I'm not here to support Joe Lieberman, I'm here to talk some sense

I read about what Lieberman said when he made his case for the war in Iraq and it makes me sad. I've also read the posters here on DU who would love nothing more than to see old Joe Lieberman given the boot in 2006.

If we want to fight Joe Lieberman it won't happen in 2006. Not a man who has a 69% approval rating in his state. Not a man who didn't even run a campaign for his 2000 Senate re-election (he was also on the VP ticket) and still won by 29%. Sure, there will be some who want to run an opponent in the primaries and I'm all for that. But I probably won't donate anything to it unless for some surprise reason it looks like a close race.

Here's the god awful truth. Right here, right now every single fricking elected democrat serving in Washington DC can line up in support of the Murthas, Conyers, Rangels, Feingolds who have opposed this war over and over again. Every single one of them including Old PNAC-Joe of Connecticut and guess what: Right here, right now with all of their support we will still have this war and it will not end.

We have no majority in the house or senate. And without at least one of those chambers we can just sit back and bitch about the Joe Liebermans of the world and watch as the body counts go higher and higher.

Sure, you're absolutely correct in saying that even a majority will NOT guarantee the end to the war. But the majority will help us get the discussion the floor, debated on c-span and highlighted on the news. Maybe while we're fighting to get this war ended a majority will help provided the armor our troops need overseas and the benefits so desperately needed when they returned home. The republican leaders are not moved by our protests and pleas but the fact that a warhawk like John Murtha came out just recently against the war says that there is a chance if only we can get a majority somewhere.

I don't like Joe Lieberman, but I find no use in outing the man. Joe seems to be popular in his home state and has never once questioned crossing party lines. He's been good to us with the environment and with women's issues and even a supporter of many social programs. But despite all of that I'm with the rest of you with wishing that he would just pack it up and go home. But realistically I find his re-election campaign unimportant. He's a safe seat which would help put us towards the ultimate goal of getting a majority back somewhere. And the time, money & effort we'd put into his campaign is so much more needed in other battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and many many others that I probably am not aware of but you'll post/PM me and let me know.

The best way we can fight the Joe Liebermans of the world right here, right now is taking it to the streets. I'll use him for a "D" in our column, but I'll write a letter to my local paper and let them know this war needs a deadline and I don't agree with Joe Lieberman. If we get the majority and we fight hard to get the public not only agreeing with us in polls but doing their part to call their senators/representatives making the demands to end the war - that is the better battle to fight then trying to un-elect Joe Lieberman.

Ok, that is all!

Lieberman is not my favorite democrat, but he is no Zell Miller. I don't like his foreign policy outlook--it is too hawkish for me. But on domestic policy he is as good or better than many other democrats. I agree there is little chance to defeat him in the primary and even less chance in the general election. If were stuck with Lieberman I want him to be in the Democratic caucus and voting for Harry Reid for Majority Leader.

Some folks just take longer than others to recognize the travesty in Iraq

The moral issue that Lieberman fights for is a lot of wasted energy. Such as those adult video games that kids get a hold of...the more I see and hear Joe Lieberman, the more I see another Zell Miller.

We don't need these type of Senators that will kiss junior's ass every time he turns around.

We do not win as Democrats by becoming Republicans. As far as those poll numbers in Connecticut go, I'll be looking for the next poll they take. I think it will be a much different story. There ARE Democrats I disagree with and I DO want them replaced. That's not disloyal; its democratic. We can't turn into ultra-loyalists like the Republicans, agreeing with their party leaders out of a misguided sense of loyalty. That's a good way to LOSE members.

Zel Miller is a stupid jerk.

Joe is an evil bastard.

Is that the difference your talking about? How can we get any control over these criminals while we support guys like Joe who is helping them defeat us?

Please explain that to me. He is on their side. He is HELPING them win. Why can't you see this.

Here's how he helped whitewash the horror that was the aftermath of Katrina!!!! Bi-partisan investigation? :rofl:... With THIS congress? BWaahaahahahaha...


http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=245208


The greatest horror of MY life. Not old enough to have witnessed the Holocaust firsthand.

American patriots allowed to die like vermin. No body counts. No one cares.

He helped them get away with this. He helped hide the murder weapon. He is on their side. We MUST destroy him if we are to have a chance.

Heads on pikes!!!!

it would be conservative Dems with conservative votes on social issues getting attacked and Lieberman would miraculously be on the progressive side.

I agree. Our resources are better used on close races elsewhere between Repugs and Dems.

Perhaps we can use Joe as a doorstop or some other useful thing once we get the majority back. :)

I don't know with whom he is popular. I think he benefits from the "celebrity" status. Joe is a political celeb, and as such people tend to simply support him for no other reason. He is a major-league douche-bag. I've written and called him several times, and I always get the nicest barely-on-topic form letters in return. Joe represents no one but the neocons. All the other politicians in Connecticut are crooked child-molesting influence-dealing lying crooks. The fact that Joe is such a wholesome guy, regardless of his penchant for endless war, makes him stand head and shoulders above the afore mentioned scoundrels. Maybe that is his appeal.

Joe Lieberman...At Least He Didn't Fuck 9 Year Olds!

He's simply the best pol we've got. *sigh*

Jodi Rell is popular by virtue of the fact that she hasn't yet been caught fucking children or giving away the state's assets to Enron. She was right there with John Rowland for eight years, and was able to convince everyone that she didn't know anything about what Rowland was doing. How's that for a great governor? Her appeal lies in her cluelessness. How on Earth did Jodi Rell act as John Rowland's Lt Gov for all those years and NOT know about at least some of the pervasive corruption of her boss? Yes, her popularity rating is sky-high. Only because she's the first major politician we've had in years who isn't under investigation. It doesn't mean she shouldn't be. Just that she isn't. She simply has remained "unobjectionable." I can't honestly say I have any gripe with her, and if Gallup asked me tomorrow if I generally favor the job she's doing, I'd be tallied right up there with the 90% who approve of her. I mean...she's not fucking children or stealing the treasury blind, at least as far as anyone knows so far. So sure...she's wonderful.

By default.

I forgot about Rowland.

That's an important race to fight for - getting a "D" back in the statehouse!

That was Waterbury's republican mayor and supposedly next in line for the statehouse, Giordano. He's in the big-house now, good riddance, after being convicted of having sex with the two pre-teen children of a local prostitute, in his freakin' office for Christ's sake, for a period of years. He paid off the kid's mom to support her drug habit while she brought her very young kid's to the mayor's office for "playtime."

Rowland was merely an influence peddlar. It bears reminding that Rowland was in line for a BushCo cabinet post. Even during his investigation, Jebbie ushered him onstage at the governor's conference and stood with him at the podium, hands raised together in victory. BushCo had to drop him from consideration once the myriad FBI investigations started to surface. He's a loathesome scoundrel, but he's no kid-fucker.

That's the best I can say about John Rowland.

Hell the man is so popular his kid will probably win the Attorney General race in DE in 2006.

But I could go out there and fight these candidates or I could go to Pennsylvania where I think there are 2 house races that we could pickup in 2006 (PA6 and PA9).

You and I are lucky where we live in small states where we wouldn't have to travel far to find a competetive race that would make an impact in 2006. And even if we can't travel we can do our best online to make people aware of these races or even contribute a few dollars to help out.

You know I'll vote for Biden when he runs for re-election (2008) and I'll probably even vote for his kid (knowing full well he'll replace dad in a few years). But I won't support the Bidens or Liebermans if they run for president unless for some absolutely bizarre reason they get the nomination (and I highly doubt either one will)

I'm unaware of what is going on in CT with regard to politicians molesting children.

It sounds disgusting.

So, politicians in your state have been caught sexually abusing children? Are these sickos still in office?

I think that's a load of crap generated by some bullshit poll.

Bottom line is that the guy is a SERIOUS liability- and his constant presence on the media (where he undermines the party- and legitimizes Republicans) hurts many more dems in other states.

Connecticut need to get rid of this man in any way possible- including voting for a Republican. One seat isn't worth the damage he does to the party's chances to ever become the majority- or even relevant- again.

and he didn't even bother campaigning since he was also VP.

He's popular the poll numbers are real

F*cked over some 9 year old Iraqi kids.

That's the basic problem- a lack of talented and ethical Democratic politicos to challenge the doddering set now in the top statewide offices.

But there's a general problem with the Senators representing parts of the New York City metro area. Corazine was the exception afaict, the rest are amazing chickenshit about taking on the NYC neocon contingents.

The Democratic majority is more important than the removal of any individual Democrat that we find issue with.

I enjoy those :-)

Dear Joe,

You're an idiot.

Me

tomorrow when * pulls the rug out from under him by announcing that the war has been won, the Iraqis are now ready to take over and he will begin bringing troops home.

the dialing down of Iraq - and encouraging things like American Air cover (USA dominates the skies so fully that the Bathists refused to even get in their planes on the day the USA invaded). Not because civilians should be bombed. But because some of the al Qaeda not willing to deal - may need to be hit on occassion. And to keep Syrian, Saudi Arabia & Iran from invading and trying to take over all that oil.

Pull the troops out. Leave air cover until Iraq democracy is well on its own legs. And prove Joe's worst nightmares wrong that way. Because once the troops are gone there may be a time for Sunnis to make peace. They will garnet nothing by blowing up Shiite or Sunni or Kurdish civilians. They gain a whole lot by participating in a federation that has oil they don't have in their provinces & parts of the country. Sunnis are important for Iraq (instead of cutting them off and sending them elsewhere) because they represent more than a half of the muslim world. And ties they can form with Syria & Saudi Arabia will help counter balance ties Shiites have with Iran.

That being said there is a part of the insurgency that doesn't want peace and want to encourage only theological islamism in that state. And they will not put down their arms. So they need to be controlled from taking over towns and the like - by American Air cover.

Once more Sunnis have dropped their weapons and gotten some power in the new Iraq - then Iraqi army can take over the air cover. It is pretty safe to say that all the Iraqi fighter pilots of ore were Sunnis (I'm guesssing). So Iraq doesn't have the capability the US has to dominate the theatre. But some day in a mixed and renewed Iraqi army they will have the capability to take over the job.

And in the mean time - hell I'd rather see American responce to invasion (it will stop a tank line from anywhere outside of Iraq from forming because no tanks would make it in with American air force overhead) than a panicky Israeli event.

As long as Bush is not calling in the air strikes - I trust the airforce to only do what is absolutely necessary to help stabilize the country. And at less cost to civilians (the terrorism will dial down) and to American soldiers.

So remove the troops and prove Joe wrong.

Too many posts have been "throwing out the baby with the bath water." I have seen posts saying they'd rather have a Republican than him. That is just stupid.

I am with you. I don't care for his foreign policies, at all! However, when it comes to women's rights and gay rights, few senators have four years of 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and The Human Rights Campaign.

The other political reality that some here need to wake up and see is that there will never be the perfect Democratic candidate, never! The other thing I have noticed is a Democrat is more likely to break ranks, than a Republican, so it serves us to have Democrats as a majority, as opposed to Republicans, as they will never, almost never, break ranks. The other thing, Democrats will actually investigate what the hell is going on, as opposed to covering it up!

:applause:

the job NOW - HERE - TODAY is just as you said: regain a majority.
Let's do the math, first!:toast:

Such a crime. The poster has some valid points. We can't afford to fight those with solid footings in their states. It's commonsense.

I'm no fan of Joe either but I give him some points for the environmental efforts he's on our side with.

I checked out Lieberman's scorecard on both NARAL (choice) and League of Conservation Voters (Environment) and Lieberman receives 100% ratings for both.

The asshole can do some things right and for that he can stay in his seat in 2006. However, he can't be my president. And maybe by the time 2012 rolls around sentiments will change, we'll be in the majority and we'll have the conforts to go after the Liebermans of the party

where Occupation Joe is doing the worse crimes.

Just saying that it puts him higher on the list then the likes of Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch, Bill First, etc. etc.

we'll probably still be in the minority and not only would those women have no choice but I'd probably have much less of mine.

Lieberman takes a few positions, in regards to the environment and women's right to abortion, for example, that we agree with, and it is good that he pushes the right button when those votes come up.

Still, we would rather see someone else in his place.

Tony Blair gets support from the Labour Party with just the same justification.

--He voted for a criminal war that sucks all the energy and resources out of our government that could be used for productive purposes. He is a vile and nasty man for doing so. He still supports the war. Do we need pictures of him at Gitmo water boarding people before we tell the truth about this guy. He's not a DINO he's a Republican.

I don't care for him the least bit.

If I lived in CT, I might not have voted for him.

But I agree it's a waste of time and money trying to oust him. He's not going anywhere. We have to hear his sanctimonious crap for atleast a few more years.

The money trying to kick him out would be better donated to Dems that are trying to kick actual repukes out of office.

Joe Lieberman's NARAL scorecard (pro-life folks): 100%
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/publications/cong_04_ct.cfm

Joe Lieberman's LCV scored (pro-environment folks): 100%
http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/vote_info/?command=results&sort=District&state=CT&submit.x=13&submit.y=15

That's the Joe Lieberman that we all want on our team. For those 2 voting records alone I'll tolerate his shit and do my best to elect more democrats that will counter his pro-war rhetoric!

.... Lieberman is a problem for which there is no good solution.

I agree that we're stuck with him, but I would also wonder why he is allowed by the Dem leadership to shoot his mouth off like a fool over and over. If he were a Republican, they would have stripped him of all committee assignments, and done anything else they could until he learned that IN POLITICS, YOU SOMETIMES HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH THE PARTY LINE.

Although I don't think we're at risk for Lieberman crossing party lines I also don't want to be the party where everyone has to agree with the Leadership or else. If I wanted that kind of party I'd vote republican.

.... between "always agreeing with the leadership" and "continually undermining the party's position on major issues".

No, Lieberman absolutely needs to be taken to the woodshed, and if our party leaned more in that direction maybe we'd have a scintilla of power in Washington right now and these issues would be moot.

There is a such thing as taking too little risk. The Democratic party, our senate in particular, is a text book example, and the results are right there for everyone to see.

I mean, it's not like they're all rallying around him in support. Sometimes if you go to far out on a limb, the overwhelming weight at the end of that limb will cause it to break.

Know what I mean!

... a novel approach. Yeah, you might be right :)

:scared:

I would be worried if several democrats were out there with Lieberman plugging away with this unnoble cause. He's seeming more and more like the lone gunman instead

... Lieberman is sincere in what he is saying. But still wrong :)

If we had 5-10 senators like him, we might as well fold our tent. As yet, he does sound pretty much alone doesn't he :)

:D

in the foreign policy arena.

We've already won the debate on the war. The chimp is finished, except for the fact that pricks like Lieberman are trying to save him. We MUST get rid of him and get a real liberal Democrat in that seat and every other seat possible.

So when are the troops coming home?



On edit note: Sure, I'm going to give up all the time, money & effort I was planning to get rid of Rick Santorum and go jump on your bandwagon. It seems that's what you want me to do.

Lieberman is a prick but he's an inky-dinky prick comparied to Tricky Rick the Prick who would put John Holmes to shame

Never, if we leave it up to guys like Lieberman.

But you keep your head in the sand, you know best.

and guess what....


We still have a war.

Last I checked there are more republicans that democrats.

Having a democratic majority will NOT guarentee the end of the war. But it really helps our cause with putting the pressure on congress to open the debate again and address putting together a timeline to end the war and get our soldiers out of there. Republicans have not once listened to our letters, our pleas and our protest. Yet major warhawk John Murtha did and he crossed over!

I'm not sure what math you're doing to find the numbers to help get the votes needed to end the war but all the counts I do require us to have more of us then more of them and but we have to make some major wins in 2006/08. We need to find 6 new senate seats while maintaining all the current dem seats occupied or recently opened by retiring democrats. And we need to find 15 house seats.

So you're telling me Joe Lieberman is that much more important that finding the numbers we need to get the majority. Let me know now just how important getting rid of him is and I'll pledge right here right now to not donate another dime to help get rid of Rick Santorum or send another dollar to Lois Murphy who came dangerously close to unseating a republican in PA-06. I mean, if Lieberman is that important to you then I guess I'm just wasting time getting rid of these republicans because your strategy is just so much saner. Hell, I start a brand new post in your honor demanding that everyone here in DU get on the "Get Joe out of office" campaign and insisting that this is the most important race and not not waste time or money or any other campaign out there.

Let me know - is this what you want?

Because let's face it - your foolish plan will help the war to continue. We'll be rid of Joe Lieberman but we'll still be in the minority.

Unless they pull an outright Zell Miller-ish stunt, we can't start picking off DINOs while the party is still in the minority.

:hi:

I can't stand Lieberman either but then I think of my old senator from when I lived in Pennsylvania and I then realize I can't justify getting rid of Lieberman at this time either. Lieberman and Santorum are both pro-war which I hate. But Lieberman is both pro-choice (100% NARAL Rating) and Pro-Environment (100% LCV Rating) but Santorum is 0% on both of those.

So in the end I'll write letters and speak out against Joe Lieberman but I'll campaign my heart out against Santorum

as much as I dislike Joementum, I do think it is a much better use of my energy to work on replacing repukes that are much worse. There are plenty of them to choose from.

One more recommendation.

"Not a man who didn't even run a campaign for his 2000 Senate re-election (he was also on the VP ticket) and still won by 29%."
Worth noting that Phil Giordano, the guy the GOP put up against Joe, ran around in 2000 accusing Lieberman of being "soft on child pornography (!?!)"; less than three months later Giordano was nabbed for several counts of child molestation.

Just kidding. Of course we have to oppose him.

Big crime #1: He surrendered on his own during the 2000 recount, f'ing surrendered. I don't care if he's an ADA 100% leftie, that one act was so disgraceful and revealing, the man should never be trusted again.

Big crime #2: Iraq. His internal approval rating is based on no challenge, none, in CT. It's a geographically compact state, with just two media markets. It's got a lot of bright people there who can hear and digest issues quickly. If not there, then where do we go after people in the primary WHO ARE NOT DEMOCRATS.

He's not kind to us in any way because he voted for a war that sucks all the money out of the Federal budget. He's not a real Democrat because he unilaterally surrendered while Gore was fighting.

If we don't challenge Lieberman in the primary then who will we ever challenge.

He's a disgrace.

winning the election.

It's money and time wasted.

I have more important races to support. Ones where I'll be removing actual republicans from office!

enforce discipline, of which he has none, and promote the appearance of loyalty to Reid, for which LIEberman is not known.

Make him sweat a little.

Hell even Hillary is starting to talk deadlines.

I think I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I think that the democrats are letting Lieberman go out there on a limb and say the shit he's saying for a reason. Not because they support him but because maybe they're hoping he goes out there too far on the limb.

I want you to know that I in no way support Lieberman. I just find no use in campaigning against him when there are so many others worse them him. If Lieberman wins in 2006 I'm stuck with a pro-war/pro-choice/pro-envirnment senator. If Santorum wins...... well :cry:

I'm not going to CT to mount a holy crusade or anything. I will send a fifty to anyone credible who challenges him in the primary. It's no lose: if he's invulnerable, it won't hurt him; if not, it will teach him a lesson or toss his disloyal ass out. I'm still very irritated by his speech about Clinton during the theater of the absurd interlude, the name of which I won't mention. How moral can the guy be (which he preached then) when he turns around and votes and supports the invasion of a country at great loss to his own and his citizens. But when it comes to the impeachment, I hold a huge grudge on Dem disloyalty (of which there was very little).

I like the Paul Newman option--celebrity, businessman, race car driver, and LIBERAL!

big ask, on his record!

:hi:

with those neocon villains who persecuted Clinton and his family for political motives, was just despicable for a "man of the cloth". I don't recall his denouncing them over the Elian Gonzalez kidnapping, either.

Clothe yourself in that reputation, Sen. LIEberman;)

He has become, for better or worse, the voice of "sensibility" on the left, as defined by Republicans.

Every time a Pelosi or a Reid or a Murtha tries to speak the truth as to what is happening in Iraq, Joementum steps up and destroys what inertia we have.

I see no fault in attempting to run a viable "real" Dem against him in the primaries. As a former CT resident (and someone who has had actual sit down at the table business dealings with both Joe and his wife) I can speak to the fact that his appeal is of the proverbial 5 miles long, 1/2" deep variety. That being said, he is monied up the wazoo and hence scares away any potential challenger.

As for his environmental and women's issues stances, I worry that they are, let's say, "shiftable." Has Lieberman been at the forefront of any environmental legislation, or women's legislation? I ask it as a serious question, for I do not know the answer.

But I do know this - when George Bush uses Joe Lieberman as an example of how to do things right it scares the shit out of me. No one in the Bush cabal does ANYTHING like that unless they are holding the puppet strings.

At this point, I can not trust Lieberman, and would donate to any Dem that showed
even a modest hope of unseating him in a primary. I think the "one or the other" option that you describe is a red herring - one can work for an end to the war and an end to Joe at the same time. If I recall, a Dem mayor in MN was just unseated by another Dem, because the old mayor endorsed Bush. It CAN be done, and that message came through loud and clear.

If I was in CT, and he was running, would I vote for him? Yes, for I realize the alternative would be disastrous. But as of today, having Joe Lieberman as a Democrat in name only does us no favors. Watch the Alito vote if it comes to that - that will speak volumes.

I fear another Miller in the making - I truly do.