Lieberman's attacks in the debate failed

Lieberman just attacked dean about three times saying that, because dean supported being an impartial negotiator in the israel palestine situation. He got loudly booed



Peace

Joe's got a small constituency, but no message and no image... he's going nowhere. But still it's good to have him because we need to have a broad umbrella to beat Stumphead, his wealthy and greedy friends, the sheeple who follow, and the dirty tricks they will use.

He's a PNAC mole. He's on a DLC kamikaze mission.

The heckling and whatnot is completely out of line. Disagreeing with the guy's policies is one thing, but that doesn't give these people the right to disrespect a guy like that- a member of our party, no less.

Lieberman is so out of touch with the comman American that he needs to hear boos when he steps out of line.

Look, as I said, you can disagree with Joe Lieberman all you want, and I do too on a lot of issues. Bt the fact is, the man has devoted a great deal of his life to public service and is now making the sacrifices associated with running for the highest office in the land, not because he feels like it, because he thinks he can do good things for the country. For that, he at least deserves some measure of respect that should preclude interrupting his speeches with boos and jeers.

Especially at a Congressional Black Caucus-sponsored debate, with him being (I think) the only candidate who marched with Dr. King (I'm not sure about Braun and Sharpton, but I don't think any of the rest of them have). Just disgusting.

Is what got us *

If someone says something that is patently false and repeats it--on a subject that has cost this country billions of dollars over the years and the lives of thousands of Israelis and even larger numbers of Palestinians--are folks supposed to sit by in best Edwardian room fashion and say nothing?

We spent 8 years (8 FRIGGIN YEARS) of listening to the likes of Lott, Bennett, Baer, DeLay, Dole, etc. etc. spew forth bilious lies

We have now spent almost three years of being lied to by the current regime.

Sorry--but there are many of us for whom lies are no longer an option.

They must be called on it. Publically shamed for them? Damn straight. Lives are at stake in these affairs.

It is our country--not the folks that are standing up on a stage who are asking to represent us. If they lie--I will not stay silent.

Which, of course, makes it completely acceptable to try to embarass and shame people who are trying to get rid of that regime.

If you feel Lieberman is lying, don't give him money, don't vote for him, support another candidate. There is just no excuse for publicly attacking a candidate from our own party- not to even mention how horrible it looks for Democrats on TV to have some of our candidates unable to finish a sentence without getting shouted down.

Especially when their actions derail attempts to unseat *

Lieberman will not win against * pure and simple. Other campaigns are ahead of him due to the fact that the core of the US public wants someone who will inspire them.

Lieberman does not. He is negative. He is doom and gloom.

And he is a liar (based on last night's performance)

Does that mean that anyone who feels someone's candidacy is detrimental to the party has a right to begin booing and jeering during a speech by that candidate? If, for example, I think that Dean has little chance against Bush, am I justified in attending his rallies and screaming "McGovern!" or "How's that bad back, Howard?" every time he tries to make a point? (For the record, although I don't think Dean would be successful against Bush, I also don't think he's another McGovern. I'm simply using that as an example.) Such behavior, no matter which candidate it's directed against, is juvenile, rude, unnecessary, and utterly unbecoming of any member of the Democratic Party.

Also, just as an aside, while Lieberman has had a negative tone through most of the campaign, I don't think he's been at all the most negative of the candidates. For instance, Dean, although I admit he's backed off the negativity to some extent in recent weeks, essentially rose to prominence by riding on the intense negative feelings about Bush in the left wing of the party. Again, his message has become more positive lately, but he still spends (in my opinion) too much time talking about what Bush has done wrong and not enough about what he would do right.

Lastly, I'll reiterate that, politically, I am not a fan of Lieberman, and that I agree with the basic premise of this thread, which is that his attacks on Dean were unnecessary and counterproductive, both for himself and the party. However, the correct response was NOT the disrespectful, immature actions taken by a few protestors.

If you look at my original point on this thread-- I state that Lieberman lied. THAT needs to be addressed.

I didn't say attack because you don't like the person--or you feel they are the wrong candidate-- I said call them on it when they lie.

There is a major difference from what I have been saying and you have come up with as a conclusion.

This is where folks have made the mistake repeatedly.

First, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your statements. However, given that you opened your last post by saying:

"Especially when their actions derail attempts to unseat *

Lieberman will not win against * pure and simple. Other campaigns are ahead of him due to the fact that the core of the US public wants someone who will inspire them.

Lieberman does not. He is negative. He is doom and gloom."

I don't think I can really be blamed for assuming this was part of your reason for feeling that Lieberman deserved to be booed, and for responding to it as such.

Second, I don't honestly remember what Lieberman was saying when the jeers broke out, what was it, three or four times? I find it highly unlikely that all three or four times, Joe was in the middle of saying something he knew to be false. And even if he was, the appropriate recourse is still not to show such disrespect to him and, really, to the event itself, as Sharpton pointed out when he scolded the hecklers.

Lieberman has done more for America than most of the population. This is an elderly man who has devoted much of his life for the public. The least we can do is let him talk, regardless of our personal feelings. If we disagree with him, the smartest way to do so is to not vote for him. That's the gem of democracy, not heckling people.

We will have to agree to disagree on the point concerning respect.

Respect is a two-way street.

To categorically lie and then repeat it by no means shows respect either to a candidate or to the process in which one is part.

I have been taught to treat people as if I can learn something from them--then I will be more liable to show them respect in so doing.

I follow this practice until my value system is crossed.

With the current state of affairs--it has been crossed with repeated lies against an individual competitor. These have born fruit on this board and elsewhere.

Regardless of Joe's service--it does not merit respect if he is willing to throw out any sense of honor and morality by stating falsehoods in a public setting to smear an opponent.

The boos that I heard on TV took place after his lies. If there were others prior to that point, I did not hear them.

Well, as I said, I truly don't remember what he was saying any of the three or four times jeers broke out (or, for that matter, what Graham was saying when he was jeered at). Thus, would you mind explaining exactly what it was that Lieberman was saying that he clearly knew to be untrue the prompted the boos and jeers? If he was lying, I still wouldn't think booing is the appropriate response, but could understand better your frustration. However, if you're going to accuse a candidate for the highest office in the land of lying, please back it up by telling us exactly what he said that he knew was false. I can't say for sure, but I sincerely doubt that every time some nutcase started yelling in the middle of his speeches, it was because Lieberman was knowingly telling a falsehood.

Lieberman has gone negative several times on Dean in an inappropriate manner. This is not disrespectful. It is the truth Lieberman needs to stick to his own message instead of trying to smear other peoples.


That's all I was trying to say.

MassLiberal, I wasn't intending to accuse you of being disrespectful, just the idiots who felt the need to demonstrate their displeasure by openly jeering one of our candidates. I agree with you 100% that Lieberman's attacks on Dean were inappropriate and uncalled-for, and I apologize if I came off as if I was attacking you.

to be booed.

If only Smirk could hear it.

When Lieberman ran against Lowell Weicker for the senate seat.

Weicker was an interesting, independent, frustrating, challenging Moderate Republican senator (along the lines of a Chafee, Snowe, Collins, or Jeffords -- funny how they're all from New England) with positions that often seemed to be mutually contradictory...he was an independent thinker and senator. I didn't agree with Weicker on many things - or most things - but I respected him for his attempts at basic honesty and forthrightness. He was later elected governor for the same reasons that he was respected as a senator, and he bolted the GOP to run as an independent for the following reasons:

Lieberman's campaign against Weicker was, simply put, disgusting. It was bankrolled by extremely conservative, right-wing interests, it was supported by William F. Buckley, who organized several PACs and "interest groups," wrote weekly columns like "Weicker Watch" at the natoinal review among rightwing GOPers that basically undercut Weickers party support...they voted en masse for Lieberman, who won by ~10,000 votes.

See, Joe Lieberman is lower than dirt -- a political chameleon with no compunctions about supporting the lowest of the low, or taking money and kudos from the same. Anyone with a brain who saw what happened in CT in 1988 knows that. Anyone who cooperates in any form on anything with William Buckley deserves nothing but contempt.

Weicker has endorsed Dean, wonder why he did?

I think it was in the Nation. Joe shamelessly took sides with the extremist Cubans because Weicker was trying to normalize relations with Cuba.

I saw Weicker endorse Dean at the Bryant Park rally in Manhattan. That is an endorsement that actually means something to me.

Dean doesn't seem to be much of a debater.

but you didn't have to tell us that, we knew you would feel that way.

At this point, all you would have to say is "I thought" and we could fill in the rest...

Some things barely deserve consideration....

the way that attack flopped is alone enough to give him the bottom spot for that night's debate. Dean did a strategically sound thing in simply playing it passive, not screwing up, and defending himself well

But I think I've figured it out: Lieberman is a stooge, but he's Dean's stooge. I wonder how much the Dean campaign is paying him. Every time Lieb mentions his name, Dean hits back and comes off looking smart, calm, and quick on his feet. Lieberman is the dancing monkey and Dean is the accordian player.

Who needs friends? Dean represents the fair and balanced policy in the Middle East. He promises aid, you decide!

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

That is 4x the loan guarantees ($2 billion to $8 billion) and 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion). Without virtually any strings, which is further than even Paul Wolfowitz is willing to go.

(punctuation edit)

would anybody notice?

Finally he wouldn't be the only Republican senator who's wildly out of step with his party's right wing.

Anyone who says that Lieberman's a Republican obviously hasn't met many Republicans.

especially not to the extent that Joe Lieberman has attacked his fellow Democrats.

Does that mean that DU'ers are all Republicans?

did their job. Most stories on the debate focused on the Lieberman-Dean tit-for-tat. And people are still talking about Dean's position on Israel. And many prominent Dems -- including Nancy Pelosi -- are siding with Lieberman. Now Dean seems to be backtracking.

If that's a failure, then I'm sure that Lieberman would happy with more "failures" like this.

the AIPAC/DLC representative.

He was OBVIOUSLY kiss up to the moderate and progressive/liberal wings of the Party!