If Lieberman wins will he have learned anything at all?

Will he continue on as the same old arrogant person he has become or will he take it seriously that a lot of his constituents are not at all happy with the direction he has taken lately? Will he continue to kiss Bush*'s ass and the other Republicans as well or will he start acting like a Democrat? :shrug: I somehow feel if he wins he will feel vindicated and continue on with his ass kissing ways but hope I am wrong..

Hell, even if he loses he'll blame it on "far-left Democrats" and "misrepresentations".

He'll never change.

He seems to already be changing his tone. He'll say anything to get reelected to be sure. But he may have gotten the message if he sqeaks by.

Of course, you might be right...but I don't see it. I don't think he'll change one bit.

and talk is cheapest when coming from politicians in an election.

During the 2004 Presidential campaigns, I watched Lie-berman in action at one of his campaign stops as he mingled with the crowd after his speech. A small group of the crowd (incorrectly assuming good-ole Lie-berman to be anti-war) cornered him for about ten minutes and was lambasting Bush, Republican policies on the Iraq war. Lie-berman stood there nodding his head, grunting, and making appropriate small talk as if he agreed with all they were saying.

It was all I could do from going over and pointing out what a disgusting enabler he was standing there pretending to be concerned about their opinions.

If he wins re-election, he would come back harder. Vote Lamont.

IF he does manage to get in again, he'll spend the "capital" he's earned at the mall of bush's butt again in no time..

the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is in control and they protect their own. Our job will be to make them all insecure in their positions of power. They work for us. We will make the final call if they stay in Washington or not.

Is it only that he supports the war and is diplomatic with the current administration that you have a problem with?

Joe has been capitulating to the Bush Administration, but the Bush Administration just keeps pushing further and further right.

I keep seeing stories in the corporate media alleging that "left-wing bloggers" want to drag the party back to the left and that's simply not true. The truth is that bloggers, regular people, base Democrats and people who are fed up with the ultra right want to drag the Democratic Party back from the right to the center.

I applaud diplomacy and working together and compromise, but, for it to work, it must be a two-way street. The DLC-wing of the Democratic Party has been crossing to the right for years now, but we rarely, if ever, see the right coming over to the left-center.

I do not consider him a Democrat no matter what letter he attaches after his name. Lieberman is following awfully close in Zell's footsteps.. Funny how the right wing thiks Joe is diplomatic while the left wants him gone..:shrug:

What issues other than the war makes Lieberman not a Democrat?

Seriously, I've not seen any indication that he isn't loyal to the party and he has done much.

Asking my fanatical Republican father about the situation, he just laughs. He said he has no love for Lieberman and would never vote for him, but he gets a chuckle out of watching the Democrats eat one of their own.

What was his attitude about the Dubois Port deal? How did he vote on Bush*'s tax cuts for the wealthy? The list is actually quite long on his enablement of this Administration and it's allies in congress.

How did he vote? I'd assume by your assumptions that I wouldn't have agreed with him.

However, I look at the tax cuts in a positive manner myself, so I support Leiberman in that regards.

But it's important to remember that Lieberman's problems with Democratic constituencies go back further. He has often taken positions at odds with his party's base. For instance, he supported vouchers for public school students so they might attend other schools -- a position public school teachers' unions strongly oppose. This year, both Connecticut teachers' unions have endorsed Lamont.

In the past, Lieberman has questioned the value of affirmative action. Ten years ago, he said: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended."

It's not exactly a coincidence that prominent African-American politician Rep. Maxine Waters of California and the Rev. Al Sharpton are supporting Lamont.

And last year, he supported federal intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a long legal battle over whether she could be taken off life support, thus aligning himself on that issue with religious conservatives. Schiavo's husband is campaigning for Lamont, and those Democrats generally unhappy with the power of the "Religious Right" gained another reason to oppose the incumbent.

Then there's lingering unhappiness over Lieberman's decision in 2000 to run both for vice president and his Senate seat. Had Al Gore won the White House, Lieberman's replacement would have been chosen by a Republican governor -- costing Democrats control of the Senate and fueling the idea among some that Lieberman cared more about his career than his party.

And his promise to run as an independent if he loses the primary might complicate Democratic efforts to take two or three House seats in his state from vulnerable GOP incumbents.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/greenfield.lieberman/

I hope that helps you understand that it's not just about Iraq.

Unfortunately, I agree with Lieberman on many of these issues. I'm all for vouchers! I'm really undecided on affirmative action, I can see a case for both points of view and need to get a better understanding before commiting to a particular believe.

I will say I disagree with him on the Terri Schiavo case, but realistically I don't see how it became a Senate issue in the first place.

I also disagree with politicians not giving up their Senate seat when running for a higher political office. Its just to time consuming to do both.

And the 2,600 dead Americans from that. And the half a trillion dollars wasted. And the squandering of our national honor, prestige and credibility. Oh yeah, the uncounted tens of thousands of dead Iraqis whose only sin was getting in the way of the American wehrmacht.

But if that's not enough, I suppose Lieberman's evisceration (along with the gang of 14) of the only tool the Democrats had to fight against horrific nominations in the Senate. His kowtowing to the administration line, his kiss from Bush, his being the first to his feet (and the only Democrat) for a standing ovation for Bush at his 2005 State of the Whatever speech.

Still not enough? Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Alito. Ambassador Bolton.

Repeated warnings to Democrats that they'd better not diss the Commander in Chief, no matter how ruinous or disastrous his policies turn out to be.

More? His assiduous padlocking of the stable door once the horse is safely away by voting over and over again for cloture (ending Senate debate) and then voting against the legislation/nominee/proposal in a feeble attempt to cover his ass when he knew all along that the confirmation or the bill passage was a done deal.

Do you need more? That's all I got off the top of my head, but I can go on about his squishiness on abortion, his slavish devotion to corporate rights over individual rights, his screwing of the little guy, and his promotion of the overrich if you want.

But I see no indication of anything that doesn't make him a Democrat in your post.

I think the Times summed it well...... I can't find the whole article, but he's a taste:

Editorial
A Senate Race in Connecticut

Published: July 30, 2006

"...At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

•

On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support."

What do you see about any of those issues where Lieberman has been the voice and soul of the Democratic party, the kind of person Democrats should want to represent them and their ideas, as opposed to just another voice for the corporatist Republican line?

Where is Lieberman's loyalty to consumers? His going to bat for minimum wage earners? What concrete actions has he taken to secure a woman's right to her body? What has he done to stand up for the Fourth Amendment, and protect the right of citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? What legislation has Mr. Lieberman introduced or supported that guarantees the rights of prisoners of war? That stops the Bush administration from executive overreach? That holds the administration to account for torture and killing of non-combatants?

These are all bedrock Democratic ideas, that government should be the servant of the people, not vice versa. Where has Mr. Lieberman been during his last term in office, advancing those ideas, protecting the individual, and enabling people (through increases in the minimum wage and access to affordable health care to name just two) in advancing their own lot? Or has he stood with the large corporations and the most repressive impulses of the government to drive millions more into poverty?

for Republican ideas to be considered Democratic ideas and some people hav bought into these ideas hook line, and sinker. They don't even know what a Democrat is anymore?

What, in your opinion, does make someone a Democrat? Bueller?

commander-in-chief at our own peril".

That wasn't a "war issue" to me, it was a freedom of speech issue. Lieberman was warning us not to speak out when we felt our government was acting against our wishes.

I can't think of anything more unDemocratic than that.

I would hardly say a lot of the criticism towards the President was very civilized, from me included. (My user name was in response to me being pissed off about Stem cell research.)

I understood his intent was to say unwarranted criticism was harmful to the Democratic party, which I agree with him on.

What on God's green earth has he done in office that doesn't deserve the harshest possible criticism? The man is a catastrophe. His administration is either the single most inept in history, or is purposely trying to destroy this country.

Please, educate me on the good things about Mr. Bush.

I don't really agree with him on things. I guess the funding for Aids was about the only real good thing I've seen him accomplish and I am in favor of the tax cuts.

Either way, I'm not talking about positives he has accomplished, I'm talking about calling him every kind of name for every little thing he does. It is harmful to the democratic cause whether you believe its warranted or not.

I strongly agree with Leiberman in this aspect. He has stated its time to stop this line of criticism and to start offering up democratic believes and solutions. Saying its all Bushs fault is no solution at all.

The Democratic powers-that-be have been remarkably silent about the nightmare that is Mr. Bush. When was the last time you heard a nationally-recognized politician of either party state these obvious truths:

1. Bush was never elected to the Presidency
2. The Bush cabal is a tool of the Project for a New American Century and the Iraq War is a construct of their far-right ideology
3. The Bush administration is waging a massive war on science, democracy, and civil rights

There are many other bones to pick, but nobody is picking those bones, except those of us on the Internet.

The Democratic leadership continues to be as silent as a tomb.


Edit: typo

I'm more interested in them proposing ideas on how to solve things without blaming the Bush administration.

I think the politicians in charge realize those are the type of statements that drive people away.

I disagree with you, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Until Bush says otherwise, of course.

I really hope claiming anyone that disagrees with you as a bush supporter isn't something the Democrats start trending towards.

People say Bush creates division, I could say the same thing about the absolutist on the left, but to a much larger extent.

I don't think I called you a Bush supporter. You're entitled to your own ideas.

I'm no absolutist, by the way. I just keep up with things and what Bush and his people have done to this country makes me very angry.

But seriously: peace. You really are entitled to your own ideas, that's not sarcasm. Neither is is sarcasm to say that you're only entitled to your own ideas until Bush decides otherwise. That is clearly the direction in which we are headed, imho.

So as not to seem a hypocrite, I have the exact same problem with Feingold, Kucinich, and, at times, Howard Dean. We need to be sticking together, not tearing each other down for our own personal benefit.

He won't learn SHIT.

we proclaim THAT be a mandate? Why would we have different standards for two candidates for one seat in the same election?

and if you are behind in the polls and you're being told by the people why they are voting against you, you better damn well take this as a lesson, but I don't think he would.

QED

I'm sure he already has it rationalized in his own pea brain why he will lose today. And it won't resemble anything close to the truth.

And shit on us worse than ever.

not.

It puts the media on your side regardless of the letter next to your political affiliation.

we have learned the power of people who give a shit..about democracy!

we have learned that we can easily cross states, to help other americans take their country back ..one state or many ..at a time..

we have learned to support each other in our beliefs..and our values..

and to fight for those very values!

and that each state matters..to all of us..

these senators and congress people today cut our phone calls off because we are "not in their district and state"..even if, how they are voting effects all of us..well now they know all our calls are relevant!

well now they will have to rethink that won't they ..when we can reach across state lines to help others ..our neighbors ...in other states..

we have learned how to have a collective voice..where we had no voice before..

and that is a value beyond belief!!

fly

is a fool.

Politics vary from state to state, especially if we're talking intra-party. It shouldn't be seen as much of anything, quite frankly.

computers bitching about him does not equal the number of people who got up off their asses and went down to the polling place and pulled the lever for JoeMentum.

That's all it means.

His behavior will likely depend on his margin....if he runs away with it, you won't see change. If it's close, he'll get humble and vow to "listen more." If he loses, he'll start studying the schematic diagram of all the directorates within the Department of Defense, because he'll need to know the chain of command before he assumes his new job as Rummy's replacement.

Which will be a win-win for Bush...he'll be able to blame subsequent hideous events in Iraq on a JEWISH DEMOCRAT!

big time in the media. I am in CT--- I'm going to go vote after lunch, but as enthusiastic as I am, I don't see the same thing on the streets here as I do on the TV and nationally.

CT is a blue state, but many parts of it are very red (you tax cut voters....not the fundie types). I live in one of those owns and I am curious to see the turnout. I drove past the polling on my way back from the gym, but as it is at a school, I don't know how many cars are there for voting and how many are there for school programs (they have lots of summer sports there).I'll let everyone know after I vote.

than if he were to lose. Democrats will continue to be intimidated by the war issue if Joe wins. It may be an indicator that the Repubs will win in November also?

and I am excited as hell that it is focused on Connecticut, my home state. I lived there for over three decades and never found it a place of such political ferment. What I heard people talk mostly about was taxes, lottery tickets, and cable TV. Lieberman beat out Lowell Weicker to take his seat in the Senate, a really sad day. He's had little use for Connecticut, and brings home little benefit from DC. It's just the stump he stands on. Now the day has come for him to pay the piper. I so hope my home state kicks him to the curb, and launches an even longer harder summer for the Bush fucks than they had last year being dogged by Cindy Sheehan.

as bush did. He has shown his true colors in this campaign. His arrogance and sense of self importance and entitlement is staggering. I expect that he would get even more full of himself if he wins. God help us.

Look he took a position that I am sure he regrets politically this morning...but if he had moved to the center any time during the last three months he would have been accused as pandering or a flip-flopper and not be trustworthy.

No, despite Mr. Lieberman's protestations to the contrary in recent days that he finally "gets it," he has been on notice for well over two years that his closeness with the Bush administration was hurting him politically, and hurting his putative political party. He just hasn't given a rip, because he thought himself untouchable. Surely the Democrats in Connecticut wouldn't turn out such a hero of the game, a party stalwart who had been on their national ticket, would they?

Lieberman saw no political price to be paid, so he kissed Bush before his State of the Whatever speech. He was the first one to this feet (ahead of the Republicans even) to give Bush a standing ovation. Maybe it goes back to the infamous Florida 2000 debacle, when Lieberman rushed out to proclaim that the Gore-Lieberman camp would accept as legitimate every military ballot cast in Florida, regardless of its authenticity or legality. He badly undercut his own campaign and never seemed to pay a price for it.

Well, now he's in danger of a political reckoning, and has suddenly found religion (so to speak). He proclaims that he's not George Bush, that he really is a Democrat after all. All I see is a foxhole conversion on the eve of a primary that could cost him his seat in the Senate, a seat that he apparently personally valued over the vice presidency in 2000. He's had six years, a lot longer than the last three months, to re-establish his Democratic bona fides, but he has consistently and repeatedly betrayed his party and the Democrats of Connecticut, almost as if to say, "Yeah, so what? What are you gonna do about it?" Well, it looks like they might turn him into the former junior Senator from Connecticut; that's what happens to politicians who fall out of touch with their constituency.

is learning something.

He is SOOOOOOOOOOO behind in the polls.

Lots of moderates who were on the fence just last week are coming out in Joe's support.

That it is not necessary to learn anything.

He thinks he's entitled to his office just as he was surprised he wasn't the Democratic frontrunner two years ago. He'll point the blame on others and simply "not get it" again.

He absolutely can't win as he'll be worse. The DINOs will all be worse if he wins. :(

Seems to me, that's the real question.