do his fellow democrats resent his success for winning re-election running as an independent?
Will they continue to smear him for his Pro-Defense, America First views the way they did during his campaign?
2006-11-10 15:29:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please, no "how can he be a democrat if he ran as an independent" stuff.
The man has voted along party lines--- except where national security is concerned
2006-11-10 15:32:06 · update #1
I'm a democrat from CT, and I had a hard time deciding whether to vote for Lieberman or Lamont. I don't dislike Lieberman, but I wound up voting for Lamont for two reasons:
1. Lieberman is supposed to be a representative of the people of CT. But he ran for Vice-pres along with Gore, and then tried a run for president. He spent more time away from CT then we cared for. I've just felt that CT hasn't been a priority of his for a long time. I think he just looks at it as a paycheck now. Don't get me wrong, when he puts his mind to actually DO something for our state, he does a good job and usually gets it done. But he just hasn't been there for us for a while.
2. When he lost the nomination to Lamont, he actually stood up and said on the mic, "I do not accept this decision." I felt that that was VERY disrespectful to the voters. Who does he think he is, saying he doesn't accept the voters decision? What kind of representative does that make him? If he had just said something like, "I care about CT, and I want very much to continue to represent you." then I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it.
2006-11-10 15:48:41 · answer #1 · answered by Jess H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your question implies that democrats are not pro defense. Being against the Iraq war was not being anti defense because Saddam was not a threat. The opposite is true with regard to Lieberman.
The democrats of Connecticut chose another candidate in the primary. It's their right, the same right we're supposedly trying to give the the Iraqi's. Lieberman success was due to the fact that he pulled in a lot of republican voters who, even though he was a democrat, liked the job he was doing. There is nothing for the other democrats to resent.
2006-11-10 15:44:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's a bright and decent guy. I certainly don't agree with his stance on the war and his support of the Republican regime. But- as a politician he seems to be honest, not corrupt and steady. And you gotta' admit, after losing the nomination and then coming back and running as an independent... that takes balls! That's real risk- and it paid off for him, so it was the right decision.
As far as presidential material... not a chance. He doesn't have the presence or charisma.
so.. . you asked. That's what I think of him.
Oh- and no, they will not smear him for his pro-defense views. That's just dirty campaigning, and the election is over.
2006-11-10 15:42:08 · answer #3 · answered by Morey000 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not a democrat but Lieberman stood with the President on the issue of the war and the democrats stabbed him in the back!!! They will continue their attack on him until he votes strictly down the democrats party lines!!!!!!
2006-11-10 16:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Joe Lieberman is no longer a democrat. Why not reprase the question to republicans.
2006-11-10 15:46:50 · answer #5 · answered by kay w 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Weak as water. Let him serve his limited usefulness, but don't trust him. He is the kind of pole driven political animal that spreads the plague of pandering through the tenements of congress sharpening his teeth on rat cheese.
2006-11-10 15:43:29 · answer #6 · answered by shapsjo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Warmongering cheatin' punk who doesn't know when he's not wanted anymore.
2006-11-10 15:44:53 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋