Lieberman, on FOX, says Dems Don't Deserve to Win if They Go Too Far Left

[BurtWorm]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/081303a.html


On Sunday, appearing on Fox News, Lieberman went so far as to say that Democrats don’t "deserve" to win if they resist past lessons about voter aversion to big government, higher taxes and softness on defense. Earlier, Lieberman, the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000, had said the progressives are buying the party a "ticket to nowhere."



I missed this bit of heresy from Holy Joe.

[aquart]

1. Holy Joe has sold his soul to Satan.

Sad.

[calimary]

4. No, I think he's angling to sell his soul to Fox.

Or maybe Fox and Satan are the same thing. I bet he sees the writing on the wall and wants one of those lucrative hired-gun pundit jobs from Fox - which would ease the pain of not landing his party's nomination, and possibly also, reelection from his Senate constituency. Besides, wouldn't it be just oh-so-much fun for Fox to trumpet its hiring of a "former Democrat" who's "come in out of the cold?" Imagine how they'd love to milk that.

REALLY! He can't consider himself a true Democrat and think, feel, and talk as he's doing.

[Kbowe]

105. Holy Joe is really a PNAC shill--their Dem infiltrator

How long does it take reasonable people to figure this out?

[opihimoimoi]

142. How Revealing!

Hw sez things only a Pub infiltrator would say.

He shows signs of dividing the Dems. If his actions weakens the Dem Party then he should be considered a bad, real bad. Like:: B A D

Joe had doomed himself, he being revealed as a Dem who seems to have sold himself

He should redeem himself and make solidifying efforts for the Dem Party, If he is instrumental in unifying the Dem Troopers into the Super(Bowl) House/Senate/OvalRm, then I will eat my words about him. Until then, he is hurting, not helping

[tapatio]

107. Really!

It's not sad.

[Champion Jack]

2. The best thing Holy Joe can do is

Sit down and shut up








.

[Caution]

3. Somebody needs to tell Joe

that if democrats move to the left and they win that that is the reason we have elections and that those we elect are supposed to REPRESENT our views. If the democratic party moves to the left and he doesn't like it, he should leave the party and go to one where he can represent the views that people who vote for that party espouse.

[roughsatori]

5. Pathetic

He sounds like a defeated man.

[sangh0]

6. Joe's campaign is turning into the Pat Paulsen for Pres campaign

sans the humor

[edward]

10. Bravo!

You nailed it.

[Fenris]

7. That's funny, because Joe doesn't deserve to win, period.

[edward]

8. After this election, we won't be hearing much at all from this guy.

Which is to say he is on the way to total obscurity.

[StandWatie]

13. you think?

I think he will continue bitching right past the Primary and through election about how the winner sucks and how he supports Bush.

[edward]

20. The firm rejection of his own party will quiet him down.

The simple name recognition is all that holds him up above the water right now. As his own party(democrat?) sees how ineffective he is, any credence he had will be lost. This is one time the disdain for this man at DU will be shared by American mainstream. (Joe who?)

[John_H]

160. I agree 100 percent.

Ol' Joe's on the wrong side of this bet.

[VermontDem2004]

9. I have a feeling...

if Dean wins the nom., Joe will run as an alternative in the general election. But it is a feeling and it isn't based on anything, just a feeling.

[GainesT1958]

11. I'm getting a bit MORE than a bit tired of his increasing shrillness...

Why doesn't "Brutus" Lieberman just endorse Dub's 2004 election bid, and get it over with? :mad:

And that coward Evan Bayh as well, for that matter? :grr:

I really do hope Al Gore says something about this tripe in HIS next talk--bet hearing it makes him wish he had picked somebody else! :eyes:

B-)

[StopTheMorans]

15. "Brutus Lieberman"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is too perfect:) funny...

[Jack The Tab]

16. I bet he's been wishing that since November of 2000..

Remember what a milquetoast LIEberman was? Then all the Dems started coming down on Uncle Al...I think they wore him down.

Fuck LIEberman - I just wish he'd fucking cross the aisle already.

[ikojo]

123. The ONLY reason Gore selected LIEberman as his

running mate was to show the Repukes that the Dems are as conservative as they pukes.

I am so sick of LIEberman and his Bush lite agenda.

If the Dems select this charlatan as the presidential candidate they can kiss the presidency, house and senate goodbye for the foreseeable future.

The Dems must show a clear difference between them and the Repukes. This is the reason many turn to other parties, vote Repuke or don't vote at all. When will LIEberman and the DLC get this? THEY are the problem with the Democratic party not the people in the base.

:mad:

[rock]

12. Heresy

Well put. More polite than "Bullshit" which is what I was thinking.

[mandyky]

14. Sounds like we need a new Democrat to run for US Senate

from CT. I would not trust him at this point not to change his D to an R.

All I have to say is if he wins the nomination, dumbya's gonna win, because none of the base will turn out for this jackass.

[goobergunch]

18. Would Rosa DeLauro challenge him in the primary?

She would make a great Senator IMHO.

[Larkspur]

162. Unless Lieberman's financial backers desert him, I doubt any CT Dem would

challenge Lieberman for the senate. CT Dem Party still operate like a feudal kingdom, not a meritocracy.

[goobergunch]

17. So...

Democrats don't deserve to win if they are Democrats?

I'm trying to support ABB, but I'm tempted to withhold an endorsement if Liebermush is nominated. :argh:

[StopTheMorans]

19. we all know this won't happen...

ever:) there's no chance, I really don't consider it worth discussing anymore, b/c I really don't think that there are ANY posters on this board who think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting it:)

[goobergunch]

92. I don't either...

but the field is weird enough that who knows what could happen?

[RobertSeattle]

36. ABBL?

Anybody But Bush/Libermann

[dolstein]

21. The only thing worse than Bush Lite is McGovern Extra Strength

And yes, Lieberman is completely right. The Democratic Party does deserve to lose if it abandons it's commitment to fiscal responsibility, seeks to impose a greater tax burden on low and middle income families, and embraces pacificism as a response to international terrorism.

[BurtWorm]

23. Which Dem seeks to raise taxes on low and middle income families?

[dolstein]

31. Howard Dean -- that's spelled D-E-A-N

He wants to raise the lowest tax bracket from 10% back to 15%. He wants to repeal the expansion of the child tax credit.

I have no problem repealing the cut in the upper tax brackets, and reversing the repeal of the estate tax. Neither does Joe Lieberman -- in fact he's called for rolling back the bulk of the Bush tax cuts. But there are a few components of the Bush tax cut package that are worth keeping. Reducing the tax rate on the lowest bracket made our tax system more progressive, not less. Expanding the child tax credit made our tax system more progressive, not less. I don't see why he should repeal these aspects of the Bush tax cut.

[BurtWorm]

40. Why can't Lieberman say, honestly, then

that he wants to roll tax cuts back? Why is he attacking other Democrats for wanting to do that? Why is he whorishly making himself sound like a tax cutter on FOX?

[dolstein]

48. He has, countless times

It's just that DU'ers aren't interested in learning the truth. Instead, they seek out articles from dubious sources that reinforce their negative impression of Lieberman.

Oh, and you're complaint about Lieberman attacking fellow candidates strikes be as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Dean has been attacking the other candidates from the moment he got into the race.

[ryharrin]

46. I wonder if healthcare would way more than make up for that?

Stop falling for the idea that paying taxes is the worst possible thing one does in life. When someone has a productive, and attractive reason for them, people will accept them. How would he go about repealing most of the tax cuts, but not the ones for the rich? Do you think the republicans in congress would go for such a gross "re-distribution of wealth?" I know its bs, but you have to think practically, and that's what Dean does.

[CMT]

49. Sorry, Dolstein

but Dean is the only candidate who is really talking about balancing the budget and he has the record of achieveing this. Yes, he proposes repealing the Bush tax cuts as long as the money is spent on deficit reduction, education, and health care.

Also Dean is not some kind of peacenick. He supported the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the Iraqi war because he wasn't conviniced that Bush and company were being honest and it was distracting from the real war on Terrorism. He has been proved correct in my opinion.

[dolstein]

52. Sorry CMT, but what I've said about Dean is 100% correct

Now you may think it's worthwhile to raise the rates on the lowest tax bracket in order to fund education, health care and deficit reduction. But you can't deny that the Bush tax cut did have components that were progressive, and that Dean wants to repeal the good tax cuts along with the bad.

[VermontDem2004]

58. I have no problem with Dean repealing the whole tax cut

I am in the middle class and I didn't need a tax cut, neither did Bill Gates. It is VERY important to reduce the deficit, fully fund education, and provide health care to the millions of Americans who are without.

[sugarcookie]

76. Our tax cut was barely noticeable...

We are middle class too. They can have the tax cut back...if we can have a better health care policy.

edit: add text

[Sterling]

111. Could you back that up please?

I would like something beside your word on it if that is ok? Until then I don't believe it.

On edit never mind as usual Dolstien tells half the story.

[IndianaGreen]

115. That's not raising taxes, that's restoring Clinton's fiscal discipline

which resulted in 8 years of peace and prosperity, not to mention budget surpluses that Bush pissed away, with the help of some Democrats I may add.

[gasperc]

147. I agree, and we're talking about $20billion a year

The bulk of the cut is on income over $200k

[sangh0]

24. Sorry but Joe is wrong

The Democratic Party WILL lose if it goes TOO FAR to the left, but it won't "deserve" to lose. The Far Left does not seek to impose higher taxes on the low and middle income families, nor is it pacifistic, as you imply.

[dolstein]

35. The far left is pacifistic

There was vocal opposition on the DU board to sending troops into Afghanistan. There continues to be vocal opposition to the idea of Israel defending itself against terrorist attacks. Many DU'ers could never vote for Wesley Clark because he served in the military, which they consider to be a fundamentally corrupt and evil institution.

[sangh0]

38. "pacifistic" is not the same as "pacifist"

I am confused by your using the two terms interchangeably. Though the far left is "pacifistic" they are not "pacifists", and I wouldn't rely on DU for a representative sampling of the far left.

[dolstein]

43. Tell that to Webster's

NT

[sangh0]

128. Webster's supports me

Webster's consider those two words to be different. I'm surprised you would duck the issue with such a cheap (and untrue) shot.

[dolstein]

163. Like hell it does

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (3rd Edition):
Pacifist: 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists. 2. strongly and actively opposed to conflict and esp. war.

Pacifisim: 1. opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. 2. an attitude or policyy of nonresistance.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this. A pacifist is one who embraces the philosophy of pacifism. You can choose to beat this like a dead horse, but from my perspective, this argument is settled.

[sangh0]

165. Wrong words

you left out "pacifistic", which is the word you actually used.

[salin]

66. What is left vs. far left?

I think some posters refer to left as far left and blur the very distinctly different groups together. Indeed what some here refer to 'farleft' today would have been just beyond center left in the 80s. The terms are very confusing especially when some use the same term to refer to very different groups. They are in no way the same.

[sangh0]

127. The far left

are those who give no thought to the realities of the political process and think that their preferred policies should be adopted, despite underwhelming support for them, simply because they are right.

[IrateCitizen]

131. Do you mean policies like the following?

- Display of the Ten Commandments in every public space
- Compulsory prayer in public schools
- Uncategorically denying women reproductive choice
- Making homosexuality a criminal offense
- Outlawing the use of stem cells from frozen embryos in medical research

These policies aren't exactly darlings of the "left" or "far left" -- but they do fit your definition. ;-)

[sangh0]

140. That's the far right

The principle is the same They have no concern for the political support, or lack thereof, because they KNOW they are right.

Thanks for the examples

[salin]

150. so it has nothing to do

with political positions/issues? So someone can hold left views - way past say Bayh - but still understand political realities and not be "far left" but someone with less left views, but that has finally gotten fed up with the system - is "far left" phew. That is confusing as strategy is mixed in with political ideology. I think new terms need to be coined and used to make the correct differentiation.

[sangh0]

154. Of course issues count

and I said nothing about people who are fed up with the system. I, for one, am fed up, but I haven't let that cause me to forget how the world works. I'm to the left of most people here, but I don't consider myself far left.

The only confusing here is you, and I have to wonder if it is intentional, salin. Lately, you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting what I say in a way that puts it in the least flattering way possible.

[salin]

157. No

there are so many slams that tend to slam anything and anyone that is not quite mainstream in political thought (narrow mainstream definition) that the terms get blurred. I like precise language. I think the habits of hurling accusations that can be misconstrued is unfortunate.

I think your style - which in sometimes using absolutist type terms - but I think more generally (though it is not always clear) to make a point in and of its self - catches my eye along with the other generalized bashes (many folks do it here - and they do it from both directions). So sometimes I react to your posts - and push for clarity. Think of this - perhaps in pushing you to clarity - more other readers who do not quite get your posting style - get a better perception of what you are actually saying rather than reading it as generalized attacks on the left.

Hence my question of far left. You know we see the terms thrown out : fringe... leftist... far left. But often thrown at people who are holding positions that are closer to Gary Hart in 1988 than to ... say... Bernie Sanders. Or there is the technique Dolstien uses above, that others use as well that says either people run campains very conservatively - or like Paul Wellstone. I have seen few on the progressive spectrum suggesting a Wellstone type campaign in Georgia. This level of dismissiveness prevents ANY conversation.

And truth be told - the difference you see is a worn down warrior who loses more of her tempered stance after reading the incessant unnecessary flame wars in ALL directions. Makes being even handed harder and harder. Even my dander is now getting up with more frequency.

Note in this thread - I get my snide out - before I do - I think - offer some more even handed comments/thoughts.

[VermontDem2004]

53. I have no problem with sending troops to Afghanistan

but I do not like the government giving aid to Israel which oppresses the palestinian people. They are both wrong, the government is not right and neither is the palestinians.

[ulysses]

73. ...

The far left is pacifistic

Simiplistic cariacature.

There was vocal opposition on the DU board to sending troops into Afghanistan.

And what a wonderous success *that* little operation has turned out to be, huh? And why nothing about Iraq? I don't seem to recall you having opposed that fun little exercise in imperialism either.

There continues to be vocal opposition to the idea of Israel defending itself against terrorist attacks.

I rarely get into I/P discussions because I think both sides have valid issues and both sides have done vile things in the name of those issues. I don't believe that either side is blameless.

This probably makes me an anti-Semite to some.

Many DU'ers could never vote for Wesley Clark because he served in the military, which they consider to be a fundamentally corrupt and evil institution.

Problems I might eventually have with Clark may have to do with his military service and they may not. I do not consider the military to be "a fundamentally corrupt and evil institution", nor do I consider it or its members worthy of unquestioning praise in all situations.

Feel any better?

[dfong63]

78. "opposition to naked US imperialism" != "pacifism"

[stickdog]

84. Yeah, it's all "pacifistic" to question political assassinations.

Well, I suppose now that we're killing UN peacekeepers too, we ought to get with the whole program, right?

I'm sorry, dolstein, but striving to limit your war crimes and large scale transglobal territorial occupations to those that are necessary, legitimate and security-enhancing doesn't make one a McGovern pacifist.

[Classical_Liberal]

116. Dean didn't oppose sending troops into afghanistan

.

[VermontDem2004]

which candidate is embracing pacificism in response

to international terrorism? Do you think Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

[bpilgrim]

26. well, we got bush and 2002 for 'reTHUG lite' ... I Call

more...
http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/coppermine

:evilgrin:

peace

[salin]

33. yep and this approach did so well in 2002

:eyes:

[dolstein]

41. You haven't a clue as to what happened in 2002

The key Democratic losses came in states like Missouri, George and New Hamsphire, which are Republican friendly states. If you honestly think that Max Cleland, Jean Shaheen and Jean Carnahan would have been better off running as Paul Wellstone clones, I have a bridge to sell you. Hell, Walter Mondale on the Wellstone legacy, and he lost too.

[bpilgrim]

57. well they couldn't have done any WORSE n/t

peace

[dpbrown]

59. Mondale didn't lose running on the "Wellstone legacy"

Mondale stepped in with only days to spare, and at the same time, the hate-radio pundits made an issue out of Wellstone's memorial. That, combined with the Mondale "baggage" (some say), tipped a very close race to Coleman. Coleman wouldn't have beaten Wellstone. Almost no one disputes this.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[salin]

68. shhhhhhh

common sense and real facts don't matter. Striking out at all who are to the left of Lieberman - and rationalizing that stand is all that matters.

[salin]

67. lol run only on social security OR as a wellstone democrat

get some shades of grey into your thinking. The world, and voters, are a very complex place.

I watched one of said races where the candidate really only hit on social security as an issue - didn't leave much else area to debate and or campaign on. Really poor strategy.

Few would suggest a Paul Wellstone candidacy in Georgia. Funny that you would think that there are only two campaign strategies available.

None of the campaigns I worked with operated on such a narrow and simplistic level.

[salin]

72. dolstien - seriously - everything in 2004

will depend on turnout. Figure out how Lieberman turns out far more voters than came to the polls in 2002 or 2000 - then lets talk.

I haven't chosen a candidate - but I am very impresssed with the ability of Dean to have created - from a rather spontaneous start - an infrastructure that stretches far beyond early dem primary states. That is HIGHY unusual at this stage in the game - especially to have done so at so little cost.

In the end, any democratic candidate is going to have to deal with a negative media blitz that is unprecedented. Doesn't matter who it is. The only candidate who will be able to win - due funding advantages which are likely to be impossible to cut into - will have to use nontraditional campaign strategies. This candidate, his campaign, the local, state and national parties - are going to have to create a whole NEW realm of campaigning.

Very interesting is the ground swell support - again spontaneous organizing that is happening around General Clark. Suggests a Dean-like phenomenon is possible here as well.

If you do not start thinking about a different type of campaign one that relies much more on human resources than media resources - the place where we can more than compete - even the best candidate will lose.

If Lieberman can do this kind of mobilizing - politics aside - he should be considered. Unfortunately it seems that the constituency he is chasing includes a big chunk of non traditional dem voters - who don't vote in the primary. This makes the level of organizing needed at THIS point in time - a bigger challenge to him than some of the other candidates.

If you love this candidate, and have any inroads into the campaign, take that message to them.

[Dhalgren]

139. But, don't you see?

The thing Lieberman is after is Republican turn out at the Democratic Primaries! The Republicans aren't having any primaries, so the Repubs can cross over during the Dem primaries and vote for Lieberman. This way Joe gets what he wants, the DLC gets what they want, and the RNC and Bush get what they want. It's the "Perfect Storm" for the Dems in '04.

[goobergunch]

93. Regarding MN...

The Minnesota election involved the media manipulation of the Wellstone memorial service. I firmly believe that Wellstone would have won that election had he lived.

Polls taken before 25 October 2002

Coleman 37% Wellstone 46% Moore (Ind) 6% Tricomo (G) 1% Zogby International 10/9-11 4.5%

Coleman 41% Wellstone 47% Moore (Ind) 4% Tricomo (G) 1% Star Tribune 10/11-16 3%

[dolstein]

96. So when a liberal loses it's the media's fault, and when a moderate

loses it's the DLC's fault.

Whatever. Still, I find it a little irritating about how DU'ers always have a thousand excuses for why a liberal candidate loses to a Republican, but when a moderate candidate loses to a Republican -- even in a Republican state -- DU'ers are always quick to explain that the candidate lost because they weren't liberal enough.

[goobergunch]

98. You must admit the media was disgraceful in that affair...

and IMHO Cleland lost because of massive Repuke turnout and Diebold election machines.

I will concede that *'s popularity at the time helped many Repuke candidates, but this IMHO was a one-time occurence.

[salin]

101. I go back to turnout

which seems to be what saved Sen. Landrieu. Both campaign strategy and media coverage can (and did in 2002) play a role in election outcomes. Big problems in Ga and Fla where Dem turnout was low compared ... number of folks just stayed home. Again BOTH come into play. That NEEDS to be understood before we get savvy and come up with new strategies to beat the Rovian right.

[stickdog]

120. Would Wellstone Have Won If ...?

Would Cleland ...?

I know Wellstone would have and I'm pretty sure about Cleland as well.

[tinnypriv]

37. Been reading The Economist?

:D

[dolstein]

56. Yes, indeed

I think the Economic does a far better job of covering American politics than most U.S. publications.

And you have to admit, that's a great line.

[BurtWorm]

60. The Economist has been sounding exactly like a constipated FOX News

if that isn't tautological. They supported the Iraq war for the same reasons the Bushists pretended to, then when the Bushists and Blairites turned out to be lying about WMDs and 15-minute missile attacks at the ready, the Economist turned around and took up their latest excuses for the war. The Economist makes no bones about wishing Bush well, and they consistently puff him up to make him sell. The letters columns have been far more worthwhile reading than the leaders and Lexington in the last year.

[tinnypriv]

83. It's catchy I'll give you that

I don't think it is accurate, but there you go.

I once had a fairly productive argument with the editor of The Econ over Iraq. It started with me calling him an idiot and it ended with him saying "thanks for the productive interchange". I thought that was nice. :D

[T_i_B]

121. The Lexington columm is utter shite

The Economist has been acting as a PNAC mouthpiece ever since Bush came to power and is vilifying Dean due simply to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, (a matter on which he appears to have been proved right BTW). However, the "McGovern extra strength" line seems very misleading to me. Having looked around Dean's website he seems more like a centerist to me. He is not as liberal as some people make him out to be and I cannot say that a good look at Dean's website back's up the economist spin. Nor can the Economist adequatly explain why the dems got spanked in 2002.

The best analysis of the dem candidates I have seen in the UK press is in this week's New Statesman, written by a junior lickspittle at the treasury, supportive of John Kerry but taking a fair & decent look at Howard Dean and his campaign.

The thing that I take from looking at the UK coverage of the dem candidates is that it pays to do your research on them first. I don't think that The Economist is willing to take an honest or an accurate look at Howard Dean. Of course there are others equally guilty of this such as the article I am posting below but there ya go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1021443,00.html

[BurtWorm]

134. I get the sense that Lexington is an embedded Brit among the media whores

He writes from that perspective.

[T_i_B]

156. He does indeed

The Economist is very much an establishment publication at the best of times and Lexington simply toes the Washington line without question. Still, it is useful for giving us Brits a glimpse of the whoreish tendencies of the US media.

The Economist still has its uses but IMHO there are better places to go for analysis of the US political scene. For instance, I can highly reccomend Gavin Esler's analysis of the Dem candidates in the Scotsman.

[Old and In the Way]

97. So you bought the Republican lies about McGovern?

I can only imagine how much better this country would be if it had had the wisdom to have chosen a truly great American in '72.

[GreenArrow]

22. Joe

is a stooge.

[spanone]

25. Joe is only a democrat in name.

[dolstein]

164. Then so are Bill Clinton and Al Gore

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

[Az]

27. Ok Joe, if you don't want us

We will take our little votes else where.

[papau]

28. big government, higher taxes and softness on defense - who favors this?

Adequate taxes taken from those with the ability to pay

Government sized to provide the services that a gov provides more effectively than the private sector.

and defense adequate to defend - but not so large as to encourage empire building.

Why is Joe using buzzwords like a Fox media whore - or Tim Russert?

[Postman]

29. For this clown to be spewing this....

he must think the left has a chance ....

[w13rd0]

30. Well, I have come to believe...

...that Lieberman doesn't actually want regime change here at home. He's worried that "if the party goes too far to the left" he'll be obligated to switch parties or do something equally as brash. Joe is irrelevant.

[David__77]

32. My policy is to ignore Lieberman, and attack what he stands for.

Lieberman is probably irrelevant.

[RobertSeattle]

34. Hey Joe - is the opposite true?

Do the Repub's deserve to win if they go too far to the right?

Geesh

[arcane1]

39. WTF is "softness on defense"????

have you ever heard ANYONE advocating 'soft' defense???

Joe, fuck you

[Demobrat]

42. Sounding pretty desperate.

Bye Joe.

[billbuckhead]

50. Lieberman deserves an primary opponent in his next election

He is worse than Zell Miller at this point. Connecticut is a liberal state in the northeast and this guy sounds like a Blue dog.

[Classical_Liberal]

117. bingo

Why has nobody put up a primary challenge yet?

[screembloodymurder]

44. It's my opinion that Lieberman

lost Gore the election. I'd vote Green before I'd vote for Lieberman.

[damnraddem]

45. Lieberman doesn't deserve ...

to be called a Democrat.

Well, I guess it's the case of a Faux Democrat appearing on Faux News.

[Voltaire99]

47. The failed right wing schmuck is having a meltdown

The party needs to ease this embarrassment out the door.

Who else is available to run for his seat in CT?

[IndianaGreen]

109. "failed right wing schmuck"?

You are too kind with Holy Joe! Nice touch, btw, using the Yiddish word for asshole to describe Lieberman. What a nebish!

[Walt Starr]

51. I wouldn't vote for Lieberman for dog catcher

Especially since he sounds so much like a Republican here.

[Skidmore]

61. Amen to that...I called his campaign office

last week and told them that if I wanted to vote for someone who sounds like Joe, I'd vote for Bush--when I close my eyes and listen to him, he sounds no different than Bush. I also told them that Joe is sadly mistaken to believe any war is just. War by its very nature is a no-win solution.

[Walt Starr]

64. Going to war is admitting diplomatic failure

ergo, war is a sign of failure.

[Catherine Vincent]

54. Say what you will about Lieberman, but

we will need him in the senate when this is all over. Does anyone know his voting record....does he vote with the democrats mostly?

[goobergunch]

94. Lieberman is a good Democrat on many issues...

he is, however, a DINO on foreign and defense issues...and those are the issues he has chosen to stress.

[JPace]

55. "ticket to nowhere?"

Oh Joe.........you sound like a sore loser!

[TheDonkey]

62. More proof Joe loves Republican scum more than his own party

he is disgusting. I can see if HE doesn't want to go more left, but to say that the party deserves to lose just because the majority of Dems want to rally behind more progressive beliefs is BS. Joe is hurting this party and needs to leave.

I'm going to be very happy to see his wrinkly face get slammed by all other canidates as he loses in the primary. He'll then probably endorese Duhbya.

[ulysses]

63. fair enough.

Lieberman obviously doesn't feel bad about not wanting my vote (nor should he, particularly), so...

[WillyT]

65. Well, There Goes My "I'll Hold My Nose And Vote For Him" Theory !!!

Joe, dude, it's over for ya. Haven't you been paying attention???

Buh, bye...

:puke:

[salin]

69. I have a theory

that some people from the center who try to lay this on others (that they will abandon the party if the candidate is too centrist)... are actually likely to do the very same thing. The attacking of other democrats as seen by From and Reed - make one wonder - would they vote for Dean if he won the primary?

[WillyT]

71. Hell Of A Question Salin, Make One Wonder, No ???

:shrug:

I'm probably, IF FORCED TO, gonna punch this asshole's chad. But I won't be holding my nose. I'll be in a full hazmat suit, with kevlar vest, and being continually hosed down with water to stop the spontaneous combustion I know will happen shortly after!!!

:argh:

[salin]

75. The thing is - unless he generates excitement

and a huge cadre of people willing to put parts of their lives aside to run a huge grassroots campaign - all over the country not just in potential "blue" states (as is the traditional model) - he won't win even if he has the nomination. TOO many will stay home. Not enough money will be available to buy enough media to counterbalance the ugly smear vicious campaign that is going to be launched against ANY democratic candidate. The only way to beat it - will be to use unconventional (at least in todays era) campaign strategies - and to do that will take thousands of people on the ground across the country doing a hell of a lot of work.

I have seen few Lieberman supporters in the first place, and among them I have only seen one with the passion and dedication needed on the ground in a 'army' of others to pull off a win against Bush.

[ulysses]

77. but salin!

The DLC said we can't do anything that might excite the Democratic base! Don't you remember?

;-)

[salin]

81. Well that IS a threat to their power

they grew in influence when they were seen as the brokers to corporate $s for campaigns. They are (perhaps legitimately) concerned that those $s will dry up; and they also appear to be a little disconcerted that at least one campaign - is doing so well at fundraising without their influence. In the first scenario they lose their influence because they fear all corporate dollars will flee; in the latter scenario they lose their influence because some candidates have moved to newer models that do not require the amount of corp dollars, and rely less on the traditional campaign set up (re: slightly lower cost until time for media buys) - in that case they become irrelevant.

[ulysses]

85. agreed - and that alone

is pretty much worth throwing my support behind Dean at this point. It's about damn time one of these "paradigm shift" things went the way of the people...

[sangh0]

129. uly, I do hope you realize

that Dean's success so far puts the lie to the idea that DLC is so powerful it controls the DNC, as you previous statement ("The DLC said we can't do anything that might excite the Democratic base! Don't you remember?") implies.

[IrateCitizen]

132. Uly's statement implies only that the DLC controls the DLC, sangh0(a)

I think you're looking more into the statement than what it actually says, implied or otherwise.

And judging by recent rumblings from within the DLC, it may seem that all of this is more of an attempt by Al From to control the DLC and the DNC, and a miserably failing one at that.

[sangh0]

141. Your mileage varies

from mine

[salin]

152. sangha

what do you think of my analysis above? RE: losing influence as a "powerbroker"? I tried to give both sides - that they may lose power because legitimately because of alienation from corporate donations; but also that they may lose power if some candidates find success in fundraising (and using different than the DLC recommended strategies for that fundraising) outside of the traditional corporate funding structure. A bigger question is if the nontraditional can compete with the centrist corporate donations (which are substantial - but increasingly smaller than the republican corporate donations when considered in toto - as to be expected when the GOP control all three branches of government.)

[sangh0]

155. I have no desire to give you words to twist

If you want for you and I to honestly discuss our views, you will have to stop misinterpreting whatever I say, which seems to be a new hobby for you

[salin]

158. actually

I was just looking for your response (not in a challenge) to my analysis (so I restated it). When we aren't posturing - which does happen from both of us - you can be quite helpful in helping me think through things like these dynamics - such as the more strident tone from the DLC (the From/Reed comments) and try to contextualize it.

I thought I was being even handed (although couching that I don't agree) that they really could be fearing a lack of ability to promote strategies that allow democratic candidates access to corporate dollars.

On the other hand - it could be that they (as any organization that has been ceded a level of "power" (in terms of influence) tends to do) be striking out a bit because of new - unforseen political realities (the ability of Dean to raise big $s through the net, the ability of a nondeclared candidate to demonstrate the same ability) which might make their influence wane.

Tell me where this might be wrong.

No attempt to twist words. This is just something I have been trying to get a finger on in watching some very funky dynamics over the past few months. Remember - I have never ascribed evil intentions to the DLC. Put me in the camp that believes that they have been giving poor campaign strategy - I criticize them on their content (saw better dem strategists, imo, back in the mid eighties - not presidential - but congressional... was in the mix of political consulting firms working on Senate campaigns when the senate returned to dem. control.

[WillyT]

79. Plus, The Whole Paradigm Has Shifted... This Will NOT Be A Normal Election

There is something else going on out in the country, and most of us are sensing that. The DLC, and Lieberman, however useful in the past (big maybe here), are totally out of touch with what the base, and many many Americans are thinking right now. They continually want to pull out the same old playbooks from years past, but this time, something different is happening. And I'm afraid these insulated beltway types are gonna be passed on by like a train rollin down the tracks!

:shrug:

[salin]

82. I think you are right

and ironically those who past the entrenched dems from the 70s 80s are the new entrenched who will be passed by those who had been previously entrenched (the ole Tip ONiel, Jim Wright, Alan Cranston, Howard Metzembaum wing of the party). We just might be watching a transitio period that holds a bit of irony in action.

[sangh0]

130. History suggests this is true

Political history is loaded with examples of power alternating from one group to another, and then back again. Some historiographers refer to it as "The cyclical theory of politics". Others refer to it when they speak of the "forces of history". I think of it as "Every success sows the seeds of it's future defeats"

[salin]

153. It is an interesting

dynamic to watch - especially if it is happening - as the fluctuation will have happened in a very relatively short time span. Perhaps technology has sped the pace of cyclical shifts.

[IrateCitizen]

133. It's even happening within the DLC itself

Judging by the way in which Al From has come under harsh criticism from a large segment of the DLC rank-and-file, which seems to increasingly view him as a "relic" devoid of any sort of new ideas, more interested in concentrating on long-past glories.

[BurtWorm]

151. I think you're absolutely right

Dean was featuring a bunch of Republicans and independents who are supporting him at his rally in NYC last night. How is it that Dean, and not Holy Joe, can attract "moderates" and "centrists" from the GOP and third parties? Something's going on. It's a whole new century, your Holiness.

[absolutezero]

70. sore loser

he know's he's going to lose the primary to a progressive (or someone like dean who's been labeled progressive by faux news talking heads) so he's just insulting them. This is holy joe being a sore loser.

[stickdog]

74. Can somebody please sew the neoCON's mouth shut?

PLEASE???

**********

A new song to channel my rage:

DLC by That Jackoff's Jive

DLC
As fucked up
as they can be
They're whoring out
you and me

DLC
Don't mind me
I'm just whupping
Joe's hiney

[LynneSin]

80. I think this is Lieberman realizing that his campaign is not working

And he is losing grounds to the left wingers of the party.

And this is why I scream everytime I see the "Would you vote for Joe if he got the nomination" because honestly, he isn't going to get it. WE see polls in the media where they ask "who would you vote for" and right now Lieberman is ahead. Again, this doesn't mean Joe will get the nomination, but Americans just don't know who the other candidates are.

Joe will be out early in the race. Mark my words on it.

[salin]

87. have to agree

he and his campaign (and their fundraising arm) have relied for too long on the name recognition (or "Q" factor) which is tied to being a VP candidate rather than a widespread familiarity with him as a political figure (eg having long had a following outside of his region). This was true of all of the other candidates. But they have been much more aggressive in getting their names, faces, issues, etc. out there. By the time it is full sail campaign season - Joe will have lost his natural advantage - as he and his campaign didn't push that advantage into momentum; and meanwhile a HUGE media buzz has grown around a candidate (with a second not yet declared candidate starting to get a big media buzz as well).

Sounds more like he and his campaign are rationalizing their lack of outreach into a "winning campaign strategy" (ala never admit you were wrong) - rather than stepping into high gear to create their own media buzz and to reach out to party activists to start building momentum for Lieberman.

The campaign, for now, appears rather flat.

[Rex]

86. It's fun to watch Joe destroy his voting record!

He is unraveling years of solid Dem voting in the Senate with these 30 second sound bytes!

Oy vey!

[Cha]

88. lieberman is a big joke ...what does he know?

Really, what does he know?

What's his agenda?

[Deja Q]

89. I'd tell you where Lieberman can go

but that wouldn't be nice. Maybe I'm being too polite...

Maybe this puke-in-dem-clothing jerk can explain how he can say what he says and still address the "Defcon 5" economic meltdown that's taking place. The american budget being so mishandled sure as hell WON'T encourage businesses to do a fucking thing in terms of spending, which is what these tax cuts are ostensibly for - though that trick didn't work in the 80s and twice over it hasn't worked now!

Fuck him. And not in the good way. He and any americans who still haven't figured it out yet don't deserve to have their opinions heard, yet alone represented. They are pure-dee-NUTS!!!

And repukes still think there's a lot of wasteful spending in government. True, but they're not blaming Bush - they're blaming social programs. They can get fucked in the bad way and rot in hell too.

DAMN RIGHT I'M ANGRY! America's not just down the toilet anymore, it's sinking to the bottom of the cesspool just beyond the toilet, swallowing all the shit it can do to get to the bottom that much more quickly! :argh:

[blkgrl]

90. ewww.. disgusting...

I'm starting to dislike Lieberman more and more. For him to think that "lefties" should abandon their beliefs in the hopes of winning elections speaks volumes about his character. I actually think that the majority of Americans will embrace an honest message from a far leftist.

[West Coast Democrat]

91. He's Just Trying to Appeal to the S. Carolina Voters Again!

...the only state he has a chance of winning in the primaries.

[alcuno]

95. Maybe he can campaign by visiting with families of our war dead

Two more young men from South Carolina died there in the past 5 days. I'm sure it would get him lots of votes.

[JanMichael]

99. Never high on my list...Aw crap, I can't stand him.

You know...I've always said the I'd even vote for Joe, he's making me reconsider my pledge.

What a flaming asshole.

[buddhamama]

100. which republican was putting on their ventriloquest act

and pretending to be Joe?
come on, i wanna know who the talented person is.

[lanlady]

102. the be-all and end-all of Holy Joe

are the insurance companies out of Hartford. He understands how to protect their interests in Washington. Beyond that, he's useless.

[salin]

103. I am really rather stunned

at the low key - and seemingly awfully strategized - campaign that he is running. At what point does he completely squander his dominant position due to name recognition from the last election. Almost makes you wonder if he is trying to throw the race.

[buddhamama]

104. yeah, but to whom is he trying to throw the race?

that's my concern.

[salin]

114. I don't even know if it is that sinister

as in throwing to someone. Just gives me that sad sort of feeling of Michael Huffington, when years after his failed senatorial race he revealed (among other - and bigger things) that he never really wanted to be senator, that he went through the motions, but deep down kept hoping that he would lose.

[BurtWorm]

118. You don't think he thinks the Democratic Party owes him the nod?

After all he did for it in 2000? And 2002? ;)

[GBD4]

106. How in the world...

does this man expect to win the Democratic nomination? It's one thing to provide constructive criticism of the Party, but to say we DESERVE to lose? ha! What a Repub!

[Woodstock]

108. Lieberman and Fox sitting in a tree

KISSING. Buzz off, Lieberman, we have an election to win.

[throwthebumsout]

110. Lord, he makes me nauseous (nt)

ugh

[Skip Intro]

112. More and more, joe seems no better than the morons now in charge

He chose to make those kinds of statements on faux news?

I have no respect for joe anymore. The sooner he leaves the stage, the better. It would not bother me if he went ahead and formally joined the repuke party - any day now would be fine.

[Jacobin]

113. Look. Holy Joe knows it and so does the rest of the world

He's going down in flames.

But why, oh why oh why does he sit on NaziTV and try to disparage the whole party just because he is not gonna get the nomination?

I mean, that's pure chickshit. He needs to be booted from the party.

[peterh]

119. I’m a liberal and an Idealist….

If my views don’t resonate with the majority…so be it….I’ll not compromise. Integrity means more to me than winning…. I’d vote third party before I’d vote for that POS.

[Swalker24]

122. Hey Joe

if the voters are so concerned about big government why would they vote for bush? He has created the biggest government of all time after all. If the voters are so concerned about higher taxes then why would they vote for bush? Since he has guaranteed higher taxes in the future with his looting of the treasury.

This leaves the whole "softness" on defence issue. The republicans only spend more on defence because the contracts (to their friends) to supply the military benefit them. They don't spend more on the troops, they just spend money on weapons systems that may of may not work (Star Wars anyone). They don't give two shits about the men and women serving and sacrificing their lives for America, just look at the cuts to services and pay that the vets and currents troops have had to endure.

Someone has to explain to joe that people who like bush are going to vote for bush, not joe lieberman. If the democratic party loses this elections at the very least they should try to provide a clear alternative to the useless morons in the whitehouse now and their pathetic policies.

You will never win a election saying vote for us, we are just like the other guy, you win by articulating your position in a clear and forthright manner. You win by proving your policies are better then the other guys. Of course it would help if those charged with reporting the facts actually report the facts and not make up lies about what you say, and cover for the other guys lies (you know like the whole 2000 election}.

[Q]

124. Why won't the DLC admit Gore won and the GOP cheated?

- There's a strange sort of revisionism and denial coming from the right wing of the Democratic party. (New Democrats). They're still insisting Gore 'lost' and that Bush* is the 'president-elect' who 'won' in a 'close race'. Never do they discuss the 2000 election fraud, disenfrachisement of thousands of (Dem) voters or how the American media character assassinated Al Gore while hiding negative stories about Bush*.

- Why place the blame on Gore for 'losing' when the 2000 election would have most certainly gone to him in an honest race?

- So then...why is the DLC helping to cover up the right's misdeeds in the 2000 election and at the same time trashing elements within the Democratic party? Why are they supportive of Bush's* illegal, preemptive wars and his dubious 'war on terrorism' while implying the Left (their own party) is 'weak on security' issues?

- It LOOKS as if the DLC has one purpose: to keep GWB* in office until 2008.

[EV1Ltimm]

125. that's odd. o'reilly said the same thing!

must be a coincidence...

[dusty64]

126. Before I just wanted lieberman

to shut up, now I want him to shut the FUC*K UP! Imagine if he ripped the rethugs apart with half the gusto that he reserves for his parties base. Can someone please put a muzzle on those jowls!

[Andy_Stephenson]

137. I have a large cork

I could stuff in his mouth...

[revcarol]

135. Who's contributing to his campaign? Netanyahu supporters

and insurance company execs??

For the rank and file, if you were deceived that this is the same liberal who once marched for civil rights and contributed to his campaign,ASK FOR YOU MONEY BACK, NOW. This man is an impostor who's stealing your money!!

[Andy_Stephenson]

136. F^#@ Holy Joe

and the whore he rode in on.

[Parche]

138. Joe can blow

WILLY WHINER SPEAKS AGAIN

[gasperc]

143. Republicans shouldn't be governing as hard right as they are

What a fuck wad, I'll never vote for him, if he wins the fucking nomination there is no way in fucking way in hell I'll vote for the son of a bitch.
Lieberman needs to shut the fuck up, the country's to far to the RIGHT not the other way around.

[gasperc]

145. ooops, Republicans shouldn't be governing

sorry, I'm just so fucking mad

[BurtWorm]

146. Hey, gasperc, you can edit your headline.

[gasperc]

149. cool, thanks gotta keep up with the new features

[eablair3]

144. and people wonder how Gore lost when he picked this guy for VP

how the heck did Gore ever pick this guy to his VP?

[BurtWorm]

148. It was one of Gore's too-cute calculations

picking the guy least like Clinton--sexually speaking, anyway--as a running mate. He should have calculated a little harder over that one.

[jiacinto]

159. I defend Lieberman most of the time

But lately his behavior has been inappropriate and disunifying.

[hippiegranny]

161. lieberman's toast

he needs to just quietly back away from the race before he does any more damage to the democratic party. what an ego. what an ass.