For DUers who have neutral or positive feelings about Lieberman

[skipos]

Poll question: For DUers who have neutral or positive feelings about Lieberman

IF YOU DISLIKE LIEBERMAN, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU DIDN'T POST IN THIS THREAD. THERE ARE MANY PRO-LAMONT / ANTI-LIEBERMAN THREADS FOR YOU TO POST IN.

People who have neutral or positive feelings about Joe can vote for the option that best represents them, or read my thoughts below.

I have occassionally defended Nelson of Nebraska or Lieberman around here. My defense of Nelson usually has to do with the fact that
1. Nebraska dems have the chance to nominate someone else if they so choose.
2. A state like Nebraska is much more likely to elect a Frist-esque senator than a Feingold-esque senator, so I am glad that a democrat even gets elected there.
3. In some states, you have accept the fact that your election choices are going to be between a democrat who shares 25% to 50% of your views or a republican who shares 0% to 10% of your views.
4. While DU doesn't generaly support Nelson, his approval rating is extremely high in Nebraska. Generally higher than Boxer's approval rating in CA or Feingold's approval rating in WI. It is probably safe to assume that in general, Nebraska feels that Nelson represents them well.
5. DU represents your more progressive democrats, but the party should have a big enough tent to include democrats like the ones in Nebraska that give Nelson such high approval ratings.

However, Lieberman is from the blue state of CT. I have always felt like CT should be able to elect a senator that is more progressive than Lieberman, but he has fine approval ratings there, and CT dems keep nominating him. If CT dems chose Joe, then I will support their choice.

For the last few weeks my sentiment has changed. The fact that Lieberman is even considering an independent run indicates that he has little loyalty to CT dems. Why should we support someone who doesn't support us in return.

I am wondering what other NON-LIEBERMAN HATERS think. What choice best describes you?

[rosesaylavee]

1. Found out one thing I like about Lieberman over the

weekend...

Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act
(As debated in the U.S. Senate on October 30, 2003)
On October 30, 2003, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) brought a revised version of their Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) to a vote in the United States Senate. While the measured failed by a vote of 43 to 55, the vote demonstrated growing bipartisan support for a genuine climate change policy.

The revised version of the bill would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors (as defined by EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). The affected sectors accounted for approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database which would contain an inventory of emissions and registry of reductions.

Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors. Certain subsectors would be exempt if the Administrator determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions. The Commerce Department would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances to determine whether it was consistent with the objective of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change of stabilizing GHG emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Continued at this link - http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm

Other than that, it appears (and I may be effected adversely by opinions I read here) that he does side with the Conservative Republicans more often than not. Any one have a voting record for him for the past 4 years for factual comparison?

[The Magistrate]

2. If Sen. Lieberman Lost The Primary, Sir, And Ran Then As An Independent

It woulod be the duty of any member anyone adhering to the Democratic Party to support the Party's nominee, and oppose the effort of Sen. Lieberman

[sonroadera]

3. I agree.

And since Joe is even considering an independent run, shouldn't anyone adhering to the Democratic Party be rightfully irritated with him?

[Dutch]

5. My feelings exactly. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. It depends on your priorities.

Most people, I would hope, regard a political party as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. If your principles are slightly, but only slightly, left of centre (in American terms) then you might legitimately choose to support the Democratic party against the Republicans in most contexts, but to support Lieberman against an official Democratic candidate whose views were further left than yours.

N.B "Slightly left of centre" is an oversimplification - my understanding is that Lieberman is actually fairly liberal on most issues, but moderately conservative on a few (crucially, he's less opposed to the war in Iraq and less critical of Bush than most liberals, IIRC).

[salin]

13. It would depend whether or not one cares about a possible dem Sen maj.

While I understand your point, to vote for an independent who is slightly closer to ones views - or to vote for a dem who could help sheperd in a dem. majority in the senate (if, by the general elections it appears that such a majority is in reach) changes the question a bit, unless of course one doesn't mind a republican majority in the Senate.

[The Magistrate]

22. If One Is An Adherent Of The Party, Sir

Then one should abide by the decisions it arrives at, particularly through such means as a primary election, even if these are not precisely to one's own tastes. Persons of a more centerist stripe cannot justly demand this of those to their left if they are not willing on occassion to do the same themselves.

Obviously, if you are speaking of a voter who is not a member of the Party, or does not identify with it, the calculation you lay out is certainly a proper one.

[skipos]

4. No one will explain why they think an indy run from Joe is OK?

[TheVirginian]

6. There's a monstrous thread where I detailed my defense of the DSCC.

[skipos]

7. Link?

There are so many threads about Lieberman, and I don't want to try and dig through them all.

[TheVirginian]

16. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2678879&mesg_id=2678879

Don't say I didn't warn you (+300 replies).

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. It's a second crack at the nut (or however the saying goes)

It just seems to me that jumping in as an indy after defeat in a primary is another way of telling the voters to shove it. If he's going to run as a Democrat, then he should be committed to the decision of the voters.

To look at it another way...Let's say, hypothetically, that Lieberman wins the primary. The day after Ned Lamont re-enters the race as an Indy candidate. What would Lieberman and his supporters be saying about Lamont?

[TheVirginian]

15. In a way.

He's telling Democratic voters who aim at replacing Lieberman to "shove it". I'm sure the many Democrats who vote for Lieberman in the primary will be happy if he chose to ran as an Independent. And given Lieberman's current position in the polling, it looks as if quite a few Indepedents and Republicans would be happy as well. If Joe Lieberman wins a majority of the votes in CT, how can you say he's sticking it to the voters?

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. He's sticking to the voters if he loses the primary

then jumps in as an indy because a majority of the voters chose someone else. If he wins a majority he's not going to run as an Indy, so I'm not sure what you mean by your question. :shrug:

Whether it makes his supporters happy or not...well, they're voters and that's how the process works. He's thumbing his nose at the process and in doing so, the voters.

[TheVirginian]

24. Clarification

If he loses in the primary in August, and runs as an Independent in November, and wins a majority of the votes in November, how can he be sticking it to the voters if a majority decides to re-elect him?

There is nothing about running as an Independent that snubs the process. The Democratic Primary determines who the Democratic candidate is on the ballot. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, he's the Democrat on the ballot.

[KingFlorez]

8. Personally, I would think an Indy run would be fine

I think that it's wrong to expect the party to be ideologically pure and force people out for not siding on every single issue. I am dissapointed Lieberman supports the war, but I do agree with him on almost everything else and think he's a good senator. I think an Indy run would fine, because a Senator serves the people first, not the party and an Independent run is part of democratic principals.

[olkaz]

9. not the case

I feel a great deal of animosity for Lieberman because of his lockstep with the Bush administration. Of course we want our party to have diverse ideas, but falling neatly in line with Republicans is not a good thing.

And take notice of how his campaign is attacking Ned. They could have just accepted the challenge, but nay, ad hominem galore.

I understand your point of not wanting the party to enforce a strict ideological stance on everything, but this is simply not a good example.

[skipos]

12. So you feel the democratic party should be run from the top down?

When the democrats of CT elect a candidate to run for senate, it is ok for elected democratic politicians to negate that, and endorse someone else instead? Why?

Joe has had no problems with the democratic party (vp candidate in 00, p candidate in 04), and no intention of leaving the democratic party, but CT dems choose someone else well THEN he is going to leave the party. Please explain how this is fair to CT dems? Or do you think they don't matter, and the will (ego) of Joe is much more important to you?

How would you feel if everyone who lost democratic primaries ran as an independent? So in 2008 if Feingold got the nomination, Clark, Biden, Daschle, Gore and Kerry all ran as independents? Are you cool with that?

[TheVirginian]

17. A couple of points to make here...

"It is ok for elected democratic politicians to negate that, and endorse someone else instead? Why?"

Absolutely. First Amendment, freedom of speech. Beyond that, I don't want someone endorsing a candidate just because they feel obgliated to. If another politician endorses a candidate, I want it to be because they genuinely feel that way.

As far as how his Indie run would be fair to CT Dems, I don't think it has anything to do with that. CT Dems are voting for the name that gets put on the November ballot as a Democrat. If Ned Lamont wins the August primary, then that purpose is fulfilled; he'll be on the ballot. Whomever else runs in a different party is irrelevent to the very nature of the Democratic primary.

Secondly, its not just Joe's will. According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, Lieberman would easily defeat Lamont and the nominal GOP challenger in a three-way race. If Lieberman is able to get the majority of CT voters as an Independent, how can anyone say that he's sticking it to the voters of CT?

Finally, this is a special case that can't be compared to other races. In most other states, Lieberman's decision would split the field, making it likely that the Republican candidate would win. In CT, this isn't the case. Lieberman himself will actually get more votes than any Republican candidate, and that's partly because Republican support Lieberman, and partly because the CT Democratic Party is so strong, especially with regard to its Senators, that no prominent CT Republican wants to give up their current position to run in a chaotic, uphill Senate race.

[skipos]

19. Your focus seems to be on winning the general election and

where is your evidence that Lamont couldn't do that if he 1. won the primary, and 2. Lieberman respected the will of CT dems and didn't run as in indy (two very big "ifs")?

Do you support all democratic primary losers running as independents, as in my 08 example?

If so, then what is the point of even having a democratic party?

And for clarification, I know that Joe has the RIGHT to run, I just think it is extremely disrespectful of CT dems and sets a terrible precendent.

[TheVirginian]

23. Lamont could do it if Joe decides not to run.

But its not my decision, its not your decision, its not DU's decision, and its not Chuck Schumer's decision. While it would be better if Lieberman decided not to run, he's the only person that can make that decision, and we should be prepared for that possibility, instead of just "willing" it not to happen.

I don't support Lieberman's decision, if he makes it. But I do support the DSCC's political calculations which have led Schumer to not oppose Lieberman's Indie bid.

And its not a matter of supporting every indie bid; its a case-by-case basis. In this case, Lieberman is the odds-on favorite to win if he runs as an Indie, and there's no strong Republican in the mix. Obviously, this is not a usual situation.

[monarch]

10. I am a Lamont supporter but not a "Lieberman hater."

I like Joe personally and was thrilled when he was selected by Gore. How many vice-presidential candidates do any of you know personally?

That said, I want to point out that everyone who posts about this race thinking that Lamont is simply an opponent of the Iraq war has totally bought into Lieberman's framing. There are so many more issues than that and I expect DUers to do a little research rather than accepting the arguments of one side to a vigorously contested race.

[Shrek]

20. I like Lieberman very much

I want him to remain in the party and make his case to the primary voters. If he fails to make his case then that's the way primaries are supposed to work.

A run as an independent is not the way to go.

[skipos]

21. Thank you for the logic.

I have had many posts defending Lieberman over the months, but if he loses the primary he and other party officials should respect the will of CT dems. If Lamont was some fringe element of the party (he isn't) or if he had no chance of winning the general election (not the case) I might make a different argument.