Letters to the Editor
-
I find it hard to believe that Joe would win anyway.
If he made good on his threat to run as an independent after losing to Lamont, I would like to think his Democratic support would drop to about nil. From where would the votes come? Republicans? I doubt they're as bullish on the idea of supporting an independent as they apparently are a genuine "Fox News Democrat," but what do I know? I don't live in Connecticut.
-
Lieberman, A Democrat?
How can Joltin' Joe remain a Democrat when he never really was a Democrat to begin with? I give Lieberman credit for the stands he has taken even though I disagree with many of them. He is one of the few politicians willing to risk his career to support what he believes to be right rather than spouting the party line. That would make him an Independent, something we sorely need in a Congress crippled by bipartisan conflict. Lieberman can support his positions with reasoned argument, another rarity in Washington. But, he is not a Democrat.
-
Who does Joe listen to?
I think one of Lieberman's problems is that he listens to Republicans when they tell him who his opposition is (extremist leftys and radical bloggers) and what is best for the Democratic Party (keeping his influence and moral guidance intact).
Of course, Republicans always have our best interests in mind when helping Joe.
-
A Senator of One ...
What this is all about is this: Joe Lieberman is now a Senator unto and for himself, with no apparent understanding that in America he is elected to represent not his views but those of the majority of his Connecticut constituents. His scratching and crawling schemes to be a Senator for Life are piteously embarrassing. Indeed, he is the pathetic face of how grueling it is to relinquish power.
-
Maybe I missread the poll info quoted
But didn't it say that if Joe decides to run he would win by a considerable margin among his constituents, the likely Connecticut voters?
Yes, yes, as a Democrat he is pretty much washed up, and perhaps the party is better without him, but to say that Lieberman doesn't reflect the views of Connecticut voters seems like a huge stretch.
People suggesting that Lieberman officially switch parties are rather short sighted as if he is an "independent" it is likely at least for appearance’s sake that procedurally Joe would still vote with Democrats. Meaning, in a tight Senate, Joe, as an independent, could be the deciding vote choosing who was actually in charge of debate in the Senate.
Democracy holds that people, not parties determine who should lead them. As a Democrat Lieberman served his party where he could, and has taken stands against his party on key issues. While it is fair to say he should not receive the Democratic nomination if he doesn't win the primary, it is idiotic to call him a spoiler if he runs as an independent.
If Lieberman running would cause the seat to shift to a Republican, I do not think Joe would run. As it is, Joe's running as an independent just allows the voters of the state of Connecticut the right to choose its own representation.
Whether or not a political party can hold nuanced views across a spectrum is crucial to remaining relevant. Without the "progressives" in the Republican Party they would not have a majority. The notion that without "conservatives" the Democratic Party can hold a national majority is an interesting theory, one which the 2006 elections will help determine.
At the end of the debate, if you are going to say that the people of Connecticut have the right to choose their own representative in the Senate that would need to include, the democrats, republicans, and the numerous independents who like Lieberman as well.
-
Just a suggestion
Why doesn't Joe Lieberman run for the Knesset, the Isrealy point of view and interests seem to be primary ,as the are to George Bush.
-
Re: Maybe I missread the poll info quoted
You didn't misread the poll, but I do believe you misread the article. It wasn't suggested or even implied that the people of Connecticut don't have the right to choose who they want. Aside from publishing poll results, the article suggested two things:
One; Joe Lieberman is running for Joe Lieberman, may the party who has supported him thus far be damned. It is also his right to do as he pleases, which brings me to the second point of the article.
The polls show that the only way Joe can win is in a 3 way race, because in this scenario he would gain Republican support. This is the text book definition of a spoiler. You stated, "Democracy holds that people, not parties determine who should lead them." I would also add that election rules decide who should govern, and certain elections require a runoff if any candidate fails to receive a majority of the vote. If that were the case in this general election (assuming Joe loses the primary) he would not be elected- according to current poles.
Like it or not, the two party system is a driving force in American government. Why do you think Joe didn't start his political career for the "Candidates for Lieberman" party? I'll tell you why, because you wouldn't know his name today if he had.
If you can point me to definition or embodiment of a "progressive Republican" than I'll point you to each Republican congressional voting record. Can you say "lock step"?
-
Of course Lieberman won't switch to the GOP...
...unfortunately, the platform and many of its members have too many jackboots and white robes to make him happy. At this point, though, it's pretty much moot: the joke I keep hearing from Jewish friends is that "Lieberman" is now the Yiddish equivalent of "Uncle Tom", for those people and circumstances when "Vichy" is just too cruel.
-
Dean and his radical bigoted spoilers
The only reason Joe Lieberman's in trouble today is because Howard Dean and his radical lefties are trying to maintain some sort of relevancy by doing what the left does best - splitting the vote and creating a circular firing squad in our own party and letting the GOP sail to victory laughing all the way.
Hoping we'll all forget Dean's promise to make red country competitive when he browbeat his way in as DNC chairman, he's again focused on offering red meat to his pack of rabid leftist followers in a similar way as he did after he spent through his primary coffers like a drunken sailor without winning a single state by foaming on unintelligably about moderate Democrats (who actually had their stuff together).
Dean's promises about "converting" red country sounded good on the surface. But some of us actually noticed he had no viable plan to do anything like that and that his premises were full of holes. For instance, how do you get your message out in the south where there is no labor presence if you won't set foot in a church because your rabid fans are all vehemently anti-Christian. (The rabid left apparently didn't notice there aren't many mosques in red country to make up for the lost votes - nor anywhere in America for that matter).
Unfortunately those of us who doubted Dean were right as not one Republican red state incumbant is in trouble in the fight for the Senate. Meanwhile Bill Nelson, the very last of the Southern Democrat Senators, may etch out victory because of Katherine Harris's mistakes, rather than anything that Dean has done for him. (In fact, Nelson like many Democrats, have had to work had to distance themselves from Dean and his pack of rabid followers).
As usual, any victories the Democrats have this Fall will be despite Howard Dean and his rabid supporters rather than because of them.