What does it mean for the democratic party? How does this reflect?...You already know how I feel about ole skool democrats...I would back that political ideology in a mindset...My opinion is the new age democrats are a hideous, disgusting and ugly face of what once was a great party... Here are recent comments that reflect very well from Lieberman,...I really feel this guy does not get the credit he deserves...He would make for a leader who can bridge America better than your frothy mouthed Gores, Deans, Kerrys and the like... Here are his noted comments:... “I didn’t know who the challenger would be, but I felt there was a very good possibility this would happen,” he said. “I told people at my fundraisers last year there could well be a challenge from the left of the party. In 2003 and 2004, when I was visiting the primary states [running for the presidential nomination], I saw the growing intensity of the feeling about the war. So, if I was not surprised, you might ask why I didn’t alter my position. “I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result,” he continued. “Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war.” That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president’s announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. “It was decisive,” Lamont told me in an interview. “Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong.” “My opponent says it broke Democratic unity,” Lieberman said. “Well, dammit, I wasn’t thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest.” Sources in Connecticut tell me that momentum in the campaign is mostly with Lamont. Lieberman insists he can win the primary. But he has another option. Connecticut law says that he could run as an independent, but he would have to file 7,500 signatures the day after the primary. He says he knows of no effort to gather signatures now. But he also says, “I want to put my whole record before the whole voting population of Connecticut” — clearly implying an independent run if he loses to Lamont in August. How refreshing it is to hear a Senator talk of national gain over partisan gain, of making a principled stand even when it may cost him his seat - and a reminder once again of how incredibly stupid the ‘progressive’ world is: “I know I’m taking a position that is not popular within the party,” Lieberman said, “but that is a challenge for the party — whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that.” How can you not respect his level of rhetoric and class?...This guy is not even from my party and just the manner he carries himself is very indicative of true leadership...He demonstrates independent thinking without regard for political group think... http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/
I live in CT and am a registered Independent. I changed to Democrat just so I can vote against Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman has basically turned his back on the state which is strongly against the Iraq war. This is not about group-think with the Democratic party. This is about voting the consicence of your constiuency.
And that, sir, is exactly right. I would add that the hypocrisy of Lieberman, the former candidate for Vice-President of the Democratic Party, not long ago at all, to threaten to leave his own party should the people of his state decide they want a different Democrat running for his seat in the Senate, is plain for all to see. Lieberman is a hypocrite. He can cry all he wants about his "beliefs," but he is busy laying the groundwork for turning his back on them. The man deserves to be defeated. I hope he is. Keep D&D Civil.
From the Ned Lamont blog: In Other News - England loses to Portugal on penalites in the quarterfinals of the FIFA World Cup, but coach Sven-Goran Eriksson pledges that his team will play France on Wednesday anyway as a "petitioning semifinalist." - Andy Roddick loses in the third round at Wimbledon in straight sets to an upstart challenger, but reserves the right to play in the fourth round so that "all the Wimbledon fans can see him play." - The Kansas City Royals, 28 games out of first place in the American League Central, announced today that they are "taking out an insurance policy" to ensure that they will be able to play in the World Series if they happen to miss the playoffs. http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-other-news.html
Democrats didn't leave Lieberman, Lieberman left Democrats. And really, can't we leave the rhetoric about "Dems = traitors" out of it for just this one day? Is that asking too much?
Are you mentally ill? Haven't you said several times that you were going to tone it down or stop posting in this forum?
Lieberman is out of touch with his state. If he loses the Democratic primary, he will likely not win the general election as an independent. He won't acknowledge this until after he does the polling post primary defeat. His ego might still force into the general election as an independent. Sad, really.
The antipathy directed towards Lieberman by the Left and the embrace of him by the Right IMO is overblown and fails to reflect the range of Lieberman's views. Its a similar situation to John McCain who many liberals and moderates would be shocked by just how conservative he actually is. The same applies to Lieberman. While he supports the war and has a few socially conservative views he is otherwise a fairly standard Democrat on most issues. He's not Zell Miller who was a Republican in all but party affiliation or a Lincoln Chafee who is more liberal than many Democrats.
Because he is not,...I have respect for him because he is like an old school democrat who doesn't need to shout and spit on a microphone the way Dean and Gore has done... He hit it right on with this:..."that is a challenge for the party — whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that.” He is right, and the democrats boo him, hiss him, call him unwarranted names all because of what?...because he decides to put the national interest above partisan interest...It isn't right...The group think party is pathetic...
CT residents are strongly against the war - very strongly opposed This is a big issue for us just as oil is a big issue for Texans. You obviously know nothing about the state or its people. His constiuency have spoken and he has ignored us. Anytime a person in power thinks he's bigger than the people he reperesents, eventually that arrogance will have consequences. He'll probably win but he has his doubts - as he should. What's pathetic is your inability to differentiate partisanship from representing the values of the people in his state.
The group-think party? You mean the Republicans who actually threatened to support a congressman's son's primary opponent if he didn't vote a certain way on a bill? Or a party who was led by a guy known as "The Hammer" in Tom Delay for his ability to force everyone in line to vote the same way? The Republicans are the definition of disallowing disagreement - they routinely punish non-conformists. If you look at the Democratic Party, on the other hand, there is a wide range of views on issues like the Iraq war - you saw that in the primary where you had Dean and Kucinich totally anti-war, and Kerry and Edwards supporting it for the most part.
He also made a distinction of characterizing this as a national issue, rather than a state issue of consequence...
And CT residents feel very strongly about this national issue. We voted him in power to represent our state in local and national issues. He doesn't have carte blanche to ignore our opinions on something we feel very strongly about. It's not as though he's a Democrat from the south whose people support the war and the party is forcing him to act against their wishes - that's a group think mentality. The fact he was a vice presidential candidate with an absolute stellar reputation in the state on everything other than the Iraq war should tell you how strongly CT residents feel about this. By the way, Governer Jodi Rell is probably the most popular political figure in CT and she's a Republican. I will vote for her again. Most CT residents are very fair minded and do not just vote along party lines. They vote for the candidates who they feel best represents their beliefs.
