Disgusted Democrats

Lieberman is scum- a man with no real convictions save himself. It was he, even more than Gore, that turned me off to the D's in 2000. He's a phony, and almost a caricature of a bellicose Jew who tries to hide that with opportunistic liberalism in other areas. His pro-war stance and graceless exit from the Dems only worsened him in the yes of many.

Get over it, Holly.

Well, as far as taking away his "superdelegate" status goes, it was exactly the right thing to do. Joe Lieberman set up his own party of one to keep his Senate seat after being defeated in the Democratic primary. Now he's out on the campaign trail supporting the putative Republican nominee. What exactly do Dems lose? It seems it's Joe that has been treating Democrats badly, demanding the party kiss his toe to keep him happy. I believe Jan 20 will see an end to that situation as well, as Democrats pick up at least a couple more Senate seats, and can tell Joe to either act like a Democrat, or take his ball and go home.

Well, I have disagreements with Lieberman, particularly about the war in Iraq, but little disdain. It's worth noting that the rhetoric used by many Democrats about Lieberman strongly echoes the rhetoric used now by many Republicans about McCain.

I for one am truly disgusted that Lieberman expected anything else.

The democratic party didn't bail on Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman bailed on the democratic party.

Why on earth should he get committe seats, much less super delegates?

I predict that within 18 months he'll formally done what he's already done informally and switch to the GOP. And I'm looking forward to it.

They deserve each other.

"It's worth noting that the rhetoric used by many Democrats about Lieberman strongly echoes the rhetoric used now by many Republicans about McCain."

There is no comparison.

McCain is a Republican. Lieberman is a Lieberman.

And a reminder for Holly.

This morning in New Hampshire, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Senator Lieberman issued the following statement on his endorsement:


More Important Endorsements




Des Moines Register

Boston Globe

Portsmouth Herald

New Hampshire Union-Leader

Salmon Press



Join the growing momentum...

Join the McCain team

Donate Online

See why John McCain will win




"I have come to New Hampshire this morning to ask Republican and Independent voters to support John McCain in the first-in-the-nation primary on January 8.

"I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to endorse a Republican candidate for President. And if this were an ordinary time and an ordinary election, I probably would not be here today. But this is no ordinary time -- and this is no ordinary election -- and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.

Mike_P, I whole-heartedly concur. Joe basically told the party to kiss off not once, but twice. He flouted the primary election results because he valued his senate seat over the wishes of his party's voters, and now he's actively campaigning for the (most likely) Republican nominee.

Holly, I don't understand why you think he's earned anything other than the disdain of the party he has turned his back to. And, as an independent, why in the world would the Democratic party give him superdelagate status?

Lieberman is the very worst that people caricaturize pols as. And McCain is not like Lieberman. He has sucked up to the Right and they reject him. Lieberman gave a finger to the Dems and they stuck it up his ass.

BTW- when Nader said there wasn't a dime's worth of diff betwen Rs and ds, Lieberman was his poster boy!

Hey, you guys can always throw your support to Ned Lamont......oops, sorry.

Lieberman? Wasn't he the one that completely bucked the primary process of his party? The one that because of that has as party affiliation "Independent Democrat"? The one who has endorsed a Republican for president?

Gee, I can't even imagine why the DNC would take his super-delegate credentials away, being as he is so loyal to the party.

I oppose the figure of super-delegates entirely, but given that they do exist I find it utterly appropriate that Lieberman isn't one.

Admit it Holly, the reason you are outraged is because of Lieberman's positions on Israel. It's the same reason you are for Hillary instead of Obama,. because you perceive her to be even MORE pro-Israel than he. It's an overriding topic for you, it dominates and colors all your positions. On anything outside Israel, you can be reasonable, but anything that touches it even slightly is war.

I appreciate Joe and the role he plays in the Senate. He helps challenge the simplistic categorization of party affiliation. However since he endorses the GOP candidate for president I think it is reasonable that he not have a say in the Dem Convention.

However since he <strike>endorses the GOP candidate for president</strike> isn't a democrat, I think it is reasonable that he not have a say in the Dem Convention.

Fixed.

The man turned his back on Democrats and our Party and he deserves nothing better.

In January after the Democrats hold a true workable majority in the Senate "Jumpin' Joe" Lieberman should lose all his Committee Chairs and be kicked off of any committee of consequence.

By what reasoning, Holly?

Please explain why the DP should NOT have done whatever it is that they have done (that you haven't explained).

Don't worry Holly, I understand he'll hold a powerful position in the Knesset once CT tosses him to the curb.

Don't hold your breath Davebo - CT likes their mavericks.

But I tend to agree with Paul: "since he endorses the GOP candidate for president I think it is reasonable that he not have a say in the Dem Convention." I mean, I would think that even Lieberman, having endorsed McCain, wouldn't WANT his superdelegate status to help a Democratic, against McCain, don't you think?

They're being scummy toward Lieberman because Lieberman didn't engage in the silly PC anti-war heads-in-the-sand-or-HUA mantra of the Left or always move in the standard Dim Party lockstep.

Liberals who defend Lieberman get the latent anti-Semitic treatment from their fellow libs and Dems as if those libs and Dems deliberately choose to imitate the late Samuel Francis. This is amusingly ironic.

If the critics of Lieberman (and Holly) were more honest, open, and consistent, they'd be hurling at Lieberman (and Holly) the "agent of a foreign power" charge.

"Don't hold your breath Davebo - CT likes their mavericks."

Not so much really. Which is why he changed his tune drastically when he switched to independant to get elected, then changed right back once he was.

Folks in CT aren't that stupid, and a lot of them are really mad at him now.

Wow, you sure can tell who the Democrats are here with all the talk of betrayal of the party. You all sound just like the GoP faithful when Jeffords defected which was an arguably worse "betrayal."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I had thought that elected officials were supposed to be accountable to their constituents and not some party functionaries or ideology. The people of Connecticut saw fit to reelect him and that's the only metric that matters.

Liberals who defend Lieberman get the latent anti-Semitic treatment from their fellow libs

Both of them?

DLS, I don't mean to be rude, but you are flat wrong on this. Lieberman left the Democratic Party. He's not a member or an affiliate or a protectorate or anything else in relation to the Democratic Party. And the way he left can very easily be perceived as the move of someone who loves power more than the party he (at the time) claimed to represent. The Dems don't allow non-Dems to be super-delegates. Lieberman is no longer a Dem. Therefore Lieberman cannot be a superdelegate.

Aside from that, a lot of Democrats feel a bit betrayed by Lieberman. He ran against another candidate who was more popular within the state party. The voters chose the other guy, but like a petulant child (instead of an elder statesman) he dropped the party and ran as an independent. There were reasons for the Connecticut Dems to choose someone else to be their Senator and Lieberman's decision to play both sides effectively neutered the voters. I know I would have felt incredibly frustrated if my Senator did that. Claiming that it's anti-semitism is either ignorant or purposefully inflammatory. It is perfectly legitimate to dislike Joe Lieberman for his choices.

"It's worth noting that the rhetoric used by many Democrats about Lieberman strongly echoes the rhetoric used now by many Republicans about McCain."

Here is McCain replying to his critics, today, at CPAC. And to think with Lieberman, it's nearly 100% taking an anti-pullout position on the war and refusing to deny the obvious threat constituted by Iran. Lieberman's differences are far fewer, far less deep, yet he's being attacked viciously on little more than a largely PC and anti-Bush-degeneracy basis. The Dems, particularly the far left and Israel-haters, would probably not even be willing to listen to Lieberman say the equivalent of the following:

"Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition."

"someone who loves power more than the party he (at the time) claimed to represent"

Or self-serving? The McCain analogy has been raised already by someone else. It's not quite a 100% match. Too many anti-war (and anti-Bush-and-US-success) nuts hate Lieberman simply for being realistic rather than politically corrupted.

Andy, the negative reaction from Democrats is out of frustration. Lieberman lost the Primary. Instead of bowing out gracefully like most would have done, he instead left the party and ran as an independent. It feels like he cheated to get his Senate seat, like he circumvented the electoral process and the voters of the party he used to represent.

Where I actually noted the McCain/Lieberman parallels (and they are definitely not exact), DLS, is actually in the sort of rhetoric you just used. TMV and many other places have been filled with discussions of far-right conservatives who demand lockstep party loyalty and ideological purity for not approving of McCain. When many Dems in CT supported Lamont over Lieberman, everyone ranted about the far-left liberals demanding ideological purity and tossing out everyone not taking their talking points from Daily KOS. Or to take one of DLS' comments above as an example, "They're being scummy toward Lieberman because Lieberman didn't engage in the silly PC anti-war heads-in-the-sand-or-HUA mantra of the Left or always move in the standard Dim Party lockstep." It is this sort of rhetoric that is the closest parallel in my book. Everyone is convinced that the Left or the Right is full of a bunch of idiots.

Both sides refuse to admit the possibility that rational people simply have different points of view. For many Democrats, the idea of launching a preemptive war that has now resulted in at least 80,000 dead civilians is an issue worth determining one's vote, and they voted against Lieberman because of it. For many Republicans, stemming illegal immigration is so vital to the country they want that they can't stomach voting for McCain.

"Too many anti-war (and anti-Bush-and-US-success) nuts hate Lieberman simply for being realistic rather than politically corrupted."

I can't see how I can be anti bush and anti US success. If I was indeed anti US success I'd have to be pro Bush since he put the US in a no win situation.

Then again, I don't have to make wild rationalizations just to sleep at night so perhaps I'm not qualified to judge.

Amanda,

Circumvented the electoral process? You've got to be kidding. The only electoral process that matters is that defined in the Constitution. "Primaries" are internal to political parties and have nothing to do with an electoral process.

You have every right to be mad that he left the party, but to suggest that running as an independent is somehow "cheating" to keep his Senate seat seems pretty ludicrous considering he won the only contest that matters - the actual election! Are we to believe that partisan party considerations should trump actual elections? That party loyalty is more important than loyalty to one's constituency? That appears to be what you're arguing. Hooey, I say.

We need more Joe Lieberman's and Jim Jeffords in my opinion. The two-party system is what is wrecking this country where elected officials are benighted by and beholden to the party in equal measure, if not more, than the constituency they are actually supposed to represent.

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.

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:

From the results as compared to their change in support from the 2000 election, where Lieberman overwhelmingly won alongside a weak Republican challenger, the support from Republicans and Democrats for Lieberman can be gathered. The Democratic vote for Lieberman in 2000 was 63.2%, and fell to 39.7% for Lamont. Based on the assumption that this loss in support for Lamont the Democrat coincided with a gain for Lieberman, the Democratic swing to Lieberman was worth 23.5% of the 49.7% Lieberman received. Similarly with the Republican vote, it dropped from 34.2% in 2000 to 9.6% in 2006, an assumed swing to Lieberman of 24.6%.

It can then be stated that Lieberman received about half his support from people that voted for the Democrat (him) in 2000, and about half his support from people that voted for the Republican in 2000.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Slamfu said: "... but for them to have hung him out to dry in 2006 was them cutting ties not him."

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.

"The fact he was able to run outside the part y and win should tell you something."

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.

Suddenly I am reminded of what was happening in the Connecticut Senate primary in 2006 between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, when the party really WAS hopelessly splintered. An incumbent Senator lost the primary, yet remained in the race and eventually recaptured his seat. So the question is: why did the party splinter in Connecticut?

Of course, the answer could never be that out-of-state activists like Duncan Black himself, as joined by Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and their attendant casts of thousands simply loathed and despised Joe Lieberman and everything he did and said. The answer could never be that they would attempt anything in their power to influence the election of a Senator not in their state. The answer could never be that, without their constant and unwavering support, Ned Lamont would not have defeated Lieberman in the primaries in the first place. The answer could never be that they themselves designed the blueprint for the hopeless splintering of our party when they scribed a bright dividing line, between the moderate wing and the progressive wing, that none shall pass without suffering near-permanent damage to their political careers.

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.

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.