Joe Lieberman: 2-0 with actually voting in a way that helps america

Mind you, I still like to see the other guy win the primary, but I get so fricking sick & tired of these freaking generalizations made about the DLC and any democrat that votes in a way that doesn't match your ideology although yes, I know the war is a pretty fricking major difference.

Yesterday was the repeal of the Death Tax which was successfully filibustered. One of the nays - Joe Lieberman
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164

The day before (or was it Tuesday) was the vote on that very homophobic hate amendment for the defense of marriage and the total repression of the GBLT community written right into our Constitution. Voting against this and helping to defeat it - Joe Lieberman
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Moral of this story - not every democrat that disagrees with you on 1-3 various issues doesn't me he/she is lockstep in line with the Republican party. Even from time to time Joe Lieberman can remind you why he has the "D" next to his name and no, I don't think this is a campaign ploy because of his difficult primary ahead. Lieberman has always been our friend when it comes to civil rights, choice, environment and a host of other very progressive issues.

Does this mean I'm endorsing Joe Lieberman for the upcoming primaries - Hell no.

Just means to think before opening mouth. There are senators and representatives in congress that follow Bush on every whim - they're called Republicans

If I had a dime for everytime I've posted a "Listen, I'm not much of a Liberman fan, but aren't you being a little, um, nutty" post, I'd....well, I'd have a lot of dimes.

Your post puts a lot into perspective. No one is saying not to support Lamont, but at the same time, it doesn't help to conflate Lieberman with Bill Frist.

Although I will say here that my biggest issue with Lieberman is not his more conservative belief set - he's perfectly entitled to disagree with me without being accused of "pandering" - but with his willingness to go on Fox News and Hannity and give moral support to Bush. While he's not attacking national Dems the way Miller did, he's still in extremely dangerous waters when he shows up on Hannity. My problem with him would be a lot less severe if he didn't go on TV and shill for Bush.

Let's underscore this by drawing a contrast with Lieberman and ...... I dunno .... Ben Nelson.

I've never done a point by point vote comparison, but ol' Ben is pretty far right for a Dem. Maybe even (probably?) more than Holy Joe. Yet he gets little attention. Why? Cuz he keeps his mouth shut and votes as he has to. This is not to endorse either man. Rather, it is to underscore how even a conservative Dem can 'play well with others'.

For me, Holy Joe just tends to play with himself. And maybe that's the *real* issue ... not his votes, but his self-agrandizing, self-interested face time on teevee shilling for republican type stances.

In the last couple of weeks Carl Levin has voted a couple of times in ways that I totally disagreed with -- for one, he voted to confirm Hayden. I can't remember now what the other one was. That doesn't mean I won't vote for him when he next comes up for re-election. In general, he votes in ways I agree with on almost all issues. I can't expect my representatives in government to agree with me on everything, every single time, but when they're with me on most of the really important issues, I'll support them. Besides, what are my other options? Not voting isn't an option and voting for a Repuke certainly isn't an option.

just over the Hayden vote.

I really thought the Hayden vote was a non-issue because even though the guy sucked, Bush would have just selected someone else just as horrible and we have bigger fish to fry than that.

But hell, for anyone in Michigan possibly wanted to vote out Levin because of the Hayden vote should hang their head in shame. I can think of people who have senators like Santorum, Hatch, Frist, Roberts, Brownback, Lott and a host of other horrible senators that would kill to have Levin represent them.

I suppose sometimes it takes having the absolute worst senator ever as your senator to perhaps make you a bit more forgiving with the ones you have. Eight years of Santorum has made me appreciate Biden & Carper even with their flaws

than voting for Hayden to make me not vote for him. Hayden was going to be confirmed no matter how he voted, but I was a bit surprised that he voted for him. Maybe he was just picking his battles and he knew he couldn't win that one. We never really know what they're thinking when they vote differently than we expect them to.

I feel very lucky to have him as one of my senators.

He forever lost my vote when he became a war criminal over Iraq. The only vote he's earned from me is a vote to convict him of war crimes.

First, he may be the best man to represent the heavily yuppie state of Connecticut. He, like all DLC Dems, represent people with CAREERS, while they ignore all of us with JOBS. That may be what the majority there wants.

Second, his record in civil liberties is a good one. No, it's not a perfect one, but he's WAY ahead of any pubbie out there.

I have as much dislike for Lieberman, his kneejerk support of Israel right or wrong, his being in the pocket of the insurance industry, as any foaming far lefty out here. However, I realize he may be the right man in the right place.

If the voters choose Lamont and Lamont wins the election, I will be jubilant. If Lieberman prevails, I can be sanguine.

yes, they represent the credit card industry but there are a ton of us who have careers (like myself) with those companies. I went to my local deli today for some sandwiches and I saw badges from three other credit card companies in the deli today also get lunch.

his mouth. Because usually the only time he opens his mouth is to attack a Democrat. He is very polite to Republicans however.

He voted against the filibuster over Alito and got slammed by women's groups. NOW PAC endorseed Ned Lamont in May before the CT Dem convention, where Lamont drew a surprising 33.4% of the delegate vote. Now Lieberman finds the "for filibuster" vote button for the idiotic gay marriage amendment after HRC endorseed him. I'd say Lieberman is paying HRC back because Ned Lamont's campaign is catching fire and breathing down his neck.

I don't trust Lieberman and if he succeeds in winning the Dem Primary, I expect Lieberman to go back behaving the Repuke-lite way he was before Lamont forced him to actually work to get re-elected.

And my policy on Lieberman still stands -- The only vote Lieberman will get from me is a vote to convict him of war crimes.

Do you imagine Sen. Lieberman could be tried for "war crimes"?

Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremburg Trials http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html defines the planning of “wars of aggression” as a crime. It also states “Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”

Lieberman lead the fight through the senate to get Democrats to pass IWR in 2002. And Lieberman continue s to be Bush's biggest cheerleader on the Iraq War to this day.

That is all attempting to press a prosecution of this man under that item would accomplish.

Statements like this are one reason the people of the country tend to discount all charges of criminality in war by U.S. officials or soldiers emanating from the left, and regard them as merely a species of shrill noise. They are so obviously based in political bias, so obviously rooted in mis-understanding of the application of the law, and so continuous in their utterance, that they discredit the entire concept of enforcing the laws of war against real offenders, and condition the people to view all such charges as mere rhetorical excess, rather than as serious matters they should indeed be concerned over, for their own honor as citizens.

I find this who "War crimes" stuff a bit of a laugh. Yes, Joe is wrong about the war. But as I've posted elsewhere - if the region in question was somewhere other than the Middle East, I don't think Joe would be all gung-ho go war. Joe is the #1 advocate for Israel and from the Gulf War we know that even as far as Iraq there are missles planted in the Middle East targetting Israel. I think Joe's motivation for the war has little to do with being a major Bush supporter and more to do with protecting the rights of Israesl

for any other reaons, he is still a war criminal.

Think you better read Paul Craig Roberts article today -- War Criminal Nation http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06092006.html

Paul sounds like he is addressing citizens like you.

Personally I find no use of reading every fringe site out there and subscribing to their idea of how to solve the worlds problems. We can't even get a democratic majority to help us end this war so I hardly suspect accusing them of war crimes will help our cause any

Are you accusing this member of the forum of "...getting ... vicarious pleasure from the slaughter of Iraqi women and children..." or calling her "... one sick person, just like every member of the Bush administration." by that comment?

and those who still think we can resolve Iraq by killing more Iraqis of "...getting ... vicarious pleasure from the slaughter of Iraqi women and children..." as sick people " just like every member of the Bush administration.".

Roberts is right. The Bush Admin and enablers like Sen. Lieberman have led this nation down the path of war crimes by invading and occupying Iraq. The war crimes will only get worse as we deny that they are happening and as long as the Bush Admin is in power or left unchecked. All members of the Bush Admin and their Dem enablers need to be held accountable for this disasterous policy.

Does not seem to be a very good way of getting them vote for the persons and policies you favor. Most people would take that as an insult, and reject with anger the person who so addressed them; they would certainly not take comon cause with such a person. The utility of such an approach is limited to the personal pleasure of those who would employ it.

So long as someone insists on calling persons ranging from Sen. Lieberman to Rumsfeld "war criminals", their charges of criminality will not be taken seriously in either case, even though the fact is the latter creature really is a war criminal under reasonable legal view. The course you are adopting is one of the best possible methods of assuring the real criminals of the present administration escape unscathed.

The cry of "Democratic enablers" remains a very odd one: it is a never ending source of amazement and amusement to me here that such attempts to dilute the responsibility of the Republicans for their own actions are made. The war in Iraq is a thing conceived, planned, and executed by a Republican administration: no one else, no one else at all, is in any way or any degree to blame for what the Republican administration did.

War Criminal Nation
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06092006.html

Roberts, a conservative Republican and undersecretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, asks the provocative question

Gentle reader, are you getting enough vicarious pleasure from the slaughter of Iraqi women and children to justify this price tag -- (Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing hard-pressed US taxpayers $300,000,000 per day!)? Is murdering "ragheads" that important to you? If so, you are one sick person, just like every member of the Bush administration.

The reactionary wretch is not worth taking time that could otherwise be devoted, with much greater mental and moral profit, to watching dust-motes circle in the sunlight over the kitchen sink. But it is interesting to notice that the wreckers at "counterpunch" have consumated their dancing the bump with the far right in their incessant attacks on the Democratic Party, to the point of recruiting unrepentant Reaganites to their pages. It was only a matter of time: it is one thing to be without shame or judgement, but to be without both is to be without a rag to hide behind.

He is a conservative and he proves that it's not just liberals and anti-war Democrats who see the Iraq war as a war crime.

He will remain a dyed in the wool reactionary, and an enemy of the left.

Lieberman is a war criminal. His actions prove it.

There is no element of the laws of war under which Sen. Lieberman could be considered guilty of any crime of war. You are free to regard the man with all the distaste you desire, but your statements on this topic reflect that distaste only, and not any actual legal culpability. The habit of claiming persons one dislikes are criminals when they in fact are not achieves nothing to the credit of anyone indulging in that behavior.

I said he was an accomplice to war crimes, not the executor of wars of aggression, which is a war crime by international standards. It was the Articles of the Nuremburg Trials that extended war crimes to accomplices of executors of wars of aggression.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

That is not what the term "accomplice" means. Feel free to look into the records of the Tribunals from Nuremburg on: you will find not one person indicted and tried, let alone convicted as a criminal, for having voted for an enabling act in a legislature, or having given speeches in support of a war that involved criminal conduct. An accomplice is a person who carries out concrete acts that make up crimes in assistance of a greater criminal intentions, for example, a person who draws up the detail plans for a campaign of extermination his superior orders, or a person who recruits a para-military force to massacre the populace of a district in assistance of government forces. Mere speechifying does not qualify; you must actually do something.

Making sense with people who have distorted reality just isn't going to work. Has Lieberman failed us when it comes to this war - hell yes. But I would hardly call him a war criminal that should face tribunal. When I consider those who have faced the war tribunals - these were people who planned systematic elimination of large groups of people. Although people have died because of Joe Lieberman's choices I would hardly call what he has done systematic killing.

You meant well though :pals:

Dick Gephardt was a huge proponent of the IWR, and he formed an agreement with the White House and the likes of Lieberman without even consulting with the rest of the Democratic Leadership. I will never forgive him for that.

Once we go down this road, there is no end to it but more and more Republicans in office. Do we intend to save the Democratic Party by destroying it? I guess.

Many DUers who do not like Lieberman have praised his early work in the South for advancing the cause of civil rights for all Americans -- that praise seems genuine to me, and well-earned.

At the same time Lamont is mounting a campaign that offers a deeper shade of blue than Lieberman's. In two months we'll know if a majority of Connecticut Democrats are satisfied with Joe or would prefer the deeper shade.

:D

Now, just keep on going, out of the Senate and into a long and happy retirement.

He has the same foreign policy outlook as *bush and the neocons. This includes the notion of preemptive war, which is dangerous because if we take that attitude toward a nation ,they can logically take it toward us. It turns the world into one big bomb. The Iraq war was a reckless use of a valuable resource, our armed forces and those great young service members. Joe has refused to admit this was a mistake, and has even admonished people who criticized the *president.

Joe Lieberman will fight to the end to protect Israel - he is one of their biggest allies in Washington DC.

Let's just say that everything that has happened the last 6 years happened someplace other than the middle east - let's say it happened in Scandanvia and that Sweden was the country that Bush declared had WMDs hidden & a threat to our national security even though Sweden was under UN sanctions & weapons inspections for over a decade. I have a feeling that if all of this was happening outside of the realm of the Middle East where Israel is always on the defense of it's anti-Israeli neighbors then perhaps Joe Lieberman might actually be on our team. Joe sees Iraq and probably even Iran as a threat. Even during the first Gulf War there were missiles fired into Israel.

Saying all of this does NOT jusify how Lierban supported this war and the Bush Regime. But perhaps it gives a reason why he needs to retire. Lieberman is putting the best interests forward of a nation he was not elected to represent. Let Israel worry about themselves and think about what this war is doing to AMericans & especially the ones that did (or technically could) vote for you

...were the day after he won his primary or even in an off election year for him.

Anyway those were safe votes for him, they were going to go down no matter what he did. What makes Lieberman so disgusting is when a serious issue is up for grabs, he sides with the Republicans either overtly or covertly. He undercuts the Democrats. That has happened time and again.

If you want to make excuses for Holy Joe, fine. Just don't expect me to buy it.

neither of these votes are a suprised to anyone who actually looks beyond the war and sees how Joe Lieberman votes.

This has nothing to do with the primary - Lieberman would have voted the SAME EXACT WAY even if his seat was safe and not up for election.

Are you somehow challenged by democrats who actually vote like democrats? Because buddy, it happens all the time!

He votes with Dems when they don't need him and votes with Repubs when they need him.

The Bankruptcy bill and Alito nomination are examples of Lieberman supporting cloture on filibuster but he voted against the bill and Alito nomination to make himself look good to progressive groups. NOW was not fooled by Lieberman on Alito because they knew that the filibuster vote was the important one. That's why NOW endorsed Ned Lamont, not Lieberman. The Vote Smart and others don't count filibuster votes in their scoring system.

What do you think about Schiavo? Where was holy Joe on that one? Holy Joe killed us on all of Bush's appellate nominees and both Alito and Roberts. He was a key in the so-called compromise that essentially surrendered totally to the Repugs. They got EVERY ONE of their nominees in the courts. Sure, phony Joe voted against Alito, but only after he also voted for cloture. That way he got the gullible to think he was on our side, when really he helped the Repugs.

I could go on and on, but others have produced much more comprehensive lists. You need to do some research.

primary is. Lamont voters are not just voting against the war, no matter how much Lieberman, his Republican supporters, and, sadly, the media try to spin it that way. Lamont is a genuinely good (maybe, great)candidate and Joe has become a lousy Democrat!

It may seem that Joe has suddenly rediscovered his college civil rights roots. Forgive me for cynically believing that he has just now realized that he must be accountable to the citizens of this state for some of his holier-than-thou positions. He supported Congress' intervention in the Schiavo matter; he also supports Catholic hospitals' refusal to provide the "morning-after pill" to rape victims. (Check out his comments about it being a short ride to another hospital). Gay marriage--he's opposed. Clarence Thomas--he was nowhere to be found for his vote until the nomination was assured. Alito--voted against cloture, now takes "credit" for voting against him.

Want to know more. Try this article. There's more, much more.


http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-pbass0604.artjun04,0,7611693.column


The article mentions his working alliances with the most hypocritical and dangerous right-wingnuts like Ralph Reed and Charles Murray and Bill Bennett, his leading role in 1993 to thwart Democrats who tried to close loopholes allowing companies to cook the books on millions of dollars of stock options. Thereby enabling the regulatory abandonment that spawned Enron and its sibling rip-offs. The author continues:

"I had forgotten how that same year, Lieberman joined with Republican Sen. Alphonse M. D'Amato of New York and against Democrats to "work the cloakrooms" of the Senate, in the words of a news account, to "line up unanimous support so that a tax break eagerly sought by the real estate industry could be passed without senators having to vote on the record."

"How many Connecticut Democrats remember that their senator was one of only two Democrats who voted with Republicans in 1995 to kill a lobbyist-gift ban? Or that he called affirmative action "un-American?" Or that in August 1994 he voted in favor of a proposal by Republican Jesse Helms to cut off all federal money from schools that offer counseling to suicidal gay teens by referring them to gay support groups or in any way suggesting it's OK to be gay?"

"Did most Connecticut Democrats even know that Lieberman helped Lynne Cheney found a McCarthy-style group called the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which hounded liberal university professors for criticizing American foreign policy, including the president of Wesleyan University?

"Finally, it's true that Joe Lieberman is a genuinely nice person, a decent man. That has nothing to do with his record, with masquerading as a Connecticut Democrat while enlisting in a Republican assault on Americans' bedrock freedoms and norms of social justice. Good people do awful things when power tempts. In watching this senate race unfold, remembering that adage might help ward off the most dangerous effects of Connecticut's political amnesia."

I just point out his anti-democratic stances, like support of the war, his belief that "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion", his heartlessness toward rape victims, his support for the Patriot Act, his lies about media content and desire to restrict access to such content, even from adults...

See, when Joe's right, I'll give him the nod. When he's wrong, though, he's DISASTROUSLY wrong, and detrimental to things like peace and civil rights.

Sure, there are ideological differences, but I don't think anyone should be expected to not criticize him for the anti-liberty views he DOES hold.

been so TERRIBLY WRONG for just about the past 6 years or more.

The most disgusting thing he has done is dare to SCOLD other Democrats like myself who dare to criticize the REPUKES and his fellow the WAR CRIMINALS who started this ILLEGAL war of CHOICE based on LIES!

He is a DISGRACE to the Democratic Party in the way that Zellout is.

He has dishonored whatever good he has done in the past.

I don't care anymore how good a person once was, was gently to children and kind to animals. Once that person becomes a murderer, he loses whatever sympathy and support he once had. That's how I feel about LIEberman.

HAD REASON to try to look less like a bushbot.

for the past 4 years, since the 2002 run up to Iraq, He has consistently been wrong!

Ned Lamont can do better!

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

has never been his voting record. The thing that has bothered me has always been his rhetoric.
Not only is he hawkish, every once in awhile he gets on these kicks where he takes on a tone worthy of the soapbox occupied by members of the religious right.
It enables the agenda of people who demonize on the basis of sex, behavior etc.
How useful is his vote if they pick up steam with his rhetoric?

n/t

I think the term "DINO" is overused sometimes. Zell Miller and Tammy Bruce are "DINOS". I think Lieberman is more of a moderate Democrat. Not as progressive as I would like, but definitely not a hardcore conservative.

Shame they can't work up the same effort to defeat any Republicans....

who endorsed him.

That endorsement probably benefits Shays more than it does Sen. Lieberman: being a Republican official in New England nowadays is as desperate and lonely a business as being a Democratic official in the deep south....

to defeat Shays.....or any other actual Republican.

But then the "hate Democrats" crowd is only fooling themselves.

http://farrellforcongress.com/

I don't need to hear a lecture from "Good German" Democrats like you.

Im going to fight for the best people for all offices. and that includes John DeStefano for governor, Dianne Farrell for the CD-4, Joe Courtney for CD-2 and Ned Lamont for Senate.

Just look at the dozens of threads on DU supporting her...oops, there aren't any. Shge's barely mentioned--but then she';s a Democrat and our Progressive Purists HATE Democrats.

"I don't need to hear a lecture from "Good German" Democrats"
I guess in this fantasy you're Pepe LePew in the French Resistance? And take it from me, with the deluded crap you post, you need all the fucking help you can get.

and if we hated democrats we'd be calling for the ouster of Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, because they are the biggest democrats of all.

We don't like Lieberman because he agrees with the Republicans too much.

I would jump for joy if farrell defeats shays. Shays has endorsed Lieberman. So has Sean Hannity.

Its obvious you are conservative and want the Dem party to be conservative. that's why it doesn't seem to bother you that Lieberman refuses to support the Dem nominee for the CT senate seat, yet you blow a gasket that the Dems support Bernie Sanders. that's fine, we all have our ideologies.

Its just that most democrats are liberal. It IS the 'liberal' party. Just so you are clear.

"I would jump for joy if farrell defeats shays."
Hence all the threads supporting her...(snicker)

"Its just that most democrats are liberal."
Which is why you have so many threads from the far left screaming for a purge.

i support ALL Dem nominees, and i think most everyone on here does too. that's why you see fewer threads on the topic.

I don't support certain elected Dems, and the primary is a chance for me to influence this party and who it puts in office.

The DLC does this too. See Ed Case's challenge to Sen. Akaka from the right. If that's what they want to do, that's their right.

Are you as vehemently against the Case challenge as you are against the Lamont challenge?

Will you continue to defend Lieberman if he becomes an independent?

:eyes:

We talk more about ousting Joe Lieberman then we do ousting actual republicans who have offices in Connecticut. I mean if I had to choose just one person to boot out of office from Connecticut - it would probably be Shays, Rell or some other actual republican in office.

All MrB was pointing out is that we are doing more to remove democrats from office than what we do to remove republicans, which overall should be our biggest goal. I could survive another 6 years of Joe Lieberman because from time to time he does hit the nail for important issues but also because he adds to our overall democratic majority that we so desparately need. However, Christopher Shays may also hit a few votes but he has supported Hassert/Delay leadership in the house for way too many years. If he, and other republican moderates, really wanted to show they have a set of balls to make a difference in this country they would fight for a position on republican leadership. This is why I can't support my only very moderate, somewhat liberal republican representative Mike Castle.

Now, I would love it if the Dems got a majority in government, but "the majority" is not a panacea which will turn all dems to the left and produce productive policy.

It depends on WHO is part of that majority. 51 Zell millers would hardly represent what I or most of this party believe.

Incumbents are not entitled to renomination. If they were, tell me, what incentive would they have to do what I wanted while in office? Multiply that by 51 Senators and how does that change?

Frankly this "good German" attitude out of some people is very unhealthy. Our incumbents aren't perfect. None of them are. Some are extremely imperfect and we'd rather give the nomination to another.

What's wrong with that Lynne? Isn't the nomination ours to give, as Democrats, to whomever we want? Why do incumbents deserve it by virtue of being incumbents?

Take off your damn blinders and find out there is more to it than the war.

How about the fact that we never had to filibuster an unacceptable judge BECAUSE THEY NEVER GOT OUT OF COMMITTEE

How about the fact that when we had an energy crisis in California it took a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY to finally investigate it (led by Dianne Feinstein and Joe LIeberman - that investigation brought down Enron you know)

I don't have enough time to cover the fact that we did not agree to go to war with that Oct 2002 vote but to give Bush latitude to work with the UN when it comes to IRaq

And I would think twice about the "Good German" comment because I find it extremely offensive. We are not Hitler's Germany here and I find this borderline tasteless and racist for you to use that comment.

about how I'm hurting the party because I want someone better in there besides Lieberman.

the concept of "good german" is still the same, even if it's not Nazi Germany - it refers to people who unquestioningly support elected officials just becuase they have Ds next to their name.

If you think the IWR was anything other than a means to enable Bush to go to war, you are frankly DELUSIONAL.

It didn't mention the UN in ANY of the operative clauses. It did mention military force, and giving the president authority to use it whenever he wanted. The IWR had nothing to do with getting Bush to go to the UN, unless you think that ted Kennedy, Dennis kucinich, Russ Feingold, et al DIDN'T want diplomacy and wanted Bush to just go to war.

I'm supporting Ned Lamont and I will work to defeat, in the primary, any dem incumbent who doesn't represent me. That is my right as a member of this party and citizen of this country. Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people!

and nothing you or Benchley can say will stop me.

In many ways he has been more liberal than Joe and when he disses Dems he has an R after his name.

I do wish that people would do more research on Joe's actual record before supporting him. On a personal level, he's really a great guy, but he's a lousy Democrat!

and you want their ilk to run the committees.

I know how you feel - just look up the voting records of Jim Greenwood and Mike Castle and you'll see that for the last 15 years I've been represented by some of Shays moderate republican collegues. Greenwood (retired from PA-08) was the head of the Pro-Choice republican caucus and Mike Castle (DE at large) is pushing for full stem cell research.

So I suppose I would be happy to vote for these republicans because both of them were pro-choice, pro-environment and pretty darn moderate, almost liberal in their viewpoints.

But here's the problem - voting for them means I'll accept the leadership that their party brings to the table and in the past that has included Hasert, Hyde, Gingrich and Delay. These four people have NEVER been acceptable to me. Voting for republicans like your Shays or like Greenwood or Castle means I'm ok with the republicans legislating what gets buried in committee and what gets sent to the house floor to be voted upon. And clearly the republican house agenda has NEVER had my best interest at heart - if they did we would not be at war or giving out tax cuts to just the wealthy or a host of other issues supported by the republican agenda.

Christopher Shays, like Jim Greenwood and Mike Castle are some of the best republicans to serve the house. But they are also complacent to republican leadership - not once fighting to get one of their guys in leadership positions. So for you to say "It's ok for us to support republicans likeShays and not support democrats like Lieberman" pretty much says to me that "Hey, it's ok that we support republican leadership and I have no problem for voting for republicans like Shays, Greenwood or Castle in order to support Republican leadership"

Because last time I checked this was the Democratic Underground and I am here to support democrats and making votes that will bring good democrats to office AND give democrats control to stop the Bush Regime from destroy this country. I don't care how SHays, Greenwood(before he retired) or Castle vote as republicans. They main vote that I care the most about is who gets control of the house and/or senate and these republicans have voted UNACCEPTABLE. And on any given day of the week that makes Lieberman lightyears ahead in acceptability over any moderate repuke out there.

committee chairmen etc. and almost every Lamont supporter on this board has figured all the pros and cons into our decision to support Lamont. Frankly, I'm more than a little tired of people who do not live here lecturing us about political reality. Even our senior senator has learned to back down on the "hold the senate" argument when confronted by nonpolitical types telling him that if the Dems had done a better job they wouldn't be faced with the political insurrection we're seeing here.

I have been closely involved in CT political campaigns since 1971 and I see many other seasoned veterans involved in our fight. We think we can win it.

The good people of Connecticut will make their choice.

And if, god forbid, that choice is Lieberman, then who are we, the non-connecicutians of DU, to question that?

But I'm hoping it's Lamont and I think you are too :D

There were nine threads attacking racist fuckwit George Allen, four promoting his likely Democratic opponent Webb....and search had to stop after 208 threads attacking Joe Lieberman.

Here's a clue for you: We CAN and DO both!

We CAN and DO point out the TRAITORS to our ideals and beliefs, whether they are REPUKES or RENEGADE "DEMOCRATS".

for somebody who gives a shit.

"We CAN and DO point out the TRAITORS"
And all you do is point up what intolerant, ugly, ideologues make up the far left.

And didn't one of the judges that Lieberman did not want to filibuster, Janice Rogers Brown, just voted to uphold Bush's warrantless searches?

How is Lieberman any good to us, to America, to the Republic, or to the Constitution?

The only way to stop these Nazis from getting on the bench is by filibustering their nomination. Lieberman opposed filibustering Bush's Nazi judges, but then he turns around and votes "No" on a meaningless nomination vote, and makes himself look good by saying that he voted against the nominee.

This is why Vote Smart is so misleading. Most battles are won or lost in procedural votes!

That is the sole reason that estate tax repeal is even being considered.

No matter how many apologists post about a few things he has done- in the vast majority of cases the man's a high profile Republican enabler who hurts the party- and its candidates all over the country,

He's a poster child for why the Dems have lost 6 straight congressional elections in a row-

"but I get so fricking sick & tired of these freaking generalizations made about the DLC and any democrat that votes in a way that doesn't match your ideology although yes, I know the war is a pretty fricking major difference."

Many words have been printed here about the silliness of RWers voting against their own best interests. Much denigration about the lack of intelligence in doing so.

Yet, the ongoing putdowns against anyone who has definite qualifications they expect for the candidates they will vote for.

Wouldn't it be exactly the same for those of us who are poor to vote for candidates who have bad voting records onn poverty issues as it is for "Kansans" (from any state) to vote against *their* best interest?

I really did think all these years that Democrats appreciated difference of opinion.

Since you are so "fricking sick and tired" of people like me who will only work for and vote for those who actually care about my survival, then.... maybe you don't really welcome all of us to *your* party?

What, then, *IS* the matter with Kansas?

I think the whole point of my thread was we have a big tent baby and even the Joe Lieberman's of the world have a right to be in there.

but he does NOT have a right to the democratic nomination. No one does.

Please re-read!

But if Lieberman gets the nomination he is still the better choice than any republican running against him

but I think that Dem incumbents are not above criticism and it irritates me when people say "we should be putting our effort into beating republicans".

To that I say, we WILL, when the Dem nominee is decided.

And, just as importantly, he give his vocal support to Repugs when it matters.

Leiberman has been better since he has had a primary challenger, true, however these votes could be his true vote or they could be cynical attempts to reduce the progressive bleeding for his past record when he is under the scrutiny of a primary challenge.

Picking 2 recent votes that we agree on and implying that there is only one other issue in which we disagree with him is selective sampling of data. We all know Leiberman has voted against America more times than once. Try applying a standard of sampling and applying it across his voting record.

I understand this thread's purpose for rhetoric, but it's value is limited to only that.

recommendation for at least a five votes.

As I have said on these pages many times, Lieberman would not vote for a Scalito or anyone else who would interfere with women's right to privacy.

That's my fancy term for they need to leave their parents' basement.

Check out today's call-to-arms and how little response it's generated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1417810