Skip to main content

Lieberman endorses Republican John McCain for president:

"Every now and again we're asked that, and McCain always says we couldn't do it because each of us would want to be vice president," Lieberman told The Associated Press. "And my presidential campaign days are over _ I hope his aren't."

Lieberman endorses war with Iran:

When McCain later told the gathering of the world's top defense officials that "every option must remain on the table," when dealing with Iran on its nuclear program because "there's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran," Lieberman did not elaborate much.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:03 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Guess He Figures... (4.00)
    ...he needs to make up for Lincoln Chaffee, who hinted that he didn't vote for Dubya.

    Yeah, off his rocker seems right.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:04:10 PM PST

    •  Oh, Does Lieberman Also Think... (4.00)'s worse that Pakistan, India, Russia, France, the UK, China and Israel have nukes and haven't used them than it would be if they waged non-nuclear war against each other?

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:06:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  General Odem met with a small group of us (4.00)
        on Tuesday.

        When asked what he thought of Iran Getting nukes his answer was Basically, "So what,the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time already".

        by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:11:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think It's a Very Serious Problem (none)
          But I don't think about it as simplisticly and in the manichean terms of Joementum.  It's not either they openly and transparently reject nukes or we go to war.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:20:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Iran wants Nukes b/c of the Axis of Evil (4.00)
            speech, and our seemingly off-kilter invasion of Iraq. In the absence of these two occurences, Iran wouldn't be pushing the envelope.

            But the reality is that the possession of nuclear weapons guarantees that America won't go the path of pre-emptive war.

            Every action has its own consequences. The rest of the world does not see our "freeing" of Iraq via the same rose-tinted glasses of the GOP. (and Neo-Con Joe.)

              •  no doubt joe wants a mcain/mentun 08 ticket (none)
                whatta an unbelievable shill -- dude is a damaging freeper -- wackohawks exacerbate a very dangerous situation.

                Time to get the hell outta dodge! Bring em home! NOW!

              •  Joe's buddies (none)
                include The Hon. George P. Shultz
                Secretary of the Treasury, 1972-74
                Chairman, Economic Policy Advisory Board, 1981-82
                Secretary of State, 1982-89

                Add buddies with the Carlyle Group, too.

                I wonder how some of these rich guys live so long. Shultz, besides being the center of the Bechtel Co., is on the board of Gilead, where Donald Rumsfeld was chairman of the board before going to DOD. Both of these guys have big, big holdings in Gilead, the company that owns the rights to the manufacture of Tamiflu, one of the drugs expected to be effective against avian flu, if it ever hits. Don't worry, they're trying. And of course, Bechtel and Halliburton get contracts hand in hand with the Carlyle thieves. Every time some government official gets indicted and mostly doesn't serve any time, one of these companies reaches out, draws him in, and protects him until he can be released upon the public again, like John Poindexter or Ollie North.

                And we all know that Joe Lieberman and Lynne Cheney are such close buddies that they formed a right-wing fund raising organization together. Work on that CT primary, folks. Support Ned Lamont!

                "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:41:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong (none)
              Iran's nuclear activities long predate the Bush Administration.  The recent flurry of Iranian nuclear activity was made possible by the nuclear black market being run by AQ Khan from Pakistan.
              •  I wonder if Iran already has nukes (none)
                smuggled from Pakistan....
                •  Now that's a nice thought n/t (none)
                •  it is still extremely difficult (4.00)
                  to smuggle nuclear weapons and nuclear material. the stuff is essentially impossible to acquire, harder to manufacture, deadly to handle and easily detected. that's why iran and other countries still pursuing the technology are most interested in building their own.

                  these reasons also make it extremely unlikely that iraq could have transferred any of its nonexistent nukes out of the country before the invasion, especially with the world's spotlight focused brightly on its tiniest moves.

                  the nuclear black market consists primarily of training, technical plans and parts, especially the difficult-to-manufacture centrifuges, difficult because of the exact tolerances these components must conform to.

                  see A.Q. Khan Nuclear Chronology for details on pakistan's underground nuclear technology network.

              •  So Pakistan wants its neighbors to have (none)

                Doubtful. This is a case of the weak working together against the most powerful.

                Nations are uniting against the common enemy, which, sadly, under Bush has become America.

                •  Time for you to read up (none)

                  Following Iran's disclosure of uranium enrichment research and subsequent inspections, the central role of Pakistan in Iran's nuclear programme was unearthed. This was compounded by Iran turning over to the IAEA a complete history of its nuclear program including a listing of middlemen and scientists linked to Pakistan and A.Q. Khan.

                  Evidence uncovered by inspectors showed that Pakistan and Iran agreed around 1987 to a deal whereby a Pakistani centrifuge design was provided to Iran to resolve the latter's previous unsuccessful attempts to master uranium enrichment technology. The transfer of nuclear technology began in 1989, though Khan is said to have claimed to have discontinued the sale two years later. The IAEA, though, reportedly has evidence that Pakistani assistance continued as late as 1996. At that time, the countries' differing policies in dealing with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan soured their relations, though it has been claimed the Pakistanin assistance continued nonetheless.

                  According to confessions by A.Q. Khan and aides of his to Pakistani invesitgators reportedly implicated among others, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, the commander of Pakistan's army from 1988-1991, and that any nuclear technology shared with Iran had been approved by him. These charges were denied by him. Pakistani did discover evidence that Beg had been informed by Khan of the transfer to Iran in early 1991 of outdated hardware, though it has been claimed that A.Q. Khan had led him to believe that the material would not allow Iran to prdocuede enriched uranium. Conflicting this assertion is Kahn who is said to have admitted that Gen. Beg had approved the technology transfer.

                  A.Q. Khan has claimed that equipment and drawing shipped to Iran were supplied as a result of pressure from the late Gen. Imtiaz during his tenure as defense advisor to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from December 1988 to August 1990 . Khan has also admitted to meeting Iranian scientists in Karachi at the request of Dr. Niazi, a close Bhutto aide. In return for the help, Iran transferred millions of dollars to foreign bank accounts, with some money funnelled through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. That bank collapsed in 1991.

                  Some of the centrifuges examined also appeared to have been used outside Iran to enrich uranium, while components of some centrifuges appeared to have come directly from Pakistan. Though some of the machines Iran had bought did not work properly, Iran reportedly still managed to effect significant improvements on Pakistani equipment designs. Despite the design similarities, Iran has nonetheless denied having received them from Pakistan.

                  Faced with disclosure, Khan reportedly contacted Iranian officials to not only urge them to destroy some of their facilities but also to pretend that the Pakistanis who had assisted them had died.

                  In early March 2005, Pakistan acknowledged A. Q. Khan had provided centrifuges to Iran, though it denied having had any knowledge of the transactions.

                •  America (none)
                  has been their "enemy" long before Bush got the White House. Has he done a good job trying to reach out to these countries? No.

                  But, Bush isnt responsible for why they hate us. This has been building for years. We cant lay all the blame on one administration rather it be Republican or Democrat.

                •  A.Q. Khan (none)
                  If you doubt that Pakistan was providing nuclear technology to Iran, please read the article "The Point of No Return" by William Langewiesche in this month's The Atlantic.
              •  So, let's just (4.00)
                bomb the hell out of Iran and be done with it!?.....Gee, that'll stop their nuclear program in its tracks forever and engender a whole generation of Muslims to the U.S. Yup, we're really getting the hang of stopping suicide bombers.

                Lieberman lost it after 9/11 in his blind fury to back up Bush on Iraq....

                Lieberman looks like he's gonna jump the fence anyway.

                •  No one's saying that.... (none)
                  Military action doesn't always mean war....

                  Obviously, Lieberman & McCain were talking about as a last resort, something like a surgical air strike on a facility.

                  If they wen't ahead enriching uranium,  it would be senseless to just sit around and wait until five years from now when they actually would have a bomb.

                  So if dimplomacy doesn't work, yeah it would make sense to take out those centrifuges in another year or two.


                  •  Come again (none)
                    You say:

                    "Military action does not mean war"

                    I think bombing them to New Dehli and back is war....

                    And come on, Bushco is going to negotiate first.  When have those rigid ideologues ever negotiated anything?

                      W is just waiting to pull the trigger one more time--but not until after the elections and a few U.N. resolutions under his belt and no meaningful attempts to persuade Iran through other means.  Bombs away!!

                    •  Come again? (2.33)
                      "bombing them to New Dehli and back"

                      "And come on, Bushco is going to negotiate first."

                      Who said anything about Bushco?  

                      This thread is about Lieberman supporting "regime change" in Iran; a sensible position.

                      I wouldn't trust Bushco as far as I can throw a stick.  But if Bush tries to do something stupid, it will be Democrats like Lieberman who actually have some credibility on the issue, not weak leftists who are opposed to regime change, or the policies Lieberman actually supports towards that end, such as sanctions, or holding the current leadership of Iran accountable for torture and human rights violations.

                      •  Just so you realise (4.00)
                        what you're actually saying. And i know with the 24/7 LIES spread from the washington elite these days its hard to break out of the spin.

                        "Regime change" means War on a sovereign nation. You're talking about declaring war on Iran. And yes... people do consider it an act of war when you bomb their nation, kill their people, and attempt to eliminate their leaders. Just think of what you want to do to Iran and switch the words "American" with "Iranian".

                        Lieberman is a quisling traitor. ABout time the party started waking up to that.

                        Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                        by cdreid on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:31:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And you are saying.... (4.00)
                          we should do nothing even when there is a threat?

                          I'm saying sanctions, bring human rights violations to the UN, and surgical missle strikes against uranium enrichment plants only if they're in danger of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, which could take about three years.

                          I'm saying there is no threat now; but do I want to see action if there actually is a threat?  You bet.

                          And you can't wait until they have, say 80% of the fuel they need.  It could take them a year just to configure their cetrifuges for highly enriched uranium.  But if they go ahead and do that, and start producing the stuff, and nothing else works, yeah in a year and a half or two years it might make sense to take that plant out.

                          Note that "regime change" has only been brought up in regard to Lieberman's support for economic sanctions.  He nowhere suggested military action in relation to regime change.  In the linked article, he merely agrees with McCain that "every option should be on the table" if needed to prevent a nuclear Iran.

                          It's funny how a Democrat who believes in defending America when there is an actual threat is the "traitor".

                          •  There is no "actual threat" (none)
                            Iran hasn't attacked us or even threatened us.  It doesn't have nuclear weapons, and will not for years.  

                            No sane person could see this as an "actual threat" that could justify an American attack on Iran.  We would see that reflected immediately in international opinion polls following a US attack. As if our standing wasn't low enough due to the invasion of Iraq.

                            This path of "war, war, war" will simply destroy our country.  

                          •  Posted too quickly (none)
                            I see that you don't yet consider there to be an "actual threat". But there is no reason to believe that even a nuclear armed Iran would pose an "actual threat" to the US. Why?
                          •  We've already attacked a sovereign country (none)
                            on a "gathering threat" in W's own words.

                            Our stated foreign policy is Preemtive War is Justified even if the inteligence we base the war on is Wrong and totally false.

                            Joe Lieberman Backs this policy 110%.

                            Any Guestions?


                            by ctkeith on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:30:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Iran hasn't attacked us (none)
                            I guess you say that because history begins for you when you were born.

                            Iran took american hostages and tortured and killed the cia chief of station there in '79, killed 238 marines in lebanon, and proclaim they want to wipe Israel off the map... which, of course would start WWIII, IV and V, and therefore dragging the planet into a sea of blood.

                            Naa, they don't do nothin to us folks here...

                          •  Uhh (none)
                            I guess you say that because history begins for you when you were born.

                            Methinks you should perhaps heal thyself, physician of history.

                            Google "Shah of Iran". Then go to and look up the words "tyrant" "torture" "dictator" "puppet". Then read a little recent history about who put the Shah in power. A hint for you. He has an evil twin who is held by US forces and is being "tried" for the crimes he committed.

                            Thats right joebob. We, as usual, sewed the seeds of our own anguish. Evil begets evil. And you want to sew yet another seed...

                            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                            by cdreid on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:23:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  as usual... (none)
                            those unable to argue their point resort to deflecting the other's argument -- notice you refute none of my facts -- and then throwing out ad hominem attacks  -- joebob -- in order to hide their inability to respond with intelligence, logic or facts.

                            BTW... what the devil is, "Evil begets evil" supposed to mean? Are you somehow inferring as to your own evil, or to your government's evil -- which in a representative government is the same thing -- when you make reference to evil?  Do you even vote?

                            "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities."

                            Bill Clinton, May 5, 1995.

                          •  HEH (none)
                            You quote Clinton? Heh the Democrats first Republican nominee. Nice job.

                            Evil Begets Evil seems pretty simple joebob. YOu install dictators, fund terrorists, fund death squads eventually it comes back to bite you. As far as representing me you can go to hell. This government doesnt represent me and i bear no responsibility for its immoral actions.

                            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                            by cdreid on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 06:11:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I said... (none)
                   order to hide their inability to respond with intelligence, logic or facts.

                            "YOu install dictators, fund terrorists, fund death squads eventually it comes back to bite you."

                            Dude, you are like, so brilliant! [install?] [death squads?] Reading too many comic books? And, like, uh, who's the 'you' you're referring to? Is it the Democrats or RepublicansIs or the religious right with the vast-right-wing-conspiracy military-industrial-complex, or the evil corporations, or what?

                            And by the way... do you have your secret decoder ring and foil hat ready? 'Cause you never know when 'They' might be wire-tapping to you.

                            BTW: if "This government doesnt represent me and i bear no responsibility for its immoral actions," you should try voting... you might feel less pissed off.

                          •  Umm (none)
                            It might not fit your fantasy reality but yes the US does and has funded death squads. Particularly in south america but elsewhere as well. We've funded terrorism and.. guess what.. we still support it. One noteable place is in Iraq where we allow anti-iranian terrorist groups to operate. We have actively supported dozens of dictatorial regimes, overthrown democracies and , heres a shocker for ya, used US power to destroy American citizens groups. Look up "Puerto rico" sometime.

                            As far as the "dewd" speak etc. I'm a 41 year old male who's voted Democrat all his life.

                            You should perhaps try living in reality.. or maybe reading a newspaper other than the WSJ or watching something on tv besides Fox and springer. Education will set you free.

                            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                            by cdreid on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:16:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nonsense (none)
                            Your criteria justifying regime change (read: invasion/assasination/US-sponsored coup, or any other strategy that has served the US ever so poorly in the past) would appear to apply to a fairly large number of states. North Korea certainly fits the bill; Pakistan is one bullet away from rogue state status, and large segments of the Indian political establishment aren't exacly crazy about the US, either. I also suspect that one or more of the 'stans of the former USSR have nuclear ambitions, if not existing capabilities, and no political structure that can exercise restraint on development, deployment, or proliferation (unlike Iran). Just where do you intend to draw the line? How many nations would you have US troops invade in order to provide for US "security"?

                            It seems to me that the ongoing debacle that is Iraq would be more than sufficient evidence that the "regime change" option so readily advanced by chickenhawk armchair generals is not only counterproductive, it's reckless, expensive, and, frankly, immoral.  Be sure that you or your children are prepared to die in the effort before you so blithely recommend the policy.

                          •  agreed (none)
                            Couldnt say it better myself!

                            Lieberman is off his rocker cause he wants to defend this country. That is strange thinking if you ask me.

                            I actually like Lieberman, do I always agree with him. Ofcourse not. What I find disturbing is the fact that alot of us have turned on him in recent weeks. If he agrees with the Bush administration on anything he is suddenly a "traitor" What happened to standing for your country first and then your political affiliation second?

                            To many people on both sides would die for their party instead of their country.

                          •  Its not recent weeks (none)
                            Check my user number. Since the day i came to KOS a majority of us Kossacks have been disgusted with this traitor.

                            And.. defending our country? How by launching attacks on a third world nation (whos current tyranny WE created by creating its predecessor).
                            What about North Korea, Pakistan, India, various and sundry ex-soviet nations, Libya, Syria etc etc etc.
                            Or is it that you actually wholeheartedly approve of the PNAC Empire dream?

                            It makes one wonder if you faux-dems are actually so gullible as to swallow the same lies twice. Or if you're intentionally broadcasting the Deciets of the Neocon traitors.

                            How about we go after BIN LADIN. How about we euthanise him and every single one of his armed followers instead of playing empire games.

                            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                            by cdreid on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:16:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually (none)
                            I have been reading kos for a long time from work, couldnt register so I couldnt respond. I finally got me a computer for home and now can be a member of dailykos. I am no neocon for sure.

                            But, the first time I remember anyone from kos attack Lieberman is when he came back from Iraq and said things were going good there.

                            Thats only been a few weeks ago, maybe two months at the most.

                            If i am wrong, I apologize.

                          •  Nothing to apologise for (none)
                            I'm wrong or misinformed more often than id like to admit as well.

                            Lieberman and company have always been despised by Kossacks in my experience. The "sellout" wing of the party. Though more the corporatists than simply the quislings.

                            Lieberman is changing sides. If you're a fan id suggest.. well.. not getting your hopes up. The ol whack job has gone to the dark side. Im thinking the makeout session with bush was the clincher.

                            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                            by cdreid on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:28:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  totally agree (none)
                            I like him too. But hey, dare he disagree... whoa... send in the little red guards to burn him down.
                      •  Less of the weak leftist frame (4.00)
                        If you don't mind.

                        Regime change anywhere should be none of our business. It is attempted regime changes that has caused the US to become reviled - it is not a 'sensible position' at least from this  leftist, weak or otherwise, POV.

                        'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

                        by stevej on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:41:38 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Lieberman lost it way before 9/11 (none)
                  Sorry, but Lieberman joined forces with the right in 1995 and has not swerved left since then. He never should have been Gore's running mate. He should have been run out of town.

                  Cheney's contribution to academic freedom came in the form of a scandalous report issued by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a Washington DC-based group she co-founded in 1995 -- with Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman -- as the National Alumni Forum. The publication slammed faculty on college campuses for being "the weak link in America's response to the attack" of September 11.

                  Full story here. The Cheney referred to in the block quote is Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne.

                  Here's a Google cache on the right-wing sources of funding for the National Alumni Forum.
                  Lieberman is not a Democrat; he's just posing as one.

                  SUPPORT NED LAMONT

                  "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                  by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:21:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your information is not entirely true (2.20)
                    Before you lambast the man, you should hear his response to the ATCA in which he uncategorically denies any association with this report and he wants any references to him as a co-Founder of ATCA to be stricken anywhere and everywhere.  I cannot imagine a clearer repudiation of this organization.


                    December 18, 2001

                    I am writing in regards to the Council's recent report, Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.

                    In the past, the Council has often sent me advanced copies of its publications before they have been released and asked for my support. In this case, though, I was never given the opportunity to review the Defending Civilization report before it was made public. I first learned of it through a call to my office from a reporter in Connecticut about a controversy the report had stirred at Wesleyan University.

                    If I had been given an advanced copy, I would have objected to its content and methodology and asked you either to revise it or make clear that I had no involvement with it. But because that did not happen, and because I have been incorrectly listed on your website as a co-founder of the Council, a number of news accounts and commentaries have associated me with the report and incorrectly asserted or implied that I endorse it.

                    This letter is meant to set the record straight about my disapproval of this report, which I consider unfair and inconsistent for an organization devoted to promoting academic freedom. To avoid any future confusion, I would ask you to remove any reference to me as a "co-founder" of ACTA from your website or other Council documents. And I would ask that you note in any future public statements that I do not support this specific report. Thank you.

                    Joe Lieberman

                    •  Well, if that is correct, (none)
                      then I won't keep posting this source. However, ACTA has had from December 18, 2001, when Lieberman wrote this letter, to remove his name from their website, yet his name is still there today, along with Lynne Cheney's name, on this page listing the founders:

                      They must still have him on their mailing list, even though he missed seeing that scandalous report with his name associated with it. So, he's still getting mail from ACTA, and he hasn't seen fit to do anything about it. And the people who put up that report on their website took their information straight from an article in the San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, CA. I looked for any retraction by the newspaper, but I couldn't find one (that does not mean one did not exist, just that I couldn't find one).

                      It is interesting that you, GoVote, just happened to have that letter lying about. Do you work for Lieberman, or are you just a dedicated fan who loves to keep five-year-old records? If you are getting paid by him, perhaps you should carefully examine where ACTA's money comes from and goes. This Google cache lists mostly very right-wing organizations as recipients of large donations from ACTA. Just so you know.

                      At any rate, one would think that Lieberman might have been more successful, after five years, in getting his name removed from a website that he absolutely doesn't want to be associated with. If he doesn't have any more power than that, then I think I will just

                      SUPPORT NED LAMONT IN CT

                      "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                      by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:36:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The source is correct (none)
                        It is interesting that you, GoVote, just happened to have that letter lying about.

                        Google is your friend.  Plus I remember this.

                        It is also true that ACTA still lists him - he continues to be furious about this. ACTA did not start out as a right-wing organization (Saul Bellow was one of its founders) but then turned right-wing.

              •  Yeah but (none)
                They've sumbmitted to inspections since 1992.  They got centrifuges and apparently plans for a weapon; but they would need about three years without inspections at this point with the small number of centrifuges they have to get enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon.

                They've had some of this stuff for awhile, but haven't been able to actively try and enrich uranium for a bomb.

              •  agreed (none)
                Anyone that thinks Iran started their nuclear program "after" Bush's axis of evil speech is wrong. Iran was doing this before that time.

                Just someone else that wants to blame Bush for everything. I'm not defending Bush here but we cant blame him for all the worlds wrongs.

                •  The Lieberman quote (none)
                  I dont really see how anyone is getting that Joe wants to go to war with Iran from the quote listed above.

                  Saying ALL options are on the table doesnt mean he is in "favor" of war. I think everyone is hoping that this is settled without war.

                  Will the world be better without Iran having Nuclear weapons? Ofcourse.

            •  You simple explanation . . . (none)

               . . . is most likely the correct one, or as near to it as any 30-page explication in "Foreign Affairs" or 200-page dissertation.

               Think we're going to invade North Korea any time soon?  No, of course not.  Why, I mean it was much more of a real nuke threat than Iraq, right!?  Well, yes -- but invading North Korea (so the White House "thinking" went) would've definitely unleashed more shit than not invading North Korea, including the demolition of Seoul, possible war with China, and so on; oh, and North Korea might have actually detenated a nuke or two.  So, we didn't invade that much more dangerous country.

               Iran wants to be North Korea -- of course only in the sense that it wants to be viewed as a country "too dangerous to invade."

               Oh, and one more thing about the reason for invading Iraq:  Bush's personal, spoiled brat desire to "lick" Saddam and show Poppy Bush that he, Junior, is a tough guy.  And impress mommy.


              We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

              by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:49:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  AIPAC owns him (4.00)
            Along with CT's defense industry, and of course BushCo. Basically, anything that Israel's far-right, US neocons, and the folks at UT and EBC want, he tries his best to deliver. He's a classic machine politician, doing his owners' bidding. He clearly has little in common with the Democratic party at this point--at least not its resurgent progressive wing--and anything he says or does just hurts us at this point.

            It still shocks me to think that he actually ran with Gore in 2000. Makes me almost wonder if he wasn't Bush's "man on the inside" to make sure that Gore wouldn't win. His falling out with Gore after the "loss" and cheek-kissing coziness with Bush certainly didn't speak well of where his loyalties lied. The man is a serious liability to the party and needs to be replaced.

            I sincerely hope that Iran doesn't turn into BushCo's opportunity to reassert its foreign policy "strength" by giving it the opportunity to strut like the chickenhawks that they are yet again. This is not a situation that as yet calls for or can benefit from military action. It might someday come to that, but we're nowhere near there yet, and military action right now will only lead down another dark path for us and the region, and the rest of the world.

            Simpleminded people with simpleminded solutions to achieve simpleminded goals, and proven to be so by glaring failure after glaring failure. Is it not blindingly clear that these people simply cannot be trusted to run things by now? Where are the "adults" for gods sakes? Any Democrat or even Republican who doesn't take a stand against their idiocy and arrogance is not fit for office, IMHO. This is way beyond partisan politics.

            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

            by kovie on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:00:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  iran is quite different (none)
        the difference between iran and those countries isn't just that iran doesn't have nukes.  It's also that Iran has an insane leader.  Insane leaders, possibly insane enough to get himself killed in the name of muhammad, don't do well with nukes.
        •  Ahmadeniajad Isn't the Leader... (none)
 terms of the military, intel or diplomacy.  That's Khamanei.  Distasteful, repugnant, a religious dictator, all of that and more.  But unlike the mostly figurehead president (who is crackers), he's not insane.  And he's in charge of the nuke stuff.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:23:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you know (none)
            Precisely how can you be so confident that Iranian decision making regarding nuclear issues is rational.
            •  Let's See.... (4.00)
              America has thrown us into the axis of evil, along with Saddam Hussein and North Korea.

              But if we had nuclear weapons, America would never dare carry through on their threats, for fear that we might lob one at Isreal.

              That's irrational? What is irrational is the idea that we can bully sovereign countries into doint what we want....

            •  We do know that our fear has proved irrational (none)
              Let's not let the administration turn us into a bunch of paranoid, trigger-happy wackos. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and claims it does not plan to develop any. Did we learn anything from Iraq and the imaginary WMD?
              •  but (none)
                the invasion was always their plan.  PNAC.  Done deal.

                "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                by lilyvaldem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:52:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Iran (4.00)
                  whatever they did or said, was always in their sites.  Always, and they said so in the PNAC...I can't be the one with the long memory...then Syria...then the world, it for yourself.

                  "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                  by lilyvaldem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:55:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Gawd... (2.00)
                Iran does not have nuclear weapons and claims it does not plan to develop any.

                Well OK then! We can just take their word for it then.  It's not like anyone has ever, you know, lied or anything about this sort of thing.  Why I'm sure all those black market centrifuges that showed up in Iran had a perfectly good explanation behind them.  This is all just a terrible misunderstanding.

                How unfair it is that the public still trusts Republicans more than Democrats on national security, despite all the epic screw-ups in the last five years.  If only the public knew that the answer to our security challenges is just staring us in the face.  We should just TRUST our enemies!  Brilliant!

                I think you're on to a real winner there!

                •  We do (none)
                  but they don't.  And it will take them at least ten years to get it right.  Wow.  

                  "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                  by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:12:20 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and Cheney (none)
                    said that he wanted them under OUR thumb, next after Iraq.  How better to play into his plan than THIS HYSTERIA...shheesh...get a tissue...and grow up.  This is the plan, it was said and now, OMG, they are doing it.  How surprising.

                    "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                    by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:24:34 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm...... (4.00)
                  Well I can tell by your sarcasm that you have some strong feelings on the subject!

                  Seems, to my way of thinking, that nuclear secrets are about the worst kept of secrets. You start with a country like America, droping a couple of nukes on women and children in Japan, twice.....and the next thing you know Pakistan is supplying Iran and god knows who with centrifuges that they either got from us directly, or got from someone who got them from us. When it comes to nuclear supplies, there is much less than 6 degrees of seperation!....I mean right now, we are circumventing the non-proliferation treaty and up-grading India's nukes.....look it up.
                  So there's another epic screw-up for ya!

                  I notice that you say: " We should just TRUST our enemies!  Brilliant!"

                  By that I guessing you've already decided Iran is the enemy?......when the Twin Towers came down there were 1 million Iranians in the streets of Tehran with candles........I saw the video......they must have been planning something, being he Axis of evil and all.

                  You know,Iran had an elected Prime Minister in 1953, Mossadegh, who was ousted in a CIA coup. We installed the Shaw of Iran, who for twenty years tortured and killed his own people (much like Sadaam) with his CIA trained police the Savak....this is an open secret. Lots of documentation. Finally in 1979 the students revolted and the Shaw fled and the students brought the Ayatollahs into power- the ones running the country today.......

                  So they kinda don't like us......and I for one, kinda don't blame them......

                  Iran has never attacked anyone....they were attacked by Sadaam in the 1980s and we supplied both sides arms, because we give a shit.

                  Iran wants Israel gone...well that is blasphemy of the highest order and so, they must be pronounced an Axis and , what nuked?

                  I don't want Iran to have a nuke......I don't want Isarel to have a nuke- but she has 150 of them and I don't hear a word about that---and never will.

                  Hell, I don't want any nukes.......

                  Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

                  by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:39:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah... (none)
                    But you can't put the genie back in the bottle and you can't recan those sardines, either.

                    Wishing nukes away is a lovely sentiment, but that won't make it so. If America got rid of them tomorrow, other countries would still have them, or want to have them, because having atomic or thermonuclear weapons means you've made it as a country. Israel having the bomb, or two hundred bombs, is not too surprising, really. It gives them respect throughout the world- especially the more vicious segments of the Muslim world, which often want Israel's destruction but now face the ultimate price if they try it. Pakistan got it because it balances India (which invaded Bangladesh- formerly East Pakistan- and threatened them directly). They're not going to nuke Israel.

                    Nukes are weapons of deterrence, not of use. The first two bombs that fell effectively scared off anyone seriously thinking of using them.

                    We killed lots of uniformed soldiers on the streets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with those bombs, too. The bomb that fell on Nagasaki took out a Mitsubishi weapons plant.

                    And I fail to see the difference between the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those of Dresden (are firebombs more moral or ethical as a killing device?) or for that matter Nanking (are swords, guns, and rape chairs more moral or ethical?). Each killed seventy thousand people or more. Nanking was done by the Japanese.

                    I'm not a big fan of the Iranian government, unlike some of the people on this web. Just because they cock a snook at America, doesn't make them cool in my eyes. They treat women like shit, muzzle their own press, and have shown an amazing reactivity to anything remotely approaching the outside world. (As an Iranian acquaintance of mine said, "The Shah took us back 50 years. But Khomeini took us back a thousand.")

                    No, we shouldn't trust them, or anyone like them. (That would include Saudi Arabia, and certain key members of my own government, BTW.) But we aren't the only bad guys here. And nukes aren't the only bogeyman we face from Iran.

                    I'd try to let diplomacy take a long course here. But if they really want their nukes, let them try to eat every one they make. And if they so badly desire martyrdom... well, they should lose count of all of them. Israel will probably retaliate, anyway, as it will probably be Iran's first target. There are children and women in Israel too...

                •  You know I heard (none)
                  That Saddam acquired some tubing of some sort that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Of course he said he didn't have nuclear weapons, but people have in fact lied during the recorded history of civillization so I'm glad we went right in there.

                  "Illum ipsum consulatum suum non sine causa sed sine fine laudabat." -Seneca the Younger

                  by BennyAbelard on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:00:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  This may come as a shock (none)
                  But Saddam claimed not to have any WMD either. And guess what? He was right. We have no reason not to take the Iranians word at face value until they give us one. We know that North Korea has nuclear weapons, yet we keep dancing around the issue, saying it's likely that they have nuclear weapons. But we stop short of saying that they have weapons. Why the duplicity? Is it because we are not willing to use military force in Korea just yet?

                  The Republicans are guilty of promoting a false sense of national security. They are fond of pointing out that we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and that somehow this is directly related to our actions in Iraq and illegal domestic spying. Yet Britain and Spain, both allies in the war on Iraq, were attacked. Our transportation systems are still just as susceptible to terrorist attacks as ever, just as Spain and Britain's are. The 911 Commission report card in December gave abyssmal grades to the government for transportation security measures. We have been lucky and that is all. The administration's approach of whistling in the dark has accomplished very little in the way of making us safer. Tough talk is always easier than real measures.

                  We should not trust our enemies, but we should know who they are and focus on neutralizing them. We identified al-Quaeda and Osama bin Laden as our enemy following 9/11. Yet we allowed the Republicans to lure us into believing that Iraq was a threat and our main enemy. Ironically, Iraq was a buffer against Iran's ambitions in the area. Now we are on the verge of allowing this administration to once again draw attention from its failures by creating a new enemy where none exists.  

              •  The ISIS report (none)
                Seems to suggest otherwise. See the comment 'What's the Hurry' in the Science diary. In a nutshell, Iran has about 700 uranium enrichment centrifuges online and they'll need about a 1,000 more to get a nuke on the table. At the rate they're going, they could be there in a year. Realistically, two years.

                A conventional reactor program doesn't require weapon's grade uranium, and they aren't hurting for energy supplies to the extent that justifies a breeder reactor program. No matter how you shake it, Iran is either looking to build nuclear weapons, or get to Israel's level of "assumed armed."

                Remember the Iran-Iraq conflict back in the mid-'80s? Imagine if one of them had had nukes to lob at the other. I think they would have done it. Plenty of reasons to work for a nuclear-free mideast that don't posit us as the victim.

                In any event, we have something like 18 months on the safe side to get this under control diplomatically. Failing that, airstrikes may be necessary to curtail Iran's development facilities.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                by The Raven on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:50:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Did we learn anything? (none)
                Apparently not. If you just keep putting out the same damned propaganda, even some in dkos will start buying it. Bush uses propaganda, spying, and bullying as governmental skills. He does not use diplomacy. He has not talked with Iranian leaders. He wouldn't talk with Korea, either. I don't recall that he talked with Saddam Hussein before starting to bomb and kill innocent civilians. He issued an ultimatum that many thought was a bluff, and then he started killing. There could have been no talking with Al Qaeda, so invading Afghanistan was necessary, but he should have caught bin Laden when he had the chance. And I simply don't believe that he couldn't have caught him.

                 If he invades Iran, we will be in WWIII. And it will come to our shores this time. Maybe it will take Lieberman down before it hits you and me. In the meantime, I doubt that any of us has a clue about what is going on in Iran, because Bush owns the propaganda machine.

                SUPPORT NED LAMONT IN CT

                "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:03:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  but (none)
          according to the CIA (who usually exagerate) it will be at least 10 years before Iran could have nukes, so it doesnt really matter who their leaders are now.
          Oh and we have totally insane leaders and nukes, and even our great warmongering nation hasnt nuked anyone recently although we do remain the only country to ever evaporate civilians by actually using nukes.
        •  how is Iran now different from Pakistan... (4.00)
          ..after Pakistan's leadership changes? A war on Iran could easily radicalize Pakistan. And Pakistan has the bomb.

          I don't see a war against Iran helping us. I don't think we can afford to do it, in terms of military capabilities (we are already in Afghanistan and Iraq), expense, and risk.

          I just don't see the reasons for it. Iran doesn't have WMD, and even if it did have WMD, would not have the incentive to use WMD against us unless we did something awful, like invade them.

          Such a war would be unnecessary, risky, unaffordable. Bush is trying to sell us another lemon.

          "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

          by QuickSilver on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:29:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Um (none)
          It's also that Iran has an insane leader

          I can think of another nuclear power that fits that qualification....

          Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

          by cdreid on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:33:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Boose (none)
          I agree with that statement 100%! Iran isnt just another counrty on the verge of having Nukes. The guy is a nut.

          I dont always agree with war, but if war is necessary this will be one of those times.

          Get rid of Iran's nukes before he can use them on the U.S. or some other country.

          We all know that those of us that are saying NOT to attack Iran will be the same ones that complains that Bush didnt do enough if the U.S. or some other country is attacked with a Nuke from Iran.

        •  There you go again. (none)
          You would have loved living under Reagan, boose. I guess you are enjoying living under BushCo now.

          Hey, everybody, this guy is a troll. He was around here, yesterday, spreading this propaganda. Go away troll, we know who you are.

          "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

          by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:16:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ahmadinejad is not insane (none)
          He is making a calculated attempt at deterrence.  He WANTS you to think he is unpredictable so you will think twice about attacking his nation; you never know what he might do (scary scary boo!).  Think Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon.

          Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.--Thomas Paine

          by peterborocanuck on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:58:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  well (none)
        iran is hardly comparable to france, uk, israel, and india.

        it is most comparable to pakistan. pakistan's nukes do prevent war with india, true, and this works to the well being of the world (unless, god forbid, either side does use them. and, at least for the time being, pakistan is an ally of the us.  

        however, i fail to see what beneficial consequence could result from iran getting the bomb. the negative consequences, on the other hand, are legion, beginning with the current president's contemptible declarations re: israel.

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

        by The Exalted on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:43:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the best thing we could do is to (4.00)
          negotiate with Iran, and enter into a mutual assistance pact, whereby we guaranteed the Iranian state, according to their terms.

          People should remember that we backed Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Also, we were responsible for the repressive regime of the former Shah.

          Persians don't trust Arabs. Our greatest influence is by supporting the Iranian state, and using subtle pressue to influence them, in the same manner we are doing business with the Chinese.

        •  We survived the Cold War (none)
          by the policy of mutual total annihilation. Now we may be spooked that the other side has people willing to blow themselves up. But we have never seen an al-Quaeda leader wire themselves up to a bomb. So I think the policy may still work if it has to.  
          •  attacking the WTC was not rational (none)
            on the part of the taliban -- their little terror/sharia state was taken away

            so not sure how effective MAD is in this context

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:48:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Liebermann does not think (none)
        He has become part of the Stepford Congress. I wonder how he reconciles his condemnation of Clinton with his support of this administration?
        •  I don't know (none)
          who is paying him, but he is not the same person  as when he was on the Gore ticket.  Or did we dodge another, but less deadly, bullet?  I think someone has been paid:  how one could accept enough to be another person is beyond me.  Perhaps the death of one of his children would be enough...two's hard to know how much is needed to turn on your country and it's values.

          "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

          by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:33:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Where is GoVOTE tonight? (3.00)
      He usually answers the call when someone posts an anti-Lieberman piece.

      Every Saturday, there's a new weekly roundup of Michigan politics here on Daily Kos.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:16:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Last I saw (3.40)
        that guy had dozens of hidden comments with very low numbers, so maybe he's just ...gone.

        That can happen if your overall rating is The Suck, can't it?

        "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

        by Kimberly Stone on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:18:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bwwwwaahahhahaaha! (3.40)
          I got a '1' rating on that from GoVote, yet my total is still 4.00.

          Is what I said untrue? Do you not have many, many hidden comments with 0.05 and 0.12 etc. ratings?

          Don't think it's untrue. Anyone can look and see that.

          Thanks for the onesie though! E for effort.

          "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

          by Kimberly Stone on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:46:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A tip of the hat to (3.57)
            Kimberly, ctkeith, and all the rest. A certain troll tried to hijack this subthread and was very free doling out 1 ratings and personally attacking others, as I noticed he/she did the other night. I've never given a 1 in my life before today, but figure turnaround is fair play. And apparently other people were doing the same and when you get enough low ratings -- poof, you are gone. Never seen that in action before.

            I've seen this at union meetings, someone screaming and demanding nonstop attention, evincing a persecution complex before even starting, the uproar game. In that case we had to eject them physically. This worked equally well.

            PS: Lieberman sucks.

      •  The other stooges showed up (3.09)
        If Joe was caught in bed with an 8 yr old boy they'd defend him.

        by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:20:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My thought exactly (2.88)
        I even searched on GoVote because I figured he had to be here somewhere.  Any possibility he works for Lieberman?
      •  The Lieberman Groupies (2.45)
        He and all the Lieberman groupies are probably all taking turns doing disgusting things to their life-sized, inflatable Schmoementum doll.

        "I want a world where the Democrats will put somebody up there worth voting for." --- Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad.

        by asskicking annie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:15:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  the first comment (none)
      sounds like generally friendly sentiment to me

      or, it could be lieberman means that mccain is the most ideal of the republicans to be on a ticket (which i think is true)

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:38:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lieberman, The secret destroyer of america... (none)
      Shot al gore down....

      Helped re elect bush...

      The most evil force in the democratic party against the democractic party...

      A bushbot to the max...

      Kick this democrate out of the party!

      He is no democrat!!!!

      He's a phoney and one of those that is destroying america...

    •  does the DNC have to fund his campaign? (4.00)
      If lieberman is endorsing the other party's presidential candidate does OUR party have to give him even a penny of campaign monies for his re-election?

      I mean WHY  would we be supporting a man who will work against us in the presidential election of 08?

      Joe has made a decision to break with his party....isnt it time his party made the equal decision to break with him?

      of all the incumbant democrats Joe is the one who most as to go....

      "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

      by KnotIookin on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:43:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  • - early and often, eom. (4.00)

    Is Bush the only idiot that cannot handle money? Read #37 for a laugh

    by Wandering Spirit on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:05:18 PM PST

  •  I thought you were off this weekend (none)

    by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:05:53 PM PST

  •  With friends like these... (none)
    You get the picture.

    Is Bush the only idiot that cannot handle money? Read #37 for a laugh

    by Wandering Spirit on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:06:10 PM PST

  •  Can he simply be kicked out of the party? (4.00)
    I mean really, why not? He clearly has become a Republican for all intents and purposes, is there really any reason why he should get the party's backing?
    •  I keep asking this same question (4.00)
      and not getting an answer.

      Why can there not be a referendum among the Committeemembers of the DNC and a resolution passed that we no longer recognize Joe Lieberman as a Democrat? That we won't be giving him Democratic $upport and will not allow him to run as a Democrat in the future?

      Why the hell not? I mean seriously. I'm tired of him giving aid and comfort to Republicans. If he's a man of principle and believes in Democratic issues, he'll vote with us same as when he has in the past. But his dialogue, and his insatiable need to fellate Republicans, is absolutely unacceptable.

      Yes, it gives us one fewer D in the column, but Lieberman can't be counted on for much anyway, so where is the loss?

      "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

      by Kimberly Stone on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:16:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well.... (3.75)
        His voting record actually isn't that bad...

        it's his need to get on tv and diss our party every 5 seconds that REALLY pisses me off and makes me want to vote him out...that and his love for war...

        •  his voting record sucks (4.00)
          on the most important issues and issues where Dem Unity could stop bad things from Happening.

          by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:23:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  prove it (none)

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well.... (none)
            I agree that the issues on which he's crossed over are major and do make us look terrible...

            but as far as the environment goes...and education...reproductive choice...he's pretty good in those areas...for the most part.

            •  AARRRRGGGGG (3.25)
              You can't Rape My Mother and be forgiven if you bring Roses to my sister.


              by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:56:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Where were you two when Lieberman (4.00)
              voted for Alito before voting against him?

              Feinstein and Boxer, Kerry and Kennedy, Durbin and Feingold, Reid and Clinton, Biden and Dodd,--all these Democrats backed Party leadership and the attempted filibuster.

              But not Joe!

              So don't call Lieberman pro-reproductive choice. In fact, CT's NOW chapter came out with this damning press release, "Lieberman has turned his back on women":

              P.S. Every New England politician is good on environmental issues.

              P.S.S. Lieberman is wishy-washy on school vouchers, which would gut public schools.

              •  I didn't say he was perfect. (none)
                And I am very upset about his recent votes...

                Like I said elsewhere...I'm completely in favor of kicking his ass out of office...I fully support Lamont...I'm just saying he could be a lot worse...I mean...he could have Ben Nelson's voting record and bad mouth Dems...while being from CT...that would be worse.

                •  HE WAS (none)
                  the dem vp candidate in 2004!!.   This is a a sorry act for him to even recite.  He's  ridiculous on any count, and his continued support of Bush for this INSANE invasion is inexcusable.

                  "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                  by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:44:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  BREAKING NEWS! (none)
                Lieberman has hot sex-talk with O'Reilly!!!

                Rumor has it that "Beltway Joe" has been spending huge amounts of time with "just call me Billy" O'Reilly on the phone while Billy reads certain passages of his porn novel.

                Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

                by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:49:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Deanfan (none)
                I am democrat but I have no problem with school vouchers. If my kid is attending a failing school I should have a choice to send my kid to a better school.

                I am a poor guy that cant afford Private school tuition so why is it wrong for me and other poor people to have school choice?

                This is one issue that bothers me about most democrats. However, one or two issues dont keep me from voting democrat.

                •  we all (none)
                  Talk about "leveling the playing field" so it seems to me part of the way we can make it more level is getting ALL kids the same quality education. If that means school vouchers so be it.
                •  You must not be the Joe Berry I know. (none)
                  He's a union organizer for public school teachers, and he would give you some pretty strong arguments. You want my tax dollars taken out of the public schools and transferred to a private, religious school, so that you don't have to pay for it? Most private schools are sectarian and therefore tax exempt, and those that aren't are usually for-profit organizations. I can't afford private schools, either, but at least my taxes are paying for equal public education for as many kids as possible. You have school choice; you just don't have my tax dollars. There is a difference. Consider going to the church of your choice and tithing; your church won't have to pay taxes on the money, and you can send your kid to school on the house (the house of worship). You fell for the propaganda, big time. Analyze it. Or did you forget the Constitution, 1st Amendment, separation of church and state? "School choice" sounds great, if you can just get someone else to pay for it. Sorry, but I don't wanna.

                  "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                  by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:18:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not that Joe Berry (none)
                    You make a good point, however I mentioned nothing about using a school voucher for a Christian School. So, I'm lost as to why you bring up seperation of church and state.

                    All private schools are not run by for profit organizations.

                    So, whats wrong with "me" using the tax money that I already pay for my kids to go to school to be used for the school of my choice?
                    It doesnt have to be a private school. For example I live in a poor school district but work in a school district where on average all of the kids are excelling. What is wrong with me sending my kids to school in the district in which I work? Right now they wont allow me to do that.

                    I really dont understand why people are against that. If it improves your kids education so be it.

                    •  I don't know what state you are in, (none)
                      but in the local school districts in California, children are allowed to transfer to a public school of their parents' choice. Years ago, in San Francisco, before Brown v. Board of Education, Lowell High School was an elite college prep school, but that changed in the 1950s. I am sorry you don't have that flexibility where you are. That is entirely fair and should be encouraged, but school vouchers are not needed for such a program.

                      School vouchers take money out of the tax base to support private education. If you took only the amount you now pay in taxes, you would have to make sure it would cover your child's private education costs. Look up the per pupil allocation for your public schools, and you will be able to figure out whether your tax payments alone would cover the switch. I doubt that they would.

                      Some cities have hired for-profit companies to replace the local public school apparatus. Studies have shown these companies to be less successful in educating the students, and they charge more money for their failure.

                      It is a fact that nearly all private schools are connected to a church of some kind. It's their tax-exempt status that allows them to pay for schooling. Private schools such as Waldorf and Montessori charge plenty of tuition to cover their costs precisely because they have no tax exempt status and must be self-supporting. When you hear people pushing for school vouchers, they are not lobbying for tax dollars to pay for Waldorf or Montessori; they are invariably pushing to get tax dollars to pay for religious education. They want their money to be tax-free, and then they want your taxes, too. And, sad to say, a whole lot of them are denying their own children access to good colleges because they teach the Bible, but not science. Stick with public education if you can, but I agree, try to get your kids into a good school in the public system. Push for a waiting list on transferring and see what happens.

                      Home schooling is another possibility, but it takes an incredible amount of unpaid energy and dedication. I hope you will work to elect school board officials who will work for more flexibility in your school districts. You should have choice within the public schools.

                      "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

                      by martyc35 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:23:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Marty (none)
                        Thanks for explaining the school voucher program. When I heard people talking about it, I assumed it was about moving kids from one public school to another. I was wrong on that issue. Thanks again.
                  •  another point (none)
                    Im ok with abortion but many people arent. With your argument about taxes and you not paying  for scool choice, how about the people against government funded abortions. Should they be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars?

                    And you were wrong about Private schools being christian in nature. Most arent. Maybe they are in NY, Boston and the other big cities, but not in small town South Carolina.

      •  Party leaders should have wised up years ago (none)
        In November 2000, during the Florida recount fiasco, Lieberman astonished the Gore campaign by saying on "Meet the Press" that he favored counting all military ballots--whether or not they were cast consistently with state law.

        Every Saturday, there's a new weekly roundup of Michigan politics here on Daily Kos.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:23:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that is gross (none)

          I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

          by The Exalted on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well (none)
          I don't think that the Gore campaign wanted going to fight the counting of military ballots.

          It would have helped them in the count significantly, but it would have been a terrible PR move that would hurt us for years to come.

          So Lieberman's comments aren't surprising to me.

        •  OTOH (none)
          As a military voter, there are both federal laws and state laws for absentee voting. Sometimes servicemembers are only told about the federals laws, and so they don't know about the state ones. Just about every state is different when it comes to absentee voting. I can easily see a scenario where someone doesn't check the right box on the absentee ballot form and, while everything else is on the up and up, it's not "consistent with state law".

          Bear in mind that I am no fan of Lieberman, but having just registered to vote in the primaries I'm familiar with this particular situation.

          Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

          by jabbausaf on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:14:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Can we dump Zell while we're at it? (none)
          Honestly, you have to be a massive fucking heretic to get kicked out of the Dems. Lieberman is beyond Vichy. He's a symp who goes out of his way to kiss Republican ass -- and never more so when they're in trouble.

          Oh, and Zell Miller is a tool of the first degree, too. It's okay to be socially conservative and a Dem, but when you take potshots at your own party while taking speaker's fees from the Dark Side, expect to be pitched out on your ass.

          Hey, we critique each other day in and out -- no biggie. But providing "aid and comfort to the enemy," and even if I don't count my Republican neighbors as the enemy the Republican Rove Machine certainly considers me an enemy, is a whole different story.

          I am so giving money to Lamont.

          "God alone knows how many times our bellies, by the refusal of one single fart, have brought us to the door of an agonising death." -- Montaigne

          by Spaz Cadet on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:26:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We'd lose our minority status (none)
      If we ditch him. :)

      The Republicrime Party is coming for your money and your life.

      by cskendrick on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:11:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  hey joe (none)
      I figure the democratic leadership will deal with the Joe Lieberman situation just like they dealt with the Zell Miller problem. They won't do squat, but maybe Joe will actually challenge Tweety to a duel.

      "The best Maxim I know in this life is, to drink your Coffee when you can..." -Jonathan Swift

      by Coffee Geek on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:52:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  hey joe (none)
      I figure the democratic leadership will deal with the Joe Lieberman situation just like they dealt with the Zell Miller problem. They won't do squat, but maybe Joe will actually challenge Tweety to a duel.

      "The best Maxim I know in this life is, to drink your Coffee when you can..." -Jonathan Swift

      by Coffee Geek on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:52:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  really... (none)'s not the place of the democratic party to "kick out" members.  It's our place to vote them out if we don't want them.

      Honestly I don't want to be like republicans that muscle out members for not following the party line.

      I do agree that Lieberman is a bad democrat and I think he needs to go, but if the party pushed him out he would just become a poor "persecuted victim" and that would be even worse for the party.   A good honest voting out is what is called for here.

      I can't wait til they start making us wear armbands.

      by DawnG on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:23:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not (3.66)
    There's no call for war; it's pretty clear McCain is suggesting military action (which doesn't always mean war) is an absolute last resort, and Lieberman agrees.

    So when McCain later told the gathering of the world's top defense officials that "every option must remain on the table," when dealing with Iran on its nuclear program because "there's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran," Lieberman did not elaborate much.

        "I agree with John," he told the gathering, tossing out his prepared remarks on the Iran issue to spend more time instead lobbying for greater international involvement in Sudan.

    So, frankly it sounds to me like he was more interested in getting world leaders to finally freaking do something about Darfur.  

    And he doesn't endorse McCain, he only hopes he runs:

    And my presidential campaign days are over _ I hope his aren't.

    But, most sane people in America probably hope the Republican nominee is either McCain, or Guilliani, because as we know, they might win.  And the alternatives for the most part are clearly worse.  

    •  Liebermans already called for regime change (none)
      IN IRAN,

      he is ,after all,on the board of this group.

      by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:14:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you're opposed to regime change in Iran? (none)
        Honestly, who doesn't want regime change in Iran?

        And the link you provide certainly doesn't say that groups is recommending military action to accomplish it.  In fact it says this:

        Some of the measures requested are: Sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council; Embargo on oil and ban of any foreign direct investment in Iran; Building a legal case against the Islamic regime's supreme leader and its current president for torture and murder of Iranians and incitation to genocide; Appointment by the U.S. President of a "Point Person" who would speak to Iranians and would dramatize the plight of political prisoners; More energetic and effective assistance to pro-democracy activists in Iran; Sharply increased support for U.S. based pro-democracy Iranian satellite TV stations; Ancillary pressure on Tehran by asking from the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah and to restore the Lebanese sovereignty and freedom.
        •  What did regime change in Iraq get the world (4.00)
          A more unstable middle east and Hamas in power in the Palistinian teritories.

          Joe lieberman and his Neocon Best freinds are no freinds of Israel or the World.

          by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:38:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing wrong with regime change in Iraq.... (none)
            Bill Clinton supported regime change in Iraq.  

            That didn't mean he was dumb enought to invade.

            The Iraqi people supported regime change in Iraq.

            Doesn't mean they supported Bush's war.

            Are you really going to use Iraq to argue "regime change" is never a good idea any time or any place?    If so, I disagree.  In fact I support regime change in the U.S.

            A sensible discussion of Iran ought to recognize that there is no imminent threat.  It would take them at least a couple years, and probably more than 3 to manufacture 1 nuclear warhead.  Moreover, the "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, like Khomeini before him, has ruled that nuclear weapons are immoral.  Not that we should trust him, but it at least isn't a foregone conclusion that they would even try to build one.

            But none of that makes "regime change" in itself a bad policy.

            It should also be noted, that unlike Iraq, Iran does have some fuctional Democratic instituions.  If you can get the unelected clerics to get out of the way of government, and you don't have to build anything from scratch.  It might be possible to accomplish that in time through dimplomacy, and support of existing reform movements.

            Any idiot who, in the current situation, were to vote to give this administration an open ended authorization to use force in Iran, would earn nothing but condemnation from me.  But to equate support for regime change with something like that is the height of sophistry.

          •  To be fair (none)
            Hamas coming into power in Palestine was because of the corruption and incompetence of the Fata party. Bill Clinton himself said as much in an interview I heard yesterday. So have the Palestinians I've heard  speak on the subject, on NPR and elsewhere.

            Not disagreeing that regime change in Iraq didn't work well at all, just saying that Hamas was Fata's fault, not because of Iraq.

            Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

            by jabbausaf on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:17:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Regime change in Iran? (none)
          No way, no how, not again.  I hope this country is not gullible enough to fall for this Lucy-holding-the-football routine one more time.  Last I heard, Iran's government has vast popular support and its people want the bomb as some sort of symbol of prestige.

          So, you knock off the government, then allow for elections, and....the people vote for the deposed regime or someone worse.  Absolute insanity.

          By the way, you have your folks screwed up--I provided no link.      

          •  Ooops (none)
            It was me that screwed up...Sorry. Scratch that last sentence.....
            •  reread (none)
              the PNAC.  You sound like one of them.  Regime change,  your ass.  Oppss, if we have a draft, it might be yours...well, you are the one arguing about it, and not saying that we were misled, misinformed, lied to, and continue to be lied to about nearly everything that has gone on in this administation IN OUR and also your NAME...who the hell are you reading?  Scott Mc?  

              "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

              by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:50:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh (none)
                The "oops" was only with respect to my comment about someone potentially misidentifying what I said in a prior post.  Note I said scratch the LAST SENTENCE, not the whole post.

                I frankly have no idea what you are talking about.  I have provided no link at all in this Diary.  I suspect we actually agree....The communication has broken down at this point with all kinds of namecalling occurring as a result.

                So, I say again, what the hell are you talking about?  

        •  Who doesnt want regime change? (none)
          Well I dont. When are we going to get it????????

          Where do WE have the right to regime change anyone?

          We regime changed Haiti in 2004.
          We regime changed Iraq in 2003.
          We regime changed (for 2 days) Venezuela in 2002.

          Next you'll be saying they hate us for our freedom!

          I say we stay out of the affairs of all sovereign nations in the Middle East until we treat Israel the same as any other- and Saudi Arabia too- 13 of the 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia---I don't hear anyone calling for a regime change there!

          The hypocrisy makes me sick.

          Hypocrisy: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
 - Definition in context

          Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

          by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:01:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What we really need is regime change in the US (none)
            at the moment we're "governed" by a pack of war-mongering criminals who think the solution to everything is violence. You'd think they'd have learnt something from the catastrophe they've caused in Iraq. But no, they're going to bring us to a nuclear world war. Do they really think they can just bomb Iran and China, who is dependent on oil imports from Iran, will just let us do it?
            Anyhow, for Iran, nuclear weapons isn't the main thing at all. It's about their self-respect, they're sick and tired of being told what to do and being interfered with by the big violent bully - US. That's why they will never stand down, even if it does lead to US starting a world war..

            we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

            by Lepanto on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:25:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We are the terrorist state? (none)
            Now there's a winning campaign slogan for the Democrats in 2006.

            We also "regime-changed" Haiti in 1994 - did you oppose that too?  Arguing that we shouldn't oppose any government anywhere in the world, because America Is Always Wrong, is not going to get us very far.  

            And as for Saudi Arabia, if they were to start trying to build nuclear weapons, you can bet alot of people would be calling for regime change.  

            •  You ignore my point. (none)
              Why aren't proponents of the "regime change" doctrine calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia?? 13 of the 19 highjackers came from that not reason enough? Isn't this whole thing about 9/11????...or did I get that wrong?

              BTW, yes I opposed the regime change in Haiti as did the Black Causcus in Congress and as Maxine Waters is currently doing.

              You say:  "Arguing that we shouldn't oppose any government anywhere in the world..." Im not talking about opposing any government, I'm talking about "regime change" which is orders of magnitude beyond opposing.

              The US now has a doctrine of pre-emptive war-call it pre-emptive intervention if you will. If we see a country trying to build what we think are WMD, then because of the moral issues involved, we are obligated to try and stop it- and all options are on the table.....

              So does that same standard apply in reverse?  Can another country, say Germany, come into the sovereign territory of the US and "take out" the BSL-4 bioweapons facility slated for UC Davis or the BSL-3 facility at Lawrence Livermore National Lab?....using the same logic?

              Why, that would be ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Harumpf!...Waffiwomf..absurd!!!!! We are the chosen ones! For god's sake we have god on our side! It's our biblical duty to save the world from itself with our military might and nuclear arsenal- god I hope we never have to use them...again...but we are modernizing the nukes just in hopes we won't.

              Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

              by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:59:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  you are totally right (none)
            here's a speech I've been working on. what do you think?


            My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it.
            President Bush repeatedly lies when commenting on the outcome of opinion polls concerning the Iraq war -- which indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans want the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq -- and continues to defend his policy; claiming the withdrawal of troops would send the "wrong message to the enemy." In one of his recent speeches he ridiculously asserts: "It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground."
            In my response to these lies, I assert that the war in Iraq rages on with no end in sight, while at the same time the Taliban in Afghanistan are now on the rise again. Most of this is ignored by White House press releases, and the news reports received from journalists on the ground in these areas are often very different from what is published by the Administration. The information provided to us by these journalists, as to what is actually taking place on the ground, throws serious doubt on the information the White House is releasing on a daily basis, while a quick read of the humanitarian reports coming out of the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are still extremely troubling.

            Many of us wonder about the sanity of this Administration's methods in Iraq, as they have largely failed to ease the insurgency; even increasing their numbers in some provinces.
            In fact, reports indicate that the ill-omened plan of the Gang of Four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - is suffering defeat on all battlefields; and it is only a matter of time until the magnitude of this tragedy is completely understood by the American people. Anyone not entirely asleep understands by this time that Bush has no plan for peace, security, or anything else in Iraq.
            We all should remember how few were dead when President Bush made his false and ridiculous show-like announcement from an aircraft carrier at the end of the "major combat operations," when we note the large number of the killed and injured who fell in the "minor operations," to follow. Meanwhile, for their own dubious reasons, there still seems to be no desire within the Administration to withdraw from Iraq.

            Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as Bush claims. In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment for terrorists the world over, while terrorists have managed  time and again to breach most of the security measures adopted by multiple nations. We need no more evidence  of this than the bombings we have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries, and demonstrates to us that the absence of another 9/11 in America is not due to their failure to breach our security measures. Although, it's easy to understand the insistence of Bush and his gang to continue the war, for to stop it would also stop the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to the influential people and war merchants in America who supported Bush's election campaign.
            As for the terrorists, they have nothing to lose from this war and much to gain, and as long as we are fighting on their their land our soldiers will continue to needlessly die there, and a time might come when there will at last be no significant difference between our crimes and those of Saddam.
            Peace be upon those who follow guidance.

            Suggested reading: "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", by William Blum.

        •  It's up to the Iranians (none)
          to provide regime change in Iran. Who appointed the US to determine what governments rule where?  

          Where is this going to get us in the long run?  It's going to make us despised, and it will encourage other countries to join together against us.

          Look at the last time the US overthrew a regime in Iran. We replaced the democratically elected Mossadageh with the Shah. That was the original source of the strong suspicion of the US that exists in Iran. For good reason, if posts like yours are anything to go by.

    •  Neither McCain nor Giuliani will be nominated (4.00)
      The Right is already fiddling with party rules in Michigan and Washington, two states where McCain did well, to keep independents out of the process and hold down the McCain vote.

      As for Giuliani, he's even less acceptable. He's pro-choice and gay-friendly. And a New Yorker to boot. Despite the GOP having their convention in New York City, much of the Republican base wouldn't shed a tear if all five boroughs floated out to sea.

      Every Saturday, there's a new weekly roundup of Michigan politics here on Daily Kos.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:15:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uhmm, cross your fingers on that one n/t (none)
      •  Wishful thinking (1.50)
        It might happen that way; but right now the Democrats are looking at least as likely to self destruct as the Republicans are.  With Kos leading the charge with posts like this one.
      •  I used to think so too... (none)
        ...but I think the Republicans are warming to the idea of Mccain as their nominee.  He'll be the only Republican capable of winning in 2008.  Go to when the have one of their straw polls and you'll see that the party activists are coming to Mccain.  They don't like him, for sure.  But they  think he is the guy to stop Hillary.

        "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

        by tmendoza on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:36:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup, I'm (none)
          afraid you're right, which makes taking Congress back in 2006, or at least getting as close as we can, an imperative--a categorical imperative.
          •  So if taking Congress is an imperative... (none)
   in not something to fool around with or jeopardize, why are you going around pushing a DumpJoe website.  Despite the categorical imperative of retaking Congress, you think it's a good idea to spend lots of resources to try to knock off a three-term Democratic incumbent who is a shoo-in for re-election.

            Sure, that makes sense.

            •  Absolutely (none)
              If we get someone else as the Democratic nominee, that person should win....I could do with a few less wet sloppies for W.

              And I am not pushing any DumpJoe website--are you calling this website such?  But if there is a such a website, pleae provide me with a link.  I'm ready to send a check to Lieberman's primary opponent.  

              •  Why do you think any Democrat would win? (none)
                CT is a blue state, but it has a very popular Republican governor and a couple of GOP Reps.  What makes you think a Republican couldn't win?

                The only thing that would pretty much GUARANTEE keeping that seat Democratic is to keep Lieberman.  And yet you would risk that at a time when we need to put all the resources we can into races where the candidates need help.  All because he planted one on Bush's cheek?

                •  No more patience for half-way Dems (none)
                  I would rather have another Dodd, thank you very much.  If we turned out Lieberman, other blue state Dems will get the message.  

                  Joe too much of the time acts like Ben Nelson--as if he were representing a red state.

                  Look, I know Lieberman risked life and limb during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.  Good on him.  He should retire now.  He just doesn't get it.  He flirted with privatizing Social Security last year.  Muy bad on him.  We need strong Dems who know how to oppose the Republicans.

                  Tell me where Lieberman will be on this domestic spying issue.  No, don't tell me, I already know; he will say it is limited in scope--swallowing whole the administration's unverified assertions.  Then Bush can talk about bipartisan support for domestic spying.

                  •  Yeesh.. (3.33)
                    So the only thing that counts is security issues, right?  Lieberman's votes on the environment, labor, civil rights, taxes, the judiciary - all that counts for nothing.  It's all meaningless because he votes his conscience on matters of national security, the one area, I might add, where the Democrats still trail in the public's trust.

                    And as for his "flirtation" with privatizing Social Security, my recollection is that it was more like one or two ambiguous statements saying we should investigate options to keep the system solvent.  But when push came to shove, when he learned the Bush program was bullshit, he fell into place.  Hardly apostasy.

                    •  Lieberman had to be "shoved" (none)
                      before he opposed the privatization scheme....

                      Something about an offer he couldn't refuse from TPM--wasn't he still a member of the Faint Hearted Faction last time you looked?  Wasn't he the only member from the Senate?   Couldn't make up his mind if he wanted to dismantle the New Deal?   Yup, that Lieberman is a rip-roaring Dem, he is.

                      Not just we have him supporitng military action against Iran.

                      Yes, he did support the filibuster of Alito but he is becoming increasingly unreliable.  I think he is holding the line on many of his Democratic votes because he is up for reelection.  

                      If he gets in again, we will have no significant leverage over him, and he will be completely off the reservation within weeks.  He just cannot be trusted.

                      And Iraq is the single biggest issue.  He could have voiced his support for the invasion a' la Biden.  But no, he had to make it a love affair with W.  And he is completely divorced from realtiy by saying that everything in Iraq is going just swimmingly.  Golly gee, Rummy could not have said it any better.

                    •  Public trust? (none)
                      Well, that would be a big one.  National Security.  He seems to want the oil in Iraq, and CO had plenty of National Guard to burn, so to speak.  He's covering his base and playing to the right...and it sucks.  He's off the team.  Many were jumping off that insanely burning building, but the person who did that should be CAUGHT AND HUNG.  Not this totally scripted invasion for Dick Cheney.  Chose your side...and please cock that gun NOW...those that died in that unimaginably tragic incident deserve nothing less.

                      "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

                      by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:01:13 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  FYI Social Sec is solvent... (none)
                      The Social Security Trust runs a surplus every year. But in 1986?- one of those years, Congress voted to "borrow" the yearly surplus, in exchange for non-negotiable IOUs, and uses that surplus every year to off-set the Federal deficit. the Federal deficit is now the largest in human history  -thanks to: I-haven't-vetoed-a-single-bill-for-the-5-years-I've-been-in-office-but-I-was-going-to-pop-my-cherry- on-the-torture-ammendment Bush, off-setting the deficit is kind of a moot point and the money should now be paid back, by trimming the insanely huge.......wait for it Brad.....Defense budget (you thought I was going to say Medicad perhaps!)

                      Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

                      by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:13:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  well the right wing nut base hasn't really (none)
          spoken out yet. i don't see them maintaining all that discipline down the road. rove might be in legal trouble. the hammer sure is. just who do they have to lead now?
        •  That's frightening... (none)
          Because it suggests the Republicans are more unified than we are.  They've got a majority, they could probably actually afford to run around wasting resources and effort trying to knock of a moderate like Arlen Specter.

          If they're actually backing McCain, while people around here are busy attacking moderate Democrats, it suggests we could run into trouble.

          Granted, 2008 is still a long way away, but our chances of a takeover in 2006 could be fading as well.

          •  a qualification (none)
            i wouldn't say the republicans are more unified than the democrats.  both parties have major fissures on most important issues.  my sense (and i only get this from reading a sampling of republican blogs) is that the republican activists are going to back mccain.  a lot of them actually hate mccain, but they want him there to block hillary, because of course they hate her a lot more.  and they are pragmatic.  the present lieberman jihad seems to suggest that democratic activists are not as pragmatic.

            "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

            by tmendoza on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:57:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If the wingnut base (none)
          is coming around to back McCain, all we need to do is have Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon endorse him on the eve of the Iowas caucases. And did'nt Giuliani pose for pictures in drag once or twice?

          OTOH, if the wingnuts can ignore a gay hooker in the White House, and support the outing of a CIA agent for political gain, I suppose there's no sin too great for them to ignore if they set their minds to it.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:27:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  except for Staten Island, of course (none)
    •  If it's a last resort, why mention it at all? (none)
      Unless, of course, you want to suck up to the administration hard-liners? Fox News is already citing polls favoring attacking Iran. Does this sound like we're willing to give diplomacy a chance? Or is it the administration once again going to try and paint us into a corner?
      •  Majority (none)
        Schmajority.  The Pukes have shown their colors.  Show them for what they are...dirty, rotten scoundrels.  And don't think that most of the ppl are dumb,  that is just dumb.  Ppl know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes...pull back the wool and expose everything...Really.  Imagine telling the truth which is exposing lies and deceit.  And, it being SuperBowl weekend, put your shoulder into the couch, of course.

        "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

        by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:08:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  not clear - mccain could easily be the worst (none)

      McCain is a sick, twisted, lying radical rightwing Republican who cares about his career to the detriment of the people of the United States.  That the media kiss up to him and treat him like a "moderate" disgusts me.  His posturing on torture - and his total silence when his S&M lover Bush undercut the phony antitorture bill to make sure that it won't interfere with the torturers - is immoral.  His supporting of Bush after what Bush let be done to his family shows he is willing to let the same thing be done to us.  His positions throughout the years have been radical rightwing with windowdressing.  I hate Jon Stewart's crappy show for making McCain into some kind of hero.

      It is much worse to have a phony ally or phony moderate than someone who admits what he is.  Lieberman stinks and so does McCain.

      I hope you can tell from this how I feel about these guys.

      Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

      by tamandua on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:35:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can tell how you feel (none)
        though not with that much passion, I had some similar feelings about McCain. I don't know why I don't trust the man, but I surely don't and I think the man is worth a good analysis of his life and records. I haven't read his books yet, but by the sales pitches for his book, I doubt that I will trust them either.

        Lieberman is different. He stands where he stands out of conviction, I believe, not for furthering his career. His choice to piggybag on to McCain is a bad one. Lieberman should become an independent, as he is not loyal enough a Democrat when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues.

        Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Buddha

        by mimi on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:43:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His honor is swiss cheese (none)
          I don't trust McCain because Bush took a shit on McCain's family, military service and integrity in the SC primary and McCain now physically embraces Bush every time he gets a chance.

          That tells me everything I need to know about the man. It strikes me as very twisted and wrong.

          If someone did 1/2 that to my family, they'd be pushing up the daisies. NOT embraced. Really.

          "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

          by Kimberly Stone on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:42:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Misreading the quotes (3.22)
    Just because he says that John McCain should run for President, it doesn't mean Lieberman would endorse him over a Democratic nominee.

    Similarly, keeping the military option on table doesn't automatically mean going to war.

    You may not like the guy, but deliberately distorting his views falls short of honest presentation.

    •  You make a good point (none)
      despite your 1's... I agree with Kos that Lieberman is off his rocker, but he, as well as an earlier diarist, seem to be reading too much into his statements.

      touche pas à mon pote!

      by Mr Bula on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:17:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't read them in isolation. (4.00)
        Given Lieberman's record, I think there's every reason to 'read' his comments exactly as Kos has.

        "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

        by Kimberly Stone on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:19:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (none)
          I can't believe almost all the people who come hear to support Lieberman were the same ones who supported W's first war and called us anti Iraq war people crazy because we didn't buy the bullshit about WMD and Greeting with flowers and war paid with oil revenues bullshit.

          Maybe you can foolthe same people over and over again.

          by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not me... (none)
            I opposed the war from day 1, and never bought the ridiculous WMD story.  It was plainly obvious from the get go that Iraq was not a threat as far as WMD.

            But that's one issue; And a bunch of Democrats voted for that stupid resolution foolishly believing it would be used to "pressure Saddam" with miltary action as a last resort.  I've got a problem with that, but that means I have a problem with the 28 other Democrats in the Senate that voted or it.  And there are other important issues where I can find I disagree with most of the 21 who opposed it.  

            If you're going to go after Lieberman on that, you might as well also go after Dodd, Schumer, Cantwell, Biden, Kerry, and Feinstein.

            •  Not I (none)
              and read PNAC if you want verification.  The grammer text is up to you.

              "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

              by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:10:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Don't ask for what you don't want. (none)
              If you're going to go after Lieberman on that, you might as well also go after Dodd, Schumer, Cantwell, Biden, Kerry, and Feinstein.

              Which I'm totally happy to do.

              The war was a lie and voting for it was a mistake.

              Lieberman's continued vocal support of that lie is bullshit, and I will call him on it every day of the week, twice on Sunday.

              "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

              by Kimberly Stone on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:38:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  But that is exactly the point (4.00)
        Lieberman just gratuitously says the damndest things in support of Republicans.  He has no sense of how to be in the opposition.  
    •  I'm no fan of Lieberman and I'm no fan of you (3.75)
      ... generally, but I think the take on these comments here and in the other diary are both a might overblown.

      There are plenty of reasons to kick Joe's ass.  No need to make shit up.

      Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

      by Bob Johnson on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:25:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none)
        First, with the way things have been around here, I'm almost afraid to comment.

        But I don't see how this helps us - particularly the title of the diary.  And I'm one of the first ones to criticize and rail against Joementum when he does things like this.  I think some of the things he does are baffling, show poor judgement and questionable loyalty.  That's putting it lightly.

        There are people working hard to support Lamont and give CT a real alternative to Lieberman in the primary.  I just don't see how this helps them, or helps us get Lieberman out of the Senate without losing the seat.

        And frankly I'm confused.  Last night I read comments about protecting the dkos image, about not giving the right wing ammunition to attack the left, etc.  How does this diary (and likeminded comments) help us do that?  It's important to bring these Lieberman statements to light, but is this the way to do it?  I'm pissed at Lieberman, I'm pissed at the Alito cloture vote, I'm frustrated as hell with things that are going on, and I need to choose my words carefully lately because I know I'm angry and it's easy to say things that are a bit over the top when in that frame of mind.  I wish Kos had handled this differently.  I'm shaking my head and wondering - what the heck?  Just like I was last night.

        On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

        by joanneleon on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:07:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Distorting? (4.00)
      I think that term is too strong.  But I would say that it would be more accurate if he had said, "tacitly endorsed McCain."  

      And it's funny, but you distorted what kos said to prove your claim of distortion.  Think about it.  ;-)

      And btw, the 1's this comment got are unfair, IMO...

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:35:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is it a distortion exactly? (4.00)
        Lieberman says he hopes McCain runs for president.  Meaning: He hopes McCain seeks the Republican nomination, which on its face seems reasonable as the two are friends and John McCain is one of the least crazy Republicans.  Kos claims that Lieberman endorses McCain.  That is a distortion.  

        Pointing that out is: the truth.

        As for the "all options on the table" nosense, clearly all options are not on the table, so I'm not sure who Joe is trying to kid.  Certainly, not Iran, as they know America can't do anything.  We seem to be busy in the neighborhood.

        "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

        by tmendoza on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:45:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (none)
          First, Joe did endorse the idea of McCain running, so what kos said was not a distortion.  I said that I would have said "tacitly endorsed," but that was a minor point.  Second, the person I was responding to said that:

          Just because he says that John McCain should run for President, it doesn't mean Lieberman would endorse him over a Democratic nominee.

          kos didn't say that, so the poster was distorting what was said.

          And the "options on the table?"  McCain actually said, "every option must remain on the table."  But my post didn't address that, so I'm not sure if you expect me to defend Joe or something...because I certainly won't.  

          Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

          by Barbara Morrill on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:02:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (none)
            No, I don't expect you to defend him or to not defend him, and my distortion point wasn't really about the Iran quote as much as the McCain quote.

            Kos said that Joe was endorsing McCain.  This is the exact same thing as saying that Joe would vote for McCain over a Dem, which is what the poster said.  

            One person can only vote for and (endorse) one person for president (unless said person is very crooked).  So the poster was dead-on accurate in his description of what Kos said.  Of course, Kos and the poster used different terms.  One used "endore" the other used "vote for over a Dem," but they have the exact same meaning, and in either case they DISTORT Joe's comment.  He is not voting for McCain, and he is not goingt to endorse him either.

            "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

            by tmendoza on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:34:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, I disagree (none)
              They don't have the exact same meaning.  Neither here nor there, my point was that in making a case for distortion, the poster distorted himself.  I understand your point of view though.

              But really, for a "leading" (or at least often quoted) Democrat to say he "hopes" McCain will run is an unbelievably stupid thing to say.  It does (as I said before) tacitly endorse McCain...remember, this was an article that emphasized how close they were.  And btw, how do you know that Joe wouldn't vote for McCain?


              Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

              by Barbara Morrill on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:05:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Well (4.00)
    Now that McCain has Joementum, we really don't have to worry about his campaign having any real success right?

    "To any sheriff or peace officer of the State of Texas; Greetings: You are hereby commanded to arrest: Thomas Dale Delay" -Warrant for Tom Delay

    by who threw da cat on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:10:57 PM PST

  •  You know he's going to switch parties.... (4.00)
    this is yet another step in that direction...
  •  It's bad enough that the saber rattling has (4.00)
    begun with the corporate media coverage of this crisis, but a so called Democrat adding his voice to the din?  

    Does anyone think this is eerily familiar to the Iraq run-up?  

    Will they use the line 'smoking gun is a mushroom cloud?'  Same shit, different terrorist enemy.

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:17:37 PM PST

    •  The only difference... (none) that there was no chance we would not invade Iraq.  And in this case there is no chance that we will invade Iran.

      The only option we have is bombing, and that is such a bad option that even the White House doesn't want to do it.  So saber-rattling is all we will get, and maybe sanctions.

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:47:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope with bombs you get eggrolls! (none)
        Nah, if it is just too whatever, then we send in the clones...I mean Israel......well hell, the drones for that matter and paint them with UN markings and when the Iranians shoot them down we invade.....but we only invade the southern basin bordering Iraq where 70% of Irans oil is....

        Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot.

        by brent for truth on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:25:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  gosh, Joe (4.00)
    how damn centrist of you....go Cheney yourself

    no quarter for these scumbags

    •  money (none)
      How clear is Joe on money?  This switch from a VP nominee to a Puke seems alarmingly fast.  Follow the money...and where and when did Joe get paid.  I just wonder.

      "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

      by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:16:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fixated (4.00)
    One might get the impression from reading this site over the course of a few weeks (and months) that Joe is one of the biggest problems facing us as Democrats. But I think this outpouring at Joe just illustrates that the Democratic Party is a hell of a lot to the right of most of the folks who read this site, including me. I mean really, most people on this site do not like probably 50% of the Democratic senators (too corporate, supported the war, didn't fight hard enough for SCOTUS, voted for cloture, supported banning flag burning...and on and on). Personally, the only people in elected office I like I can count on one hand, starting with Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

    Methinks that even though we are in a proclaimed Democrat partisan venue, we really are in something altogether different. To that point, lets kick Joe out of the Green Party once and for all.

    •  No, Lieberman stands out (4.00)
      He can always be counted on for stabbing the Democrats in the back, and there are one too many pictures of him standing next to Dubya wearing a shit-eating grin.  

      Another factor is that unlike other conservative dems, Lieberman speaks out more, and the corporate media puts his anti-dem/pro-bush sound bites in heavy rotation.  

      -7.38, -5.90 | "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan

      by Subterranean on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:30:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what's the net effect (none)
        Take everything Joe has said and done (of course we know that his problem is more verbal than vote, voting most of the time with us).

        Which piece of legislation or SCOTUS nominee or war or anything would not be exactly how it is today if Mr. Joe kept his mouth shut? My perception (which could be wrong) is zero.

        If anything, the only people who notice Joe are Fox Newasses who come away thinking that not all Democrats are as bad as they thought.

        What is the scope of Joe's influence, I think very little. I would be suprised if a single voter voted republican because of Joe's comments - voters are not paying attention like we are. For those who pay attention, almost nothing would change your vote with the partisan climate like it is.

        •  See thats where you're wrong (4.00)
          Republicans keep their moderates in line because they peel off Lieberman and then point to him in order to make it seem extreme to vote their cinscience.

          Gonzales wouldn't be attorney General without Lieberman and we could have stopped Condi at State Also.

          by ctkeith on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:49:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (none)
            That's complete nonsense.  
          •  gosh i hope not, but maybe (none)
            I would agree that on those security type issues he acts like a conventional moderate repub. Not sure if that really has that big of an effect on anyone else. I mean he would have to believe that Lincoln Chafee is sitting in his office wanting to vote a certain way, but doesn't because of how Joe voted - I tend to think senators have bigger egos than that.

            my question to you is:

            who would be holding those positions today if it weren't Gonzales or Condi (this is a bit of a harriet miers/alito type question)?

            I fear it wouldn't make much difference, the names change, the playbook is all the same. Do you think Gonzales and Condi do other than extacly what they are told to do?

      •  Again (none)
        Cheney wants to invade Iran, as badly as he did Iraq, and just see what he did to accomplish the short are your memories, and I know that I'm older the you.  OMG, get a grip and see that you are supporting the 'we rule the world' party and not the 'we want our country's rules to rule us' party.  Michael Jackson of 'we are the world' is living as a Muslim woman in Europe...that big dream fell very short, indeed.

        "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

        by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:23:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is very dangerous. (4.00)
    Lieberman's endorsement of McCain's politics, if not explicitly any government position he may be seeking, perpetuates the idea that McCain might be acceptable to moderate Democrats.

    McCain is a die-hard conservative.  His stands based on his political philosophy are without exception ideologically conservative.

    He may not be a neo-con - he doesn't always agree with them (the torture legislation and campaign finance reform, for instance), but he allows himself to be bullied and pre-empted by them.  He is an old-line Republican, and quite a conservative one at that, on both economic and social issues.

    In the current political climate in this country, for a Democrat to even tacitly endorse McCain, gives him credibility in the eyes of those who believe he's "not so bad" and should be trusted with this country's future because he's been a prisoner of war.

    The citizens of this country have to - HAVE TO - stop lingering over a candidate's publicity bio and start learning what he really believes in and what he would actually do if elected.

    (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

    by SueDe on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:22:15 PM PST

  •  If you could obtain information (none)
    realting to people, information that they do not want public, you have a great deal of "leverage" over their actions.  

    Think J. Edgar Hoover and his private files - the inspiration of at least one Ludlum novel adnd scores of others....

    Put that together with the "power" available to ANY President and how that can be MISUSED without oversight.......

    Does anyone think there aren't a few things in any career politician's background - in ANYONE's background - that they would prefer NOT seeing the light of day?

    So....who's to say there aren't more nefarious things at work here and elsewhere?

    But then in Lieberman's case it does seem tghat his interest in Israel sometimes takes precedence over what is in the best interest of the US.... an issue with many neo-cons as well it seems and a topic of some "sensitivity"....

  •  I say this as a Gore supporter (none)
    Perhaps Gore's judgment isn't as good as we think.  Why would anyone with a shred of decency choose Lieberman as a running mate?  

    I'm familiar with the reasoning given - that Gore wanted Lieberman because he was the first dem to betray Clinton and so  republicans would like him for family values or whatever.  That seems pretty stupid.  Why should Gore have to answer for Clinton's sins?  It's not like Gore was givin' it to Monica from behind while she sucked off Clinton.

    -7.38, -5.90 | "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan

    by Subterranean on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:24:53 PM PST

    •  Joe was the centrist to pull the moderate vote (none)
      Gore chose Joe because they thought he would pull from the gooey center - those who didn't think the earth was in the balance.
    •  Why Gore picked Lieberman (4.00)
      He was afraid that voters would take it out on him over Clinton's sexual escapades, so he tried to inoculate himself with a running  mate who criticized Clinton's behavior on the floor of the Senate.

      Aside: In her autobiography, "Cooking With Grease," Donna Brazile took credit for Gore's decision to put Lieberman on the ticket. One more reason why I hate to see her on TV as a spokesperson for the Democratic Party.

      Every Saturday, there's a new weekly roundup of Michigan politics here on Daily Kos.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:29:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, that's the official line (none)
        Like I said in my post.

        Obviously, it did not work.  Perhaps because those who would hold Clinton's BJ against Gore are many of the same ones who wouldn't vote for a Jew.

        Gore should have known this.  The fact that Gore had Brazille whispering inanities into his ear also calls into question his judgment.

        Gore seemed to have a penchant for surrounding himself with politically inept individuals.

        -7.38, -5.90 | "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan

        by Subterranean on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:35:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  i don't think so (4.00)
        Clinton's approval rating at the time was like 60% or something. Clinton might have even been within striking distance of a third term if such were allowed. I think that whole distance yourself from Clinton thing got overplayed. Like a premeditated media story that wasn't true but got told anyway cause there was nothing else to say.

        The general public has no idea who lashed out at Clinton first, I mean really, how many people listen to senate floor speeches. If you aksed people today what Joe's position was on Clinton - 15% or less would be able to tell you.

        It was more simple than that, Joe was seen as a solid, non-crazy dude to balance out reservations that people might have about Gore.

        Of course, it turns out he was crazy after all, crazy to butt-kiss GWB.

        Joe would rather be liked (by wal-mart nation) than do the right thing. Unfortunately in this world, he has a lot of company.

        •  FWIW, (none)
          my recollection was that the Lieberman pick was widely and obvioiusly read as a distancing-from-Clinton move.  My recollection was that Lieberman's "first to scold the President" persona was his first real moment in the spotlight, and it became his hallmark.  The earlier stuff, like going anti-Hollywood in the Tipper Gore fashion, was  more inside baseball.  

          Man, I remember how the media flogged that shit (back when I watched tv) -- Joe's unprompted speech on the floor of the Senate: [paraphrasing] "well, you know, I just have to get this off my chest...  I simply have to attack the leader of my party, because I'm not sleeping as well as I'd like...."   Oy, the media ate it up.

          Does my current scorn for Holy Joe make me misremember?  Surely many of us were there...

          Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

          by Pondite on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:55:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Brazille is the most useless Dem on TV (4.00)
        Even more embarrasing than Carville, I'd even say. Anyone who can stand there stonefaced and let Bay Buchanan wipe the floor with her with her inane Monday morning Mehlman talking points is a liability to the party. Can't someone talk to her, offer her a behind the scene job at the DLC greeting dead Democrats' wives and take them to lunch or something? She's an embarrassment to the party and needs to be yanked asap from public exposure--let alone political strategorizing.

        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

        by kovie on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:11:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Selecting Lieberman (none)
      Lieberman changed tack after 9/11 in several ways. He decided there was room on the right of Bush on Iraq (early on), and ran with it. It might be fully sincere, or it might be posturing, but it became far more evident after the 2000 election.

      Perhaps the man Gore knew was a reasonable running mate, but the man Lieberman has become is not?

      I would still prefer a President Lieberman over most Republicans, at least in the abstract. I wouldn't vote for him in the primary, though.

    •  So you're for Gore and against Lieberman? (none)
      That seems pretty bizarre.

      In the Clinton Administration, Gore was always know as the MOST hawkish person in the room, usually pushing for a more aggressive posture than most others.

      Meanwhile, Joe-haters continue to see him only through the prism of the Iraq War, always forgetting his consistently progressive voting record on the vast majority of other issues.

      In other words, the only reason anyone could question why Gore chose Lieberman is if they only analyze the question from the perspective of the post-9/11 world.

      Lieberman would never have become the hate figure on the left he is now if he hadn't supported the Iraq War.  It really is that simple.

      •  Gore was against the Iraq war (none)
        He made several speeches hosted by that illustrate his position.  Gore is far, far to the left of Lieberman on Mideast policy.

        -7.38, -5.90 | "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan

        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:49:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is there a 10-step program? (none)
        Hi everybody. I'm the Raven, and I'm a Liberman hater.

        "Hi Raven!"

        I can just see it. But no, I developed a thorough dislike of the man back when he started championing bullshit cultural issues like "cleaning up Hollywood" and making TV nice and safe for 3 year olds. It was clear that he was affining with hardline conservative values and pushing a censorship agenda that isn't what I want out of government.

        Also, in my office there are a few strong Bush supporters who've mentioned how they wish more Democrats "could be like Lieberman." And let's not forget that it was good ol' Joe who was first on his feet to applaud Bush's "stay the course" line in the SOTU address.

        Let's see... what else? Oh, and he's freaky-looking and weak-sounding, which like it or not is one of the main tactics that the Right-Wing Noise Machine is playing against us. They're Hannity, we're Colmes. So Lieberman is ditchable because his values are screwed up, he's a Bush lapdog, he weakens our party and promotes disunity, and he confirms negative stereotypes.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

        by The Raven on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:06:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nice. (none)
      Really. Let me get picture out of my politically, f**king is literal?  Who knew?

      "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

      by lilyvaldem on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:28:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Joe Schmoe (none)

    A stupid or obnoxious person

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:29:12 PM PST

  •  In fairness (3.60)
    Look, I agree that Lieberman is not well liked by many Democrats. A primary challenge is appropriate on those grounds.

    That said, his comment was not exactly an endorsement of McCain over a Democrat. He might do that in the future, but he just said he hopes McCain will run again. Although I'm concerned that McCain would be too electable, I also feel he would be a better president than many in his party. He's too much of a hawk for my taste, and also a pro-lifer, but he's more reasonable than a typical Republican on several issues as well.

    Plus, a McCain nomination (or near-nomination) could really unravel the Republican party, which would be useful to progressive causes.

    Also, I lean toward saying that he's a Democrat if he thinks he is. Even though it might be satisfying to wax about 'real' Democrats, loyalty oaths run counter to freedom of thought and are not good for building coalitions, which is the essence of politics. I guess we could also run off all the Blue Dogs, eh? They also dilute the progressive purity of the party.

  •  I would like to know.... (none)
    under just what 'moral' grounds we have to tell ANY country what they can or cannot do.  We lost all the 'moral' ground when our glorious leader 'pre-emptively' took military action right next door.

    I may not like the leadership of Iran, but I certainly wouldn't like them telling us what to do.  Just because we think we are the greatest thing humanity has ever produced, doesn't make it true.

    •  just playing devil's advocate here, (4.00)
      but surely you're opposed to female genital mutilation in various African countries?  

      Would you take the position that we have NO moral grounds whatsoever to chide Pakistan (among many others) for the treatment of female rape victims?

      We had no basis for admonishing the Taliban for destroying those centuries-old Buddhas?

      We'd have NO basis for opposing forced abortions in China for couples that already have one child (assuming that policy were adopted)?

      You're right that George W. Bush has no business telling anyone what do...   but it doesn't mean that  we (or any other nation) should take the "moral" aspects of diplomacy off the table.

      And for the record, no, I sure as heck don't have a unified, coherent theory of political morality!!

      Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

      by Pondite on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:02:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If McCain is nominated (none)
    I think he'll win. this leibermann stuff is not confined to only mad Joe. There will be a segment of the electorate thinking similarly.
  •  unfair to Lieberman (4.00)
    The animosity towards Joe Lieberman has always been more spittle than substance, but this latest episode, where his antagonists directly twist and alter his views in plain site, to get them to say what they want, demonstrates just how disingenuous their pressing case is as well as a lack of faith in their ability to a present a legitimate case against Joe Lieberman without resporting lies, half-truths and distortion.
    •  Hi. (3.66)
      What on Earth are you talking about?

      Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.

      by gavodotcom on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:49:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  GoVote, stop being a wad please. (4.00)
        Seriously. You gave this innocent one line comment a One? Your 1's are all over the damn place. And you have the utter audacity to cry about ratings abuse.

        Holymotherofgod. You own the Hidden Comments list in the past few weeks. They say there's a number of 0's you accumulate before your banned by the software (not dk or Markos). Did you hack the software or something?  

        •  hmmm..... (1.50)
          Seriously. You gave this innocent one line comment a One? Your 1's are all over the damn place. And you have the utter audacity to cry about ratings abuse.

          You are right - this one was in error.  I do not remember rating this one.  Having said that.  I don't think it's "innocent," since it's pretty snarky.  Nevertheless, I didn't intend to rate it.

          Holymotherofgod. You own the Hidden Comments list in the past few weeks. They say there's a number of 0's you accumulate before your banned by the software (not dk or Markos). Did you hack the software or something?  

          Apparently telling someone that their comment was anti-Semitic (when it was) gets you zeros.  Telling people that defend the anti-Semitic comment and attack you personally for it gets you zeros.  Apparently posting pro-Lieberman comments get you zeros.  Apparently being online posting in other threads get you zeros.  Apparently when a few select posters that don't like that you are pro-Lieberman decide to get together to zero all your comments, that's fair game, not ratings abuse.  

          That's fine.  It's not my site.  Perhaps, if my comments didn't keep getting hidden, I wouldn't feel the need to post as much.  Debates here are so one-sided.

          •  You are a serial abuser (none)
            You hand out 1s like popcorn and then get all surprised people don't like you. You attack people virulently in a highly personal way and act surprised they don't engage in a measured conversation. Game's up dude.
            •  My ratings (1.33)
              Since you seem to think that I hand out "1's like popcorn," I've included a link to my ratings.  I seem to hand out a lot of 4s.  The few 1's that I've handed out seem well deserved.  I know you'd like to believe that I hand out 1's like popcorn, but that isn't the case.


            •  Yeah... (none)
              But now all his comments are getting zero'd out no matter what he's saying and that ain't right either (not by you...but you can see where it's coming from). I think his post above didn't deserve that (the zero, huge diff. between the 0 and 1) so I'm 4'ing it.

              The Daily Kos needs rating intervention.

          •  GoVote... (4.00)
            There used to be this person on here, I dont' see him anymore - who was a Republican and supported Bush. He didn't get zero'd out. It's all in the style. I wish I could remember his name. I can't. But I read his stuff, someo of it made my blood boil, but the give and take was respectful on both sides and he even got 4's sometimes.

            You can't post that Kos just wants to sell his book, and that's why he comments on Lieberman, and expect not to get people riled up.

            You can't keep calling people anti-sematic when they  post they don't like Lieberman, and expect to get away with it.

            And NO, I'm not talking about racist posts for real, I'm talking about the ones that are clearly not, but you perceive them to be so, and then get angry, and then so it starts.

            It's all in the approach. You so know that.

            •  Christin... (3.20)
              You can't keep calling people anti-sematic when they  post they don't like Lieberman, and expect to get away with it.

              I do not believe that there is a lot of bigotry on dkos.  However, a few posters do engage in this.  And, when it happens, they should be called on it.  I am not the only one that calls people on it.  However, I am the only one - or one of the few - that also views that people giving 4's to bigoted comments also engage in bigotry.  I do not think that most of the posters that engage in bigotry hate Jews.  Nevertheless, I think that they "accidentally" use anti-semitic rhetoric to suit there purposes.  That is still wrong.  So that others do not quote this site as representative of the loony, anti-semitic left, it is important that the few posters who engage in such tactics are challenged.  

              You can't post that Kos just wants to sell his book, and that's why he comments on Lieberman, and expect not to get people riled up.

              When Kos posts anti-Lieberman stuff, I do believe that he is sincere.  Nevertheless, the amount of attention given to Lieberman, consciously or subconsciously, is - in my belief - indicative of his desire to increase his standing.  This thread, for example, is stupid.  McCain has said that Hillary would be a good president -- Kos never posted about that nor called it an endorsement of Hillary.  McCain has said that Kerry was a good man and would be a good president -- Kos has never said it would be an endorsement of Kerry.  Kos is manipulating the language to ignite fervor against Lieberman.  To what end?  To get rid of him?  To increase his own power?  To sell books?  All of the above?  Sure, that may upset people to hear that, but I'm sure kos can take it -- he's never rated me with 0's.  Why must others?  You can't have an exchange of ideas -- you can't be a group that grows -- unless you are able to take criticism, from within and outside of the group.

              But I read his stuff, someo of it made my blood boil, but the give and take was respectful on both sides and he even got 4's sometimes.

              I get 4's, too.

          •  I always forget to add the one thing... (none)
            I understand your defending what you believe in, which in your case is support for Joe Lieberman.  Trust me, I so understand that. One off the wall reason being that I'm a vegetarian, and constantly, constantly get needled or ridiculed by people I like no less, for a damn food choice, and I don't bring it up or preach anything or pretend to be better than anyone.

            I've had to learn how to defend myself getting angry or telling them to mind their own business. I had to respond when they ask why I  don't care about lettuce screaming in pain when it's so cruelly plucked from it's home.  Then I want to say things back that are not so nice, and it would  get ugly real quick. Yeppers, different than your thing going on here, but I'm just saying I know how it is, being in a minority postion, why you defend him and that's not what I was referring to in my post.


            •  I appreciate this comment (2.66)
              Actually, even more important to me than defending Joe Lieberman is standing up to bigoted comments.  The easy stuff is the obvious stuff.  The hard stuff is when generally sincere people engage in subtle bigotry because it ultimately helps their cause.  Many people hate Joe Lieberman here - that's clear.  A few posters, however, have made subtle bigoted comments against him and been rewarded.  Those of us who call these posters on it get attacked because they assume that criticizing the post is the same as defending Lieberman.  Why I get showered with 0's however, is that I respond to bigoted posts AND I defend Lieberman, so those two issues get conflated as "oh he's only attacking these posts because they attack Lieberman."  That isn't the case: bigotry is wrong.  Period.  It's too bad that anti-Lieberman postsers and pro-Lieberman posters can't understand why comments like "Lieberman should leave America and go to Israel" or "Lieberman puts Israel before America" or "Lieberman thinks differently than most Democrats because he is Jewish" or "Lieberman's beard should be blood red" are bigoted.  All of these quotes have been said on this site, some by "trusted user" posters.  The true test of one's cultural sensitivity is seeing when and where you are willing to stand up against bigotry.
              •  I understand. (none)
                But one also has to be careful not to be "too sensitive". On the examples you listed, I can understand how those are bigoted. I don't see those that much those. I see more of a defense of Israel here by ten to one than distain for it or it's people.  

                I've witnessed, in many threads, people being called anti-semitic the moment they critisize Israel for some of it's policies. Or they're told they  hate Israel because they can't stand the Likud Party or Sharon. There's a group of people who always show up, the same ones, and then downrate those people to zero or one.

                Which blows my mind. Because that's what we do here, and we get rewarded for it. We (dk) speak ill of Bush, the GOP, and it's policies. We wring our collective liberal hands together because we understand how our country's actions have caused hatred towards us.

                Then we in turn get this from "them": "Why do you hate America? America, Love it or Leave it. You're unpatriotic. You undermine the troops. You are a friend of the enemy. You hate this country, don't you? You love Osama."

                I'm just saying I see it on both sides. Odd how it happens ever here.

                It's happened to me. Being called bigoted and racist becasuse I feel sorry for the Palestians. I feel sorry for Israel. I feel sorry for everyone except the GOP. We all do. That's a Liberals strong point, in my opinion.

                Christ - I am rambling and starting the bore the hell out of myself. Seriously boring.

                •  thanks for your comment (none)
                  Nah, you didn't bore me.

                  Downrating someone because you disagree with them is wrong.

                  I'm glad that you see why I objected to the particular comments that I did.  It would be wrong to call a post bigoted, anti-semitic or racist when it isn't, just like how it sounds like your posts were not, but you were criticized for it.  That was wrong.  

                  I recognize that it is wrong to criticize something as "anti-semitic" when it isn't.  Which is why I don't do that.  I will, however, criticize something for being anti-semitic when it is.  Unfortunately, too many posters assume that ANY time that label is used it's being misused.  This isn't the case.  Sometimes posters veer off into bigotry-land.  You can criticize Lieberman without doing so, but some cross the line and need to be told so.  And telling someone that their comment was bigoted isn't dismissing everythign about the comment.  I have no problem with respectable criticism of Lieberman or Israel.  I do have a problem if the poster, knowingly or unknowingly, gets all anti-semitic about it.

                  I also have a problem when people hide my posts because they don't like what I have to say.  The people who ganged up on me to give my posts zeroes - even going so far as to track me down in other threads to do the same - are wrong.  They are not our friends because they opt for GOP tactics to dismantle dissent.  

                  •  And if anyone rated your posts zero's, or even 1.. (none)
                    When you talk like this, that would be a serious case of ratings bullshit and a half abuse.

                    Seriously GoVOTE....I'm telling you, from an outsider's point of view - you write like this and I think you could engage in some debate without the ratings crap flying back and forth.

                    And what the hell do I know? I'm no one. But the day I thought I could converse with you civilly...well. It's just a day I never thought I see.

                    I'm sure we'll continue to disagree about Joementum.
                    :-) Peace.

                    •  sincere debate (none)
                      I think, like most, one adopts the tone to which they are adressed.  How could one expect me to be "civil" when I am attacked even before I arrive.  I mean, i came into this thread and five bullies were mocking me.  Then when I posted, they zeroed my posts away.  What would anybody expect?  This is a hostile environment, and even my calm posts were zeroed.  In the thread about Bernie Sanders falling ill at a military funeral, ctkeith gave me a zero for wishing that Sanders makes a speedy recovery.  

                      If someone makes a bigotted comment, typically I respond with something like "hmmmmm .... bigotted perhaps?" followed by an explanation which explains why.  But that leaves room for the person to explain themselves.  I do not tolerate, however, people who attack me for misusing the "anti-semitic" label of a post - that's insulting and I would never do such a thing.  I will attack any defender of bigots - ruthlessly.  I will defend my right to speak - ruthlessly.  I will not engage in personal attacks except when I am personally attacked.  

                      I'm telling you, from an outsider's point of view - you write like this and I think you could engage in some debate without the ratings crap flying back and forth.

                      Sadly, I've experienced otherwise and so, I've learned to be less polite.  It takes only two zeros to push a comment into hidden comment land.  Typically a logical, well-thought out pro-Lieberman argument will receive them before another Lieberman supporter arrives to give it a 4.  But by then, the comment is invisible.

                      It's only a few people, but they are loud and they make this an unfriendly environment for sincere debate.

                      •  I hear you... (none)
                        And're right. Sometimes if someone does not like you, or there's this ongoing "war" going on, you get trolled no matter what you say. You have a point.

                        Hey. Don't feel so bad. I'm getting my fair share of 1's over at yet another meta-diary.  :-) It. Means. Nothing.

                        Then again, you're saying your posts get blown out of the thread, so I shouldn't say it means nothing.

                        Okay. This is me talking on ZERO hours of sleep. I am so nto going to get through the day at work. I am so shutting down before the day started.

                        You know what GoVote? I totally changed my mind. You say and do what you've been doing. At least you don't play games or try to suck up because 4's are the center of your life. You say what you feel and believe it, and dont' manipulate anyone in the  process.

                        It my sleep deprived state of mind, I admire that.
                        Fuck that - sleep deprived or not, I still admire it.

                        •  Thanks man (none)
                          That's a great comment.  Sadly, ctkeith, Kimberly Stone and Deanfan84 have come back to mock me today, rate me with zeros and help establish a culture where it's ok to do the same.  Sucks that they use this blog not as a place for debate, but a place to bully.
                    •  Know of what you speak before judging. (none)
                      After all, his comments were that he had been f**king my mother, and that I could stuff my comment up my ass.

                      The 'mockery' he complains of? First of all, he should grow up, toughen up and be a man. Second, I simply noted that he had many 0 rated posts and I asked if one's posting privileges could be lost for consistent trolling. This guy has this rep. He worked hard to get it. But doesn't want to get called on it? Sorry, that's pathetic.

                      Then when he got troll rated - by at least 10 different people at different times-  he said he was being 'silenced' by 'bullies' and called others Republicans, liars, 'lame' (thankfully not myself yet)  and made baseless and slanderous  accusations of anti-Semitism.

                      This guy offers nothing but hate and bullshit, and I've responded to him as such. If that's your idea of something worthy of 4s, be my guest. If you're an apologist for such behaviour, then you should expect some of that his stench to cling to you too.

                      "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

                      by Kimberly Stone on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:30:48 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Gosh (none)
                        Gosh, it sounds so simple ... you do realize that there are two sides to every story ... right?  Kind of creepy how you are seeking me out in other subthreads to try to rob me of credibility everywhere.  

                        Have you contributed anything intelligent to this thread or have your posts entirely consisted of mocking me?

                        •  Irony deficiency? (none)
                          Yes, there are two sides.

                          I told mine.

                          You told yours.

                          You might want to stop being a fucking hypocrite and realize that I'm allowed to do what you are.

                          Mockety mock mock. So, setting the record straight on you is 'mocking'?

                          Wow. You are totally emasculated, aren't you? Go cry in your soup. Nobody cares.

                          Sad. Shut up and go away.

                          "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

                          by Kimberly Stone on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:23:30 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You are a very rude person (none)
                            If it's down to an issue of who started it, I believe that you and four other posters were mocking me before I arrived, hoping that I would show up so you could jump on me, no?  Glad I could oblige.

                            I'm still wondering - have you contributed anything to this thread other than mocking and attacking me?

                            Wow. You are totally emasculated, aren't you?

                            I know you'd like to believe that.  It would satisfy you.  Kind of sick.

                            Besides - what makes you think I am male?

                            Sad. Shut up and go away.

                            Probably if this is what you wanted (which I don't think it is - I think you live for the moments where you get to show the rage at your own inability to make something of yourself), you would stop baiting me and responding to every single one of my posts.  If there's no comment to respond to, well then I can't very much engage in a dialogue with you.

          •  Hi GoVOTE. :) (none)
            Since you took offense at my snarkiness, please allow me to clarify my question.

            Yes, it was in snark.  Lieberman was wrong for his introduction of McCain.  Lieberman is a Democrat, whether he likes it or not, and showing support for  a conservative Republican, tongue-in-cheek or not, is not the way you endear yourself to your party.  It's a way to appear on Hannity & Colmes.

            Half-truths, lies, or distortions are what the other side uses to win.  The introduction of McCain helps McCain.  It does not help Democrats.  Lieberman should, and does, know better.

            But that's my $.02.  I'm open to discussion of the topic.

            Now, if the person I replied to had clarified him(her)self, and given an explanation, I would have gladly acknowledge any legitimacy in what they were saying.  Notice I did not like what I inferred they said, but since it was ambiguous, I did not rate their comment.  

            And, btw as to: Debates here are so one-sided.  I'm sorry you feel that way.  I do feel that there is a strong push for meme-production on this site, though I hope you continue to fight for what you believe in, and that it appreciates into more than a ratings-game.

            In any case, I do appreciate what you have to say, thank you for explaining why you rated what you did, irregardless of whether or not it was for my benefit. ;)

            Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.

            by gavodotcom on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:03:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't I read that on a blog today? (none)
      "more spittle than substance?"

      is that a quote?

  •  McCain Sucks Bigtime (2.33)
    I just watched a DVD-"Missing,Presumed Dead, the search for America's POWS"
    McCain was featured in it and every time a Pows family asked for information about their missing loved one McCain blocked it. He made over 30 tapes helping the enemy when he was a pow-beyond the call of duty. This DVD was made about Bob Dumas and his struggle to find info about his brother. Its got senators and big time cover up info. I suggest you see it-very scary-not trying to market it here as I bought mine from a non profit POW/MIA group. Kerry didn't look good either. Its much easier to believe they are dead than the "hassle" and embarrasment. Unbelievable!!

    Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore!!!!

    by Horsehead on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:43:45 PM PST

  •  meh (none)
    this diary is pretty similar to half of those on redstate

    take a prominent democrat, throw out a couple quotes expressing generally non-radical sentiment, and then follow it with "omg he's crazy!!"

    I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

    by The Exalted on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:48:58 PM PST

    •  It's administration speak (none)
      It's not so much that he's crazy as it is evidence that Congress has pretty much abdicated its role in the entire decision-making process. Are we hearing anything original here or are McCain and Liebermann, along with the rest of  Congress, just lip syncing to the adminsitration's tune? It should be obvious by now that Bush does not care one whit what Congress thinks. So McCain and Liebermann making statements about foreign policy is just more mental masturbation. Until Congress starts exercising a little more of its authority, it will find itself left out of the decision on Iran just as it was left out of the decision on Iraq.
  •  Knock it Off (2.83)

    Seriously, you are obsessed.   Please come back to the reality community.

    Let me get this straight, you want to hate Lieberman more because he said a casual complement to a fellow Senator and because he is against a nuclear Iran.

    Please stop it!!!!   Lieberman is a pain in the ass, but these are things that every single elected Democrat has said.  Your post is Drudge-esque.

    Lets stick to the real news, not make this the I hate Joe Lieberman site.

    •  Let's stick to picking on (4.00)
      Republicans.  The incessant pursuit of straying Democrats is sapping the strength of this site and is very demoralizing.
      Don't we have other things to do besides hounding Lieberman?

      "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

      by Radiowalla on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:00:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the difference is degree (none)
        It is aok to rag on Joe, but to do so the same degree as we do GWB and crew weakens our credibility and makes us seem like chicken littles (although it does appear that global warming is here, and the sky is actually falling - but that proves the point - the world is heating up and we may all be in jeopardy, and we are worried about Joe on Fox News).

        Joe is not great, that is for sure, but in relative terms he is 1,000 times better than the Bush regime, (Joe is 50 times worse than Sen Kennedy).

        Our tone needs to suggest degree of severity, or else we are destined to become cassandras. I hate to even remotely appear to be a Joe apologist, cause he sucks, but he sucks like a wart, not like cancer.

        •  Excellent formulation (none)
          50 times worse than Kennedy; 1000 times better than Bush.

          Lieberman's comments are like those of McCain himself about John Kerry although not as strongly favorable.

          Since McCain is the most popular politician in America, it is reasonable that an embattled Lieberman would wish to borrow a little johnmentum.

          Joe is a thoughtful, hard-working legislator who thinks seriously about policy issues such as campaign reform. I think Gore was listening to his Inner Wonk when he picked him.

          However, when it comes to politics, Lieberman is a putz. His many sins in this regard have been recounted above, but losing a debate to Dick Cheney through this same kind of fraternizing and inappropriate congeniality was the worst thing he has done in a career of jerking the Democratic Party around. How do you play grab-ass with Dick Cheney?

          He richly deserves his primary fight, but I hope it doesn't cost us the seat.

    •  Iran is not nuclear (none)
      Could we just stick to the facts and expect the same of our elected representatives? We start talking about a threat that doesn't exist and get everybody worked up. Next thing you know, we're in another pre-emptive war. It is irresponsible to even suggest at this point a possible military response to a non-existent situation. Foreign policy should deal in reality and more specifically present reality. We still have a chance to help shape the future of Iran. I have yet to hear anyone discuss any possible re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iran since Colin Powell mentioned it just before leaving office. We managed some form of detente and some cooperation with Russia over the Cold War period. We have diplomatic relations with China, despite political differences. Why such a hostile stance toward Iran?
  •  It's just fuel to the flames (4.00)
    Right now, it seems that Muslims around the world (except in America) seem to be going super radical.  And if you beleive the news reports, it seems that in order to be a Muslim these days, you have to be armed with an assault rifle and be ready to kill (or blow up a building) at the slightest provocation.  "You don't like my flavor of ice cream!!  This gives me right to blow up your country and kill you!!  Halalalalala!"  

    That is the image we are being presented.  And it's scary because we see Hamas getting elected, radical governments being elected all over the middle east, increases in terrorism, and of course people associate the French rioting of last year with Islamicism (it really had nothing to do with Islam).  It's also very easy to sit back and want to be like Judge Judy, "You Muslims, particularly Middle Easterners, have a temper problem and behavioral issues.  LEARN TO BEHAVE".  But we can't do that.  In these times of instability, throwing fuel to the fire is not a solution that benefits anyone.  And that is essentially what Leiberman and McCain are doing.  Invading Iran should be the absolute last option and if we do it, we cannot go it alone lest we be as isolationist as Iran.  

    Now as for Leiberman being a disloyal Democrat, we're way past that.  We know he is.  He is a poor excuse for a senator and a Democrat.  He should be kicked out of the party.  But we're past that, we already know that.  As a Senator though, he's still dangerous.  With flaring tempers around the world, it's time for cooler heads to prevail.  When we see Muslims rioting against free speech and secularism, Muslims commiting acts of terror and voting for radical governments, and Muslim fundamentalist governments trying to get nuclear weapons, we need to have a calm, secure response.  We should not say "Hey, you terrorize us, we'll blow up your mosques AND invade your country!  How you like them apples?"

  •  Let's be careful where this road leads (3.75)
    I'm so tired of hearing "every option has to remain on the table" when we know that diplomacy is not this administration's strong suit. Our front line "diplomats" here are Condi Rice and John Bolton. Could we be in any worse shape? We need to keep a low profile on this and let the U.N. take the lead. I don't want to hear about our options, because frankly, I have no confidence in the tag team of morons we have on our side. McCain and Liebermann have enough domestic issues at home to resolve first and maybe this will come as a surprise to them, but the President doesn't give a rat's ass about what they or any member of Congress thinks. So instead of talking tough about some imaginary threat, how about a little tough talk and some action on what this Congress should be doing to to rein in this President. When was the last time Congress cited any official for contempt although there have been many instances of it during this administration? They better start doing their jobs now or they won't have any say in what happens with Iran just like they had no say in what happened in Iraq.
  •  good post above (none)
    i think the points brought up in the above post by socalliberal were excellent. along the lines of joementum being disloyal and a poor excuse for either a democrat of a senator, i think we need also to look at the fact that he's not with bushco here but with mccain, who in many ways as is off the rebpulblican rocker as mccain is off ours. while obviously i have almost infinitely more respect for mccain as a principaled republican than lieberman as a turncoat democrat, and without to much disrespect to markos, i think lieberman implicitly endorsing john mccain for senator is far better than other past actions of his and doesn't warrant the moniker: "lieberman off his rocker". certainly as was noted, he's more than worthy of a democratic primary challanger, as he's really more of an independant in democrats clothing, but we have to look at mccain in some ways as different from bushco; his endorsement of bush in 04 and his place in the republican caucus are deplorable, but the man's princibles are in many ways more in line with our thinking here than in the discovery institute or bush's whitehouse.  i don't endorse any more  invasions in the middle east, but i think there's a much higher level of validity in lieberman's points at least in the quote than much of what all of us are fighting against. lieberman doesn't deserve to call himself a democrat, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's worse than bush himself; that's a seperate debate that i'm not sure has been touched on.
  •  It's like he wants to be humiliated by Ned Lamont (4.00)
    who are we to stand in his way?
  •  We've wasted enough time on Lieberman (none)
    He is obviously a Democrat In Name Only and deserves to be treated as such.  Do we hang on every word of every Republican Senator?  It's no longer even news that Lieberman pretty much agrees with Republicans on everything, because it's so predictable.  So let's stop pretending we're shocked, and stop pretending it's even news.
    •  Get a clue.. (1.40)
      How to put this in terms that might get your attention?


      His ratings by the ADA are a 75.  No Republican is more than a 65 (Snowe).  In other words...


      It's legitimate to criticize Lieberman for being too quick to criticize other Democrats.  At this time, party loyalty and discipline should be at a premium.  But to call Lieberman a DINO or to say he's about to defect to the Republicans is so fucking ridiculous it makes me want to scream.

      •  Party switch (4.00)
        I also think Schmoe will pull a Ben Horseshit Campbell after the election and change parties.  Although you are correct that he has some progressive leanings, at the end of the day, he will always be with the Rethugs on the important votes (IWR, Roberts, scAlito, bankruptcy bill...) and then we'll see him on Fox Sunday morning kissing Republican ass and giving bullshit "bipartisan" cover to Bush's fascist policies.  Chaffee and the Maine twins have some progressive leanings as well, but their true loyalty is to the Republicans, as is Joe's.

        Pull your sniffer out of Schmoe's cornhole and maybe it will all become clearer to you.

        "I want a world where the Democrats will put somebody up there worth voting for." --- Lt. Frank Drebin, Police Squad.

        by asskicking annie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:38:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (4.00)
      Is that so?

      I didn't know The Republicans were so vehemently in favor of a woman's right to choose, even favoring partial-birth abortions. Lieberman = lifetime 100% rating by NARAL.

      I didn't know that the GOP were such staunch defenders of public education & teacher's unions and only willing to support 'voucher' programs that "don't take money away from public schools." Lieberman = 86% rating by National Education Association.

      I didn't know the GOP were such righteous proponents of public sector health care, righteous opposing cuts to medicaire & medicaid & championing public investment in health technology. Lieberman = 100% rating by American Public Health Association.

      I didn't know the GOP were such great champions of Labor Unions, fighting for increasing the minimum wage, defending overtime pay rules and lobbying for more generous workers. compensation. Lieberman = 84% rating by the AFL-CIO.

      I didn't know the GOP were such principled defenders of Old Age pensions; lobbying for increased Social Security Benefits and disallowing using Social Security funds to fund Tax cuts for Millionaires. Lieberman = 100% rating by Association of Retired Americans.

      According to the American Conservative Union (ACU) which scores members congress annually on how conservative their voting record is, GOP Joe racks up a lifetime Conservative Rating of 16 (out of 100) Average Republican score (81).  

      If GOP Joe is just an R in D clothing, then he's clearly not a very good one.


      •  Pathetic... (4.00)
        First, CT's chapter of NOW just sent out a press release entitled "Lieberman turns his back on women". This was in response to Joe' failure to join Reid and Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein, Kerry and Kennedy, Durbin and Feingold, Biden and yes, CT's own Chris Dodd-- in supporting the attempted filibuster of Alito.

        Also, Joe is not in favor of Universal health care. If you did a little Googling, you would find that Joe was vital to the derailing of the Clinton health care plan.

        And where were you when Joe was named to Josh Marshall's "Faint-Hearted Faction" for "listening" to the Bush proposal on Social Security reform?

        Bottom line is that Lieberman is a lousy, two-faced Dem. And a real Dem would never be engaged in a love-affair with John McCain....

      •  Then is it about Israel? (none)

        Is it time for new democratic consultants? No accountability, no money.

        by mattes on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:05:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Only a united bloc of GOP votes (none)
    Will save Lieberman's job.

    No smiley-face on that. It's not snark enough to be funny.

    The Republicrime Party is coming for your money and your life.

    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:10:08 PM PST

  •  Either you're with Joe... (none)
    ...or with whatever Joe's going to be with next week. :)

    The Republicrime Party is coming for your money and your life.

    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:15:34 PM PST

  •  Required reading (none)
    the PNAC...get it?  This was said before you were born...sorry, getting a little angry...look it up and just see what was said!  Nothing new under the sun...or the PNAC...for whatever excuse...

    "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

    by lilyvaldem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:35:36 PM PST

  •  Where (none)
    is Leiberman on Iran?  I trusted him once, but he's over the top on Iraq.  Simply over the top...sheesh, where does he go for there?  Read the PNAC and Iran in their's just too scary to trust to someone that doesn't seem to see the illusion AT ALL>>>

    "They have committed false report: moreover, they have spoken untruths." Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I, Shakespeare

    by lilyvaldem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:42:31 PM PST

  •  McCain/Leiberman '08 (none)
    Remember how John Kerry made overtures toward McCain in 2004? A Kerry/McCain ticket would have definitely been something to reckon with.

    I think that Leiberman is dropping hints to McCain. If McCain survives the primary, Leiberman would be an excellent strategic choice for veep. It gives the impression of non-partisan/bi-partisan thinking, and will help court the conservative Democrat and (historically Democratic) Jewish votes.

    Clearly, Leiberman is settling into a Zell Miller Jr. role. He knows that he won't be able to survive the Democratic primary, because he's too conservative--for New England. If Leiberman wasn't Jewish, his conservative Democratic schtick would play well in the South... but, he's Jewish, and therefore a Christ killer. (don't flame...recognize a good snark)

    Leiberman has no future with the Democratic party and he realizes this. He won't be elected Senator again, independent or otherwise. If a Democrat wins the 2008 Presidential election, do you see a cabinet position for Leiberman? I highly doubt it.

    Leiberman's future is to be a Republican operative in Democrat's clothing. Because he is still officially a Democrat, his blessing gives them the bipartisan cover that they need; if he formally switched to being a Republican, the bi would go bye bye. He's very valuable the GOP where he is right now. I'm sure that as soon as he loses the 2006 election, he'll get a nice juicy cabinet post... of course, while remaining a Democrat.

    The second Leiberman formally switches to GOP, he becomes useless to them; he knows it; they know it; most of you know it already; now the rest of you know it.

  •  mentum+mcain hawkin-shillin iran war 4 jr+rw (none)
    extension of the cabal into a big tent of insanity and pure wacko extremism. rabid wingers freepin so-called 'moderates' mentum, mcain, hillary, etc to out-superhawk shrub for his ludicrous irresponsible bloody greedy iran invasion, modeled on the freepin fiasco of iraq. another sick plan. completely unacceptable. no more war, lies, blood, death. how bad does it have to get? how many have to die? this is so waayy beyond fucked up beyond all repair--illegal spying, steps toward an illegal unacceptable draft, attacking the many serious concerns about this and those who speak out about it. yeah, it was a fuckin tshirt! wtf?! freepin unbelievable. it's a fucking fascist state. Americans are rightly fed up and pissed off beyond imagination. enough is enough. stop this madness and the freeper hawk-shill mentum-mcain whorin for shrubco+drevil's sick corrupt bloody greedy escapade. this caligari freepshow is over. Time to Bring em home and get the hell outta dodge. NOw. period.
  •  Well. (none)
    I wonder if Biden will have a stroke when he sees that?

    Trying To Maintain Rationality
    econatheist's bloggity blog blog

    by EconAtheist on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:11:10 AM PST

  •  What about WMD in Iraq? (4.00)
    Is that worse than military action?

    Sweet Cheezits.

    What is wrong with Lieberman?

    I mean. really.

    MATTHEWS says Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" (Hardball, 10/24/05)

    by Krush on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:13:34 AM PST

  •  We would lose a war with Iran. (none)
    I wish stupid politicians like McCain and Lieberman would consider the following:

    Iran is 3 times bigger than Iraq.  They have 3 times as many people.  Their terrain is rugged and mountainous, which will make a ground assault difficult.  There will be no international support for a war.  Our military is not as strong as initially thought.  John Murtha and the military commanders who have been speaking through him have repeatedly underscored how the military is stretched to the breaking point.

    The only way the US would launch a war is with overwhelming air power, but that would be nowhere near enough to defeat the Iranian military or remove its government.  The neocons have a great fascination and belief in the destructive power of our air arsenal, but the effectiveness of air power to secure decisive military victories is overstated at worst and ambiguous at best.  

    Iran also has tools at its disposal to hurt American interests.  First, it could sharply ratchet up the price of oil by restricting supply. Second, Iran could use its relations with Shiite groups in Iraq to launch intensified guerrilla attacks against US forces.  The US remains in Iraq with the tacit consent of the Shiites.  Instead of 60-70 US dead in a month, we would see that figure easily double or triple.  A war against Iran would split and largely turn most Shiite politicians in Iraq against US policy, and they would then see a common interest with Sunni Iraqis in getting US forces out of the country.

    Therefore, the only way a war against Iran can be won by the US is if there is a military draft, which would supply sufficient numbers of troops to launch a land invasion of that country.  We would lose thousands of lives, both during the campaign and in the guerrilla war that would ensue.

    In short, the US has a lot to lose and little to gain from a war with Iran.  If politicans in Washington do not see what folly lies ahead if we keep beating the war drum against Iran, then our country's long-term prosperity and international standing will be imperiled.

  •  Good God Almighty (none)
    Eject the man from the party. Encourage him to run as a Republican.  I'm sure they'd be glad to have him...lose.  Bwahahahah!

    Run, Ned, Run!

    Run, Lowell, Run!

    There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

    by wolverinethad on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:44:40 AM PST

  •  Kos your blogads ad for crashing the gate is still (none)
    going to the original pre-order page, even though you link to amazon etc. you really should update the page as most people may not read past the first sentence and click away.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

    by TimeTogether on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:57:51 AM PST

  •  Subtle Anti-Semitism Here (3.14)
    Dear Fellow Kossacks,

    As a fellow member of the community, let me just express my extreme dismay at seeing the sometimes not-so-subtle anti-Semitism on display in regards to Senator Lieberman. I am a liberal Democrat from Connecticut who will be voting for Ned Lamont this August. I am not a supporter of Senator Lieberman, but saying that "he only cares about Israel" is an unnecessary highlighting of his Jewish background. As a Jewish Democrat, I am uncomfortable with these kinds of comments. Let's keep Lieberman's Jewish identity out of the debate.

    •  it's not just his "background" (4.00)
      the biggest problem many have with lieberman is his foreign policy towards israel and the middle east. lieberman makes no bones about the relationship between his background and his support for israel. those of you who try to deflect criticism of lieberman on this as "anti-semitic" are off-base, at best, or willful deceivers at worst.
    •  fellow kossaks? (2.00)
      nice first post.

      no offense, but just because you have a UID doesn't make you a "fellow member of the community" quite yet. you don't have a history here, thus your qualifying statement that you are a "liberal democrat" and that you are "voting for ned lamont" doesn't really "qualify" you as unbiased in your support for the confused senator. hell, i beg your pardon, but for all anyone knows, you are a troll.

      and as the above poster pointed out - enough hiding behind disingenuous anti-semite accusations.  it's a shanda fur die goy and it may be even more disgusting than anti-semitism.

      you're not comfortable.  pffft.  if you want comfortable, politics is the wrong playground, kid.

      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
      --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      by Back in the Cave on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:06:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mr. Holier-Than-Thou (2.50)
        Wow. What an a**hole. We should be encouraging people to get UIDs and start to join the community. And you know what? Go to hell. I am a member of this community by virtue of the fact that I have registered, read the site daily and WANT to be a member of it. It's because of self-important pompous pricks like yourself that people are turned off to sites like this.
        •  Looks like, smells like... (1.66)
          ... may just actually live under a bridge.  

          My Jewish friends don't believe in hell.  Your barbed invitation for Back in the Cave to go to hell would never even occur to them as an insult.  I don't believe you're Jewish.  I believe you're here as a Lieberman plant and I believe you're a troll.  

          Back in the Cave had good points as he always does.  You don't come in here with a claim of impartiality and use your very first comment up throwing out anti-Semite stones. Learn to get along if you want to be part of a community.  Any community.  Sheesh.  

          Am I a pompous prick too for calling you out, or perhaps I'm being an anti-Semite?  You had better update your genitalia insult list before deciding.  

      •  community (none) I guess if I move into your neighborhood, enroll in the local school, and pay my taxes I'm still not a part of the community to you...

        what an intersting life you must lead...

        So, like, how many members are in your little 'club'

    •  You get (none)
      a "4" for pointing out that it would be wrong for us to criticize Lieberman solely on the basis of his religion and because people are trash rating you for that correct attitude.

      However...we know that already. The problem is Lieberman himself makes his religion a problem for himself because of his stances on Middle East policy in general. He puts Israel's interests in the region above the interests of the United States.

      It is Joe Lieberman making his religion the issue, not us. And that's xenophobia on his part, not anti-semitism on anyone else's when they point it out.

      "I will not trust Bush with the life of one Iraqi."

      by Tamifah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:59:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  double-loyalty canard in full force (none)
        Thank you for the 4. However, Joe Lieberman's position on Israel is shared by many other Democrats, including progressives, in the House and the Senate. We don't spend all this time on DailyKos lambasting them, because they're not Jews. It's the old double-loyalty canard. But seriously, thank you for at least debating me civilly :)
  •  so, lieberman supporters, (none)
    why don't you come in here with some bullshit as to how mccain is really a progressive democrat? (you know, like your bullshit about lieberman)
  •  A right to criticize American foreign policy... (4.00)
    People should be able to speak out against the policies advocated by Lieberman and the neo-cons and not be accused of anti-semitism. Some of us honestly believe that current American behavior in the Middle East is not in the best long-term interests of the American people.
    •  The Neocons miscalculated... (none)
      Iraq not only increased terrorist recruiting, it brought back Cold War style nuclear face offs, this time between the West and religious extremists, who believe death has more advantages than life.
      •  The Neocons MAY have miscalculated, (none)
        but they WANTED to bring back Cold War fear so they could justify their military buildup and also to get us American citizens under control, Straussian-style.
  •  Democrats in Conn must enact IRV (none)
    Now is the time for the democrats to use their overwhelming majority to enact Instant Runoff Voting. The dems have a 2-1 majority in both houses of the state legislature and therefore have a veto proof majority.

    Will people vote to get rid of Lieberman if they fear the consequences of lesser-evilism?  I doubt it. They will stick with the devil they know. But if the state legislature makes it possible for people to rank choice their ballot 1,2,3 they will safely voting Lieberman out.

    That needs to happen pronto.  Lieberman was the first to his feet as Bush praised Iraq at SOTU, and gave him endless ovation.

    Instant Runoff Voting was invented by dems in Anne Arbor Michigan in the 70s to end the spoiler effect and they elected a dem mayor, an african american.

    If the dems act quickly and decisively Lieberman will be history.

    •  Lieberman wouldn't be talking like this IF... (none)
      he didn't know something no one else knows about his electability. Either he is still the favorite in connecticutt or he is intending to kick his Senatorial career for a cabinet job when McCain wins the presidency.
  •  ALL of you are *over reacting*! (4.00)

     I am confident that Senator Lieberman will explain his positions thoroughly when he gives the Key Note Address at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

     Now all of you calm down.


    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:40:45 AM PST

  •  I wonder who Lieberman voted for (none)
    In the 2000 Presidential race?
  •  Gee, I remember the days (none)
    before Kerry chose his running mate, that many were thinking he'd choose McCain.

    There are many Democrat/Republican friends in Congress.  

    I don't like Lieberman either, and I hope they find a good primary challenger, but Kos is making a mountain out of a molehill.

  •  Joe senses (none)
    That the Dems don't have a candidate that has a snow balls chance in hell of winning againstt today's GOP.

    Remember ladies and gentlemen, never let the facts get in the way of your arguement ;)

    by dotnetskills on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:24:19 AM PST

  •  How conservative is McCain? (none)
    His voting record on Project Vote Smart,  

    McCain's gets a 90% from the John Birch society. Ted Stevens get an 80%.

    Christian Action Network: McCain 79%

    My senators from California a 7% and 4%

    The Christian Coalition
    McCain 83%
    Stevens 83%
    Boxer 0%

    Concerned Women for America
    McCain 100%
    Boxer 7%

    American Conservative Union
    McCain 78%
    Boxer 5%

  •  The Lieberman Syndrome (none)
    People forget that Kerry wanted McCain as HIS VP candidate as well. Lieberman, Kerry, and McCain are not so far apart from each other as their various followers would like to think, or would like to make us think.

    All three Senators have a way of making dramatically self-righteous statements, seeming to lead briefly, and then unexpectedly going back to business as usual, instead of staying consistent and staying on point. It's the Lieberman Syndrome.

    McCain led nobly on the torture issue, but then didn't have much to say about Bush's "signing statement." Kerry led the filibuster movement nobly for a few days, but now he's back off somewhere else doing something else again. Unlike the other two, Lieberman just has a lot of righteous stuff to say, that's never backed up by action.

    Lieberman is the DINO version of Orren Hatch. Both are sanctimonious people, judgmental about everyone but themselves. Hatch seems to suffer from Lieberman Syndrome too.

    Democrats might do better to focus on consistent leaders, who really, consistently, belong to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, and are there all the time for us, like Gen. Clark, Dr. Dean, Sen. Kennedy, and Sen. Clinton.

  •  Some crazed madman huh...It's about OIL (none)
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....In 1975, he ranked 130th in the nationwide university entrance exams. He then got his diploma and was admitted to the Iran University of Science and Technology in the field of civil engineering. He was accepted as an MS student at the same university in 1984 and got his doctorate in 1987 in the field of engineering and traffic transportation planning .......June 28, 2005 when he was elected president. He is widely considered to be a religious conservative with Islamist and populist views. Ahmadinejad was a civil engineer and an assistant professor at the Iran University of Science and Technology before his mayorship......One of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables," referring to Iran's oil profits being distributed among the poor...........Ahmadinejad's first piece of legislation to emerge from his newly formed government was a 12 trillion rial (1.3 billion USD) fund called "Reza Love Fund" [13] which was named after one of Shi'a Islam's Imams, Ali al-Rida. By tapping into Iran's huge oil revenues, Ahmadinejad's government claims that this fund will be used to help young people to get employed and to afford marriage, as well to assist in purchasing their own homes. The fund also sought charitable donations, and includes a boards of trustees in each of Iran's 30 provinces.


    Connect the dots. Its about Peak Oil.

    by fed up on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:12:13 AM PST

  •  I've known Joe for 30 years. (none)
    Gee, that sounds pretentious. It's more accurate to say that we knew each other 30 years ago; if our paths crossed again I'm sure he we would be gracious enough to pretend to remember me. (We worked together on the Udall '76 primary campaign in Connecticut.)

    Since then, though, one of has changed and it isn't me! It's sad to see that he has lost his way over the years. Since there are no indications that he'll retire, it is time to replace him in the primary.

    Lamont '06!

  •  I see the Kool-aid drinkers (3.33)
    Here at Kos are drunk this morning. Lieberman said all options are on the table, that does not mean that he wants to invade. All options on Iran have to be on the table when you are talking about Iran with nukes. This is a dangerous regime in Iran, and the US and others can't afford to take their eyes off them.
       I hope it won't come to military action, but you can't take it completely off the table. That's all Lieberman is saying. Get it straight!!!! Only the Lieberman haters out there could come to that conclusion.

    George Bush, killing your kids, and lying to your face

    by whitehousemoron on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:23:42 AM PST

  •  What is so dangersous about Iran? (none)
    We have 8000 to 10,000 nukes.  Israel has 100 to 200 depending on the source of information.  Iran has ZERO.  They want to use nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.  They have offered inspections and to let the US bid on building the plants.  This is about leverage over OIL.OIL.OIL.OIL.  The US military budget is about 450 billion a year. Irans defense budget is less than 10 billion a year.  I say military budget because it is not a defense budget.  Defense means to defend.  Military means to advance and invade. We have troops and bases in most countries in the world.  This is about leverage over oil.  The US wants to make a bank to sell all other countries nuclear materials, because we have virtually no OIL and use more than anyone on the planet.  We need leverage.  Who do you think sells more weapons than any other country on the planet?  Who is creating the danger?

    Connect the dots. Its about Peak Oil.

    by fed up on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:57:16 AM PST

  •  Sympathy for the Devil (none)
    I can't stand Lieberman and I'm not much into making excuses for him, but these comments sound a lot like collegial banter ("I hope his aren't") and his hawkishness vis-a-vis the Middle East is just not news.

    I'm all for bashing Joe when he (regularly) screws up, but IMO this stuff doesn't make the chop.

    "Their children's children shall say they have lied" - Yeats

    by Necons Will Ban Me on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:33:25 AM PST

    •  Exactly (none)
      When McCain and Hillary Clinton appeared together on Meet the Press last year, McCain said she would make a good president. Does that mean McCain endorsed her? I can't stand Lieberman and have signed Lamont's petition, but let's criticize Lieberman when he truly screws up, not when he engages in some friendly banter with another senator, as senators often do when they appear together.
  •  I'm no great Lieberman fan, but... (4.00)
    I don't see how these two things rank him as "off his rocker". Two close friends happen to be of different parties, and one says that he hopes the other is still in the game? Shocking. And as for the Iran idea? Not especially out of the mainstream. Of course all options have to be on the table for pressure. We have a lot less credibility than we did thanks to Iraq, but without military pressure we have nothing to force Iran's hand with! And I think we can all agree that a nuclear Iran is not in the interest of the world, given its belligerant language and the overall instability of the region.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask, Why Not? ~Robert F. Kennedy

    by Southern Liberal on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:38:00 AM PST

    •  Lieberman et al. (3.50)
      1. I don't care for Lieberman. At all. Scale of one to ten on liking him, it doesn't even register.
      2.  But, I think our problem with this whole McCain thing, should he run, is going to be "bad", but not based on what Lieberman says and does.
      3.  No one I know, knows much about Lieberman or really cares. But for some reason, they like McCain. And these are all Democrats. But they're not news junkies, nor do they read dk, or Atrios, etc. I mean they keep in touch, but only by relying on the media's version of the state of things, and that's now and then.  But they like McCain, and would consider voting for him, but really don't know why. When I ask them do they know his voting record, they give me a blank look. When I tell them what it is, they go "ouch".

      What they do know is stuff like this...and it's these things that sink into their brain matter without them even really knowing it.

      "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."
      John McCain quotes (American Politician and Senator from Arizona since 1987. b.1936)

      "Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."

      When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that -- I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country.""

      Plus, McCain makes sure to be a thorn in G's side now and then, just to suck in my poor, naive friends.

      That being said, should McCain and run and win, I would not fall to my knees and cry for a week like I did with Bush in 2000 and 2004. I don't care for the man, or his policies, and think this country would not be served by having...i'll shut the hell up, you know what I'm trying to say...but at least he's intelligent. And I could respect that.

      •  McCain is Evil Now? (none)
        What, exactly, is so horrid about McCains voting record?  He's consistantly been a strong moderate, strongly interested in bringing honesty and dignity into politics and reigining in the massive spending going on.

        You guys were all so excited about even the rumor of a Kerry-McCain run, and nearly sainted him for being a major partner in the Gang of 14.  Now many of the DKers out there are disgusted at his very being.  It sounds a lot like mindless politics and not a lot of critical consideration -- or long memories.

  •  Joe is a Fucktard (none)
    And his whiny voice makes my skin crawl.
  •  I usually agree with you on most things kos (none)
    but you know thats not what he was saying.
    People, he didn't say the second quote - Kos is in error.  McCain said the second quote.

    McCain, widely seen as a likely 2008 Republican presidential candidate, added that war is not out of the question.

    "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option; that is a nuclear-armed Iran," he said. "The military option is the last option but cannot be taken off of the table."

    According to the CNN article, McCain said the quote, and Feinstein and Bayh agreed with his assessment.  They went on to discuss how the situation with Iran was a result of Bush ignoring Iran.

    Will Kos clear it up and stop suggesting that it was Lieberman that said the second quote?  Probably not.

  •  This is a very disheartening thread (none)
    Disheartening because it is yet another front-page focus on taking out an elected Democrat at at time when we have no seats to spare.  If Democrats want to regain control of the House and/or the Senate, we will have to make a herculanean effort AGAINST REPUBLICANS.

    And disheartening to see the joy with which so many posters set upon each other.   Defenders of Lieberman are baited and then troll-rated into oblivion.   Accusations of anti-Semitism, founded or unfounded, spring up and then all hell breaks loose.  No one has the fortitude to sort it out, but it is pretty clear that acrimony abounds at dailyKos.

    Isn't it enough that we have to contend with right-wing Republican domination of all the branches of government?  Do we really need to devote so much energy at dailyKos on Lieberman?  Frankly, it is tiresome and I really believe it is counterproductive to the overall goal of taking back Congress

    I feel very weary and disappointed.

    "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

    by Radiowalla on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:57:54 PM PST

  •  there are more than a few anti-semites here (none)
    anyone that speaks of dealing with iran, a country that has openly supported the destruction of israel [read genocide] for decades is an anti-semite. no two ways about it, my friends.

    and really... beyond that pesky fact there's their gay, lesbian and transgender rights record, that is just so, so outstanding, as well as their wonderful women's rights record.

    nice to know how many real liberals are left in this place.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site