• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Joe Leiberman on Hannity and Colmes

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Joe Leiberman was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and made some very interesting comments about party loyalty.........He said he was elected by the people of Conn. that included Republicans, Independents and least of all Democrats.......

He said he will be and Independent in the Senate and vote depending on the issue...........You could tell that he was really hurt by the way his party kicked him to the curve.......

It should be and interesting session in the Senate come January....Stay tuned.......
 
Navy Pride said:
He said he will be and Independent in the Senate and vote depending on the issue...........You could tell that he was really hurt by the way his party kicked him to the curve.......
Click to expand...

Awwwww...he's hurt. His party kicked him to the curb. What is he, six? You know, I'd like to think that an adult elected to the Senate would base is votes on the substance of the issues rather than on his bruised, pre-adolescent ego. And if he really is that immature, then the voters of Connecticut definitely made a huge mistake.

You know, Navy, leading is about more than punishing those who didn't vote for you. Grow up.
 
Last edited:

Ummm.... sounds exactly like what Lieberman is going to do...

"He said he will be and Independent in the Senate and vote depending on the issue."

Tough boobies that the Democrats just lost their "majority" in the Senate, by thinking they could treat Lieberman like a piece of dog-crap and expect him to come begging at their heels to be let back into the DNC.
 
People vote for a person to represent them. These people voted for Joe Lieberman, whose overall politics are moderately liberal, and little different overall than, say, somebody liek Evan Bayh. Now, many simply voted for him out of a sense of the lesser of two evils, while some voted for him because of his positions, but the fact remains that they voted him into office.

Now, Lieberman has certainly become a whipping boy for hateful elements of the far left whose antipathies for Israel outweigh all other considerations, and he is a whippingboy for the somewhat less extreme, but nevertheless one dimensional "antiwar" element of the left, and there were enough of these people within Massachusetts democrat voters to give thenomination to his opponant.

As far as I'm concerned, the frenzy of hatred directed towards Lieberman by leftists is WAAAY out of proportion to his actual voting record on various bills. Why aren't they directing similar bile towards Evan Bayh or any of a number of other moderate democrats? People all joined the bandwagon, but few took the time to consider where it was headed.

I think Lieberman SHOULD vote the way he sees things. Isn't that the whole reason we vote for people in the first place -- to represent us?

Good grief, it's not like he's the second coming of Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay. Sure, he may not satisfy the people who support ANSWER , or who view Cynthia McKinney as their model representative, but I think that's a goodthing, myself.
 
Leiberman will be the most powerful person on thje Senate......He could be the swing vote on any issue and make the senate 50-50 and having the VP be the deciding vote............
 

Navy Pride has spoken frequently of the Democrats "throwing Lieberman to the curb," being hurt, and even said in the past that "payback's a bitch" (referring directly to this issue, of course). If Lieberman does indeed vote on the issues, then I think that's wonderful. But Navy seems to think that the Senate is a place to act on one's hurt pride and actually punish citizens who didn't vote for him. That's what I was getting at. What Navy is drooling at is the possibility that Lieberman will act like a petulant child instead of a real, adult leader.
 

Wrong as usual...........I wish Leiberman would vote with the Conservatives on social issues but I don't see that happening.........I am sure he will side with them on the war on Terror and in Iraq.........
 
Lieberman is sucking up to the dems because they promised him he could keep his seniority and the benefits that come with it, i.e. chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Alignment with the cons would put him in a minority position after the 2008 elections.
The democrats of Connecticut decided they didn't want him as their Senator, the national party had no choice but to recognize their vote and support Ned Lamont. If the Republicans of Connecticut wanted a Republican Senator, why didn't they support Alan Schlesinger instead of casting him aside like yesterday's garbage?

That's like the cons claiming the election of the so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' was like electing a con. BULL CRAP!!!! There was a republican contesting every one of them. Why? If the people wanted a con representing them, then why didn't they elect one? The cons are just trying to ease the sting of defeat. They can't accept the fact that the public doesn't want to follow the direction they were headed. All they have are excuses (as evidenced here at DP). The fact is they got their A.S.S. handed to them and are still in a state of denial.
 
Navy Pride said:
Wrong as usual...........I wish Leiberman would vote with the Conservatives on social issues but I don't see that happening.........I am sure he will side with them on the war on Terror and in Iraq.........
Click to expand...

In other words, like he already has. So where does "payback's a bitch" and "the democrats kicked him to the curb" figure into this?
 

Judging by your ranting it is obvious you did not see the interview on Hannity and Colmes last night......
 
Adrian said:
In other words, like he already has. So where does "payback's a bitch" and "the democrats kicked him to the curb" figure into this?
Click to expand...

Well we know he will vote with the Republicans on those issues and we chall see how he votes on the other ones won't we.........
 


The issue of Lieberman is that he is going to vote as he has always done. He is caucusing with the Democrats. However Caucusing or even being an elected Democrat never means you have to vote with them 100% of the time. Even republicans do not vote with their colleagues 100% of the time. What everyone is doing is misunderstanding what Lieberman is saying. IOW hearing whatever they want to hear from him without actually understanding him.
 

Where's the link?
 

You've got that assbackwards, it is the Dems who are sucking up to Liebermen so he doesn't Caucus with the Republicans.

The democrats of Connecticut decided they didn't want him as their Senator, the national party had no choice but to recognize their vote and support Ned Lamont.
Click to expand...

No they didn't have to go to Conn. and campaign against Lieberman like they did, they could have said they supported Lamont without campaigning against Lieberman.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well we know he will vote with the Republicans on those issues and we chall see how he votes on the other ones won't we.........
Click to expand...

Well, yes, as with anything in life, we shall see. Which pretty much scraps the value of the OP.
 

We shall see, he got 37% of the Republican Vote and 25% of the Democrat vote...Without the Republicans Lamont wins....Leiberman knows that well..........
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You've got that assbackwards, it is the Dems who are sucking up to Liebermen so he doesn't Caucus with the Republicans.
Click to expand...
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
they didn't have to go to Conn. and campaign against Lieberman like they did, they could have said they supported Lamont without campaigning against Lieberman.
Click to expand...
:2wave: ????? Why campaign against him if they are sucking up to him?????:2wave:
Like I said, he wouldn't have any seniority or be selected to be chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee if he didn't suck up to the dems. His ego is too big to be just another Senator.:lol:

Why did the cons make campaign contributions to Lieberman and cast aside Republican Alan Schlesinger like a discarded washcloth?
 
BWG said:
:2wave: ????? Why campaign against him if they are sucking up to him?????:2wave:
Click to expand...

They campaigned against him before he got reelected now they're sucking up to him.

Like I said, he wouldn't have any seniority or be selected to be chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee if he didn't suck up to the dems. His ego is too big to be just another Senator.:lol:
Click to expand...

Sorry but he has not sucked up to the Dems at all and if you saw the interview you would realize that is far from what he plans to do.

Why did the cons make campaign contributions to Lieberman and cast aside Republican Alan Schlesinger like a discarded washcloth?
Click to expand...

I don't know maybe because we're not partisan shills like the Democratic party.
 
Navy Pride said:
We shall see, he got 37% of the Republican Vote and 25% of the Democrat vote...Without the Republicans Lamont wins....Leiberman knows that well..........
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter who voted for him. he won. he was a Democrat then and he will vote with them now. If he strays on some issues thats his prerogative. Even when he was a Democrat in the Senate he voted with his party only 90% of the time. SO that tells me that he will Keep the same Ideals and vote the same way as he did before.
 

Not sure you would feel that confident if you had seen the two interviews...........That 90% vote with the dems was before they threw him over the side.............

He is the most valuable man in the senate and he knows it...That was not the case before.........
 

Hey Navy. I saw the interview and it made a Dem weep. Not because we kicked him to the curb, not because we hate his guts, but that we gave that man a spot in our leadership to try and sway him. He was not kicked to the curb by the party, but by the voters in Connecticut who showed up. If that is "the party," then democracy is in action and the party is the people of that state. He can be as independent as he wants, he can cry as much as he wants, but we know what he is-a man who cares more about himself than his party or state.

When he ran for VP, he would essentially have given his seat away had he won to a Republican and also made his state suffer due to all that seniority being lost. But don't believe me Navy, as I know you won't. Just believe that he has loyalty only to himself and we all know this know (this is the man who created a party called Connecticut for Lieberman, not Lieberman for Connecticut).
 

I don't know how you can say that when the day before the democratic primary all the dems were backing him and the day after they were all backing Lamont and it was over one issue, the war on terror..........Its seems in the democratic party you can't have a difference of opinion on and issue and if you do you get kicked to the curb..........
 

Actually no. Learn your Connecticut politics. All of the major party leaders were supporting Joe, but all the activists (who have more of a voice) were backing Lamont because he was actually listening to them, unlike Joe who just expected to win. It was over one issue, I habor no doubts there, but it appears to be most important issue of all for the people who were voting in November, the war in Iraq. If we had "kicked him to the curb," it would have been democracy in action, no matter how respected he is.

He is allowed a different opinion, but if the people of Connecticut didn't want that opinion, they were well within their right to vote him out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…