Joe Lieberman -- Weasel.

Good Doc, I'll take that $100 in some nice independent Midewestern beer and a bottle of Woodland Reserve. Thanks.

 

The SportsJournalists.com right declares a Lieberman, who loses his party's primary, then basically tells the Connecticut Democrats to go fuck themselves, is a "man of principle."

Then again, considering what passes for honor and dignity among American conservatives these days, that's no surprise.

If Joe was such a "man of principle," how could he possibly stand to caucus with a party whose nominee he won't support, and most of whose rank and file are bitterly opposed to the pet war in Iraq he holds so dear?

Because Joe -- who still knows which way the wind is blowing in this country -- knows that supporting said party's nominee won't get him many headlines.

Some "man of principle." You righties can have him.

 

We shall see, my goat-fucking friend. We shall see.

 

Man, this has stayed hot without old hateful, bigoted Yawnie in here. Who'da thunk it?

Zeke, are you going to add something constructive or are you just going to defend your friend while trashing people - oh wait. You didn't do that! Well, I'm back, so I suspect it might start.

Or, just add something constructive.

Clearly, there is no difference between Jeffords, Leibermann, Oscar the Grouch or anyone who switches parties. Wait. There once was a congressman named Phil Gramm, who quit as a Democrat, then ran again as a Republican when he could have just switched parties, then ran at the normally scheduled time.
Haven't seen a Democrat do that.

 

In light of Joe Lieberman's endorsement today of John McCain, it seemed worthwhile to recall that during his July 2006 debate with Ned Lamont, Lieberman said he wanted to help elect a Democratic President in 2008 ( via DailyKos):

Lieberman said of Lamont:

"I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that."

Another day, another Lieber-fib. Look, it's not surprising that Lieberman endorsed a Republican -- doing this sort of stuff is the only way he can get media attention. That's what this is about -- no more, no less.

 

You mean Wood"ford" Reserve.

And I thought you just came from Kentucky. For shame.

 

Fuck. In my defense, I was drunk when I had it.

Still, shame indeed.

 

Riddle me this:

In 2000 Lieberman was the vice-presidential candidate for Al Gore. So obviously, the two had to have a similar ideology.

Now . . . if his endorsement of McCain is to make any sense, it must be because McCain's ideology is closer to Gore's than any of the Democratic candidates.

Does anybody really fucking believe that?

 

God, the twits are on parade this evening.
Lyman, I explained why it's different. You chose not to engage. Congrats on having read TIME magazine twice since 2001.
O_T -- I called neither man anything of the sort. I pointed out that Jeffords took a risk and paid the price. Lieberman acted like an unprincipled egoist. He lost a primary, ran as an independent, and carried water for a Republican administration while caucusing as a Democrat and maintaining his seniority and his chairmanships. Oh, and Jeffords was replaced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders who -- here it comes, Yawn -- actually IS a socialist, so I hardly think Jeffords confounded the Vermonters who sent him there, unlike Joe, who said on the stump he'd do everything he could to elect a Democratic president in 2008. Please answer the arguments and show your work, if possible.

 

Why don't you just place the blame where it belongs, Fenian: The Connecticut voters who rejected Lamont overwhelmingly when faced with the choice.

He knew he could win as an independent. He ran as an independent. He won.

Joe Lieberman didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left him. It's left a lot of people, but among the elected, only Joe recognized that fact. The rest dishonorably chose to change their principles to remain in power.

 

Boy, nobody voted for Democrats in the last election. They took over both houses by magic, apparently, as abandoning of the voters as they were.

 

No.
The Democratic Party rejected him, overwhelmingly, in its primary. He won with Republican money and Republican support and has done more than anyone else to enable a Republican president and to stymie investigations into Republican scandals and now, contrary to his expressed promise during the election, he's supporting a Republican for president. But he remains a Democrat. Why? Because that's where he can exercise what little power he has left.
Principles?
Please.