DailyKos was right, Lieberman is a disgrace, is going to endorse GOP in 2008 - Page 2

motivez · 12-17-2007, 11:49 PM

He beat Lamont because he's an incumbent, not because his ideas were more popular. The war was unpopular, as was Bush, but the DNC didn't spend time or effort supporting their nominee.

They let Joe keep his seat, his seniority in committees, and so forth.. because he had promised to continue supporting Democrats, and because having a Democrat with seniority was supposed to mean more clout for the tiny Democratic majority..

Come 08, hopefully they strip him of all that. He certainly isn't in line with the thinking of Democrats and shouldn't have a position of power thanks to the party any longer.

JaJae · 12-17-2007, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

He beat Lamont because he's an incumbent, not because his ideas were more popular. The war was unpopular, as was Bush, but the DNC didn't spend time or effort supporting their nominee.

You really don't think the DNC supported Lamont?

They let Joe keep his seat, his seniority in committees, and so forth.. because he had promised to continue supporting Democrats, and because having a Democrat with seniority was supposed to mean more clout for the tiny Democratic majority..

Come 08, hopefully they strip him of all that. He certainly isn't in line with the thinking of Democrats and shouldn't have a position of power thanks to the party any longer.

They didn't let Joe keep his seat easily. They launched one of the most vile smear campaigns of the election year against him. If they hadn't done that I wonder if he'd still be supporting McCain.

motivez · 12-17-2007, 11:55 PM

Uh, not nearly to the extent that they could have, no.. there was no big rally from the party leadership to help Lamont win.. and it's obvious that the reason is years and years of loyalty to him as a person rather than the political beliefs of a strong Democrat (Lamont) who wasn't going to actively work against the party interests (and thus national interests in the Democrats view)...

Joe is an attention whore who thinks this is the only way he's going to be able to remain relevant. I fully expect him to switch over to the Republicans after 08 as he'll be completely marginalized within the Democratic party once they have 0 need for his vote.. and it's not like he's voting with them now on important things. He's a Bush enabler, plain and simple.

If he switches to the Republican side via promises of comittee assignments, etc, it'll be news and positive press for the GOP who'll get to claim they're the big tent party..

Scrum · 12-18-2007, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The statement didn't come out of the blue, nor was it a shock. It goes to show the state of mind Lieberman was in when he was running. Lieberman beat Lamont because of his principles, not because in '08 he might not support McCain. The video that was posted was from July.. a lot happened in those 4 months leading up to that statement.

State of mind?

How are the people voting for him supposed to know what's going on in his mind? He made public comments saying he would support a Democrat.

JaJae · 12-18-2007, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

State of mind?

How are the people voting for him supposed to know what's going on in his mind? He made public comments saying he would support a Democrat.

... in July of '06?

We all followed the campaign after he was kicked out by the Democrats and attacked in one of the most vicious campaigns of the election. Is it really a shock to anyone or his voters that he would support a moderate pro-Iraq war candidate?

motivez · 12-18-2007, 02:59 AM

What that was said about him do you consider a "vile smear"?

As I remember it, the vast majority of the campaign was focused on shining a light on his positions, which were, and continue to be inconsistent with that of the typical Democrat.. and contrasting him with Ned Lamont, someone who'd be a solid progressive and more in line with the way Democrats felt about Bush and the war.

Thorgrim · 12-18-2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

What that was said about him do you consider a "vile smear"?

As I remember it, the vast majority of the campaign was focused on shining a light on his positions, which were, and continue to be inconsistent with that of the typical Democrat.. and contrasting him with Ned Lamont, someone who'd be a solid progressive and more in line with the way Democrats felt about Bush and the war.

No, there were all the stories about the sexual affairs, drugs, money scandals

wait, im thinking of Rudy, Obama and McCain...the Democrats didn't "smear" him at all, calling someone an idiot on the internet and a horrible democrat by public supporters isn't "smears"

Scrum · 12-18-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

... in July of '06?

Now you are going in circles. Let's type this out to end any confusion...

Before he was elected he said he wanted a Democrat in the White House. This is what he told his constituents he would try and help accomplish. He had no problem saying it to try and help get votes, even with Lemont getting the nomination.

After he was elected he said he was thinking of caucusing with the Republicans and now he's supporting McCain.

You don't see the bait and switch?

Scrum · 12-18-2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

What that was said about him do you consider a "vile smear"?

As I remember it, the vast majority of the campaign was focused on shining a light on his positions, which were, and continue to be inconsistent with that of the typical Democrat.. and contrasting him with Ned Lamont, someone who'd be a solid progressive and more in line with the way Democrats felt about Bush and the war.

Don't forget about the fake story where Lieberman didn't pay is broadband bill and blamed it on Lamonts secret army of computer hackers.

bheld · 12-18-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

... in July of '06?

We all followed the campaign after he was kicked out by the Democrats and attacked in one of the most vicious campaigns of the election. Is it really a shock to anyone or his voters that he would support a moderate pro-Iraq war candidate?

"Kicked out" and "attacked." That's a hilarious way to describe a primary election and subsequent general election in which the loser of the primary cannot accept defeat and the fact that he lost the support of people that once believed in him. You are obviously looking at this from a very objective point of view.

bheld · 12-18-2007, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Don't forget about the fake story where Lieberman didn't pay is broadband bill and blamed it on Lamonts secret army of computer hackers.

JaJae · 12-18-2007, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You don't see the bait and switch?

Who people support in the elections is really up to who runs. I'm sure in July of '06 he had every intention of supporting a Democrat, but when he saw who was running and who the top candidates were he couldn't support them. There were a lot of people in July of '06 who were saying they weren't gonna run or who made all kinds of campaign promises that never held true.

The points being made in this thread is that because Lieberman is supporting McCain he's a disgrace and he misled his voters. Given the political climate in November (Long after that comment was made) I don't see how any informed voter could possibly have thought there wasn't a very good chance Lieberman would be supporting a moderate pro-Iraq war candidate, especially considering his newfound friendship and alliance with Republican congressmen and senators and what he stood for against Lamont.

motivez · 12-18-2007, 01:24 PM

Lieberman has been a disgrace long before his support of McCain, personally I think they're two peas in a pod.

On the one hand, you have Lieberman, who's distanced himself from his principles and promises in order to get votes..

And on the other hand, you have John McCain, someone who used to stand for something, but sold his maverick badge and independent soul for another chance at the Republican nomination, shacking up with people he despised and "talked straight" about only a few years ago.. and doing a 180 on every issue important to his independent / moderate supporters.

They're perfect for each other. In Lieberman's case, though, this is just icing on the cake and a nice "I told you so" to people who thought that supporting Lieberman would be better for the Democrats in the long run because of his seniority and experience.

Stylerod · 12-18-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Lieberman has been a disgrace long before his support of McCain, personally I think they're two peas in a pod.

On the one hand, you have Lieberman, who's distanced himself from his principles and promises in order to get votes..

And on the other hand, you have John McCain, someone who used to stand for something, but sold his maverick badge and independent soul for another chance at the Republican nomination, shacking up with people he despised and "talked straight" about only a few years ago.. and doing a 180 on every issue important to his independent / moderate supporters.

They're perfect for each other. In Lieberman's case, though, this is just icing on the cake and a nice "I told you so" to people who thought that supporting Lieberman would be better for the Democrats in the long run because of his seniority and experience.

Lieberman will change his direction in whatever way he feels will benefit, just like most politicians. Hell, he was pro-life most of his career. Then he was picked for Gores VP and suddenly said he was pro-choice.

Nothing new here.

Thorgrim · 12-18-2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

In Lieberman's case, though, this is just icing on the cake and a nice "I told you so" to people who thought that supporting Lieberman would be better for the Democrats in the long run because of his seniority and experience.

a-fucking-men

P/N · 12-19-2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So he should be able to lie about who is going to support to win a 2006 election, and then change his "values" once in office?

It's pretty disrespectful to shun a Senator of your own party you've worked with for decades (Biden) and even more so your fellow Senator for CT (Dodd) who has had a close personal relationship for decades

He completely abandoned Connecticut for Lieberman and was jumping up and down to be a Democrat again...

You think this shows character and loyalty to support a Republican over ANY Democrat for president in 2008?

Watch the video, it's clear he's a lying attention whore with no concept of loyalty

So it's OK for Kerry to "flip-flop" but not Lieberman?

Thorgrim · 12-19-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by P/N

So it's OK for Kerry to "flip-flop" but not Lieberman?

Kerry promised in 2006 to help elect a Democratic to the White House in 2008, to help himself get elected and act as a "true democrat"...and then decided to say screw you to the entire Democratic field and endorsed a Republican, not just for the primary, but for the entire election?

P/N · 12-20-2007, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Kerry promised in 2006 to help elect a Democratic to the White House in 2008, to help himself get elected and act as a "true democrat"...and then decided to say screw you to the entire Democratic field and endorsed a Republican, not just for the primary, but for the entire election?

LMAO - As usual, you missed the point. I'm assuming that it's OK if a dem flip-flops on a subject (say, the Iraq War for example - as in the one I provided you with), but it's not OK for a dem to flip-flop on a subject (say, supporting the party that turned their back on him in 2006). God, I love a double-standard! How liberal of you.