Lieberman: Democrats are the Party of Exclusion

[Terri]

Lieberman: Democrats are the Party of Exclusion

By Charles Mahaleris
Talon News
November 25, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman said he had been "blackballed" by Democrat rivals who kept him out of Tuesday night's presidential debate.

Only eight of the nine Democrats seeking to replace George W. Bush were in attendance at the Des Moines, Iowa debate. Lieberman (D-CT), who had decided earlier this year to forgo campaigning in Iowa, had planned to take part in the debate through a satellite connection but was denied that opportunity by other Democrats seeking the presidency.

"It was not right to deny me an opportunity to be part of today's debate," Lieberman said while campaigning in Arizona. "I always thought we Democrats were the party of inclusion, not exclusion."

He continued in his statement, "And I thought it was strange that Wes Clark, who just became a Democrat six weeks ago, was allowed to effectively blackball a lifelong Democrat like me from this discussion."

More (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/november/1125_lieberman_dnc.s html)

[lpjortner]

It's hard to accept his boo-hoos from Poor ol' Joe when he has publicly opted not to run in the Iowa caucuses and does not even offer to physically be there. Of all the Dem candidates, I trust him most on national security issues (with Gephardt a somewhat distant second and all others not even on the radar.)

I even voted for Lieberman v. Lowell Weicker in 1988. But, facts is facts and Lieberman expects too much by expecting his opponents won't try to keep him off the podium under these circumstances.

Also, the Dems are a party of exclusion and have been for a long time. They excluded Gov. Robert Casey (PA) from the Dem National Convention podium solely because he was pro-life and was going to say so. (The Republicans in contrast have allowed Gov. Weld and even Benjamin Hooks, then Pres. of the NAACP to make pro-choice statements at their convention.)

They are excluding highly qualified conservative judicial nominees, even when they obviously are going to be approved by a Senate majority, via fillibuster. Even more disgusting, they seem to be targeting conservative black, Hispanic and/or women nominees in this endeavor.

About half of the Dem Senators even attempted to fillibuster a "big government" friendly prescription drug program simply because Bush and the Republicans are going to get credit for it. What inclusion?

[Floridaguy]

lpj, I sort of partially agree with you, especially that the overall issue for the Dem party with Lieberman is that he is not leftist/liberal enough to suit them. In the spectrum that is the left, Lieberman is about as moderate leaning towards conservative as any Dem could get, and Dean is the liberal lover's nirvana. The other 7 are somewhere in between, but further left than center by a long shot. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[lpjortner]

I have a different take on the spectrum of the candidates. Lieberman is the most conservative. Gephardt is next and is fairly close on national security but is just so in bed with organized labor that I have to put him left of Lieberman.

Kerry is the 'heart of clay' candidate. He's finished because he voted for the war but won't stand up for his vote and is actually trying to sell himself as 'the real anti-war Democrat.'
He oversells his war record while trying to trot to the Left as far as he can to woo the hard-core Dean supporters. It just goes to show that sometimes amoral strategies are losing ones...even in Democratic Party politics. He has proven that he will be almost anywhere on the political spectrum that he feels he needs to be at any particular time. Everyone know a sellout when they see it.

Clark is the Dem winner of the 2003-2004 Steve Forbes "Flavor of the Month Club" Award and his month (September 2003) is long gone. Left, right, who knows? Who cares? He's going nowhere. But, for giggles, let's put him in between Gephardt/Lieberman and the rest of the field. (I do wonder whether he is just a Clinton proxy and his failure enhances the probability that Hilary is going to swoop into this thing.)

I'll put John Edwards just Left of Clark because he wouldn't vote Bush the recent war appropriation and because of his unswerving commitment that the interests of the Plaintiffs' lawyers lobby is totally redundant with the interests of the American people. In any event, he has no chance and has made NC the 2nd best prospect in the country for a GOP pick-up in the US Senate (Georgia is 1st but with Zell Miller as incumbent it won't make as much of a difference as with NC.)

I have a hard time putting the likes of Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosley-Braun right of Dean or anybody else. Let's just say that Dean's the 'Hard Left' guy with a serious chance at nomination. If he gets it, Dean will get nailed on his positions AND his gaffes, past and future, in a general election. The thing with Dean's surge is that if Hilary comes in, someone may walk out of the convention disappointed and their supporters will just drop out and sit home. Either way, Bush landslide.

The DLC know that this process is a train wreck for them and they are going to put pressure on Hillary to run. They'd be smarter to pick between Gephardt and Lieberman. Right now, Gephardt is the better political horse by quite a bit.

[markinthedark]

Gephart the better horse? Next you will say a thirty year old three legged gelding has a chance at the Kentucky Derby. He may be the best of the lot, but they are a sorry lot, none of those clowns can pull thirty points in a poll where they are solely against Bush, the lot is streching for thirty-five. They are stinking up the joint and every-one knows it. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[lpjortner]

I don't believe that poll. Once it's down to one-on-one, you'll get a more traditional split between Bush and any of the Dem candidates in the general election. I wouldn't even be surprised if Bush trails at some point. But I think he'll win in the end.

The national party preference was about 53-47 in favor of the GOP in the 2002 election. If we get that in 2004 across the board, it will be a great night to be a Republican and I think that this is actually a pretty realistic result.

Even McGovern got 45% against Nixon! I can't believe that the Dems could pick a worse candidate, although admittedly Bush is a significantly better incumbent than Nixon was (even at his 1972 best.)

[jackbenimble]

Quote[/b] (lpjortner @ Nov. 25, 2003 -- 2:46 pm)]Gephardt is next and is fairly close on national security but is just so in bed with organized labor that I have to put him left of Lieberman.
Are you talking about Dick "I've never been right about anything in my life" Gephardt?

I believe the war in Iraq was the first and only time he has ever voted to protect America. I was pretty torqued about that because for a moment it made me question my own convictions about the war. Then I realized it was just his token move to the center for his Presidential run.

For years Dick has been my barometer of right and wrong. If he was for it, then it was a safe bet that the proper thing to do was be against it.

The guy is farther to the left then Karl Marx.

Regards,
Jack

[Terri]

LP, I thought your percentage for McGovern high so I looked it up. Apparently he got 37.5% of the vote but only 17 Electoral College votes. That percentage is still higher than I thought he got.

Nixon (http://216.132.160.230/KoTrain/Courses/RN/RN_Campaigns_and_Ele ctions.htm)

We should wish Dean the same outcome. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[lpjortner]

I stand corrected. *I got confused by my memory of Nixon beating McGovern in McGovern's home state of South Dakota by a margin of about 55%-45%.

I don't think that a Dem is likely to get under 40% in 2004; but I would be happy to be proved wrong!

Take it easy on me about Gephardt. I didn't say I would ever vote with "Mr AFL-CIO". I was pontificating on a Dem "relativity of nausea-inducement" scale. After Lieberman, I'm not sure any of these guys are right of Walter Mondale.