Not satisfied at the persistent and vicious attacks on President Bush, the Radical Democrats are now attacking a member of their own Party. Sad, very sad! Perhaps they can recruit Angela Davis as their 2008 nominee if she's not too conservative for them!
SOME of us think Lieberman cost Al Gore the 2000 election. (Well, ACTUALLY, we think Gore WON the 2000 election but had Lieberman not been the V.P. candidate, Gore's margin of victory would have been large enough in Florida to deprive Karl Rove of a plausible strategy to steal it there.) On the other hand, Al Gore DID manage to lose his home state of Tennessee sooo...
I have never heard this. I have always heard Gore caused himself to lose with his stiffness and sarcasm, especially during one of the debates with Bush when he kept sighing, nodding his head, clearing his throat, etc., when Bush was speaking. Rude, simply rude. He'd make a good member of the British parliament. Had Lieberman been at the top of the ticket the election would have almost certainly gone to the Dems (probably did anyway). Lieberman was superior to Cheney in their debate.
Are you sure about that? Lieberman's run in 2004 was a joke. He only managed to get 5%/3rd place in his own state (CT) during the primaries. In most other states he got either 1% or didn't even register. I don't see how he could have easily won in 2000 if he was at the top of the ticket.
Because at the top of the ticket he would have run to the center, which is where most Americans are. He didn't do well in the Democratic primaries because he was right of center and Dems run left of center in the primaries in order to win.
Center or not he was not able to connect with democratic voters very well. He has never been very popular within his own party and whether you want to admit it or not you can't win an election without the support of your own base. The bottom line is he is not VP or President material. However, I don't have any dislike for the guy. I have always respected him as a Senator, and think that he brings a good balance to the Democratic Party.
The “Radicals DEMS”, whatever the heck that term means, dislike (and I hope to heck targets) Lieberman because he is a DISLOYAL Dem. He is not the only high profile Dem that supports the stupid war in Irak, (Sen. Biden comes to mind), but he is the only one who seems to relish DISSING the Dems. Here is his latest insult. “His colleague Joseph Lieberman, who is perhaps the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, said, “Dean was wrong on the war and what he was talking about was bad for the country. We’ll see what he does as chairman. If he devotes his energies to building a party at the base, as he talked about doing, good for him. If he continues to be a prominent spokesman on defense policy, I would regret it.” http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050321fa_fact Not only is Lieberman NOT the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, he was also WRONG about the war two years ago. Dean was right (Two years ago, we were talking about WMD, not phony democracy) that is why he is now the CHAIR. Sorry to come in like this, I initially came to this site to get info on DL (Gawd I wish I had seen this site before), but as a LOYAL Dem, I just had to put in my two cents.
Oddly, even many liberal Jews didn't like Lieberman. I sure didn't. The man rings false to me, somehow...he's so damned REPUBLICAN.
Attacks on incumbents by their own party radicals is not uncommon. For example in Pensylvania, republicans attacked moderate Arlen Specter during the primary.
Lieberman's problem with fellow Dems is not that he's a Republican-lite but rather that he is truly independent. Lieberman won't automatically follow the party line, something which is usually considered a positive personal attribute in the U.S. The flipside is that being independent in politics translates into being "disloyal" when viewed through the prism of the political party process. That is the kiss of death for someone seeking a national political position. On the Republican side, Arlen Spector is Joe L.'s counterpart. The parallels between the two Senators are so close as to confirm the above thesis. (independence=disloyalty to party) While both men have been distinguished Senators for many years, few in either party will shed any tears when they leave the national scene.
Liberman sounds like an honest, decent human being. I'd likely vote for him if the choice were him or Gingrich/Delay. The primary reason Lieberman comes across as Republican is because of his moral values; he's closer to Falwell than Newdow, closer to the ACLJ than the ACLU--liberals just hate him for it. I agree with Jimmy, if the Dems were smart they'd find a way to hold their noses and prop him up for nomination. In the general election, he'd still get the vast majority of the Dem vote; what are they gonna do, vote for Cheney or Forbes or Pataki or Jeb? Lieberman would get some portion of the social conservative/moral-values vote (remember, anti-semitism is DEAD among the radical right Christians; for the most part they love Israel and are pretty much Zionists in Christian clothing). Now of course, this is assuming McCain doesn't win the Rep nomination, in which case I think the Dem's gooses are cooked no matter what, and that even Lieberman couldn't stop it, as McCain would take a huge chunk out of the center and still keep most of the right. For that matter, though, the Rep's gooses would be cooked also, because McCain isn't really a Rep anyway, he's just a misanthrope who can't decide on a party, and I think the Dems would get a lot of what they want with a McCain presidency--think McCain would press much "family values" language into his inaguration address?
