NationStates Jolt Archive

Lieberman is a dick.

EDIT: im in ur thredz, stealin' ur OP

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.

Lieberman is a jackass who should never have been elected. I don't see why Connecticut reelected him whatsoever.

So what? If he switches parties, he's basically saying that he doesn't want to be reelected.

Since ALL politicans want to be reelected, I'm going to say that Lieberman's bark is far worse than his bite...he ought to shut up and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

I loathe Joseph Lieberman with a sizable portion of my soul. Who does he think he is, gambling with people's lives and blatantly disrespecting the will of the American people? That's Bush's job.

mmmm, priorities

I loathe Joseph Lieberman with a sizable portion of my soul. Who does he think he is, gambling with people's lives and blatantly disrespecting the will of the American people? That's Bush's job.

People often forget that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, we'd have Lieberman for a vice president. Frankly, considering what all he's done in the past few years, I don't see an improvement over Dick Cheney there at all.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.I dont know..
maybe the Democrats(voters) in Connecticut are brainless n00bs.

So what? If he switches parties, he's basically saying that he doesn't want to be reelected.he knows that one way or another he is not going to be reelected..
At the Connecticut campaign he told the voters he was no longer going to support Bush ways on Iraq.

and the Democrat voters believed him :rolleyes: .. shame on them.. they deserve him.

Lieberman is a dick.

EDIT: im in ur thredz, stealin' ur OP

I like most Cuban Americans have always liked Dem Sen Joe Lieberman,
he like Republican Rudolph - Rudi Giuliani passes the anti
Dictators Fidel & Raul Castro for life Cuban American test.

Joe Lieberman should have declared himself a Republican Senator from the start, lol.

Lieberman has no place in politics. I'm a Republican and I hate him.

Lieberman continually makes me want to throw up.

What a jerkoff.

Lieberman, ugh. When he's good and gone, I'll feel no remorse.

I dont know..
maybe the Democrats(voters) in Connecticut are brainless n00bs.
Don't be so quick to judge. Lieberman was practically elected by the Republicans.

Despite Lieberman considering himself a Democrat, he was endorsed by a number of Republicans across the United States. On August 17, 2006 the National Republican Senatorial Committee stated that they would favor a Lieberman victory in the November election over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont. The NRSC did state, however, that they were not going so far as to actually support Lieberman.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Lieberman at a South Carolina campaign stop on August 18, saying he was "a really exceptional senator." Other Republican supporters of Lieberman included Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, Former Representative and Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Jack Kemp, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

On August 28, Lieberman campaigned at the same motorcycle rally as GOP Congressman Christopher Shays. Shays told a crowd of motorcycle enthusiasts, "We have a national treasure in Joe Lieberman."

Mel Sembler, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, helped organize a reception that raised a "couple hundred thousand dollars" for Lieberman, who was personally in attendance. Sembler is a prominent Republican who chairs I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's legal defense fund. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) held a fundraiser for Lieberman at his home in November, co-hosted by former mayor Ed Koch (D) and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato (R). National conservative radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were among others that backed Lieberman.

On November 7, Lieberman won reelection as an independent candidate with 50% of the vote. Democratic challenger Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Republican Alan Schlesinger won 10%. Many more Republicans voted for Lieberman in percentage than did Democrats. Lieberman received support from only 33% of Democrats but a commanding 70% of Republicans.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't be so quick to judge. Lieberman was practically elected by the Republicans.

Absolutely disgusting.

What's so disgusting about it? The parties are nigh identical, remember? I'm just surprised this doesn't happen more often.

What's so disgusting about it? The parties are nigh identical, remember? I'm just surprised this doesn't happen more often.As an outsider, I can only agree.

What's so disgusting about it? The parties are nigh identical, remember? I'm just surprised this doesn't happen more often.
Oh, I don't know... maybe the fact that he's turning against the party on the single most important issue of our time, the one issue that most distinguishes the parties and one whose outcome will decide the fates of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? And maybe also the fact that he had to arrogantly disrespect the will of what had just recently been his own constituency in the process.

Oh, I don't know... maybe the fact that he's turning against the party on the single most important issue of our time, the one issue that most distinguishes the parties and one whose outcome will decide the fates of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? And maybe also the fact that he had to arrogantly disrespect the will of what had just recently been his own constituency in the process.

Who the hell cares about Iraqi civilians?

Oh, I don't know... maybe the fact that he's turning against the party on the single most important issue of our time, the one issue that most distinguishes the parties and one whose outcome will decide the fates of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? And maybe also the fact that he had to arrogantly disrespect the will of what had just recently been his own constituency in the process.

Well, yes, obviously that's immensely important, but I was talking about the party switch itself. My bad.

Obviously Lieberman switching and going down the party line would be bad bad bad bad bad for everyone. It would mean stopping this damned war would take even longer. :headbang:

Who the hell cares about Iraqi civilians?

Us, apparently. More American soldiers died since Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat than during his removal. By an order of magnitude.

Who the hell cares about Iraqi civilians?

Most people that have a heart instead of stone probably. Since you are the agressors I think that most non-americans care more about the deaths of hundreds of tousands of Iraqi civilians than of the death of your soldiers.

Most people that have a heart instead of stone probably. Since you are the agressors I think that most non-americans care more about the deaths of hundreds of tousands of Iraqi civilians than of the death of your soldiers.As an outsider, I can only agree... Again.

Of all the people who ran for president/vice-president in the US in 2000 and 2004, and who are going to run in 2008; I like Lieberman and McCain far more than the others. It isn't because I have any particular fondness for their views, but rather I like the fact that they are willing to go against their own parties and stand by their convictions even when it becomes unpopular to do so. Although McCain seems to be doing some backtracking now, making ammends with religious fundamentalists he initially castigated (quite rightfully so) in 2000.

Lieberman is a jackass who should never have been elected. I don't see why Connecticut reelected him whatsoever.

Don't look at me, I didn't vote for him.

Lieberman is a worthless POS. I hate that guy. He needs to stop tossing Bush's salad.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.

Won't matter, because the organizing resolution put in place at the beginning of the 110th Congress keeps the Committee Chairs and leadership positions the same no matter if the majority changes. It's not the same as 2001 when Jeffords jumped--different organizing resolution. So Lieberman's threat is hollow. Let him jump, because if, as expected, the Dems pick up even more seats in 2008 (because the Republicans are defending 21 of the 33 seats up for grabs and some in hostile territory), he'll be even more marginalized.

And that's why I think he won't jump. He gets more attention simply saying he will and making Congressional Dems worry about it, and that's what he really wants, the attention. Or maybe he imagines he'll get the VP nod from McCain.

People often forget that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, we'd have Lieberman for a vice president. Frankly, considering what all he's done in the past few years, I don't see an improvement over Dick Cheney there at all.

At least until 2004. No guarantees for beyond that, though Lieberman would have to have screwed up pretty bad in order to get booted from the ticket. I mean, even Quayle wasn't booted from the ticket, and that guy...

What's so disgusting about it? The parties are nigh identical, remember? I'm just surprised this doesn't happen more often.

Maybe McCain will become a Democrat. :D

Of all the people who ran for president/vice-president in the US in 2000 and 2004, and who are going to run in 2008; I like Lieberman and McCain far more than the others. It isn't because I have any particular fondness for their views, but rather I like the fact that they are willing to go against their own parties and stand by their convictions even when it becomes unpopular to do so.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Besides, how will changing parties not get him reelected? If I recall correctly, while I was still up in hell, err, Connecticut, he ran as an independent because he lost the nomination of his own party.

How can control switch to the Republicans when Lieberman was only a Democrat puppet with a Republican hand up his ass. Congress composition remains the same in all but technicality.

And I would never support McCain for president, and neither would his own party. He is too dangerous.

How can control switch to the Republicans when Lieberman was only a Democrat puppet with a Republican hand up his ass. Congress composition remains the same in all but technicality.

And I would never support McCain for president, and neither would his own party. He is too dangerous.

Lieberman would vote for a Republican majority if he was Republican. Right now, he's being nice, and voting Democrat.

If Holy Joe jumps, he's out of any power at all in 2 year's time. Moreover, Holy Joe won't even make a difference on the issue of Iraq, since saner Republicans are standing with Dems. Joe Lieberman is just showing his sour grapes.

I wish Connecticut had recall elections, because even the people of Connecticut can't be proud of this bastard at this point.

Boy, there sure is a lot of personal hatred of a man y'all have undoubtedly never met.

More telling on the state of the party, is the fact that a former Vice Presidential candidate is ready to leave the party that nominated him. This doesn't say anything good about the Democrats and their present policy.

If Holy Joe jumps, he's out of any power at all in 2 year's time. Moreover, Holy Joe won't even make a difference on the issue of Iraq, since saner Republicans are standing with Dems. Joe Lieberman is just showing his sour grapes.

I wish Connecticut had recall elections, because even the people of Connecticut can't be proud of this bastard at this point.
You forget that the state just re-elected him over the Democratic and Republican candidates. I don't think they have a problem with his politics.

Boy, there sure is a lot of personal hatred of a man y'all have undoubtedly never met.

You show personal hatred for more than one BILLION PEOPLE you never met!

'Grrr! If only I could make other states and regions vote my way! Sure, republicanism (in the actual sense of the word, not the party, so shut it) would be a null and void concept if I did it, but who cares what their citizens have deemed best for their state! What do they know!?'

You forget that the state just re-elected him over the Democratic and Republican candidates. I don't think they have a problem with his politics.

Holy Joe got re-elected because he brings the Pork home like a good candidate. The Republicans voted for him en masse because they knew that their candidate was a no go after he got caught gambling in Atlantic City. The reason that Holy Joe won was because enough stupid Dems didn't see him for the dimwit he was, and thought "gee, he kept the earmarks at home, he must be fine."

It was a clear cut case of incumbent advantage winning a race. Lamont didn't run a hard enough campaign either, but Lieberman got re-elected because the Republicans used him to prevent Lamont from being elected.

He will never win another election in his life. He would not even win if he ran today. Joe-mentum just aint good enough when met with the brick wall of reality.

Holy Joe got re-elected because he brings the Pork home like a good candidate. The Republicans voted for him en masse because they knew that their candidate was a no go after he got caught gambling in Atlantic City. The reason that Holy Joe won was because enough stupid Dems didn't see him for the dimwit he was, and thought "gee, he kept the earmarks at home, he must be fine."

It was a clear cut case of incumbent advantage winning a race. Lamont didn't run a hard enough campaign either, but Lieberman got re-elected because the Republicans used him to prevent Lamont from being elected.

He will never win another election in his life. He would not even win if he ran today. Joe-mentum just aint good enough when met with the brick wall of reality.
You just keep telling yourself that... You might believe it and your friends at MoveOn might, but it's going to be the Democrats that vote to tie the hands of the forces in Iraq that are going to lose elections.

You just keep telling yourself that... You might believe it and your friends at MoveOn might, but it's going to be the Democrats that vote to tie the hands of the forces in Iraq that are going to lose elections.

Which is why 2/3rds of Americans want our troops out of Iraq by 2008, right? Which is why Americans are frustrated with the Democratic Congress... For not ending Iraq fast enough, right? Which is why the Republicans got voted out en masse for their incompetance dealing with the Iraq war, right? Which is why the majority of Americans oppose this escalation, right? Which is why Snowe and Collins had the foresight to jump ship on Iraq, right?

Sorry, Myrm, but in the real world, the Dems stand only to gain from opposing this war, and Holy Joe stands only to lose.

The Democrats are going to do what the Republicans did these past few years - get drunk on power and accomplish nothing. What's going to happen then? The same thing that happened now - voters will get fed up and the parties will swing.

The Democrats cutting funding is just like the Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton - you're not going to win it, and it just wastes time and makes you looks dumb - you might be in the right, but it won't matter. The first party to realize that petty issues like these are pointless is going to hold power for twenty years.

Oh, and uh...bring back Reganomics. I dunno.

Of all the people who ran for president/vice-president in the US in 2000 and 2004, and who are going to run in 2008; I like Lieberman and McCain far more than the others. It isn't because I have any particular fondness for their views, but rather I like the fact that they are willing to go against their own parties and stand by their convictions even when it becomes unpopular to do so. Although McCain seems to be doing some backtracking now, making ammends with religious fundamentalists he initially castigated (quite rightfully so) in 2000.
To hell with going against his own party -- what about going against his own Democratic constituency? Or going against democracy itself when he ran again after a clear loss to Lamont?

Amen, brother. Amen.

Besides, how will changing parties not get him reelected? If I recall correctly, while I was still up in hell, err, Connecticut, he ran as an independent because he lost the nomination of his own party.
He ran as a Republican. 70% of his supporters were Republican. He was just too cowardly to cross the Rubicon.

Boy, there sure is a lot of personal hatred of a man y'all have undoubtedly never met.
I think I know a crybaby and political coward when I see one.

More telling on the state of the party, is the fact that a former Vice Presidential candidate is ready to leave the party that nominated him. This doesn't say anything good about the Democrats and their present policy.
The Democrats? What do you think it says about Lieberman?

You forget that the state just re-elected him over the Democratic and Republican candidates. I don't think they have a problem with his politics.
Again, he wasn't elected as an independent. The supermajority of his supporters were Republicans afraid of a Lamont win.

The Democrats cutting funding is just like the Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton - you're not going to win it, and it just wastes time and makes you looks dumb - you might be in the right, but it won't matter. The first party to realize that petty issues like these are pointless is going to hold power for twenty years.
Ending the war in Iraq is a "petty issue"? WTF?

To hell with going against his own party -- what about going against his own Democratic constituency? Or going against democracy itself when he ran again after a clear loss to Lamont?

So, if Lieberman loses primary, it goes against democracy for him to run as an independent (or Republican)?

So, you believe that the only person who should win the election is the winner of the Democratic Primary?

Why don't you move to Washington DC, where that's always true?

I dont know..
maybe the Democrats(voters) in Connecticut are brainless n00bs.
You do know that everyone votes in Connecticut elections, not just Democrats, yes? I'm pretty sure its the same all over the country. You don't even have to be in a party, and they still let you vote.

Don't be so quick to judge. Lieberman was practically elected by the Republicans.



Absolutely disgusting.
Yes. It is repulsive that people would vote for the person they felt was best for the job.
Times and people change, yes. And I'm sure that if the election was held today, the results would be different (not necessarily the outcome, but who voted for whom might). However, I fail to see why it is disgusting that the state of Connecticut voted for someone.


He already isn't a Democrat, and, as Nazz pointed out, commitee chairs are locked. What does it matter?

To hell with going against his own party -- what about going against his own Democratic constituency? Or going against democracy itself when he ran again after a clear loss to Lamont?His constituency is the State of Connecticut. Not the Democrats of the State of Connecticut. He represents the entire state, not just one party or just the people who voted for him.
He lost in the democratic primary. He then ran as an independent. That isn't going against democracy, it's going against the will of the Democratic party. Huge difference.


He ran as a Republican. 70% of his supporters were Republican. He was just too cowardly to cross the Rubicon.No, he didn't. Who votes for a person, amazingly, doesn't determine their party.


The Democrats? What do you think it says about Lieberman?That he's standing up for the issues, rather than sucking off the party? God forbid someone does that.
Now, you want to argue that he's going against the will of Connecticut, fine. The will of the nation, fine. But don't aruge that he's going against his party. He should be voting the way his state, his nation, and he personally (and in that order) feel. Not the way his party tells him to feel.


Again, he wasn't elected as an independent. The supermajority of his supporters were Republicans afraid of a Lamont win.That doesn't make him Republican. He was elected as the Independent candidate (actually, independent Democrat). The Republican candidate was Alan Schlesinger

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.

How do you like them apples, Donkocrats?

If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords can vote with you, Joe Lieberman can vote with us :p

How do you like them apples, Donkocrats?

If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords can vote with you, Joe Lieberman can vote with us :p

And here I thought you were interested in the well-being of your nation, rather than schoolyard-level "you don't get to play with us if you play with them" politics.

My mistake.

But, okay, we can always go "see, Jim voted with us" and start the charade all over again.

So, if Lieberman loses primary, it goes against democracy for him to run as an independent (or Republican)?
Well, maybe that was a tad hyperbolic, but what he did was certainly disingenuous and underhanded. It's like a child asking his mother for something, being told "no", then ignoring that answer and going to his father behind his mother's back.

So, you believe that the only person who should win the election is the winner of the Democratic Primary?
No, but I do think that the loser of the Democratic primary should accept the fact that they lost and not turn to the opposition for support in a desperate bid for power.

You do know that everyone votes in Connecticut elections, not just Democrats, yes? I'm pretty sure its the same all over the country. You don't even have to be in a party, and they still let you vote.

Yes. It is repulsive that people would vote for the person they felt was best for the job.
Times and people change, yes. And I'm sure that if the election was held today, the results would be different (not necessarily the outcome, but who voted for whom might). However, I fail to see why it is disgusting that the state of Connecticut voted for someone.
It's not so much who Connecticut voted for as it is what the eventual winner did to get those votes.

He already isn't a Democrat, and, as Nazz pointed out, commitee chairs are locked. What does it matter?
Because if he openly declares a party switch, he'll stop pussyfooting around the issue and start doing some real damage. He won't feel even the slightest obligation to support his party anymore.

His constituency is the State of Connecticut. Not the Democrats of the State of Connecticut. He represents the entire state, not just one party or just the people who voted for him.
He lost in the democratic primary. He then ran as an independent. That isn't going against democracy, it's going against the will of the Democratic party. Huge difference.
That's still a pretty big problem, though. He got where he is thanks to the support of the Democratic Party. He was even their VP candidate! Then he decides to go against reality and common sense to support the war, loses support of his party and most voters, then performs a questionable political maneuver to stay in power, then uses said power to hold Democratic control of the Senate to ransom.

No, he didn't. Who votes for a person, amazingly, doesn't determine their party.What does, then? Do actions not speak louder than words? Isn't it fairly obvious that he was gunning for Republican support?

That he's standing up for the issues, rather than sucking off the party? God forbid someone does that.
Now, you want to argue that he's going against the will of Connecticut, fine. The will of the nation, fine. But don't aruge that he's going against his party. He should be voting the way his state, his nation, and he personally (and in that order) feel. Not the way his party tells him to feel.
It's clear, the way his state felt. They rejected him. Instead of accepting that, he did the whole divide-and-conquer thing (split the Democrats and capture the GOP vote) to win.

That doesn't make him Republican. He was elected as the Independent candidate (actually, independent Democrat). The Republican candidate was Alan Schlesinger
In theory.

I loathe Joseph Lieberman with a sizable portion of my soul. Who does he think he is, gambling with people's lives and blatantly disrespecting the will of the American people? That's Bush's job.

Because his interest and America's interest doesn't seem to be on the right track, it seems as if he's representing another country. Think about it, a country that would like Iraq to be a buffer zone (with American military presence) from the threat of Iran. This country had a lesson from Iran's reach by fighting Hezbollah.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZGKrWxXEpkk :D

Maybe McCain will become a Democrat. :D

He's too busy trying to suck Daddy Dobson's dick and getting slapped in the face with it to even consider the possibility.

It's not so much who Connecticut voted for as it is what the eventual winner did to get those votes.I'll give you that him running after losing a primary was questionable (although, I don't think it was). What of his tactics was out of line?


Because if he openly declares a party switch, he'll stop pussyfooting around the issue and start doing some real damage. He won't feel even the slightest obligation to support his party anymore.He has no obligation to the democrats. Almost every single one supported him in the primary and droped him the second it was over. I'm not saying what they did was bad, but he surely doesn't owe them anything.


That's still a pretty big problem, though. He got where he is thanks to the support of the Democratic Party. He was even their VP candidate! Then he decides to go against reality and common sense to support the war, loses support of his party and most voters, then performs a questionable political maneuver to stay in power, then uses said power to hold Democratic control of the Senate to ransom.So because the party once supported him, and he once agreed with them, he should now play nice? I don't see his shift as dangerous to democrats, as the seats are locked in and they will probably gain seats next election.
And he got where he is thanks to the voters of Connecticut, the majority of which are independent.

What does, then? Do actions not speak louder than words? Isn't it fairly obvious that he was gunning for Republican support?
Republicans make up 22% of the voting body of the state of Connecticut. He couldn't win with that even if he killed every last democrat (33.7%). Connecticut, while a liberal state, is not radical in its overall stanced. He was going for the independent vote.


It's clear, the way his state felt. They rejected him. Instead of accepting that, he did the whole divide-and-conquer thing (split the Democrats and capture the GOP vote) to win.It is anything but clear that his state rejected him. The Democratic primary was 51.79% Lamont, 48.21% Lieberman. That is hardly a clear statement that the Democrats rejected him.
Now consider the fact that CT doesn't allow independents to vote in primaries. That means that only 52% of 33.7% of the state, or an amazing 18% of the state voted him out in the primary.
If the state had rejected him, I don't see how he could win by 10% in the final vote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

Basically, if the Democrats try to cut off funding for the war, he'll become a Republican, and control of the Senate will immediately go to the Republicans.

Sounds like a "if you don't back off, I'm going to jump" statement to me.

I wonder how that will pan out.

Not very well I suspect. Heck, I"m sure they'll throw him to the wolves and force him to do it. there is no doubt in my mind that he'll do it too if the Dems did try to cut funding.

How do you like them apples, Donkocrats?

If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords can vote with you, Joe Lieberman can vote with us :p
He votes with you guys anyway, and since the Committee Chairs and leadership posts are locked up through 2008 anyway, it doesn't really matter. Thing is, Joe won't jump because he knows if he does, he's probably fucked after 2008. He'll really be in the minority then. He's in a stronger position simply staying a nominal Democrat and fucking with the leadership. At least that way he's still a pest and therefore mildly relevant. If he jumps, he ceases to be relevant.

Lieberman is a jackass who should never have been elected. I don't see why Connecticut reelected him whatsoever.

Because, like it or not, he sticks by his decisions regardless. Not to mention, he has done alot for the state of CT.

Not very well I suspect. Heck, I"m sure they'll throw him to the wolves and force him to do it. there is no doubt in my mind that he'll do it too if the Dems did try to cut funding.

Good riddance then. If all it takes to get him to end his charade is a vote to stop this Iraq War joke, then that is a vote we should hurry.

Won't matter, because the organizing resolution put in place at the beginning of the 110th Congress keeps the Committee Chairs and leadership positions the same no matter if the majority changes.

How much you want to bet that things will change if he did that? I'll give you 2-1 odds that the Repubicans will immediately jump back to their chairmanships with Lieberman getting one of them.

Boy, there sure is a lot of personal hatred of a man y'all have undoubtedly never met.

More telling on the state of the party, is the fact that a former Vice Presidential candidate is ready to leave the party that nominated him. This doesn't say anything good about the Democrats and their present policy.

Agreed 100%.

People often forget that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, we'd have Lieberman for a vice president. Frankly, considering what all he's done in the past few years, I don't see an improvement over Dick Cheney there at all.

true that. if gore decided to run in '08 though that'd be fuckin awesome. i guarentee he wouldn't pick that traitor again. AND he'd be a great dark horse against Clinton and Obama.

Because, like it or not, he sticks by his decisions regardless. Not to mention, he has done alot for the state of CT.

that would be the main reason.

How much you want to bet that things will change if he did that? I'll give you 2-1 odds that the Repubicans will immediately jump back to their chairmanships with Lieberman getting one of them.It won't happen, because the way the Senate is set up, the chairmanships are locked until 2008, no matter what happens. The organizing resolution is not the same as it was when Jeffords switched--then the resolution said that if someone switched, so would majority control. That clause isn't in the one for this Congress, so all that would happen is that Lieberman would be a Republican. He'd keep his committee chairmanship, but no one else would get one, and he'd be kicked out of the Democratic caucus, so he wouldn't know what was going on internally.

Agreed 100%.

Yeah, let's all pretend we don't know Lieberman is a Republican puppet now anyway and then use his threat to "switch" sides as an attack on the Democrats. Yeah, semantics is a fun game.

Who the hell cares about Iraqi civilians?

i hope that was a sarcastic embodiment of the conservative position in the form of a rhetorical question.

Boy, there sure is a lot of personal hatred of a man y'all have undoubtedly never met.

More telling on the state of the party, is the fact that a former Vice Presidential candidate is ready to leave the party that nominated him. This doesn't say anything good about the Democrats and their present policy.

Actually, people wanting to change parties has nothing to do with how one is treated by that party. It actually has to do with (and who'd have thought?) a personal shift in ideals and viewpoints. But no, it couldn't be that, because everyone knows the Republicans rock, which is why they won the last election why Bush is our most popular president EVER! oh wait...

How do you like them apples, Donkocrats?

If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords can vote with you, Joe Lieberman can vote with us :p

Is "Us" the redneck Republican party? The party that swing voters have finally realized is a racist, backwoods, DER LETS GO MUDDIN AND KILL SOME MOSLEMS party via pulling their heads out of their asses? How do you like them apples, crazy xenophobes?

It won't happen, because the way the Senate is set up, the chairmanships are locked until 2008, no matter what happens.

You forget that things can change overnight. Call it a repelation of the resolution and you'll have a change in leadership there. That is all that is required.

Yeah, let's all pretend we don't know Lieberman is a Republican puppet now anyway and then use his threat to "switch" sides as an attack on the Democrats. Yeah, semantics is a fun game.

Which is funny since he has voted with the Democrats over 90% of the time. The only issue they differ is the Iraq War issue. To call him a republican in Democratic clothing is stupid.

Because his interest and America's interest doesn't seem to be on the right track, it seems as if he's representing another country. Think about it, a country that would like Iraq to be a buffer zone (with American military presence) from the threat of Iran. This country had a lesson from Iran's reach by fighting Hezbollah.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZGKrWxXEpkk :D

I really admire that man on the video.

You forget that things can change overnight. Call it a repelation of the resolution and you'll have a change in leadership there. That is all that is required.

Well it won't happen, you know why? Because smart people aren't voting Republican anymore, that's why. Only backwoods idiots (and why they do support Republicans is beyond me, because Republicans are friends of corrupt corporations ONLY) and said corrupt corporations are supporting the Republican party at this point. If power switched midway, you BETTER BELIEVE there would be protests by the American people, and Holy Joe will NOT be re-elected (he probably won't anyway).

To call him a republican in Democratic clothing is stupid.

If the shirt fits, wear it. Then again, popular adages and expressions have always been a hit-and-miss proposition where you're concerned, AC.

You forget that things can change overnight. Call it a repelation of the resolution and you'll have a change in leadership there. That is all that is required.

Nope--in order to repeal the resolution, you have to bring it to the floor, and that makes it subject to filibuster. Now, do you think the Democrats won't filibuster a resolution that would cost them their committee chairmanships? Come on--doesn't matter how stupid you think Democrats are, they're not going to let that happen.

Which is funny since he has voted with the Democrats over 90% of the time. The only issue they differ is the Iraq War issue. To call him a republican in Democratic clothing is stupid.

Then what happens if he switches? Does he keep voting the same and the Republicans accuse of him being a Democrat puppet? Or does he become a hypocrite? Either way, he loses.

Actually, Roma, smart people do not vote down party lines. As doing so, indicates your lack of knowledge of the party and their nominee. As for "only backwoods rednecks," I sincerely doubt they are the only ones voting Republican. I don't recall Mayor Bloomberg or Giuliani being supported by rednecks. Nor Arlen Specter (although, the Penn Republican party is more liberal than the Dem) for that matter.

You are making glaring generalizations that show why you are ignorant of politics in the United States. As for Joe Lieberman and being a "crybaby," I doubt if any of you had lost a primary as an incumbent, that you would merely quit your campaign. Especially, when only 18% of your state said "we don't want you anymore."

As for corrupt corporations, why are they corrupt? Because they make a profit. God forbid, a company makes money. Yeah, 18billion in a quarter is unheard of, but not because of corruption, only because of the vast amount of capital that will be reinvested in the state. Additionally, oil companies make the majority of their profit in other countries, and not the United States. On top of that, the U.S. government has already taxed those companies on just about everything they do, meaning that on average if Exxon Mobile is making 18 billion in profit, the US government is making double that, if not more from the mere profit alone (gas taxes are higher than income taxes, and seeing a corporation is considered a person, by law, it is unfairly taxed). On top of that tax, the government taxes the refinement process, the land owned by the company, the fuel the company buys from itself to transport it’s good, as well as taxes on the number of employees. If anyone is being fleeced, it’s not the American populace but these corporations.

Now, if you think that just because a company is making a profit that means its employees and other citizens of the country are losing, then you are horribly wrong. Money is not a fixed amount, Bill Gates having 48 billion dollars, does not mean there is that much money not in the economy. On the contrary, by him amassing such a wealth, gives him the opportunity to create more wealth by creating and expanding his companies. How does this work? Well, when people have jobs...yeah its kind of self explanatory.

Quite frankly, that is enough of me ranting on how absurd this argument is, seeing as few of you live in CT. Maybe if all of you did, you would have something to bitch about, but seeing as the majority of you do not, it is not your place to make accusations of being a traitor because He doesn't see eye to eye with your take of the Democratic Party . I suppose that is unfortunate, since everyone who joins a party must be exactly the same in order to get elected.

I really admire that man on the video.


He knows his stuff, as long as you're truthful & just, no one will find ways to attacking you. Same goes for this speech against the US senate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=il7V6hXkYds & for more http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cm-2IVWqXcA