If the far left hadn't primaried Joe Lieberman in 2006, we'd have his vote on health care reform now

[Politics_Guy25]

Yeah, I'm sure this isn't going to be popular around here but it is true. This is the problem with idealogues. We are seeing it now as the teabaggers take over the GOP and participate in helping the GOP become marginalized to the extent that it is a southern state radical rump full of racists. You want to know what happens when a party goes to one ideological extreme, look at the GOP suffering massive unprecedented losses in the 2006 and 2008 federal elections.

I think many on DU are so blinded by ideological purity that they fail to see that the path to permanent majority status is to build a BIG tent, the kind of tent that President Obama built in 2008. For sure, you by all are means are welcome to primary anyone and everyone that doesn't fit your ideological vision but be FULLY aware of the political and policy ramifications of that decision.

Here's what "primaring" Joe Lieberman has accomplished:
1. Led Lieberman to endorse John Mccain and almost to have become the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008. Imagine if Mccain had bucked his advisers and actually picked Lieberman. That move would have been potentially enough to fool enough moderate voters to get them to vote for Mccain.
2. Has made the two CT senate seats, which should be RELIABLY ours, totally up for grabs. Pre 2006 primary Lieberman would have been a shoe in for every election that he wanted to run in. Now, he is so unpopular that Jody Rell, the republican governor, leads the polls for 2012 and we could lose BOTH CT senate seats in a state that has voted D in every election since 1988!
3. It angered him SO much that he is now on a vendetta to destroy the Democrats and will vote down everything that is important to us.

If you were going to primary him, you should have made DAMN sure that you had a SUPERSTAR candidate that was 60-70% guaranteed to beat JL in the GE. Not some unknown that the CT voters DID NOT KNOW. You don't tick a jerk like Lieberman off without KNOWING for sure that he's a goner.

The primary of Lieberman in 2006 has backfired with incalculable consequences.

Now, the chickens are coming home to roost on the most important domestic legislation to reach the floor in generations, health care. He went on Face the Nation this morning and again vowed to fillibuster a final vote no matter what. Because of the quest for idelogical purity on a war that Bush was never going to end anyway, millions of Americans will tnow be denied a good health care bill OR we will get it after the most bloody battle that the senate has ever seen when reconcilation is used.

Do you honestly think that if Lieberman had been treated as a honored Vice Presidential Candidate and respected voice on foreign policy in the Democratic establishment, that he would be fillibustering health care today? Look at Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu. They're conservative D's but they've been treated right and they're not going to fillibuster. They would never do that to us.

This is by no means a defence of Joe Lieberman. I can't stand the guy at all and I am furious at what he did. HOWEVER, this never would have happened without this quest for ideological purity.

Next time, perhaps the netroots should consider the consequences of their actions and be darn sure they can take the guy down before they do it and we end up in this situation eh? Because of this "Captain Ahab" quest, health care teeters on the edge. Thanks guys! Good work!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. so the left is to blame for the pettiness and lack of principle of lieberman

not say, lieberman?

[opiate69]

2. +1

[liberalmuse]

6. +2

[niyad]

18. +3-- you know, I didn't accept being blamed for something I didn't do when I was a child,

and I sure as HELL am not going to be blamed for the fact that a sleazoid, lying, self-interested thug did exactly what he wanted to do.

there was a reason he was "primaried"--a lot of people were sick of him and his bs--and all he has done since then is provide more of the same.

his lies, his corruption, his deceit, cannot be blamed on anybody but himself.

are you sure you posted this on the correct site?

[anigbrowl]

37. No, the left is to blame for not having a good plan to unseat him

Some people are assholes, and Lieberman certainly fits the bill in my book. But 90% of the response from the progressive left has consisted of crying 'waaaah, he's such an asshole'. you can't win an election by whining. You do so by presenting a more attractive alternative.

It's not that the criticisms of Lieberman are wrong, I generally agree with them, but that very few, if any elections are ever won on a platform of 'Anybody but _____'. It's politically naive to think otherwise. There is nothing noble about naivete: in fact it is kind of exploitation to solicit people's votes for an alternative if you don't have a good battle plan worked out, though not an intentional one.

Bottom line: moral outrage isn't a winning platform. People get off their ass to vote FOR something, not against. Thus, if your goal is to unseat a bad politician, you need to field one that is demonstrably better.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. progressives voted for lamonts. its the moderates who didnt. blame them

[JerseygirlCT]

72. Let's be fair -

Lamont did not run a very good campaign. Many of us voted for him more as a vote against Lieberman.

His presentation to the people of CT often came off as "I have a lot of money and some business experience and we both hate Lieberman, so vote for me!!!" It was not nearly persuasive enough.

Now, the folks I know who were not convinced and voted for Lieberman have definitely been feeling buyer's remorse.

But I don't think we can let Lamont's less than stellar campaign off the hook entirely, either.

[newspeak]

90. and here I thought it was the repugs

who voted for Lieberman over their own candidate. Gee, go figure. I love how anyone left of the "move the center line to the neo-con right" is now considered FARRRRRRRRRR left.

[anigbrowl]

109. It's not about left and right

Most people are not that partisan. Despising Lieberman isn't a platform, most people want to vote for something affirmative. This is why 'kick the bums out' doesn't work as the foundation of a campaign, it doesn't really pull anyone in who isn't already passionate; and the fact is that you need to get those moderate votes, wishy-washy or not. It'd be a fine world if everyone was fully informed about politics and voted based on solid convictions, but that's not the case. Obama succeeded because he offered a list of things he intended to get done during his first term that people wanted to buy into.

Like I said above, 'Anybody but ______' isn't a winning slogan in most campaigns.

[JerseygirlCT]

127. Where'd you get that from my post?

Yes, almost all the Republicans in the state voted for Lieberman. (The GOP candidate was a joke, even among GOP stalwarts). Unfortunately, about a third of the Dems did, too. I think a fair percentage of them now suffer from buyer's remorse, however.

[CTyankee]

120. Ned Lamont has said that he tried to get others to run against Joe.

He didn't want to do it, by his own admission. No one would take Joe on. So Ned stepped up because he felt so strongly against the war.

SOMEBODY has to make a stand. So what if you don't make it the first time. Ned's campaign mobilized a lot of people and got national attention. Joe's cred hasn't been the same since!

Hindsight often leads to revisionist thinking and that is what is going on with this OP (and even THAT is being charitable...).

This OP is the dumbest thing I've ever read about that campaign.

[anigbrowl]

129. I'm not blaming him, more disappointed with his campaign managers. .nt

[waiting for hope]

133. +1

Didn't help that certain key Dems backed Lieberman either.

[LoZoccolo]

84. "Blame" isn't a useful concept in talking about cold strategy.

There are usually several agents contributing to an outcome. You can do little to prevent Joe Lieberman from acting as he does, but you can change your reaction to him and possibly leverage his selfish behavior to your own advantage. Pointing out who you think is morally wrong and forgetting else's own role in the outcome - this action we call "blaming" - won't teach anyone what they need to know for next time.

[RainDog]

112. not to mention that they wanted to use netroots to GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE

no one forced Lieberman to run as an independent, or forced DEMOCRATS to endorse Lieberman over the DEMOCRATICALLY-CHOSEN Democratic candidate.

maybe, at the national party level, democrats need to stop screwing over the people who work for and vote for democratic candidates.

what a novel idea.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

114. indeed

[bobbolink]

113. Kick us out of the party, NOW!

Obviously, our votes are not wanted nor needed.

[Raster]

125. +4

[Forkboy]

3. That's a lot of words to basically say shit.

[The Magistrate]

8. True, My Friend

Lieberman is not, and was not, entitled to a Senate seat, and the primary challenge was proper: his reaction to it was, and is, not. The fact is that even before the primary challenge, he had ceased to represent Democrats in his state, and was openly collaborating with the enemy. His win in the general election owed to Republican support, and the fact that that party ran only a cipher in the race.

[Canuckistanian]

143. Agreed, sir

Sen. Lieberman failed to win electoral support as a Democrat, so he chose a different path. That path was successful.

The only fault here was the continued Democratic support of Sen. Lieberman in the Senate.

A regrettable course of action.

[Raineyb]

4. Lieberman only gives a shit about Lieberman and that was bloody

obvious BEFORE he was primaried.

Lieberman can go to hell and so can his apologists.

[ejpoeta]

5. sorry to say, but lieberman is a snake and he would have been a snake no matter what.

he is just more open about it that's all.

[niyad]

19. shouldn't insult snakes that way.

[ejpoeta]

105. sorry... you are right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Strikes again. Poor widdle Joe.

:nopity: :nopity: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[existentialist]

9. I take small comfort, but some, in that

Lieberman's re-election chances in 2012 are now virtually zero.

[robcon]

15. Huh? He's still very popular in CT. I think he'll win if he runs.

n/t

[existentialist]

61. He may be somewhat popular now,

but I think his record will be catching up with him.

Seen any polls since he announced his support for the Republican filibuster?

I read one story about a group that supported him after he lost the Democratic primary having made a statement of regret in having done so.

I'm sorry. I may be wrong, but I think Lieberman has the remainder of his present term, and then his political career will be over.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. Oh, I don't.

I think there's some reason to believe that he might be thinking of running as a Republican. But I think his behavior screams that he knows he will not run again as a Democrat.

And I know a good number of people who were before this serious Lieberman supporters. They won't be voting for him again. Lots of buyer's remorse here.

[CTLawGuy]

107. I think he might just retire

unlike in 06, in 12 established popular democrats, ie. dick blumenthal, will be unafraid to challenge him. And blumenthal has wanted to get into the senate for a while.

If he does run, he will either run as an R openly, or run as an indy and get cross endorsed by the Rs. I think he would probably not win, regardless. It will be hard to explain away his support for Palin. Remember Lieberman was talking like a liberal "I want to get out of Iraq" "I want a democratic president in 08" during the campaign.

[JerseygirlCT]

128. Yeah, I'd say he's pretty well exposed here as a guy

who'll say or do anything. IOW, someone whose word is worth nothing.

[CTyankee]

134. I would love to see Blumenthal run. He's great and has been a great AG.

But I'm not as sure as you are that Joe won't win again, particularly if he runs as an R. We've got some Blue Dog Dems here and who knows what the Indies will do.

I'd get out and work for Dick B. tho. He would be a wonderful Senator for CT but some people think he's too full of himself. Or that's what I hear, at least...

[DJ13]

10. You're ignoring that Joe has a vested interest in no healthcare reform

His wife went to work for an insurance provider in 2006 if I remember correctly.

He wouldnt vote for it even if he had stayed a Democrat.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Is it opposite day here today?

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. The problem is not "the left" (i.e. ACTUAL Democrats) it's Connecticut's fucked up laws.

In most other states, you lose a primary, you are OUT of that race. As it should be.

[DatManFromNawlins]

80. Connecticut's laws aren't the ones that are fucked up

Primaries are a fucking joke in the first place. Let's just get a bunch of ideologues together to vote for their favorite poster child and then we can have a runoff between them and then WONDER why the candidate who eventually wins simply ignores the wishes of the entirety of their constituents.

Lieberman simply defeated the ideologues of both parties.

[Sebastian Doyle]

81. Without primaries, there's no way to get rid of somebody not representing those who elected them.

If someone runs as a "Democrat" and acts like a Republican, you aren't going to vote for a Repuke in the General election to get rid of them. So you need a primary, to get a Democrat worth voting for.

I suppose the Repukes would say the same thing, if there were such a thing as a Republican who voted like a Democrat all the time. (which of course, there isn't)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. Lieberman was primaried because he was a major Bush tool who deserved to be primaried

Remember "the kiss". Ned Lamont ran a great campaign and beat him. Who knew that the self-survival and self serviness instinct in Joe was so strong - comparable to Captain Bligh's 3,600 thousand mile voyage in open seas after being thrown off the Bounty.

The guy had to create another whole Party for cripes sake - which later ALSO threw him out!!!

Anyway, he was elected as an Independent, but mostly due to Republicans who were running the weakest candidate conceivable. My prediction is that he will actually run as an official Republican in the next election.

[sandnsea]

14. The left is not to blame for Joe Lieberman

I'm only sorry I didn't see how far right he had gone at the time. If this is the kind of little puke he is, then he should be gone.

And don't kid yourself on Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu either. All 3 have mucked up the works in the past.

We've got work to do in message building, not just tent building.

[Vickers]

16. Doubtful.

It's been a LONG time since he went against his Repuke bosses.

[Journeyman]

17. So the reality his wife is a lobbyist for healthcare doesn't enter your equation whatsoever?. . .

Hadassah Lieberman worked for the lobbying company APCO Associates, which has many pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations among its clients, as well as four major drug companies such as Pfizer. In March 2005, Hadassah was hired by Hill & Knowlton (another healthcare lobbyist) as "senior counselor" in the firm's "health care and pharmaceuticals practice." Hadassah's close relationship with pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations while her husband introduced legislation benefiting these exact companies has raised questions about improprieties and conflict of interest.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060712_conason_li...

It's all the same, follow the money and you'll learn why healthcare reform (to say nothing of public option) is opposed so adamantly by those who "work with the public's interest at heart."

But you'd rather blame it on those who prefer an ideological preference over a base desire for lucre. . .

[Justitia]

20. "far left"??? Primaries are democratic. Lieberman is an attention whore who works for health ins

Lieberman is an attention whore who works for health insurers in his state - as does his wife.
They have vested, personal, financial interest in the outcome of HCR.

We do not need to be cowed by the tyranny of Lieberman.
He is looking for the limelight and there are ways to deal with him.

We should have, however, already stripped him of his chairmanship & kicked him out of caucus.

BTW, if you think Nelson, Lincoln & Landrieu constitute "better" than Lieberman, you obviously have not compared their voting records.

[graywarrior]

21. So this is punishment for not kissing Joe's ass?

[GrantDem]

22. Lieberman was a turncoat douche-bag before the '06 Primary

This article gives a summary of his betrayals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/top-15-lieberman-betrayal_n_336024.html

With that said I agree with the assessment of the "big tent" theory. One only need to look at the current state of the GOP as an example of what happens when political parties become extreme and purge moderates. However, Lieberman is not an example of such.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Yup, he was

Which is why I'm still proud to have voted for the Republican back in Joe's first senate race.

Lowell Weicker was a far better man.

[Truth2Tell]

23. "The primary of Lieberman in 2006 has backfired with incalculable consequences."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your post is so dumb it made my eyes bleed.

[tabasco]

24. Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Simply amazing.

[Politics_Guy25]

25. The better option would have been to have threatened him

with a primary challenge, force him to pledge to move to the left, and then withdraw that challlenge once you gained the concessions OR to have run a superstar against him Running a half-cocked campaign was a huge mistake. And yes, he's acting like a SOB now because of this.

Again, I am no Lieberman apologist. I just am aware of realpolitik. I hate the guy.

[immoderate]

40. Force him to pledge? What's his pledge worth?

He is owned by the health care industry. The challenge was not ideological, it was about integrity.

--imm

[billh58]

42. LIEberman was

a neoconservative "centrist" traitor long before he was "primaried." He has sided with the Republicans for years to oppose Liberal issues, and to champion the cause of the PNAC cabal in the neoconservative war-for-oil against Iraq. Lieberman was a Bush-enabler, and remains an enemy of the Liberal cause.

[Individualist]

26. Damn the DLC!

[MadHound]

27. Oh what happy horseshit is this!

I'm sorry but your logic in this matter is wrong, simply wrong. Your pathetic attempt at scapegoating is a sad attempt at demonizing the left.

But let's take this hypothetical of yours, that Lieberman is actually being this petty. If this is the case, then frankly he needs his ass kicked from here back to his home.

Sorry, but this is nothing but one steaming, stinking pile of FAIL.

[KG]

28. Mr Benchley, is that you?

[Marr]

29. Correction- if the Democratic Party establishment hadn't worked against the winner of the Democratic

primary, we'd have an additional vote on health care.

Lieberman was primaried for a reason, you know. He's was a GOP tool already.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

65. Correct ! There are CT Democrat Party power brokers that are

sorry that they backed LIEberman. There are others such as our former House Speaker Amann who will be sorry when they run for another office and their support of LIEberman is brought up over an over again

[bemildred]

30. Your premise is wrong.

The "far left" did not primary Lieberman, Ned Lamont did. Lamont won 52% to 48% in the primary. Are you trying to claim that the majority of Connecticut Democrats are "far left"?

Lieberman won the General election by getting 70& of Republican votes.

"Exit polls showed that Lieberman won the vote of 33% of democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut,_2006

[dkf]

31. Frankly I doubt it. Lieberman is bought and paid for by the insurance industry.

He would have done this anyway.

Sure he might not have done all those other petty things, but this health care vote is payback for his entire career.

[Politics_Guy25]

32. I'm just kinda upset that health care reform is in trouble because of this game playing

There's nothing that I want or need more than to see a good health care reform bill passed and it suffering because of petty politics has me mightily ticked off.

[Justitia]

33. You need to re-evaluate where the problem lies. It's not primary challenges. -eom

[dkf]

43. Maybe you need to accept that this is who he is.

The entire time he was probably wondering what kind of rationale he would need to keep his gravy train rolling in. Then he says its based on principals of some sort. What a joke!

[Bucky]

34. I'm predicting when this OP will get over 300 kicks and recs

Well, 300 kicks, anyway

[Ardent15]

35. The DLC trolls are out today I see...

nt

[madfloridian]

36. The "netroots" should consider the consequences?? Did you really say that?

Is that you Bullmoose?

[DireStrike]

38. Yeah, right.

That's all I've got to say about that.

[KT2000]

39. Lieberman is the problem

not the left.
During the recounts in 2000 he was calling for Gore - he did not want to fight. He has been on my list since then.
Actually, it was earlier - when he entered the auditorium during the convention while Hawking was speaking. It was inconsiderate considering the effort Hwking made to attend and speak at the convention. Lieberman entered like he was King and took over the attention of those attending. Jerk from the word go.

[JHB]

41. Do you have ANY rationale to make that claim?

You think Lieberman is acting the way he is out of spite? Even after the Democrats let him keep his seniority and committee positions?

Joe first got his senate seat because conservatives ran him in order to unseat a liberal Republican. The only reason he isn't a Republican now is because CT is too heavily Democratic for a conservative Republican to win. He's NEVER been on "our side" on this.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Joe and his wife creature both work for the Insurnce industry

Do you as well?

[rufus dog]

45. WHAT!

I find your logic extremely flawed. Joe got beat, ran as an indy, got the puke vote, snaked back to the Dems to get Chairmanships, screws them over again, and it is Progressives at fault. This type of projection is a hallmark of repukes! A more logical conclusion is if Lamont was fully supported by all Dems then there would be one less asshole puke in the Senate right now.

[Fumesucker]

46. ROFL.. This thread might just set a record for unreccs..

The OP is delusional and insulting.

[AllentownJake]

47. Traditional Democratic Party Bullshit

When republicans lose they blame thier moderates. When democrats lose they blame the liberals.

The odd thing is that the liberals in the democratic party and the moderates in the republican party are never in charge of the party apparatus.

[jonnyblitz]

48. are you a huge Oasis fan as well?

just kidding. :o

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

50. There was talk of a superstar but sadly he was too ill to do it

Paul Newman would have been a terrific candidate and likely would have won in a walk but unfortunately he knew he had cancer and didn't run.

[depakid]

51. You win the prize for one of the most twisted bits of sophistry I have seen on DU. Ever,

Actually, it may not even rise to the level of sophistry- closer to delusion.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

52. Joe Lieberman - the Erich von Stroheim of the Democrats

Erich von Stroheim was the actor known as The Man You Love to Hate and Joe fulfills the same function for the Democrats.

Just when you think he can't go any lower, he blows out his cheeks, holds his breath and dives to depths previously unimaginable. The throng of outraged Democratic villagers wave pitchforks and torches at him, but the crowd is always broken up by the DLC sentries on guard and told to disperse.

[d_b]

53. lol

[Iggo]

54. The far left? Nice post, Bill-O.

[Hannah Bell]

55. bs. lieberman's a whore, period. the "left" has nothing to do with his whoredom.

[Atticus]

56. Likely the most deserved unrec I've ever given, though I haven't given many.

This is so screwed up on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to start. You appear to advocate kissing the ass of anyone so important as an "honored" former VP candidate. Does Ms. Palin merit such deference?

This really isn't worth much more of my time. If you are so damned impressed with the "Democratic establishment", you are part of the problem. And, your equating the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with the teabaggers is offensive as hell! You can say that you are not defending Lieberman, but you sure as hell "reason" like a Blue Dog.

[JVS]

57. Joe Lieberman is the ideologue, and we wouldn't have his vote for HC. He'd vote like a conservative

[sendero]

58. Utter bullshit,..

... but you can say so if you want.

[Solly Mack]

59. Be sure to wash that sock

[blogslut]

60. I hope the netroots put even more pressure on that little shit

As well as everyone else.

I'm sick of Lieberman and his bullshit.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

63. So Lieberman supported the Palin/McCain ticket out of spite?

He threatens to filibuster the healthcare bill out of spite? If true, what does that say about Lieberman? What kind of a professional would that make him? Are you saying he went against his own principles just to get back at the Democratic Party? Shouldn't he be making decisions based on his constituency rather than making decisions based on his emotional need to get even? Or could it be that Lieberman never was a Democrat and actually doesn'at have any principles? A man who consistently sided with Bush on foreign affairs and defended his criminality is far guiltier than just having a lack of ideological purity in the party. He's simply not a Democrat. To expect the party to cater to one man so out of line with its values and kiss his feet is nuts. Instead, it's Lieberman who should have done everything he could to get back into the party's good graces after that primary. How can any Democrat today have any sympathy for what he did during the 2008 election, including his appearance on the same stage on which Sarah Palin appeared to trash the Democratic candidate? I think we should force this disgusting traitor to filibuster the healthcare bill. Let him stand before the American people and his constituents and say whatever he wants; he will become known and forever reviled as the new American Benedict Arnold. I would dare the scum to engage in a real filibuster.

[QC]

64. This is the most profoundly stupid thing ever posted on DU,

and the competition for that honor is very, very stiff indeed.

[Kingofalldems]

66. 'Primarying' him brought out the real Lieberman

A sneak, like many of his followers.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. And if Lieberman hadn't been full of shit on the Iraq war, he wouldn't have been primaried.

Sorry. No sale.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

68. "Lieberman?!!!" Same inflection as when Seinfeld says "Newman?!!!" nt

[tnlefty]

69. Decency and being against the Bush** Doctrine are now far

left? I'm thinking they're more mainstream, but if you want to paint it 'far left' I'll take it and wear it proudly. If Joe hadn't been such an indecent POS and bowed out after his primary loss then the situation might be vastly different.

POS Joe had no loyalty to the democratic party, nor the primary process. The heat of a thousand white hot suns can't even begin to describe how much I despise him.

Next time the netroots probably should be aware that someone who poses as a democrat, might take money from repukes and that the repukes wouldn't back their own damned candidate, because the POS, Joe, would suffice.

[TexasObserver]

70. Unrecommend

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Your argument reads rather like

a suggestion to give in to terrorists. To back down to a bully.

To accept a sub-par Senator because he calls himself a Democrat. (We all know that Joe is willing to call himself anything if it gets what he wants).

So to avoid offending the offensive we should have rewarded him with the nomination?

[burning rain]

75. You should have posted this in GD:P.

It would have gone over better there.

[HughMoran]

78. idiotic

post

trouble

making

$#$#%$!

[ddeclue]

76. No we wouldn't. If we'd have shown him the door for real, we wouldn't have to deal with him now.

[Stinky The Clown]

77. Hahahaha

Are you counseling that we should all just bend over and take what comes our way?

What fucked us is that the DEMOCRATIC POWER ESTABLISHMENT back Holy Joe over the wishes of Connecticut's voters.

[donheld]

79. Joey stabbed us in the back before the primary, and he's glad to do it now.

[LoZoccolo]

82. Recommended; fail primary was fail.

I liked Lamont better but Lieberman had a decent liberal voting record before he had to appeal to Republicans to keep his job. Does that mean he's acting duplicitous and selfish? Maybe, but he got away with it. The fact that Lieberman acted disloyally or unscrupulously didn't prevent him from becoming Senator, and no amount of "blame" cast upon him by people on the Internet can remove him from power and put Lamont in his place. To get what you want you have to deal with reality and fight the battle in front of you, not the one you imagine you will win simply for being "right". This should be common sense but it seems to be one of the most despised ideas on DU.

[Marr]

89. "A decent liberal voting record".

Lieberman voted Democratic when it was harmless to the interests of his contributors. As far the left is concerned, his vote was there when it wasn't needed, and absent when it was. Play that game and you can have a "decent liberal voting record" while also being a big money, corporate tool.

He's doing exactly the same thing now, and he's got the same owners. He hasn't changed an ounce. His audience has.

[jonnyblitz]

110. most Democrats don't run as independents once they LOSE

the primary in their state PLUS he was supported by the CT republican party because the ACTUAL republican running had some scandal involving the casinos here in CT. I doubt no other democratic candidate who pulled THAT stunt would have the backing of the opposition party like Lieberman did.

[CTyankee]

121. You are absolutely right! nt

[kentuck]

83. Lieberman was all gung-ho about the war in Iraq. He was stupid.

We had no choice but to primary him.

[girl gone mad]

85. So the fact that Joe Lieberman is a right wing douchebag..

is the fault of the "far left" for voting against him in a Democratic primary because he was a right wing douchebag?

DLC : personal accountability :: GOP : personal responsibility

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. And perhaps you'd better rethink this

all this lack of principle, or rooting for the RW is... all based on... 9.11.

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

Oh and Joe is an ASS.

[StarfarerBill]

87. Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists were responsible for Joe Lieberman?

Why, those commie bastards!

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Politics_Guy25]

93. If a candidate had been found who could have defeated Joe Lieberman in the GE

A primary would have made sense but running a candidate that was an epic fail in the general election was NOT a good idea. Running some unknown was not the way to do it.

And see this is what I mean, the ideological purity test. I've just been accused of being a Freeper Republican when I donated and participated in the Obama campaign last year because I dared to question the conventional wisdom and beliefs that you hold.

If Joe Lieberman was so bad pre-2006, why did President Obama, President Clinton and numerous others campaign for him in 2006? Why did Al Gore choose him as VP and if he was so bad, why did the Lieberman choice in 2000 not lead to a bloodbath on the convention floor in 2000?

He's a jerk now and an ass NOW because you guys PUSHED him into the hands of the republicans. Nice move. Again, the better thing to do would have been to be sure that you had a GE candidate that would defeat him first. That's all I am asking. I want Joe gone just as badly as the rest of you.

BTW, get to used it. I'm not here to toe the line and only post views that you find to your liking. It's not a dictatorship. I'm here to challenge conventional wisdom on this site. The fact that you guys would accuse me of being a Republican in my doing so is beyond repugnant. BTW, before you make such a baseless claim, check out my fucking post history.

Again, two words: IDEOLOGICAL PURITY.

[Ozymanithrax]

91. If Lieberman actually believed in healthcare as he used ot say he did...

we would have his vote now.

[Politics_Guy25]

94. That's another thing

He was for universal health care in 2006. Thank you for reminding me.

[Ozymanithrax]

102. He only said he was for health care.

If his stand was more than just a bid to get votes, then he would stand for it now. A man who gives up his deep held beliefs for a little vengance isn't much of a man and had no deep held beliefs. With Lieberman, it is all about the power.

[bvar22]

92. LOL...Nominated for a DUzy!

Best laugh of the day.

[Politics_Guy25]

95. This post is ALL I'm trying to say:

37. No, the left is to blame for not having a good plan to unseat him
Some people are assholes, and Lieberman certainly fits the bill in my book. But 90% of the response from the progressive left has consisted of crying 'waaaah, he's such an asshole'. you can't win an election by whining. You do so by presenting a more attractive alternative.

It's not that the criticisms of Lieberman are wrong, I generally agree with them, but that very few, if any elections are ever won on a platform of 'Anybody but _____'. It's politically naive to think otherwise. There is nothing noble about naivete: in fact it is kind of exploitation to solicit people's votes for an alternative if you don't have a good battle plan worked out, though not an intentional one.

Bottom line: moral outrage isn't a winning platform. People get off their ass to vote FOR something, not against. Thus, if your goal is to unseat a bad politician, you need to field one that is demonstrably better.

Top of the thread. This is what my point was.

And, again, I hate Joe Lieberman. I HATE HIM. HE'S SLIME but the netroots fucked up big time in the way that they went about trying to depose him. That is ALL I'm saying. Indeed, that's what I said in the OP!!

[tritsofme]

96. You are undeniably correct.

There is no way Lieberman would have considered filibustering HCR if he wasn't primaried in 2006.

Not that it excuses his behavior, but he is a political animal. He senses that he will face a well funded Democratic challenger in 2012, and that his only path to success is a reprise of 2006 where the Republican candidate was non-existent.

I predict he will eventually lose his chairmanship in the 112th Congress and that he will finally caucus with Republicans, preventing them from running a candidate against him in 2012.

Specter in reverse.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

117. Why wouldn't he try the opposite?

If his only concern, as you seem to suggest, is to get re-elected, then why not become a super-liberal and redeem himself? After being primaried, why wouldn't he make sure that the Democratic Party never runs another candidate against him by following the party line all the way and become the best liberal in the Senate? Wouldn't that make more sense for him, if his only goal is to get re-elected, instead of facing the unknown question of whether the Republicans will accept him as one of their own (as zero tolerant they've been lately)?

[Generic Other]

97. You're basically saying we turned him to the dark side?

He had no choice but to choose the evil path because the big bad lefty's drove him to it? Nice try.

[LVZ]

98. Principles lose to $$$ for those who are in office too long ...

Lieberman, Bayh, Mike Ross and other Blue Dog DINOs may have actually had principles when they were first elected. It is not really surprising how those principles tend to change radically after the $$$ start flowing for themselves, their spouses, and friends.

Institutional corruption abounds. That is rather obvious among Republicans but sadly it is just as likely among the more "conservative" in the Democratic Party.

Although we might lose a few great congressional leaders like Ted Kennedy, overall I think that term limits of some sort would decrease the incidence and scope of political corruption.

[Doremus]

99. One of the stupidest posts here, ever.

[paulk]

100. Lieberman is against HCR because his constituency is

conservative - it was a coalition of conservative Dems, Independents, and Republicans who got him elected. He wanted in the Dem caucus to retain his seniority and Homeland Security chair and the political neophyte Obama advocated for him. A rookie mistake.

I supported Lieberman over Lamont in the primary for exactly the reasons you state. It was clear that Lieberman would win as an independent and would then no longer be beholden to the Democratic Party at all. Why Obama wanted him in our caucus is something I don't understand. It wouldn't surprise me if he runs as a Republican next time around.

I think the negative (and nasty personal) responses you've gotten on this thread are a good example of why the left is so ineffectual when it comes to politics. Instead of thinking things through, instead of making an argument, it's a lot easier to dismiss and insult. If you lose, you can always claim the moral high ground. Except in politics moral victories don't count for much - a lesson that the left never learns.

[CTyankee]

124. Your view is crabbed and short sighted.

Lamont's campaign set off a national debate on the Iraq War and mobilized the antiwar faction in the Democratic Party anew.

I lived thru and worked against the Vietnam War and saw it come to pass that we were judged "right" in the way it all turned out. History has been the final judge. It was then and it will be now. Not the "moral high ground" as you put it but "historical verdict."

[paulk]

131. last time I looked we were still in Iraq

and the dead of Vietnam can take little comfort in either historical perspectives or moral high ground.


---------


"only the dead have seen the end of war"

-plato

[CTyankee]

132. Then, by your reasoning we should do nothing to oppose unnecessary wars?

It seems to me that we have an existential choice. Your counsel seems to say that it doesn't matter whether you are right or not to oppose an immoral war. Well, why even bother to vote or to do anything of moral purpose in life...

[paulk]

135. no, that's not what I'm saying

I'm saying that it is a mistake to mix politics and morality, and that this is the mistake the left makes over and over. Supporting Lamont did nothing to end the conflict in Iraq other than make the left feel morally superior and "on the right side of history". I supported Lieberman in the primary, purely for political reasons - but I also was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is right to oppose an immoral war, but I never saw Lamont/Lieberman as an expression of that.

I don't believe that in the long run being on the right side of history or being morally correct accomplishes anything unless one gains the political victory as well. You have to choose your battles wisely, and, IMHO the Lamont/Lieberman battle was a foolish one for the progressive left to fight, for reasons that I explained upthread.

[CTyankee]

136. It was an imperitive that we fight that battle, tho. Sometimes you don't get to choose your "own"

battles. Shit happens. When it does you step up or you don't. The war in Iraq was prosecuted based on lies. If you were in favor of it you were wrong, not only politically but morally. It is, to paraphrase you, "a mistake the right makes over and over."

You made a mistake in Vietnam and you made a mistake (along with your president Bush)in Iraq. Why should I believe YOU now and not my own "foolish" ideas (that have proven to be true)?

[jacksonian]

101. let's try some actual realpolitk

Joe Lie was/is a no vote for HCR even if we had given him the whole state of Conn. That D would only have meant different process, same result.

He's does this shit because he's a bushbaby, and the political party is irrelevant. Personally, I'm comfortable with everyone knowing he isn't a real Dem when he does these temper tantrums.

[TheKentuckian]

103. Lame lamness gone extremely lame

The OP grasps at thin air, the straws have moved on.

This isn't about the past but the future. Lieberman knows good and well that Democrats left, moderate, centrist, or whatever will never again support him in Connecticut so he's doing his best Specter imitation.

In addition to utterly selling out to big insurance he also wants the budget as clear as possible so we can direct resources into fighting over sand as free security for big carbon.
He certainly deserves no respect or honor as a voice on foreign policy because he is a hardcore neocon to Rice like levels at the least.

[marmar]

122. "The OP grasps at thin air, the straws have moved on."

:thumbsup:

[dysfunctional press]

104. utterly, utterly WRONG.

joe would have been on his knees to suck-off the insurance execs no matter what.

[CTLawGuy]

106. that's wrong

was it because the left slighted Lieberman that he supported the war in Iraq? It's not like he was a dyed in the wool liberal until those big bad lefties came and tried to get rid of him.

Lieberman IS a Republican-a moderate by their standards, but still a Republican. He was literally backed by the Republicans in 1988 as a DEMOCRAT against Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) because the Republicans thought Weicker was "too liberal". He was bailed out from defeat in 2006 by republicans who abandoned their candidate.

Joe loves nothing more than attention, that's why he is "the Democrat" who goes against his own party, who supports president Bush, who endorses McCain, who threatens to hold things up. Self-identifying as a "Democrat" while doing this only adds to the notoriety and therefore attention.

Response to your "accomplishments":

1. It's possible that he did that to be vindictive, but that would be because he is a vindictive person and not because WE did anything wrong. If McCain had picked Lieberman, the GOP base would have revolted because of his liberal stand on abortion for one. (remember CT Republicans are much more moderate than Republicans nationally). They would have at worst just stayed home and at best got behind an independent conservative candidate. Either way, Obama would have won more convincingly. He probably would have picked up Georgia and Missouri just from the base revolt alone, and he might have lost from his margin of victory in some northern states from people who, in reality, didn't vote for McCain because of Palin, but I don't think enough to lose any of those states.

2. Joe did not make 2 senate seats vulnerable. Dodd is in trouble because of the bad economy pure and simple. People are angry and put the blame on the guy in power who they view as not having done anything to stop it. The whole countrywide VIP loan thing didn't help. Dodd will be fine if the economy has improved sufficiently by Nov. 2010. (if it hasn't, Dodd will be the least of our problems). This has nothing to do with 06 or Lieberman.

You talk about Jodi (it's an "i" not a "y") Rell being popular. She's popular because she does nothing to piss anyone off. It's not because of Lieberman or Lamont or anyone else(and even HER popularity is still taking a hit because of the economy). When the Supreme Court here rendered the gay marriage decision, she just accepted it, for example. She's not a dummy. Also, she likes being governor and she won't run for senate. A big reason why, IMHO, is that she would not like being controlled by the Republican Senate leadership which is much more conservative than she is.

3. If being challenged angered him, that's his problem, not ours. (It's like saying Bush started the war in Iraq because Gore tried to have the Florida votes recounted, therefore Gore should not have done that.) We have a right to have a primary and nominate the best candidate we can, so we can come together in the general election. There is no other feasible way to hold Dem officeholders accountable to us without helping the Republican party in the process. Again, Lieberman is a petty vindictive person who loves attention. It's those qualities that make him do what he does and not anything we did.

[Vinca]

108. IMHO, for Lieberman to act as he currently is acting,

he must be a world class asshole and nothing more. This has zero to do with being primaried and everything to do with BC/BS, United Health, Cigna and Aetna.

[defendandprotect]

111. Was Gore the "far left" when he picked Lieberman for VP . . . ??? That's ridiculous ...

[Orsino]

115. Incorrect.

Joe is only pretending to be in the Dems' caucus because of the outrage aimed at him since '06. A Joe unfettered by dissent would be a Joe totally in the GOP's pocket.

[marmar]

116. What bullshit !!!!

You lost me at "far left".

[RetroLounge]

118. Too long, and full of shit, to bother reading...

:puke:

RL

[TransitJohn]

119. So you think Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, too?

Neither are true.

[tekisui]

123. What a stemaing pile of shit.

Utter bullshit.

[Raster]

126. Bullshit! It was the moderates and the rethuglicans that seated the lie-ber-man

Here's a tip for ya: the lie-ber-man did what was good for the lie-ber-man, state and party be damned. There is a reason he's called "Traitor Joe," and a damned good one!

Traitor Joe will step out of his Independent "costume" any day now and reveal his inner rethuglican, which he always was.

I now understand the beauty of the "UNREC" feature!:kick:

[Blue_Tires]

130. ummm...... no

no

[fascisthunter]

137. nice try shit stirrer...

[David Zephyr]

138. Lay off the crack pipe.

.

[Arkana]

139. No. This is crap.

Lieberman's a lying, turncoat sack of horseshit and if CT had a sore loser law, Ned Lamont would be the Senator from Connecticut, not him.

[Lerkfish]

140. you're right about one thing: what you spewed is unpopular here

so even a broken clock is right twice a day.


other than that, I reject your premise on its face. Lieberman himself refused to accept the primary results and benefitted from big pharma and CC money and intentional crossovers from the republican party who abandoned their own candidate.


it never ceases to amaze me how some like to blame progressives for the actions of conservatives.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

141. I'm glad this thread is still alive. I still have a lot of Lieberman material/jokes

I haven't used yet. And you've been a wonderful crowd. There is a white Toyota Tundra with Minnesota plates in the East parking lot with their lights on.

[mmonk]

142. We couldn't get anything we want before that race.

We're tired of the blame for the crappy and weak governance of the "the Third Way". I do not accept your blame. Just like us "liberals" don't accept the blame for the failure of "Reaganomics". Finally, we are tired of all the jabberwocky. But most of all, I take offense because the Lamont campaign was helped by a firm a cousin of mine was part of. That campaign BEAT Lieberman among DEMOCRATIC voters in the primary.

[mvd]

144. I disagree completely

- Lieberman is against the health care bill because he's in the pocket of the insurance companies, not because of the primary

- Lieberman has always had hawkish tendencies, and that is the reason he supported McCain - not the primary

- Lieberman has NEVER been loyal to the Democrats