"Bush's pet Democrat is in trouble"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003046421_harrop08.html

Froma Harrop / Syndicated columnist
Bush's pet Democrat is in trouble

GREENWICH, Conn. — Anger at President Bush could bring down a number of congressional Republicans, and one Democrat might join them. He is Joseph Lieberman, senator from Connecticut. Many voters here want nothing more than to sink "Bush's favorite Democrat." They are mad at Joe Lieberman over his uncritical support of the Iraq war and 18 other things, including his bottomless need for right-wing approval.snip

Ned Lamont built a telecommunications company, and his net worth sits somewhere between $90 million and $300 million. Suffice it to say Lamont is no stranger to capitalism, which is a plus for a liberal. That worldly grasp of how things work colors his views with a pragmatism that should reassure Connecticut's substantial well-heeled electorate.

And the liberal ground troops also seem fine with it. Lamont has become a folk hero at MoveOn.org and various lefty blogs. MoveOn and Democracy for America, run by Howard Dean's brother Jim, now hold rallies for him. And he already has an endorsement from the National Organization for Women.
snip

Weirdly, Lieberman often takes positions that draw applause from Bible Belt conservatives but seem culturally out of tune with the mainstream back home, including traditional Republicans. Northeast Republicans tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal. They believe in balanced budgets, but don't have a problem with morning-after pills or with France.

"I was never a Republican," Lamont said, "but I have a family of genealogical Republicans — my dad, his dad, his dad; my mother, her mother, her mother. They were internationalist Republicans, who would be horrified by the current Bush administration."
snip

Lieberman, meanwhile, has accused Lamont of trying to buy the election. He's running a television ad that begins: "Meet Ned Lamont. He's a Greenwich millionaire."

More at link....
-------------------------------------

Edit: copyright. Please post only 4 or 5 paragraphs
from the copyrighted news source per DU rules.

defection to the repuke party. :grr:

in the polls. Here's hoping.

you mean that so called Democrat with the brown nose?

I believe a Lieberman defeat would be good for our Party. It would send a message to other Democrats that we do expect a minimum of loyalty on important issues. At least, they will think twice before they betray us on important issues. Just my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with what Dems stand for - and our elected reps would do well to stop meandering all over the political spectrum. We don't appreciate our identity being compromised.

No free pass on aiding and abetting the enemy!

This primary battle should be a wake up call to the corporate and neocon DLC sellouts... the days of a free pass are over. The people are going to take the party back one seat at a time, in the primaries.

I have the bubbly cooling.

According to a poll link at The Daily Kos. Lamont faces an uphill battle yet, but Connecticut Democrats are clearly not in love with Lieberman.

Curiously, Lieberman still won't agree to endorse whoever the Democrats select in the Connecticut primary, fueling speculation that he will run as an independent if the Democrats fail to nominate him for another term. Real good on the party unity scale there, Joseph.

Equally curiously, none of Lieberman's supporters seem willing to address this point.

He'd have to go 3rd party if the dems won't support him.

It's too bad that it has come down to that. Lieberman has done some good things in the past, but I agree that he is sucking up to Bush big-time, especially when one considers that he would have been VP and may still be if Bush hadn't cheated in 2000.

You can stand with workers and the future or not. He has chosen not to.

.....if by some miracle, that black hearted bastard Cheney is indicted. Joementum would make a superb VP to president prick. The schmuck will finally get his wish.

If you recall Connecticut Democrats nominated Lieberman to run for his Senate seat three weeks before Gore chose him as his running mate in 2000. Lieberman then refused to abandon the Senate race, ostensibly, because he was afraid that to do so would cause "a lot of chaos" for the party, which would have had to nominate a new candidate by committee. Lieberman explained that "the U.S. Senate seat is too important to be filled on the run."

If Lieberman had stepped down, Connecticut's popular Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal likely would have been nominated and most probably would have retained Lieberman's seat. On the other hand, since Lieberman stayed in the Senate race, he would have had to relinquish his seat in the Senate had Gore won the Presidency. In that case, his replacement would have been appointed by Republican Governor Rowland (a Bush cronie who is now in jail).

Quite clearly, Lieberman places his interests and political fortunes above the interests of the Democratic Party, and more importantly, above the intersts of his constituents. He has no business serving in the Senate, and he deserves to be thrown out on his arse.

for national office. I don't recall hearing that he was interested in the Senate seat back in 2000. I had heard he was more interested in a judgeship. He certainly didn't want to run for governor.

God, he'd make such a great SEnator!

I don't agree with Joe Lieberman on everything, but I respect the fact that he doesn't feel obliged to support the agenda of every special interest in this part. The man has served Connecticut well in the Senate and deserves to be there.

Ned Lamont has a fighting chance in this race not because he's impressing Democrats by standing on principle. He's at 32% in the polls because he's pandering to the MoveOn.org, NARAL, People for the American Way crowd. Lieberman is the principled candidate. We may not like all of his votes, but at least we know there is a principled, reasoned perspective behind all of this. Whether or agree with him or not.

As I said, I'm not Joe Lieberman's biggest fan but I'll take him over a millionaire neophyte who is an elitist without portfolio any day.

The rationalization of those so-called Democrats who enable the Neocons just puzzles me. Why settle for somebody who has betrayed the Democrats time and time again when we can somebody who will be willing to stand up the Neocon Bushites? The Democrats in the Senate and the House must stop acting like Republican Lite and start fighting the Neocons. Lieberman, like Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Maria Cantwell, and Joe Biden are Neocon enablers and therefore must be removed from office in primaries. I am glad the people of Connecticut are seeing the light and I hope they do vote Lieberman out of office.


John

Let's emphasize the rational in rationalization. To call Lieberman, Clinton, Feinstein, Cantwell, Biden et al "Neocon enablers" is ludicrous. The Democratic Party is supposed to be one whose tent is large enough to hold people with diverse opinions on the issues facing our country while working together for social justice for all Americans. To write people out of the party because they "enabled the Neocons" by voting for the Iraq war is shortsighted. I opposed the war in Iraq and I still believe that our attempts there were wrong and woefully misguided. That said, I will not base my electoral decisions on a single issue when I find myself in agreement with a candidate on most other issues.

If I applied the same sorts of lithmus tests used by many of those who criticize Lieberman, I wouldn't be voting for the vast majority of Democratic candidates as I am opposed to abortion and believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law. The Democratic Party is believe in is one that stresses equal opportunity, is committed to eradicating poverty, emphasizes the need for racial equality and the elimination of discrimination in all of its forms, and is willing to provide for a strong national defense in order to protect our country in times of peril. I don't agree with every tenet of the party platform and that does not make me a disloyal Democrat. The same holds true for Joe Lieberman and others who sometimes find it necessary to disagree with their party if they believe it is in the national interest.

As I said in my earlier post, I will always back a person of conviction over someone who achieves their political standing by making a wide array of promises to special interest groups in order to win a few votes. Honestly, Ned Lamont's formulating his public statements from MoveOn's talking points is an act of pandering equal to George W. Bush's kowtowing to the Religious Right on the reprehensible Federal Marriage Amendment.

-PP

by coming out against requiring hospitals to give the morning after pill to rape victims?

To my knowledge, the legislation you're speaking of applied to Catholic hospitals. While I disagree with my Church's position on contraception, Catholic hospitals have to practice medical ethics consistent with the teachings of the faith. Regrettably, that disallows the distribution of the morning after pill to victims of sexual assault. Do I think that's right, fair, or compassionate? No, I do not.

However, Catholic hospitals have historically provided quality medical care to people in need. If a state law places a Catholic hospital in a situation that compromises the tenets of the faith, I would rather see the state make some sort of compromise rather than risk the possibility of that hospital closing rather than coming into compliance with state or federal law. Such a risk would not, in my opinion, benefit the common good.

Having reading Lieberman's previous statements on this issue, I don't believe that he was pandering. He's a person of faith who I believe understands the risk inherent when these conflicts between church and state have the potential of threatening the common good and, in this case, the overall quality of health care.

Finally, in an attempt to be clever and a bit snarky, I took an unfair swipe at Lamont. I'm sure he's a sincere fellow with good intentions but I honestly believe that his single issue candidacy is not in the best interests of the Party or the people of Connecticut.
Democrats are not monolithic. We never have been and probably never will be. If we are to ever find ourselves in the majority again, we need to be accepting of people who, despite their differing opinions and perspectives, share a common commitment to social justice. Only then can we start undoing the damage done by the last five Congresses and the current Administration.

:wtf: I'm not sure if you're either not from CT or you just haven't done a lot of homework on the issues and this race.

Hopefully I can help clear up some of the details, and help you out a bit. Links are included for your perusal.

"millionaire neophyte who is an elitist without portfolio any day"

Millionaire yes, the rest of it..NO

http://nedlamont.com/bio

"single issue candidacy"

Um NO, think again and look at his stance on the issues. Some of them even go back to good old Dem values

http://nedlamont.com/issues

Also, read this local news article about Lieberman and his history of actions versus his rhetoric in the past 18 years

http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-pbass0604.artjun04,0,7611693.column

Lamont "not in the best interests of the Party or the people of Connecticut"

Why don't you let us be the judge of that on August 8th

Lieberman has had plenty of opportunities to say that regardless of the outcome of the primary, he will endorse the party's candidate in the race for the Connecticut Senate seat. He has consistently failed and refused to say that, intimating instead that if he loses the primary, he will run for the seat as an independent.

You say we Democrats should support Lieberman; why won't Lieberman support the party?

you joined the same day a certain disruptor was banned...

He supported Lieberman as well. How weird is that?

His opposition to the Iraq War may be the issue that resonates with voters most, but he is fighting for a progressive agenda in all areas.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am not against the idea of the Democrats as being the "party of inclusion" but I am afraid what Lieberman and the other Senators I mentioned have done this party and this country a huge disservice by supporting Bush's twisted agenda. You must also realize that this also hurts the Democrats. This is not the time to pick battles and compromise. These right-wingers are vicious and evil and they would rather stop at nothing than meet common ground with any Democrat. Don't you or anybody else get it? This is a true full blown war against this country and all it stands for. Where are our forces to fight the Neocons?

Look, I am trying to understand where you are coming from with this but I feel like by continuing to have the Liebermans, Hillarys, Cantwells, and Bidens, we will not get our country back. It's that simple. A change of course is in order so we can get rid of the Neocons fascists.


John

But acting as a willfully divisive force AGAINST the party he alleges himself affiliated with is entirely another. Lieberman has come down not just wrong on the war, but also on the side of silencing debate from "his own party" on this stumbling clusterf*ck of an illegal aggression. He adamantly buttresses, supinates himslef and b*ttlicks the "Little Lord Dunce-leroy" who pushed for the war. He's effectively told Democrats to shut up and let this charlatan continue to molest America's already fragile "war-powers" doctrine of the last hundred years.

Additionally, he has taken heinous anti-woman stands on reproductive issues in his state, like effectively looking the other way in allowing hospitals in Connecticut to deny women access to the morning-after pill:

'Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so.'

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said'
http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006/05/lieberman-vs-day-after-pill.html

As Samuel L. Jackson said in "Pulp Fiction", "This is some fucked up repugnant sh*t"

Mull it over for a second...this craven, little man basically told women in need of access to a doctor and medicines the equivalent of an old-time bigot's laughable "find a luncheonette that'll seat-cha, gal...I'm sure there's one 'cross the tracks a 'ways."

Sam Jackson's line should echo loud off the walls of every Democrati's brain when thinking about Lieberman's ugly perfidy, post 9-11.

Can anyone forget his leaping to his feet like a spastic marionette as the ONLY Dem to applaud Bush's lame-*ss defense of his bungled Iraq policy at the SOTU earlier this year?

Or his utter flunkification at Bush's feet in his insipid backing of the GOP Congress' end run around the Florida courts with their pushing the inane "Schiavo Law"? Yeah...that's right, Holy-sh*t Joe backed it.

Or his holding wingnutty events side-by-side with mouth-breathing troglodytes like his bass-ackward buddy, Sen. Sam Brownback and crowing idiocies like "America is itself a faith based initiative."


Oh yeah...he's said and done all of that and more. So, as to the Democratic Party being a "party of inclusion", yes...indeed it is, but when a member of said party drifts so far beyond the pale on not just one, but several key isssues...well, the same way you'd walk away from a person who seems "okay" at first when they sit next to you in a bus station after they start to talk weird, crazy, beyond sanity sh*t, it may indeed be time for us to simply walk the hell away from nutty old Joe.

for the American Way? If you're a "practical progressive," as your moniker states, then you could hardly see Lamont's association with these organizations as a minus in an utterly blue state. If Lieberman were running in a red state, even a purple state, where the media is to the right of Jerry Falwell, I might could see some wincing, but that's not an issue in Connecticut.

Secondly, what's wrong with a political neophyte? Don't you think it's time for some new blood in Congress? Or the White House, for that matter. The entrenchment is what's causing the corruption.

I'm a practical progressive in that I can see how a Democrat might need to associate him/herself with more moderate (or what's seen as more moderate) organizations in red and even purple states - we are, afterall, attempting to take back one or both houses of Congress and I'll settle for some DINOs out of the South and mid-West, but it's silly to have one in a blue state - we need real liberals from those states to drive the entire party back toward the technical middle and not the right, as the middle is seen now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

deceit? And why are citizens groups made up overwhelmingly of ordinary people "special interest"? There was a time when "special interest" meant the moneyed interest who use government for their own selfish purposes.

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"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," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest


I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on many domestic issues along with his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.

His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional. The Democratic constituency of Connecticut needs the chance to express their disapproval.
Sen. Lieberman's very public position on the Iraq War and those who oppose it and what appears to be an embrace of a slightly modified form of neoconservative ideology is not some insignificant wedge issue. It goes to the very core of the direction of the country. Someday America will have to decide whether it wants to continue down the path of ultra-militarism or whether it wants to maintain the social fabric of our own society and some degree of moral authority in the world. It appears that Sen. Lieberman is choosing the very wrong side of history.



______________________


http://www.nedlamont.com

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

NARAL supports Lamont because he is more supportive of reproductive rights.

Oh, it wasn't meant to be humor?

What does Lieberman call kowtowing to Bush?
What does Lieberman call voting against the interests of common people?
What does Lieberman call putting the interests of Bible Belt conservatives over his own constituents?

...Lieberman should be very worried.

But I kinda hope he ISN'T, so if/when he gets the boot his hubris won't have seen it coming, and he'll be hoist on his own petard.

Needless to say, this is an exciting race to watch!

I thought this would be about Ben Nelson, but than again I guess he isn't Bush's pet he's his Bitch.

to Nelson one on one, and he knows that I and D's in NE are not very happy w/some of his votes, but he certainly is NOT bush's "bitch". Nelson is NOT a bush fan, but he is an astute poloitician. For him to be re-elected, he makes some hard choices, and many R's around here respect him for many reasons, not the least of which was getting funding for the Veterans Home after Hagel(R) and then 1st District Rep Beureuter(R) just gave the whole thing lip service. The Vet's, my brothers in arms, were housed in buildings built in the early 20's and we fought for them to be housed w/dignity...Nelson was THE key player in helping these debilitated soldiers.

Like I said, I've had problems w/some of his votes...but he is not bush's lapdog in any sense of the matter.

No Democrats are "Bush's lap dog." Hell, even Republicans are running away from him. No, Lieberman is a prinicipled, independent-minded senator, who will have to face the voters of Connecticut. If he has made any unwise decisions, the voters in the Democratic primary have the opportunity to let him know about it. This guy was on our 2000 Democratic ticket, and is a devoted member of the Democratic Party, can we cut him a little slack?

I know the answer will be 'no.'

well. No Sen can make everyone happy 24/7, and all make decisions that some will think are terrible, (and some are), but he sure beats a Frist or any of a host of other Sens.

The problems with being the minority, is that power is just not there to do much and blocks through procedural maneuvers are the only options. Things would change if the power shifts back to D, but the infighting in the party has to cease. In the long run, it is up to the voters in CT to make a decision, and here in NE, or out in TX UT WY CA NY doesn't men a thing in the Lieberman candidacy. Most of the people complaining have R Sens that are running around destroying the country, and it makes no difference if someone in another state doesn't like Lieberman; people should be out there trying to get their own neo-con Sens out of office....THAT would be energy well spent...:)

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." - Joe Lieberman

Joe was nauseating. I lost all respect for him that day. I dont live in Con. if I did I would never vote for him again under any circumstances. It is one thing to be a more conservative I like but as far as I am concerned the man has ZERO integrity.