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

Thorgrim · 12-16-2007, 09:55 PM

YouTube Video

Says he wants a Democratic President...

Now come THE ELECTION FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), who was on the national Democratic ticket in 2000, will cross the aisle to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tomorrow.

The two will appear together on NBC's "Today" show tomorrow, then at an 8 a.m. town hall in Hillsborough, N.H.

The move, which will help cultivate McCain's moderate status, is an effort to draw attention to the McCain campaign, which needs a splash. .

McCain snags endorsements; Rudy retreats - Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com

Can someone explain to me what is radically liberal about Joe Biden? Chris Dodd? Bill Richardson? Heck, Hillary voted FOR his ridiculous amendment to increase tensions with an Iran that has no nuclear weapons program

There is another Democratic Hawk, Bob Kerrey from Nebraska...everyone has known across the board he is more conservative than Lieberman, even on the Iraq War

Fmr Sen. Bob Kerrey (Nebraska) is endorsing Hillary Clinton...but could have easily picked another of the Democrats...i mean christ 6speed is going for Biden!

Why is Lieberman doing this? He is an ultra-hawk attention whore, a bitter old man who knows after 2008 the Democrats will have enough Senators that he will be completely irrelevant unless he thinks up anything useful...

However with the Iraq war surge drawing down...and future plans to drawn down...Iran is off the table...he doesn't have any ideas, and god knows he brings nothing to his home state

In 2000 he ran for president to get attention, and 2004 he again ran for attention "joe-mentum"

After 2006 he constantly made empty threats about leaving the Democratic party, even though the rules stated it wouldn't change the balance of power (2000 rules were special because it was 50-50 to start with, that's why a switch was possible, normally they are not, as they are this year, he could join the GOP and the Dems would still have the Senate)

Because he wanted attention, he wanted to be relevant...he figured maybe after 2008 he'd get a lot of attention if the Senate was 51-49 again...however it's become obvious the Democrats will make AT LEAST a 3 seat net game, so he could join the GOP for all it matters no matter what he said or did, we'd have 53 Democrats + Lieberman...don't need him

This is EXACTLY why he was primaried, he DOESN'T CARE about the Democratic Party or liberal principles, democratic principles, etc...he only cares about himself

The only shame anyone objective can see, is that Ned Lamont didn't win and lost to Lieberman's 49% plurality win

SoFlaJDM · 12-16-2007, 10:13 PM

not a surprise to me... he's a disgrace to his party and it makes me really sad that lamont lost by that little of a margin

JaJae · 12-16-2007, 11:15 PM

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

garbagemanlb · 12-16-2007, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

I agree. I felt the same way when Hannity was pressing Ron Paul on if he would support the GOP nominee regardless of who it was. It was pathetic.

I do feel he is misguided, however.

Thorgrim · 12-16-2007, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

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

JaJae · 12-17-2007, 12:16 AM

He said he wanted to elect a Democratic president a year and a half ago before the primaries and the candidates were even running. That's not lying. I'm sure he meant it at the time. Hillary had said she wasn't going to run for president in 08...

Thorgrim · 12-17-2007, 01:50 AM

So he thought President Biden or President Dodd would be a horrible idea? He couldn't support them?

Everyone had their Iraq positions last year, nothing significant changed...there was nothing to "change his mind"

Linzyhop · 12-17-2007, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

exactly. like when Kerry asked McCain to run as his vice president back in 2004....

i think breaking down the parties is a good thing.

David Octavius · 12-17-2007, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

There is nothing wrong with crossing the aisle to support another candidate but that doesn't break down the two party system - how does it?

12-17-2007, 12:00 PM

So because he disagrees with some in his party they decide to go on character assasination missions against him. I find it funny that this all inclusive and tolerant party can't stand a dissenting opinion coming from within their own party...what do they do? They crucify anyone who disagrees

Thorgrim · 12-17-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So because he disagrees with some in his party they decide to go on character assasination missions against him. I find it funny that this all inclusive and tolerant party can't stand a dissenting opinion coming from within their own party...what do they do? They crucify anyone who disagrees

Oh give me a break 6speed!

I'm going in for surgery, and you're going to argue with my posts...I mean, I could die, and that's the last thing you want to say to me?

Anyway, seriously, he's not "disagreeing with some in his party" he's going against THE ENTIRE PARTY, I thought you of all people would be annoyed he's not backing Biden

An entire party which throughout the decades has helped him secure a senate seat that even when he turned into an asshole he was able to keep, and DID NOT go balls out against him when he lost the primary

In 2006 a lot of us pointed to his media record and actions and went "he is the worst democrat we have, in fact he is so terrible we need to primary him"

The response his supporters was "OMG, he is SUCH a solid Democrat, you guys are crazy"

Now with a wide open field, he makes an endorsement for the GOP, while still claiming he wants to be a CONNECTICUT DEMOCRAT...and oh yeah, Chris Dodd from Connecticut is running

It's one big "haha, told you so!"

anyone who disagrees probably just didn't follow the whole Lamont/Lieberman thing

Scrum · 12-17-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

God forbid someone dares break down the two-party system. He has been working with McCain on op-ed's regarding Iraq. He's still very much a liberal, he just has a different view on the war. It's sad people get so caught up in partisan politics that they think a politician's loyalties should lie with their party and not their values.

Shouldn't they stay true to the people who voted them into office?

ballz2wallz · 12-17-2007, 08:55 PM

Doesn't surprise me, McCain's not exactly the most conservative of conservatives.

Does it really surprise anyone that moderates support each other?

Thorgrim · 12-17-2007, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Doesn't surprise me, McCain's not exactly the most conservative of conservatives.

Does it really surprise anyone that moderates support each other?

yes he is...he just doesn't hate hispanics

JaJae · 12-17-2007, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Shouldn't they stay true to the people who voted them into office?

He got re-elected...

motivez · 12-17-2007, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He got re-elected...

And his promises to continue supporting Democrats had nothing to do with that

hsmith · 12-17-2007, 10:26 PM

Meh.

Liberman is just looking for yet another VP bid.

JaJae · 12-17-2007, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And his promises to continue supporting Democrats had nothing to do with that

Around election time he started changing his tune..
Lieberman won't rule out GOP caucusing - The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

After the Democrats turned on him he started saying he was an independent, he received support of the GOP and he formed alliances. This was no secret. The Kossaks were attacking for it then.

motivez · 12-17-2007, 10:35 PM

Your article is from several days after the election had taken place.. as is the statement you quoted.

JaJae · 12-17-2007, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Your article is from several days after the election had taken place.. as is the statement you quoted.

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.