# Lieberman loses battle over war
# Israel considers expanding war
If Senator Lieberman wishes to campaign as an independent, I advise you to strip him of Congressional Appointments and remind your fellow Democrats in the Legislature that there is a DEMOCRAT who WON the Conneticut primary, by vote of the state's registered voters, and who is the only person worthy of their support. Any support of an independent candidate comes at the cost of the Democratic candidate, and will be viewed as such by the electorate, with dire political consequences. Democracy is on the march!
The fact is, Gore wouldn't have stopped Nine Eleven any more than Bush did.
"According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: 'The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.'
But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of 'the kiss' at last year's State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn't looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.
The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.
And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility.
This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support -- some votes from loyal Republicans -- without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite 'thanks but no thanks' to the White House offer."
"You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed 'stay the course' strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no 'antisecurity wing' of the Democratic Party."
I am outraged by Senator Joseph Lieberman's audacious decision to run for reelection to the United States Senate despite his loss in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. His decision contravened the expressed will of Democrats in his own state and now threatens to weaken the fiscal and political prospects of the entire party during the upcoming general election.
While I firmly believe that the Democratic Party is made stronger by the diversity of social and fiscal positions held by its candidates, and that Independents with compatible views (such as Bernard Sanders) should generally be welcomed into the Democrats’ voting bloc, Lieberman’s recent decisions have made him the exception to these rules. The party should give no quarter to an individual who would submit himself to the mandate of Democratic voters only to ignore their verdict.
As a Massachusetts Democrat, I expect my Congressmen to pledge their enthusiastic, wholehearted support to Ned Lamont, the legitimate winner of the Connecticut Democratic Primary.
I also expect my Congressmen to oppose Senator Lieberman’s quixotic quest to retain his title and influence at the expense of the state and national Democratic establishment. I expect this opposition to include action as well as rhetoric, as Lieberman has proven himself undeserving of any leadership position within the Democratic Party.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
« Older Perihelion | You want an office? You got an office. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments