An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Disgusted Democrats
I am (and many other Democrats are) disgusted with the way the Democratic Party has treated (and continues to treat) Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and other liberal hawks. Howard Dean, are you listening? Do you really want to lose votes, volunteers and donations?
79 Responses to “Disgusted Democrats”
Andy, Connecticut's voters have always had predilections for unconventional not easily pigeon-holed candidates. Lieberman won 50% in a three-way race, Lamont got 40%. It's likely that the folks who say he betrayed the party didn't vote for him – though I would guess some Dems did – I know some who did but almost entirely because of Israel. And they are residents of CT too. His win was by no means a sweeping endorsement of the CT electorate, IMO.
Perhaps not, but they have the right to elect who they please regardless of what party functionaries would like.
Not sure this is valid, but here's what the wiki entry says:
Perhaps not, but they have the right to elect who they please regardless of what party functionaries would like.
Not sure this is valid, but here's what the wiki entry says:
To continue, perhaps Amanda and others angry at the result should direct their ire at Democratic voters who failed to heed the primary and decided to vote for Lieberman over Lamont. A lot of Democrats liked him better than Lamont and he would not have won without their support.
Also, there were several prominent Democrats who supported Lieberman despite him losing the primary – maybe they should be kicked out of the party for failing to tow the party line!
To continue, perhaps Amanda and others angry at the result should direct their ire at Democratic voters who failed to heed the primary and decided to vote for Lieberman over Lamont. A lot of Democrats liked him better than Lamont and he would not have won without their support.
Also, there were several prominent Democrats who supported Lieberman despite him losing the primary – maybe they should be kicked out of the party for failing to tow the party line!
Andy: Jeffords left the R's on principle. Lieberman was rejected by his party because of his stances, and then ran as an Indy.
Unlike some others, I care not a whit whether he's D or not, a superdelegate or not. He's a man w/o core convictions, save his own skin. Sort of like the Clintons, ironically.
Andy: Jeffords left the R's on principle. Lieberman was rejected by his party because of his stances, and then ran as an Indy.
Unlike some others, I care not a whit whether he's D or not, a superdelegate or not. He's a man w/o core convictions, save his own skin. Sort of like the Clintons, ironically.
“Both sides refuse to admit the possibility that rational people simply have different points of view.”
People's own views, or at least their priorities, change. We have seen that in the 2006 election results, which were not only an expression of frustration with the Iraq situation, but with the Congressional GOP.
* * *
“I can't see how I can be anti bush and anti US success.”
[sigh] Many want to see the US effort in Iraq fail because Bush initiated it. This is also the motive behind all the Vietnam-analogy BS.
“Both sides refuse to admit the possibility that rational people simply have different points of view.”
People's own views, or at least their priorities, change. We have seen that in the 2006 election results, which were not only an expression of frustration with the Iraq situation, but with the Congressional GOP.
* * *
“I can't see how I can be anti bush and anti US success.”
[sigh] Many want to see the US effort in Iraq fail because Bush initiated it. This is also the motive behind all the Vietnam-analogy BS.
Wow, it's logical to have a party loyalty complaint against him, it's not logical to undo his duly elected status (oh, unless CT should have a recount
)
As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.
Go ahead, keep kicking at your swing vote……of course you absolutely know already you won't be needing it.
Wow, it's logical to have a party loyalty complaint against him, it's not logical to undo his duly elected status (oh, unless CT should have a recount
)
As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.
Go ahead, keep kicking at your swing vote……of course you absolutely know already you won't be needing it.
Cosmoetica,
I don't agree with your characterization of the difference between Jeffords and Lieberman. Exactly what “principle” did Jeffords leave the party for? I remember something about not getting support for some farming subsidy. What “principle” required Jeffords to strike a deal with the Democrats so that he'd get a committee seat?
And almost all politicians are primarily concerned with “their own skin.” How is Lieberman any different from 99% of his peers?
Cosmoetica,
I don't agree with your characterization of the difference between Jeffords and Lieberman. Exactly what “principle” did Jeffords leave the party for? I remember something about not getting support for some farming subsidy. What “principle” required Jeffords to strike a deal with the Democrats so that he'd get a committee seat?
And almost all politicians are primarily concerned with “their own skin.” How is Lieberman any different from 99% of his peers?
Jeffords stated that the Republicans went to far too the right, and he could not in good conscience consider himself with them. Lieberman claimed to be a Dem, then pouted when he lost, and turned his back on the party that got him elected in the first place. There's a big difference.
Your last question is answered by the above paragraph.
Jeffords stated that the Republicans went to far too the right, and he could not in good conscience consider himself with them. Lieberman claimed to be a Dem, then pouted when he lost, and turned his back on the party that got him elected in the first place. There's a big difference.
Your last question is answered by the above paragraph.
CO: As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.
No, it reads as I meant it. I don't care if he's 180 degrees from me. I respect Bill Buckley, but disagree with most of his opinions. I disrespect Bill Clinton because he has no convictions, but has far more similar views with mine than Buckley.
Any other asinine presumptions you need deflating?
CO: As for “w/o core conviction”………I believe the sentence should continue “that aligns with mine”.
No, it reads as I meant it. I don't care if he's 180 degrees from me. I respect Bill Buckley, but disagree with most of his opinions. I disrespect Bill Clinton because he has no convictions, but has far more similar views with mine than Buckley.
Any other asinine presumptions you need deflating?
I do think the Dem demonization of Joe is unfair. He crossed the party on a major issue yes, but for them to have hung him out to dry in 2006 was them cutting ties not him. The fact he was able to run outside the part y and win should tell you something. He represents the people in his state. If the party had a problem with that they should have worked it out. The Dems wanting to cut his legs out from under him just shows that they want their policy to take precedence over the wishes of his constituents. Yea, he's not a democrat anymore, but he is the one allowing them to hold the senate still and after the slap in the face his party gave him I really don't see why.
I can see why he would find more common ground with McCain than the democratic nominees. Another man who has bucked his party in what he believes to be the best interest and been taken to task for it. Both parties should take a note from the election successes of these men and also take note which way the wind is blowing. Or maybe they can piss in his wheaties until he decides to caucus with the GOP.
I do think the Dem demonization of Joe is unfair. He crossed the party on a major issue yes, but for them to have hung him out to dry in 2006 was them cutting ties not him. The fact he was able to run outside the part y and win should tell you something. He represents the people in his state. If the party had a problem with that they should have worked it out. The Dems wanting to cut his legs out from under him just shows that they want their policy to take precedence over the wishes of his constituents. Yea, he's not a democrat anymore, but he is the one allowing them to hold the senate still and after the slap in the face his party gave him I really don't see why.
I can see why he would find more common ground with McCain than the democratic nominees. Another man who has bucked his party in what he believes to be the best interest and been taken to task for it. Both parties should take a note from the election successes of these men and also take note which way the wind is blowing. Or maybe they can piss in his wheaties until he decides to caucus with the GOP.
The “them” you speak of was NOT the Democrat Party, it was the electorate that put Lieberman in office in the first place… his constituents.
Yes Slamfu it tells us quite a bit…
According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. It seems they wanted someone they could manipulate in amongst the Democrats. Lieberman was more than happy to oblige them and be their boy.
The “them” you speak of was NOT the Democrat Party, it was the electorate that put Lieberman in office in the first place… his constituents.
Yes Slamfu it tells us quite a bit…
According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. It seems they wanted someone they could manipulate in amongst the Democrats. Lieberman was more than happy to oblige them and be their boy.
I recently touched on this exact same point over on Creative Destruction. (I should've crossposted it to my personal blog. I could use the click-through traffic.) For those that don't like clickthroughs, let me post the operable grafs.
Initiate flaming in 3… 2… 1…
I recently touched on this exact same point over on Creative Destruction. (I should've crossposted it to my personal blog. I could use the click-through traffic.) For those that don't like clickthroughs, let me post the operable grafs.
Initiate flaming in 3… 2… 1…
Lynx, thank you for saying what needed to be said. Just be prepared for Holly to call you an anti-Semite now (as she'll probably call me too). Also, I have no problem with Lieberman being an independent or of having views different than other Democrats. If the people of CT are mad at him, they'll vote him out when his term is up. However, Lieberman can't have it both ways. He can't be an Independent and still expect to keep his Democratic party privileges. You don't see Jeffords trying to claim any of that from Republicans so why should Lieberman expect it from Democrats? You choose to leave a party to become an Independent, you live with that and all that it implies.
Lynx, thank you for saying what needed to be said. Just be prepared for Holly to call you an anti-Semite now (as she'll probably call me too). Also, I have no problem with Lieberman being an independent or of having views different than other Democrats. If the people of CT are mad at him, they'll vote him out when his term is up. However, Lieberman can't have it both ways. He can't be an Independent and still expect to keep his Democratic party privileges. You don't see Jeffords trying to claim any of that from Republicans so why should Lieberman expect it from Democrats? You choose to leave a party to become an Independent, you live with that and all that it implies.
SteveK: You stole my retort to Slamfu, you bastard!
SteveK: You stole my retort to Slamfu, you bastard!
“According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman.”
So what? They don't count? Our elected officials should only win by votes cast by members of their own party? The state likes him, and it is to those people and his conscience that he answers to first, not his party. He is, in short, a moderate with some views in line with his party and some on the other side of the fence. And for that, like McCain, he has been bushwhacked by the with-us-or-against-us crowd in his party.
“According to Andy's post (above) 3 out of 5 Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman.”
So what? They don't count? Our elected officials should only win by votes cast by members of their own party? The state likes him, and it is to those people and his conscience that he answers to first, not his party. He is, in short, a moderate with some views in line with his party and some on the other side of the fence. And for that, like McCain, he has been bushwhacked by the with-us-or-against-us crowd in his party.