I wish he would start his own party.  I think they would garner a lot of the support in the middle.  It will be good to see him back in the senate next year, regardless of his party affiliation.

(Citizen)Dr. GuyOctober 30, 2006 11:46:41

wish he would start his own party. I think they would garner a lot of the support in the middle. It will be good to see him back in the senate next year, regardless of his party affiliation.

INdeed it will, since he is truly the voice of reason, in a party run by people so out of touch with America.

yep, they screwed this one up big time. In my opinion one issue voting is retarded. Hopefully the voters can recognize that a good politician does not always toe the party line but votes his conscience and represents his constituents. I don't count on anything until the votes are all counted though.

Joe Lieberman is too good a man to stay with the Democrats, they do not deserve him!

I said the same previously and agree whole heartedly.

I really wish that Lieberman would go truly independent or perhaps that he'd start his own party.  Not a fringe party like Ross Perot's turned out to be, but one for true moderates.  People that don't feel at home in the party of the wacky ultra liberals that try to hold control of the Democrats, and people that don't feel at home bowing to the religious right.

I really, really, really wish that the Lieberman had gotten a real shot at the Presidential nomination, rather than just the footnote spot of V.P. nominee.  As things stand he'll never get another real shot at the Presidency, but he is the kind of guy that I could actually support.

yep, they screwed this one up big time. In my opinion one issue voting is retarded. Hopefully the voters can recognize that a good politician does not always toe the party line but votes his conscience and represents his constituents. I don't count on anything until the votes are all counted though.

On the plus side, he's helped to take away a considerable portion of Ned Lamont's own personal wealth before the Gub'ment could come along and tax it away from him

I wish he would start his own party.

I didn't read the comments before adding my own thoughts saying the same thing.  I see great minds think alike

LocamamaOctober 30, 2006 12:28:34

yep, they screwed this one up big time. In my opinion one issue voting is retarded. Hopefully the voters can recognize that a good politician does not always toe the party line but votes his conscience and represents his constituents. I don't count on anything until the votes are all counted though.

To cut Joe lose the way that the Democrats did shows how far left they have went.

I admire Joe for running as an Independent and rubbing the face of the traitorous in the mud.

(Citizen)terpfan1980October 30, 2006 13:18:47

really, really, really wish that the Lieberman had gotten a real shot at the Presidential nomination, rather than just the footnote spot of V.P. nominee. As things stand he'll never get another real shot at the Presidency, but he is the kind of guy that I could actually support.

I would vote for Lieberman in a hot second if the Republican candidate was weak or to damn conservative.

I changed the title to something not so offensive

Well, MM... I'm going to have to disagree with you again.

This big issue in this election is Iraq. Liberman has been part of the "rubber stamp" congress, of which the democrats are running against, and that's why he lost the support of the DNC. This is what he said about a year ago:

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

The democrats are running on the platform that staying the course is not working and something different needs to be done, there needs to be some oversight, and the recomendations of the 9/11 commission need to be implemented. Since Liberman is diverging from the democratic platform on Iraq, the democratic party is justified in not supporting him.

Liberman has the lead in some polls because many republicans have jumped ship and are supporting him.

 

Reply By: Mike's Daily LogPosted: Monday, October 30, 2006 Well, MM... I'm going to have to disagree with you again.

disagreement causes people to think.. so thank you.

 

The democrats are running on the platform that staying the course is not working and something different needs to be done, there needs to be some oversight, and the recomendations of the 9/11 commission need to be implemented. Since Liberman is diverging from the democratic platform on Iraq, the democratic party is justified in not supporting him

The Democrats are running on gimmee power anyway they can get it, they have no plan for Iraq, as usual they are about trashing Bush and the right, with not a clue how to win the war.

Anyone who thinks the big issue in this election is Iraq really isn't fit to vote. Congress at this point can't really do anything about Iraq; they don't have the constitutional mandate. The Dems have stated openly that they don't intend to do anything substantial to effect change in Iraq.

If people want to vote out everyone that voted to support the invasion the Dems will lose all their heavy hitters too. The vast majority don't even support an immediate pullout now. Yet God knows how many Dems will go off to the voting booth to make their statement about the war, voting for the same party that nodded right along with it, and has no intent to stop it.

voting for the same party that nodded right along with it, and has no intent to stop it.

The Democrats have every intent to stop it -- they'll just mandate that we bring all of the troops home come hell or high water.  They'll hand Iraq over to those that want Civil War and a potential dictator or Taliban type leadership to take over.  They may do the same in Afghanistan.  Never mind that neither place would be secure, and worse yet, never mind the idea that Iraq could wind up falling into becoming a satellite of Iran.

They won't care about those possibilities because it'll all be about bringing our boys (and gals) home no matter the cost in lost prestige and world influence.  After all, in the Democrat world, the U.S. isn't supposed to be the leaders of the free world, we're just supposed to be another player in the great big global community.

Pshhhhaaww and Phhhhttt!

Nope, they don't have the authority to do that, and Howard Dean said openly that the the Democratic party has no intention of doing such. Even with Dem bobbleheads telling them to their face that they aren't going to, people still think Dems have the ability to bring "change" in Iraq. Suckers.

They'll have the ability to cut off funding for the war.