NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.

But I am seriously curious as to whether anyone likes or respects him.

I would think most (if not all) Democrats would hate him for his betrayal of the party, his neo-conservative views, etc.

I would think most (if not all) Republicans would hate him for still caucasing with the Democrats, his liberal views, etc.

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Short answer? No. He struggled to win in CT last time, and I've seen a distinct shift against him in the state. I don't see that changing, and would expect to see him out of a job in his next election.

Oh, and it should be noted that most of CT is independent...the two party arguments are somewhat irrelevant when you look at him going against what his state wants.

See my sig.

He's jewish. He's used to it. :p

I don't.

loses his chairmanship.
Having said that, is it not better to know the 'idiot', than to get rid of the old one and invite a new, unknown one in?

Welcome to simple answers to simple questions:

No

This has been simple answers to simple questions. Please tune in next week for our answer to the question "Is John McCain old?"

Welcome to simple answers to simple questions:

No

This has been simple answers to simple questions. Please tune in next week for our answer to the question "Is John McCain old?"

I like you. You can stay. :)

I like you. You can stay. :)

And here I thought I was gonna have to bribe you with a taco to get your approval, your Goofballness.

I like you. You can stay. :)http://peruron.com/blol/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/seal-of-approval.jpg

A politician who no one likes? Which one?

Oh, wait, even his peers hate him. Damn, dude, that takes some trying.

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.

But I am seriously curious as to whether anyone likes or respects him.

I would think most (if not all) Democrats would hate him for his betrayal of the party, his neo-conservative views, etc.

I would think most (if not all) Republicans would hate him for still cacausing with the Democrats, his liberal views, etc.

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

I really detest chinless Joe. Fuck that guy.

http://peruron.com/blol/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/seal-of-approval.jpg

I have a new desktop background. Thanks. :p

Fuck him. Kick him from the committee chairmanship. Hell, kick him from the committee. I only refrained from voting to kick him from the caucus because I'm not sure what that means, but since its the Democratic congress and he's an Independent I probably should have.

Welcome to simple answers to simple questions:

No

This has been simple answers to simple questions. Please tune in next week for our answer to the question "Is John McCain old?"

Lol. Priceless.

I have a new desktop background. Thanks. :pYou're welcome. :p

Having said that, is it not better to know the 'idiot', than to get rid of the old one and invite a new, unknown one in?

um, i don't believe we can exactly call carl levin, daniel akaka, and tom carper (in descending order, depending on who is willing to give up another chairmanship) either new or unknown

And here I thought I was gonna have to bribe you with a taco to get your approval, your Goofballness.

Psh. Like I can be bribed with a single taco!

...

Can I still have the taco?

um, i don't believe we can exactly call carl levin, daniel akaka, and tom carper (in descending order, depending on who is willing to give up another chairmanship) either new or unknownI was being facetious. :p

Psh. Like I can be bribed with a single taco!

...

Can I still have the taco?

Sure (http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/taco.jpg)

Besides which, who said I was planning to stop with one taco?

Everyone has a mother, but his is probably dead so she doesn't count.
Anyway, if no one else likes him, then I will. I can't stand to see people on the outskirts, abandoned and despairing. That's why I always vote for 3rd party candidates and often volunteer at soup kitchens.

Here's the complex philosophical reason I don't want Lieberman punished for campaigning against his party-

Yeah, it was shitty. But one of the main things I liked about Obama was that I got the sense that I could disagree with him. So this is kind of a first test, are the Democrats going to be punitive to those who don't tow the line like we've had for the last eight years, or are they going to be open to the discussion? Is there a line? Yes, of course. I just don't want Obama et al to draw it right out of the box.

Its a bit of a shame really. The US needs more centrists.

Here's the complex philosophical reason I don't want Lieberman punished for campaigning against his party-

Yeah, it was shitty. But one of the main things I liked about Obama was that I got the sense that I could disagree with him. So this is kind of a first test, are the Democrats going to be punitive to those who don't tow the line like we've had for the last eight years, or are they going to be open to the discussion? Is there a line? Yes, of course. I just don't want Obama et al to draw it right out of the box.

Lieberman hasnt been on our side since 2000.

Most Cuban Americans like Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman. He is very well liked and respected in the Cuban American community by most. He has a proven pro Cuban American record. He passes the Cuban American anti dictators Fidel and Raul litmus test. Viva Joe Liberman.

Its a bit of a shame really. The US needs more centrists.

i fail to see how centrists are good. especially lieberman/village-style 'centrists'

Its a bit of a shame really. The US needs more centrists.

Joe isn't really a centrist. He's a fiscal liberal, a social moderate, and a hardcore neoconservative on foreign policy. He's an odd fish, his Lieberman, but a moderate, he isn't.

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.

But I am seriously curious as to whether anyone likes or respects him.

I would think most (if not all) Democrats would hate him for his betrayal of the party, his neo-conservative views, etc.

I would think most (if not all) Republicans would hate him for still caucasing with the Democrats, his liberal views, etc.

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
I don't hate the man because he has never done anything that killed anyone, and I don't consider being a traitor to one's political party to be especially heinous.

However, although I don't hate him, I have no respect for him at all. He is a backstabbing, two-faced liar; a shill for the rightwing who only remains with the Democratic Party in order to undermine them, and who has lied to the voters of Connecticut so he could do it.

If I had my way, he would be first stripped of his committee chair and then tossed out of the Democratic caucus. They should have done that years ago.

The Dems apparently think they need to hold onto him a while longer, but I don't see the point. Unless they have some juicy photos of him and a duck, I don't see how they can guarantee that he'll vote with the Dems in the next Congress, considering how he has betrayed the party already. I say dump his worthless ass and instead cultivate moderate Republicans.

EDIT: Tonight, on one of MSNBC's programs (don't remember which one; I had it running while I was working at my desk), a suggestion that it would be better if, rather than kicking Lieberman out, the Dems put him in the position of either submitting to party control or leaving of his own accord. If he were to switch parties now, it is suggested, this would put him in a bad light with his constituents in Connecticut, who voted for a Democrat, not a Republican, perhaps putting his future in the Senate at risk. This idea may have some merit.

The Dems apparently think they need to hold onto him a while longer, but I don't see the point. Unless they have some juicy photos of him and a duck, I don't see how they can guarantee that he'll vote with the Dems in the next Congress, considering how he has betrayed the party already. I say dump his worthless ass and instead cultivate moderate Republicans.

Eh... I'd say that it's better PR to hold on to him and strip him of his chairmanship. It'll look better for Obama and the Democrats, and make it easier for them to get votes to pass the platform if they look forgiving and open to compromise.

Here's the complex philosophical reason I don't want Lieberman punished for campaigning against his party-

Yeah, it was shitty. But one of the main things I liked about Obama was that I got the sense that I could disagree with him. So this is kind of a first test, are the Democrats going to be punitive to those who don't tow the line like we've had for the last eight years, or are they going to be open to the discussion? Is there a line? Yes, of course. I just don't want Obama et al to draw it right out of the box.

he can rejoin the party and he can even still have a chairmanship. but thou shalt not suffer a lunatic wingnut to be in charge of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee.

i fail to see how centrists are good. especially lieberman/village-style 'centrists'

I guess wether you see centrists as good or not depends on wether you look back at the polarisation between Democrats and Republicans that has become apparent in the last decade of American politics and think 'This is good. Lets keep doing this.'

Joe isn't really a centrist. He's a fiscal liberal, a social moderate, and a hardcore neoconservative on foreign policy. He's an odd fish, his Lieberman, but a moderate, he isn't.

He's a centrist in the sense that he falls between the two major US political parties.

Here's the complex philosophical reason I don't want Lieberman punished for campaigning against his party-

Yeah, it was shitty. But one of the main things I liked about Obama was that I got the sense that I could disagree with him. So this is kind of a first test, are the Democrats going to be punitive to those who don't tow the line like we've had for the last eight years, or are they going to be open to the discussion? Is there a line? Yes, of course. I just don't want Obama et al to draw it right out of the box.

Very much this. I don't dislike Lieberman because he went against the Democrats or he isn't on "our" side. What is dislike about him is that he is now against much of his state. Granted, my friend group is hardly representative of the state (welcome to being a 20-something), but even among those of other age groups and political affiliations, most dislike him.

One of the things I liked best about him was that he was willing to challenge his party. He did what he thought was best for his state and his country. The problem now is that what he thinks is best, and what his state (and country) think is best, are quite different. I was happy to see that Obama came forward and said to keep him in the caucus, and agree. So long as he is in the Senate, he should be permitted to caucus with the Democrats if he so chooses. It doesn't particularly harm the party to have him caucus with them.

Sure (http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/taco.jpg)

Besides which, who said I was planning to stop with one taco?

Yay! *munches*

Feel free to keep em coming. :)

I don't hate the man because he has never done anything that killed anyone

except for that whole love of imperial adventures and torture thing...

except for that whole love of imperial adventures and torture thing...
Yeah, but HE didn't do that. Not like Bush and Cheney did.

He's a centrist in the sense that he falls between the two major US political parties.

I'm not even sure he really does that. He's campaigning for the Republicans, caucusing with the Democrats, and working for one man and one man only: Joe Lieberman.

He's a centrist in the sense that he falls between the two major US political parties.
I don't believe he really does. Everything I've seen of him since 2000 puts him solidly on the right wing, not even close to center. He's a neocon, plain and simple, as far as I'm concerned.

I guess wether you see centrists as good or not depends on wether you look back at the polarisation between Democrats and Republicans that has become apparent in the last decade of American politics and think 'This is good. Lets keep doing this.'

Ah yes. Another idiot who thinks "compromise=good" regardless of the issue.

Their is little room for compromise when the fundimentals of democracy are being threatened, as has occurred under the Bush Administration. Its a shame so many of the democrats did show their bi-partisanship post 911, when they rolled over in craven surrender for Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and various other Bush misdeeds.

He's a centrist in the sense that he falls between the two major US political parties.

Again, compromise is unwise when one party is composed largely of militaristic theocrats and authoritarians.

I guess wether you see centrists as good or not depends on wether you look back at the polarisation between Democrats and Republicans that has become apparent in the last decade of American politics and think 'This is good. Lets keep doing this.'

no. what matters is whether you fall into the utterly stupid "group 1 says x, group 2 says y - the answer must lie somewhere in the middle!" camp. the republican party is a party of monsters. literally and without hyperbole. being on the right end of the democratic party's coalition makes you closer to being a monster.

for example, lieberman is decent on some issues, but a cheerleader for torture on the bits that make him a 'centrist'.

no. what matters is whether you fall into the utterly stupid "group 1 says x, group 2 says y - the answer must lie somewhere in the middle!" camp. the republican party is a party of monsters. literally and without hyperbole. being on the right end of the democratic party's coalition makes you closer to being a monster.That's certainly one way to view it.

I believe that the ad in the Top-Right says enough:

"Find a Conservative Like You"

A message for Joe Lieberman if I've ever seen one (Now, why on earth the ad service thinks I'm a Conservative is beyond me, but that's beside the point).

That's certainly one way to view it.

the objectively correct way to view it. there is no plausible alternate view that doesn't involve this all being a dream.

What is dislike about him is that he is now against much of his state.

This. He campaigned on a set of issues and then spat in the face of people who voted for him by betraying them and going against what they voted for.


Thats what makes him a traitor.

This. He campaigned on a set of issues and then spat in the face of people who voted for him by betraying them and going against what they voted for.


Thats what makes him a traitor.

Ayup.

He's a lying scumbag. No bout adoubt it.

I believe that the ad in the Top-Right says enough:

"Find a Conservative Like You"

A message for Joe Lieberman if I've ever seen one (Now, why on earth the ad service thinks I'm a Conservative is beyond me, but that's beside the point).

Really? Mine says "Lose one lb a day!"

And Free Soviets, the world isn't so black-and-white that you can say something is either correct or belongs in the realm of solipsism. Not to mention the totally nonsensical context. Okay, TBH, I have no idea what you were going for there.

the objectively correct way to view it. there is no plausible alternate view that doesn't involve this all being a dream.I'm sorry, I'm not going to unilaterally declare members of the Republican party to be monsters. There are very few people who I, personally, think deserve that title. My fellow citizens, though I do not always agree with them, are not monsters simply because they believe differently, or even, once again in my opinion, irrationally.

Really? Mine says "Lose one lb a day!"

So apparently I'm a closet Conservative, and you're in need of weight loss tips.

Joe who?






Joe Mama!! HA HA HAAAA...

Seriously though, what Sarkhaan and KOL said. Dude's a douche.

Most Cuban Americans like Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman. He is very well liked and respected in the Cuban American community by most. He has a proven pro Cuban American record. He passes the Cuban American anti dictators Fidel and Raul litmus test. Viva Joe Liberman.

So I'm just wondering, when did you become the spokesperson for Cuban Americans?

I think the dark side of the force likes him.

http://theslopeviathelake.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/palpatine_lieberman.jpg

So I'm just wondering, when did you become the spokesperson for Cuban Americans?


This is what he does. It honostly should be very telling that Miami Shores likes Lieberman.

no. what matters is whether you fall into the utterly stupid "group 1 says x, group 2 says y - the answer must lie somewhere in the middle!" camp. the republican party is a party of monsters. literally and without hyperbole. being on the right end of the democratic party's coalition makes you closer to being a monster.

for example, lieberman is decent on some issues, but a cheerleader for torture on the bits that make him a 'centrist'.

Who says the answer must lie somehwere in the middle?

Ah yes. Another idiot who thinks "compromise=good" regardless of the issue.

Their is little room for compromise when the fundimentals of democracy are being threatened, as has occurred under the Bush Administration. Its a shame so many of the democrats did show their bi-partisanship post 911, when they rolled over in craven surrender for Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and various other Bush misdeeds.

Again, compromise is unwise when one party is composed largely of militaristic theocrats and authoritarians.

Which idiot is saying that compromise is good, regardless of the issue?

I don't believe he really does. Everything I've seen of him since 2000 puts him solidly on the right wing, not even close to center. He's a neocon, plain and simple, as far as I'm concerned.

His support of abortion, gay rights, gun control and expanded healthcare are socially liberal. That's very much at odds with the socially conservative neoconservatives.

Anyway, in response to the question, I think at least some people like him. He did win an election after all, and of those people that voted for him, I'm sure some actually just like him.

Personally, I don't really like/dislike him. I'm cool with disagreeing with the party, that part doesn't bother me. The problem lies in him essentially being a neocon when it comes to foreign policy, and I disagree with his justifications for his policy, as well as his world-view. So in the end, I sort of have a neutral position of him, though I certainly wouldn't mind someone who's supports Democratic social policies as well as foreign policy in his senate spot.

I think the dark side of the force likes him.

http://theslopeviathelake.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/palpatine_lieberman.jpgBut he doesn't have any cookies! :eek:

Here's the complex philosophical reason I don't want Lieberman punished for campaigning against his party-

Yeah, it was shitty. But one of the main things I liked about Obama was that I got the sense that I could disagree with him. So this is kind of a first test, are the Democrats going to be punitive to those who don't tow the line like we've had for the last eight years, or are they going to be open to the discussion? Is there a line? Yes, of course. I just don't want Obama et al to draw it right out of the box.

You can disagree with Obama without being punished. However, Harry Reid has a documented history of being a vindictive dick.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to unilaterally declare members of the Republican party to be monsters. There are very few people who I, personally, think deserve that title. My fellow citizens, though I do not always agree with them, are not monsters simply because they believe differently, or even, once again in my opinion, irrationally.

secret torture camps. secret motherfucking torture camps. motherfucking secret fucking torture camps in goddamned former gulag facilities.

is this getting through?

secret torture camps. secret motherfucking torture camps. motherfucking secret fucking torture camps in goddamned former gulag facilities.

is this getting through?

Yeah you can disagree with me and be a monster. This is a perfect example of how.

Didn't know that a location could fuck. Nor that they could have mothers. Thank you for that.

Who says the answer must lie somehwere in the middle?

anyone who thinks the solution to the partisan divide in america is to compromise more rather than to chase the republicans from the halls of power with torches and pitchforks.

anyone who thinks the solution to the partisan divide in america is to compromise more rather than to chase the republicans from the halls of power with torches and pitchforks.

And who here is suggesting that, such that you would bring up this concept in the thread?

I think he wants the Proles to revolt.

His support of abortion, gay rights, gun control and expanded healthcare are socially liberal. That's very much at odds with the socially conservative neoconservatives.
I do not believe his stances on those issues are solid. He has shown himself willing to compromise them at times, but he never compromises or waivers in his support of neocon foreign interventionism and militarism.

In addition, the neocons are not really socially conservative. They are often confused with the religious right, who are the social reactionaries who oppose abortion, gay rights, etc. Neocons care far more for foreign and economic policy than social issues.

And who here is suggesting that, such that you would bring up this concept in the thread?

you.

Its a bit of a shame really. The US needs more centrists.I guess wether you see centrists as good or not depends on wether you look back at the polarisation between Democrats and Republicans that has become apparent in the last decade of American politics and think 'This is good. Lets keep doing this.'

I think he wants the Proles to revolt.

Or maybe he's saying that instead of letting the right walk over leftist policies as democrats have been doing for too long, the democrats should take advantage of their power and actually act like they own the government (that they do own). And maybe, if the democrats have a successful couple of years, we can chase out the Republicans with "metaphoric torches and pitchforks", and shift American politics back to the left.

Of course, this is all speculation.

I do not believe his stances on those issues are solid. He has shown himself willing to compromise them at times

when, specifically?

when, specifically?
I don't know specifically, and I have too bad a headache to go research his voting record right now. I just remember hearing him make comments in favor of some abortion restricting legislation and other such measures, from time to time, with no real consistency.

Most Cuban Americans like Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman. He is very well liked and respected in the Cuban American community by most. He has a proven pro Cuban American record. He passes the Cuban American anti dictators Fidel and Raul litmus test. Viva Joe Liberman.

If you want him, you can have him.

Or maybe he's saying that instead of letting the right walk over leftist policies as democrats have been doing for too long, the democrats should take advantage of their power and actually act like they own the government (that they do own). And maybe, if the democrats have a successful couple of years, we can chase out the Republicans with "metaphoric torches and pitchforks", and shift American politics back to the left.

Of course, this is all speculation.

So... obviously, you seem to think that a left-balanced government is a good one? I mean, even though you are apparently Liberal, you have very Conservative tendencies, it seems, in saying that the Dems now 'own' the gov't. This is like to the traditional stand of Conservatism, which is that the gov't is something with its hands where they don't need to be, and you need to take control of it.

Centrism, I think is key, not overwhelming balance in either one direction.

see, on this, I am torn. On MOST ISSUES he is fairly left leaning. He of course differs with the democrats on the war.

Now part of me wants to pull the "you're either with us or against us" mantra, but that's not really fair. We're a big tent party, we're SUPPOSED to respect people who don't necessarily agree with us. Lieberman is his own man and holds his own opinions. He disagrees with the dems, and me, on the war, fine, that's his right. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go for the blood of a man who on MOST matters has been a solid ally of the left, even if he disagrees with them on two major issues (the war, and support for John McCain).

on the OTHER hand I think the way he did it was totally classless. If he had just come out and said, at the beginning "look, I know we have some agreements, I know we have some disagreements, on the vast bulk of issues we are in accord, but on the issue of the war, I must disagree with my caucus, I must disagree with its prevailing sentiment, and because of that disagreement, I must support a different man for president. However, while I will vote for and support McCain for president, win or lose, Obama or McCain, I will support fully whichever man becomes president, and continue my support for the caucus on so many issues that we have common ground in" I would have had a TON more respect for him.

I don't mind so much that he disagreed, it's his right. I don't mind so much that he supported McCain when other caucus members supported Obama, that's his right. His positions, taken as a whole, show him far more a democrat than a republican, and a 9/10th ally is better than no ally at all. But the way he handled himself was utterly without grace, decorum or sensibility, and showed utter contempt and disrespect for the people and party that threw their support behind him when it was his turn to run on the dem ticket.

I do not believe his stances on those issues are solid. He has shown himself willing to compromise them at times, but he never compromises or waivers in his support of neocon foreign interventionism and militarism.

In addition, the neocons are not really socially conservative. They are often confused with the religious right, who are the social reactionaries who oppose abortion, gay rights, etc. Neocons care far more for foreign and economic policy than social issues.

The neocons are most assuredly socially conservative. Their focus on economic and foreign issues stems from the fact that this is where they disagree with the rest of their party.

you.

I didn't mention compromise once - this is instead a construct of what you think I am supporting and you have chosen to argue to that concept rather than anything I have specifically said.

I didn't mention compromise once - this is instead a construct of what you think I am supporting and you have chosen to argue to that concept rather than anything I have specifically said.

alright, what do you think a 'centrist' is, such that having more of them will somehow fix the partisan polarization?

Who says the answer must lie somehwere in the middle?

Your statements regarding the polarization of US politics implied that compromise would be a good thing, did they not?

Which idiot is saying that compromise is good, regardless of the issue?

I'll retract that, as it was probably an unwarranted exaggeration.

Nonetheless, I do believe that by and large compromise with the GOP is a bad idea, in large part because they are run by fanatics who don't really compromise, and will not rest until America is a theocratic sham democracy. Trying to find a middle ground is just going to result in you shifting further to the right. Thus, I disagree with any assertions or implications that failiure to compromise with the GOP is a substantial part of America's political problems.

His support of abortion, gay rights, gun control and expanded healthcare are socially liberal. That's very much at odds with the socially conservative neoconservatives.

Well, he's a conservative on foreign policy. Rather than saying he holds centrist positions, perhaps you should say that he holds left positions on some issues, and right positions on others.

He still stabbed his party in back to join the Neocons on the war though.

alright, what do you think a 'centrist' is, such that having more of them will somehow fix the partisan polarization?

Someone who believes that no one party is always right at the expense of the other. This does not equivocate to compromise on issues - a person could quite strongly believe in one particular course of action, but over the many issues those courses of actions fall on both sides of the political debate with no compromise at all.

secret torture camps. secret motherfucking torture camps. motherfucking secret fucking torture camps in goddamned former gulag facilities.

is this getting through?Right, every Republican is a monster. Gotcha.

Right, every Republican is a monster. Gotcha.

Cute, but thats not what he said. At all. Did you read the words on the screen or did you just light the strawman and go nuts?


Republicans and democrats that support secret torture prisons are monsters. And Lieberman is one of them.

Right, every Republican is a monster. Gotcha.

monster, idiot, or ignorant. there are no other alternatives (for convenience, i'm including delusional under 'idiot').

Your statements regarding the polarization of US politics implied that compromise would be a good thing, did they not?

I'll retract that, as it was probably an unwarranted exaggeration.

Nonetheless, I do believe that by and large compromise with the GOP is a bad idea, in large part because they are run by fanatics who don't really compromise, and will not rest until America is a theocratic sham democracy. Trying to find a middle ground is just going to result in you shifting further to the right. Thus, I disagree with any assertions or implications that failiure to compromise with the GOP is a substantial part of America's political problems.

It did not imply that compromise is a good thing. I was implying that that the belief that one party is correct on all issues while the other is wrong on all issues is a bad thing. That's got nothing to do with compromise.

Well, he's a conservative on foreign policy. Rather than saying he holds centrist positions, perhaps you should say that he holds left positions on some issues, and right positions on others.

He still stabbed his party in back to join the Neocons on the war though.

Its the particular issues that make him a cntrist because he doesn't lean convincingly left or right either economically or socially.

Cute, but thats not what he said. At all. Did you read the words on the screen or did you just light the strawman and go nuts?


Republicans and democrats that support secret torture prisons are monsters. And Lieberman is one of them.Please see the below, KoL.

monster, idiot, or ignorant. there are no other alternatives (for convenience, i'm including delusional under 'idiot').

monster, idiot, or ignorant. there are no other alternatives (for convenience, i'm including delusional under 'idiot').

Coward, uselessly optimistic*, or naive. Those are the only classifications for Dems. (Rhetoric-spewers are filed jointly under both 'naive' and 'uselessly optimistic'.)


*Seem to think that Utopia is possible.

Please see the below, KoL.

Yeah, he posted that after I defended him. I was less than pleased.

So... obviously, you seem to think that a left-balanced government is a good one? I mean, even though you are apparently Liberal, you have very Conservative tendencies, it seems, in saying that the Dems now 'own' the gov't. This is like to the traditional stand of Conservatism, which is that the gov't is something with its hands where they don't need to be, and you need to take control of it.

Centrism, I think is key, not overwhelming balance in either one direction.

You realize left and right are highly relative terms correct? For America, you could say I'm pretty liberal (although I haven't really formulated a position on economics yet), yes, but I don't see how that shows that I have Conservative tendencies. When I say that Democrats "own" the government, I mean so in the symbolic sense that we have far more power in government, and can finally accomplish some of our goals, which were, distasteful to Republicans as a whole. And I don't necessarily think that the government has it's hands where it shouldn't be, but rather, that it's doing the wrong things where it is involved (and I suppose less governance when it comes to people's private lives).

Cute, but thats not what he said. At all. Did you read the words on the screen or did you just light the strawman and go nuts?


Republicans and democrats that support secret torture prisons are monsters. And Lieberman is one of them.

He specifically said that the Republican party was a party of monsters, literally and without hyperbole and that the closer you were to them the more of a monster you are.

EDIT: Just saw your post above mine.

Someone who believes that no one party is always right at the expense of the other. This does not equivocate to compromise on issues - a person could quite strongly believe in one particular course of action, but over the many issues those courses of actions fall on both sides of the political debate with no compromise at all.

so, centrism = incoherent, random collections of single issue positions?

parties (and the left-right spectrum) represent real divides

You realize left and right are highly relative terms correct? For America, you could say I'm pretty liberal (although I haven't really formulated a position on economics yet), yes, but I don't see how that shows that I have Conservative tendencies. When I say that Democrats "own" the government, I mean so in the symbolic sense that we have far more power in government, and can finally accomplish some of our goals, which were, distasteful to Republicans as a whole. And I don't necessarily think that the government has it's hands where it shouldn't be, but rather, that it's doing the wrong things where it is involved (and I suppose less governance when it comes to people's private lives).

Conservatism 101, right there.

EDIT: BTW, Bush was no longer a true Con.

All of this partisanship is useless. Who cares where Lieberman falls on a scale of close-to or far-from the Republicans? Let's judge him just by his own actions. By that measure, he is a liar and a traitor. He lied to the voters who put him into office and kept him there by misrepresenting his views. He lied to and in the process betrayed the other Demcrats by promising not to undermine the Obama candidacy even though he disagreed with a lot of Obama's policies, and then running right out and becoming an attack dog for McCain.

EDIT: Oh, and he is also a morally repugnant warmonger, fear-spreader, and supporter of torture.

EDIT: BTW, Bush was no longer a true Con.

Discussed, debated, rejected (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14219779&postcount=11)

Conservatism 101, right there.

EDIT: BTW, Bush was no longer a true Con.

Perhaps "old" conservatism, but certainly not the moral crusading pursued by the "Religious 'Right'".

so, centrism = incoherent, random collections of single issue positions?

parties (and the left-right spectrum) represent real divides

Sometimes. Sometimes people just don't have particularly strong views one way or another.

If the divides were as real as you think they are there wouldn't have been Rockefeller Republicans or Reagan Democrats.

As much as conservatives might want to talk about “getting back to basics” and winning elections, there’s never been a clear example of a true conservative in the last 60 years of American politics actually winning a presidential election.

Thanks for the ammo.

Thanks for the ammo.

What ammo? The last "true conservative" to run got pulverized. And the one who ran before him got beaten even though the Democratic party was split 3 ways. And the so on.

Thanks for the ammo.

I know your attention span may be lacking, but I suggest you read the rest of it.

I know your attention span may be lacking, but I suggest you read the rest of it.

...

The point is that today's "Conservatives" aren't really. The concept of Conservatism is one that has no practice in today's government.

Hence, me saying that it was a Conservative view that the gov't needs to mind its own business. That's Revolution-era Conservatism, right there.

...

The point is that today's "Conservatives" aren't really. The concept of Conservatism is one that has no practice in today's government.

A no true scottsman. conservatives are conservatives if they call themselves conservatives. While I agree that nobody exists really in high politics who adheres to what conservatism claims to be, nobody ever really did in the first place, except for a few exceptions, none of whom made it very far in national elections.

A no true scottsman. conservatives are conservatives if they call themselves conservatives. While I agree that nobody exists really in high politics who adheres to what conservatism claims to be, nobody ever really did in the first place, except for a few exceptions, none of whom made it very far in national elections.

Okay... I'm not... umm...

What I'm getting at here is,


Screw it. I'm done.

A no true scottsman. conservatives are conservatives if they call themselves conservatives. While I agree that nobody exists really in high politics who adheres to what conservatism claims to be, nobody ever really did in the first place, except for a few exceptions, none of whom made it very far in national elections.

no no no, conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. thus all conservatives that are failures are failed conservatives, rather than conservative failures. jeez, don't you know anything?

A no true scottsman. conservatives are conservatives if they call themselves conservatives. While I agree that nobody exists really in high politics who adheres to what conservatism claims to be, nobody ever really did in the first place, except for a few exceptions, none of whom made it very far in national elections.

So if I preached love, tolerance, democracy, and isolationism, but called myself a Nazi, I would be a Nazi?

So if I preached love, tolerance, democracy, and isolationism, but called myself a Nazi, I would be a Nazi?

Thank you. My point exactly.

We think alike, it seems, you and I.

So if I preached love, tolerance, democracy, and isolationism, but called myself a Nazi, I would be a Nazi?

no, because there's a very clear demonstrable history of nazis, less so than this mythical beast, the "true conservative"

no, because there's a very clear demonstrable history of nazis, less so than this mythical beast, the "true conservative"

It's been so long since one has been in office, that it's almost impossible to say what one would be like in today's world.

no, because there's a very clear demonstrable history of nazis, less so than this mythical beast, the "true conservative"

We aren't talking about labeling someone 'Conservative', okay? We are saying, classifying Republicans as Conservatives is like classifying China as hardcore Communists. Do they follow the Communist Manifesto? No. Are Republicans believers in Conservatism? Nope.

I speak of the political ideology of 'Conservatism'. I don't care who calls themselves a Con. My point is that, according to what Conservatism calls for, gov't should stick its nose elsewhere.

Thank you. My point exactly.

We think alike, it seems, you and I.

Actually no. I disagree with your pro-centrist comments. On this, though, I agree.

Yes, I meant 'think alike' in terms of definitions.

Don't be literal or anything.

I think Joe Leibernan is a pretty cool guy. eh stands up for what he believess and doesnt afraid of anything.

sooo.... When John McCain votes with the Democrats, he's a "maverick". When Lieberman votes with the pubbies, he's a "traitor"... Does not compute.

sooo.... When John McCain votes with the Democrats, he's a "maverick". When Lieberman votes with the pubbies, he's a "traitor"... Does not compute.

John McCain ran on his platform. Leiberman ran on lies about his record.

Coward, uselessly optimistic*, or naive. Those are the only classifications for Dems. (Rhetoric-spewers are filed jointly under both 'naive' and 'uselessly optimistic'.)

see, here's the thing. the republican party is the party of cheerleading for imperialism, oppression, torture, and crony capitalism. this is the party's fundamental nature at this point. that's what they do. thus, monsters. the rhetoric is heated, but the facts back it up. unlike somebody else's counter-characterization, which doesn't seem to be based on anything at all.

see, here's the thing. the republican party is the party of cheerleading for imperialism, oppression, torture, and crony capitalism. this is the party's fundamental nature at this point. that's what they do. thus, monsters. the rhetoric is heated, but the facts back it up. unlike somebody else's counter-characterization, which doesn't seem to be based on anything at all.

And Barack Obama isn't going to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, got 4x the wall street money McCain received, wants to keep funneling money to the bankers who screwed the people, and generally isn't fundamentally different. Both parties are opposed to Americans.

well, believe it or not, i know someone who knows someone i thinks running as an independent is worth a nomination to godhood.

of course in lieberman's context i seriously question their sanity, but we do need more diversity not less. of course the question then becomes whether or not he represents anything of the sort, and THAT, i rather seriously question.

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.

But I am seriously curious as to whether anyone likes or respects him.

I would think most (if not all) Democrats would hate him for his betrayal of the party, his neo-conservative views, etc.

I would think most (if not all) Republicans would hate him for still caucasing with the Democrats, his liberal views, etc.

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

He seems to be well-liked by his constituents-after all, he DID win re-election. I think it would play to a lot of Republican's stereotypes about the Loooney left if Lieberman were 'punished' for being a "traitor to THE PARTY". We already see you Dems as being one step off from Stalin, so go ahead, play the stereotypes and show your true face. Demonstrate to the entire WORLD how much more you value Party Affiliation and especially party unity over any and all other considerations.

It is, after all, what we expect of you.

That depends. Do you define "hoping that a bucket with aqua regia falls on him" as "liking"?

He seems to be well-liked by his constituents-after all, he DID win re-election. I think it would play to a lot of Republican's stereotypes about the Loooney left if Lieberman were 'punished' for being a "traitor to THE PARTY". We already see you Dems as being one step off from Stalin, so go ahead, play the stereotypes and show your true face. Demonstrate to the entire WORLD how much more you value Party Affiliation and especially party unity over any and all other considerations.

It is, after all, what we expect of you.

Which beats what the rest of the world has come to expect Republicans to do: Act like the NAZI Party of the 2000s by attacking random countries, setting up concentration camps and taking liberties away.

I have no desire to see Lieberman retain chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. When your views on security differ so greatly from the party currently in control, there is absolutely no reason for that party to hand you control of the agenda. Give the position to someone who's views are more in line with the party. It's not about "revenge", it's about ensuring that the issues you want to see addressed are addressed.

However, that is as far as it should go. If he wants to keep caucusing with the Dems, fine. If he want's to cross over and caucus with the Repubs, that's also fine...

...I expect it won't last long either way. From everything I've heard, Connecticut is pissed, and I can't say I blame them.

Edit: Also...leave it to a real independent to say it best.

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country. Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.'" - Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

joe lieberman disgusts me.

he should retain his senate status until the state of connecticut decides not to return him to the senate.

its not a good time to be vindictive.

Joe Lieberman is a dick, according to Dickipedia (http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Joe_Lieberman).

Lieberman’s strongest dick quality is his propensity to betray those who have been loyal to him. Whether it’s trading in his kind-of-Jewish first wife Betty for his super-Jewish second wife Hadassah, selling out running mate Al Gore on Meet the Press about counting crucial Florida overseas absentee ballots, or screwing over the Democratic party by campaigning for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Lieberman has proven to be a world class stabber of backs.

... young Joe won his first election, for ninth-grade class president, using a poster of himself perched on the roof of his house with the slogan “Vote for me or I’ll jump.” This actually happened and is dumber than anything we could possibly make up.

... After publicly stating that George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion was valid (it wasn’t) because Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks (they weren’t), Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Party's 2006 renomination to somebody who actually stood for things Democrats stand for. Lieberman then ran as an "independent Democrat" on the ticket of the dickishly named Connecticut for Lieberman party.

He probably only gets away with such treachery because he looks like the live action version of beloved cartoon character Droopy Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droopy).
Proof positive, I reckon.

Oh man, Fris!

I was gonna say I don't like Lieberman, but I do like Droopy Dog!

http://www.cartoon-secrets.com/Photos/DroopyDog3.jpg

He seems to be well-liked by his constituents-after all, he DID win re-election.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/14/10476/841/187/660873

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

Approve 36 (45)
Disapprove 61 (43)

If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 35
Consider Someone Else 18
Replace 48

If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 31
Consider Someone Else 15
Replace 52

* Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4%

And Barack Obama isn't going to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, got 4x the wall street money McCain received, wants to keep funneling money to the bankers who screwed the people, and generally isn't fundamentally different. Both parties are opposed to Americans.
So, your assertion that the Dems are the same as the Reps is based on... fortunetelling? Let's analyze:

1) You are attempting to change the subject. The thread topic is Lieberman, not Republicans versus Democrats. Dodging the subject is not a valid argument.

2) The negative characterizations of Joe Lieberman -- and, if you insist on talking about them, the Republican Party -- are based on his/their history, the actual record of things they have actually done.

3) Your attempt to negatively characterize Barack Obama -- and by extension, the Democratic Party -- is based on suppositions about what Obama is thinking and predictions of what he might do or not do in the future.

4) Compare item 3 to item 2 and it becomes clear you have no counter argument. Consider that in the light of item 1 and it becomes clear that, whatever you think of Reps and Dems, you can't think of a single defense of Lieberman himself, and you know it.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

fucking christ. i agree with kagro x (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/858/95471/442/662652), you couldn't do worse if you tried

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703217.html
A pair of Senate Democrats will offer a compromise plan today to sanction Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) for his support of the Republican presidential ticket but allow him to keep a key committee chairmanship and remain in the party caucus.

Senators and aides said yesterday that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) will present a plan at a caucus meeting that would strip Lieberman of a low-profile subcommittee chairmanship, possibly one on global warming. But Lieberman would retain the gavel of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

yay for democratic compromises! we can remove him from what he is actually useful for and keep him where he is a dangerous lunatic. that way nobody is happy but lieberman, which is exactly what compromise is about, right?

Ignorant Brit here, what exactly did he do that was so bad (and no, I can't be bothered to read the whole wiki article)?

Ignorant Brit here, what exactly did he do that was so bad (and no, I can't be bothered to read the whole wiki article)?
he campaigned against his party's candidate. (he didnt just endorse the mccain, he campaigned for him every day)

he didnt just work FOR the other guy whose policies he prefers but actively dissed his party's candidate (obama).

why would this former democrat get anything from the party he worked hard to defeat?

he campaigned against his party's candidate. (he didnt just endorse the mccain, he campaigned for him every day)

he didnt just work FOR the other guy whose policies he prefers but actively dissed his party's candidate (obama).

why would this former democrat get anything from the party he worked hard to defeat?

And as pointed out, he has a history of stabbing his friends in the back.

And as pointed out, he has a history of stabbing his friends in the back.
yeah but that is so common in politics. he wouldnt disgust me if he just climbed to office over the corpses of his friends.

Ignorant Brit here, what exactly did he do that was so bad (and no, I can't be bothered to read the whole wiki article)?

other than general complaints about how he is a self-centered ego-maniacal douche that gets off on being treated as king in the dc village cocktail circuit because he votes against his party sometimes in the name of 'centrism', he is the equivalent of a crazed wingnut blogger on issues pertaining to the iraq war and torture and the like. though he downgrades to straight-up pnac neocon when he is most coherent. he also not only campaigned for the republicans, but actively against members of the party he wants favors from, including obama.

now he wants the democrats to make him the chair of an important senate committee - continuing the deal they had with him when he had actual bargaining power by being necessary to gain control of the senate for the dem caucus. even worse, the committee in question is specifically one where his positions are utterly insane, counter to the party, and counter to the american people.

he campaigned against his party's candidate. (he didnt just endorse the mccain, he campaigned for him every day)

he didnt just work FOR the other guy whose policies he prefers but actively dissed his party's candidate (obama).


Well, at least he wasn't having his opinion dictated by his party, and sticking to his own principles. I would probably hate him more if he was pretending to support Obama for his own careers sake, i.e. lying to the public. So, he was actually being less like a typical politician.


why would this former democrat get anything from the party he worked hard to defeat?

Agreed, he definitely shouldn't get any support or respect from the Dems.

other than general complaints about how he is a self-centered ego-maniacal douche that gets off on being treated as king in the dc village cocktail circuit because he votes against his party sometimes in the name of 'centrism', he is the equivalent of a crazed wingnut blogger on issues pertaining to the iraq war and torture and the like. though he downgrades to straight-up pnac neocon when he is most coherent. he also not only campaigned for the republicans, but actively against members of the party he wants favors from, including obama.

now he wants the democrats to make him the chair of an important senate committee - continuing the deal they had with him when he had actual bargaining power by being necessary to gain control of the senate for the dem caucus. even worse, the committee in question is specifically one where his positions are utterly insane, counter to the party, and counter to the american people.
Another point to remember is that, according to Dem leadership, Lieberman specifically agreed NOT to campaign against Obama, as they knew perfectly well that he agreed with the Reps on a lot of policy issues. They didn't ask him to support his own party, just not to work against it. He agreed to that and then went back on his word.

Another point to remember is that, according to Dem leadership, Lieberman specifically agreed NOT to campaign against Obama, as they knew perfectly well that he agreed with the Reps on a lot of policy issues. They didn't ask him to support his own party, just not to work against it. He agreed to that and then went back on his word.

the lieberman for lieberman party bows to no man!

the lieberman for lieberman party bows to no man!
Except Lieberman, you know, when he fluffs himself. *speculation*

fucking vichy dems - capitulating even after the enemy has been given a solid beating, just for the fucking fun of it.

fucking vichy dems - capitulating even after the enemy has been given a solid beating, just for the fucking fun of it.
its for the best.

its good to be gracious in victory and its good to still have the possibility of a 60 vote majority.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/14/10476/841/187/660873

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

Approve 36 (45)
Disapprove 61 (43)

If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 35
Consider Someone Else 18
Replace 48

If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 31
Consider Someone Else 15
Replace 52

* Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4%

His approval rating exceeds that of congress as a whole. last I heard, that nationwide approval rating for congress was down around 10%.

His approval rating exceeds that of congress as a whole. last I heard, that nationwide approval rating for congress was down around 10%.

Discussed, debated, rejected (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14215718&postcount=146). The approval rating of congress "as a whole" is irrelevant to congressional elections. What matters is the approval rating of the congressperson in his state/district.

And on that Lieberman is very much behind the average

its for the best.

its good to be gracious in victory and its good to still have the possibility of a 60 vote majority.

explain to me again why we should have people who are not part of the democratic party chairing a powerful senate committee on which they hold relevant views that are diametrically opposed to not only the democratic party and the people of USia, but that are objectively wrong, stupid, and monstrous.


also (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/17707/):
GLENN: Do you agree that with Senator Hatch -- I've only got a minute before a network break. I hope we can hold you here. But do you agree that Senator Hatch said to me that if we don't at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear. And I think for some of us there is a key. You know, it gets a bad name but it was really put there, a 60-vote requirement as somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, stop the passions of a moment among the people of America from sweeping across the congress, the House, to the Senate and to a like minded President and having us do things that will change America for a long time. So the filibuster is one of the great protections we have. Glenn, I apologize. I'm running to go out with Senator McCain. We're going to Colorado.

lieberman, the day of the election, openly talking about joining republican filibusters to 'save america' from those nasty old democrats.

Discussed, debated, rejected (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14215718&postcount=146). The approval rating of congress "as a whole" is irrelevant to congressional elections. What matters is the approval rating of the congressperson in his state/district.

And on that Lieberman is very much behind the average

Apparently, the majority of Obama voters believed that the Republicans controlled Congress prior to the election. So yes, it was irrelevant, as the media was able to successfully conceal the fact that Democrats controlled Congress. The dissatisfaction with Congress was therefore taken out on Republican candidates.

His approval rating exceeds that of congress as a whole. last I heard, that nationwide approval rating for congress was down around 10%.

find me any individual sitting congressperson that has only 10% approval. shit, i'll make it easy, find me a 20% approval congresscritter. go go go!

Apparently, the majority of Obama voters believed that the Republicans controlled Congress prior to the election.

and I'm so sure you can provide an unbiased, neutral poll to reflect this, yes?

Apparently, the majority of Obama voters believed that the Republicans controlled Congress prior to the election.

source? and just so we're clear, i mean a source that backs up your claim, rather than your usual method of sourcing, dk.

Apparently, the majority of Obama voters believed that the Republicans controlled Congress prior to the election. So yes, it was irrelevant, as the media was able to successfully conceal the fact that Democrats controlled Congress. The dissatisfaction with Congress was therefore taken out on Republican candidates.

The fact that the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 years of the Bush Administration is certainly not part of the equation.

I think he should stay

I don't like him

but he should stay in

the whole alternative viewpoints thing

he may have unpopular and even downright stupid views

but they can be ignored

besides, he may have different ideas on how to ruin the country

that the other politicians haven't yet thought of.

I think he should stay

I don't like him

but he should stay in

the whole alternative viewpoints thing

he may have unpopular and even downright stupid views

but they can be ignored

besides, he may have different ideas on how to ruin the country

that the other politicians haven't yet thought of.

So do I. That's not a qualification.

explain to me again why we should have people who are not part of the democratic party chairing a powerful senate committee on which they hold relevant views that are diametrically opposed to not only the democratic party and the people of USia, but that are objectively wrong, stupid, and monstrous.


also (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/17707/):


lieberman, the day of the election, openly talking about joining republican filibusters to 'save america' from those nasty old democrats.
if lieberman joins in the dickish flilibustering that the republicans have been doing, then he can still be kicked out of the caucus.

otherwise i dont expect him to vote against closing debate except when he strongly disagrees with the measure that is being debated. as i would expect other moderate democrats to do.

if lieberman joins in the dickish flilibustering that the republicans have been doing, then he can still be kicked out of the caucus.

but not out of his chairmanship, with its associated subpoena powers and ability to hinder good legislation, etc. doing that at a later date would require a senate resolution, which would be subject to a filibuster, etc.

his caucus membership was not ever at issue. it mattered not at all except to lieberman's chances of surviving his next election, which are looking rather grim already.

its for the best.

its good to be gracious in victory and its good to still have the possibility of a 60 vote majority.
As if Lieberman could be relied on to vote with the Dems. In fact, amend that -- as if he could be relied on to do anything but screw the Dems at this point. Oh, and screw the American people into the bargain.

if lieberman joins in the dickish flilibustering that the republicans have been doing, then he can still be kicked out of the caucus.

otherwise i dont expect him to vote against closing debate except when he strongly disagrees with the measure that is being debated. as i would expect other moderate democrats to do.
How does Lieberman maintain this illusion that he's a moderate? I'm wondering, really. Because when I look at everything he has done in the past 8 years, he looks pretty damned far to the right. Not really all that moderate, no not at all. More like bound and determined to push rightwing neocon interventionist policies, gut the Constitution, support wars of aggression, and to do it in clockwork-like lockstep with rightwing Republicans every single time it comes up. Where's the moderation? I just don't see it.

How does Lieberman maintain this illusion that he's a moderate? I'm wondering, really. Because when I look at everything he has done in the past 8 years, he looks pretty damned far to the right. Not really all that moderate, no not at all. More like bound and determined to push rightwing neocon interventionist policies, gut the Constitution, support wars of aggression, and to do it in clockwork-like lockstep with rightwing Republicans every single time it comes up. Where's the moderation? I just don't see it.

He puts 2% milk in his coffee and always uses coupons.

He puts 2% milk in his coffee and always uses coupons.
I'm thinking that must be all it takes to get the "moderate" label.

I think it speaks volumes that the current adverts I'm getting up top are for exorcists both of ghouls and demons. And they'll sort out negative spells.

Joe Lieberman - Devil Incarnate.

How does Lieberman maintain this illusion that he's a moderate? I'm wondering, really. Because when I look at everything he has done in the past 8 years, he looks pretty damned far to the right. Not really all that moderate, no not at all. More like bound and determined to push rightwing neocon interventionist policies, gut the Constitution, support wars of aggression, and to do it in clockwork-like lockstep with rightwing Republicans every single time it comes up. Where's the moderation? I just don't see it.

in the other votes.

senate partisan rankings for the last 4 congresses:
http://www.voteview.com/sen110.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen109.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen108.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen107.htm
lieberman consistently falls solidly in the middle of the democratic pack, meaning he mostly agrees with them much more than the republicans.

in the other votes.

senate partisan rankings for the last 4 congresses:
http://www.voteview.com/sen110.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen109.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen108.htm
http://www.voteview.com/sen107.htm
lieberman consistently falls solidly in the middle of the democratic pack, meaning he mostly agrees with them much more than the republicans.
I have to tell you honestly -- and I really mean this -- I suspect he only votes that way to keep up the facade.

I have to tell you honestly -- and I really mean this -- I suspect he only votes that way to keep up the facade.

I don't think so, he could force a tie if he voted with Republicans more couldn't he? Because we all know who has the tie-breaking power.

You know, it gets a bad name but it was really put there, a 60-vote requirement as somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, stop the passions of a moment among the people of America from sweeping across the congress, the House, to the Senate and to a like minded President and having us do things that will change America for a long time. So the filibuster is one of the great protections we have.lieberman, the day of the election, openly talking about joining republican filibusters to 'save america' from those nasty old democrats.

While I'm not particularly fond of Lieberman, he's got a fair point. Checks and balances are supposed to check and balance the process.

I have high hopes for the Obama administration and the Democratic majority, but you've got to have the possibility of effective roadblocks, especially during the honeymoon.

While I'm not particularly fond of Lieberman, he's got a fair point. Checks and balances are supposed to check and balance the process.

I have high hopes for the Obama administration and the Democratic majority, but you've got to have the possibility of effective roadblocks, especially during the honeymoon.

ah, but nobody is talking about doing away with the filibuster (anymore - hey guys, remember when filibusters were an offense against god a few years back?). we just want to prevent the united crazy bloc from blocking good things, like they spent the last congress doing. lieberman fears that having 60 democrats in the senate might kill america.

I have to tell you honestly -- and I really mean this -- I suspect he only votes that way to keep up the facade.

but why? if he secretly supported republican policies more generally, he could have been key to enacting them if he had joined the repubs rather than the dems in 2006, thus keeping the repubs in control of the senate.

lieberman is just an incredible attention whore who also happens to be a useful idiot for the republican party.

but why? if he secretly supported republican policies more generally, he could have been key to enacting them if he had joined the repubs rather than the dems in 2006, thus keeping the repubs in control of the senate.

lieberman is just an incredible attention whore who also happens to be a useful idiot for the republican party.
Perhaps that's the reason why. He seems to be one of those people who is hooked on drama and intrigue. It's not enough to disagree with the Dems on a lot of things. He has to make political theater out of it, and out of undermining and embarrassing them. I'd be willing to bet, if he switched parties and went over to the Republicans, after a while, he'd be just as much trouble to them.

but why? if he secretly supported republican policies more generally, he could have been key to enacting them if he had joined the repubs rather than the dems in 2006, thus keeping the repubs in control of the senate.

lieberman is just an incredible attention whore who also happens to be a useful idiot for the republican party.

Well, the fact that Lieberman is from Connecticut explains no small part of his voting record on domestic issues. On that front, he is every bit the middle-of-the-road Dem he claims to be. The problem, however, isn't so much that he's a republican toady. It's that he's an unabashed imperialist with a Likudnik tinge to his thinking. If you look at his voting record on foreign policy, it betrays two invarying constants in Lieberman's record: unwavering support for Likud policies in Israel, and unwavering support for military aggression. It doesn't matter who is in charge while the war is gearing up, what the war is about, or whether the war is winnable, what matters is only that there is a war and the U.S. is potentially involved. Beyond that, it's Joe Lieberman's job, apparently from his record, to be an unabashed supporter of it and the executive power needed to prosecute it.

This, then, is what gets him his label of being a moderate in the Washington press corp: his willingness to vote both with and against his party. The problem with this "maverick-y-ness" index doesn't distinguish between the perfectly principled individual who always votes in accord with a given political philosophy irrespective of popular winds, a perfect egoist who always votes for what is popular irrespective of whether the political party might actually be right, and a schizophrenic who votes at random. It definately does not even attempt to foresee the need for pragmatism over ideological certainty. The Washington press corp uses this index primarily because 1) it allows them to abrogate their responsibility to say that one party or another's position isn't in accord with the facts, and instead turns it into a made-for-Lifetime drama of outsiders Maverick-ing their way through the system, and 2) it allows them to write what they love to write about, which is political process stories that have everything to do with how the parties are selling an issue and nothing to do with whether an issue is relevant, and how it pertains to the average voter.

Joe Lieberman is therefore just the kind of guy the press corp loves to write about: he stands for principles, and these principles force him to vote against the Democratic Party that he's a member of. The fact that 1) his principles of always being in support of war are ludicrous and dangerous, and 2) maybe the Democratic Party has a point that Joe Lieberman just isn't getting, and therefore doesn't well-represent his liberal state, are conveniently ignored.

If you look at his voting record on foreign policy, it betrays two invarying constants in Lieberman's record: unwavering support for Likud policies in Israel, and unwavering support for military aggression.
This ^

The pundits are making interesting noises about Lieberman. Tonight on MSNBC (Dave Shuster sitting in for Olbermann), in discussing Lieberman getting the "all is forgiven" from the Democratic Party, they focused on Lieberman specifically thanking Obama in his public statement about it. The Capitol Hill reporters speculated that Obama played a bigger role in getting Lieberman forgiven than he let on, and that this gives Obama, essentially, a "chit" to call on Lieberman, if Joe owes his pretigious committee chairmanship to Barack's influence.

Of course, this is all speculation, but it would seem to jibe with a few details that had been bothering me, namely the seemingly inexplicable fact that Obama supported forgiving Lieberman at all, and also the absence until today of Harry Reid, who has not been camera shy before. Everything I had heard about the big meeting earlier between Reid and Lieberman led me to believe that "clear discussion" had actually been a door-slamming, window-rattling fight. Today, Reid making the announcement of the final decision on Leiberman seemed more unhappy than I've ever seen him about anything, and he specifically said that there are aspects of Lieberman's career that "I will never understand". Hm... Gave me the sense that Reid really really wanted Lieberman out of the party but was pushed into going along with a plan supported by someone else, who had more clout than him. Who could that be right now other than Obama?

I questioned earlier how anyone could guarantee that Lieberman would not cut the legs out from under the Dems again, but what if Obama figured out how to guarantee that? A little political blackmail, maybe?

Makes me wonder just how much of a Washington player "No Drama" Obama really is. :D

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

While I'm not particularly fond of Lieberman, he's got a fair point. Checks and balances are supposed to check and balance the process.

Im sorry, the whole "checks and balances" arguement doesnt work for me, especially since a lot of people didnt make a fuss about it when the Republicans had control of the government.

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.


Yes, he stood up for his principles and did what he thought was best for America and not just his party. What an epic douche. :rolleyes:

Yes, he stood up for his principles and did what he thought was best for America and not just his party. What an epic douche. :rolleyes:

It would have been great if he hadnt lied to the people who voted him in about what his principles were.

It would have been great if he hadnt lied to the people who voted him in about what his principles were.

er, his election was two years ago. People change

er, his election was two years ago. People change

Hes the same he was two years ago.


Besides, what would have happened in two years that made him suddenly pull a 180 on so many issues?


No, hes a lying, treasonous snake.

Tarred feathered and than hung, I hate him he should die in a fire.

Yes, he stood up for his principles and did what he thought was best for America and not just his party. What an epic douche. :rolleyes:

when one's principles are objectively bad, standing up for them makes you a bad person.

It would have been great if he hadnt lied to the people who voted him in about what his principles were.

We (I live in CT) have elected him to his 4th term in the Senate because... he does a great job representing Connecticut's interests! We thought so highly of him we even elected him as an Independent because of the Democrat machine (led by Hillary) trying to get him off the ticket!

when one's principles are objectively bad, standing up for them makes you a bad person.

Hmm. So voting 87% of the time (this Congress) with the Democratic party is objectively bad? Wow!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/

(Remember, all Independents in the 109th Congress caucused with the Democratic Party.)

Hmm. So voting 90% of the time with the Democratic party is objectively bad? Wow!

firstly, the problem is mainly with the remaining 10% which happen to constitute the most important issues of the past decade.
second, was not i just complaining about vichy dems? how fucking hard is it to keep track of the fact that while the democrats are clearly and obviously better than the republicans, this in no way implies they are always right?

OK, I still hate the bastard, but I'm coming around to the view that reconciliation was a better option than revenge.

It is not that I think Lieberman should be a committee chairman, but merely that stripping him of that position wouldn't be the best politics.

I do think those who praise Lieberman are fooling themselves if they really think he is a man of principle.

OK, I still hate the bastard, but I'm coming around to the view that reconciliation was a better option than revenge.

It is not that I think Lieberman should be a committee chairman, but merely that stripping him of that position wouldn't be the best politics.

I do think those who praise Lieberman are fooling themselves if they really think he is a man of principle.

I hardly think that anyone who has been elected to Congress is a person of principle.

I guess you're upset that he's been gaming this all to his own benefit, his own self-aggrrandizement, his own shameless self-promotion, and probably for some pork for his constitutents, rather than thoughtlessly and blindly voting for whatever the party chair tells him to vote for (or against). Anything less is probably either heresy or traitorous behavior in your view.

Yes, why can't they all vote as a monolithic bloc, and do whatever Obama, Pelosi, and Reid decide to do - why should they have their own interests, their own views, and game things to their advantage (and that of their constituents).

Why don't we just dispense with Congress, and just elect Obama The Fuhrer?

Why don't we just dispense with Congress, and just elect Obama The Fuhrer?

'Cause he'd look silly with the mustache, and he hasn't got the legs for goosestepping.

Better idea:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/superman.jpg

I hardly think that anyone who has been elected to Congress is a person of principle.

I guess you're upset that he's been gaming this all to his own benefit, his own self-aggrrandizement, his own shameless self-promotion, and probably for some pork for his constitutents, rather than thoughtlessly and blindly voting for whatever the party chair tells him to vote for (or against). Anything less is probably either heresy or traitorous behavior in your view.

Yes, why can't they all vote as a monolithic bloc, and do whatever Obama, Pelosi, and Reid decide to do - why should they have their own interests, their own views, and game things to their advantage (and that of their constituents).

Nice try. But there is a rather big and obvious difference between (1) not "thoughtless and blindly voting" as the party dictates and (2) endorsing the opposing party's presidential candidate and actively campaigning against the party's presidential candidate.

Why don't we just dispense with Congress, and just elect Obama The Fuhrer?

Gee, do I detect a hint of bitterness?

Why don't we just dispense with Congress, and just elect Obama The Fuhrer?

Because that idea was tried with the Republicans when all of Bush's opponents were tarnished as anti-American by his cronies and it didn't work well. That's why.

Snip.

>.>

<.<

Does that mean no aqua regia?

Gee, do I detect a hint of bitterness?
Just a touch. ;)

Just a touch. ;)

Splendid, innit? ;)

I can't stand the treacherous fucker and hope he loses his chairmanship.

But I am seriously curious as to whether anyone likes or respects him.

I would think most (if not all) Democrats would hate him for his betrayal of the party, his neo-conservative views, etc.

I would think most (if not all) Republicans would hate him for still caucasing with the Democrats, his liberal views, etc.

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
o.o What are you referring to as his "betrayal" of the party? I don't know much about him, but I think even if I did I probably wouldn't be sure what in particular you're calling that...

As for his "neo-conservative" views, I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful, but even if they were, who gets to decide which ideologies are associated with which political parties? If I recall correctly the republicans used to be considered the "non-interventionist party" and now they're supporting interventions the democratic party generally tends to oppose... seems like a bit of a role reversal to me.

Why don't we just dispense with Congress, and just elect Obama The Fuhrer?


Go back cry in your Budweiser on your own time.

o.o What are you referring to as his "betrayal" of the party? I don't know much about him, but I think even if I did I probably wouldn't be sure what in particular you're calling that...

As for his "neo-conservative" views, I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful, but even if they were, who gets to decide which ideologies are associated with which political parties? If I recall correctly the republicans used to be considered the "non-interventionist party" and now they're supporting interventions the democratic party generally tends to oppose... seems like a bit of a role reversal to me.
its a betrayal of the party to actively campaign against its candidate for president.

those democrats who didnt like obama shut up about it and didnt campaign FOR him. lieberman actively campaigned for mccain and dissed his party's candidate.

o.o What are you referring to as his "betrayal" of the party? I don't know much about him, but I think even if I did I probably wouldn't be sure what in particular you're calling that...

As for his "neo-conservative" views, I don't think ideology labels are very meaningful, but even if they were, who gets to decide which ideologies are associated with which political parties? If I recall correctly the republicans used to be considered the "non-interventionist party" and now they're supporting interventions the democratic party generally tends to oppose... seems like a bit of a role reversal to me.

1. You could try reading the thread or the link.

2. Although he was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President in 2000 and sought the nomination for President in 2004, he actively supported the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2008 (McCain), spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention, and actively campaigned against the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2008 (Obama).

3. He has also broken with the Democratic Party and sided with the Republicans on many important political issues -- most notably the Iraq War & the "War on Terror"

Hence, his "betrayal" of the party.

when one's principles are objectively bad, standing up for them makes you a bad person.

Putting country before party is an "objectively" bad principle? And anyone who agrees that it's not a bad thing not to be a partisan hack is somehow bad? Wow, that's some far out trippy shit. Can I have whatever it is you're smoking?

firstly, the problem is mainly with the remaining 10% which happen to constitute the most important issues of the past decade.
second, was not i just complaining about vichy dems? how fucking hard is it to keep track of the fact that while the democrats are clearly and obviously better than the republicans, this in no way implies they are always right?

Feel free to list which issues are in those 10%, eh? :)

Bollocks. The parties are practically the same. One side is pro abortion and anti-guns, the other side is the reverse. That's about it. IMO, I'm amazed that people are actually upset with Joe for playing the parties against each other for his own gain.

*snip*

Hence, his "betrayal" of the party.
I'm no fan of Lieberman, but I don't like referring to his betraying the Democratic Party. For starters, he is not in Congress as a Democrat. I don't know what party registration is like in Connecticut or if it even exists, but you can't really say he's betraying the organization that got him elected when that organization voted for another guy and left him to fend for himself. Second, "betrayal of the party" sounds so...Republican. Loyalty to his party was what Tom Delay brought up when he resigned. Democrats have been ridiculed for years for their diversity of opinion and inability to reign in their own members, but it's better than the party whose members seem more loyal to it than the Constitution.

1. You could try reading the thread or the link.

2. Although he was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President in 2000 and sought the nomination for President in 2004, he actively supported the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2008 (McCain), spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention, and actively campaigned against the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2008 (Obama).

3. He has also broken with the Democratic Party and sided with the Republicans on many important political issues -- most notably the Iraq War & the "War on Terror"

Hence, his "betrayal" of the party.

Mmm. I'm sure his GOP buddies love his 100% NARAL rating and F from the Guns Owners of America. lol.

Putting country before party is an "objectively" bad principle?

this is not lieberman's principle. his objectively bad principles have already been described, but to recap its about knee-jerk pro-war/pro-imperialism, shading into authoritarian military-police state at home while we're at it

I'm no fan of Lieberman, but I don't like referring to his betraying the Democratic Party. For starters, he is not in Congress as a Democrat. I don't know what party registration is like in Connecticut or if it even exists, but you can't really say he's betraying the organization that got him elected when that organization voted for another guy and left him to fend for himself. Second, "betrayal of the party" sounds so...Republican. Loyalty to his party was what Tom Delay brought up when he resigned. Democrats have been ridiculed for years for their diversity of opinion and inability to reign in their own members, but it's better than the party whose members seem more loyal to it than the Constitution.

Well said! As for party registration, a third of the state is registered Independent, though Indipendents cannot vote in primaries.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/superman.jpg
Now that we've seen them together, I guess we can rule out Barack Obama as Superman's alter-ego. And I had such good evidence proving he was, too. Oh well, back to square one.

I'm no fan of Lieberman, but I don't like referring to his betraying the Democratic Party. For starters, he is not in Congress as a Democrat. I don't know what party registration is like in Connecticut or if it even exists, but you can't really say he's betraying the organization that got him elected when that organization voted for another guy and left him to fend for himself.

except that the dem establishment didn't wind up uniting whole-heartedly behind lamont. fuck, barack obama himself went down to support joe, at least during the primary

if lieberman really doesn't want to be a democrat, he should stop demanding to chair committees during a period of democratic dominance. that sort of thing is reserved for party members and allies.

Mmm. I'm sure his GOP buddies love his 100% NARAL rating and F from the Guns Owners of America. lol.

Did you read the OP? I wondered why either Democrats or Republicans (or anyone else for that matter) would like Joe Lieberman?

It seems to me that idealogues from either side should hate Lieberman and even independents should question his reliability.

Did you read the OP? I wondered why either Democrats or Republicans (or anyone else for that matter) would like Joe Lieberman?

republicans will only like him as long as he is a democrat, because his whiny concern-troll antics and backstabbing are directed leftward and done from fox news.

well, except for mccain, who really did want to make lieberman veep.

except that the dem establishment didn't wind up uniting whole-heartedly behind lamont. fuck, barack obama himself went down to support joe, at least during the primary
True, if anyone is to blame it's Joe Lieberman; you can't really accuse the party of betraying you when you lose a primary. My point was just that as he is not technically a Democratic senator, he can't really betray the Democrats.
if lieberman really doesn't want to be a democrat, he should stop demanding to chair committees during a period of democratic dominance. that sort of thing is reserved for party members and allies.
That I agree with. And party membership has nothing to do with Lieberman's broken promise of not attacking Obama during the campaign, that's just dishonest. I would understand if the Senate punished him for that.

Did you read the OP? I wondered why either Democrats or Republicans (or anyone else for that matter) would like Joe Lieberman?

It seems to me that idealogues from either side should hate Lieberman and even independents should question his reliability.

We who voted for him like him because he does well for our state!

He's very reliable: he puts Connecticut first.

this is not lieberman's principle. his objectively bad principles have already been described, but to recap its about knee-jerk pro-war/pro-imperialism, shading into authoritarian military-police state at home while we're at it

To believe having a conservative foreign policy stance is bad is fine. But there's nothing objective about it. It's clearly simply your opinion, which happens to be subjective.