Should Joseph Lieberman Switch Parties?

With Joe Lieberman devolving into what is argueably the party's most extreme DINO-sore, should Joe just go ahead and switch parties?

Exhibit A
From the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) on Bush's "Stay the Course" Campaign:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq where he said, "I saw real progress there...." And, he declared, "Overall, I came back encouraged."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051130b.asp

Exhibit B
Senators who received the most donations from the defense industry include Shelby, who is well-positioned to become the next Senate Appropriations chairman; Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a member of Armed Services and the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/101805/spending.html

Exhibit C
Don Imus said "No wonder Gore won't talk to you..." to Joe Lieberman this morning. Lieberman said he had been to Iraq four times and things are getting better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2282908

Exhibit D
Quote from Lieberman on "Staying the Course in Iraq":

"More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

"The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

"I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

"Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi."

if this cannot be interpreted as an anti-Semitic remark I don't know what is.

If there were a Muslim Senator who supported the war, would you recommend him joining Al Qaeda?

so are you going to call me anti-SEMITIC?

The truth is that he has a lot of contacts with the Likud party, NOT LABOR

incidently, I AM A practicing JEW also.

I call it as I see it, and if you think PNAC has helped the Israelli cause then I have some swamp land to sell you

In fact because of this crap they will NOT remember the Boxers or Feingolds, but instead refer to the libbys, Wolfiwitz, Perle, and conviently forget that rice, rumsfeld, cheney, and bush should also be included

I remember when Jews couldn't join clubs or go to certain hotels, don't throw the "anti-semetic" crap at me

As far as your remark about a Muslim Senator is pathetic. Likid is NOT a terrorist organization while al qaeda is.

should be criticized on the merit. There are many Democrats who support the war in Iraq including, until a few weeks ago, Murtha. But you would not suggest they join the Likud party in Israel, right?

As for Likud party not being a terrorist organization, I agree, but not many on DU, as I am sure you have observed. Many considered the State of Israel and especially Sharon as terrorists.

The likud party is worse than our repukes and is an abomination - it is the main cause of all the current trouble in the region regarding the Palistinians.

who supported the war should join the new Iraqi govt might be more appropriate.

and no different from freepers who tell us, when we criticize our government, to "leave the country." And before the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe - to move to the USSR, or to Poland (before it became an item in the Presidential debate).

Retire already and take all that Joementum to Florida.

I wouldn't like to see him as a puke any more than I'd support him as a "dem". I hope there is a spirited primary challenge in Connecticut. I'd send money to a progressive willing to challenge him in a primary.

We AT LEAST need to signal our displeasure with * boot-lickers.

There are strong rumors that Lowell Weicker (former liberal republican, now an independent) wants to give him a run for his money. BTW the "former republican" moniker doesn't sound like it means much. Weicker appears to be well to the left of Joe. Here's a link from DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/28/231854/127

I spent 2 hours listening to this asshole at a town hall meeting yesterday. He says he opposes Murtha because if we leave Iraq, Al Queda will take over and invade and take over Saudi Arabia. We have to get rid of Hugo Chavez, etc. Let people join in large groups to buy cheaper health insurance.

Would somebody PLEEZE run against this idiot. Other than the numbers game, I can't see any advantage to him over Katherine Harris.

Need to go sit with former Sen. Spitballs...ie Zell "Old Yeller" Miller, and shut the fuck up.

He went over like a lead balloon. I'm still pissed at him since last summer when he strutted around the state with Kerry and Edwards and told everyone that he was was going to be the leader in fighting for voter's rights. And then when Conyers was looking for the Senate to back him on this issue, he was the first to turn tail and run. I'm going to the Florida Dem Convention as a delegate next week, and curious to see how he will be treated by the other members.

I mean who is really more of an enabler of Bush. The man who is too weak to say anything critical of him or the woman (and I use that term loosely) who put him in office.

If the GOP wakes up from its sleep-walk, it will realize that the PNAC-WHIG neocons are destroying the nation. (I can dream, can't I?) If that happens, the boys with toys will take their ball and form a new, evil, party populated by neocons. Joe will feel right at home with them.

and that kiss on the cheek from Shrub.

Plus, when was the last time Joee even resembled a Dem? Which leads to the question, why ever did Gore choose Joe as VP? In retrospect, it is truly a curious choice.

I've been wondering that myself. Did Imus really say to Lieberman, "no wonder Gore won't speak to you"? Just think, if Bush didn't steal the '00 election, Lieberman would be VP. The neocons had all bases covered.

the politically immature.

:crazy:

would let a cancerous tumor consume your entire body.

hs dumb ass he woullda been chosen to lead the senate.

You'd see more and more dems clammering to be like him.

I don't see people running to his side.

So he ain't cancer. We need the seat.

someone ELSE to sit in it!

you'd better hope, after he listens to DU's advice, that he switches parties *after* you've found someone else to represent Connecticut.

Do you like having Bill Frist as Majority Leader?

that Lieberman is the BEST human for the job that you can come up with in Connecticut?

Is THAT what you're saying?

David Sirota begs to differ. MoveOn begs to differ...

Tossing Joe out on his ass WILL SEND a message to *enablers. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE those who vote against the best interests of this country and humanity at-large.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2285456&mesg_id=2285456

Joe sucks!

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Joe, but he's a far cry from challenging anyone to a duel or speaking at the RNC.

a DUET perhaps....

Gore made a HUGE mistake bringing this guy into the spotlight by giving him the VP nomination.

Joe will stay a Democrat because it is the easiest way to continue to be re-elected in Connecticut. And when we re-take the senate his vote for Reid as majority leader will be necessary.

However, he should NOT be a national spokesperson for Democrats like he is trying to be now. He does not reflect the feelings of the majority of Democrats or hell even the majority of Americans.

Joe is adicted to the spotlight and he will never relinquish it.

nt

if we are rooting for Casey, who opposes a woman's right to privacy, to replace Santorum, we can tolerate and support Lieberman.

Holy joe and zellout would be the last ones I would support.

Why should I suppport people who support repukes and give them aid and comfort?

NEVER!

And don't forget - they campaigned AGAINST Kerry - and I'm no big fan of Kerry's either but he was OUR candidate!

Show me evidence that Lieberman campaigned against Kerry during the Bush-Kerry campaign.

And while your looking, here's something to read: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-16-kerry-lieberman_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Its amazing how uninformed or deceitful some DUers can get just because a Democrat doesn't measure up to their standards. I'm no big fan of Joe and certainly wouldn't want him to be the pres candidate; but if he was, I'm fairly certain I'd support him over any Repub.

onenote

It has to do with whether he is really still a Democrat...and, if he is DINO, should he be encouraged to go to the party that best reflects his policy, voting, and rhetoric, i.e. the Republican Party.

Or, do the Democrats need every single registered Dem in the Congress, no matter their views on Iraq and the President, so as to retake majority House and Senate in 2006?

Personally, Mr. Lieberman's (or for that matter, anyone's) ethnic and/or religious affiliations have nothing at all to do with this question.

Other than his stance on the war how would you characterize his voting record. He is strongly pro-choice, pro-environment, and in most ways a moderate, mainstream Democrat.

His opinions on the war do not sway others (as noted above).

I would rather have a pro-war, pro-woman, pro-environment Democrat than a pro-war, anti-woman, anti-environmnet Republican.

And most of all, I want a vote for Reid as MAJORITY leader

And I'll see how he votes on Scalito, but I don't have a good feeling about it.

If there were a well funded progressive democrat running against him in the primary, or a not so well funded one but one that I think could beat the Republican, then I would vote for his primary challenger (if I lived in Connecticut).

That being said, no such challenger exists, and I agree about the vote for Reid as majority leader. What some people forget is that if we controlled the Senate, Scalito would not be an issue. We could simply vote him down in committee on the grounds that he's a right wing nut job and force Bush to pick somebody else.

and I agree with your sentiments

He is pro-choice, voted against the "partial birth" abortion ban for the same reasons it was opposed by everyone else.

The only straying is on parental consent for minors.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Democrats for Life of America 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2001.

2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 1999.

1996-2003 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood (Senate) 100 percent in 1996-2003.

1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103&type=category&category=Abortion%2BIssues&go.x=9&go.y=6

It's just because Joe is being vocal on behalf of the Administration far more that seems necessary, or prudent.

I don't know the answer to this...which is why I posed the question.

Actually, perhaps the poll should have asked "Should the DINOs be encouraged to change party affiliation prior to the 2006 elections (so that we can nominate strong Dems in their districts)

-- or --

Should the Democratic Party hold tightly to any incumbent Democrat (no matter how right-leanding or Bush-supporting their views) in order to best re-take Congress in 2006?

I noted Lieberman only because he's been so vocal lately, and his utterances and support seem to be in opposition to the Democratic platform.

He has one of the most liberal voting records on a slew of issues including abortion, civil-rights, budget, gay-rights, etc.

For him to switch makes no sense.

...that a candidate that is anti-gay or anti-Choice is still a "good" democrat? :eyes:

I swear some people here cannot see the forest for the trees. Do you get that feeling too?

It won't change his ideology. I hope there's a good progressive in CT that can take him on - primary or general election. Doesn't matter.

Anyone viable, CT DU-ers?

Biotch.

He at least to me is an opposition seat. If there is a way I can help him be defeated, I will help. It will also send a message to those destroying the party that the grass roots won't stand for it. I believe its time to look for truth in packaging. This may sound bad but if stands for weakening our constitutional liberties, to hell with him. If he stands for abandoning the protocols of the geneva conventions and supports aggressive war, to hell with him.

When we take back the Senate his vote for Reid as majority leader will far outweigh whatever Republican garbage he votes for.

That being said, it is really annoying when he claims to speak for the Democratic party and then goes on talks shows supporting privatizing social security. Newsflash Joe, YOU support privatizing social security, the Democratic party does not. I don't even have a problem with him expressing this opinion but they need to stop portraying him as a leader who speaks for the party, because he does not in any way do that.

What, are we republicans where we stand at our tent with a measuring stick and if someone doesn't match our exact criteria THROW EM OUT. Geez, we're democrats it's a big tent and we're better than that.

You want to throw him out find a candidate to beat him in the primaries. Outside of that the people of Connecticut elected him not the idiotic posters of DU who feel they are somehow noble enough to make judgement on who can and can't be a democrat.

Only idiots would support LIE-berman.

He is for most of the things I am strongly against.

He can go fuck himself.

LIEberal - riiiiight!

with junior. And that Rumsfeld is right when we should not call the freedom fights in Iraq insurgents, LOL!!

50 I hate Joe posts in a day are just not enough.

AMEN! Some people seriously need a hobby or just start "we hate Joe" forum and fill that one up!

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could get people do think exactly as we do - in every single way - even if they represent a different part of America. That would make us of "one mind". It would also make us fascist.

Rove has been so hot on Liebermans tail it isn't even funny.

That is what Rove does. He "flips" important leaders to get the community to follow. That his how Rove got Texas to go Repuke (he flipped two key Dem leaders). All a nefarious type has to do is put enough anxiety in the right places of a person and they will change their thinking and behaviour - if they are not prepared for it. Something tells me someone like Lieberman knows what is going on.

Lieberman is a long term senator. He is entitled to speak. Unfortunately we don't agree. It is annoying. It pains. But I for one am not going to be shoving anxiety Liebermans way with the name calling. Because I'm not a neocon's patsy following group-think and bullying people.

As Barney Fife would say, "nip it!"

We need as many D's in our column as possible to retake the Senate.

Although if someone wants to leave a flaming sack of dog poo on his porch and ring his doorbell that'd be okay with me.

He'd make a great kindly grandpa and philosopher, but instead he wants to be a leader. Hence idiocy follows.

That way we don't lose yet another seat.. :shrug:

But if I were a Connetticutt resident and he was on the ticket, I would vote third party.

I'm all about taking back the congress, but this is the one exception. This is mostly due to the fact that he does more harm to the unity of democrats, by providing the PNACers with 'bipartisan' cover, than having a repuke in his place.

are now screaming about Alito and about the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade as well as other personal rights and liberties.

I would probably just leave that part of the ballot blank in all likelihood.

My only point is that I could not bring myself to vote for the man.

I don't know how many times today I've heard Republicans bring up his name as an example of how right they must be. He votes with them more than Democrats and I wish he'd leave.

And by a wide margin. Your post is factually incorrect.

want Joe out of the party. I've never been a Lieberman man....but at least I'm consistent.

Florida. Toss out all the chads, all the butterfly ballots and count the wrongly purged Floridians thorugh the 2000 "felon-purge", the "spoiled ballots." Those problems should have been the core of the case for Gore. The 50k wongly delisted pseudo "felons" (thanks Katherine Harris) and the b.s. "spoiled ballot" disqualifications would have carried the state for Gore by tens of thousands of votes. Whatever I think of Nader doesn't matter. The truth is the truth. Gore won Florida walking away.

How insane is it to pursue a majority in the Senate while asking a Dem in the Senate, elected duly by his STATE, to move to the Republican party?

I don't like many of his votes, and I don't like many of his statements, but he's elected to represent HIS state, and not a single one of you has been elected by the voters of your state or nominated to the Senate by the Dems of your state. Joe has. He trumps all of you because he has.

There is a distinctly unDemocratic attitude some exhibit here. If you want to retire Joe Lieberman, go to his state, run against him in the primary, and take his place. But kick him out of the party?

NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

I think a lot of people just haven't bothered to understand how Congress works. The majority party has a lot of power. I'll take that power over ideological purity any day.

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

Coalition of the Adults


The Moose praises Senator Lieberman's moral clarity.

In a little over two weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls and exercise their democratic rights. That is a moment to celebrate. It is also a time to stand with Iraqi democrats who are risking their lives to create a better life for themselves and future generations. It is a liberal moment that should have the support of all progressives.

Yet, at this critical juncture, some Democrats are calling for immediate withdrawal or the euphemistic "redeployment". And the Administration is capitulating to political pressure by sending ambiguous signals of their own about future American support.

Fortunately, today there was a welcome moment of clarity from a Democratic Senator. Joe Lieberman writes in today's Wall Street Journal,

(snip)

Pretty much says it all

Shit maybe if I throw some oxycontin into the deal, Rush will give me all four.

As long as he's caucusing with us and votes for Harry Reid as majority leader he needs to stay. That would be the case even if his voting record were to the right of center. And the thing is, that's not even the case - his voting record is overwhelmingly party-line. He's good on social issues, very good on environmental issues, and he's a million times better than any Republican. His voting record is to the LEFT of Chafee's.

Even party has it's dissenters on some issues. I don't like Lieberman's position on the war - he's way too hawkish for me. But I don't see him as leading a massive split within the party - he's simply a lone member that is delusional on the war issue. In other words, irrelevant. We're not going to have a situation where either party is totally pure and while I would be happy with a Democratic party that was uniformly opposed to the war, I don't support a purge to create a pure party.

Lieberman, frankly, is a little bit like Hagel and McCain are to the Republicans. They both have very conservative records but are hated by the base because they break with the party on some key issues.

particularly the comparison to Hagel and McCain.

Yes, the GOP uses quotes from Lieberman to justify the war in Iraq. It may piss us off, but is it really any different from our using quotes from Hagel? That's politics. You hit your enemy with words from people who might be expected to support him.

I've never had a soft spot for Holy Joe, but you're absolutely right. He is pretty reliably party-line on most issues. The Iraq war is probably the most important issue facing us right now, but it is not - nor has it ever been - the only issue. If we were to start casting out Democrats because of their stances on single issues, there wouldn't be many Democrats left.

Rather than trying to figure out how to get rid of Lieberman, we ought to be trying to figure out how to use him. Perhaps the general goodwill he receives from Republicans could be used to our advantage; the question is how.

and his illegal war of CHOICE based on LIES!

He is not the best but far from the worst and certainly better than any Republican

from project vote smart - link

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.



2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

the idea of throwing people out of the party because of one or two issues is so shortsighted and childish I'm amazed I'm reading it on a progressive board.

Nobody is 100% pure in their progressive beliefs. I have disagreements with the party as well but I would never consider switching though I'm starting to believe many of the same people that would throw Joe overboard would do the same to me. Luckily, I couldn't care less.

not my favorite Democrat. When he talks about Iraq, I think he is delusional. And I would welcome a credible challenge to him in the primaries if that was possible.

But a look at his voting record on domestic issues makes him far, far from a Republican

some more:

link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 8 percent in 2003-2004.
.

I'm no great fan of his, but the fact is he is extremely popular in his home state, and is not going to be defeated by any other Democrat in Connecticut no matter how many Joe-negative posts appear on DU. Lieberman is pro-labor, pro-environment, and pro-civil liberties. His voting record proves it. You may disagree with him on the singular Iraq issue, but he certainly is not going to leave the Democratic Party no matter what anyone here thinks he should do.

Let's fight more important battles we can win!

Some people will always want to strive towards eliminating from the party any who disagree with them too much. Typically, the problem is those who are on the left of the left in the party. They threaten to leave the party because it is becoming too conservative, while pushing to get the centrists out of the party.

Some don't do that. They say, as I do, that we should be looking to add centrist Dems, Independents, and Pubs, not give them fewer reasons to vote with us.

I can't stand Joe Lieberman, but he's an elected official who votes in the Democratic caucus, which means on party votes, he's WITH us. That and supporting the ticket are the acid tests of commitment. Talk is cheap.

All this talk about people wanting to get rid of party members is Defeatist talk.

That's Nelson of Nebraska (Nelson Florida has the sacred honor of crushing Katherine Harris in the Senate race...).

Reid knows how to do this, he did it on Social Security when there was no choice. All the posing stopped in about 2 weeks and everyone toed the party line, which worked.

Now, he's got these prima donas re-inflating their egos, acting like they're "manufacturer reps" instead of "company people."

Take the three aside, with whomever he needs to make the point and explain the facts of life...the Senate is behind the people, get on board or get some major shit. This is always best started behind the scenes. It won't make these three "better Democrats" but if it gets their votes, we're in business.

As Devo says, Hey Harry, "Crack that whip!"

WE should decide that he should go!

And that's how it should be.

Lieberman is extremely popular in his home state.

His rating from liberal organizations like the ADA is somewhat below the average for a Dem, but far far above the rating for the average repub.

onenote

on edit: in fact, I'm fairly certain his rating from the ADA is higher than the rating given any repub.

strangely enough I think our nation would be stronger if more Republicans were like Lieberman and Democrats like Weicker.

his name. However, he should keep his mouth shut more. He's also still reasonable on domestic issues.

I appreciate the links and information on Lieberman's voting record.

My question was genuine in that I was looking for debate and information. Thanks...got it.

And, regarding the Democratic "Big Tent"...I'll have to say it is big enough...and we do need every possible vote for Reid.

parties, not should "we" throw him out.

Red herring.

We have no say in anything he does - we do have the right to discuss and yes, even disagree with him.

He may be a liberal socially but on the war he is wrong- he is no Murtha.

is not playing with a full political deck

We want more, not fewer, US senators who will vote in the Dem caucus.

Suggesting he should get out is a nutty idea. No, those who find him offensive should get over it. He's got more right to call himself a Dem than those who detract him. He's elected, he's got a constituency, and THEY get to decide whether he fits the right Dem standards, not anonymous online critics who couldn't get elected dog catcher.

are the people who make up the party.

Maybe we are not of his constituency, but we are the national voters, and it is important that we send a message to those in power nationally.

Also, Senator Lieberman held himself out as a national political figure when he ran for VP of the U.S. and not just Ct. and when he gets on national TV, he is speaking with the history of a former Dem. Candidate for VP for the nation.

it maybe a nutty idea asking if any here feel that he should switch parties- but a little bit of heat for our leaders is good. I heard him on Imus and cringed he sounded like *.

I disagree with his POV and agree with Murtha

After all, isn't it shrub who claims anyone opposing his policies are unpatriotic? Surely, disagreement with Sr. Lieberman is not "un-Democratic?" if it is- we are as bad as shrub.

He received 64% of the votes when he was reelected in 2000 and polls apparently show that in Connecticut he's just as popular, if not moreso, today. Why should he resign (other than you don't like the fact that you don't agree with him on certain things). Which other Democrats should resign?

onenote

Whenever the neo-cons are stuck, ole Joe gives them cover. Flush Limbaugh uses his speeches as does ToeKnee Snow, and other wingnuts. They should not be allowed to have any cover, never. Look, we have our own problems here in Maine, but at least when our two repubs speak we know what to expect.

onenote

His top priority is and will always be Israel. He IS a Rabbi. I'd love it if he was a Dem. Senator from OK or KY. And he did just save that base in CT. So I don't CT will get rid of him soon.

A very half-hearted and despondent go Joe!

Did he get his Rabbinical training at Yale Law School? He's an orthodox Jew, but he's not, to my knowledge ever been ordained as or practiced as a Rabbi.

onenote

I will need to check that again. I know he is an Orthodox Jew, but I thought he was a Rabbi as well.

Thanks for the info.

My bad. I guess I picked up an inaccurate meme. I think other sources just went with the Rabbi thing and I never questioned it. Unfortunately I do think that Weicker could beat him. But not with my assistance.

"CNN Transcript - Larry King Live: What Does Joseph Lieberman Bring ...
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Al Gore picks Senator Joseph Lieberman to be his running
... You know, another thing about Lieberman as the rabbi of sorts in the ...
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/07/lkl.00.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages"

If Joe is going to be in the Senate, better to have him on our side than theirs. If he's going to be supporting Bush either way, we can at least use him to bring ourselves closer to a majority.

Wouldn't it be a win win for us? He can continue to vote for war war war with the Repubs and be the NO vote we need on that side on everything else! Better a Repub that votes for what we want most of the time, while not helping us out with being a Dem. He doesn't represent us on THE issue of the day. He could be a Dem in Republican clothing. A stealth Dem. An almost Dem. Anything but a real Dem.

I think Ben Nelson(D)Neb is the worst, I like Hagel alot more than Ben and if I was a betting man I'd put money on him switching parties first.

Let shoot our own party in the foot by weakening our political leverage even more?

Are you even a member of the Democratic party?

I wouldn't want him to change parties b/c that would cause even more chaos. I do wish... a democrat would run against him and win :)

Senator Lieberman received a 100% rating in the latest League of Conservation Voters Scorecard. Not too many pubs share that honor.

http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/vote_info/?command=results&sort=District&state=CT&submit.x=9&submit.y=9&submit=go

He can join the other religious wackos that are left in Likud with such righwing luminaries such as Bibi Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz.

and allow a real dem to get elected to his seat.