Why Didn't Liebermann Just Switch to the Republican Party?

[leftyladyfrommo]

Why go Independent?

Seems to me that he has just become a Republican - Republicans are even supporting him.

I don't get it.

[Richardo]

1. Lieberman?

You've still got time to edit.... :)

[leftyladyfrommo]

6. Yes - just had read an article on McCain, too.

No, I meant Lieberman.

I just don't understand his whole thing. Seems like he is just committing political suicide right now.

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. He's a Republican mole - can't feed them info if he's not covert

No, to be useful to them, he has to work as a mole.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[whistle]

2. You mean Lieberman I think

[endarkenment]

3. Lieberman?

I'll assume you meant Joe (Asshat Connecticut) not John (Asshat Arizona). You should edit your title.

Joe wants to keep as many of the voters who voted for him in the primary as possible. Being overtly Republican would not help that effort.

[WestHoustonDem]

4. If you mean Lieberman, there's already a Republican

nominee for his seat. He can legally switch his party affiliation, but he can't be the Republican nominee

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. No one in CN would vote for a Repug

As an independent, he's at least a longshot. (I assume you mean Lieberman, not McCain :hi: )

[onenote]

75. that is so wrong! you might try learning something about CT

"No one in CN would vote for a Repug"

Tell that to 3 of the five members of the House from Connecticut and the Governor. I'm sure they'll immediately resign.

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. Boy, you guys are fast.

Lieberman, Lieberman.

[LaurenG]

8. Since I KNOW who you're talking about

he is trying to play both sides and thinks he can by sitting on the fence. Fence sitters don't do well. I strongly hope Lamont :spank: him. His ego is so out of control, yucky egotistical politician, like we need ANY more of those :eyes:

[MaineDem]

9. Because he's not a Republican

Democrats don't get elected without support from the other side. Vice versa.

He says he will caucus with the Democrats if elected.

That doesn't make him a Republican regardless of what many here think.

That being said, I think his Indy run is wrong and he should honor the results of the primary.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Loserman has his own political party, like Peron had his in Argentina

a party build around his personality. Loserman is not a Democrat!

[Mark E. Smith]

10. Because he's not a fascist?

Wrongheaded maybe, but not a stormtrooper like the neo-cons.

And remember, if he is reelected he goes back to the Senate as a
Democrat. He could be the one vote that gives us our majority there.

Sorry for the pragmatism ...

[leftyladyfrommo]

11. I don't understand? He goes back to the Senate as a Democrat?

How does that work?

[KKKarl is an idiot]

15. ..

He should not be allowed back into the democratic party even if he wins. The reason being that the Democratic party needs to be above the Republican parties politics. We would rather be right than win. If Lieberman wins he won because of the republican vote. So to be true to the people who voted for him he should then choose to join the republicans. Hope that Reid & Co do not be-little our party by standing for this farce.

[paulk]

22. takes one to know one

If Lieberman should win (and I hope he doesn't) you want him to caucus with the Republicans.... even though he's said he would caucus with the Democrats.

Brilliant strategy.

[Mark E. Smith]

26. I'm a lifelong Democrat and consider myself fairly Liberal ...

... but I am having an increasingly difficult time understanding what makes some of these folks tick. To me the one and only priority here is taking power away from the wreckers in the GOP and bringing some level of sanity to this country and the world. If that means getting into the sack with Joe Lieberman, so be it.

That strikes me as being a very minor thing when compared with the GOP maintaining control of Congress.


We now return you to the pitchforks and torches.

[paulk]

27. want the internet blogosphere has done

is give the extremists, (and they are always the one's shouting the loudest), a bigger soapbox to shout from.

-----------------------

It's also important to remember that DU is not a reflection of the real world, or even of the mainstream Democratic party membership. Increasingly, and the post in question goes a long way in supporting this, I wonder if it's even a reflection of the progressive/liberal left. I hope it isn't, because before I came here four years ago, that's the camp I would have put myself in.


------------------------

It has become imperative, IMO, now that Lieberman has turned to the right in the general election - and would be more beholden to them if he does prevail - that Lamont win in CT. I'm no fan of Holy Joe's, but if the resources we're now going to have to put in that race cost us pickups in other races - races against Republicans - one really will have to ask if it was worth it.


It does seem a minor thing when compared to what's really at stake in this election.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Lieberman is an enabler of war crimes

and he advocates wars against Iran and Syria. Lieberman is also associated with neocon PACs.

[Mark E. Smith]

35. Of course he is.

Here, have a nice cookie.

[Armstead]

14. Because most of his positions are Democratic

I hate to defend Lieberman becauise I am very angry at what he's become.

But I think, if you take out his policies on war, he's a Democrat on most domestic issues.

[endarkenment]

16. Hard to get over those war policies.

I find the "if you take out his policies on war" part an impossibility. It is an essential part of the definition of Lieberman.

[Zodiak]

19. No, he is a bad Democrat on other issues, as well

1. He voted for Condi
2. He voted for Gonzales
3. He voted to take class action lawsuit rights away
4. He voted for Negroponte
5. He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
6. He voted for CAFTA
7. He did not stand up for voting rights in Ohio
8. He voted for cloture on Alito
8. He voted to extend the Patriot Act
9. He voted for the US-Oman free trade agreement
10. He voted for Roberts

It is NOT just about the war. That meme comes from Joe's own lips, but is not confirmed once one looks into his odious voting record.

[Armstead]

23. I agree with you -- I didn't say he was MY kind of Democrat

But unfortunately, Lieberman is fairly consistent with the rest of the centrists who have been driving the party into the hands of the Corporate Elite for 20 years.

[Zodiak]

24. that's a statement I can agree with

there is nothing moderate about handing the US over to the corporations lock, stock, and barrel.

"centrists" like Leiberman are clearly neo-liberal in the European sense, which is a radical position from the status quo of the US. If Americans were politically savvy enough, the use of the term would clearly designate these from classic liberalism and populism, which are the traditions fo the Democratic party.

[fuzzyball]

62. There was nothing anti-liberal in those votes you listed by Lieberman....

He voted per US constitution. Unless some known criminal
background exists in the nominee's background, the president
gets to propose a nominee and senate has the duty to confirm
them. The constitution does not say that senators are required
to play party politics in confirming nominees. It is a matter of
civility, decorum, protocol and following precedence.

So, unless one is a reactionary and extreme winger of either stripe,
liberal or conservative, I can't see where Lieberman did anything wrong.

[GreenArrow]

68. the Senate gets to adivse and consent

they have no duty to confirm any Presidential nominee. It may be tradition to confirm, but it isn't a requirement. To put it another way, they aren't there to be rubber stamps.

[fuzzyball]

69. I Agree, so on what grounds should Condi & others should have

been rejected by Lieberman? Advise & consent is just dandy.
But it has to have some logical & un-political basis.
Otherwise it will be strictly become a political food fight
with neither party getting any one confirmed.

[GreenArrow]

70. I believe with Alito and Roberts

certain documents were requested from the White House, to which the White House essentially said "get stuffed" and to which the Democratic Senators of the US Congress should have said "we have asked for these documents, as is our right, and seeing as how these documents have not been forthcoming, we cannot in good conscience vote to confirm these nominees.

In addition, the various nominees have refused to answer questions, have stonewalled, avoided, and probably lied. That in and of itself should be a disqualifier, and in combination with the refusal of documents, there was no good reason for any Democrat (or any HONEST Republican either) to confirm any of Bush's high-profile nominees.

[fuzzyball]

73. You are correct re:Alito, not re:Roberts

I don't recall the exact numbers but did'nt Roberts
get a whole bunch of dem senator's votes? My main point
is why single out Lieberman???

[PassingFair]

71. You forgot Poland!

And his cheeky, cheerful backing (and AUTHORING) of faith-based initiatives
and vouchers!

WHAT A DEM!

WHAT A JERK!

WHAT A MESSAGE TO SEND.

SEND JOE PACKING, CONNECTICUT!!!

GO LAMONT.

[Ferret Annica]

21. Democratic positions?

Since when is being a lap dog sitting on boy George's knee a Democratic position?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[invictus]

17. CT is a blue state

Lieberman would have a harder time winning as an official Republican. As an "Independent Democrat," Lieberman has the advantage of getting all the CT Republican votes as well as the votes and endorsements of a minority of Democrats. Lieberman is counting on that to be enough to keep his seat.

[kentuck]

18. Simple.

He needs Democrats to win.

[loyalsister]

54. Not just votes, $$$$

His individual doner list and fundraiser hosts probably have been loyal Democrats.
I think he is probably not only trying to keep their support but trying to assure them that he didn't betray them after they helped fund his primary race.

[calico1]

20. Because as usual, he wants to

hedge his bets. So he says he's a Democrat and hopes enough Democrats don't notice he isn't really one, while at the same time he kisses up to the Republicans and hopes he is accepted as one of them. :mad:

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Except for a few points, he's quite a liberal; this is his home

More than anything else, he's a pro-Israel-regardless-of-anything Orthodox Jew. He's also a tight-assed social moralist in league with the social conservatives. He's also a tool of the insurance industry and almost single-handedly torpedoed real investigation against Enron at a point when the Dems controlled the Senate. For me, what's most despicable is his opportunism in ratfucking Clinton when he was being railroaded by a virulent bunch of reactionaries. This also shows Gore's weakness: he put Lieberman on the ticket simply to distance himself from Clinton after the ginned-up crap of the impeachment; Gore should be ashamed and Lieberman should be derided for his calumny.

His voting record on everything else that liberals (okay, also cowards who're cowed by the right into disavowing that term and who identify themselves as "progressives") is quite good and noble. His votes on the environment, workers' rights, unions, and general fairness are quite honorable and decent.

He's not a Republican. He's a bit of a tool of the insurance industry, but more than anything else, he is so committed to Israel that he'd do anything that helps that state. This brings forth a question of loyalty: to who whom do you truly offer your allegiance? Is it to your country or your religious belief? For Lieberman, it's to his religious belief.

Don't dismiss some of the moral responsibility of this man, but remember that his prime allegiance is to his religion and his tight-assed view of social order. Still, having said this, his attack on Clinton was extreme opportunism, and he's a sanctimonious little prick. For him to become a Republican would be a personal betrayal of beliefs, and I'd be extremely surprised would he to do so. Republicans are selfish and only care about themselves; Lieberman, for all his opportunism and prissy moralistic stances still gives a damn about the common man.

He needs to go away. This needs to be an important lesson for us all, but to boil it down to the simplicity of allegiance is ridiculous.

[Jacobin]

29. Explains Joe perfectly

Great post.

:thumbsup:

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Thanks. I'm disgusted with people who can't deal with complex individuals

Having said all that, though, he's a Quisling for turning on Clinton on a moment of blatant partisan power grabbing, and even if his moralizing was sincere rather than opportunistic (which it may well have been, since his beliefs scorn adultery) he still should have stood by his party and CERTAINLY shouldn't have gone out of his way in a grandstanding and egocentric way to deride the president.

Much as I detest religion and the imposition of straight-laced morality on society as a whole, the fact remains that if you factor out this, his obvious vanity, blinkered support of Israel and his subservience to the insurance industry, the guy has been a reliable vote for most ideals we hold dear: the environment, workers' rights and social acceptance.

May he get the fuck out of the public realm and have a long and happy life.

For all the good he's done, he's done so much ill, and when the chips were down in '98, he stabbed a knife deep into the heart of decency while using decency as an excuse. If he cares about any of the progressive beliefs he's espoused over the years, he should withdraw right now; anything else is extreme narcissism. I think most of us know where he's going.

Sad.

[Jacobin]

32. From my vantage point

PNAC and its proponents from various ideologies is not simply a 'single issue' as some Lieberman supporters would have it; rather it is the central issue of whether we can look forward to some period of relative peace and stability, or whether we are going to be plunged headlong into some ill-thought through, all out conflagration involving most of the Middle East, with all that entails for energy resources in the short term and its affect on the economy, not to mention the potential to squander what's left of our military and treasure.

The Clinton back stab was opportunistic and enabled the extreme RW to gain control of the WH, when he was elevated to some noble position that made Gore think he needed to distance himself from Clinton (even though Clinton had a 65% approval rating during the impeachment proceedings). It was bad for the party, not to mention stupid politics, and it was bad for the country.

I think your analysis is exactly correct. Lieberman's loyalties lie first with his religion and second with himself. Even though he does not realize it, his support of the PNAC agenda threatens Israel far more than the geo-political realists who came before Commander Codpiece, who understood that the only way to deal with the stituation was to keep them talking and that as long as they were talking, they weren't shooting. Sad, but it worked. PNAC's 'final solution' I'm afraid is going to light a fuse to a larger bomb that we are in no way able to deal with.

peace (i fervently hope)

[PurityOfEssence]

34. You sound like more of a Girondin

Moderation and equanimity are much more traits of the center than those who would repeatedly load up the tumbrels for another trip to the guillotine.

We are in accord on this one.

What a mess.

Little hope seems to be in the offing with such blood-feuds at full tide.

I'll not be sad to see this man go, but I would like the legacy to give him the credit he's due for many decent policies. Having said that, I have to reiterate that his opportunism smacks of self-aggrandizing megalomania and more than just borders on party treason and his loyalties to the supernatural supersede those to us mere mortals.

Sigh.

[dolstein]

36. he's a pro Israel regardless of anything Orthodox Jew -- WTF??!!

If you want to know why the left-wing is getting a reputation for being a breeding ground for anti-Semites, it's statements like this. Yes, Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew, but the positions he has taken with respect to Israel (as opposed to Iraq) are indistinguishable from those held by most Democratic members of Congress (virtually all of whom are NOT Orthodox Jews). Hell, Ned Lamont was no less forceful in his support of Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Hezzbolah than Lieberman was, and the last time I checked, Ned wasn't exactly wearing a yarmulke.

Moreover, the implication of remarks like this that only an Orthodox Jew would be an ardent supporter of Israel is downright offensive. What other country in the Middle East has the democratic traditions and pro-Western sympathies that Israel does? What other country in the Middle East is as supportive of women's rights and gay rights as Israel is? You don't have to be an Orthodox Jew to recognize that Israel has much more in common with the West than its Arab neighbors.

[Zhade]

39. Supportive of GLBT rights?

Get thee to Netflix and watch "Trembling Before G-D", then come back and talk about Israel's stance on gay rights.

"You don't have to be an Orthodox Jew to recognize that Israel has much more in common with the West than its Arab neighbors."

I know you're angry about that loser lieberman losing and all, but that's no excuse to be sloppy - this can be read as racist, since it appears you're saying Arabs don't believe in democracy and the like, which we both know isn't true. Most Arabs, like us, want these things while their governments don't want to give it to them.

You are correct on Lamont's lamentable comments regarding Israel's war crimes, I'll give you that.

[dolstein]

40. It's not racist to say that Israel is, culturally and politically,

much closer to the West than Arab countries are. That's simply a statement of fact.

Israel my not be perfect on gay rights, but it's light years beyond its Arab neighbors. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Israel
It's also worth nothing that unlike in the United States, homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military.

[Zhade]

41. Well, yeah, but military service IS compulsory.

Kudos to them for not being as neanderthal as us.

Now, about those war crimes...

[tulip]

30. He's not a Republican

He may have friends on the right but he's not a rightie. Could he be more supportive of the Dem party? Yep.

[rpannier]

38. Pretty Much

IMO you're totally correct.

[guidod]

33. Here's some good reading...

http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/

[bunkerbuster1]

37. Same reason Zell Miller didn't switch.

He's much more marketable as a "renegade" then as some boring-ass Republican.

Cut the bruthuh a break. He's gotta put food on his family.

[mac56]

44. DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

Just like Zig Zag Zell.

As a Democrat (DINO), he gets to be the geek in the circus sideshow.

As a Repub, he'd be just another carny.

[flaminbats]

42. why didn't he run in the Republican primary?

I know why he isn't running as one now..because he didn't believe Lamont could beat him! I believe Lamont beat him because Lieberman let Democrats know he would run with or without our primary votes. Sorry..but if this guy had any sense at all, he would have kept that to himself or would have run in the Republican primary. Running as an independent didn't work for Lowell Weicker..when Lieberman beat him, so why does he think it will now work for him?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mac56]

45. interesting post

enjoy your stay

[Atman]

46. He had a post count of 6 when he started this 10 minutes ago

He's trying fast and furiously to get this claptrap posted on DU as often as possible. Probably has a bet with his weenie-buds over at CU.

[mac56]

47. Yeah, I bet he's lonely sitting in his parents' basement.

nm

[Vidar]

49. Because he'd lose the endorsements of his Republican buddies, who are

only interested in him as a traitor.

[GreenTea]

50. Moles need work too!

Shills are rewarded very handsomely!

[robcon]

51. He has the best of both worlds.

Nominally a Democrat - although without the party nomination.

Support by the Republicans - even greater than the Republican candidate.

He's trying to win the election. Why would he switch parties?

[sknabt]

52. Let's be fair to Lieberman

I know there's a lot of angst on both sides of the aisle over Lieberman. I never cared much for the man myself. But he's a moderate Democrat and hopefully the party has room for him. He just happens to be with the Bushies on the critical issue of Iraq.

McCain has a similar problem in the Republican party. Many conservatives hate him because he won't always tow the line on issues. Every once in a while some moderate Democrat or conservative will suggest McCain swap parties. It'd be a net gain of a seat for the Democrats on paper but, IMHO, he'd be more of a problem for them than the Republicans.

Ditto Lieberman.

I actually think it's funny to see the Republicans waste a lot of energy campaigning for a Democrat. ;)

[Ferret Annica]

53. What part of was do you not understand?

If the Democratic party does not have the will nor discipline to cut people who operate with their own agenda that takes precedent over the needs of the many to maintain party cohesiveness, it deserves what it gets when it loses.

Lieberman support sets s precedent that weakens and damages the primary election system and makes nonsense out of party integrity.

Wake up, Lieberman is a party of one and to consider him Democrat means party loyalty means zero and is useful only if it helps personal self interest.

Connecticut and the United States needs people who care about the needs of the many, not those of the one out of touch and compromised shadow of his former self senator, Joe Lie.

[robcon]

55. There are probably a lot of examples. I know one.

When Mario Cuomo lost the Democratic nomination for NYC mayor in 1977, he ran against the winner, Ed Koch, and almost defeated him. Cuomo ran on the Liberal Party line + a made-up party name against Koch.

Cuomo wasn't tossed from the party. In fact he ran and was elected/re-elected by the Democratic party for NY governor 4 times.

[Ferret Annica]

59. Interesting, So how many Repug pResidents did he kiss

and bend over for to leverage Republican support to do this marvel of bizarro politics?

All your example does is make me think less of Mario, not more for Joe Ferengi.

[robcon]

63. It has nothing to do with Cuomo.

My example was to show that democrats want to win elections for the most part. They will forgive 'transgressions' if it helps them win elections. Cuomo, by the way, was a GREAT governor.

[Cha]

56. Because he's a sneaky

bastard who thinks he's doin' fine in his little red riding hood?

[Zorra]

57. Maybe the DLC strategy is to destroy the Democratic Party from within.

Imagine this scenario:

Very, very megawealthy transnational corporations wanted complete control of our government.

They hired some really smart folks to figure out the best way to do this.

These really smart folks told the very, very, megawealthy transnational corporations that they needed to make the Democratic Party ineffective as an opposition party to the party that the corporations already owned, which is, of course, the republican party.

So, they financed the DLC in order to take over the Democratic Party, all the while planting their corporate friendly republican moles here and there.

The busy little moles dug under the dirt and went to work in their dark little holes.

By rendering the Democratic Party ineffective due to the DLC stranglehold, transnational corporations accomplished three primary objectives:

1) They insured that most corporate friendly legislation would get passed.
2) They insured that Federal Courts would be stacked with corporate friendly jurists.
3) They insured that the Democratic Party, and no third party, could ever effectively challenge the two party system. By turning the Democratic Party into a pseudo-opposition party, they eliminate any possibility of any genuinely effective democratic political opposition to corporate control of the nation.

So maybe Joe, and the other DINO(s) are just so much more effective as a corporate moles. They're on the inside. When and where they're needed, when the time is right in a critical situation, they slip the knife in, and kill any legislation or other action that is not corporate friendly.

So they can vote Democratic 90% of the time, and still convince most people that they are Democrats, and corporations maintain control of our government, leaving those poor ol' real Democrats wondering why they can't seem to ever make the changes necessary to regain genuine democracy and create a government that actually does the right things all the time for people, the nation, and the planet.
:popcorn::hide:
"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . ."

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[AtomicKitten]

60. wigga please

[bvar22]

74. The "Corporate" moles....

...would also be free to vote Liberal on Social Issues, thus achieving the air of Liberal respectability and step forward with BOGUS voting records that confuse people who don't look close..."Lieberman has a 90% Liberal voting record...yada..yada..yada :puke:

MegaCorps don't care:

*What church you go to

*Who gets an abortion

*How many guns you have

*Who you sleep with

MegaCorps ONLY care about shifting power to the CEOs and the VERY rich, and Loserman is one of their boys. After ENRON, it was Loserman who led the charge to gut Regulatory Reform that would prevent another Enron.

[PresidentWar]

58. Since when...

do slimebags like LIEberman operate in honesty to begin with? Another pink tutu Democrat feeling the sharp sting of the anti-war movement coming down on his back.

[threadkillaz]

61. Cuz he's a..

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PresidentWar]

65. 'zat what they're calling Bush shills these days?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

72. Whatever he is he IS NOT

the democratic candidate.

Lamont is.

It is against the rules of this site
to promote the candidate of another
party over a democrat in a contested
race. Retract or be banned.

[karynnj]

67. i think on many issues he is far too liberal for them

Look at any index - he is far more liberal than Chaffee

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Because it's first about Joe. And because

by standing in the "middle", he hopes to have power over both parties. He wants to be the sought-after guy who can't be owned by either -- or at least he wants to appear that way.

He gets to hold the Dems hostage to his priorities, and he gets to act coy with the GOP. Master of his own domain, if you will.