Joe Lieberman is a Real Democrat (letter to editor)

Lowell (MA) Sun ^ | 07/21/06 | Harry F. Armstrong III

[raccoonradio]

Leonard Abreu of West Townsend claims Joe Lieberman is not a true Democrat. Mr. Abreu is apparently upset that Sen. Lieberman supports the War Against Terrorism being waged in Iraq.

Mr. Abreu claims "even though all the available evidence suggests everything Americans have been told regarding this so-called war is based upon false premises." Mr. Abreu's use of words such as "all" and "everything" and his failure to cite one example of either some evidence or even one false premise indicates he is more likely emoting rather than thinking rationally. Much of the evidence related to Saddam Hussein's intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction was reviewed by members of the U.S. Senate, including Sen. John Kerry who found it credible before he apparently found it incredible. President Clinton also stated Saddam Hussein's lust for obtaining WMD, his use of WMD against Iraqi civilians, and his support to terrorist organizations. Am I to assume those statements by President Clinton qualify him as a "right-wing extremist" and a false Democrat?

On my 21st birthday I walked six miles from my college dorm room to the city hall of the West Haven, where I officially resided, to register to vote. I registered as a Democrat because I admired many of the great Democrats of the late 1960s -- Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Hubert H. Humphrey, John F. and Robert F. Kennedy, and numerous others. Those men were real Democrats. I know Joe Lieberman and respect him because he is a Democrat in the mold of many great Democrats before him.

Mr. Abreu incorrectly states that Joe Lieberman "has deserted the party that sent him to the Senate for 18 years and actually nominated him for the vice presidency." What really happened is that control of the Democrat Party was wrested from the successors of the great Democrats of years past by left-wing radicals. Joe Lieberman and I did not desert the Democrat Party; it deserted us.

HARRY F. ARMSTRONG III

Devens, MA

[raccoonradio]

>>Joe Lieberman and I did not desert the Democrat Party; it deserted us.

Mr. Armstrong echoes Mr. Reagan. Though the war may be the only thing we agree with Lieberman on...(Devens btw is a former Army fort which may become a "new" town is four existing towns allow it to...)

[BigSkyFreeper]

I did not desert the Democrat Party; it deserted us.

Zell Miller said much the same thing.

[raccoonradio]

yup, I have both his NATIONAL PARTY NO MORE and DEFICIT OF DECENCY book and he says as much (born a Democrat, married one, will stay one, etc.)...the latter one was good because it had his speech about Kerry at the RNC (incl. the unedited version). "Armed with what? Spitballs?"

[Wilhelm Tell]

Lieberman is rather far to the left but that is not good enough because he is not an America-hating Marxist. Marxists have completely taken over the left. On the right you have libertarians, neo-cons, paleo-cons, the religious, the non-religious, etc. while on the left the only officially accepted dogma is the latest narrow interpretation of Marxism. What is driving the anti-Americanism is that the left has the foolish dream that once the Islamofascists destroy everything, the leftists will build their Marxist utopia on the rubble. They have learned nothing from what followed when their hero Stalin courted Hitler.

[johnny7]

Today's Dem Party is nothing but a front for a Marxist-socialist, opposition party. How can a party be honest with the American people when it can't even state what it stands for?

[srmorton]

I have never voted for a Democrat for a national office in my life, but, if I lived in Connecticut, I would certainly vote for Lieberman. Although he "waffled" a little on some of his beliefs during the 2000 campaign, he acted on principle during the Clinton impeachment and in his support for the GWOT. On every other issue, he has been a loyal Democrat and he does not deserve to be treated as he has been by most of the rest of the Democrat party.

[the anti-mahdi]

even though all the available evidence suggests everything Americans have been told regarding this so-called war is based upon false premises

Another lying liar telling lies as all lying liars do. We call them Liberals only to save time.

[the anti-mahdi]

even though all the available evidence suggests everything Americans have been told regarding this so-called war is based upon false premises

Another lying liar telling lies as all lying liars do. We call them Liberals only to save time.

[johnny7]

Welcome... to FreeRepublic.

[dirtboy]

He's far to the left, but the Iraq war is among the, if not the, single most important issue in the mind of voters, and thus it has a big weight on voters' minds.

National security is the most critical role of the federal government. It used to be many Democrats, although their domestic policies were misguided, still clearly understood that differences ended at our shoreline. That changed during Vietnam and has gotten steadily worse ever since.

So although I disagree with Lieberman on domestic policy, IMO it is critical to support a Dem who still is on the right side of national security issues.

Especially since his Dem opponent is a liberal wingnut and his GOP opponent doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

[Vinnie]

Me too.
I was a registered Dim.
The first,and last dim I voted for as President was Johnson.

Remember Stephen Solarz, Dem. Rep. from NY?
He was one of the most liberal(read socialist) members of Congress. Yet he supported Gulf War I.
It was his demise.
As much as I despised his politics, I admired his stand on G.W.1.