This is what I don't understand about Lieberman

I can cut red state Democrats a degree of slack. Not an unlimited amount, as at a certain point it becomes pointless to have a Democrat in office if he or she will never act like one. But if Ben Nelson of Nebraska has to vote for the "partial birth abortion" ban, I can excuse that and understand it. If Mary Landrieu of Louisiana feels like she has to vote for ANWR drilling, I can be symapthetic.

But Joe Lieberman is from a solidly blue state. He need not worry about alienating a large base of conservative voters in his state. It's just not there. Even if he were to have a voting record like Christopher Dodd that would be a big improvement. Is Bush really that popular in Connecticut that Lieberman needs to fear him in his state? Do Connecticut folks know something I don't? Perhaps it's time for Lieberman to be a little fearful of his own party in a primary election.

I'm surprised by the amount of Bush support here in CT. The presidential election was much closer here than I would have expected. Still... I agree with your point, he needs to start acting like a dem, or we need to get a real dem to replace him.

When Lieberman supports measures more conservative than the rest of the party, this most likely reflects his own views, as opposed to positions needed to survive in a red state.

I don't know enough about Connecticut pollitics to know if this is realistic, but it would make sense to have a Senator from there who is a more consistent supporter of Democratic positions. While we have to accept some situations where Democratic Senators will compromise in red states, I doubt this is necessary in Connecticut. However, I don't know if it is realistic to put up a primary challenge against an incumbent such as Lieberman.

is that part of the state from Hartford toward the southwest, which can be best understood as a gigantic upper middle class to wealthy suburb of NYC. This is where the term "limousine liberal" originated, and the target of Phil Ochs's zinger of a song, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal."

In other words, they're liberals as long as it doesn't cost them anything, either in money or in effort.

Lieberman represents that part of the state quite nicely.

..

nt

in a few ways. He has always been open about that. Mostly he is for Democratic world view. But not everyone fits into a cookie cutter of what a Democrat should be. Fiscal conservatives always want the house to be kept in order and not spent into huge debt. Hawks on Israel do not see any chance for peace in the Middle East unless Israel gets a solid peace while sitting on a solid piece of land.

I am not a hawk on Israel but even I do not want to see a peace deal go through that will degenerate into wars in a few years. I want to see something with teeth in terms of a great big strong Palestinia too. I want something cut in stone. I don't want to see the conflict in Israel go on for another 100 years. I mean - what does that do for your children?

So there are more than one answer to things. Democrats know that and the elites do not (Elites expect everything to go their way and remake the world to suit their narrow needs at whatever cost - they only concede to get elected). Democrats concede that they so not get everything they want because that is the reality of living in a plurality. That is why Democrats are inherently a big tent.

Let's not copy the brown-shirt behaviour so common in Repukes. We are better than that. We will win this thing as adults.

Fucking wanker.