How do I not love Joe Lieberman? Let me count the ways:

[BurtWorm]

1) Replaced a true liberal--Lowell Weicker--in the Senate in 1988.

2) 15 years of mannered DLC positions--in favor of school vouchers, in favor of aggressive uses of the American military, in support of Bushist tax cuts.

3) Pious, self-righteous criticism of Bill Clinton over a freakin' blow job.

4) General pious self-righteousness.

5) Overuse of words like "God" and "blessings."

6) Didn't turn down the VP nomination when it was clear he would rather remain in the Senate, as his unorthodox run for both offices demonstrated. His simultaneous run for the Senate in 2000 made it loud and clear he didn't fully believe Gore would win. Nice move, Joe. (Brilliant choice, Al.)

7) Blew the whole military ballot thing by "admitting" to Tim Russert that they shouldn't be questioned, even when they lack postmarks and other required markings to make them legal.

8) Being substitute Democratic lackey when Zell Miller is unavailable and the Bushists need a poster child for their alleged "bipartisanship."

9) Made the astounding claim, given his part in Bush v. Gore, that the Ninth Circuit's Pledge decision was the worst court decision in his lifetime (or something just about as idiotic).

10) His latest desperation argument that if the Dems turn left they deserve to lose in 2004.

[Cha]

1. lieberman is one of a true Dem's worst nightmares.

I'd like to see him get solidly trounced and be made aware of just how disingenuous he really is! :grr:

[DealsGapRider]

2. I'm astonished

...that you would choose #7 to beat up on Holy Joe about. I don't particularly care for Lieberman (although I don't think he's nearly as bad as many DUers seem to), but I think he absolutely did the right thing in this instance.

The vote counters should have bent over backwards to count military ballots, even if they didn't have postmarks and such, which were beyond the control of the military voter. And either way, it was incredibly stupid politically to send that memo around instructing people how to disqualify military ballots on technicalities. The Clinton/Gore admin. was already viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility, by a large segment of the military. If Gore had become President in part by disqualifying a large number of military ballots, there would have been a big, big problem in the ranks.

[demnan]

3. Yeah, but

I read that they found a lot of Republicans urging the military to vote after the fact of the election and that just wasn't right.

[BurtWorm]

24. An investigation in the NY Times found that the absentee ballots were

treated unequally in Dem and Rep counties in Florida, and the difference benefited Bush, not Gore, by enough to carry the "election." The standards were stricter in Dem counties. Rep counties actually counted ballots postmarked AFTER election day, the bastids.

[BurtWorm]

10. Why should vote counters have treated military ballots as more equal

than any others?

[DealsGapRider]

12. Um, because they're cast by members of the military

I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that we owe a special debt to members of the military that is unique among public servants.

Furthermore, I don't think any ballots should be discounted because of things like postmarks, which are beyond the control of the actual voter.

As for Republicans encouraging voters to vote after the fact, since it would be impossible to determine which ballots were filled out before the election and which were filled out before, there's no point in even trying to make a distinction. As long as they all arrive in the mail within the allowed window, you have to treat them all as if they were cast before the election.

[BurtWorm]

13. So if a member of the military sends in a ballot filled out the day

after the election without a post mark, we should count that just because it comes from the military? What if hundreds of them do that? In a very close election?

[DealsGapRider]

20. Again...

...I don't think there's any way to tell when the ballot was filled out. If there's a placed for "date" and the voter acknowledges filling it out the day after the election, then obviously you can disregard the ballot. But it's my understanding that absentee ballots are counted as long as they arrive within what, 1 to 2 weeks after the election. Doesn't sound to me like there's a safeguard in place to identify who voted before and who voted after the election.

[BurtWorm]

25. Absentee ballots are supposed to be post-marked

or rejected. No one should be exempt.

[DealsGapRider]

26. Fine.

I am not disputing what the law says. Even if you subtract from the equation the fact that it's ridiculous to discount someone's ballot because of a factor they have no control over, I question the wisdom of having the Dem party known as the party that went out of its way to discount the ballots of military personnel serving overseas. A prominent Dem operative circulated a memo outlining precisely how military ballots could be discounted, for Christ's sake. We already suffer a perception problem among military personnel and those who are strongly pro-military. If you think you're going to sway anyone by saying, "But the law is the law!" then you're smoking crack.

[BurtWorm]

27. You think our letting military personnel get away with casting

illegal votes for Republicans is good for Democrats? How so?

[DealsGapRider]

29. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that going out of one's way to look for reasons to disqualify military ballots makes the Democratic Party look bad, regardless of who they vote for. Do you really believe that the party didn't suffer a black eye during the recount among military personnel? I am friends with many military personnel, and they went absolutely when they heard that a Democratic operative (forget his name) was circulating a memo detailing precisely how military ballots could be disqualified.

And for the umpteenth time, the thing that made these military ballots "illegal" was the lack of a postmark -- which is beyond the control of the voter. Do you really want to disenfranchise people for factors they have no control over? If you do, you may want to joing the Repug party. That's their style.

[edward]

32. No, I don't believe you are right about postmarks.

This just from memory, but it was more than just "iffy," it was clear that the ballots were actually filled out after the deadline, or at least when they were known to be impossible to arrive on time.
Also, I believe the Democrats admitted that the military ballots were in fact not valid, but that they would let them be counted anyway.

[BurtWorm]

35. You're right.

The Dems shot themselves in the foot because they feared right wing propaganda against them.

[BurtWorm]

33. They suffered the "black eye" because they wouldn't stand their ground

on a matter of principle (rule of law) and allowed the Reps to spin them as anti-patriotic because anti-military.

And I'm sorry, but a post mark is absolutely essential for determining the legality of an absentee ballot. I don't care who it comes from.

[edward]

34. "I served in Viet Nam"

"I skipped out on alternate service."
Easy to see the one who respects the military. If you can't outspin this....

[fujiyama]

44. I agree it's unfortunate

these votes would be discounted, but I also think it's unfortunate that millions of votes, the nation over were discounted by the SC decision.

While I sympathize with anyone serving in the military and would find it absolutely horrible that their votes wouldn't count especially after serving his or her country, in this nation of laws, all votes (of that state) are equal.

In a nation of laws, all men and women are theoretically equal under those laws. We should strive to preserve the dignity of those laws, especially in a matter as important as voting.

Therefore the absentee votes of those serving in the military should not count in a way different from anyone else's absentee votes. How will the integrity of votes be verified otherwise? The idea of having a person vote after an election defeats the point of that election.

The last election was truely tragic and showed the many flaws in our system. By giving counties so much control of the election process (that too far a national election), we allow a lot of corruption. How is the election process fair if different counties choose different standards in counting votes?

Too many votes were discounted in the last election -- We know that minorities were stopped at polling stations, minorities in many cases were perged from voting lists, ex-felons were not allowed to vote (also in many cases minorities), shoddy voting equipment was used in poorer (once again minority) neighborhoods, and possibly -- some military votes may have been discounted...But this last part is the one that bothers me least of all -- why? -- certainly not because of any hatred of those in the miltary, unlike a poster above, it is because these votes did not have the integrity of having the date of the vote verifiable.

Once, we give the votes of miltary personall overseas more benefit of the doubt than normal absentee votes, we start putting a disturbing amount of power in the military.

In short -- all the votes of a certain state (and ideally all votes in the nation) should count equally -- be it civilian or military, at a polling station, or by absentee ballot.

[edward]

14. What happened to the rule of law?

Does "special debt" mean we should break the law? I don't think so.

[wuushew]

18. I think firemen and emergency workers are more deserving..

than a volunteer who represents a force American imperialism

no sympathy for the military other than some of them were forced into into it by economic conditions.

[DealsGapRider]

22. Repugnant

nt

[FredScuttle]

40. How about 'Murricans traveling abroad

Do they count too, or are they disqualified from this special treatment because they don't happen to be carrying government-issued firearms?

[West Coast Democrat]

4. Do you have to start a new Joe-bashing thread every day?

I'm no fan of his, but this topic gets really boring.

[BurtWorm]

9. No, just yesterday and today.

We'll see about tomorrow.

[jos]

15. Personally, I can't get enough of those Lieberman bashing threads

Bash On!

:spank:

[BurtWorm]

16. They unite us, not divide us.

Most of us anyway. Look at all the love in the last Lieberman bashing thread!

[jos]

23. Yes! Finally some use for the man

He unites all real Democrats. Against him.

:thumbsup: :dem: :toast:

[donco6]

42. I never thought of it that way.

Works for me.

It is rather amazing how united we can all be on this topic: Lieberman is worthless.

[sangh0]

5. Thanks for sharing

I was beginning to think DU was becoming a regular Lieberman Love Shack . After all, I managed to get through lunch without another boring daily Lieberman bashing thread in GD

[edward]

17. Should we go back to Nader bashing threads?

We need the vacation.

[sangh0]

19. Go back?

I didn't know they had ended.

[Forkboy]

37. it was so boring

that sangha had to chime in :eyes:

[Sheila Samples]

6. Say NO to Joe...

Saw him on FOX a couple of Sundays ago. After he listed a litany of Republican talking points under the ageis of "what the Democratic Party believes in..." he said, "my game plan to win the presidency is to stand for something, and I stand in the middle..."

He then went on to say that rolling back Bush's tax cuts was something he wouldn't do, because "that would be a tax increase."

He had the audicity to say, "I understand the anger that a lot of people feel with the Bush administration, but we can't allow that anger to force us back to the failed past. We don't deserve to lead if we do..."

He said that Dean has merely tapped into the anger, and added pompously, "but to govern this country, it takes more than anger..."

Sheesh! Beam my ass up! Between "Bush Heavy" and "Bush Light" this guy is proud to stand squarely "in the middle..."

[newyawker99]

38. Hi Ishtar!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Sheila Samples]

43. TO newyawker99

How sweet! I'm used to being told to "either lead or follow, but get the hell out of my way... LOL

Thanks. Made my day.

Ishtar

[notadmblnd]

7. Its much simpler than all that for me..

I just can't stand his droning voice.:freak:

[StandWatie]

8. someone needs to run against him in a primary

or even run some stalking horse leftist as a republican against him..

[wuushew]

11. Is CT a liberal state?

I wonder if a random democrat ran against Joe for his senate seat and won, what his ADA record would look like.

What I am lookin for is a pro-civil/gay/women rights canidate who does not moralize and who realizes that war represents a failure of diplomacy. Does such a person exist?

[Darranar]

21. Dennis Kucinich...

he qualifies.

[salin]

28. My plea to DUers

when Lieberman goes public with a bomb statement for the left - go after the statement. And at that moment vent if you must.

But keep it there.

This is pointless - like a seeking of affirmation and drawing out the few supporters that are here.

It also leads to generalizations against Sen. Lieberman which inevitably go to the extreme hyperbole - and draw out others who need to correct the areas that go over the line.

And so we have the same conversation again and again. And accomplish nothing but working each other up into a lather. Some folks losing a tinch of credibility when their frustration with Sen. Lieberman leads to making the sweeping generalizations (which sometimes really border slander). Other folks then lashing back out at "the left" and side conversations that alienate even similar minded folks from one another. But for the life of me... I have NEVER seen one of these discussions lead to a Duer or reader having an "aha", change their mind or position... get new information out... thus in my assessment they are counter productive.

WooHoo what fun.

So from one DUer - to others - how about we try to constrain ourselves to the Sen. Lieberman discussions/bashing - to responding to actions (positive and negative) and statements he makes - and keeping it to the threads dedicated to those stories.

There are so many, many important issues. There are so many BIGGER reasons to vent (try about 5-50 bush admin and GOP egregious moves) - that focusing the vent there might actually - inform folks about other issues that can be used to convince fence sitters about the nature of the administration, etc.

Vent/Rant over.

[BurtWorm]

30. I appreciate your vent, but I thought there were some points in

my own rant that don't get looked at enough--namely .

To whit:

6) Didn't turn down the VP nomination when it was clear he would rather remain in the Senate, as his unorthodox run for both offices demonstrated. His simultaneous run for the Senate in 2000 made it loud and clear he didn't fully believe Gore would win. Nice move, Joe. (Brilliant choice, Al.)

7) Blew the whole military ballot thing by "admitting" to Tim Russert that they shouldn't be questioned, even when they lack postmarks and other required markings to make them legal.

and

9) Made the astounding claim, given his part in Bush v. Gore, that the Ninth Circuit's Pledge decision was the worst court decision in his lifetime (or something just about as idiotic).




I think you're right that Lieberman is clueless about jump-starting his run, which is why he has been a bit more vocally anti-left lately.

Furthermore, as WillyT said in the other thread, the paradigm is shifting, and Lieberman represents the shell of the old one. It is useful to examine why the old paradigm didn't work. I think Lieberman's attention to his career and his willingness to be perceived as godly and reverent toward flag, country, and military is why he's being left behind.

[enki23]

31. it's simply *not possible* to just go after a statement

even if you twist your language so it's clear you're pretending the statement is somehow separate from the personality which made it, you never end up fooling anyone. if joe said it, and meant to say it, then it says something about joe. it says he knowingly says things like "democrats deserve to lose if they go too far left." i'm fine with that. he has every right to say it. it also confirms, for me, that he's a complete asshole.

all we know of each other comes from our works, words, things we do. in the end, there's no difference between "he *is* an asshole" and "he often says things an asshole would say" except one is shorter to write and easier to understand.

[BurtWorm]

36. 11) His asinine insistence on calling the Iraq war "just"

symbolizing yet again his apparent belief that he is some kind of judge, like the William Bennet of the Democratic Party.

[jiacinto]

39. On #6 and #8

First of all, if you are singling out Lieberman, then you have problems with LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen, who both ran for re-election while being on the VP ticket. That hardly makes Lieberman "unorthodox". This point is a complete red herring.

Between Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman the records are night and day. Miller is a true DINO. I would post the facts from Project Vote Smart, but you won't care anyway.

As for point #3 he voted against impeaching Clinton. But what Clinton did with Lewinsky was wrong whether you were pro-impeachment or not.

As for #5 I guess that the fact that Lieberman is a religious Jew must play a role there. Some on the far left are just hostile to religion.

But in reality this shows that your dislike for Lieberman has nothing to do with his political positions, but rather something else about him.

[FredScuttle]

41. A minor quibble...

with the following line:

But what Clinton did with Lewinsky was wrong whether you were pro-impeachment or not.


I don't know if you meant he was wrong in lying about it or if the act itself was wrong. I'm assuming you meant the former, but I have no problem with blowjobs, my man!

[jfkennedy]

45. Lieberman sounds no different then the other 8 stooges

I think that Lieberman is the same as the other 8 stooges running. The one that will most likely not win (Dean) the Republicans will put pro Dean Ads out for.

Clark however can and will be the greatest American president in our history.