lieberman doesn't think black people should be disenfranchised. i mean what more can anyone want. oh and george bush doesn't believe in segregation either.
I'm curious Deckard. Did you feel Jim Jeffords was a traitor to his party when he became an independent?
I didn't call Lieberman a traitor, Sishir. Change the question, and I might respond to it. Keep D&D Civil.
^ OK you didn't call him a "traitor" but you called him "despicable", "dishonest" and a "hypocrite" in todays parlance not quite as bad as "traitor" but still pretty bad. Rewording the question then. Did you think that Jim Jeffords was despicable, dishonest and a hypocrite for leaving the Republican party to become an independent?
Were I a Republican, yes. I'll admit to not knowing nearly as much about Jeffords as I do Lieberman. Look, I understand that many of you are uncomfortable with party affiliation, and of the "partisan politics," resulting from it, despite political parties being one of the foundations of our democratic system. Sorry, but there is a reason we have them, and even though some will disagree, there is a difference between the two major ones. Large differences. Just thought I'd point that out. Keep D&D Civil.
i think lieberman is a douchebag. i can't stand his politics. i think he's a sell out. and frankly it sickens me that he's so close to so many republicans. however i want that seat. and if he loses the primary he'll win in the general as an independent. and i want that seat. so im rooting for the douchebag to win in the democratic primary.
Seems like the Democratic Party is abandoning Lieberman FIRST and so he is considering responding in a way that he thinks will keep his career ambitions on track. IIRC, Jeffords switched to Independent at just a time when it cost the Republicans the majority in the Senate. I don't really remember any electoral ramifications of his switch; he was just dismayed with the Republican Party.
Jeffords was a life long Republican as Lieberman is a lifelong Democrat. I agree there is a big difference between the parties but if you're talking about the value of party loyalty a betrayal of someone to their party is still a betrayal even if it is a Republican leaving the Republican party. Looking at where Jeffords was at when he left the Republican party he had less in common with the Republican party as a whole than Lieberman does with the Democratic party yet there seems to be a lot more vitriol directed at Lieberman. If you look at Lieberman's positions he still mostly a reliable Democrat on most votes and this seems to be primarily about one issue. A serious issue true and one that I don't agree with him on. That said it does seem like Connecticut Democrats are taking something of a shortsighted view on punishing a Senator who has for almost all of his career done a good job for his constituenhts and the Democratic party.
He didn't switch at the time of an election but his switch had profound ramifications since it gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Remember for a time Tom Daschle had almost as much prominence as GW Bush and was able to use that position to check the Admin..
If Lieberman has gotten out of touch with those of his party who elected him, and is defeated in the primary, in my opinion he should accept their judgement... the judgement of those who placed him where he is today, and gave him the political opportunities he's enjoyed and made full use of. It could be argued that the decision to go to war is the most important decision a person elected to high office can make. If this one issue should be seen by those in his state as one with which they disagree with Lieberman, it should come as no surprise that many of them, perhaps a majority of them, see it as reason enough to replace the man, regardless of what he's done in other areas that they may approve of. Why should that be surprising? What is surprising is Lieberman's attempt to circumvent the process used by his party to select those who run for office in order to represent them... before he's even discovered their wishes regarding his candidacy for the United States Senate. It's like a man asking a woman to dance, and then turning and walking away to choose someone else to ask before getting an answer, yes or no. The woman in question being a longtime partner, with whom the man has a history going back many, many years. Not the action of a gentleman, is it? Keep D&D Civil.
The only Quislings in the Democratic Party I have seen lately are Zell Miller and Lieberman, pal. FYI fo rthose that might not know... Quisling, after Norwegian fascist politician Vidkun Quisling, is a term used to describe traitors and collaborationists. It is most commonly used for right-wing political parties and military and paramilitary forces in occupied Allied countries which collaborated with Axis occupiers in World War II Europe, as well as for their members and other collaborators. Today it is usually simply used to mean "traitor."
I wouldn't know. It's not my job to decide whether a member should get the boot for continuing to call other members traitors in this forum, after being asking numerous times to refrain from doing so. Someone else makes that call. Keep D&D Civil.
John Kerry says our troops are terrorizing Iraqi kids. John Murtha acts as judge and jury on Haditha. Dick Durbin calls our troops Nazis. Cindy Sheehan calls our troops rapists. The Democratic party fawns over Michael Moore and Markos "Screw Them". I don't consider the rank and file Democrats traitors, but the party leaders are a different matter.
