Why Joe Lieberman must be defeated

[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.

[Virginian87]

Sorry the radicals are the warmongers.  A super majority of Nutmeggers oppose the war and a massive supermajority of our Democrats do. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BS you've been one of its biggest supporters here red and blue included.

First of all, how the hell do you equate "warmonger" by being against an immediate pullout?  Lieberman, as I mentioned before, advocates staying in Iraq until we can hand off the country to the new Iraqi government and its military.  I'm sorry you feel that this is wrong, but let me tell you something.  The country of Iraq was drawn nearly 90 years ago arbitrariliy, with no respect to ethnic and religious lines.  For almost all of its history, it has been ruled by strong, authoritarian leaders, similar to Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia.  Now, when Tito died in 1980, Yugoslavia fell into disarray, eventually tearing itself apart by ethnic faction until it disintegrated into several different republics.  That's exactly what will happen to Iraq if we pull out immediately.  The resulting ethnic conflict in Iraq would spill into the Middle East region, and an authoritarian country with possible nuclear capabilities like Iran may try to gain control of it.  So to avert a crisis like this, we must stay in Iraq, at least until the Iraqi government can take control of its own country. 

I myself would like to bring the troops home as soon as possible, but we have to see this government through.  Otherwise our total effort would have been a waste.  This support to stay still does not make Lieberman a warmonger.

[Virginian87]

I'm going to stop responding to your constant attacks, Progress.  You haven't been able to back up anything you say, but just persist in calling me a warmonger and telling me that I'm not a "true Democrat".  Come back and debate me when you have some facts, because your arguments thus far are somewhat pathetic.

[Virginian87]

It still remains to be seen whether Connecticut Democrats love Bill Clinton more or hate Joe Lieberman more.

Oh they're gonna hate Bill Clinton now for supporting the "warmonger" Joe Lieberman.

[Virginian87]

On the same show "Special Report with Brit Hume" on Fox News, they were saying in a 3-party race with Lieberman as Independent that Lieberman would manhandle Lamont and Shlies, 51-27-9.

Of course he would.  He'd have a sizeable chunk of the Democratic and Republican vote and pretty much all of the moderates.  It's pretty much a given that he will win either way.  It just makes this whole primary a waste of time and money.

[Virginian87]

The reason I don't change my avatar color is while I am a registered Republican, I'm not so hard-core that I hate Democrats.  I have voted for Democrats in the past (i.e. John Kerry) and am planning to vote for a Democrat in November 2006 (Brad Henry).  As my political matrix says I am a social conservative and an fiscally left-of-center.  I consider myself to fall in between John McCain and Bill Frist on the conservative scale.

It's good to see you sporting that red avatar.  There is a healthy moderate Democratic contingent here, including Preston Caldwell, Frodo, myself, Dave Hawk, and josh22 (who switched parties recently).  You're probably more conservative than I am on some issues, but it's refreshing to see some moderates from the Sooner State.  Perhaps you'll re-register as a Democrat someday. 

I too hope Henry wins a second term this November.  He and Dave Freudenthal are the best things we have going for us in the Plains states.