Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

There is no Joementum on A2K it seems.

0 Replies

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par

msolga wrote:

Why are the Democrats putting up with him?

Suppose the Democrats quit putting up with him, nominate Lamont, Lieberman runs as an independent, and the people of Connecticut decide to keep Lieberman as Senator. Would this remedy satisfy you? And how about you, BBB?

0 Replies

If that happens, Mr. Thomas, it will be viewed as a serious loss by the left wing of the DemocraticParty who chose to try to discipline a Senator who, while a Liberal in Domestic matters, chose to defend the war against Iraq.

Mr.Lieberman is, an honest and moral man who would caucus with the Democrats if he won as an Independent but no one should think that he would not become an even stronger voice for the Bush Administration's views on the Middle East.

0 Replies

The New York Times endorsement is out. It closes like this:

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration's policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales's sneering reference to the "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq's weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance. If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support. Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.
Source (Subscribers only)

0 Replies

Are you surprised, Mr. Thomas? Can you name a Republican President the New York Times has backed since FDR? I think not. The NY Times even backed the hopeless losers--Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale.

But an endorsement from the left leaning Editorial Board of the New York Times is indeed important since its views are replicated in many of the nation's newspapers. Luckily, most of those who read the editorials in other newspapers know the reputation of the New York Times. I really do not think it sells very well in the large majority of the "red" states.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Republicans are more independent minded, and follow the party line less. There is more room for dissent. Democrats are expected to toe the line, and if they don't, watch out for the party bosses and the people behind the scenes running the party.

Oh my goodness...thank you, Okie...thank you.

Gotta go to work today...and if there is anything I need to get me started...it is a good, long, belly-felt laugh.

That was incredible.

And you wrote it as though you really meant it.

Oh my aching sides.

To think of the knee-jerk conservative Republicans being "independent" and "following the party line less!."

Good gravy...what will you come up with next to bring some joy into our lives.

Oh my sides.

0 Replies

You really ought to see a Doctor about that , Mr. Apisa. It sounds like Hydrocele to me!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

You really ought to see a Doctor about that , Mr. Apisa. It sounds like Hydrocele to me!!!

Oh really!

Thank you for your concern.

You ought to see a veterinarian. You sound like a sick weasel to me.

0 Replies

You may be right, Mr, Apisa, but I don't have hydrocele.

0 Replies

Very, very funny!

0 Replies

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par

Thomas wrote:

msolga wrote:
Why are the Democrats putting up with him?

Suppose the Democrats quit putting up with him, nominate Lamont, Lieberman runs as an independent, and the people of Connecticut decide to keep Lieberman as Senator. Would this remedy satisfy you? And how about you, BBB?

Thomas, I'm not a US citizen. I asked out of interest because I found the Lieberman situation rather an unusual one.

0 Replies

Re: Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a par

msolga wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

He's a Democrat, right? And continually (apparently) pushes the Republican agenda? I don't understand, then, why he continues to receive the endorsement of his party & why Democrat voters in his state continue to vote for him. This blatant disloyalty wouldn't be tolerated in too many political parties around the world. (& I do understand that there can be disagreement about particular issues within any one political party. You see this often, in political debate in many countries.) Why are the Democrats putting up with him? (Pardon me if I'm missing something here, on the other side of the planet, but he appears to be working for other Republicans, not his own party.)

It's hard to fathom... Recall, he was selected to be Gore's running mate... perhaps because he was his party's scold...

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
It's one thing for Lieberman to be independent minded, quite another if his actions are not what Democrats agree with and so can't in good conscience vote for. What's the big deal?

Good point, except it seems that in some circles the argument is made that Lieberman is somehow guilty of betrayal for not more closely adhering to the party line.

It seems to be that it is far more admirable to not vote for a candidate of your party because he doesn't represent your way of thinking, then to vote for him, in spite of his positions, because he is a member of your party.

Personally, I hope he does lose the primary battle. The polls seem to suggest that he will win as an independent, and as a independent in the Senate, he should not be constrained by allegience to his former party.

I think perhaps if "the party line" is that Bush should not have gone to war in Iraq without legitimate cause, and Lieberman, for whatever reasons which make sense to himself continues to support Bush, even saying he's doing a good job in Iraq, then perhaps he has crossed a line most democrats won't cross and perhaps he should think about what he's doing for his constituents. Of course, that's jmo...

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Are you surprised, Mr. Thomas? Can you name a Republican President the New York Times has backed since FDR?

Yes, I'm a little surprised. No, I can't name a Republican president the New York Times has backed. But this primary is between two Democrats, so I don't see what their non-endorsment of Republican presidents would tell us about it.

0 Replies

Lieberman is already a non Democrat by his actions. Exactly what loss are we as Democrats to suffer if he leaves the party?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Lieberman is already a non Democrat by his actions. Exactly what loss are we as Democrats to suffer if he leaves the party?

It may well be a plausible view, depending on how you define `Democrat'. So, from your assesment of Lieberman's positions, I gather you would be fine if Lieberman ran as an independent and beat Lamont in the elections, as he probably would. Am I correct?

0 Replies

How would the situation change if he did that? Same person, same actions.

0 Replies

To say I am "okay" with it is not exactly right. Just realistic.

0 Replies

Also, Lamont only leads by a few points. Who is to say for certain Lieberman will lose the primary?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Also, Lamont only leads by a few points. Who is to say for certain Lieberman will lose the primary?

Certainly not me. I was just asking because I'd been listening in to Radio America's website a little. My impression was that some hosts were simultaneously claiming that Lieberman wasn't a Democrat anymore and that he shouldn't run as an independent because that would be treasonous. I wanted to check whether A2K Democrats share these sentiments.

0 Replies

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know