The Democrats Maverick: Joe Lieberman

bamacon · May 21st, 2008, 11:47 AM

Watch out Joe. Talk like this will get you banished from today's Democratic party even if you hit the nail on the proverbial head.

"Democrats and Our Enemies"

gmart74 · May 21st, 2008, 11:56 AM

wow very interesting read

CrimsonChuck · May 21st, 2008, 11:57 AM

	Quote:	bamacon
	Watch out Joe. Talk like this will get you banished from today's Democratic party even if you hit the nail on the proverbial head. "Democrats and Our Enemies"

He has already left the Democratic party, so he has no need to fear banishment. Furthermore, the Democrats need him more than he needs them because he votes with them on procedural issues to maintain their 1 vote majority. If they "abandoned" him, the Senate would be controlled by the Republicans. That is why he can even endorse John McCain and no Democrat would dare do a thing about it.

Bamaro · May 21st, 2008, 12:25 PM

Lieberman still appears to me as simply a democrat but one who sees nothing wrong with our actions in Iraq. Sort of a mirror image of Chuck Hagel.
Also I take exception to:
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
I'm not sure that is a fair representation of what BO said or meant.

92tide · May 21st, 2008, 12:29 PM

he's this election cycle's zell miller, though i doubt that he has the cajones to challenge anyone to a duel

bamacon · May 21st, 2008, 12:37 PM

	Quote:	CrimsonChuck
	He has already left the Democratic party, so he has no need to fear banishment. Furthermore, the Democrats need him more than he needs them because he votes with them on procedural issues to maintain their 1 vote majority. If they "abandoned" him, the Senate would be controlled by the Republicans. That is why he can even endorse John McCain and no Democrat would dare do a thing about it.

That will not be the case after November's elections. Even though he has been told by "Dirty" Harry that his chairmanship is safe I wouldn't count on it especially after this article, a fall of campaigning for Big John, and the capper-speaking at the Republican Convention. They'll run him.

It's On A Slab · May 21st, 2008, 12:50 PM

	Quote:	92tide
	he's this election cycle's zell miller, though i doubt that he has the cajones to challenge anyone to a duel

Zell loves his country.

He loves his flag. Pledge pin obscured by gesticulating curse-casting fingers.

jthomas666 · May 21st, 2008, 12:50 PM

	Quote:	bamacon
	That will not be the case after November's elections. Even though he has been told by "Dirty" Harry that his chairmanship is safe I wouldn't count on it especially after this article, a fall of campaigning for Big John, and the capper-speaking at the Republican Convention. They'll run him.

And with reason. Think about it not in terms of Democrat and Republican, but Alabama and Auburn. We've already seen what happenes when a cheerleader tries to switch sides. Now, if an Alabama coach went and led the Auburn cheerleaders at the Iron Bowl, how would you react?

While Lieberman makes some good points, it's over-generalized and self-aggrandizing (meaning, of course, that it's typical for a politician, regardless of party). Most distressing is the insinuation that the Democrats should have blindly followed W.

It's On A Slab · May 21st, 2008, 12:53 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	And with reason. Think about it not in terms of Democrat and Republican, but Alabama and Auburn. We've already seen what happenes when a cheerleader tries to switch sides. Now, if an Alabama coach went and led the Auburn cheerleaders at the Iron Bowl, how would you react? While Lieberman makes some good points, it's over-generalized and self-aggrandizing (meaning, of course, that it's typical for a politician, regardless of party). Most distressing is the insinuation that the Democrats should have blindly followed W.

I (for one) will be glad to see the cessation of the post-'04 butt-kissing of Joe "Sore" Loserman.

bamacon · May 21st, 2008, 12:59 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	Most distressing is the insinuation that the Democrats should have blindly followed W.

"Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made."

That isn't what he was insinuating at all. He said he wished Democrats had embraced the basic framework the President advanced...which was attempting to establish democracies because of the peace and security they would ultimately bring. What do you think the past Democratic leaders viewed of that concept? It was their concept and that is what Sen. Lieberman is pointing out.

Oh wait, I forgot, this is all about oil. My bad.

jthomas666 · May 21st, 2008, 01:31 PM

	Quote:	bamacon
	"Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made." That isn't what he was insinuating at all. He said he wished Democrats had embraced the basic framework the President advanced...which was attempting to establish democracies because of the peace and security they would ultimately bring. What do you think the past Democratic leaders viewed of that concept? It was their concept and that is what Sen. Lieberman is pointing out. Oh wait, I forgot, this is all about oil. My bad.

"Embrace the basic framework the president had advanced" sounds like blindly following to me.

As far as the claim that the framework's underlying philosophy was the same as Clinton's re: Milosevich, that seems to be a stretch. Intervention in the Balkans was an attempt to halt genocide, not an attempt at nation-building. (BTW, I roundly criticized Bush I for not taking steps to prevent Hussein's own genocides following the first Gulf War, and I still wonder why we haven't taken steps to halt such atrocities in other regions). Bringing down Milosevich was a bonus.

cbi1972 · May 21st, 2008, 01:49 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	"Embrace the basic framework the president had advanced" sounds like blindly following to me.

You conveniently left out "because it was our own" which is the crux of the point Lieberman was trying to make. Democrats aren't simply avoiding being blind followers. They're actively abandoning a previous position because it is being espoused by a Republican president they don't like. That sounds like blind opposition to me.

bamacon · May 21st, 2008, 02:12 PM

	Quote:	jthomas666
	"Embrace the basic framework the president had advanced" sounds like blindly following to me. As far as the claim that the framework's underlying philosophy was the same as Clinton's re: Milosevich, that seems to be a stretch. Intervention in the Balkans was an attempt to halt genocide, not an attempt at nation-building. (BTW, I roundly criticized Bush I for not taking steps to prevent Hussein's own genocides following the first Gulf War, and I still wonder why we haven't taken steps to halt such atrocities in other regions). Bringing down Milosevich was a bonus.

Really?

So where in the world was Clinton on the genocide in Africa if that was his reasoning?

Bystanders to Genocide