Skip to main content

View Diary: Lieberman Doesn't Rule out Ditching the Party (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wait, (5+ / 5-)

    where does this anonymous source come from in saying Lieberman might be willing to switch parties? This article and post is nothing more than political smearing. You've made up Lieberman's stance and projected it onto Lieberman. For shame.
    Lieberman isn't the best democrat, but he's better than Feinstein, or Biden or either Nelson.
    I understand the point here - to get Lieberman to stop badmouthing dems on Faux, but he's not that bad a guy. Sure, he's an opportunist who's lust of power and fame overwhelms his public image sometimes, but name a prominent figure other than Boxer, Conyer, or Feingold who doesn't succumb to the siren of power.
    We, as democrats, can depend on Lieberman's vote better than we depend on a host of other democrats. And since Lieberman is lusting of power, when dems take back the house/senate, Joementum will be the best democrat alive. You'll see. So why give up Joe's seniority and connections for someone like Lamont?
    Everyone needs to stop feeding at the Kos thought trough. Lieberman isn't that bad. It's right there in his campaign slogan - "Vote for me, because I'm not that bad." And it's written in black and white so you know it's true.
    Anyways, about the Kos thought trough, Kos has a mission. It's to change the medium of politics in favor of democrats. That's noble. But that alone doesn't justify your demonization of Lieberman.

    And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

    by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:29:30 PM PST

    •  His name is in the blockquote up there (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Cienfuegos

      Roy Occhiogrosso. A Connecticut consultant, who says the Salon writer read too much into the Senator saying he was ruling out an Independent run.

      Really bad trolling, dude.

      "I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer

      by Joan McCarter on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:36:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trolling (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        morinao
        Hidden by:
        Eternal Hope

        "But a Connecticut political consultant working for Lieberman said today that the writer for the Internet newsmagazine that published that report may have read too much into the senator's response.

        "We don't even talk about that because he has no intention of losing the primary," the consultant, Roy Occhiogrosso, said."

        Okay, egregarious slip on my part. I didn't notice the "the" indicating Roy was the same consultant who supplied both quotes. For that, I appologize.

        But I stand by my sentiments: Joe Lieberman, nor his consultant, stated they're willing to switch parties to stay in congress.

        "We don't even talk about that because he has no intention of losing the primary," does not equal "said today that the writer for the Internet newsmagazine that published that report may have read too much into the senator's response."

        Why would the writer say that a high-minded (maybe arrogant) stance of not losing the primary equates to "ready and willing to switch parties?"

        And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

        by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:47:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The POINT (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marchmoon, greeseyparrot

          they did not say he would NOT.

          I know you have a low bar for Lieberman but this is ridiculous.

        •  What are you doing here? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see what you are doing here if you are going to be waging smear campaigns against the owner of this site. You're better off joining another community or starting your own.

          •  not seeing the smear campaign (0+ / 0-)

            Seems like NeoConSemanticist is just trying to interpret the article charitably for Lieberman. And the central point is valid: while it's the kind of political doublespeak that seems carefully crafted to avoid ruling out a party switch, it does not strictly follow that a party switch is being planned. It's not trolling to make that argument, especially when the commenter has been reasonably civil and straightforwardly apologized when an error was pointed out.

          •  Eternal Hope, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla

            You've been around here a long time, and I hope your longevity (through pie wars, thick and thin, disappointment and countless diaries dissecting what constitutes ratings abuse) let's you understand my point: Why is Lieberman due for comeuppance and other mealy-mouthed dems are not? I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm not trying to be malicious. I ask in all earnestness: Is this deluge against Lieberman really warranted?

            And to be clear, I am not bad-mouthing Markos, nor his site. I've been around for a long time (well, about a year and a half) and I keep coming back because it's fun here, and the sense of community is greater than the politic atmosphere. (barring the topic du jour isn't concerning atheism or feminism) My point about Markos is that he has an agenda - not a bad one by any means - but one that is incongruent with Lieberman's choice of voice. So I understand his point. What I don't understand is why it is so frequently parroted. Again, why is Lieberman called out so relentlessly?

            I ask - if you have the inclination- to go back through this series of posts and re-read. You don't have to change your rating, I know where I'm posting, I know the common sentiments regarding Lieberman, I kinda knew the response I was going to get. I just ask you recheck the tone here, and if you still find it hostile or offensive or counter-productive, then I will shut my mouth and back off. Otherwise, I really don't know how to make amends, and hope this simply passes as a misunderstanding. I shall engage in the Lieberman debate no more if my opinion is deemed so hostile.

            And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

            by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 07:20:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You said: (0+ / 0-)

              Anyways, about the Kos thought trough, Kos has a mission. It's to change the medium of politics in favor of democrats. That's noble. But that alone doesn't justify your demonization of Lieberman.

              Elsewhere, you talked about the persecution complex.

              I don't mind you standing up for Lieberman, even though I think you are wrong. What I do mind is you complaining about how bad Lieberman is being persecuted. And if you question the integrity of the site owner, then that is what makes me wonder about these things. That is the part I thought was hostile.

              You have to understand that all of this stuff about Joe Lieberman is job-related -- not personal. If a boss tells you you did a lousy job with the project, that does not mean that he thinks you are a bad person. It means that your performance was horrible. The same applies here.

              Now, if it were something attacking him for practicing his religion, then that would be different. I myself called people out for mocking his beard, which he grew after his mother's death. But the problem here is that you are not understanding the difference between job-related criticism and personal attacks.

              •  Well, I do understand the difference (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radiowalla, morinao, Eternal Hope

                But at the same time, the attacks do seem personal, because the attacks are applied unevenly. Lieberman has some issues - I understand why democrats are becoming increasingly wary of him. What I don't get, and what makes all this seem personal, is that many dems are less dependable than Lieberman on democratic issues. So yet again, I ask, why is lieberman attacked so relentlessly, but not Feinstein, or Salazar, or whomever else is in a blue state or a purple state and could make it more liberal by changing the their approach, but instead engage in tactics and make political decisions that wind up hurting the liberal movement? That's what I don't get.

                Again, to be clear, I have not attacked the integrity of the owner of this site. Markos is trying to rebuild the democratic voice. Not the issues, or message, but the means through which the message is portrayed. So I understand his problem with "Bush's/Fox's favorite democrat," But I don't get why everyone else cares. Lieberman votes with the democrats. Right? He doesn't say the right things, but he does the right things. Will his comments be forgiven if dems take control of house/senate/WH in the next couple years and Jomentum goes back to the old Joe we all know and love?

                Again, you've been here a long time. You know how diverse the views. Do you find it funny that Kos's agenda - to build a VLWC - has such unannoumous support? Does it concern you at all that Kos started a tsunami by stating Lieberman needs to be more carefull what he says in this day and age of the VRWC? I mean, how could one person issue one statement that has galvanized such support here? Where's the diversity? Where was the arguments, the back and forth? Why is there such massive support behind Kos at the expense of such a stalwart dem? Do we still have our priorities straight? Is this an argument of substance over superficiality? Does the anti-Lieberman have merit, or did it just come from On High and the masses took to it?

                And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

                by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:19:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It has plenty of merit. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  spyral, morinao, NeoconSemanticist

                  Lieberman is divisive in a way that the others you mention do not. But you completely misunderstand the nature of this blog if you think Kos is a powerbroker who can send the sharks in a frenzy at the flick of a finger. This is not your typical top-down blog.

                  This is a bottom-up blog. There were plenty of people slamming Lieberman for his divisive attacks against Howard Dean. I watched the tone of his language against Dean, and he gave one angry attack after another against him.

                  What Lieberman does that the other Democrats do not is that he goes around on TV and constantly bashes and secondguesses what the Democrats are doing. If you will recall the Wall-Street Journal article he wrote last fall, he offered a completely unrealistic assessment of Iraq. He said that it was a struggle of 27 million against 10,000. That is simply not true; go to the Lone Star Iconoclast and look at an interview with a man who went to Fallujah to see for himself what things were like.

                  That would be like players going to the media and complaining about how mean the coach is, or how they are not getting enough playing time.

                  You have been around here long enough to know that DiFi and Salazar have also gotten drilled around here as well. But they are better team players -- Lieberman is not. He is all about his cozy relationship with FOX, Bush, and the rest of the people that have screwed this country.

    •  This has got to be a joke. (0+ / 0-)

      Because it's very funny.

      -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

      by pat bunny on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:54:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I did try to be funny (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, morinao
        Hidden by:
        Eternal Hope

        to show I wasn't trying to be malicious or purposefully-trolling. But I'm guessing that's not the humor you're pointing out.

        I don't care. I know I'm posting on a democratic blog. I know how thousands here feel about Lieberman.

        But I stand by my statement. Joe has a good democratic voting record, especially when it comes to domestic issues. He's no saint - I understand everyone's apprehension over anyone who's willing to get into bed with Bush, let alone actively try to get into bed with Bush, but no one has been able (at least to my satisfaction) explain why Lieberman is worse than someone like Fienstein, who's also awfully conservitive for such a blue state. I suspect Kos took issue with Lieberman, because that's Kos's thing - how to get a democratic message out in a conservative playing field, and everyone else has just jumped on the band waggon. That's it. Why is Lieberman persecuted (sans any religous connotations) while other worse examples aren't?

        And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

        by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:01:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anonymous source (0+ / 0-)

          was a lie.

          Still stand by it?

          Sheesh.

          •  As I wrote in response to mcjoan (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla, morinao
            Hidden by:
            Eternal Hope

            "But a Connecticut political consultant working for Lieberman said today that the writer for the Internet newsmagazine that published that report may have read too much into the senator's response.

            "We don't even talk about that because he has no intention of losing the primary," the consultant, Roy Occhiogrosso, said."

            I skimmed past the "the" in my readings, thus I thought:

            "But a Connecticut political consultant working for Lieberman said today that the writer for the Internet newsmagazine that published that report may have read too much into the senator's response.

            "We don't even talk about that because he has no intention of losing the primary," a consultant, Roy Occhiogrosso, said."

            See the difference? i'm not trying to lie, I simply misread. I thought Roy Occhiogrosso wasn't directly connected, but the article was written in a fashion that made it look like he was. Again, I apologize. I will be more carefull in my readings.

            As for the content of my post, Mike S. cleared some things up for me. I did not know Lieberman has been asking for terrorists to apologize for their terrorizing, then turn around and use the terrorists lack of contrition as a justification for Bush's foreign policy. that's pretty crazy.

            But...I've heard other democrats make some appalling statements, noteably Feinstein from California. I wondered why Lieberman is due for his comeupance and not the Feinstein's of the world.

            I think this comes from a difference in expectations. I expect politicains to be self-aggrandizing, self-serving people, regardless of political affiliations. I see many democrats that fit this mold - yet i see only Lieberman being persecuted for such transgressions. I can sympothize with Lieberman, in his quest for Vice Presidency, he had a taste of the Rock-star limelite, and is trying to serve his own interests to get it back. It seems getting dems back in controll would be a better solution as Liberman would go back to being a good democrat, still able to suck at the teat of power.

            That's it. That's all I mean. Lieberman isn't alone in his aggrandizing, Bush-apologetic behaviour, but he has a better voteing record than many other non-persecuted democrats. I didn't understand why.

            And history has proven that democracies don't war. - G"W" Bush, press conf. march 22? 2006

            by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:21:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Markos defended Joe (5+ / 0-)
          through out the primaries, as did I. Since then Joe has gotten even worse as far as his attacks against the party and the left. He goes on his "good friend's" show and laughs when Hannitty accuses the left of hating America.

          And the final straw for me was his defence of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib saying that the terrorists haven't appologised to us for 9/11 and cutting off people's heads.

          From Freedon Rider to torture appologist in 40 years.

          "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

          by Mike S on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:20:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why pick on Lieberman over other DINOs? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm a teacher. When trying to establish control, I pick the most disruptive student and make an example of him. The object of my attention ALWAYS screams "What about the other kids, Mister?" Why pick on me?" The outrage is rarely genuine. The whole class knows its impossble to sanction EVERYONE who deserves it when they deserve it.

          We're dealing with Lieberman today. He and other DLCers had a lot of fun and scored a lot of points over the years taking potshots at progressive Democrats...and today is Joe's turn in the barrel. Make an example of the worst, for the other DINOs to observe.

          On another note, I think Joe's waffling on switching parties could really hurt him in the primary if used right. Lamont should make a public pledge to the effect of "Unlike my opponent, I pledge to stay in the party and work to support it no matter what the outcome at the polls." Force Joementum to make the same promise.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (82)
  • Baltimore (79)
  • Freddie Gray (58)
  • Bernie Sanders (55)
  • Civil Rights (47)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (28)
  • Education (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (22)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site