Posted on 07/05/2006 8:47:07 PM PDT by bitt
US Senator Joe Lieberman, who's in the midst of a tough Democratic primary fight, is hated by many members of his own party. In fact, his "friend" and partner in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, recently declined a request from the Lieberman campaign to endorse the moderate senator from Connecticut. Gore gave reporters some malarkey about his personal policy of not endorsing candidates, but it wasn't that long ago that he threw his weight behind Howard Dean with a surprising endorsement prior to the media circus "Dean Machine" collapsing. When Lieberman ran and lost as Gore's candidate for Vice President, not once did Lieberman accuse anyone of stealing the election.
Behind the scenes the liberal-left Democrats want to punish the Senator for a couple of reasons. First, Joe Lieberman wholeheartedly supports the President and the Pentagon in the war on terrorism and the Iraq conflict. Following his fact-finding trip to Iraq, Lieberman gave a speech on the floor of the Senate one wishes came from a Republican.
He articulately explained why the US is doing a good job in a bad situation and why the US cannot back down from its enemies. During the Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham played a few segments of Lieberman's speech and one could easily figure out that his comments were directed at his fellow Democrats and the few Republicans -- Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Lincoln Chaffee, etc. -- trying to sound like Democrats.
The second reason for the Democrat Party's souring on Lieberman is that he IS a true moderate. Just by being himself, he exposes the likes of Kerry, Durbin, Murtha, Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and the rest of them as liberal-left opportunists who attempt to cover their radicalism with a blanket of political moderation.
How can a Joe Biden or John Edwards run for the Democrat presidential nomination as moderates when Lieberman is around? How can a cut-and-run guy like Kerry portray himself as a reasonable liberal with Lieberman still around? These political bomb-throwers sound as if their entire political platform is their hatred for Bush and "his war," while Joe Lieberman speaks to the American people about issues and his positions.
While Lieberman is a Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Truman and JFK, the rest of his party has sunk to the lowest depths of Stalinism, flirting with treason and betrayal as part of their strategy to gain power while accusing others of what they themselves do.
Except for conservative talk radio shows and Fox News Channel, Lieberman is rarely courted by the mainstream news media for interviews or opinions anymore. For instance, when the Democrats attempted to pass "cut-and-run" and "cut-and-jog" Iraq withdrawal resolutions, Lieberman's press releases and comments were entirely ignored by the MSM, who, after all, serve as the public-relations arm of the Democrat National Committee. And the left-wing blogosphere despise him to no end.
So now, Sen. Lieberman is being challenged by a lightweight -- a businessman, Ned Lamont, the owner of a cable television company with absolutely no real experience holding public office. Lamont has put almost $2 million of his own money into his campaign, and viciously calls Lieberman a Republican lapdog. He also accuses him of straying from his Democratic roots. In fact, when he talks about his opponent, it sounds as if he's running against a Republican.
"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary, I know there are no guarantees in elections," Lieberman told reporters on Monday. "No one really knows how many Democrats will come out to vote on what may be a hot day in August."
Lieberman said if he loses the primary, he would run in November as a petitioning Democrat, but most recognize that as a euphemism for running as an Independent. He said he plans to remain part of the Democrat caucus in the Senate if reelected, but he is sure to get a cold reception if he wins as an Independent.
Once a Democrat Party stalwart and the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, Lieberman has fallen into disfavor with some Connecticut Democrats for his support of the Iraq war and his perceived closeness to President Bush. When he ran for the 2004 presidential nomination, standing next to the flip-flopper John Kerry, the metrosexual, smooth-talking John Edwards, the poverty pimp Rev. Al Sharpton and, of course, Dr. "Demento" Howard Dean during debates, Lieberman sounded reasonable, knowledgeable and honest on his positions. He also received little support from the party faithful who have moved even further to the left since the 2000 election.
The Dems want Lieberman muzzled and they are working quietly to torpedo his campaign.
The Democrat Party strategy has been somewhat effective. A Quinnipiac University poll has Lamont gaining ground among Democrat voters, although Lieberman maintains high ratings among Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Unaffiliated voters are the state's largest voting bloc, followed by Democrats and Republicans, according to Quinnipiac pollsters.
The poll reveals that if Lieberman runs as an Independent, he would win with 56 percent of the vote, compared with 18 percent for Lamont and 8 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger, a moderate. And that surely angers -- even scares -- the Democrats.
the enemy of my enemy COULD be my friend...
Just imagine the DemocRAT infighting if the Gore-Lieberman ticket had been elected.
Hey Joe, where you gonna run to now
Where you gonna run to
Hey Joe, I said, where you gonna run to now
Where you, where you gonna go
Baloney. Lieberman is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate. His 2005 ACU rating (8) was actually lower than Hillary Clinton's (12).
The question I find myself asking is not: "Why are so many Democrats sabotaging Lieberman's campaign?" -- but: "Why do so many Republicans insist on calling this flaming @sshole a freaking 'moderate?'"
This is not true. Lieberman did so at the Dem convention in 2004.
They're (kook left) afraid that Joe is a Zell.
Joe is no Zell obviously, but it is enough to scare the moonbats out of them.
And 18% don't vote? What do they say when forced to make a choice?
I don't dislike Lieberman, think he is a decent man. He did what all politicians do when seeking power, he went along with all of Gore's agenda.
If he were not pro-abortion he might make a good Republican.
They may be marching off a cliff (let's hope so). Joe had the audacity to take a different, more rational route (as far as Iraq is concerned).
To Avenge Yasser Yarafat.
If he loses the election in November, Lieberman will make a good cabinet member in this or a future Republican administration.
His support for the War On Terror. He don't tow the kook line, so he needs to be done away with. What we're seeing is just that.
Lieberman's best bet might be to try and run for the nomination after all. He might lose, but if the Hildebeast's star continues to burn out with the party faithful that would leave Gore and Kerry to battle it out with the other dwarves. It would be the ultimate irony if Lieberman could emerge as the voice of reason after those two destroyed each other.
Because they believe his liberal positions on (most) issues are "moderated" by his hawkish stance in the WOT. You're right -- Joe's no moderate. But he's got his head on straight when it comes to dealing with Islamists.
My guess is the dems are peeved at Joe for straying from the plantation and cozying up with GWB and the administration on some past issues.
It seems there are only a few dems who are ALLOWED to do that. Such dems must also mercilessly trash GWB on other issues at the same time even while they are working with him on some issues ( a la kennedy and clinton. )
Like him or not, Joe is a gentlemen, so unlike the others named above.
He's good on the war, but on every other issue he is a liberal Democrat. That his own party has rejected him only emphasizes how unbalanced they have become on the issue of the war.
Consider a defeated Lieberman. Think about a high energy ex-Democrat who wants to help his country. Think about a sizable book with many, many details about his life as a Democratic insider. Think about Hannity & Colmes & Lieberman.
I don't think a loss by Joe would be all that bad, no, not at all. In fact, it might be the worst nightmare for the Dims since Zell retired.
I have a vague recollection of him? He was some arab guy of little consequence right LOL? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.