Interesting article from the New York Times about GOP Joe. Looks like he is really starting to tick some people off in his home state. December 10, 2005 Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and WILLIAM YARDLEY WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son. In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal. Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that." "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said. Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said. "Senator Reid has a lot of respect for Senator Lieberman," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "But he feels that Senator Lieberman's position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans." An aide to another leading Democratic senator who insisted on anonymity said the feelings toward Mr. Lieberman could be summed up as, "The American people want to hold George Bush accountable for the failed policy in Iraq, and Senator Lieberman doesn't." Mr. Lieberman, who remains immensely popular in his home state, is aware of the hornet's nest he has stirred. "Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war." Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week. "He is entirely correct," Mr. Cheney said on Tuesday at Fort Drum, N.Y. "On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission." Concerns about Mr. Lieberman's coziness with the administration grew this week when he had breakfast with Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Later, rumors spread that Mr. Bush was considering asking Mr. Lieberman to join the administration to succeed Mr. Rumsfeld next year as defense secretary. "It's a total fantasy," Mr. Lieberman said. "There's just no truth to it." In the interview on Friday, he said the two sides were making too much of his comments, and he argued that the overreactions reflected how politically polarized the debate over the war had become. Mr. Lieberman noted that his positions on Iraq had not changed over the years, dating from 1991, when he supported the first Persian Gulf war. In 1998, he and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein official American policy. "The positive and negative reactions may have less to do with the substance of what I said than with the fact that a Democrat is saying it," Mr. Lieberman said. "It reflects the terribly divisive state of our politics." He has always been something of a maverick in his party. He was the first prominent Democrat to chastise President Bill Clinton openly for his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. More recently, Mr. Lieberman, a centrist, angered Democratic activists by expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to overhaul Social Security, an effort that ultimately stalled in Congress. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said the breach was deep. "I completely disagree with Mr. Lieberman," Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. "I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is on is not making the American people safer." The question in some quarters now is whether the moderate brand of politics practiced by Mr. Lieberman, who is up for re-election next year, will hurt him when the electorate is so divided, particularly over some of the president's policies. This week, for example, former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. criticized his continued support of the Iraq war and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on it next year, he would consider running. In 1988, Mr. Lieberman, who was attorney general of Connecticut, narrowly defeated Mr. Weicker, a Republican senator. Two years later, Mr. Weicker ran for governor as an independent and won. He served one term before retiring in 1995. Mr. Weicker remains something of a fixture in state politics, well known for his independent streak. In 1999, Reform Party supporters encouraged him to run for president in 2000, but he ultimately decided against that. Mr. Lieberman faces trouble in other quarters in his home state. Although few elected Democrats would criticize him publicly, several Democratic activists promised retaliation at the polls. James H. Dean, brother of Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, lives in Connecticut and heads Democracy for America, a group that is gathering signatures on the Internet for a letter that criticizes the senator. An aide to James Dean said he and others from the group would deliver the letter to Mr. Lieberman's office in Hartford on Tuesday. The aide said the letter had 30,000 signatures. Other Democratic activists warned that they might try to organize a primary challenge against Mr. Lieberman, specifically because of his position on the war. Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group with 10,000 members in Connecticut, said it would consider a challenge if the right candidate came along. "It's like a betrayal," Mr. Matzzie said of Mr. Lieberman's stand on the war. "He is cheering the Bush Iraq policy at a time when Republicans are running away from the president." But for all the criticism that Mr. Lieberman faces, few people say they believe that he is vulnerable to a challenge. For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he would run hard on his record. "I'm not taking anything for granted," he said. "I know there are a lot of people in the party who disagree with me about the war." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/p...&en=a05a3618d4469a01&ei=5094&partner=homepage I would rather see Weicker with GOP Joe's seat, even if he ran as a Republican. Keep D&D Civil.
I am surprised at some of the venom towards Lieberman on this board, and among fellow Democrats. Lieberman really only supports GW Bush and the Republicans on one or two issues but otherwise than that is a reliable Democrat. Unlike Zell Miller he has never said that he will vote for Bill Frist or Trent Lott for leadership of the Senate. Many posters, even those blasting Lieberman, have bemoaned how congressmen go along with their leadership and celebrate it when Senators like McCain speak out against their leadership yet now are blasting Lieberman as a traitor the Democrats. I don't agree with Lieberman on this issue but I don't consider him evil because of it.
Lieberman is the recent VP candidate (2000, for those who may have forgotten) for the Democratic Party, and is currently being quoted left and right by Bush, Cheney, and every other Republican who can find a camera. He's undercutting the leadership of his own party, as well as the rank and file. If we had a parliamentary system, GOP Joe would be sitting on a back bench. We don't. Look, I don't mind Democrats differing with the issues the vast majority support, but there is a way to do it that doesn't make you a weapon for the most partisan Administration of the last several decades. Lieberman is damaging his party, and he holds a prominent position in it. He's being an ass. Keep D&D Civil.
Whether he's doing it on purpose or not, Lieberman is a great stalking horse for Hillary in the primaries. Their major unpopular positions are almost the same.
The best thing Hillary has going for her is that she's married to Bill. I'm not a big fan of her, but I wish Bill could run again. I miss hearing him on the stump. The guy can give a speech... something that is in short supply among Democrats these days. Keep D&D Civil.
What about Obama? Personally never even heard of the guy till the Kerry election and I was very impressed at his speaking skill. They hyped him for a little bit then it just seems he disappeared again.
Oh yeah, Hillary knows she's got nothing else, and her recent talking points are mostly conservative positions sprinkled with moderate tones (media violence, support for the Iraq war, school reform) that Lieberman originally espoused. The Democratic Party's steady implosion been pretty good for her. When Bill took office, she was that b**** who meddled too much. Apparently charisma can be replaced with riding other people's ideas and perceptions.
I'm a huge fan. If Obama could sneak up and grab the nomination, like Bill in '92, I'd be ecstatic. Right now, Obama is my guy. Warner of Virginia is right up there as well. Keep D&D Civil.
Name the attributes George W. Bush had before he ran for President. Go ahead. He was Governor of the State of Texas? So what... it's one of the weakest executive positions, as far as being governor is concerned, in the whole United States. What were his sterling qualifications before that? A failed businessman who was handed a sweetheart deal by his Dad's friends. Hey, that's OK. I've seen it happen several times in "real life." None of those people ran for Governor on that as his/her record, and for sure none of them ran for President of the United States. I'd argue that Obama has more real experience than Bush, before Bush was elected President. Come on, basso. For once, remove the blinders. Keep D&D Civil.
who said anything about obama? i was questioning your standards on what qualifies someone for the presidency. i'm a fairly decent public speaker, have stood on stage and addressed 30k people. am i qualified to be president?
If I hadn't read your "platform" here, I might have said yes! Hey, you were referring to Bill? I think Bill was more qualified as well. Keep D&D Civil.
But everything you said could also be applied to McCain from a Republican standpoint but I have yet to hear many people call McCain as being an ass. You have two senators who disagree with their party on two hot button issues. One is a hero and the other is a traitor depending on your POV. Maybe both instead of being party tools have their own beliefs and won't hesitate to speak out on them. Further your critique of Lieberman sounds very close to the critique of war critics by the Admin., "He's undercutting the leadership of his own party, as well as the rank and file." No offense but that sounds very much like saying "By speaking out against the President you're speaking out against the soldiers." Lieberman doesn't agree with the Democrats on this issue but that doesn't mean he doesn't agree with other Democrats on almost every other issue.
Its not the most important but it should rank up there. We've gone from the Gettysburg address to a guy who fumbles soundbites. At one time Daniel Webster was considered practically a superhero who could subdue the Devil with a speech and now we celebrate not being able to keep the prounciation of "nuclear" or "Abu Ghraib" straight in a single press conference. So goes the fine art of rhetoric.
