Disgruntled Dems Consider Challenge to Lieberman

[southsideirish71]

I guess you cant be supportive of the war and be a dem.

 

So much for being inclusive. Conservative Democrats I guess dont fit in.

[Balta1701]

There are a great many Democrats who supported the war, or still support the war, and who are not going to face primary challenges.

 

Joe Lieberman is not just a pro-war Democrat, in many cases, he is the pro-Bush Democrat. When Fox News needs a Democrat to go on and attack other Democrats, who is the first person they call? He makes it vastly more difficult to actually build a coalition and come up with these "plans" to make everything better that the right wing claims we don't have.

 

Take a look at some of these numbers:

In the spring of 2001, when 12 of the party’s senators -- almost one-quarter of the caucus -- voted for the first round of Bush tax cuts, Lieberman voted against them. The liberal group Americans for Democratic Action gave Lieberman’s 2003 voting record a “liberal quotient” of 70 (out of 100), putting him only slightly to the right of center in a caucus in which six members earned a 75 while Nebraska’s Ben Nelson clocked in at 45. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ new leader, had an identical score to Lieberman’s.

 

The American Conservative Union, meanwhile, gave Lieberman a zero for 2004 and 2003, offering him a lifetime 17. This puts him to the left of uncontroversial Democrats like Blanche Lincoln (21), Thomas Carper (18), Tim Johnson (20), and, again, Reid (21). Indeed, in 2002 and 2003, Lieberman scored slightly to the left of John Kerry and John Edwards.

 

On environmental issues, in particular, Lieberman is a liberal leader. He earned a 100-percent score from the League of Conservation Voters last year, and his main bipartisan legislative initiative in the new Congress is a bill co-sponsored with John McCain to reduce carbon emissions and combat global warming.

There are many more Conservative Democrats than Lieberman in the senate, and they aren't facing the same revolt that he is. He is facing that possible revolt because in his state, his ratings among Republicans are vastly higher than his ratings above Democrats in most polls. He is facing a potential challenge because he helps the Republicans market their ideas and hurts the Democrats. He is facing a challenge because every time the Bush Administration decides to put up a solid, unified front on a major issue, he winds up splitting the opinion of the Democrats and making it impossible to present a unified message.

 

I've voted for Democrats who voted for the war, and I'm going to do that again. But that doesn't mean I have to tolerate other Democrats who actively work in public to weaken the principles I'm trying to elect people to uphold.

[Rex Kickass]

Lieberman isn't a moderate. He's a sellout. It's one of the way parties encourage discipline.

 

It's why people like Lincoln Chafee has a primary contender, why Arlen Specter had a primary contender. If you stray off the reservation too often and too far, you can't expect the rank and file to stay with you.

[YASNY]

Lieberman sounds like a man who will think for himself rather than be led around by a ring through his nose. We need more like him in Congress.

[southsider2k5]

Good I say. Hopefully he and John McCain breakaway and establish some kind of honest to goodness moderate party.

[Reddy]

its funny, as a democrat, whenever i see lieberman's name it takes a second for me to remember that he is, in fact, also a democrat. but that's mostly because he's not.

[Balta1701]

its funny, as a democrat, whenever i see lieberman's name it takes a second for me to remember that he is, in fact, also a democrat.  but that's mostly because he's not.

Yes, he actually is...in his voting record. But the problem is...he's vastly more outspoken on things that there's no voting on (ike when it's not ok to criticize the President), and on those few things he does vote on that disagree with his party. You don't hear him coming out and even offering vocal dissent on environmental issues at all, for example.

 

If he wanted to avoid this sort of thing...he could have done something very simple. Just like McCain, the media will let him make news by speaking because on occasion he's willing to disagree with his party. But when McCain does things like that, he also takes the time and effort to stress positions where they agree. He'll pass a torture ban, but he'll also shut up when the Administration says it won't follow it, and then he'll go and campaign loudly for another Administration initiative. When I see Lieberman speak these days, all he is doing is criticizing other Democrats. He doesn't take those opportunities to work towards building the party's strenght on issues where he does agree with the party; all he does is tear down the party on issues where they do disagree.

[Cknolls]

Lieberman sounds like a man who will think for himself rather than be led around by a ring through his nose.  We need more like him in Congress.

 

 

Kind of like the other Democrat who was also vilified for, oh my gosh, agreeing

 

WITH Bush on how to fight the war on terror. He retired, but I wish he would have

 

run for re-election, just to see how hard the Dems would have fought to replace

 

him. Democrats like him,Reagan Dems, are presently Repubs because their former

 

party does not stand for what it used to stand for.

[Reddy]

Kind of like the other Democrat who was also vilified for, oh my gosh, agreeing

 

WITH Bush on how to fight the war on terror. He retired, but I wish he would have

 

run for re-election, just to see how hard the Dems would have fought to replace

 

him. Democrats like him,Reagan Dems, are presently Repubs because their former

 

party does not stand for what it used to stand for.

 

the republican party also does not stand for what it used to. Remember Eisenhower? he was a pretty staunch Repub. His son was also. Recently, his son has switched to being a democrat not because his values and opinions have changed, but because the republican party has begun to swing so far to the right that he just isnt a republican anymore.

 

bottom line, both parties change.

 

out of curiosity how would you feel about a republican in congress who agreed with john kerry and was very outspoken about this?

[jasonxctf]

tell Lieberman that's what he gets for pushing for Clinton impeachment and supporting censorship for music, video games and movies.

 

I hope they do run someone against him and Lieberman loses.

[samclemens]

Lieberman isn't a moderate. He's a sellout. It's one of the way parties encourage discipline.

 

It's why people like Lincoln Chafee has a primary contender, why Arlen Specter had a primary contender. If you stray off the reservation too often and too far, you can't expect the rank and file to stay with you.

 

lieberman isnt a sellout. he's an independent dem- nothing wrong with that. hes somewhate comparable to leahy, for example (another independent dem). his constituents elected him, and there he is. if he's defeated in the next election, only then can you say he has been "off the reservation" for too long.

[samclemens]

Kind of like the other Democrat who was also vilified for, oh my gosh, agreeing

 

WITH Bush on how to fight the war on terror. He retired, but I wish he would have

 

run for re-election, just to see how hard the Dems would have fought to replace

 

him. Democrats like him,Reagan Dems, are presently Repubs because their former

 

party does not stand for what it used to stand for.

 

are you referring to kerry? kerry didnt retire as far as i know. who are you talking about? if its kerry, he wasnt attacked for agreeing with the war on terror, kerry was a huge flip-flopper- thats what did him in.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Instead of trashing Lieberman you guys should be praising him. How many times have I heard people on this board talking about the need for politicians who have integrity and a mind of their own?

 

 

 

Politicians who dont always toe the party line and aren't afraid to take a stand that doesn't agree with the party leadership are a refreshing change in Washington and Im not just saying that because Lieberman is going against the Dems.

[YASNY]

the republican party also does not stand for what it used to.  Remember Eisenhower?  he was a pretty staunch Repub.  His son was also.  Recently, his son has switched to being a democrat not because his values and opinions have changed, but because the republican party has begun to swing so far to the right that he just isnt a republican anymore.

 

bottom line, both parties change.

 

out of curiosity how would you feel about a republican in congress who agreed with john kerry and was very outspoken about this?

 

Remember Eisenhower? You know, the guy the democrats tried to recruit as their candidate because he was a war hero. He couldn't have been to "staunch" if the Dems wanted him to be their front man.

[Rex Kickass]

Instead of trashing Lieberman you guys should be praising him.  How many times have I heard people on this board talking about the need for politicians who have integrity and a mind of their own? 

Politicians who dont always toe the party line and aren't afraid to take a stand that doesn't agree with the party leadership are a refreshing change in Washington and Im not just saying that because Lieberman is going against the Dems.

 

There's no problem with thinking for yourself, but to seriously consider leaving the Senate for a cabinet position that would only increase the Republican majority in the Senate because CT's governor is a Republican.

 

When you have to worry about a Democrat increasing the Republican majority in the Senate, he's no longer just "thinking for himself," he's selling out the party.

[southsider2k5]

There's no problem with thinking for yourself, but to seriously consider leaving the Senate for a cabinet position that would only increase the Republican majority in the Senate because CT's governor is a Republican.

 

When you have to worry about a Democrat increasing the Republican majority in the Senate, he's no longer just "thinking for himself," he's selling out the party.

 

Maybe he is thinking that being a different voice in the cabinet is better for America? At least that is what we got told when Clinton did it.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't have a problem with Dems in the cabinet. I have a problem when its done in a way that increases the GOP majority in the Senate.

[YASNY]

I don't have a problem with Dems in the cabinet. I have a problem when its done in a way that increases the GOP majority in the Senate.

 

But that's up to the voters in CT. They have the right to decide who represents them, whether it meets your approval or not.

[EvilMonkey]

There's no problem with thinking for yourself, but to seriously consider leaving the Senate for a cabinet position that would only increase the Republican majority in the Senate because CT's governor is a Republican.

 

When you have to worry about a Democrat increasing the Republican majority in the Senate, he's no longer just "thinking for himself," he's selling out the party.

So I guess Jeffords was a sellout also, eh?

[Balta1701]

So I guess Jeffords was a sellout also, eh?

Of course he was a sellout...he switched parties almost entirely because of the fact that Daschle offered him a plum spot at the head of a committee. He was fine with sticking around as a "Republican but not really", until it got to the point where he could get maximum reward for switching - i.e. a nearly divided Congress.

[Rex Kickass]

So I guess Jeffords was a sellout also, eh?

 

By definition, yes.

[YASNY]

There is a guy from my district in the KY state legislature. He ran as a democrat. With a Dem as governor, he switched to the GOP because he didn't like the way the Dems were playing politics. Then GOP Fletcher was elected governor. Guess what? he didn't like the way they were playing ball either. So, he switched and is now running as an Independant.

 

I wish he'd run for president. This man has some convictions that he will stand behind.

 

Edit: His name is Bob Leeper.

Edited January 22, 2006 by YASNY

[Rex Kickass]

But that's up to the voters in CT.  They have the right to decide who represents them, whether it meets your approval or not.

 

That's not how the Senate works. It's not that CT would elect a Republican Senator, its that the Republican Governor would appoint a Republican Senator who would finish Lieberman's term.

 

So CT would NOT be getting what it votes for, by definition.

[Balta1701]

That's not how the Senate works. It's not that CT would elect a Republican Senator, its that the Republican Governor would appoint a Republican Senator who would finish Lieberman's term.

 

So CT would NOT be getting what it votes for, by definition.

Well, he would be replacing Liebermann...

[YASNY]

That's not how the Senate works. It's not that CT would elect a Republican Senator, its that the Republican Governor would appoint a Republican Senator who would finish Lieberman's term.

 

So CT would NOT be getting what it votes for, by definition.

 

Okay. I see where you are coming from now. But isn't that what you'd call smart politics on the part of the GOP?