON ISSUES WE HAD NO POWER OVER and issues that, compared to the Iraq war and its attendant stripping of the Constitution DON'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. If you think every issue on that list should carry equal weight, then the number has some meaning. I don't.

The fact he'd actually admonish HIS OWN PARTY over the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR TIME didn't help.

He can jump in the lake. Seriously.

[Lurking Dem]

69. Abortion rights don't matter?

Arab-American civil liberties don't matter? Sodomy laws? Equal pay? Including attacks against gays as hate crimes? Supporting women and minority owned businesses?

Is there only one issue on the table?

[sendero]

70. When people are..

... dying every day, when our treasury is being drained, when we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them, when we are turning the world against us, yes, your issues are not critical.

And then there's the backstabbing rhetoric. No, I'm glad Lieberman lost the primary and I don't give a fuck who he caucuses with, he's a douchebag. And lots of Dems learned a damn valuable lesson - don't piss off your base and half the rest of the country, they might take away your perk-encrusted cushy ass job.

[AntiWarPoster]

71. look at this, too late for sendero!!!!!!!! to edit it

He just went on record as saying that abortion rights don't really matter right now. It's so convenient when you can push people's rights under the table to make way for your own issues.

[Lurking Dem]

72. Amazing, isn't it?

[pink-o]

73. Well, the Repubs who voted for him over their own

candidate are the ones who got screwed. They threw all their support behind him to keep Lamont out, now Holy Joementum pledges to our side.

He's just a self-centered, self-serving Momser (a Yiddish term I'm sure he's familiar with) who doesn't care about anything other than Joe.