Richard – Sen. Joe has devolved into a person without a moral compass. Once the moralizer, he has become the sinner, doing what he can to save himself. It is sad to see his career end in this manner.

It is likely that the book “The Rise and Fall of Joseph Isidor Lieberman” is already written. The voters will write the final chapter in November.

I say that because I know Joe, I worked with Joe when he was the AG of Connecticut. I live in CT, and I heard him on local radio yesterday saying whatever he could to get support. After the brief painful interview, callers queried the host: “Why is he always in a hurry to getaway from questioning?” And the ruse of pretending not to hear difficult questions and then not answering them is wearing thin.

Further, his place on the lever voting machine ballot makes it difficult to find him. He will be all alone on his line, below the all the party candidates, with nobody on the left, nobody on the right, and with nobody to do his GOTV.

August 26, 2006 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Wow, what a scumbag. I always felt that he was a huge liability to the Gore presidential bid and now I am certain of it. It’s a shame that the Democrats didn’t see what kind of opportunist this disgraceful man was and is. I can only hope that he gets single digit results in November. Of course, he will probably wind up in some cushy embassy job or woking for a lobbying organization. Lieberman is the perfect example of why the American electorate needs mandatory term limits since the electorate isn’t smart enought to vote “the bums out!”

August 26, 2006 @ 10:07 am | Comment

Agree on all points except the term limits – not a good idea.

August 26, 2006 @ 11:41 am | Comment

well, whadaya expect, richard? after the way he was treated by the anti-war democrats…

August 26, 2006 @ 12:47 pm | Comment

I never had an ounce of respect for the vapid opportunistic little schmuck.

I can’t divulge any details, but back in 2000 I knew someone who had some extremely important information to pass on to Lieberman (involving an international matter), and Lieberman could have done the world a lot of good if he had paid attention, but he ignored it – evidently because he didn’t see any immediate campaign benefit in it.

Worthless schmuck. Political schnorrer.

August 26, 2006 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

And his wife is creepy too. She reminds me of a very distinctive type of Jewish-American-Princess, the type who role-plays at being “Liberal” (in an oh so haughty and self-satisfied manner) among her wealthy peers. while behind the scenes she berates her Mexican maid for negligble mistakes and angrily threatens to call the police whenever young idealistic environmentalist-canvassers ring her doorbell.

August 26, 2006 @ 2:24 pm | Comment

WTF? Am I the only one who doesn’t really care? Lieberman might be a jerk, but why should he endorse the dems? Why should I endorse the dems? I feel like part of the massive problem with the United states of Jesus land is that people just aren’t critical ENOUGH of the political process. “The Dems…. the republicans….” people yell, but really each political candidate has their own agenda, their own deal, and painting it in terms of the two parties is, in my opinion, becoming harder and harder. Bush certainly is not the conservative that we used to know. Why are we jumping on Lieberman for having taken a stand, then backing away from the people that jumped on him for doing so? Vote the guy out, fine, but why throw mud? Also, why does it matter if he doesn’t endorse the dems? He’s running as a independant because he lost the damn democratic primary. What’s the issue?

Also, Ivan, thanks for bringing the discussion to personal attacks. a JAP? I’m not sure how what you’ve said is particularly demonstrative of a well-to-do Jewish woman. So many WASPs are that way too. A lot of rich people are that way. doesn’t make it okay, but why bother equate it with her being Jewish?

August 27, 2006 @ 8:53 am | Comment

I’m partly Jewish. Shove your PC whining up your ass.

I know a hell of a lot of Jewish Americans, and some of them do have a distinctive style of hypocritical superficial “liberalism” masking an especially deep contempt for the less well off. I said she was a distinctive type of Jewish American Princess. You’re not saying that she’s not Jewish and American and wealthy, are you?

Enough. She’s the most offensive kind of hypocritical J.A.P. who give liberals a bad name via their rancid, snobbish hypocrisy.

August 27, 2006 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

PS:

Oh no! Help! Help! The administrators of South Park Elementary School have seen my last comment, and now they’re dragging me away to the DEATH CAMP OF TOLERANCE!

AAAAgggghhhh….. (fading away….)

August 27, 2006 @ 1:21 pm | Comment

LaoNei, there are a lot of good reasons for the animosity toward Lieberman and to throw mud (though I try to abstain from doing that myself). First of all, he promised to remain loyal to his party, and this article indicates otherwise. Lieberman is mud-worthy not due to his taking a stand in support of the war in Iraq – lots of Dems (most) did that. It’s for his obsequious and inexplicable embrace of the ugliest sides of the Bush administration in regard to Iraq, specifically torture and the battle to silent the war’s critics by smearing them as hating America.

Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress….

On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

He is an embarrassment and a disgrace to his party for the above, and more, namely for disregarding his constituents over the past six years or so. No one in the Democratic party deserves as much mud as Lieberman, perhaps with the exception of Zell Miller.

That said, I don’t like the way a lot of people on the left have expressed their frustration, with personal attacks. But I do understand the level of frustration that drove them to do it.

August 27, 2006 @ 8:21 pm | Comment

I don’t blame Lieberman. Apparently from teh way Democrats are talking abouthim, why would they want him to campaign for them anyhow?

Loyalty to the party has been one of the worst things about politics in all countries. Wish more Republicans had been able to stand up to Tom ‘the enforcer’ Delay when he was in power in the house.

August 27, 2006 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

There’s blind adherence to party and then there’s betraying your party’s goals and leadership and best principles.

Guess where I put Lieberman?

August 28, 2006 @ 10:27 am | Comment

Richard, I guess I understand what you’re saying but my point, albeit kind of minor, is that if he’s not acting like a dem, maybe he’s not – and he’s not running as one, so why continue to be angry, if he’s not anymore? Promises are easily given but hard to back up, and things change. I’m being overly relativistic, perhaps, but if he’s a dick then he’s a dick, and he’ll get voted out, or not. I kind of feel like the whole thing is getting a bit soapboxy and shrill. Usually when the conversation starts to turn towards saying to me: “I’m (insert ethnicity here) so I can say that, you PC tool” I tend to think its time to try to refocus on the issues at hand, which is that he votes like a republican on too many issues and is messing with the power dynamics in the party system.

I think what some people are basically pissed about is that he actually has had a lot of power in the past, and people in the democratic party don’t really know how to get it back from him.

August 28, 2006 @ 6:51 pm | Comment