Why Joe Lieberman must be defeated

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's the pathetic Lieberman apoligists that made this video be necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhN3mP_w6Q

[MasterJedi]

Too bad he'll win and he deserves it more.

[7,052,770]

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

[MissCatholic]

Too bad he'll win and he deserves it more.

too bad sean hannity his great pals with joe lieberman. hannity has cost us a good senator in washington.

[© tweed]

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

There's nothing wrong with being a single-issue voter.  It simply depends on how big that single issue is.

[they don't love you like i love you]

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

he's not really being a single issue voter.

If we assume Lieberman and Lamont are identical on all other issues (which isn't true as I've pointed out, but let's do it anyway), then that means anyone opposed to the war agrees with Lamont more, since it'd mean they agree with Lieberman on everything but the war, and Lamont on everything. Therefore, they should support Lamont simply because they agree with more.

And as I've pointed out, I would've not voted for Lieberman in 2000 either.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

Regardless of the Iraq war, do you want a "Democrat" who gives appaluse to a terrible Bush speech and then kisses him. Do you want a "Democrat" who talks about how we need private accounts? Do you want a "Democrat" who almost  costs Democrats control of the Senate by running for re-election to the Senate the same time he runs for VP? Do you want a "Democrat" who constantly bashes on liberals, and is endorsed by Hannity, Coulter and other wingnuts? Do you want a "Democrat" who sharply criticized a President of his own party for lying about a blow job, while didn't criticize a President of the opposite party for lying about everything else. No, there is far more here than just Lieberman's crazy warmongering, even if you wish to dismiss this outrageous war started by no reason by people like Lieberman as a "single issue".

[Joe Biden 2020]

God, jfern, you're just as bad as those idiots from my state who vote solely on abortion.  STOP BEING A SINGLE-ISSUE VOTER!

Regardless of the Iraq war, do you want a "Democrat" who gives appaluse to a terrible Bush speech and then kisses him. Do you want a "Democrat" who talks about how we need private accounts? Do you want a "Democrat" who almost  costs Democrats control of the Senate by running for re-election to the Senate the same time he runs for VP? Do you want a "Democrat" who constantly bashes on liberals, and is endorsed by Hannity, Coulter and other wingnuts? Do you want a "Democrat" who sharply criticized a President of his own party for lying about a blow job, while didn't criticize a President of the opposite party for lying about everything else.

Absolutely!!!!!!  Sean Hannity is an advocate for a better America while his sidekick Alan Colmes and his liberal friends are advocates for the execution of all conservative Republicans. 

Just to throw for Kerosene on the fire, lets throw in a VERY GOOD pro-war talk show host, the incredible RUSH LIMBAUGH.

I do agree with you on one point, Ann Coutler is a bit too radical and spouts off without regard for courtesy.  I do think she is an embarrassment to the Republican party, but as for Sean and Rush and Joe, they are not only not an embarrassment to the Republican party, but they are three of the best Americans in the media and in Washington.

[Rob]

Great video, jfern.

his sidekick Alan Colmes and his liberal friends are advocates for the execution of all conservative Republicans.

Source?

Just to throw for Kerosene on the fire, lets throw in a VERY GOOD pro-war talk show host, the incredible RUSH LIMBAUGH. [snip]

It says something that people like BushOk are staunch supporters of Lieberman, doesn't it?

[minionofmidas]

Quick, someone remind me when this primary is.

[© tweed]

Quick, someone remind me when this primary is.

August 8

[minionofmidas]

Thanks, that's a relief. How's Joe's signature collection coming on?

[jerusalemcar5]

That wasn't a half bad video.  I can't believe he supported the anti-constitution torture support Gonzales.  What a disgrace.  It only hardens my support for Ned Lamont.  If Lieberman pulls off a Connecticut primary win, it won't be that sad of a day for me.  Lieberman is a terrible Democrat, but he isn't a horrible Senator.  However, a Lamont primary win and finally I will see the Democratic backbone I've been looking for since 2000.  I'll be elated.

[NewFederalist]

   
        How's Joe's signature collection coming?

Since he only needs 7,000 valid signatures he's probably got them in hand by now.

[Bacon King]

Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether Lamont or Leiberman wins, but this kind of infighting can really harm the Democratic party.

[Ben.]

Thing is it doesnt matter what Lieberman says or does, he's become a symbol for all the grevances that the liberal wing of the democratic party have with the party's leadership and for that reason they will seek to defeat him because he is that symbol, rather than a true conservative dem like Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor... it's odd I'll give it that. 

[Rob]

rather than a true conservative dem like Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor... it's odd I'll give it that.

Ben Nelson represents Nebraska. Mark Pryor represents Arkansas. A "liberal" Democrat would fail miserably in those Republican states, which is why the left supports them; they're better than nothing.

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, represents a solidly Democratic state. If he weren't so out of touch with his constituents on the war in Iraq, there wouldn't be a strong primary challenge and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Ben.]

If he weren't so out of touch with his constituents on the war in Iraq, there wouldn't be a strong primary challenge and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Guess that's why Hagel and Graham are always being challenged by hard core conservative republicans... oh wait... it's an interesting contrast between the dysfunctional Democrats and the more practical republicans.

A Senator should be a strong voice for their state, that does not mean being an "ideological fit" look at Hagel, Santorum (at one time), Feingold, Harkin etc... if extreemists in both parties want to erode the independence that has characterised US Senators in the past and replace them with politically tribal automata then it will be a great loss, sadly both parties seem to be heading that way, and sooner or later, come election time, folks will realise they can do better that opting for the candidate from one extreem or the other...

[Rob]

Guess that's why Hagel and Graham are always being challenged by hard core conservative republicans... oh wait... it's an interesting contrast between the dysfunctional Democrats and the more practical republicans.

This argument holds no water. Those "more practical" Rhode Island Republicans are about to knock off a moderate Senator in their primary, in favor of some cookie-cutter conservative who will lose by thirty points in November. You also ignore the rightist drive to take out the moderate Arlen Specter in a 2004 primary, which fell just short of succeeding.

and sooner or later, come election time, folks will realise they can do better that opting for the candidate from one extreem or the other...

Lamont is not an extremist; not in Connecticut, nor in the nation at large. Joe is the one who is out of touch, and it's no crime for Connecticut Dems to want a Senator who, well, represents their feelings on Iraq and the Bush presidency.

[TheresNoMoney]

rather than a true conservative dem like Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor... it's odd I'll give it that.

Ben Nelson represents Nebraska. Mark Pryor represents Arkansas. A "liberal" Democrat would fail miserably in those Republican states, which is why the left supports them; they're better than nothing.

Actually, it's much simpler than that. Joe Lieberman goes out of his way to go on national TV and criticize other Democrats. He sucks up to the Bush whenever he can. He's a media whore. He undermines the party whenever he gets the chance.

Neither Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor criticize their party. They make our party stronger. Joe Lieberman makes the party weaker.

I wish people would understand this. It's really not a hard concept.

[Joe Biden 2020]

rather than a true conservative dem like Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor... it's odd I'll give it that.

Ben Nelson represents Nebraska. Mark Pryor represents Arkansas. A "liberal" Democrat would fail miserably in those Republican states, which is why the left supports them; they're better than nothing.

Actually, it's much simpler than that. Joe Lieberman goes out of his way to go on national TV and criticize other Democrats. He sucks up to the Bush whenever he can. He's a media whore. He undermines the party whenever he gets the chance.

Neither Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor criticize their party. They make our party stronger. Joe Lieberman makes the party weaker.

I wish people would understand this. It's really not a hard concept.

Dissent in both parties is great for this country.  Without it, we would have a bunch of Senators and Congressmen being robots of their party's leaders.  I welcome the John McCains, the Joe Liebermans, the Chuck Hagels of the country, they actually keep the rest of the country from going insane with two vastly different parties with little or no link between the two in the center of the spectrum.

[TheresNoMoney]

Dissent in both parties is great for this country.  Without it, we would have a bunch of Senators and Congressmen being robots of their party's leaders. 

Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor are able to dissent without undermining their party. They don't go on Fox News every week and kiss the president at the SOTU.

[AuH2O]

My favorite thing about this race so far was when Lamont said he left his country club because it was a bunch of "rich white guys." He had been a member for 10 years. What exactly was the composition when he joined, working-class black women?

[Virginian87]

Actually, it's much simpler than that. Joe Lieberman goes out of his way to go on national TV and criticize other Democrats. He sucks up to the Bush whenever he can. He's a media whore. He undermines the party whenever he gets the chance.

Neither Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor criticize their party. They make our party stronger. Joe Lieberman makes the party weaker.

I wish people would understand this. It's really not a hard concept.

Well, hard concept or not, I sure as hell don't understand why Connecticut Democrats would want to reject an experienced voice in the Senate for a single-issue candidate whose only political job was on the New Haven town counsel.  I also don't understand why these voters would want to send a message to voters across the country that the Democratic Party is controlled by radicals, not pragmatists. 

Look, I believed Iraq was a mistake from the start.  But we're there now, we're stuck until we can hand off control of the country to the new Iraqi government.  Pulling out immediately would be a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of American lives.  We will have accomplished nothing.  The best alternative is to develop a short-term timeline to exit Iraq.  I believe Lieberman supports this idea, albeit his idea of a "timeline" may be slightly longer than most Democrats would prefer. 

I truly hope that Connecticut voters don't vote this man out of office.  He is not a crazed "war-monger".  Hell, aside from this ONE issue, he agrees with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on a variety of things (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control).  This sends a disturbing message to potential Democratic voters and isolates others.  The fact that our party won't tolerate someone who so much as disagrees with liberals on ONE issue signifies that perhaps we are not the all-inclusive big tent that many would consider us to be.

[nini2287]

Actually, it's much simpler than that. Joe Lieberman goes out of his way to go on national TV and criticize other Democrats. He sucks up to the Bush whenever he can. He's a media whore. He undermines the party whenever he gets the chance.

Neither Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor criticize their party. They make our party stronger. Joe Lieberman makes the party weaker.

I wish people would understand this. It's really not a hard concept.

Well, hard concept or not, I sure as hell don't understand why Connecticut Democrats would want to reject an experienced voice in the Senate for a single-issue candidate whose only political job was on the New Haven town counsel.  I also don't understand why these voters would want to send a message to voters across the country that the Democratic Party is controlled by radicals, not pragmatists. 

Look, I believed Iraq was a mistake from the start.  But we're there now, we're stuck until we can hand off control of the country to the new Iraqi government.  Pulling out immediately would be a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention hundereds of American lives.  We will have accomplished nothing.  The best alternative is to develop a short-term timeline to exit Iraq.  I believe Lieberman supports this idea, albeit his idea of a "timeline" may be slightly longer than most Democrats would prefer. 

I truly hope that Connecticut voters don't vote this man out of office.  He is not a crazed "war-monger".  Hell, aside from this ONE issue, he agrees with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on a variety of things (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control).  This sends a disturbing message to potential Democratic voters and isolates others.  The fact that our party won't tolerate someone who so much as disagrees with liberals on ONE issue signifies that perhaps we are not the all-inclusive big tent that many would consider us to be.

Great post, Virginian.  I agree 100%.

It also seems foolish that Democrats/liberals are wasting so much money on this race-no matter who wins the primary:  a Democrat or Democrat caucusing Independent will be in DC.  (Sorry htmldon) but Allan Schesslinger is not going to win this race no matter what.  All of this money/time that's being given to Lamont would be much better spent on tossups seats that will help the Democrats achieve a majority in the Senate (PA, OH, MO, RI, TN, MT, MD, NJ, MN, etc.).