Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Joe Lieberman Is A Traitor To His Party

I didn't say it--a liberal did.

Joe Lieberman is a traitor to his party, and to the causes that he has championed. ..

If Lieberman’s appearance (at the Republican convention) proved anything, it proved how little distance there is between a DLC Democrat and a Republican. It sure is a short walk...

And with astonishing lack of principle, Lieberman spoke directly into the camera to address what he called “my fellow Democrats and Independents,” urging them all to vote for McCain.

Behold, liberals--is this how you think? Do you think everyone in the party should march in lockstep? Do you think there's no room for (DLC) moderates in the Democratic Party? I hope not, because if there's no middle ground, there's no way to reach out to each other. Politics becomes nothing more than total war, and my side had better obliterate your side so that we get our idea of government. When you think the way Mr. Rothschild does above, there is no room for compromise. There is only total war and unconditional surrender. And that's no way to run a country.

I'd never vote for Joe Lieberman, but I view him as an honest man with strong principles. I don't share many of his principles, but I can respect him even as he holds them.

13 comments:

Eric W. said...

They're trying to kick him off of the senate committees he's on.

This is why the political climate in America is so polarized. It's all black and white, you're with us or against us.

Mrs. Bluebird said...

Ditto what you said. The absolute obsession to put The Party first is scary - as a historian, I'm sure you know that's how Hitler and his minions took control. It's our way or you're a traitor. And look how that turned out.

DADvocate said...

Joe Lieberman is a man of courage and conviction. Like you, I don't share many of his principles, but I respect him.

Donalbain said...

Yes.. it is just liberals who think like that. After all, nobody on the right was saying that they would NEVER vote for McCain, or that he was a Republican in Name Only.

Darren said...

That doesn't make him a "traitor to the party", just someone I'd rather not vote for. Still would rather not vote for him, but he's the lesser of two evils.

By responding to your repeated idiocy I feel like I'm feeding a troll. Please prove me wrong.

allen (in Michigan) said...

Before everyone goes off the deep end for Joe Leiberman it's worth noting that his schism with the Democratic Party is over national defense, i.e. Iraq, only. On every other issue Joe's a reliable, left wing vote.

Donal, Joe Lieberman wasn't just reviled by the left edge of the Democratic party, he was forced out of the party during his primary.

That's no big deal in a parliamentary system since failure to toe the party line is grounds for expulsion but in our system it's the height of arrogance and stupidity to chuck a sitting elected representative. You put a seat at risk that, most likely, isn't at risk. A much more common response is to *not* effectively expel them from the party and just learn to accept their apostasy on a given matter while enjoying their support on other matters.

The fact that Lieberman retained his committee assignments is a clear indication that the political realities are intruding on the extreme left's assumptions about their control of the Democratic party and that scares them.

I feel it's the heavy hand of history on the shoulder of the extreme left that's driven them to the vitriolic excesses we've been seeing the past couple of years. Not that they need much encouragement since the leftoids tap into the worst characteristics of people in general and themselves in particular but where ever they look they see long droughts punctuated by only the most meager of rain.

They're control of the political process is slipping away and they're panicking. Part of that panic is a rising, *overt* intolerance for heresy. Hence the reaction to Joe Lieberman. The intolerance has always been there but denied. Now there's no denying it.

Bloke said...

The point is simple, BOTH sides claim that people who cross the aisle are traitors to the party. One of the common names for traitors to the Republican Party is a RINO. Sometimes they are just called traitors as in this blogpost http://www.redpills.org/?p=837 which was the first of many that I found in a very quick Google.
You always seem to make everything a liberals/conservative thing as if the two sides were not actually made up of very similar people. There are people on both sides who will put loyalty to party above all else. There are people who will put loyalty to some set of ideals above all else. It is NOT just liberals who will refer to traitors, both sides of the aisle will do it. Please, remember that "liberals" are people like you.

Mr. W said...

yeah you have to respect a man who is going to get thrown under the bus by his former "friends" and democratic colleagues.

I am sure you heard about the Democratic state senator who didn't vote for the CA budget and the next day was moved out of the building across the street by the Dems. Nice huh?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=29225

rightwingprof said...

So putting country ahead of party is treason, now? How . . . typical.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I wouldn't vote for Lieberman either, but it is interesting to see the reaction to his speech by the lefties. It's rare that political leaders come right and say that they will punish someone who crosses their line. Lieberman beat their thuggery once, he'll beat it again. The lefties sure set Jim Jeffords up as a saint when he defected. I don't recall the threats from the Republicans that I hear now and that cost them the majority. Tom Daschle was instrumental in hijacking by giving Jeffords a committee chairmanship.

Babbie said...

"I wouldn't vote for Lieberman" folks--it should depend on who's running against him!

allen (in Michigan) said...

bloke wrote:

> The point is simple, BOTH sides claim that people who cross the aisle are traitors to the party.

Name-calling is one thing, running someone more to your liking in the primary, against an incumbent, is entirely something else. What if, having wounded Lieberman sufficiently to make him incapable of winning the Democratic extremists had handed the Senate seat to a Republican? That would truly be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face and a real no-no in politics.

The extreme left of the Democratic party were very lucky Lieberman won since he's still, nominally, a member of the Democratic party but if it had gone the other way and that seat made the difference between a majority and not, what then?

Apologies just don't cut it at that point and the extreme left would've been seriously wounded although I think they've suffered some hurt from their overreaching. Not enough to suit me but some.

Anonymous said...

One of the main reasons why Al Gore didn't win the 2000 Presidental Elections was because Joe Lieberman ran as his VP. One of the main reasons why John McCain lost the 2008 Presidental Elections was because he got Joe Lieberman to hop on board his Campaign wagon. One of the reasons why Barak Obama's next four years as President will flop and will face years of more unnecessary wars and international conflict - and consequently, never ending misery for the American people, will be if Joe Lieberman is allowed to remain in the Democratic Party. He proved to be a traitor when the Democratic party needed the support of all their members most during the 2008 Presidental Elections but he decided to suck up to their opponents. This guy is not just a loser - but a dangerous "blood sucking" leech in any political party.