the Democratic Party left him. And these days, I really sympathize.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121132806884008847.html

Here's my favorite part.

Quote :

"By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years. Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign."

5/27/2008 10:15:24 AM

Lieberman has always been pretty high on my hitlist as a censorship fan. Blame music/video games/whatever but don't blame the parents.


Fuck you, Joe Lieberman.

5/27/2008 10:38:22 AM

Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat for one reason and one reason only, war. He is only an independent because the Democratic electorate of Connecticut decided they would rather be represented by the anti-war Ned Lamont than the pro-War Joe Lieberman. It has nothing at all to do with the party moving away from Joe. We heard this same line of bullshit from Ronald Reagan when he left the Democratic Party.

5/27/2008 11:22:43 AM

Quote :

"activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years."

Bullshit. There are many ways that the Democratic Party is further right than in the past 20 years. (ie economic policies, capital punishment)

5/27/2008 11:59:33 AM

Joe Lieberman is a fan of James Hagee, the fucked up pastor that McCain first sucked up to but then decided was a bit too loony. In fact, Ol' Joe is scheduled to speak a the Christians United for Israel "summit" in DC, where he'll share the stage with Hagee:

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_washington_summit

Remember, Hitler was sent by God to be a "hunter" who would kill the Jews in order to make way for the second coming.

5/27/2008 12:02:30 PM

This Senator Lieberman you speak of just in the past couple weeks called for capital controls on commodities.

So, the Democratic Party "left him" you say...?

5/27/2008 12:24:38 PM

Wolf,

I don't think so, really. As Lieberman notes in his articles, the moderate Dems peaked in 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton--the man that changed welfare as we knew it (replacing AFDC with TANF), signed NAFTA, cut capital gains taxes, and worked with a Republican to balance the federal balance.

Now, the Democratic Presidential candidates have lost all interest in reforming our social safety net (note, there is a difference between reforming and blindly expanding), they want to "re-nagotitate" NAFTA, raise capital gains taxes, and put off balancing the budget.

If that ain't a 180 degree turn around, it's certainly getting close to one. And that's just social/economic issues. I think Lieberman does a good job on his own of documenting the changing current in Dem foreign policy (though I must admit, unlike Lieberman, I opposed the war in Iraq. But now that we've totally fucked up their country I agree with him it is in our interest to mitigate the damage).

The truth is that if you're a moderate, you're without a party at this moment in history. Both Obama and McCain are hoping that appeasing their party's bases will get them elected. It's pretty depressing for us in the middle.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ``]

5/27/2008 12:46:25 PM

Does he really think our memory is so short to forget that the War in Iraq was popular when he came out for it?

Who bowed to public opinion again?

5/27/2008 12:52:50 PM

^ But his support for the war stuck despite strrronnngg pressure to drop it (such as losing his party's nomination for the Senate).

That seems like pretty strong evidence that he did not pick up the position to be popular. If your argument is instead that he picks popular positions sometimes, but hates to admit he's wrong about supporting things he didn't believe in to begin with, so he continues to hold those positions he doesn't believe in even after they lose popular support to keep from losing face....then...you're a much better mind reader than I am.

5/27/2008 12:56:54 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty depressing for us in the middle."

5/27/2008 12:57:38 PM

Other people have pointed it out, but it's worth pointing out again: Lieberman has been well to the right of his party for some time. Not just on stock issues like the Iraq War, but in particular on social issues - for instance, censorship. Vinegar Joe would have an easier time fitting in at a conservative caucus based on his social views than a good chunk of Republicans.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2008 1:10:38 PM

^ Apparently no one has ever heard of the V-Chip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip

Or Hillary on GTA
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-clinton-game_x.htm

Censorship is an a bi-partisan problem.

5/27/2008 1:31:53 PM

Simply because I point out that Lieberman is to the right of his party does not somehow exclude Hillary or the push for the V-Chip (which in practice, has been more benign than most censorship attempts).

5/27/2008 1:36:13 PM

Lieberman is a good example of somebody on the left sticking to their guns of the Al Gore days and watching how he is automatically a republican after the passing of 8 years.

The left just keeps on sailing left.

5/27/2008 1:36:29 PM

lieberman is a zionest jew rat...fuck that guy....i see this article came from the same guy that owns fox news...totally shocked

5/27/2008 1:44:06 PM

^ calm down Adolf.

5/27/2008 1:50:31 PM

^^ we already know you reject hard working white peoples ideas and consider them racists. but thanks for sharing it again.

5/27/2008 1:56:39 PM

DrSteveo,

My point was that Democrats as a party are not opposed to censorship. Those were examples of that fact. Therefore, Lieberman is not "to right" relative to most other members of his party.

5/27/2008 1:59:22 PM

Socks, I originally brought up the censorship issue in regards to Lieberman, and my reference was kept in regards to him only because I didn't want to go off topic.


But yes, Hillary is also a censorship-loving dipshit. So is Tipper Gore and many others.


Does that make his position right?

No, fuck him, and them.

5/27/2008 2:07:12 PM

^^By and large, however, Hillary and Vinegar Joe comprise the right flank of their party. There are socially conservative Democrats in the party, but they comprise a minority - not the average, as you imply. It is therefore nonetheless still correct to imply he is to the right of his party, even if more than one member of his party espouses similar views.

This is not saying the Democrats are immune to the push for censorship - but generally the hemming and hawing about "values" comes from the political right.

Incidentally, among other things Hillary and VJ have in common - both were ardent supporters of our current Iraq adventure at it its outset. I think this goes further to illustrate the similarity between the two rather than some larger trend in the party.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ^^]

5/27/2008 2:09:33 PM

Hillary = right flank democrat. OH LAWD

5/27/2008 2:33:44 PM

Socks, Lieberman might have a little bit of credibility on the public opinion issue if he were criticizing someone who actually did change their position. He doesn't have his facts straight. In fact, Obama took a stand contrary to public opinion at the time (as others did), and public opinion happened to come around to his viewpoint. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Lieberman's support for the War in Iraq, but claiming people opposed the war from the start because of public opinion is a blatant lie.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2008 3:12:57 PM

markgoal,

Quote :

"Socks, Lieberman might have a little bit of credibility on the public opinion issue if he were criticizing someone who actually did change their position. He doesn't have his facts straight. In fact, Obama took a stand contrary to public opinion at the time (as others did), and public opinion happened to come around to his viewpoint."

Untrue. Obama's position on the war has changed up to 6 times in the past 5 years. Yes, he always said that initial invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But his position on what we should do now that we're there has moved largely many times and those moves closely track changes in public opinion.

In 2004 Obama said that we should stay in Iraq to maintain stability (going so far as to say there was not much difference between his position and George Bush's), now that he's running for President, he's saying we should begin withdrawal immediatley.

Do read up. Lieberman is perfectly within bounds to say that Obama's position on the war has changed with current opinion. If Obama wants to clarify why he changed his mind so much, let him.

Obama's 6 Positions on Iraq

1) We should Stay In Iraq.
2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

2) We Should Leave Iraq Immediatley.
2008: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

3) Congress should not set time-tables for withdrawal.
2006: "But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy".
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

4) Congress should set time-tables for withdrawal.
2007: "That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics


5) If withdrawal time-tables should set, they should should be flexible
2006: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Under the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, "withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

6) A withdrawal time-table has been set and it is inflexible.
2008:

Quote :

""MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie...Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ``]

5/27/2008 3:51:48 PM

And the consistent message behind Obama's Iraq policy was that we should never have gone there in the first place. Compare that to Clinton's and we see that Clinton has had more policy stance on Iraq than anyone else.

I find your spin and trolling amusing at times, but when you blatantly revise history to fit the current, "OMG OBAMA SUXX" talking point it gets annoying.

For starters, the Democratic party has always been a big tent party. So the notion that us as Democrats have one viewpoint on all issues is nonsense. Secondly, Lieberman left the Democratic party because he didn't win a primary, a primary that boiled down to the war in Iraq. It doesn't mean that the Democratic party left it. more so, it means the Democratic constituents in Connecticut believed he no longer represented their party. Lieberman won reelection stictly on the support of Republicans (the Republican candidate endoresed Lieberman), and his Constituency who voted for him in the primary.

5/27/2008 3:57:49 PM

Any person that thinks Iraq is an issue right now is being pretty naive to reality. Bush has been quietly withdrawing troops for some time now. McCain if elected would do a Richard Nixon.

5/27/2008 3:59:18 PM

The links are provided in case anyone wants to accuse me of spinning the quotes or taking them out of context.

5/27/2008 4:01:21 PM

Quote :

"And the consistent message behind Obama's Iraq policy was that we should never have gone there in the first place. "

It's good that he had the foresight to see that going into Iraq was a bad idea, but constantly bringing up this fact doesn't change the conditions on the ground.

We're in Iraq. It's bad. We need a plan to extricate ourselves from the situation that won't cause the Middle East to implode into full out genocide between Saudi backed Sunnis and Iranian backed Shiites. This plan and it's execution isn't going to happen overnight and it won't happen in 16 months (or however long Obama is saying before he'll pull all of our troops out). Telling the American people you're going to pull troops out because you think it's what they want to hear is no better than Bush telling the American people we're going into Iraq because he thinks its what his oil buddies and others who stand to profit want to hear.

The same "stick to what I believe to be right even if it's unpopular" mentality can also be attributed to McCain. He came out in support of Petraeus's surge plan when Iraq appeared to be headed to hell in a hand basket. He was one of the few politicians who supported the plan when many others were calling for an all out retreat. He supported the plan, not because it was popular, but because he believed it to be the best course of action for the country. While it's too early to determine whether Petraeus's plan will work in the long term, things still look much better now than they did even 18 months ago.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/27/2008 4:17:52 PM

Actually, what you did was misorder the evolution of Obama's position on the strategy for coping with Iraq, a war he opposed from the start (in spite of public opinion).

If you examine his position against the conditions on the ground, political situation (i.e. the Bush Administration's refusal to act without more of an active role by congress), and the length of the war they look quite reasonable. Lieberman's disingenuous mischaracterizations of the fundamental issues of the War are quite obvious.

5/27/2008 4:28:07 PM

^ The list is not set in chronological order (though dates are included). They are meant to juxtapose his various positions.

If you would like to explain how all his positions are consistant or that they can be easily connected with changes in the direction of the war I would love to hear it. You would not be the first person that I asked, but you would be the first person to provide an answer.

[Edited on May 27, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : ``]

5/27/2008 4:38:43 PM

I just went over clinton's various stances on the Iraq war and what I have found is that she was incapable of having a unified policy stance on Iraq from week to week.

5/27/2008 4:40:09 PM

So what is Obama's stance on the war this week? let me grab my calendar. oh wait, he's due for the "let's leave within 30days even in the face of nuclear holocaust" agenda this week.

5/27/2008 4:41:22 PM

so just to clarify, obama is not going to leave like 10k troops there forever? or as of right now does he "think" hes gonna be able to take them all out but technically if things start going bad there, that gives him reason to leave troops there...idk about yall but until we start taking some of Iraqs oil i dont think we should leave...wtf would we have went there for and spent over 600 billion dollars on

5/27/2008 5:23:16 PM

Quote :

"Socks`` : they want to "re-nagotitate" NAFTA,"

so are you calling Hillary Clinton a "nag" ?

5/27/2008 5:56:12 PM