Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Which was caused by a lack of funding from the Democratic party and a lack of internal support from the Dems.  You don't lose a primary unless your party is trying to kick you in the face.  The Democrat Party done fucked up and fails to take responsibility for it.

Seriously?

I also seem to remember him being a couple of voter frauds away from being the Vice President...

Which makes the entire thing so egregious.

First of all, the Conneticut Dems should never have tried to take away his seat if he never wanted to give it up.  It's a respect type of thing.  The Dems gambled and lost-bigtime.  Second of all, after that happened, the Dems should have apologized profusely and licked the hell out of his butthole.  They didn't, and tried to paint him as some kind of Francis Bacon when really he's more like a guy that got fired from his job, ended up buying the company just to get his job back and was pissed when it was all done.

You guys arguing against this to me is symptomatic of the problem, you don't recognize that dOOder has good reason to be a thorn in the Dem's side.

[Hicks]

By that logic he should have never won the general election since he was going up against the same Democratic funding once again.

In any case dude has been a Republican masquerading as a Dem or an independent since Bush's inauguration. 

[guyforget]

Tried is a lot different than did.  Its bullshit political grudges, and not supporting your constituents, that make the Senate such a theatrical joke these days. 

Its asinine either way, to think that him not getting the nomination in 2004 is somehow good reason to turn his back on the party, not to mention his constituents in a state that did support the public option according to the polls.  Those constituents are who keep him at his post in the U.S. Senate. 

If I lived in CT, Id vote for a 3-legged donkey before I voted for him again in the Senate. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

By that logic he should have never won the general election since he was going up against the same Democratic funding once again.

In any case dude has been a Republican masquerading as a Dem or an independent since Bush's inauguration.

He's always been a centrist.  That was part of his appeal as a Vice Presidential candidate.  The Democratic party naturally assumed that he would steal votes away from Bush.  This didn't happen, and the Democrats kind of blamed him for losing the 2000 presidential race.  As time went on, the Democrats did not like that he continued to be a centrist.  For some reason they felt as though putting him on the ballot was a favor to Lieberman, and opposed to being a favor for the Democratic party.  Lieberman had felt all along that he was doing the party a favor by accepting the nomination.  The rift begins until the Democratic Party as a whole and more specifically in Connecticut decide that they are not going to nominate him as their parties candidate for office.  The party controls the nomination process.  If the party does not want you to be nominated, they will not nominate you.  It's a fact.  The percentage of people who vote in Congressional nomination primaries is minute compared to the amount of people who vote in the actual election.  Parties have way less control over the regular election than they do during the primary, especially since many Conn. Repubs seized the opportunity and increased their funding and support for Lieberman.  I don't know how you can't realize that the Democrats fucked up in their handling of Lieberman, but they totally have.  We totally have.

I fault us for trying to make the guy look like a shit head without owning our place in creating the monster.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Tried is a lot different than did.  Its bullshit political grudges, and not supporting your constituents, that make the Senate such a theatrical joke these days. 

Its asinine either way, to think that him not getting the nomination in 2004 is somehow good reason to turn his back on the party, not to mention his constituents in a state that did support the public option according to the polls.  Those constituents are who keep him at his post in the U.S. Senate. 

If I lived in CT, Id vote for a 3-legged donkey before I voted for him again in the Senate.

I agree 110 percent.  The thing is Lieberman holds a lot of cards in Washington.  Like him or not, the man is a crucial component of the senate.  He's done a lot of good things for Connecticut and the amount of political capital that he possesses among his constituents is actually high.  You might not support him, but many will, and that's a part of the conundrum we're in now.  I personally don't like him, but I can't blame him.  The thing about you first statement that you have to remember is that Lieberman is now doing to the party what he felt was done to him.  That is how I feel we created this monster and now its just our own political karma come to bite us on the ass.

[Hicks]

:roll:  No Bush/McCain supporter is a democrat in my book.  There's a reason that the democratic party didn't support that fraud last time around, he consistently votes to support the republican agenda.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

:roll:  No Bush/McCain supporter is a democrat in my book.  There's a reason that the democratic party didn't support that fraud last time around, he consistently votes to support the republican agenda.

He never endorsed Bush.  He campaigned for Kerry/Edwards.  The reason he supported McCain in 2008 was because he was not supported in 2006 by the Democratic party.

How you can't see this is beyond me.

[guyforget]

i just cant find a way to justify how a grown man who holds such an important position, could act with spite and vengeance.  its not a mature reaction, despite whatever grudges he may hold.  a senator is elected to represent the best interests of his constituents.  his constituents in connecticut showed through polls that they supported the progressive health reform agenda, including a public option.  he let them down, and regardless of how he may feel that he has been spited, by the senate, his state, or whomever, its an immature reaction that has a profound effect on all americans, including those whom have never spited him in the past. 

[Hicks]

I never said he endorsed Bush.  He supported him by voting for every piece of shit legislation that the Republicans introduced between 2000-2006.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

It's how politics works, sadly, Guy.

I agree, and I think it is time for the Democratic Party to "man up" and explain everything succinctly and rationally to those they serve.

Explain that "well, we got upset with Lieberman for being a part of the "Gang of 14" and stopping us from Filibustering Samuel Alito's supreme court nomination", and "we didn't like that he was Hawkish in the senate".  "Our response in making it seem like Lieberman was upset for not getting the Presidential nomination in 2004 was totally wrong, and we acted childish when we tried to make it seem like Lieberman was upset over something so trivial, because he never was".  "We should have endorsed Lieberman in 2006".  Then they should explain how Harry Reid was wrong in 2006 to not strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanships and how Lieberman acted childish in 2008 and is acting childish now.  The party should also explain that they are responsible for creating the monster in the same way that Lieberman is responsible for acting like one.  Then they should go onto say publically that they want to bury the hatchet and are willing to do what it takes.

If Lieberman still acts like a dick after this, then I blame Lieberman.

Until the Dems own up to their part, I split the blame 50/50....

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

I never said he endorsed Bush.  He supported him by voting for every piece of shit legislation that the Republicans introduced between 2000-2006.

This is simply not true.  For example, take stem cell research...and Pro-Choice issues.  Lieberman has a 100 percent approval rating from pro-choice groups for a reason.

It is true he is Hawkish.  However, as a Jewish man who is heavily supported by the Jewish community, I think this might make some sense.

He did not act as though he was a member of the republican party between 2000-2006, that's just wrong.  He did support "No Child Left Behind", but so did a lot of other Dems.  The reason the Dems originally got pissed off is because he brokered a compromise with the right that stopped the Dems from Filibustering Samuel Alito's nomination.  How this was such an important issue is beyond me?  I think he pissed some people off behind closed doors and they acted as babyish as he's acting now in response.

[sls.stormyrider]

don't forget that Lieberman spoke at the REPUBLICAN convention in favor of McCain.
If that's what he truly believed, that's fine. I can live with that. He had to know there would be political backlash because of it. Right or wrong, it was gonna come.

true - that was after the 06 election. but it signals a large break.

despite that, he didn't lose his seniority on Senate committees

edit (again)- that all said, I can't say I blame Lieberman, even though I disagree with him. This is how Washington works. The hold outs have extra power. Same with Nelson, the reps from NO. If Olympia Snow said she would support the bill, she would get some party favors too.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

don't forget that Lieberman spoke at the REPUBLICAN convention in favor of McCain.
If that's what he truly believed, that's fine. I can live with that. He had to know there would be political backlash because of it. Right or wrong, it was gonna come.

true - that was after the 06 election. but it signals a large break.

That was a direct result of the 2006 election.  Perhaps it was babyish, but the man had every right to be pissed, and if the Democratic party didn't think there would be a backlash from the lack of support Lieberman received in the 2006 swing election,  they were out of their gourds.  Lieberman had done absolutely nothing to receive the treatment that he received in the 2006 election.  If you want to say it's because he was a hawk, remember Clinton, Biden, Kerry, et al.  all supported the Iraq conflict from the beginnig.  The man is the Democratic parties patsy, and has been for 3 years.  If he isn't, then the Democratic party did a good job out of creating a monster and is reeping what it sowed.

despite that, he didn't lose his seniority on Senate committees

Blame this little Faux Pas on Harry Reid.  This happened because in 2006, the party was in a broo-ha-ha over this election in Ct.  The party quickly realized that Lieberman was going to run as a third party candidate and was going to win.  They had assumed that if he didn't win the primary, he wouldln't run.  They hadn't even considered the fact that he could run third party and win.

As soon as this happened, Senators on the left side of the aisle quickly threw their support behind Lieberman.  The party had enough balls to not endorse him for the nomination, but didn't have enough balls to kick him out of the party.

Reid was one of the first to say "he'll retain his position and stature in the Democratic caucus if he wins".  What Harry Reid should have said is "he's running against the Democratic candidate in Ct.  Since he wants to fight the party, he is no longer in the party".  The party was all bark and no bite.  Lieberman saw no punishment from the Dems in power for fighting the party so hard in Ct.  Since he wasn't punished and he looked like a scapegoat, he felt no qualms at all endorsing McCain for the presidency.  Again, I feel as though this was all political theatre, because unlike 2000 and 2004, McCain no longer wanted to win.  Do you think he honestly felt as though Sarah Palin was a good choice?  Fuck no.  McCain wanted Obama to win as much as the public did.  He didn't have a chance in hell.  Lieberman endorsing McCain was just a sideshow to make people remember that Lieberman exists and he's "a bad guy".

The whole thing was rather retarded in my book.

Again, when Lieberman speaks at the Republican convention, is he stripped of chairmanships?  Nope.  He gets no punishment.  He is kicked out of the caucus, only to rejoin later on.  Harry Reid has no testicles and is a failure for the Democratic party (and in more instances than this).

Instead of hating on the fall guy Lieberman, more dems should be placing the blame on "I can't do anything right" Reid.

[sls.stormyrider]

actually, I think they did the right thing by not stripping him of his chairmanships. Obama campaigned on unity, he showed he was the bigger guy.
And the Dems are better off with Lieberman being a marginal #60 than #41 for the GOP.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

actually, I think they did the right thing by not stripping him of his chairmanships. Obama campaigned on unity, he showed he was the bigger guy.
And the Dems are better off with Lieberman being a marginal #60 than #41 for the GOP.

They should have stripped him of his shit in 2006.  That's where Harry Reid failed.  He fought the party in 2006, he should have gotten stripped of party support.