Lieberman - WTF?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
Lieberman May Run As Independent

WASHINGTON, July 4 (UPI) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has said that if the Democratic Party does not support him in the upcoming primary, he will run as an independent instead.

The Los Angeles Times reported that with Lieberman losing support of party members over his backing of the war in Iraq, the former vice presidential nominee decided to guarantee himself a spot in the November general election with the proposed petition drive.

'I am a loyal Democrat,' Lieberman said, 'But I have a loyalty higher than that to my party. That is to my state and my country. I`m essentially taking out an insurance policy.' the 64-year-old senator added.

Lieberman, who has held his Senate seat since 1988, may loose his party`s support in the Aug. 8 primary to fellow Democrat Ned Lamont, who has publicly criticized the senator`s support of President Bush.
 
close association with George Bush will kill you dead in many blue states, and even some red ones.

when your approval rating is *still* in the mid-30s, even after the month-long full court press by Rove (bash the gays, "cut-and-run," throw a tantrum about the NY Times), you know you're political poision.
 
Irvine511 said:
close association with George Bush will kill you dead in many blue states, and even some red ones.

Remember when "close association" with Bill Clinton cost the Democrats control of both the U.S. Senate and, for the first time in 40 years, the House of Representatives? Good times.

Seriously Joe, the orthodoxy of the Left is settled and written-in-stone. Come over to "the dark side"; the tent of ideas is bigger and debate still flourishes.
 
INDY500 said:
Remember when "close association" with Bill Clinton cost the Democrats control of both the U.S. Senate and, for the first time in 40 years, the House of Representatives? Good times.



as usually happens in the first mid-term elections after a new president is elected.

point to me a time when Clinton's approval ratings were as low as George Bush's for as extended a period of time? where were Clinton's ratings at this point in his 2nd term in comparison to Bush's?



Seriously Joe, the orthodoxy of the Left is settled and written-in-stone. Come over to "the dark side"; the tent of ideas is bigger and debate still flourishes.


debate? on the Republican side? :laugh:

all they've been doing is marching in lockstep with the administration since day one, and their idea of debate on Iraq is to scream "CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN!" whenever anyone points out the fact that, well, there *is* no plan for Iraq nor has there ever been one. in fact, one thing Republicans slam the Dems for is lacking a "clear vision" (whatever that means) on Iraq precisely because Democrats are actually having a debate about what to do in Iraq.
 
Irvine511 said:

as usually happens in the first mid-term elections after a new president is elected.

point to me a time when Clinton's approval ratings were as low as George Bush's for as extended a period of time? where were Clinton's ratings at this point in his 2nd term in comparison to Bush's?

The 1994 elections were of historical proportions. A fifty-some seat shift ending a FORTY year run of Democratic control. A sitting Speaker, Tom Foley, defeated for the first time since the Civil War. 8 seats won by Republicans in the Senate. And this is all pre-Monica mind you. Presidential approval numbers can be a little misleading. For instance, in Bush's case they are low because so many people on his RIGHT are not happy with him.

As far as debate, there are issues other than the war in which Senator Lieberman finds himself out-of-step with his colleagues. I couldn't agree more about "Cut & run" by the way. Everytime I hear focus-group-tested-talking-point drivel like that I'm tempted to toss something at the TV.
 
INDY500 said:
The 1994 elections were of historical proportions. A fifty-some seat shift ending a FORTY year run of Democratic control. A sitting Speaker, Tom Foley, defeated for the first time since the Civil War. 8 seats won by Republicans in the Senate. And this is all pre-Monica mind you. Presidential approval numbers can be a little misleading. For instance, in Bush's case they are low because so many people on his RIGHT are not happy with him.



which is why his approval numbers are so low and he is political poison to anyone, right or left -- everyone hates Bush.

as for 1994, which was as momentous as you described (and Republicans deserve credit for a billiant campaign while the Dems slept), if anything, this speaks to how beloved Clinton became over the next 6 years -- no one cared about Monica, and his approval ratings remained very high, especially in comparison to Bush.


As far as debate, there are issues other than the war in which Senator Lieberman finds himself out-of-step with his colleagues. I couldn't agree more about "Cut & run" by the way. Everytime I hear focus-group-tested-talking-point drivel like that I'm tempted to toss something at the TV.


what issues does Lieberman disagree with Democratic opinion?

(i'm genuinely curious, i don't know -- and i'm from CT, originally, and generally think Lieberman to be a terrific guy, and i'd probably still vote for him if i were still registered in CT despite my disagreements with his stance on the war)
 
INDY500 said:
Seriously Joe, the orthodoxy of the Left is settled and written-in-stone. Come over to "the dark side"; the tent of ideas is bigger and debate still flourishes.

Give me an example of the "tent of ideas" and "debate" within the Republican Party. Any examples where the "debate" ends in Bush getting his way don't count.

On the contrary, it has long been noted that the strength of the Republican Party has been in the stark uniformity of its ideas, where intraparty dissent is not tolerated. As such, splits are avoided, and party unity is maintained.

I will agree that the Democratic Party has proven to be a terrible opposition party. They should be ashamed of themselves. However, the stagnancy of the Democratic Party is second only to the stagnancy of the Republican Party. The annual parade of frivolous constitutional amendments are certainly a testament of that.

Melon
 
Perhaps we could some better context by the “WTF” addition to the thread title. Is this a comment on Lieberman running as an independent? A comment on Connecticut Democrats’ rejection of Lieberman?

Since this involves a democratic primary (people presumptively against GWB anyways), perhaps we should ask what the democrats in Connecticut are saying by rejecting Lieberman. Do they have constructive leadership that is better than Lieberman? Are they taking a clear step to the left with Ned Lamont? Is crossing the isle on certain issues acceptable in today’s political environment?

The “cut and run” discussion raises a much different point. If a group has developed and articulated a strategy that can be so effectively diminished by a sound-bite label, was it much of a strategy in the first place?
 
Lieberman's decision isn't particularly sinister, IMO. It's based on the very peculiar statistics he found on his popularity, which suggested that he'd win the general election even as an independent, but lose the primary.

Melon
 
Irvine511 said:


as for 1994, which was as momentous as you described (and Republicans deserve credit for a billiant campaign while the Dems slept), if anything, this speaks to how beloved Clinton became over the next 6 years -- no one cared about Monica, and his approval ratings remained very high, especially in comparison to Bush.

what issues does Lieberman disagree with Democratic opinion?

(i'm genuinely curious, i don't know -- and i'm from CT, originally, and generally think Lieberman to be a terrific guy, and i'd probably still vote for him if i were still registered in CT despite my disagreements with his stance on the war)

Clinton became "beloved" after 1994 only by moving to the center--triangulation I think Dick Morris called it--distancing himself from the left-wing of his party while taking advantage of the demonization of Newt Gingrich. As a centrist he passed balanced budgets, welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act.

I remember Joe Lieberman working with Bill Bennett about the issue of violence in movies and music a long time ago. He has always believed that we should have "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion", a view not shared by all on the Left. Besides defense (he was 1 of only 10 Democrats to give Bush I authority to use military force in the first Pursian Gulf War), he has often been at odds with Democrats over affirmative action, school vouchers, tort reform and capital gains tax cuts. I believe he also voted for NAFTA.
Bush vs Lieberman in 2004 would have been very interesting.
 
INDY500 said:
I remember Joe Lieberman working with Bill Bennett about the issue of violence in movies and music a long time ago. He has always believed that we should have "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion", a view not shared by all on the Left. Besides defense (he was 1 of only 10 Democrats to give Bush I authority to use military force in the first Pursian Gulf War), he has often been at odds with Democrats over affirmative action, school vouchers, tort reform and capital gains tax cuts. I believe he also voted for NAFTA.
Bush vs Lieberman in 2004 would have been very interesting.

In other words, he's a Republican in a Democrat's clothes. That's why Republicans love him. But hey...it's similar reasoning as to why Democrats love people like Sens. Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe.

And that whole "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" line gets funny, particularly when it's just an excuse to thrust religion on people in rather unnecessary environments, such as courtrooms and schools. Is it really necessary to have a monument to the Ten Commandments, particularly since it has zero legal standing and, contrary to all the bluster, absolutely no historical relevancy to the start of the legal system? You'd be better off erecting a monument to Hammurabi's Code from ancient Babylon, because the Bible even ripped off of them for one of their most famous lines: "An eye for an eye."

School prayer? I can just imagine trying a stunt like that at work, where you'd try to sue your boss, because he won't let you lead the building in daily prayer over the loudspeaker. And I can just imagine the uproar if that daily prayer was in Arabic.

There needs to be common sense somewhere, and when I think about all the controversies in schools lately involving religion and "freedom of speech," I think about what I could get away with at work. Goodbye public prayer and goodbye to all the controversial t-shirts across the political spectrum. But I digress...

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
The “cut and run” discussion raises a much different point. If a group has developed and articulated a strategy that can be so effectively diminished by a sound-bite label, was it much of a strategy in the first place?



i think when you have genuine debate within the party -- and they really do, contrast Finegold to HRC and then try to find me two Republicans with the same level of disagreement -- it's much more difficult to get out a coherent soundbyte, and it becomes that much easier for the opposing party to then describe your position in the simplest, most convenient term possible. so it's almost as if the Democrats are hurting themselves politically for being nuanced and for actually discussing an issue rather than following the talking points, which Republicans do so well -- i noticed Mitch McConnell tossed "cut and run" out onto the table whenever he possibly could on Meet the Press last Sunday.

ultimately, i think it says less about one party's strategy -- and what is the Republican strategy? more of the same? no one has ever described what "victory" would look like in Iraq -- and more about the nature of politics in a culture that only has time to digest a three word soundbyte (like "flip-flop") and a legislature that has come to value loyalty over logic.
 
melon said:


School prayer? I can just imagine trying a stunt like that at work, where you'd try to sue your boss, because he won't let you lead the building in daily prayer over the loudspeaker. And I can just imagine the uproar if that daily prayer was in Arabic.

As you know, I'm a Christian, but to the dismay of many of my Christian brethern, I'd have to agree with you about prayer in public schools. I think the way they handle it now in many schools - moment of silence - is perfect. That way, the individual teachers and students can pray if they want, and not if they don't want. Heck, you could even get together with a buddy and say something like "at the moment of silence let's both pray for so and so in the hospital", and you're praying together.

My stance is actually in protection of religious rights, not against it. If you open the door to one, you must open the door to all, since the US is not a theocracy. I would be insensed if my child came home one day and said the teacher made him pray to the god within himself or anything outside Christianity.

Now ... private schools? Different subject altogether.
 
80sU2isBest said:

My stance is actually in protection of religious rights, not against it. If you open the door to one, you must open the door to all, since the US is not a theocracy. I would be insensed if my child came home one day and said the teacher made him pray to the god within himself or anything outside Christianity.



:up:
 
80sU2isBest said:


As you know, I'm a Christian, but to the dismay of many of my Christian brethern, I'd have to agree with you about prayer in public schools. I think the way they handle it now in many schools - moment of silence - is perfect. That way, the individual teachers and students can pray if they want, and not if they don't want. Heck, you could even get together with a buddy and say something like "at the moment of silence let's both pray for so and so in the hospital", and you're praying together.

My stance is actually in protection of religious rights, not against it. If you open the door to one, you must open the door to all, since the US is not a theocracy. I would be insensed if my child came home one day and said the teacher made him pray to the god within himself or anything outside Christianity.

Now ... private schools? Different subject altogether.

I'm a conservative Christian and I agree with you 100%. It's rare to come across other Christians that feel the same. Very well said!
 
melon said:

Give me an example of the "tent of ideas" and "debate" within the Republican Party. Any examples where the "debate" ends in Bush getting his way don't count.
Melon

Immigration for one. The Right has been fighting Bush on border security since he was president. In addition, there is a great divide on amnesty whereas Democrats seem pretty united in favor of it in one form or another.
Abortion. I can think of more pro-choice Reps than pro-life Dems. Remember Giuliani and Schwarzenegger giving keynote speeches at the 2004 National Convention?
Iraq and the Bush "Doctrine of Preemptive Defense." Not conservatism. Recall Bush telling Al Gore during one of their debates that he would never use the military for "nation building" as commander-in-chief? Oops.

All these issues, as well as some that failed out of the box because of lack of consensus (Social Security reform, school vouchers, ending the Estate Tax) sprang forth from conservative origins.

On the Right the great debate is between virtue and freedom. Think evangelicals vs Wall St or compassionate-conservative. It's a hard dichotomy to balance but at least it's a debate.
 
INDY500 said:
On the Right the great debate is between virtue and freedom. Think evangelicals vs Wall St or compassionate-conservative. It's a hard dichotomy to balance but at least it's a debate.



i think this is a perceptive comment, and i think this is why Bush has been (up until 2004) a good choice to lead the Republicans -- he's essentially a wealthy businessman from as aristocratic a family as you're likely to find anywhere in the US, but he's able to speak the language of the Protestant Evangelicals. it's something very tricky to do, to be able to speak to people who vote Republican simply because they want lower taxes as well as to people who think the earth is only 4,000 years old. it also helps to demogague, but that's another point.

however, i think this is less about inter-party debate, and more about the Republican Party's ability to organize and mobilize and make promises that are destined to be broken -- abortion is still legal, gay marriage is on its way, etc.

a good book on this -- What's the Matter With Kansas.
 
Irvine511 said:



what issues does Lieberman disagree with Democratic opinion?

(i'm genuinely curious, i don't know -- and i'm from CT, originally, and generally think Lieberman to be a terrific guy, and i'd probably still vote for him if i were still registered in CT despite my disagreements with his stance on the war)

Social Security
Plan B availability
Judge Alito
Budget Bill
Energy Bill

it's much more than the war, it's also about loyalty.
 
Irvine511 said:






ultimately, i think it says less about one party's strategy -- and what is the Republican strategy? more of the same? no one has ever described what "victory" would look like in Iraq

Well, how about a stable government that does not threaten its neighbors and is able to handle its own internal security as well as protect the country from potential attacks from its neighbors, independent of foreign forces. I think this point has been made by many people on both sides of the isle.
 
This is an interest side note to the thread, but I also agree with the sentiments expressed by 80sU2isBest and maycocksean regarding school prayer. Frankly, this is likely the majority view among Christians (or has been in my experience). The conflict that has existed for the last 20 some years has been on the issue of silent prayer (non-teacher led). The opportunity for personal, private reflection is characterized as an impermissible intrusion.
 
Lamont increases lead over Lieberman

By Mark Preston
CNN Political Editor
Thursday, August 3, 2006; Posted: 11:02 a.m. EDT (15:02 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Embattled Sen. Joe Lieberman is trailing businessman Ned Lamont by double digits in the race for the Connecticut Democratic Senate nomination, a new poll released this morning shows.

The Quinnipiac University poll gives Lamont a 54 percent to 41 percent lead among likely Democratic primary voters and is the latest indication that the three-term incumbent is in serious danger of losing the Democratic primary next Tuesday. A poll released by the university on July 20 indicated that Lamont held a 51 percent to 47 percent advantage over Lieberman.

"Sen. Lieberman's campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse," Quinnipiac University Polling Director Douglas Schwartz said in statement accompanying the poll's release. "Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont."


perhaps

Bush will appoint him Sec of Defense

since Rummy is a total f*ckup.
 
80sU2isBest said:


As you know, I'm a Christian, but to the dismay of many of my Christian brethern, I'd have to agree with you about prayer in public schools. I think the way they handle it now in many schools - moment of silence - is perfect. That way, the individual teachers and students can pray if they want, and not if they don't want. Heck, you could even get together with a buddy and say something like "at the moment of silence let's both pray for so and so in the hospital", and you're praying together.

My stance is actually in protection of religious rights, not against it. If you open the door to one, you must open the door to all, since the US is not a theocracy. I would be insensed if my child came home one day and said the teacher made him pray to the god within himself or anything outside Christianity.

Now ... private schools? Different subject altogether.

:yes: :yes: :yes:
 
The statement that did more than anything to power this primary challenge was a comment Lieberman made last December.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years," Lieberman said, "and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

The implication that there is something wrong with criticizing George W. Bush is unacceptable to most Democrats who believe that Bush himself has done the most to undermine his own credibility.
 
It is indeed Bush who has done the most to undermine his credibility. He's responsible for this situation, not protesters.
 
Bush undermined Lieberman's credibility??

If anything, this is an example of how polarized politics will punish the person who crosses the isle (even if you disagree with the particular positions taken by Lieberman).
 
nbcrusader said:


If anything, this is an example of how polarized politics will punish the person who crosses the isle (even if you disagree with the particular positions taken by Lieberman).

Oh please.

This administration polarized politics more than any other. My way or the highway and no other way.

In any case, Lieberman's "crossing the aisle" really means supporting things that his constituents do not. Terri Schiavo is an excellent example. Opposing Plan B is another. Maintaining that Iraq is going great is a third. So why should he represent people in his state who do not support his views? This is such right wing BS rhetoric.

Lieberman isn't entitled to his seat. If his constituents want somebody who, oh I dunno, agrees with them (!), then so be it. If people in Louisiana want some right wing politician in Congress because he loves Jesus, then that's their prerogative too.
 
this hacking is a ploy

there is no reason that lamont's people would do this

there is no gain in it for them



it gives Lieberman
some cover

when he loses and goes independent

he can now claim that he is a victim
of an unfair election

because his campaign could not get their people to the polls
 
anitram said:
Oh please.

This administration polarized politics more than any other. My way or the highway and no other way.

In any case, Lieberman's "crossing the aisle" really means supporting things that his constituents do not. Terri Schiavo is an excellent example. Opposing Plan B is another. Maintaining that Iraq is going great is a third. So why should he represent people in his state who do not support his views? This is such right wing BS rhetoric.

Sounds like there is plenty of rhetoric to go around. Polarization takes two parties. There is just as much "my way or the highway" from the left as there is the right. Finger pointing on this issue is no better than the grade school playground argument.

Lieberman hasn't displayed a sudden change in views (the views that his constituents wanted represented). All Lamont is doing is showing how he can out-liberal Lieberman. It may have generated a temporary interest in the polls, but it is not a position that will last.
 
Back
Top Bottom