Lieberman is a Republican by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Lieberman is a Republican

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Sunday, November 19, 2006 21:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2491
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 9, 2006 11:05 AM

Here in insurance land, I was given the wonderful news last night(an insider celebrating at mayor Mike's) that Lieberman can not wait to "stick" it to Dems for turning their backs on him. He is a Republican.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 11:34 AM

SIRI

That was an interesting chain of events wasn't it? Maybe challenging people's definitions of themselves might stir things up in a good way. Sometimes we get too comfortable in our own skins. I'm not sure what I think of Lieberman. He was awfully friendly with Cheney during the presidential debates in 2000. That was commented on more than once.

I suspect he is mad as hell and feels pretty cocky at the same time. He did turn it around didn't he?

This should be a fascinating next few years - hard to tell who'll be left standing.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 12:45 PM

CARTOON

Wishful thinking (at least on my part).

I wonder though. Lieberman is liberal on about 95% of the issues. The only issue (of which I'm aware) that he has really stood up against the majority of his own party was the war.

Seeing how many in his own party said some really terrible things about him in this last campaign, though (and completely abandoned him), and how many Republicans supported and endorsed him (Mayor Bloomberg for one)(although, Bloomberg is a former Democrat, himself, so that really shouldn't count

), I can't see him sticking with the party who betrayed him.

Although, Churchill stayed a conservative throughout (and even after) a two decade period when his own party hung him out to dry, I can't say what Lieberman will do. (Yes, I know Churchill started off in the Conservative party, then switched parties around the time of WWI, before going back to the Conservative party again, but I'm referring to the period between the wars when he couldn't buy a government post even though his own party was in charge for a significant portion of that time, i.e. Baldwin & Chamberlain.)

Lieberman has publically stated that he will continue to vote with the Democrats, but it would be nice if he switched over -- particularly now. Instead of 49 + 2 vs 49, it would be 49 +1 vs 49 + 1 (with Cheney breaking the tie).

That would be sweet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:18 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Well the established democrats did not betray him, and quite frankly I would characterize the dynamic as him betraying his democratic base, and consistantly undermining democratic principles with his opposition to something as fundamental as...opposition.

He had established politicians as liberal as Barbara Boxer still campaigning for him until he lost hte primary. Quite frankly it's the right thing for Democrats to honor their voter's wishes. They had no choice but to endorse Lamont, and so they did, finally, at that point.

As it stands now though, they have promised Lieberman that he will retain his offices in the Senate, inspite of him abandoning the democratic party, ignoring and dishonoring the primary even after participating in it, and being a spoiler for any democratic opposition to the Bush administration.

They need him, so there's nothing gracious about letting him keep these things, but I think he needs them too. If he flips he won't win in connecticut next time...though I guess that's what, 6 years down the road?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:52 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Quite frankly it's the right thing for Democrats to honor their voter's wishes.

Well, Lieberman was a Democrat, and apparently the wishes of the voters in Connecticut must've been the same as his -- as he defeated both the Democrat and Republican candidates there.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
As it stands now though, they have promised Lieberman that he will retain his offices in the Senate, inspite of him abandoning the democratic party...

I imagine the Republicans would give him anything he wanted to vote with them (which would prevent the Democrats from holding a majority in the Senate). Literally -- anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
If he flips he won't win in connecticut next time...though I guess that's what, 6 years down the road?

Well, he won in Connecticut without them this time, why not next time? I can't say, though. A lot can happen in six years, and he can win or lose, either way. If he's truly a liberal (and I believe he is), he should stick with the party which best reflects his idiology -- which at this time, would be the Democrats. If he wanted some payback. and quite frankly, anything else he could dream of (as far as appointments, etc.), he should go to the Republicans.

Either way, he's sitting pretty, and can pretty much dictate whatever he wants. Personally, I think the Republicans would give him more at the moment, but who knows. I'm not privy to their backroom dealings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 2:29 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

So you're suggesting, as many of us feared already, that he's a hack looking for the best possible position for himself? That he could be swayed by the party that could give him more? That he mayin fact, have no principles?

I guess we're seeing the same Lieberman after all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 3:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Lieberman certainly had the respect of both parties before the 2000 election. When he was chosen as Gore's running mate, many saw him morph into somewhat more of a Left winger. Afterwards, he returned to the same ol' Joe that everyone knew before.

Gotta admire a guy who would run on his convictions, get dumped by his own party, and still win his seat back , and remain civil through it all. A rare cat in politics, Joe is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:00 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

So you're suggesting, as many of us feared already, that he's a hack looking for the best possible position for himself? That he could be swayed by the party that could give him more? That he mayin fact, have no principles?

I guess we're seeing the same Lieberman after all.

No. I think Lieberman obviously has principles. He wouldn't have stood up against his own party on the war if he didn't.

I disagree with Lieberman on most of his positions, but I respect him because he follows his idiology, and not his party or the direction of the wind.

He has to decide where he thinks he could be of more use. As he's in a position to call the shots, either way, he has a lot of latitude, and can pretty much name his price.

If he feels he will help his constituents more by staying with the Democrats (with whom he is more idiologically alligned), he will likely do that. If he feels he can do more for his constituents through various positions of power (likely offered by the Republicans), he will likely choose that.

Either way, though, the decision is his. I don't see him losing on the deal, whatever he choses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:44 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Wait a second. Were we all watching the same Senate race in Connecticut? I've been reading the local newspapers since well before the primaries, watching the debates and reading what the people who live in Connecticut were writing. And I got a very different picture of Joe Lieberman than the resident Republicans on this board have. So, all you Republicans who seem so very excited that Lieberman won the Senate race, how closely were you following things up there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 5:20 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second. Were we all watching the same Senate race in Connecticut? I've been reading the local newspapers since well before the primaries, watching the debates and reading what the people who live in Connecticut were writing. And I got a very different picture of Joe Lieberman than the resident Republicans on this board have. So, all you Republicans who seem so very excited that Lieberman won the Senate race, how closely were you following things up there?

I had not been following the specific race in Connecticut, but I have been following Joe Lieberman. I've heard more than a half dozen interviews with him (some quite in depth) just in the past 4 days. I base my opinions of him on what he's said in those very-recent interviews.

What have you determined from following the race that seems to contradict anything I've surmised about him? Please, clarify. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 8:55 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
What have you determined from following the race that seems to contradict anything I've surmised about him? Please, clarify. Thank you.

That the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties threw their constituents under the bus. This race was really eye-opening to me. I've heard all my life, and thought many times, that there isn't any difference between the the two parties. And, at certain levels and on certain topics that is definitely true (The Democratic Senators who supported the bankruptcy give-away to credit card companies legislation - Lieberman included). But I'd never seen such a brazen display of contempt for the actual voters.

The Democratic leadership told Ned Lamont to not continue the attack after the primary, that they would get Lieberman out of the race. Consequently, all the momentum that Lamont had coming out of the primary victory was throttled back down. There was only tepid support from the vast majority of the Senators. Harry Reid could have destroyed Lieberman's election campaign by simply stating that he lost his seniority the second he lost the primary and ran as an independent. It's amazing that the Democratic leadership, who had a choice between someone who would absolutely support the party and Lieberman (who has a history of knifing the party in the face, back, sides, and all sorts of spitting and anklebiting) chose Lieberman.

Which brings us to the Republican party. It does not surprise me at all that the party threw all it's resources and support behind Lieberman (we're talking GOTV and millions of dollars of fundraising support). Lieberman as a Democratic Senator was one of the best things to happen to the Republican party over the past many years. And the full support of the Republican party worked. The reason Lieberman was elected was because he took the vast majority of the Republican vote. The Republican party turned its back on their own candidate and actively campaigned against him. No way around that assessment.

I realize that Lieberman represents the greatest hope for the Republican party and the die hard supporters and faithful who are desperate for good news. So I understand why you all are fawning over him. But be careful what you wish for. One of the main things I've learned about Lieberman, through watching him in this campaign, is that he has a huge ego. Monstrous. Now I realize you could say that about any politician on the national level, but this is beyond the call of duty. He genuinely associates his Senate seat with himself. It was incomprehensible to him that people would vote against him. And so he was at times petulant and irritated and hurt and pissed off. It was personal. It took him a while to understand that his positions were out of step with Connecticut (at which point, he started changing his positions - which is part of the point of a primary challenge... if it sticks, a la Harmon in California). This seemed to come as a shock. It looked to me like he believed this Senate seat was his birthright and how dare any Democrat challenge him.

If all of this is news to you, then you haven't been paying attention.

* edited to add: One very concrete way in which Lieberman helped the Republican party this election was in saving Rep. Shays seat. Lieberman actively campaigned with Republicans and lots of Republican voters turned out for Lieberman. This had to have helped Shays stave off defeat. If Shays goes down, then the Republicans have zero members of the house from New England (this is pending the recount in CT-02 where the Democratic challenger is ahead).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 2:39 PM

CARTOON

Thank you for the reply.

I was already aware of some of it, and not aware of other parts. Nothing in it contradicts my opinion of Lieberman, though, from anything I've said above. Lieberman is a liberal on every issue (as far as I've heard from his own mouth), except on the war.

You pointed out how some persons in both parties assisted him -- I knew that. But, there were also many in his own party which endorsed his opponent and said some very nasty things about him, which "as a human being", he's going to find hard to overlook (according to Lieberman, himself).

I am not (by any means) gushing over him. As I stated above, I disagree with the vast majority of his idiology. My only hope would be that he would accept Republican offers and vote with them as a caucus (something which, just today, he said he would not do).

Thanks again for the detailed response. I appreciate it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 3:14 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
cartoon wrote:
I disagree with the vast majority of his idiology. My only hope would be that he would accept Republican offers and vote with them as a caucus

I'm confused, so help me out here. You say you respect him, yet you would like to see him go against his own beliefs and the beliefs of his constituency in order to get "revenge" on the people who followed the rules of the primary system and ended up electing him anyway (as well as guaranteeing his seniority).

You're a class act, Cartoon. Why try and have leaders that want to help the country when we can just have partisan bickering and treat running things like a game? Get elected and get even, the Cartoon way. I guess you wont be able to argue then if the Dems decide to "get even" for all the Clinton investigations by investigating Bush, right?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 3:25 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
cartoon wrote:
I disagree with the vast majority of his idiology. My only hope would be that he would accept Republican offers and vote with them as a caucus

I'm confused, so help me out here. You say you respect him, yet you would like to see him go against his own beliefs and the beliefs of his constituency in order to get "revenge" on the people who followed the rules of the primary system and ended up electing him anyway (as well as guaranteeing his seniority).

Hi.

No. I thought I clarified myself in a previous post (Nov. 9, 21:00 -- see above). Perhaps you missed it.

I never suggested he should go against his beliefs (I've pasted a portion of my previous post below). As is clear from my original post (or should have been clear), is that I was surmising that Lieberman (as a man of principle) would do what he believes to be the best for his constituents.

When I said "My only hope would be that he would accept Republican offers and vote with them as a caucus...", it should've also been obvious (given my previous post), that I was hoping that the second alternative (below) would be what he chose to be in the best interest of his constituents.

And finding the second option to be in the best interest of his constituents would not be so far-fetched, particularly given that more Republicans voted for him on Tuesday than Democrats (Soupcatcher stated as much in his previous post, as well).

However, Lieberman has already said today that he would continue to caucus with the Democrats. Apparently, he believes the first option to be in the best interest of his constituents.

From my Nov. 9, 21:00 post...

I disagree with Lieberman on most of his positions, but I respect him because he follows his idiology, and not his party or the direction of the wind.

He has to decide where he thinks he could be of more use. As he's in a position to call the shots, either way, he has a lot of latitude, and can pretty much name his price.

If he feels he will help his constituents more by staying with the Democrats (with whom he is more idiologically alligned), he will likely do that. If he feels he can do more for his constituents through various positions of power (likely offered by the Republicans), he will likely choose that.

I shouldn't have to explain previous posts a second time, as they are in plain English. I can only assume that some posters must respond off-the-cuff, without reading whole posts -- otherwise, it would've been clear that I never even hinted at anything close to what is suggested above -- as the paragraphs I've quoted from yesterday's post clearly illustrates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

Lieberman in a democrat. I'm glad he's not on my side. He's the senator from zion. He supports israel, and that's why he supports the war, he thinks it's good for israel. But he's really a democrat. He's also got a gay marriage to bush.

But seriously, he's a democrat, and he'll side with the democrats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bah, the man's a political whore.

Follow the money, folks - and view his actions and voting record accordingly while matching the money with the voting records and rhetoric.

He's for sale, it's that simple, only more blatantly than the rest of em are.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:25 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

I'm 1/4 Jewish , so I can say this without being anti-Semetic- Lieberman is a Jew first, and a Democrat second. He believes that the war in Iraq is a good thing for Israel, and good for his Jewish constituency. Not sure I agree with his conclusion, because it looks like it's bad for America, but I understand him and I'm OK with his position. He ain't MY Senator...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:49 AM

PIRATECAT

Why do people who hate the war come to this site? I don't get it? I guess its ok to fight and kill in make believe but when its worth fighting for can't do it. If its worth haven its worth fighting for whether its your freedom or your lady. Personally I am tired of democracy and little pansies of the USA, get rid of it, lets go Pax Romano baby, I am sure GB, Japan, and Germany would join just leave Canada and France out.

Pain is scary

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Multiplying the sock puppets doesn't fool anyone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Pax Romano" - is that a new brand of cheese?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:08 PM

SOUPCATCHER

There's an attempted putsch going on in the party Joe Lieberman created to run as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary (article found via AMERICAblog - http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/joe-liebermans-party-of-one-is
-taken.html ).

Quote:
excerpted from Stamford Advocate article found here http://tinyurl.com/y2hhel :
...

With Connecticut for Lieberman having achieved its victory earlier this month, Orman made his move. He contacted the secretary of the state, learned the new minor party had no registered members, then visited the registrar in Trumbull, where he lives, to switch from a Democrat to a Connecticut for Lieberman-ite.

"Then I went home and called a meeting of all registered Connecticut for Lieberman members to reflect on our party's victory in the U.S. Senate race (and) organize and submit rules to the secretary of the state," Orman said.

He nominated himself chairman, seconded the nomination, cast his vote for himself and proceeded to establish party rules.

Orman said the "party" is upset that Lieberman has abandoned it and says he is an "Independent Democrat."

...

Pretty hilarious, if you ask me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE