Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Left vs. Lieberman

Democracy for America, the political offshoot of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, is weighing in on Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman recent defense of the Iraq war and, more importantly, the Bush administration's handling of the conflict.

DFA Chairman Jim Dean, brother of Howard and a Connecticut resident, has written a letter to Lieberman taking issue with his comment that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Dean's letter is featured prominently on the organization's Web site, which asks for supporters to co-sign it before it is officially submitted to Lieberman next week.

Noreen Nielsen, a spokeswoman for DFA, said Dean penned the letter after the group conducted an e-mail poll of its roughly 9,000 Connecticut members.  These individuals were asked whether DFA should take action in response to Lieberman's comment.  Nielsen said that 93 percent of the approximately 500 people who responded to the poll said DFA should take action against Lieberman. 

What all of the energy massing against Lieberman on the ideological left means for his reelection prospects in 2006 is unclear. Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut governor and senator who lost to Lieberman in 1988, has said he would consider the race if no other anti-war candidate emerges -- not exactly the kind of fire in the belly that will rally voters to oust an entrenched incumbent like Lieberman. 

For now, the DFA letter and all the other Lieberman bashing is sound and fury, signifying nothing. But if it lasts, and if liberal Democrats can find a strong candidate to make a primary challenge, this could get interesting.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 9, 2005; 4:30 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chatting With The Fix
Next: N.J. Senate: Keeping Their Options Open


"Signifying nothing," you say?

That's empty rhetoric -- on your part.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 19, 2005 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Wake up America. Which country conceivably benefits from the Iraq war: certainly not America. You have an Israeli agent in your Senate. Joe who?

Posted by: Eric Yendall | December 16, 2005 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the Left vs. Lieberman: Even if the Left Wing Democrats desert Lieberman, there are enough moderate Democrats and appreciative Repblicans to see that he is handily re-elected. How about a swap, the Republicans will give the Dems Chris Shays, and we will take Joe Lieberman. Nah, even the Democrats aren't that dumb.

Posted by: Dave | December 13, 2005 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If nothing els, Lieberman should just hold his tongue, if he's a democrat. These current republicans have not compromised on anything, nothing. We don't need anyone to give them assistance with their machismo.

Posted by: Shag Wilburnn | December 12, 2005 7:41 PM | Report abuse

As a veteran and now a DoD civil servant, I can say that while the military did have concerns about Clinton, Bush has used our sons and daughters as nothing more than mercenaries for his own personal and political whims. I work for the agency that pays the military and I can tell you he is sending them off to war and taking their benefits away at the same time. Do you think he is really going to pay for these soldiers to come home and be treated with the quality physical and mental medical care they deserve? I assure you that that will not be the case. We have soldiers now who are losing everything here at home because they've been deployed so long overseas. So much for Bush having a strategy. The only exit strategy he ever had was for Vietnam. And, Merna, I'd hardly call Dick Morris someone worth quoting. What hypocrisy.

Posted by: KAS | December 12, 2005 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Really, do the Dems need to fight over who they should or should not have in the DEMocratic party. They are in the minority. I think they should be focusing on getting more Dems elected than wasting their time expelling one of their own. That said, Lieberman is a man of integrity. He was the Demo VP nominee. He has earned the respect of the Dems and GOP. Yes he is pro-Israel but so had every administration since FDR. Both GOP and Dems.

What me thinks is the GOP sees a crack in the Dems having a healthy dose of discussion on the merit of Bushes Iraqi policies that have exposed the NeoCOns has being a devious bunch of cronies that lied to the American people about WMD. So as any GOP strategy goes, change the subject and start tallking about the DEms difference instead of the real issue of the failed Bush-Cheney foreign policies.

Posted by: Impeach BushNow | December 12, 2005 3:03 AM | Report abuse

CV since as you say the Democrat leadership in CT is too weak to take on Lieberman, then the only option is for Dems in your state to back Lowell Weicker
as an Independent, to take out old Joe!

Joe must be defeated at all cost in 2006, because he has gone to the "Dark Side" now
with Bush, and defends the Iraq fiasco too!


Posted by: Jay Randal | December 11, 2005 11:51 PM | Report abuse

All Y'all need to lay off the Kool-Aid, BillC, ed, Merna.
Say your train is about to leave a station but you can see another train coming up the only track, a trainwreck IS about to happen, would you get on?
Hapless Joe taking Rummy's chair?!?
The only way that makes any sense is as some attempt to leave the mess in a Democrat's lap. Joe gives them just that thin veneer of bi-partisanship, how does it feel to be a figleaf, Joe? Good luck in your new job.
Joe used to be a decent Senator but he's never been quite right since his brush with the Big Time. You touch on that, longhorn.
Jay Randal, Our State Democratic Party is too dysfunctional at this point, to move against him, in the grip of an entrenched DLC clique and the National party is not exactly on it's best game.
Yo, Right Democrat, It's not moderates that we're dealing with here. Nationwide, the war in Iraq polls about 64/32/4. Among Democrats at the rank and file it's much higher. Connecticut was one of the bluest states in the last two Presidentials. To come out now in support of the war is an extreme position, way outside the mainstream of his constituency, any constituency.
The "moderate" Dems you speak of, by supporting the war, have made it impossible for the Party to unify around a coherent policy. The "Democratic Leadership" has NO position on the War! Could that just be because thats the side of the bread with the butter? Lieberman and Dodd represent large military contractors as well as the Financial Giants and drug companies. "The Corporate wing of the Party", the Democratic Leadership Committee can't honestly state it's positions to the rank and file, they'd lose their primaries. Policies that make Corporations Rich while making life harder for the poor and middle class are not Democratic values. "Leadership" has been staggering all over the yard trying to cope. Watch the Party hollow out if the DLC is allowed to lead the Dems farther out into the desert.
When Jack Murtha went off, He wasn't talking for the DLC or the DNC, he was talking for the career military and the Democratic Party rank and file. He was talking for Cindy Sheehan's Gold Star moms and for the wounded soldiers, for the millions of people that are waking up to the fiasco we've got on our hands.
The next few years will be fascinating. Just as the Dems are collapsing, the Republicans are about to see a swarm of indictments coming at them everywhere they look. Even if Fitzmas is over (highly unlikely), Abramoff ought to be good for 8 to 10 sitting Congressmen, DeLay, a dozen more, Frist, Blunt, Hastert, The whole State Government of Ohio, the Governor's offices in Kentucky, and as they say, much, much more.
Kinda tough to continue as a party when most of your leadership is in jail or on their way.
Hopefully, the scandals and reforms that ensue from the collapse of the Elephants and Donkeys will lead to clean money elections, instant runoff voting, paper trail, public vote counting, adjourning the electoral college, Third (and Fourth...) Parties et cetera.
But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: CV | December 11, 2005 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Cronies??? This is so hypocritical to accuse Bush of cronieism, when the Clintons only requirement for top level positions was their close personal relationships.
Besides Wesley Clark, who was so disliked by other NATO commanders that Clinton was told to get him out, or they would not guarantee his safety, there is Hillary school-cum and gal-pal Peggy Richardson whose friendship with Hillary was rewarded by an appointment to IRS Commissioner.
Richardson and the Clintons use of her as a political assassin, along with the misconduct of other Democrats in using the IRS as their political assassin of choice was detailed in the Barrett report. A probe into political misconduct inside the IRS. this probe took two years and cost the taxpayers 22 million dollars. It was blocked from publication by Democrats in the House and Senate sso that Clinton lawyers had time to get three liberal judgess to aloow them to take a black magic marker to any referances to Clinton wrong-doing.

Ask yourself why the main-stream-media chose to hide this report from you.

Dick Morris was right when he wrote: Bill Clinton made himself this wars Jane Fonda when he traveled to Dubaie, just a few hundred miles from the combatzone, to denounce the American involvment in Iraq as a "big mistake."
Clinton also attacked the administration for not leaving the "fundamental Military and social and police structure intact" that infrastructure killed, tortured, maimed and mulitalated hundreds of thousands of people. Should President Harry Truman have left the Gestapo in place?

The Democratic party has absolutely no idea of how to protect this Nation. They have become so fat on political pork, so lazy in coming up with ideas to help Americans, relying on what they see as their past glory and what they see as the freely taxable never-ending purse of the American citizen to keep them in power.
The deep sickness of unresonable hate in the Democratic party was evident when they rallied around Kerry, whom they all disliked and distrusted, even the Village Voice called Kerry a charlatan and a fraud prior to his loss, preferring to hand a nation at war over to a fraud, in order to oust a president they had been brain-washed to despise.

What plan for anything have the Democrats offered? They offer only anger and hate, they stir your emotions in order to cloud from you the truth that they have no plan.
The economy is roaring and yet they would have you believe we are struggling to survive. Job-less-ness is at an all time low, and yet they would try to convince you otherwise.
In order for the Democratic party to succeed, the American people must fail, and they and their elite-media cohorts are willing to turn this nation into a charnel-house for their own vain, greedy, power-hungry purpose.

Posted by: Merna | December 11, 2005 4:22 PM | Report abuse

No terrorists in Iraq before the war? You need to read the 9/11 report.
Page 61:Intelligence report, al-Qaeda and Iraq Aug 1, 1997;
bin-laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Isslamist in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
Sudan's islamist leader, Turabi, in order to protect his own ties with iraq, brokered an agreement that bin-Laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam.
In the late 1990's these extreemist groups began fighting the Kurds. the Kurds were so despised by Saddam that he gassed whole villages of them and filled many mass graves one of which included over 200 children buried alive.
In the 1090's these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001 with bin-Laden's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam, against the common Kurdish enemy.
bin-Laaden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum, late 1994 or early 1995. bin-Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons.
1997 there is evidence that bin-Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation.
In March of 1998, after bin-Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al-Qaeda members went to Iraq to meet with iraq intelligence.
In July an Iraqi delegation travled to Afghanistan to meet with first the Taliban and then with bin-laden. Sources reported that one or perhaps both of these meetings were arranged through bin-Laens Egyptian deputy, Zawahire, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin-laden in 1999 resulted in Saddam offering bin-Laden a safe haven in Iraq.

There is much more in the 9/11 report, the Kay report and the Duelfer report.
Kay actually said of post-war Iraq: the Iraq we found was even more dangerious than even we had thought. that the rate of corruption and decay of Saddam's goverment, and the fact that terrorists had free reign to move about the country, made it only a matter of time before a willing seller of WMD and/or their systems in Saddam's regime and a willing terrorist buyer connected, if in fact they had not already done so.
Duelfer has said this of our position in Iraq: 'we are in a struggle between the worst of humanity and the best of humanity.
', he has refered to the American and coalition forces in iraq as the forces for creation and the terrorists in Iraq as the forces of destruction. He has also said he has not doubt that what we have done in going to war with Saddam's Iraq and what we are doing on the ground there now are the right thing.

Do you think that when the Democrats and the main-stream-media collude in cherry picking and selectively-editing the information they spoon-feed you in order to play down the dangers posed to us by Saddam's Iraq, how they ignore the brutality of Saddam's Iraq, how the ignore the positive things happening everyday in Iraq, is in your best interest? In the best interest of the security of this Nation?

Great civilizations have fallen as they came to distain their military and opted for what they felt was a more enlightened life-style.
Ancient Greece, Rome, even China. The ancient Chineese fell under the rule of the first Empoer as they had no coordinated defense, they preferred art.
To think the West could not fall as these other great societies have fallen and been plunged into darkness by marauding hords of barbarians, think again.

The reason we found ourselves so ill-prepared for the 1812, was that while the liberals hero Thomas jefferson was President he disbanded our Navy and Militia.
While James Madison was trying to fight a war and preserve our fledgling nation, the for-runners of the Democratic part fled to New England and plotted with the British to surrender.

Tommy Franks detailed in his book; "American Soldier" how as the leader on Centcom, he was never once invited to the White House, never once asked to confer with president Clinton on the dangers facing this nation.
In fact the whole of the Military save a few politically expediant puppets such as the infamus Wesley Clark who bungled and was fired from his appointment to NATO, were given the cold shoulder by the Clinton white House.

We saw the same old paranoid hate for the Military and the FBI and CIA in the Clinton White House, that has plagued all Democratic administrations.
The famous wall, put up by the Clinton Justice Department allowed foreign agents to exploit our built-ininablity to track them and hence nearly 3000 Americans lost their lives.
This was no accident. This was lack of vision and a severe lack of vigilance by the very paranoid Clinton White House who were more afraid of their imaginary vicious right-wing conspiracy than they were the terrorists that were killing Americans at an alarming rate and going un-challenged by the Clinton White House.
The Clintons could murder men, women and childern by burning them alive right here in America, people who had not attacked America, and ignore the attacks by al-Qaeda on our service personnel and facilities abroad.

There is a line between dissent and sedition, the Democrat have crossed that line.
Joe Lieberman is right, and all the spin and psychobabble coming out of the Democratic party leaders will not make them right, will not make them anything other than what they are, sabatours of their own country at time of war.

Posted by: Merna | December 11, 2005 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah right, let's push all of the moderates out of the Democratic Party and move further to the left. That's a winning strategy for Democrats. The most recent interest group statistics that I could find for Joe Lieberman gave him a 75 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and a 84 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. Does that reflect a right-wing Republican voting record ?

Posted by: Right Democrat | December 11, 2005 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic party should make an example out of Joe. Challenge him in the primary with a new Democrat candidate and give the financial support necessary to make it happen. Let Joe go sit on the porch with Zell Miller. They deserve each others horrible company.

Posted by: GOPussys | December 11, 2005 1:29 AM | Report abuse

ed > you are the one spewing hatred and intollerance on here about Democrats!

We Democrats are NOT hatemongers or warmongers either, but we dislike Bush and his greedy pack of swindler cronies!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 11, 2005 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I would ask Sandwhich Repairman if he has ever spoken to a military man or woman who served under Clinton and Bush. What an idiotic claim that Clinton left the military in good shape, while Bush has decimated it. The truth is that, under Clinton, the military was demoralized. Ask any career military person. They lost most of their benefits, and were a TOY in the hands of an adulterer president, who only used them at a whim to get the media off his back concerning Lewinsky.

Bush, on the other hand, has restored the pay of the military (ask my son, the Marine), and given them PRIDE in their mission and their country.

And as far as those first couple comments calling Senator Lieberman names (like "scumbag"), they should be ashamed. But then again, what do you expect from left-wingers. They are the most intolerant of the whole nation, far more intolerant than the "Christian Right". I mean, it is the left-wingers who call Colin Powell and Condie Rice "house slaves" and "Oreos". It is the LEFT who calls Michelle Malkin "a gook". It is the LEFT who calls Lieberman "a scumbag." And it is the LEFT who calls anyone who disagrees with them "stupid." That's intolerant. Oh yeah, and while we are at it, it's the LEFT who accuses African-American children who try to excel in school of "acting white."

I look forward to the 2006 elections, when the Republicans take even more seats from the Dems, in both the House and Senate.

Posted by: ed | December 10, 2005 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is a Trojan-Horse Republican!

Call him another Zell Miller if you so desire!

He shills for Dubya and defends the Iraq fiasco!

Dump Joe is best for CT Democrats in 2006!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 10, 2005 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The one thing Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller have in common is a desperate need for someone to pay attention to them.

Zell needed it because his ego couldn't cope with going from being Georgia's top dog - governor - to being the junior senator in a minority party and not getting the expected deference to his opinions.

Lieberman is desperate for relevance in the wake of a failed bid for vice president and a fading political career. Sad. He could go out with some dignity like Jimmy Carter. Instead he's going to go out like Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Longhorn | December 10, 2005 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Better reporting from the web...

From ThinkProgress:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), yesterday on the Bill Press Show: "I've spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he's out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he's just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."

Lieberman Flashback: Questioning Bush's Credibility Is Central To Democracy

On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman argued that anyone who questions President Bush's credibility while the country is at war puts the nation in danger.

Lieberman, 12/7/05:

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

But when he was running for President, Lieberman directly questioned Bush's credibility on the war. In fact, he argued that doing so was an essential part of our democracy.

Lieberman, 7/28/03:

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president's conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It's not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It's not about searching for scapegoats; it's about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge. [Press Conference with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Re: War in Iraq, 7/28/03]

When he was running for President, Lieberman questioned Bush's credibility on the war because that's what he needed to do to get votes. Now, after his campaign flopped, he is attacking people who question Bush's credibility on the war because that's what he needs to do to get attention.

For Lieberman, this is about political opportunism, not principle.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 10, 2005 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is that rare politician who puts patriotism above politics.

Howard Dean and the Move On crowd with no comprehension of Middle America will insure that the Democratis remain the minority party for another generation.

Only if Hilary Clinton ignores them and still gains the nomination do they have a prayer of winning the White House in 2008.

Posted by: BobSchlesinger | December 10, 2005 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Met00 | December 10, 2005 5:02 PM | Report abuse

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Met00 | December 10, 2005 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Gosh Nadya, what about the United States devaluing democracy by fighting an elective war against a country that posed no threat to us under the guise of being part of a "war on terrorism"? I guess we're no better than Russia, huh?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 10, 2005 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton left the nation with a strong, nimble military in such great condition that it was able to root the Taliban out of Afghanistan in a mere month. Bush has emaciated that military to the point where troops are fighting with no armor and recruitment levels have fallen short of their targets for at least 9 months in a row. Bush's war has killed 2100 servicemembers and wounded something like 15,000. Clinton did nothing of the sort. I see no connection to the idiotic idea that we have a mommy party and a daddy party. What I see is that Clinton was good for the military and Bush has been disastrous for it.

And people, let's remember that no monolithic, party leader force has the ability to expell anyone from a political party. This isn't a parliamentary system like Canada. Everyone gets to decide their own party affiliation, and Lieberman's ability to run for reelection as a Democrat will be determined by the vote of Connecticut Democrats in their primary and nothing else.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 10, 2005 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I want to pay attention on Lieberman. He's right supporting the war as nesessary but he's wrong supporting it's handling by the current administration. It cetainly should be carried on in another way, maybe something like rapid reaction force instead of immense troops.
Also, I'd pull your attention to one more question that you missed. I mean that Lieberman together with Sen. John McCain (R-Az)expressed deep concerns about Russia's anti-West trend, anti-democracy policies and, especially, genocidal war in North Caucasus. (I'd add that this war under pretext of "fighting terrorism" which is a mockery for justifying genocide of Chechens). They even questioned it's membership in G-8. This question of playing cat-mouse games with neo-dictator Putin while at the same time countless wording about US"s leadership in spreading domcracy all over the world devolve the value of democracy itself.
That's why I'm for Lieberman.

Posted by: Nadya | December 10, 2005 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is part of a very small clique of neocons that have placed the defense of Israel at the top of their priorities. Of course you can't say that in American politics today because then you get labeled an anti-Semite.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 10, 2005 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Fooled me once shame on him fooled me twice shame on me Do not vote for him is he trying to get even for not getting anywhere in the elections I sure hated that kisshe got.

Posted by: Liberman | December 10, 2005 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Expat Teacher, for the record, labelling people and parties as "Mommy" and "Daddy" is disingenous at best.

Want proof? Clinton, a Democrat, did okay in Bosnia and Haiti. Bush's father, a Republican, did okay with his military challenges but stunk on Somalia. I'd suggest that, so far, the current President has done comparatively less well with Iraq and possibly Afghanistan.

So success or failure at military adventures tracks less to party and more to the character and personal qualities/interests of the President and their aides and the circumstances they face.

So I'd cut the baby talk and focus on what matters: people, policy, and ideas. It's a canard to label one party (or the other) as categorically weak on defense. Certainly it does not help the debate.

Posted by: Tim | December 10, 2005 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman is supporting Bush because he's afraid that Israel will get wiped off the map. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the war but there sure are now and after the U.S. is tired of the casualties in this new Vietnam and withdraw, these newly trained terrorists will turn their attention on Israel. Which after all these thousands of years of causing unrest to the region by oppressing the inhabitants,
will probably have a rough go at it. Instead of concentrating those 160,000 troops that are mired down in Iraq, Bush should have those same 160,000 troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan going after Bin Laden and rooting out terror cells throughout the world. He and his administration should be impeached.
Beside being wishy washy and a whiner Lieberman is doing an admirable job as an "Indian Fighter". A soft contrast to the angry,spittle flying, face twisted Zell Miller. Strange bedfellows with the Repugnant Republicans

Posted by: Deuces | December 10, 2005 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Yenta: Yiddish for Jewish mother. Connotes a very strong-willed and domineering personality in the household.


Posted by: rmck1 | December 10, 2005 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Expat Teacher:

I didn't read your whole piece, but I did
read the graf you posted and I disagree.

Lieberman doesn't come across like a Daddy on foreign policy. He
comes across as a Yenta. His "Marshall Plan For the Mideast" is
grotesque, and embodies everything nauseating about the ambivalence
of the liberal hawks. You don't Marshall Plan a region without
devastating it in total wafare first. Otherwise it's just meddling.

Which isn't to say -- gods forbid -- that I support
total warfare with the Mideast. Quite the contrary.


Posted by: rmck1 | December 10, 2005 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I was a Howad Dean activist. Naturally I've had my moments of
antipathy with JoeMentum. But I'm also an inclusive Democrat
and I'm not willing to see him purged from the party, either.

There are strong pro-choice voices in the Reupublican Party
(Collins, Chafee, most importantly Specter), and there are also
a host of Republicans who don't go all the way with the Christian
Right. Why shouldn't there be a place in the Democratic Party
for socially conservative noodniks and war supporters?

Lieberman has a high rating from the ADA, and a 100% from the
League of Conservation Voters. He's very good on consumer and
labor issues, and these are the things that make him a Democrat.

But, having said all of this -- he did cross the line with
that one set of remarks. To criticize the president is not
"undermining" -- it's the very health of our democracy.

If I lived in Connecticut, I'd definitely vote against the guy
in the primaries, and probably for Weicker if he ran as an Indy.

But JoeShmoe can and should stay a Democrat. Zell Miller he *ain't*.


Posted by: rmck1 | December 10, 2005 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Tried a trackback, but that didn't work. I've written a response entitled "The Left v Lieberman or Why DailyKos is wrong" at -

Excerpt: "Anyone who follows politics and/or watches The West Wing knows that the Democratic Party has The Mommy Problem. The Democratic Party is who you run to when you skin your knee or need something to eat, but when you need someone to defend you, run to the Republicans. Democrats are seen as weak on national security and public safety. Lieberman flies in the face of the Mommy Problem. He is the face that can change public opinion."

Posted by: Expat Teacher | December 10, 2005 9:43 AM | Report abuse

the issue is not one of political persuasions Joe has been a good democrat But Joe is a hawk, more fervent than Chris Dodd and Connecticut has always been a bastion of the military industrial complex. Yhese have cut their teeth on feeding the war machine. Neither one of them deserves to be representing the citizens of Connecticut. With Weicker we have a wonderful opportunity to unseat Joe and I'll bet Joe is still afraid of his old arch rival. Lowell Weicker is a bully but he is not an idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 10, 2005 9:38 AM | Report abuse

i am a patriot and i support the troops by fighting to bring them home in one piece. once folks start to characterize such activism as "unpatriotic" it is a sure sign that the politics in this country is sufficiently radicalized that we're on the road to becoming a fullfledge police state. for democrat joe lieberman to kowtow to the president is a disgrace. I can't believe that i am about to say this, but the more that i learn about joe lieberman, then more i wonder if dick cheney really was the *worst* possible scenario in 2000???
ok, i feel dirty now fpr admitting this, better to take a long bath.

Posted by: jay lassiter | December 10, 2005 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, did you see that after a week the news section finally decided to cover this. Nice to know you are WAY ahead of them.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | December 10, 2005 8:23 AM | Report abuse

I feel Joe should formalize his kissing of the bush butt and resign from democratic party and become the new and improved defense secretary to replace a man who should have been fired 2 years ago.

while being a registered dem for over 40 years I can see why Joe upset by dean rhetoric but to overtly support bush while not supporting murtha, pelosi, clinton, biden represents a dramatic departure from democratic ideals.

further, when will the dems present a cohesive agenda? we are at critical meltdown stage for bush as his bots get indicted for fraud and as the outing of his iraq strategy gets hammered in the press. now is the time for leadership and the not the mad politician kind of howard. while i like howard sometimes he becomes a menace and defeats his own purpose.

Posted by: Jim Dunbar | December 10, 2005 6:59 AM | Report abuse

A) The trend is inevitable and inexorable; there is no point fighting it.

B) Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore have virtually no influence at all among elected officials of any kind. They just get media attention and draw people's ire. Sound public policy IS served by political parties that are organized around clear ideologies giving expressing to peoples' beliefs in one of the two fundamental sets of beliefs about the proper role of government. We don't help anyone or anything by confusing the parties' roles with people who don't believe in what their own party stands for and muddling their messages.

The most active people in politics, as it has always been, are the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans. They are the ones, largely, who donate money to campaigns, who volunteer to walk precincts, talk to voters, give rides to the polls, stuff envelopes, register new one is stopping moderates of either party from doing just that. But it's basic human nature that those who do the work are the ones who get to make the decisions. If you don't like or Democracy for America, fine! Organize a moderate group and do the most you can with it! More power to those who bother to get involved, regardless of their party or ideology. But if they can't be bothered to vote in primaries, midterms, and off-year elections, don't blame that on real Democrats and Republicans. It's the people with strong beliefs who are most motivated to participate.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 10, 2005 3:22 AM | Report abuse

The polarization of political parties along ideological extremes is hardly a welcome trend. Sound public policy is not served by parties that are so strongly influenced by rabid followers of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Furthermore, the embrace of extremes overlooks the reality that parties win elections by appealing to the center.

I am a Democrat because of a belief in activist government. I feel that government must regulate the marketplace, provide a safety net for those in need and protect workers and consumers. At the same time, I hold views that would be described as conservative on some social issues and matters of national security. It seems to me that one could hold views opposite to mine and favor the Republican Party. Both parties appear to be driving out moderates although the Republicans are certainly better at seeming moderate which explains their dominance in recent years.

Posted by: Right Democrat | December 10, 2005 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Joe Liebermann and Zell Miller!!!!

Two "Mainstream" Democrats who are disrespected by their wingmen because they are leaders not whiners. Anyone in the country should be proud to support these men of character and HONOR!

The Democratic Party will continue to be second rate as long as it follows "Screamin Dean", "Hapless Harry" and "Bellicose Pellosi".......what are they thinking?

The tactics of treating the Electorate as sheep or children to be lead around is destined to backfire.

!!!!Find as many Primary Sources of information as possible from all sides and don't be fooled by the propaganda!!!!

Fooled me once when I was young! Never again!

Posted by: BillC | December 9, 2005 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Joe Liebermann and Zell Miller!!!!

Two "Mainstream" Democrats who are disrespected by their wingmen because they are leaders not whiners. Anyone in the country should be proud to support these men of character and HONOR!

The Democratic Party will continue to be second rate as long as it follows "Screamin Dean", "Hapless Harry" and "Bellicose Pellosi".......what are they thinking?

The tactics of treating the Electorate as sheep or children to be lead around is destined to backfire.

!!!!Find as many Primary Sources of information as possible from all sides and don't be fooled by the propaganda!!!!

Fooled me once when I was young! Never again!

Posted by: BillC | December 9, 2005 10:51 PM | Report abuse

he's more than welcome in the democratic party. let the voters determine if he's the type of democrat that they want representing them in the senate.

Posted by: sam | December 9, 2005 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Political parties now are defined by their ideologies. There is no point in having conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans anymore. The parties organize around coherent and disagreeing strains of thought about how we should be goverened. Saying there should be conservative Democrats would be like saying there should be Muslim Christians or Christian Jews. It just doesn't work or make any sense.

Besides, the Republican Party excludes liberals and moderates much more aggressively and thoroughly than the Democratic Party excludes moderates and conservatives. This should be no surprise; the Republican Party has always been more organized and disciplined while Democrats--members of the oldest political party in the world--have always been a more loosely knit coalition.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." -Will Rogers

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 9, 2005 10:29 PM | Report abuse

ideological left??? i'm sorry chris i don't know what qualifies this action and the people behind it as ideological.

looks to me that a grass roots organization polled people called citizens. those citizens are participating in something called a democracy. i know the administration has tried to flush democracy down the toilet, but trust me there's still some left.

these citizens told senator lieberman that they disagreed with his position on the war. they also disagree that offering a different opininon on the war than his is unpatriotic.

let's hope they vote him out.

Posted by: sam | December 9, 2005 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I would not bet on Lieberman (or Dodd). Reasonable Democrats in Connecticut I've lived near for the past six years are more than a little embarassed to have a choice between "old" Democrats and weak Republican candidates. A fresh Democrat or strong moderate Republican (e.g. Chris Shays) probably could beat either Senator. For myself, I'm pissed enough to vote against Lieberman no matter who the Republican turns out to be.

The problem here is that Lieberman has crossed a line by doing what the extreme right wing does: insisting that dissent is unpatriotic. Normal conservative and moderate Republicans and Democrats understand dissent is healthy and respectfully agree to disagree when necessary on issues. Lieberman used to be in this camp and so his leaning right seemed okay (to me, at least), not least because Connecticut Republicans have a right to have their point of view expressed in the Senate even if both their Senators are Democrats.

Posted by: Tim | December 9, 2005 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I wish that the Democratic Left would leave Joe Lieberman alone. While I do not always agree with Senator Lieberman's positions, he is thoughtful and well-respected by individuals within both parties. If Lieberman is driven out of the Democratic Party, a clear message will be sent that moderates and conservatives are not welcome. Parties win elections by appealing to the center. I say bring back the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Right Democrat | December 9, 2005 9:42 PM | Report abuse

And yet, there is no chance Lieberman will lose once he wins the Democratic nomination next year.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 9, 2005 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's view is the sound and fury (shock and awe?) signifying nothing since he has proven for the last time just how inneffectual he is as a politician and a human being. He should never be elected as a Democrat again.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | December 9, 2005 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Great Macbeth reference.

Posted by: EB | December 9, 2005 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Quick to denounce the video game industry for violent games (that really hurt nobody), yet a stalwart ally of Bush for a war based on lies that has killed thousands of innocent people, Joe Lieberman has been an embarassment to the Democratic party for too long a time. It's time that the Democratic party kick this scumbag out of their party.

Posted by: Matthew Williams | December 9, 2005 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company