Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.


http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/lieberman-to-run-as-republican.html

CT voters, here's a REAL Dem: http://www.nedlamont.com/

Erik

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Shouldn't the subject line be "Lieberman For Republicans"?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Shouldn't the subject line be "Lieberman For Republicans"?

Ken




Shouldn't Lieberman just BE a Republican instead of pretending to be a Democrat? Can the Democrats toss him out of the party? I'd buy a ticket to that.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Shouldn't the subject line be "Lieberman For Republicans"?

Shouldn't Lieberman just BE a Republican instead of pretending to be a Democrat? Can the Democrats toss him out of the party? I'd buy a ticket to that.

We'll take him. There's room for differing opinions in our party. You can send over any other Senators that won't tow the party line also.

Consider for a moment that Lieberman isn't some out of step right winger, this is a guy you folks nominated for VP not too long ago, in my opinion to make the ticket appeal to more Americans. So, as I said, send him our way if you want.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Shouldn't Lieberman just BE a Republican instead of pretending to be a Democrat? Can the Democrats toss him out of the party? I'd buy a ticket to that.

We'll take him. There's room for differing opinions in our party. You can send over any other Senators that won't tow the party line also.

Consider for a moment that Lieberman isn't some out of step right winger, this is a guy you folks nominated for VP not too long ago, in my opinion to make the ticket appeal to more Americans. So, as I said, send him our way if you want.





Well, I can see how you might want him.
Republicans are always on the lookout for opportunistic politicians with absolutely no ethics or meaningful personal values. He should fit right in. Take him! Please!

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Consider for a moment that Lieberman isn't some out of step right winger, this is a guy you folks nominated for VP not too long ago, in my opinion to make the ticket appeal to more Americans. So, as I said, send him our way if you want.
__________________________________

They are trying with all of their might.

They will either succeed or their part of the party will die trying. Either wa they are heading to nowhere, it is just how fast.

Personally, I am still unsure if I want them to succeed. It will take a while to reform a viable second party if they do, and we see the harm of one party government now with out of control Republican featherbedding.

If they fail, and the non weirdo Dems take back their party, we will have a two party system rather quickly. The only nice thing about the looney left succeeding is that the second party formed to fill the void would likely be a little less left than if the Dems actually recover.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Shouldn't Lieberman just BE a Republican instead of pretending to be a Democrat? Can the Democrats toss him out of the party? I'd buy a ticket to that.

We'll take him. There's room for differing opinions in our party. You can send over any other Senators that won't tow the party line also.

Consider for a moment that Lieberman isn't some out of step right winger, this is a guy you folks nominated for VP not too long ago, in my opinion to make the ticket appeal to more Americans. So, as I said, send him our way if you want.


Well, I can see how you might want him.
Republicans are always on the lookout for opportunistic politicians with absolutely no ethics or meaningful personal values. He should fit right in. Take him! Please!


Lol, I'll bet you voted for Bill Clinton and will vote for Hillary! as well. They fit your description above one hell of lot better than Lieberman will.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If they fail, and the non weirdo Dems take back their party, we will have a two party system rather quickly.


Will we?
Or will we simply have two parties not all that much different from each other? And what's the point in that?

AM
....member of the "looney left" which, intellectually (and every other way) is superior to the "righteous right".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Well, I can see how you might want him.
Republicans are always on the lookout for opportunistic politicians with absolutely no ethics or meaningful personal values. He should fit right in. Take him! Please!

Lol, I'll bet you voted for Bill Clinton and will vote for Hillary! as well. They fit your description above one hell of lot better than Lieberman will.




Ah! I must have hit my target!
You are doing the old switch direction argument by bringing the Clintons into it. This conversation is about the Republican in Democrat's clothing, Lieberman.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
AM
....member of the "looney left" which, intellectually (and every other way) is superior to the "righteous right".


My my my, aren't we full of ourselves.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Well, I can see how you might want him.
Republicans are always on the lookout for opportunistic politicians with absolutely no ethics or meaningful personal values. He should fit right in. Take him! Please!

Lol, I'll bet you voted for Bill Clinton and will vote for Hillary! as well. They fit your description above one hell of lot better than Lieberman will.


Ah! I must have hit my target!
You are doing the old switch direction argument by bringing the Clintons into it. This conversation is about the Republican in Democrat's clothing, Lieberman.


You're the one that switched the direction by accusing Republicans of being "on the lookout for opportunistic politicians with absolutely no ethics or meaningful personal values" and evidently trying to make Democrats out to be superior in these areas while the Clintons, basically royalty within your party, are the very definition of the qualities you described.

You could have just left it at discussing issues rather throwing that crap out there but as I said, it was you that change the direction.

Also, as I said, if you don't want Lieberman, we'll take him. I don't always agree with him but I think he's good and principled man.

Of course, if he did switch parties most of the same ones that are bitching about him now would be calling him a turncoat and every other insult they could dream up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't always agree with him but I think he's good and principled man.

Of course, if he did switch parties most of the same ones that are bitching about him now would be calling him a turncoat and every other insult they could dream up.




They are already calling him that. Because that is what he has proven himself to be.


Also, as I said, if you don't want Lieberman, we'll take him.


Good. The sooner the better. Go right ahead. What's stopping you? Get on with it. Case closed.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't always agree with him but I think he's good and principled man.

Of course, if he did switch parties most of the same ones that are bitching about him now would be calling him a turncoat and every other insult they could dream up.


They are already calling him that. Because that is what he has proven himself to be.

You mean because he has opinions that differ from yours?

Also, as I said, if you don't want Lieberman, we'll take him.

Good. The sooner the better. Go right ahead. What's stopping you? Get on with it. Case closed.

Lieberman and folks like you. It's his choice and you folks aren't driving him out of the party nearly as forcefully as you need. Let him know that if he isn't going to march in lockstep with you folks, he just isn't welcome. This thread started out with something about some Republicans supporting him in his upcoming election. Put up another candidate, get on the phone, raise money, don't re-nominate him as your Democratic candidate for Senate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Lieberman and folks like you. It's his choice and you folks aren't driving him out of the party nearly as forcefully as you need. Let him know that if he isn't going to march in lockstep with you folks, he just isn't welcome. This thread started out with something about some Republicans supporting him in his upcoming election. Put up another candidate, get on the phone, raise money, don't re-nominate him as your Democratic candidate for Senate.




I've already written him my own letter asking him to leave the Democratic party. However, since I live clear across the country from CT, I doubt seriously that anything I say will have much impact. It will be the local Democrats who will decide whom to nominate. If they want him, fine. Nationally, we can do without him. We would LIKE to do without him. So what is your problem? We invite you to take him! What's holding you up? You want him.... he's yours! Enjoy. I'm sure he will make a loyal Republican.....until the next opportunity arises that catches his fancy....

AM

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<member of the "looney left" which, intellectually (and every other way) is superior to the "righteous right". >

A perfect example of the pompous snobbery that keeps me loathing the looney left.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<member of the "looney left" which, intellectually (and every other way) is superior to the "righteous right". >

A perfect example of the pompous snobbery that keeps me loathing the looney left.




Glad to be of service.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Will we?
Or will we simply have two parties not all that much different from each other? And what's the point in that?

________________________

Ya still got me chucklin' pretty good.

If you can not tell there are fairly large policy differences between Lieberman and a protoype Republican, perhaps you should ask someone else's opinion about your intellectual superiority.

Though I agree with others out here, he is welcome in the Republican Party to argue what he thinks correct. It is better to be in a party that disagrees with you but might hear what you say, then be in one that sticks their fingers in their ears and starts singing Streisand tunes and muttering they can not hear you.

Though I did lose a degree of respect for Lieberman when he went 100% along with Gore as VP despite disagreements, I do understand that was the role he accepted as VP and his cnadidate deserved 100% backing even where Lieberman disagreed. Loyalty to the party, what a show of love he gets for that<LOL>.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh, you were a great service. It was folks like you two years ago and the last dem candidate that forced me, for the very first time, to vote rep.

I hope you got what you wanted and what you deserve for your service.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We would LIKE to do without him. So what is your problem? We invite you to take him! What's holding you up? You want him.... he's yours! Enjoy. I'm sure he will make a loyal Republican.....until the next opportunity arises that catches his fancy....

AM

================

I have been a lifelong Democrat. I was a few weeks too young to vote in 1968, otherwise Gene McCarthy would have gotten my vote, or Hubert Humprey if I had too. anyone but Nixon. The first time I was old enough to vote was for George McGovern. I voted for the losing candidate in Presidential elections in every election after that until 1992.

One thing I learned is that the winners always put together a coalition of various factions and interest groups. Nixon did that, Reagan did that, Clinton did that. Clinton was able to keep the Naderite type voters in his camp, where Gore couldn't and that was enough votes to give Bush the election. Same thing with Kerry.

Liebermans position on nationals security and the war are greatly disappointing to me. But my emotions don't mean squat in the grand scale of things. Only voting for people we 'like' or who pass our personal litmus tests is a luxury that can only be afforded by voters who don't care if they win or not.

thus, by excluding candidates we don't like, we make it more likely that the republicans keep winning. The Karl Roves and Lee Atwater laugh at attitudes like yours.

On almost every issue but national security Lieberman is an old style democrat. When you say 'We would LIKE to do without him' you do not speak for this lifelong democrat, and I can assure you, I want these lunatic quasi-fascists who dominate the republican party out of power so they can't do even more damage to the world.

Is your emotional well being more important than getting the fascists out? Is your need to teach the Joe Liebermans of the world a lesson for their 'disloyalty' more important then the democrats capturing the Senate?

BTW, if the Democrats do retake the Senate, they can hold hearings on how the war in Iraq started, on spying on Americans, on torture in Guantanamo, on Cheney's ties to Haliburton, on Bush's family ties to the Carlyle group, on dozens of things that they can't do now because they don't have the votes. The Republicans have successfully blocked hearings and investigations into all of these issues and more because they have a majority in the Senate.

I would rather retake the senate with Joe Liberman, gain all those committee chaimanships and be able to put REAL pressure on the Bush administration, then to be impotently shreiking from the sidelines.

Would you rather win, or would you rather be right? Self righteousness is not only on the right side of the aisle.

Dov


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
On almost every issue but national security Lieberman is an old style democrat.

=====
Lieberman is NOT an "old style Democrat," unless you mean the Dixiecrats.

Why didn't Lieberman come out against private accounts for Social Security? Why was he wishy-washy in his replies to my emails about this, always leaving open some chance he would strike a deal with BushCo? This is the same stance he took in his public discussions of Social Security last year, as discussed many times by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo.

Why didn't Lieberman put up a fight against cloture on Alito when he knew having Alito on the court would endanger a woman's right to choose and many other issues involving the rights of the individual? No matter what Specter or Lieberman would have us believe, Alito is NOT David Souter. We can be 99% sure he will vote as we fear.

Did the "old school democrats" stab each other in the back all the time on television talk shows? In the newspapers or on radio interviews? Did they give the opposition ammunition?

How about school vouchers? How much is Lieberman committed to reserving our tax dollars for shoring up public schools instead of channeling those funds to private institutions (a kind of stealth "faith-based initiative")?

And regarding corporations -- wasn't it Lieberman who had a hand in allowing lax accounting treatment for stock options back in the 90s? (I'm vague on this, but I do remember reading about it.) And how much did he fight to make sure that the bankruptcy bill was fair across the entire wealth spectrum? (My guess is not much.)

There are many better Democrats than Joe Lieberman -- old school or new school. Win or lose, we are much better served standing on principle than party.

Best,
-Kevin
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
On almost every issue but national security Lieberman is an old style democrat.

=====
Lieberman is NOT an "old style Democrat," unless you mean the Dixiecrats.

Why didn't Lieberman come out against private accounts for Social Security? Why was he wishy-washy in his replies to my emails about this, always leaving open some chance he would strike a deal with BushCo? This is the same stance he took in his public discussions of Social Security last year, as discussed many times by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo.

Why didn't Lieberman put up a fight against cloture on Alito when he knew having Alito on the court would endanger a woman's right to choose and many other issues involving the rights of the individual? No matter what Specter or Lieberman would have us believe, Alito is NOT David Souter. We can be 99% sure he will vote as we fear.
==============

While you were in diapers, Lieberman the dixiecrat was in the south with the freedom riders. do you have any idea of what that was and the risks those people took?

and he was wishy washy in his replies to you? is this the first time you have written to a politician? have you ever gotten a response from a politician that wasnt wishy washy on some level? Please.

do you have a scoring system? I mean there are hundreds of issues. you picked out a bunch, but there are hundreds of them. how do you add it all up and decide?

I just want to take the Senate from the republicans. Lieberman is a powerful democrat from a safe seat, and despite your cherry picking the issues you put in your post, he is as much as a democrat as McCain is a republican. if some folks want to promote alternative candidates during the connecticut primaries, fine.

but remember, Karl Rove is laughing at you for helping dividing the democrats divide their efforts. I would rather focus our efforts on defeating republicans than 'purifying' democrats. we are hardly pure.

Dov
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is Coming from a lifelong Democrat. But to me, Lieberman seems so two faced, the consummate politician. he's about as reliable and trustworthy as Joe Biden.
In terms of physical appeal, John Edwards is a possibility.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"This is Coming from a lifelong Democrat. But to me, Lieberman seems so two faced, the consummate politician. he's about as reliable and trustworthy as Joe Biden.
In terms of physical appeal, John Edwards is a possibility."
------------

The leftists have moved my party so far over to the horizon on 'issues' none of the young and many of the older dems don't even remember JFK's 60s platform issues.

We are a mottled assortment of many caring middle class Americans, but clearly co-opted by a clique of dominating racists, leftists and opportunists as well as trust funded 'never worked' fatcats, and union has-beens.

The managing Leftists have slickly cut and pasted those CPUSA's 'issues' into and in place of ours for today's party agenda.

You can put a tux on a muddy pig but that doesn't change the fact it's a muddy pig wearing it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Red rover, red rover, send Lieberman over...



ramseesforever

good riddence
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
do you have a scoring system? I mean there are hundreds of issues. you picked out a bunch, but there are hundreds of them. how do you add it all up and decide?

=====
Let's keep the patronization to a minimum, shall we?

I really don't care about what Lieberman did in the 60s. Doesn't concern me today.

Lieberman's form-letter replies to me were indicative of his evasive public stand on Social Security. He was ready to cut a deal. You know it, I know it. For numerous examples of his hedging on Social Security, see Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall at TPM is no reactionary.

I guess the most salient scoring system any of us can have is the "gut-level check." With Lieberman, I never know if I can trust him to defend basic Democratic principles (e.g. protecting Social Security, standing up for the little guy vs. corporations, etc.). With my other senator (Dodd), I know I do not need to worry about how he'll vote.

As for Karl Rove, I don't care if he's laughing. The fact of the matter is that what you rightly call a "safe" Democratic seat is in the hands of someone who doesn't always stand up for basic Democratic principles. Period.

And let's not forget the Iraq War. I purposely left that off the list to meet the parameters of your challenge. But the War is NOT a minor issue. In fact, it should be Issue #1. To leave it off a list of Lieberman's legislative failings is like that old imagined question posed to Mrs. Lincoln: "Other than the assassination, how did you like the play?"

C3
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{With Lieberman, I never know if I can trust him to defend basic Democratic principles (e.g. protecting Social Security, standing up for the little guy vs. corporations, etc.).}}


That is an odd statement given that 100% of democratically nominated Supreme Court Justices did just the opposite.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
do you have a scoring system? I mean there are hundreds of issues. you picked out a bunch, but there are hundreds of them. how do you add it all up and decide?

=====
Let's keep the patronization to a minimum, shall we?

I really don't care about what Lieberman did in the 60s. Doesn't concern me today.

As for Karl Rove, I don't care if he's laughing. The fact of the matter is that what you rightly call a "safe" Democratic seat is in the hands of someone who doesn't always stand up for basic Democratic principles. Period.

And let's not forget the Iraq War. I purposely left that off the list to meet the parameters of your challenge. But the War is NOT a minor issue. In fact, it should be Issue #1. To leave it off a list of Lieberman's legislative failings is like that old imagined question posed to Mrs. Lincoln: "Other than the assassination, how did you like the play?"

C3

==================

ok, a couple of points and you can have the last word C3.

first, no patronization was intended. sorry if it sounded that way.

Second, George Bush was a drunken fratboy in the 60's. Joe Lieberman went with the freedom riders down south to help with voter registration. a number of the freedom riders were murdered by klansmen and other reactionaries. Just pointing out a contrast in character.

As for always standing up for Democratic principles, show me one politician 'always' does that. Just one. We are talking aobut politicians. And can we even come to an agreement on what those principles are?

On the war, yes that is the biggest issue and I am with you on that.

I am not against the campaign of the man who is challenging Lieberman. We on the so called left need to develop candidates. But we also need to win. Let's focus on the bigger prizes, like taking back the white house or at the very least, one house of Congress.

We must get a majority in the House or the Senate. Then we can really apply pressure against the neocon clique.

dov
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We must get a majority in the House or the Senate. Then we can really apply pressure against the neocon clique.

=====
For the most part, we're on the same page, dov. And I don't think I would feel so strongly about Lieberman if he weren't an official from my own state. But because he is, and because I can actually get involved in a way other than just sending in electronic donations, I'd like to see the primary process run its course, and perhaps participate in it, and learn a thing or two along the way. In all likelihood Lieberman would win, but I think he and the party would be stronger for it. And perhaps, just perhaps, Ned Lamont could end up giving Lieberman a real run for his (our? LOL) money, and we could get a more reliably progressive vote in the Senate, much more in keeping with the solidly blue attitudes of this little Northeastern state.

C3
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We must get a majority in the House or the Senate. Then we can really apply pressure against the neocon clique.

=====
For the most part, we're on the same page, dov. And I don't think I would feel so strongly about Lieberman if he weren't an official from my own state. But because he is, and because I can actually get involved in a way other than just sending in electronic donations, I'd like to see the primary process run its course, and perhaps participate in it, and learn a thing or two along the way. In all likelihood Lieberman would win, but I think he and the party would be stronger for it. And perhaps, just perhaps, Ned Lamont could end up giving Lieberman a real run for his (our? LOL) money, and we could get a more reliably progressive vote in the Senate, much more in keeping with the solidly blue attitudes of this little Northeastern state.

C3
=========

I hear you. I'm actually working in Norwalk Ct these days even though I dont live here.

Yeah, it would be good if Lamont did give old Joe a good race. It will be good practice for Lamont and will force Lieberman not to take the constituency for granted.

When I was a younger guy, CT was a pretty solid Republican state. I mean, this is the state that launched the Bush family a century ago. Things change, and I look foward to the day when that other Bush family state, known as Texas, is blue too.

Springtex will buy me a beer that day, and I will buy him a shot of his favorite whiskey.

Dov
Print the post Back To Top