Joe represents the evolution of the Democratic Party. To be a Major Player, you've got to have money. Centrists get more coporate money. Joe plays to both sides of the aisle, and widens his donation base. But what does he represent?

He not only voted for the war, he gave patriotic defenses of the war, telling us how important it is to bankrupt this country. Many democrats follow his lead now, and support the war, whatever the cost. Not only Republicans, but now some Democrats want to build a fence along the border with Mexico, pushing up the deficit. And Democrats can even swing around and support abortion restrictions now. Look at our great Democratic party, and how little they reflect the American worker that built the party. They're the lapdog of big business, and they can get away with it, because self-proclaimed leaders like Vice-Presidential nominee Lieberman encourage that behavior with Republican-lite speeches. And when it all comes crashing down (the national debt, I mean), then Lieberman's cronies will provide him with a golden parachute.

This guy is the leader of the neo-con-men Democrats, and when he goes, the party will feel a great weight lifted!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lieberman should not be supported for the simple reason he does not act primarily in the interests of the US. No pseudo lobbyist for foreign causes should be allowed to be a presidential candidate.

He always comes across as a slime bag. The Democrats, if they have a hope in hell, need some credible candidates. Gore so far is the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leiberman started out as a really decent person with a good voting record. Now he stands as a supporter of war crimes by Bushies and Israelis alike, a supporter of dropping huge bombs on Lebanon and a pusher of the worst corporate destroyers of democracy. His path from decency to war criminal is an ugly reminder of how pols can get really, really corrupted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate when the Dems were in control and as its ranking member today, Joe L has provided oversight that exposed many Bush excesses. He is one of the key players in fighting for rational limits on carbon emissions and fuel efficient vehicles in the Congress. He is consistently rated highly by the AFLCIO. Dick Cheny's reputation in 2000 was not as implied in the article as a right wing kook. He was, like it or not, a fairly respected, highly intelligent, quiet member of Congress who voted conservative but often worked with Democrats on major spending bills that the pro-educaton and welfare crowd liked. The issue with Bush was experience and intelligence in 2000. Cheney was recognized by liberals and conservatives alike as an intelligent, well-ingormed conservative with whom disagreements could be discussed rationally. Cheney turned out to be sneaky and conspiratorial. I don't blame Lieberman for not exposing something no one else would have exposed.

Joe's record on Iraq, for which Wall St rich guy Lamont is so upset, is no worse than Kerry or Hilary. I somehow missed the bolt of the left wing from the Democratic Party when Salutin, I'm a Vet Kerry "reported for duty" like a tin soldier in Boston in 04.

If you are for pro-public health and labor programs, and for an intelligent, practical approach to global climate change, you will support Joe Lieberman. If he does disagree with you, he will not call you a fascist or a Commie. I cannot explain this human failing of his to be respectful of all people and not to name call. Nevertheless, he deserves re-election.

If you are against all Demcrats, and are working to create a democratic socialist party, then I have more respect for you if you oppose Joe. But that is not what Ned Lamont, scion of the Corliss Lamont-Vanderbilt fortune is about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe Lieberman has let it be known that if he loses in the up coming Connecticuit democratic primary he will run in the general election in November as an independant thereby virtually assuring a republican victory in that state. With democrats like that, who needs republicans?

Our only hope is that his presence on the ticket will split the vote - the republican vote! Based on his past voting record, that is a very likely scenerio. He's pathetic.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
The Daily Rant

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The R candidate is only a sacrificial lamb, so most R voters will be doing the natural thing and voting for their bosom buddy Holy Joe. Lamont, meanwhile, will easily win the D activist vote that will have gotten him through the primary. The battle for votes between Lamont and Holy Joe will be among casual D voters and independents. Could be a fun fight to watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's pretty obvious where their loyalties are. But last night watching Florida congressman Wexler frothing at the mouth while ranting like a rabid right-wing neocon on Wolf Blitzer caught me off guard. He sounded as cruel and anti-Arab as Benyamin Netanyahu and to be honest it's pretty scary that a guy who's supposed to be a more sane, Liberal, democrat could be so hateful and gross in his unflinching support for poor little Israel as it bombs the life out of Lebanon civilians with bunker busters and white phosporous and cluster bombs. I could not tell if Wexler was an American or a right-wing Israeli. No doubt he's politcal career is funded handsomely, (like Leiberman) by AIPAC - who spies on our great nation. My belief is that he puts Israels interests above his own countries interest, as do so many neocons - like Holy Joe Lieberman. AIPAC funded, Necon minded, Repubtard all the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Lieberman stinks, that's why Gore lost." Hm??? Methinks not.
Gore lost because Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped around Monica Lewinsky. And the stink of that galvanized the Republican Party and the Religous Right like a hive of killer bees. It was the perfect gift. Clinton GAVE them his OWN DEFEAT. (It takes an intelligent person to make a REALLY stupid mistake.) And the stink of it got all over Gore. He was forever associated with the Clinton Administration and that's why he lost. Joe didn't help anything, but he wasn't the reason Gore lost, it was Clinton's STUPID sexual activity. He disgraced himself, his family, the Presidency, the Democratic Party, the American People, and the United States. And I will NEVER forgive him for it. His sexual idiocy set the stage and buttered the skids for George W. Bush and his incipient dictatorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not forget that when Gore tapped Lieberman to be his running mate in 2000 Holy Joe was also running for re-election but, what a surprise, he refused to take his name off the ballot in Connecticut. Nothing like making sure you'd have a job, Joe, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. Adding insult to injury, if the Supreme Court had upheld Gore/Lieberman's victory then the Republican governor of CT would have undoubtedly appointed a REPUBLICAN to fill Lieberman's Senate seat and Lieberman undoubtedly knew that. In short, Lieberman's relentless loyalty to himself isn't something new ... his first priority has always been to put his own self interests above the interests of the Democratic party and/or his constituents. Lieberman should have disappeared back in 2000 ... he sure as heck doesn't deserve another 6 years!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think that Lieberman was the only one soft on Cheney. Maybe I'm cynical but I think that the Democrats don't fight too hard because they can't oppose the corporate establishment that bribes both parties with campaign contributions and lobbying.

The establishment allows the Democrats to be the "loyal opposition" and "the lesser of the evils", up to a point. But they're still on the leash. When the majority of voters realize that the Republicans are evil the Democrats will win. Then we'll get back a little of what the Republicans stole.

At every election the public is told to ask, "am I better off now than four (or eight) years ago?". This is the wrong question. A better question is, "Who runs the government: the voters or the corporatocracy?".

I believe that if we look at the results; the lack of affordable healthcare, the state of public education, the exportation of jobs, the fights to kill the unions and social security, etc., we will find that the corporate dollars trump our votes. Both political parties are controlled by big business.

The corporatocracy wasn't elected and we can't vote them out. The only effective strategy is to take control of the platforms of both parties. We could do this before the next election with a strong grassroots movement.

Join The Lincoln Inititive today. Make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on URGENT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of Israel.

Oops, sorry, that's Prime Minister.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's nothing wrong with Joe that a little screwing from the leftwingloons won't cure. Thanks for pushing a good man a little more to the right with the rest of the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate "LOL". But Gore did lose and sore losers like Gore will always lose. ROTFLMAO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe is only one symptom of the mess our party is in. In a country where it takes big money from corporate lobbyists in order to win an election, the Dems have become nothing more than Repub-wannabes. They are left sucking the hind teat in order to retain their positions, and thus they need to satisfy the hand that feeds them.
The best argument against Joe is that if he DOES run as an independent, it will be the Repubs that re-elect him. Joe does NOT represent the voters of CT. A vote against Joe is not necessarily a vote for Lamont, either.
A vote against Joe is merely a signal that the average voter is sick and tired of having two Repubs to choose from. Joe is only the canary in the coal mine, and if the rest of his cronies don't take heed, they will all be back working for large corporations, where they should be. But not on our payroll, and not handing the country over to Halliburton, AT&T, et al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am amazed at how you left wing loonies react to the one remaining reasonable Democrat in the U.S. Senate. You would think that Joe Lieberman was a child molester (oops...never mind....being a child molester would guarantee his re-election) the way he is being flogged by the lunatic fringe of the left. The man has merely decided that whether you agree with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or not that these conflicts must result in victory. In every other respect Joe is as left wing as they come. Personally I would like to see him lose the primary and run as an independant resulting in either a Republican win OR an independent Joe Lieberman with an ax to grind against the feckless Democrats who turned their backs on him in the Senate. That would really make him more interesting to watch should that happen and he returns to the senate.for six more years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it true that Lieberman holds dual citizenship with Israel and as an American? Is it merely by "default," because he is Jewish and all Jews are tacit citizens of Israel? Or does it come with obligations and responsibilities to the state of Israel? Are they equivalent to his duties as an American citizen and senator? Do Israel's priorities displace America's, or are they seen as one and the same? Which country comes first?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at the last Israel resolution in the House. What was it, 420-8 in favor of giving Israel a blank check? A blank check to blow up UN bunkers and Red Cross ambulances? A blank check to kill over 100 children?

It's exactly the kind of insanity that occured right after 9/11. What did I miss? Did another round of anthrax letters go to democratic senators? Or is the Israeli lobby just that powerful?

It's easy for someone like Lamont to say they'd do what's right and not just what everyone else does to please Israel or the neocons. But had Lamont been in Lieberman's position, I bet he would have gone along just like Lieberman. That's the funny thing.

Of course, Lamont, like any sane person would admit that it was a mistake. But how can that be enough? What good does it do to admit you were wrong after all the damage is done. Especially when Israel is attempting to do exactly the same thing we did when we invaded Iraq. It's the same thing. And the damn congress acts the same way. They vote almost unanimously in favor of it. Despite Iraq.

So what now? Is it going to take 3 years and 200,000 dead Lebanese for these bastards to come around on Israel? Hell, we'll be into Iran by then. This is disgusting. What will it take to make people stop being so naive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orwell got it right in this passage from Nineteen Eighty-Four, a tale of the ultimate empire:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in . . . practices which had been long abandoned - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions . . . and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad you're pointing out Lieberman's toothless performance in the debate. I've been sick of him ever since then.

All you need to know about Joe is demonstrated by the extent to which Republicans (and Republicans claiming to be posting as Democrats) will go to defend and promote him. They want him bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thats how DC works. The only thing that matters is whether a politician will form unyielding coalitions with his fellow party members. They all must be on the same page. Thats why the Repugs are killing us. When they vote, they vote as one. Like it or not, we are stuck with a 2 party system, and there is no room for independents like Nader or Lieberman....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lamont 51%--Lieberman 41%. Here's the link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not lose track fo the fact that -- even with smarmy Lieberman at his side -- Gore did not lose. Bush was anointed by the Supreme court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberman represents all that is bad about the Democrapic party. He is a closet Repuke and should leave immediately...maybe join the Jewish army and help kill innocent Arabs.

Someone needs to start a third party, a true progressive party. If one was founded I predict a mass exodus from the Deomocrapic party I now despise almost as much as the Repukes.

To the Democraps--I will not give one more dime to you until I am confident that election fraud is at a bare minimum. Until you can do so, all else you try to accomplish is moot and I refuse to waste my hard earned money on you like I did in the last two elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yep, good 'ol, you know, the husband of that war-monger New York senator, uh, Bill Clinton, has rushed to the aid of Joe Lieberman this week, going and speaking on his behalf. What a guy! I won't knock everything Clinton did, but in a way, his indirect support for this stupid, immoral, twisted and sick Iraq quagmire, isn't a surprise from the same man who cut off basic supplies to a nation for 8 years resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqi children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yes how did joe get the top slot
joes not just a loser (the Israel lobby forced Gore to choose Joe)

Good satire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every healthy organism has a process whereby those of its cells, which have become old and disfunctional, are allowed to die, or are actually rejected and discarded by the organism. This is a natural and healthy process, for if these cells are allowed to remain, not only does the organism put its entirety at risk by carrying around the "dead weight", it risks the mutations in the ageing cell becoming cancerous, infecting other, normal and healthy cells.

Joe Lieberman has become old, has mutated and cancerous. His organism, the Democratic Party, is badly infected, and its largest metastasis, the DLC is now in charge. The DLC is a very clever mutation, as most cancerous tumors are, and it prolifically produces quantities of little metastases, which may for all the world look like normal cells. (Bill, Hillary and Obama are all currently suspected deviant cells!) Unless, and until, that is, one observes what they do as they invade and take root in other vital organs of the organism. I fear the prognosis is grim, for the entire organism is corrupted and rotten.

Yes, Joe has stayed, literally, too long at the party. The chemotherapy required to extinguish him and the other metastases will likely destroy the entire organism. And if the chemo does not kill the body, it may euthanize itself out of its own intense pain, knowing that it is steadilly wasting away from within, and can no longer compete as a functional organism. Regardless, left to its own devices, it will die a slow, miserable death.

It is natural selection, gradual maybe, but certain. Nature, like politics, has a way of eliminating the dysfunctional. Ultimately, the strong, healthy and adaptable will survive.
Life is abundant, prolific, and progressive. New and better organisms spring forth all the time. I'm hoping to become a functional, healthy cell within one such emerging organism.

Sleep with the fishes, Joe, into eternity with the body you unwittingly helped destroy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The anti-semites might be uncomfortable in the party of Barry Goldwater & which soon will welcome Joe Lieberman. Perhaps the anti-semites will start a populist gut reaction, grass movement (bowel movement of hay seeds) when the Repoops & Democraps merge in a de jure sense. These crypto-Christian identity clods have no place in a new progressive party to replace the reactionary elements of both parties who now dominate politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why can't the United States elect philosophical politicians with some compassion, intellect, people who want to make our country more in tune with the world, instead of some ideological backwater?
We blew it when Al Gore chose this dummkopf Joseph Lieberman to be his running mate, and we've seen what a disastrous choice that was for the Donkey party.
I remember watching that debate and Lieberman blew his chances to expose Cheney for what kind of predator he is.
Since then the Donkeys have been in a full-scale retreat from the American political scene who have offered feeble resistance to the Elephants.
Lieberman blindly supprted the "war" ON Iraq and he hasn't made much noise on the political map. (But those in Connecticut surely keep tabs on what he's doing.) That could have cost him his career. Unfortuantely he still has his seat.
We surely deserve better leaders who won't sell themselves out or who are under the influence of something else (money, various incentives, etc.)
But it's mainly our fault when we elect people to office who may not be of high mind. But we get what we deserve if we don't present a challenge to these elected officials. Philosophy doesn't count in American politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you're kissed by the Chimp in public, that is a high sign to exit the field of battle in disgrace quietly. When hacks and sell-outs like the Clintons and Senator Boxer are thrown at you like rocks in stoning by your own party, that is a hint and a half for your hiney. No one should have to show you the door. Even dazed by the bashing you're taking in the form of shells fired at you by your own party no less, you should still be able to see your way clear into retirement.

Joe shouldn't run. He should just walk while those K Street jobs as, er, uh, consultants, yes, consultants are still lucretively available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ha ha, too bad. Sorry If we have a hard time seeing much wit or wisdom in your posts. That might be your own fault, no? Could it be that you're not very funny or wise? Who's acting like a 10 year old throwing a tantrum? I think you are engaging in an act of projection. Must suck not being able to see yourself in the mirror, but right wing blood-suckers are like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you looked around lately? Each Party is trying to one-up the other and all the while their forign partners get us further into the quagmire. The US wants a bigger war in the gulf,they got their pals in the area to help them out,while they were busy on the homw front running for office.
We are ,once again, being assailed by the best con artists in the business,dressed up as your public servant. They are not,never have been or will soon be. The window dressing is in full swing. Most,if not all, of them are so far removed from the People,they could'nt walk down the street at night and not feel scared. They have good reason to be.People hate Hypocrites,Liars,Thieves,and Butchers. That 'is' what we have now. Don't say we don't. Their actions scream louder than all the sound bites they can buy. No incumbant deserves to be returned to office. If we fail to do so,we are the same as these scum that call themselves 'Leaders'.
Their rap has always been the same,'To have Freedom,we need Strong Security.' This is the biggest Lie that was even told!! To have strong security your need Great Freedom.
Freedom is Security. The Govt and everyone of their elected ones are your enemy. They,are controlled,by the Rich. They are the Enemy of Earth. Now who is it you want to vote for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dems like Joe, and Hillary, simply exemplify the Democratic party as the "other" party of the rich and powerful. Joe is simply serving his coporate masters, be they defense contractors, big business campaign contributors, or the massive banks. No matter how progressive you claim he is, he supports GW's Iraq debacle. Now, you tell me, is not that alone a 100% disqualification from the ranks of any true progressive or real liberal? I mean just to support GW's lies and falsehoods. Of course, Joe, and Hillary, unlike GW Bush, do happen to have a real IQ, but it's an IQ in service of the ruling elite, Republicans dressed now as Dems. How sad and pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe is the perfect candidate for aipac. Defend Israel at all costs. Never take an opposing view no matter how compromised your position is(Iraq war).
Just take the money and do what your told or you will feel the force of Israeli political blowback.
Joe represents the wealthy elitists that make up the democratic party statis quo. Making waves only when the risk is minimal. We wouldn't want to upset any of our friends at the club.
Joe would never go after a scumbag like cheney(who's right wing voting record in congress placed him squarely to the fight of Attila the
Hun) because he is a political pussy. Descriptives like"intelligent and gentlemanly" prove that. Fear of neo-con blowback and all(image is everything).
Statis quo dem. party leaders are the reason I refuse to vote for incumbents like Joe ever again.
I support Sen. Boxer in my home state of ca. but will not vote for Feinstein
as she like Joe represents the weathy corporate elitists who have sold out the working class.
Is Feingold the only potential 08 candidate with any integrity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

think you and your substandard education can do it. And you have to write a paragraph. A sentence is not long enough to prove you can do it without any insults, any swear words, any mispellings.

Oh, and your kind is from the party of morals, manners, and values? Ok, troll, show us your stuff. Bet you can't do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article. Lieberman represents the rot that has set in among progressives on both sides of the Atlantic. They want to be "reasonable" so they have no passion and no ideology--except careerism. The Democratic Party is full of mediocrities, who roar against small insults and collaborate with great horrors. We need an alternative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. . .is right. Just when I thought that one of my Senators, Barbara Boxer, was a courageous independent voice in the Senate, she turns heel and has of late been stumping for ol' Joe's reelection. It seems that "my party, right or wrong" is not just an affliction of the Republican right.

This chuminess, this mutual back scratching at the expense of doing the People's work – what we send these clowns to Washington to do – is a serious disease that afflicts what is laughingly called our "leadership" today. And boy, is it contageous. I suggest that in the next election (assuming it might not be rigged...), with our votes we make it fatal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've no love for Joseph Lieberman. He is way too
conservative.

That said, I am not convinced that progressives should
make unseating him one of our top priorities.

My short term goal in the context of current,
hyper-conservative U.S. politics, is to get the
Democrats in control of one or both houses of Congress.
Say that we defeat Lieberman. We have traded a Dem
for a Dem, in terms of the Senate’s 100 seats. I
know, Lieberman is conservative, and he does not
always vote the way that we would like. But he does
vote with the party rather often. I'd rather
spend the money and energy aimed at Lierman's
defeat on a REPUBLICAN senator and put a DEMOCRAT in her/his place. If the Dems get 51 seats, even if one is Lieberman, they gain control of all Senate
committee chairs, the Majority Leader post, etc. A lot of power that is now held by the Republicans.

I can understand why people detest Lieberman, but this is
electoral politics where it is best to think strategically, even
if that is not viscerally satisfying.

Some say that kicking Lieberman out will
send a message about who is welcome in the party.
I am unconvinced that that is going to help us. Shooing
some conservative Dems into the Republican fold and, probably, making the party smaller is not really helpful, strategically. Do I like them? No. Would I like them to vote for a Dem instead of a Republican? Yes.

Let me get to a long-term goal – enacting
progressive public policy in this damnably
conservative country. We’ve moved so far to
the right in the last 30 years that the country is
almost unrecognizeable. It is a source
of great anger and, at times, near despair.
A large part of the reason for that
movement to the right is a vast social and political
movement begun in the late 1960's by
disaffected conservatives who felt then much like we
feel now (see Jean Hardisty's book "Mobilizing Resentment").

This social movement was very successful and became
the New Right. As their political power grew they made a
strategic decision to take over the Republican Party,
from the state level up. The Christian Coalition was
active in that project. They could have made the decision to create a conservative third party, but it made more sense to take over the Republicans than to try the nearly impossible task (in the U.S.) of building a viable third party. This electoral stragegy was assisted by non-party conservative organizing projects (think tanks, news outlets, interest groups).

It will take a similar social movement from
our side to begin to move the country back
toward the left. The only issues that I can see
that could drive a movement of that size are
economic justice issues (poverty, the incredible
disparity in wealth, the shrinking middle class, etc.)
with social justice issues blended in. That movement
could take over & rejuvenate the Democratic Party
as part of its electoral strategy, but it would need to aim
for broader cultural change,as did the New Right (who
copied the tactics of Saul Alinsky & the New Deal Coalition).

In the short term shoving conservative Dems
out of the party, while viscerally satisfying, might
not be our best strategic choice. We do not have
the electoral and political power to get our way to any
degree without their help right now. That is just the cold,
unhappy reality. The path to a different reality is the one
I mentioned above.

Use your own best judgement. Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As soon as I read Adriana Huffington say in her "H.Post" that Barbara Boxer was going to Connecticut to support campaigning for Hier Lieberman, Asking: " What the hell is she thinking"; well I asked the same with much disapointment and a true sense of hopeless for solidarity in opposing the Bush agenda. pointedly I couldn't believe it.
As I feel there are few Democratic representatives worth their spit.
But watching the evolution of reprentatives wain and meander around and get distrated from a relentless focus they should be maintaining on making Bush and his administration accountable for piracy of the nation, by pillaging and plundering Iraq under false pretenses and Shangahiing young men and women by deception to supporting their emipire building and murdering hundreds of thousands innocent people in the name of false patriotism can not be swept away.
But for Barbara Boxer to try to justify Lieberman as she does in the following letter shows very distracted judgement and personal favortude over being a representative of her constituency. This makes me conclude that we as an aware and intellegent populace that know and demand real democracy are ignored as fascism over whelms the voice of the people.
Oh, one more note before your read the letter following. I beleive, "you can't protect the hen house while keeping the fox amungst the chickens!"
The only thing the Democracts should be doing is running the lying deceivers out of government. They are not helping anyone but themselves. Same as Joe,and God help us Hillary and for holy sake B Clinton. But as you should already be able to see Bill is in cahoots with Herbert Walker, as Joe is supporting George. They are all in bed with each other. And now Boxer is choosing personal frienship over her job to do the will of the people.
The only possible Democratic leaders whom could start to repair or country would be Senator Biden, or Senator Russ Feingold. Even Al Gore. At least he realizes the truth of our dire deleima instead of ignores it. But I guess most americans are in denial and, "an't handle the truth!"
Feingold was the only one with the clearity of necessity to see Bush has to be stopped (exception of a few others like John Conyers. Whom has a suit against Bushin Federal Court in Michigan, along with 11 Senior Democratic Members of Congress.
But exception to that the whole of democrates are seemingly self-defeating except for behind the curtain they are all of the same cloth. Nancey Pelocy had a great opportunity to supprt Feingolds motion for action to censure Bush,but only one senator showed up. I can only guess as head of the party she feels a better stratigy is the lett the Republicans bury them selves by the November election then lay into the bastards. But I doubt it.

I say: "Initiate the nuclear option", when the republicans threaten with it. Shut the congress down and bring the country to a stop. Play hard ball and stay on focus. Don't let the republicans bait and switch. It's the only way to bring balance back to democracy. But thena agin how can we insist all other countries embrace Democracy when we can't?

Anyway,
Here is her letter to me: Read the following Part 2

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem, both parties are "the establishment," and more or less represent jointly or individually a "homogenized product." Meaning, too close in views, approaches and opinions. I don't doubt for a minute that Joe, for instance, is the nicest guy in the world. But his views have become just a little bit of a modification of GW's, and reflect his own identification with the countries "ruling elite" (ie, corporate and moneyed interests). So, now he sees himself being "a Senator who must protect America" and "deal with national security issues." The usual diatribe of these guys once in the Senate for awhile and which displays now in his slick swagger and demure. And then other Dems come along to support him, after all he is "the man," and it becomes "all bow in allegiance to the party." So, see everyone? The issues are lost, the purpose is lost, they are left to argue over the issue equivalent of parking spaces, when the problem is they are in the wrong parking lot to began with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...of Israel .

Liberman represents all that is bad about the Democrapic party. He is a closet Repuke and should leave immediately...maybe join the Jewish army and help kill innocent Arabs.

Someone needs to start a third party, a true progressive party. If one was founded I predict a mass exodus from the Deomocrapic party I now despise almost as much as the Repukes.

To the Democraps--I will not give one more dime to you until I am confident that election fraud is at a bare minimum. Until you can do so, all else you try to accomplish is moot and I refuse to waste my hard earned money on you like I did in the last two elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

General Mac Arthur said that "Old Soldiers don't die, they just fade away.

I would like to add to that sentiment by saying: "Old Sailors don't die, they just smell that way."


And in the same vein: "Old Politicians don't die; They just rot away. So Joe and the rest of your political mobster cohorts, just keep rotting away.



Here is an ad that yoiu may consider using in your campaign:

Hi I'm Joe Lieberman and I'd like you to vote for me: And remember, "You vote for me, and I'll Rot for you."

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this vile regime.

What topics bring out the Rethug trolls en masse? Interestingly, defending their buddy and reliable vote in the Senate Joementum. And they're full of "freindly" (fire) advice to give us. Whenever the trolls are advising us, our BS detectors ought to be spinning maximum on the dial. Oh, they want to help us so much. If we lose Loserman, we'll be too liberal for America. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. It's Connecticutt's decision. They are the Decider here. And they have plenty of reasons to replace this guy who has sold his state and country out to the pharmaceutical, insurance and defense industries and screwed the ordinary citizen.

The Trolls are sure frantic to tell us not to replace the top Neocon advocate in the Dems. Gee, I wonder why. Well, there's no one, not even Hillary or Ben Nelson, who is as palsy walsy with W. Bush, or as comfortable with PNAC as orthodox Lieberman.

We are not going to have 2 Neocon parties, period. As it stands now, even the majority of Republican voters are starting to be concerned about their principles (small govt., tough but effective foreign policy, low taxes, etc.) being sold out to a cabal of Neoidiots and Neotyrants.

We are going to purge the Neocon Lieberman. Ok, Trolls, go back to your Neocon bunkers and keep fighting WWIII from your little Lazyboy chairs and fire away with your keyboards. You're unable to win this one. But I'm sure your little appendages will get quite a workout defending the Neoflag from the Constitution and Talking Points from any kind of sense in the thing inside your heads called a brain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A grim trigger strategy is defined as follows:

Grim Trigger is a trigger strategy in game theory for a repeated game, such as an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Initially, a player using Grim Trigger will cooperate, but as soon as the opponent defects (thus satisfying the trigger condition), the player using Grim Trigger will defect for the remainder of the iterated game. Since a single defect by the opponent triggers defection forever, Grim Trigger is the most strictly unforgiving of strategies in an iterated game.

In particular, the grim trigger strategy is used to penalize the triggering behavior so sternly as to make it not worthwhile to risk triggering it. Working under the assumption that elections aren't rigged (which is a rather large assumption), announcing "grim triggers" and carrying them out is meaningful.

For instance, a sufficiently large bloc of voters implementing a grim trigger about some issue would forever after defect from the Democratic or Republican parties (possibly from both via third parties or write-in votes), possibly announcing their intentions. Voting against a candidate in a primary is another possible grim trigger strategy.

Personally, I have doubts about candidate-by-candidate strategies. It appears to me that the Democrats take turns betraying their constituents, though I've yet to get properly formatted voting records to analyze voting patterns with. In my opinion, grim triggers must be whole-party affairs to be effective. For instance, a grim trigger announcement regarding CAFTA, the Alito cloture vote, and similar would've had to have been directed at the Democratic party as a whole, so a clear message that if the party as a whole doesn't achieve the result it should, mass defection to e.g. independents or third parties will occur.

In this context, namely ignoring electoral fraud and assuming party coordination of contituent-betraying votes, I have serious doubts that replacing Lieberman will have the desired effect. The odds are that the same sort of vote coordination used to average enough votes to slam through the agenda will occur. It would take a large-scale defection to motivate any change in voting patterns.

Another way to think of it is as being similar to single-issue voting, except involving multiple issues. Here if any issue "goes the wrong way," the candidate or party voting the wrong way gets defected from in perpetuity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Joe,

Let's go to Katz's Deli on the lower eastside and I'll buy you a ham and cheese on kosher rye, with a glass of milk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No matter that Lieberman is a dead Democrat walking. Most Democrat politicians are Republicans in ass clothing. Drive them out of Washington! We need a new socialistic party of, by, and for the common people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference is that Lieberman talks differently. When it comes to his actual votes, he is the same as his fellow Democrats.

This is an example of the failure of electoral politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nbrown, your link is disingenious. It lists a few votes mostly on Iraq. It has nothing to do with the complaints against Lieberman, such as his votes on cloture for Alito, his votes for Gonzales, his chumminess with O'Reilly and Hannity,

and support for Bush's Dubai ports deal linked text, his consideration of support for Republican plans to destroy Social Security, his support for permananent US bases in Iraq & Neocon plans to remake the entire Middle East:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nbrown, your link is disingenious. It lists a few votes mostly on Iraq. It has nothing to do with the complaints against Lieberman, such as his votes on cloture for Alito, his votes for Gonzales, his chumminess with O'Reilly and Hannity,

and support for Bush's Dubai ports deal: linked text, his consideration of support for Republican plans to destroy Social Security, his support for permananent US bases in Iraq & Neocon plans to remake the entire Middle East, and his continual pursuit of a permanent Senate seat at all costs: linked text including considering running as a Republican: linked text and here are some of Lieberman's greatest hits collection of things he has said or done counter to Dem values: linked text

No, Joe Neocon Lieberman is not like any other Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 2005, multimillionaire Greenwich business man Ned Lamont's adjusted gross income was 2.8 million dollars and he claimed $10,769 in cash charitable deductions. He wont release his 2001 to 2004 tax returns (why not, what is he hiding?). This is typical of you liberals. In 1995, John Kerry had taxible income of $ 126,179 and gave ZERO to charity. (1991 charitable gifts--Zero, 1992 - $ 820, 1993 - $175). In 1997, Al Gore had an income of $ 197,729 and gave $ 353 to charity. The Liberals constantly yell about helping the poor, but not with their OWN money. Such hypocrisy. When you are standing at the Pearly Gates I believe they want to know how much of your own money you gave to the poor, not how much of your neighbor's money you confiscated (through the government) and gave to the poor and felt SO noble and good about it. How you treat your own money shows where your heart is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lamont kept his money and invested it in other things?

The 'conservative rich folks give more money to charity' argument is absurd. For one thing, many charity contributions are really tax shelters. For another, many are given to religious organizations with political agendas masquerading as phony charities.

Take your charity argument and shove it back into the hell from where you came from, troll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'doing', there are many charities with low overhead that are very effective at helping the poor. Does anyone on this site have any suggestions where 'doing' s money could make a real difference in the life of the poor? or tell us about your favorite charity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This troll is trying to divide us with a bunch of nonsense and hate speech.

The lineage of people. As if the entire US Senate wasn't descended from millionaires. Trashing Lamont won't work. JFK, FDR were trashed for being from rich families. And I bet elsewhere you post about the virtues of the rich and Ayn Rand, but here you bash them when they're liberals because you know that liberals are uncomfortable about rich politicians. Clever, but it won't work. We're on to your filthy, swift boating, nasty, down and dirty, disgusting tactics.

Why do you get some toilet paper and clean up your mouth with it, troll?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'doing' if anything I said was untrue why dont you correct the record? In stead of attacking me. Perhaps I was mistaken on a fact. How about if you hold the insults and attacks and stick to the facts. The time before an election is the time to get to know a candidate. If I am wrong on a fact let's correct the record. So try to leave out the attacks and the toilet paper and discuss the facts. regards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Ned Lamont the richboy offspring of robberbarron J.P.Morgan's partner? Is his (partly inherited) fortune between 90 and 300 million dollars? Why wont he release his 2001 to 2004 tax returns? What are the admission policies at his Greenwich Golf Club? Did he protest them before deciding to run? Is his Greenwich house assessed at $ 30,000,000 ? How much Halliburton stock did he own before deciding to run for office? How much did he give to charity in 2001 to 2004? The time to get a feel for a candidate is before the election. If any of these facts are wrong, please correct me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

argument each time. There's no need to engage him in a false debate when his purpose is to divide, confuse, intimidate, distort.

He will repeatedly assert the superiority of Rethug politicians because he claims they give more to charity out of the goodness of their sweet hearts. He is now trashing Lamont in hopes that he will cause less votes for Lamont as Lamont is a threat to the Neocon enabler Lieberman.

This troll's 'facts' are worthless, his points are pointless.

Earlier he said we should give to charities and give a list of charities. When I asked for a list of charities, he switched back the subject to Lamont bashing. Pure trolling tactic.

This troll is not interested in serious, thoughtful dialog. He's interested in a fake dialog to make his points. Point being that Lamont is a horrible rich man whose lineage and personal character are to be questioned. He doesn't address Lamont's politicial positions and proposals nor Lieberman's because he strives to sow personal distaste and hatred through character assassination. Pure Neocon trolling.

There are very few people who run for the Senate who don't have a lot of money, because it's very expensive to run. The problem is the system, not that candidates are rich, but that the system makes it hard for a non-wealthy individual to run and win. We all know that. That's an issue for discussion.

But notice the topic here in the article is Lieberman and his woes, but this Troll has diverted it to character assassinations on Lamont.

Lieberman's record for ordinary people is abysmal and hard to defend, his record of votes for the millionaires, corporations, lobbyists, DC insiders, Neocons, and rich donors is overwhelming. That's the real issue with money in politics. Because this Troll can't discuss Joe's votes nor Lamont's positions, he resorts to character assassinations on Lamont.

I don't respond to Trolls who bait me with their nonsense, and I apologize not to Trolls but to alternet readers if I went over the line in attacking the Troll with my previous comments, but I get really fed up with their behaviors.

It's time we boot out the Liebermans, who are supported by a dirty tricks political industry ruled by Rove --slimy push polls, phony attacks, all kinds of crazy stuff has happened in this race that Lieberman's campaign has engaged in, including arresting people with tickets to his events with the wrong tshirt (Bush tactics) and Trolls who character assassinate his opponent and give us 'friendly' (fire) advice on who we should vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Doing' 1.you state that I " repeatedly assert the superiority of Rethug politicians because I claim they give more to charities." could you please show us where I repeatedly said that? I cant seem to find it. 2. you refer to my Republicans heroes but I never mentioned Republicans. 3. You ask about my Golf Club admission policies but I dont play golf nor am I in a country club. 4. you mention money I get for trolling and ask how much cash I got from Karl Rove....none. You attack ME for character assassination? what do you call the venom and poison and fantasies in you posts? I never attacked you. You state that my points are worthless and you can have that opinion but the definition of hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do the opposite. For all these rich milliionaire (billionaire) politicians to constantly go around saying they want to help the poor a reasonable person might expect them to use some of their own money to accomplish their stated goals. regards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This troll posted this comment on the alternet article 'Why Conservatives Can't Govern':


newguy...Bush puts burden on the poor and middle class
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drappleby on Jul 9, 2006 5:07 PM
newsguy, you state that.."Bush conservatives lower taxes on the rich.....putting more of a burden on the poor and middle class.." Is that really true? What IS the burden on the poor and middle class? using 2003 IRS data the top 1 % pay 34% of the taxes. the top 5 % pay 54 %. The top 10 % pay 65 % and the top 50 % pay 96.54 % of the taxes. The bottom 50 % (the poor and middle class) pay a WHOPPING 3 % of the taxes, down from 3.5 %. On the other hand who USES the tax money? Do you think the poor pay the $11,000 per child for school in Bridgeport Connecticut? Do the poor pay for their medicaid, food stamps, welfare, aid to dependent children, section 8 housing? etc etc?? Do the drug dealers, rapists and murderers in prison pay the $24,000 to incarcerate them and keep them off the streets? No, the rich, most of whom worked for their money, (very few inherited it like Sen Kennedy or Rockefeller or married it (twice) like Kerry). These people, the hated, despised rich people......pay for virtually everything in this country. Many of them trained for many years and work very hard...60 to 80 to even 100 hours a week. Maybe that's why some of them are rich. Maybe once in a while the people with their hands out for everything could show a little appreciation, cause "poor" in America is nothing like poor in the rest of the world. regards, I await the courtesy of your reply.

Interesting, how this Troll who claims in today's postings to be a friend of the poor and charity in the USA, in this posting defends the rich and craps on the poor. This troll has a long record of postings here. If somebody has a lot of time ont their hands, they can find them and verify it. The rest of you with decent memories of comments at alternet will remember his posts easily. They are always pro-Republican (except when he's called on it as he is today, so in typical Troll tactic he pretends to be an independant thinker, a nonpartisan. That's BS.), always pro-rich except for rich Democrats are the antiChrist in this Troll's postings. This troll also always makes arguments defending Republican fiscal policies and criticizing the personal finances of Democrats.

He is not nonpartisan nor objective nor looking for reasonable debate. He is trying to score points for his side, sow doubts among us about our Dem leaders. And now today he lies bigtime.

This is 100% Troll behavior. Go back to the Neocon hell you came from, Troll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'doing', I was quoting Newsguy, the previous poster who claimed the Bush tax cuts put a burden on the middle class and poor. I then gave IRS statistics as to who pays taxes in the U.S. I guess your definition of a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with you. You have pages of attacking me but have never refuted EVEN ONE of the statements I made about New Lamont. Yet these facts about him seem to drive you up a wall. If I am wrong, find a reference and I will stand corrected. How about your next post you withhold all the personal attacks and stick to the issues. You have spent all day making ME the issue, attacking me. We were discussing Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. This is so typical of liberals, when they are losing a debate they turn to vicious personal attacks instead of defending their ideas or politicians. I have given you the courtesy today of answering your numerous questions. If anything I said about Ned Lamont was incorrect, then lets correct it. I await the courtesy of your reply. Try to stay on Ned Lamont this time. regards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'doing', enough of your abuse. I am calling you out on this one. You said I have a 'long history of posting on this site'. Prove it. This is the only name I use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]