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

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 allegiance 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...

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

but having abandoned him, it would be a bit much to hear complaints from his party about him running as an independent.

Fin d'Abuzz wrote:

but having abandoned him, it would be a bit much to hear complaints from his party about him running as an independent.

Baloney. The only reason Lieberman is a Senator right now is that the Democratic Party provided the rungs of the ladder for him to move up one step at a time.

He knew the deal when he ran for office-even incumbents have to face a party primary.

If Lieberman can't win that primary, then he should do what everyone else who loses a party primary should do-support the winner, and then look for another office to run for.

princesspupule wrote:

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 allegiance 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...

There is no question that he has crossed a line which most Democrats won't cross. The question is whether or not this signifies that he has betrayed his party. If it does, then surely Lincoln Chaffee of RI is a traitor to the Republican party. Perhaps he and Lieberman should trade party affiliations.

I'm not sure why Lieberman's support of the war should prompt him to consider "what he's doing for his constituents." Has anyone suggested that this position has somehow made him a less than effective representative of the people of Connecticut? From a strictly political standpoint, wouldn't siding with the policies of the party in power tend to help him more than hurt him?

In any case, if his constituents do not feel that he is ably representing their interests, they will reject him come election day. The partisans who vote in party primaries (Dem and Repub) do not necessarily represent the will of the people of their state. Nothing wrong with Democrats not wanting Lieberman to run as a Democrat, but having abandoned him, it would be a bit much to hear complaints from his party about him running as an independent.

Fin d'Abuzz wrote:

but having abandoned him, it would be a bit much to hear complaints from his party about him running as an independent.

Baloney. The only reason Lieberman is a Senator right now is that the Democratic Party provided the rungs of the ladder for him to move up one step at a time.

He knew the deal when he ran for office-even incumbents have to face a party primary.

If Lieberman can't win that primary, then he should do what everyone else who loses a party primary should do-support the winner, and then look for another office to run for.

The Republicans shed an embarrassment like Tom Delay for their reasons. Democrats do it for their reasons. Such is life.

I think supporting Bush's efforts is bad enough, but didn't Lieberman go over-the-top and declare Bush was doing a good job by involving us in a war we shouldn't have started??? I feel that's betrayal. Now, of course, *I* am not one of his constituents, so I suppose I shouldn't speak for them, but I would've been, if he and Gore had worked a little harder (waited longer for an accurate vote count?) I think he ought to run as an independent, because from what I've read, the man doesn't think like a democrat...

Besides, if Lieberman votes pro choice now, what makes anyone think he will go the other way in the future?

princesspupule wrote:

I think supporting Bush's efforts is bad enough, but didn't Lieberman go over-the-top and declare Bush was doing a good job by involving us in a war we shouldn't have started??? I feel that's betrayal. Now, of course, *I* am not one of his constituents, so I suppose I shouldn't speak for them, but I would've been, if he and Gore had worked a little harder (waited longer for an accurate vote count?) I think he ought to run as an independent, because from what I've read, the man doesn't think like a democrat...

How does a Democrat think? There is only one way?

Is opposition to the war in Iraq now a litmus test for Democratic purity? Is it now Democratic doctrine that the US should never have started the Iraqi war? Is it a betrayal for a Democratic Senator to praise a Republican President?

Obviously Lieberman doesn't share your belief that the war in Iraq is one that we should not have started. Does this mean he should have resigned from the party?

Is there some sort of secret oath that Democrats take whereby they swear to never take a position which is contradictory to that of the party's leaders, and to never support a policy of a Republican President?

Is that Kelticwizard's Rule of Loyal Party Members?

In other words, let a minority of the electorate of your state determine whether or not you can represent that state, despite what the majority of the voters may want. Sounds like democracy to me!