Can Any Democrat Defend What Party Leadership Is Doing to Joe Lieberman?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm absolutely stunned by the complete lack of support shown by national Democratic figures and are gang piling on Joe Lieberman.??They're going so far as to distancing themselves from him to tacitly or outright endorsing a challenger to a sitting Senator.

This guy was the VP nominee for Chrissakes 6 years ago!??He was a hero, a magnet for the national spotlight, hated by the right and revered by the left.??Now he's being thrown under the bus by the fringe kooks of the liberal blogosphere and their voices are being echoed by people like Kerry, Gore and Hitlery.

They're not supporting an incumbent, multi-termed Senator.??Why???What happened to the "big tent" theory of politics?

If you want to look at why Democrats will not gain a majority for either chamber of Congress in November and why they will lose the White House again in 2008 look no further as to why, they will eat their own.

This is like the Communist party re-writing the history of Leon Trotsky and Che Guevara when they became expendable.

Can anyone rationally explain why Lieberman is being thrown on the train tracks when countless Democrats who also supported action in Iraq with their votes are viewed as icons???See, John "I shot an unarmed, unclothed fleeing Vietnamese boy in the back." Kerry.

I don't understand how this party will ever have disagreeing points of view or expand the type of candidates they field if the party line is now controlled by idealists and freaks and adherence to that "party line" is more akin to Nazi or Communist dogma recitation than being an independent elected representative of a free republic (No pun intended DUmmies and KOSmunists.).

Feedback from the party faithful would be welcomed.??Please though, spare us talking points from the insane left.??I'm looking for genuine personal opinions.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. I see this as good news for the Republicans.
2. Whenever they turn on their own it means that the Liberals are in a tail spin.
3. And trying to come out of it by cutting of dead weight, (the way they perceive it).
4. But with this action of throwing Joe Lieberman, under the bus, its almost a breaking point the way I see it.
5. They are desperate, this Statesmen has represented the Democrats more honorably than most have ever thought of, balanced with respect.
6. He will be missed if he can't keep his seat as a Independent.
7. I do love seeing Gore not support him now, shows the World just how two faced he is, and those others.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Drocket]

Yes, isn't it just AWFUL that senators have to answer to voters? That sort of stuff should be outlawed.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It's politics, things like this happen. Politicians are there to further their political viewpoints, sometimes a party can advance its positions better by such actions. It's a necessary evil.

The problem for Lieberman is that wars now have such a central role in politics, and issues relating to war have been central since 2001. He may hold many democrat positions, but it's a liability to have someone attacking their own party, and supporting the opposing parties views, in such a key election issue.

[Nathan Brazil]

The problem is that Loserman is jewish, and thus supports Isreal, and he's got enough sense to know that the Surrender Monkey goal of coitus interruptus iraqus could easily lead to the destruction of Isreal. So he can't tow the line like all the other robots in the Democratic party and demand in immediate US surrender.

So he's being punished for not being a robot. That, and maybe the Red Queen wants him out of the way. She might have to accept a VP nomination if she can't steal the nomination herself, after all.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Actually, according to your comment, he is a robot. According to you he supports Israel (which is in line with many democrats, if not most, anyway) because he is a Jew.

Not all Jews support Israel you know.

[Drocket]

Lieberman's problem is less his position on any one specific issue (though his support of the Iraq war isn't helping), and far more that he constantly and publicly attacks other Democrats. Fox News pretty much has him on speed-dial for when they need a Democrat to backstab the rest of the party and make them look weak and disorganized.

The main reason that Lieberman needs to go is 2 facts that have been made quite clear by virtue of this primary election: The first is that Lieberman basically started out the campaign by threatening to leave the party, demonstrating that he has absolutely no loyalty to the party or its positions and is only interested in his own self-preservation. The second is that you simply need to take a look at his supporters. When you have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other far-right figures publicly supporting a Democratic canidate, you know there's a problem.

[Nathan Brazil]

Lieberman's problem is less his position on any one specific issue (though his support of the Iraq war isn't helping), and far more that he constantly and publicly attacks other Democrats.??Fox News pretty much has him on speed-dial for when they need a Democrat to backstab the rest of the party and make them look weak and disorganized.

The main reason that Lieberman needs to go is 2 facts that have been made quite clear by virtue of this primary election:??The first is that Lieberman basically started out the campaign by threatening to leave the party, demonstrating that he has absolutely no loyalty to the party or its positions and is only interested in his own self-preservation.??The second is that you simply need to take a look at his supporters.??When you have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other far-right figures publicly supporting a Democratic canidate, you know there's a problem.


Oh, is that a problem? Can you name a Democrat that shouldn't be attacked, daily, and preferably with an axe? How about any Republicans?

They're all crooks, they're just upset that Loserman is pointing fingers away from himself.

[Nathan Brazil]

Actually, according to your comment, he is a robot. According to you he supports Israel (which is in line with many democrats, if not most, anyway) because he is a Jew.

Not all Jews support Israel you know.


Jews that want to prostitute their religion to get re-elected do. Don't forget, when Loserman began campaigning for Bore, he switched his position on almost every issue so he wouldn't make Bore look like a bigger idiot than he does already. That's called "hypocrisy".

Besides, even Hillary Clinton is jewish.??She said so.??That she used the old Nazi standard of "one grandparent" is irrelevant, isn't it?

[Drocket]

Oh, is that a problem???Can you name a Democrat that shouldn't be attacked, daily, and preferably with an axe???How about any Republicans?

Russ Feingold springs readily to mind. He was the sole Senator brave enough to vote against the mis-named atrocity that was and is the Patriot Act. I'd also put Murtha on the list of politicians I respect, because although I don't agree with a lot of his positions, he's another one who makes decisions bases on his moral values instead of what's politically convenient.

I'm also a fan of Al Gore. He's not exactly the most charismatic person on earth, but if you pay any real attention to him, its impossible not to tell that he's a fundamentally good person who care deeply about a lot of important issues (which is why he's attacked so mercilessly by the right.)

[Nathan Brazil]

Oh, is that a problem???Can you name a Democrat that shouldn't be attacked, daily, and preferably with an axe???How about any Republicans?

Russ Feingold springs readily to mind.??He was the sole Senator brave enough to vote against the mis-named atrocity that was and is the Patriot Act.??I'd also put Murtha on the list of politicians I respect, because although I don't agree with a lot of his positions, he's another one who makes decisions bases on his moral values instead of what's politically convenient.??

I'm also a fan of Al Gore.??He's not exactly the most charismatic person on earth, but if you pay any real attention to him, its impossible not to tell that he's a fundamentally good person who care deeply about a lot of important issues (which is why he's attacked so mercilessly by the right.)??


You mean the Russ Feingold that co-authored the Rape the First Amendment and Protect the Incumbent Bill that they claimed was a bill further restricting the freedom of Americans to spend their money as they pleased, in this case on political campaigns.

I think the fascists called it a "Campaign Finance Reform Bill".

You mean the Feingold that followed the party line and voted against impeaching Clinton? That's an "honorable" person in your opinion?

Hmmm?

Seems to me like Feingold is just another pol with his dick in the wind seeing if it will blow. Just like all the rest.

Al Gore? You mean the Remington Warrior? The Lipton Ice Tea Man? The man who can't find any controlling legal authority preventing him from taking bribes? He's a Democrat. That means he's corrupt. Hell, he even tried to steal an election once. Good thing that failed.

[Drocket]

Hmm, looking back, I'm not really sure why I thought I could have a rational conversation with you. Sorry for wasting your time.

[BoogyMan]

Can anyone rationally explain why Lieberman is being thrown on the train tracks when countless Democrats who also supported action in Iraq with their votes are viewed as icons???See, John "I shot an unarmed, unclothed fleeing Vietnamese boy in the back." Kerry.

We are talking about the party of situational ethics here, can you really not understand how they can do him over like this? :)

[AlonzoMourning23]

Jews that want to prostitute their religion to get re-elected do.??Don't forget, when Loserman began campaigning for Bore, he switched his position on almost every issue so he wouldn't make Bore look like a bigger idiot than he does already.??That's called "hypocrisy".

Besides, even Hillary Clinton is jewish.??She said so.??That she used the old Nazi standard of "one grandparent" is irrelevant, isn't it?


Hillary being Jewish is completely irrelevent to anything being discussed. You said Lieberman wasn't a robot, then said he's Jewish therefore he supports Israel. It contradicts the "not a robot" argument.

[Nathan Brazil]

Hmm, looking back, I'm not really sure why I thought I could have a rational conversation with you.?? Sorry for wasting your time.



Don't worry, I'm sure I'll find someone capable of rational argument around here somewhere. No rational person would think Feingold was any different than the rest of the democrats.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yes, isn't it just AWFUL that senators have to answer to voters???That sort of stuff should be outlawed.


Isn't it just AWFUL that you completely missed the point of the question and have no understanding of political norms in this country?

It's no big deal if Lieberman loses a primary to organized voters. That happens sometimes.

What is not normal is party leaders waffling on support, not offering support, saying they can't endorse him, supporting a challenger instead of an incumbent and throwing him under the bus.

Of course you need to simplify this to a point that wasn't even being made in order to defend the idiots running the Democratic Party.

Arlen Specter is loathed by conservative voters. He had a relatively strong challenger in the Republican primary in 2004.

Rick Satorum backed him, President Bush backed him and both have been decided unhappy with his stances, votes and positions. That's the norm.

You don't back a challenger in a primary as a fellow Senator, President or significant elected official. It's just not done.

However since you can't grasp that you'll continue to make pointless statements trying to obfuscate the main thrust of this post.

Nut jobs on the fringe are driving the agenda of the Democrats and the party is eating their own in an attempt to be as "pure in ideology" to the kook fringe as opposed to upholding traditional political norms and keeping and holding every single seat the party holds and maintains.

[Drocket]

First off, your basic premise is incorrect: many prominent Democrats have come out in support of Lieberman in the primary. Hillary Clinton, in particular (who you oh-so-wittily called Hitler in your original post. My, you're so clever. And this sort of stuff CERTAINLY doesn't qualify as mudslinging, which you claim you don't do, as per our other discusison (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=548&page=last), right?) has come out in support of Lieberman in the primary, though she's promised to support whoever wins the Democratic primary in the general election. But I'm sure that's not good enough for you - she should support Lieberman even if he dumps the party and runs against a Demcrat, right? 'Cause I'm SURE the Republican party would do the same thing.

Regarding other Democrats who haven't come out in support of Lieberman: This is Lieberman's payback for having spent years now constantly attacking other Democrats.??When you publicly criticize other party members on nearly a daily basis for year after year, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when they're not there to guard your back.??Combined with the fact that he started off his campaign with an attempt to blackmail the party - 'support me or I run as an independent' - and is really any shock that the Democratic party isn't showing loyalty to someone who's shown no loyalty to the party?

Seriously, do you think that the Republican party would support a canidate who appears several times a week on Air America to attack Republicans, and who has vowed to run as an independent if he lost the primary?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Seriously, do you think that the Republican party would support a canidate who appears several times a week on Air America to attack Republicans, and who has vowed to run as an independent if he lost the primary?

Yeah, we called him Jim Jeffords. He jumped to being an independednt after being elected a Republican.

You can look it up.

[Drocket]

Leaving your party in the middle of a term is different from leaving your party during an election. Leaving in the middle of a term isn't something that any one can do anything about: threatening to leave during a primary is something that the party CAN do something about - withhold support for a disloyal canidate.

If anything, Jim Jeffords is a good example of why Demcrats SHOULDN'T support Lieberman - even if Democrats support him and he wins the primary, there's no guarantee that he'll stay with the party. On one hand, we have a canidate loyal to the Democratic party, and on the other, a canidate ready and willing to bolt the instant its to his advantage to do so. Its not real hard to see which one is a better investment for party dough.

And I see you've decided not to try to defend 'Hitlery'.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I don't need to defend it.

It's accurate.

She's a controlling wench bent on dictatorial control.

[RedKnight]

I am reminded of another Jewish Senator, Arlen Spector. The Republicans consider him to be a R.I.N.O., just as the Democrats consider Lieberman to be a D.I.N.O. The Republicans also ran a challenger in the primaries against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Toomey. From what I understand, if Lieberman doesn't get the nomination, he is planning on running for re-election as an independent.

[Nathan Brazil]

I am reminded of another Jewish Senator, Arlen Spector. The Republicans consider him to be a R.I.N.O., just as the Democrats consider Lieberman to be a D.I.N.O. The Republicans also ran a challenger in the primaries against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Toomey. From what I understand, if Lieberman doesn't get the nomination, he is planning on running for re-election as an independent.


No, Specter's a real Republican. He's for socialism, he's against freedom, and he likes to play golf with Democrats.

Bush showed his real liberal colors when he backed Specter instead of Toomey in the primary. It was so totally predictable it was funny. And the Republicans continue to pretend that their party is somehow different in a meaningful way from the Democrats.

There is no difference, that's why nothing changes when the power shifts between parties.

[Churchel]

I like spector. I know someone who works for him. He is a good guy. He used to be what is called a moderate republican, like tom ridge. Unfortanutely talk radio has convinced republicans that if they are not on the anne coulter right they are not right. I see the BFFJ crowd getting bitch-slapped by all the moderate republicans in this mid term.

I was a moderate republican until april 2002. When the regions of WMD plants were not found I became upset. Liberman has staunchly supported the war, and continues to do so. I cannot help but think that his conservative judaism comes into play, and I certainly do not want our foreign policy steered by religion.

[Nathan Brazil]

You're right. Arlen Spector has always been a "moderate". The means he's always been a socialist anti-American enemy.

I've never liked him. He recently commented that Time magazine was right and the motivating forces behind those opposed to the socialists' open borders policy is "racism".

He's one of yours, always has been. That also means his record of being right is the same a that of a clock that's ten minutes slow.