Lieberman is a soulless sleaze

You are a bit late to the table realizing that the Democratic Party is corrupt, but better late than Never I always say.

he's a politician, of course he's a soulless sleaze

let's be honest, all political parties are corrupt

i believe a fellow, name of, machiavelli had something to say about power and all that

I didn't like the man, even when his nomination to run for VP was garnering widespread praise. Nothing he has done since could alter that early impression.

He has said that he will vote for cloture and allow this bill to reach a vote where it only needs 50 votes (+1 from Biden).

He would be one of the 60 needed to stop the filibuster; so he's said.

Yep, disagree with the big machine and you are a soulless pox upon humanity.

This is how the Democratic party works and why it will always be doomed to fail.

I read it that we would vote for cloture to allow debate, but not to close debate.

This is a intellectually dishonest cop-out.

Joe Lieberman represents "Bipartisanship".

Let this be a lesson to all.

sorry, it's my belief, i have little or no faith in any political party or figure

i vote, but i vote for candidates only, never following a party line

After the fiasco in handling the Swine flu vaccincations, do you really think a majority of Americans want the government to run ANY kind of health care program?

How many Republicans have you voted for in the past 12 years?

I think you are unclear on the concept.

We are promoting a public option for payment-- not a public dispensary. The government runs Medicare which is a similar public option for payment.

Medicare would be a relevant thing to whine about.

i'm a canadian, but i have voted conservative in the past

our conservative party sold itself out to your american style christian republican party

before that they were known as the progressive conservative party, a more moderate style of conservatism, and a good party

in the last decade or so i've voted liberal or new democrat, a social democrat party

Well, DJ... let me explain to you why your position is ironic in this case.

Lieberman was (by party registration) a Democrat... but he was an "independent Democrat", which meant, unlike the other democrats he loved war and thought the torture (i.e. water boarding) was a great idea.

The Democratic voters didn't like this. So when the primary election came around they found Ned Lamont an smart, energetic candidate who promised to vote against the use of torture.

The result of the election-- Lieberman lost the primary meaning that Ned Lamont was the Democratic candidate. This is how political parties work, the Democratic voters decided who would represent them.

But Lieberman didn't go away. He left the party and be came an "independent" with a "bipartisan" spirit that would represent all people.

Of course in the general all Republicans voted for Lieberman (since he was the non-Democratic candidate) and enough idiots who thought that "bipartisan" is a sweet thing voted for him that Lieberman won the seat.

The reasons these fools voted for Lieberman is because they said "we don't want to support either political party". Lieberman spouted "non-partisan" so many times it made people with any sense sick.

Most of these people (according to polls) now deeply regret their error.

So, DJ, this "I hate all parties" thing sounds all righteous and nice... but it intellectually cowardly.

Lieberman is the cruel result of this nonsense.

So are you mad that Lieberman won as an independent, or mad that the Democrats put him in a powerful position?

I don't know how you could be mad a him for winning an election; which of course he did w/o the Democratic party supporting him (as you mentioned, Lamont won).

Interesting; I'll need to do a little more research before forming an opinion on this.

If he were to vote to close the debate and let the bill be voted on, and then he chose to vote against it; I wouldn't have a problem with that I think. I'd disagree with this choice, but respect that he can make whatever choice he wants on the bill; the fillibuster method though I disagree with for the most part.

Yet one that proves itself true, time and time again.

Do you deny that?

Without the government there would have been no Swine flu vaccinations.

That would be so much better, don't you think?