Today on Blogcritics
Home » Sen. Joe Lieberman

Sen. Joe Lieberman

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I have always heard good things about Joe Lieberman from family members that work in some capacity within the Democratic Party. All of them say that he is a trustworthy, upfront and honest individual. Recently, this same sentiment has been appearing in the press as well.

Yesterday, I had the chance to watch an interview between Sen. Lieberman and Bill O’Reilly and I have to say I was very impressed. While I do not know where Senator Lieberman stands on many issues, one watching the interview could pick up that he is indeed an intelligent, upfront, individual. As I was watching the interview, I became more and more bothered because I was watching a man who could not win the Presidency but *SHOULD* be in the position to have the opportunity. While Mr. Lieberman may come across and dry or unmotivated, this is the kind of person the DNC needs running for the Presidency. He is not a mudslinger, he is accountable for his actions and is upfront with those speaking to him.

As you know, on Jan 13th, Sen. Lieberman announced his intent to run for the Presidency. Since that time 8 others also announced there intention to run. As the year progressed Howard Dean and John Kerry became the two strong leaders within the Democratic party. The death blow, however, wasn’t until Al Gore’s recent announcement that he is backing Dean for President. After being Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, it was safe for many to assume Gore would back Lieberman in 2004. Lieberman even stated earlier this year that if Gore was going to run again for the Presidency, he would not enter his hat into the ring – talk about back stabbing. And this is the problem currently in the Democratic Party.

The individuals who are polished and have the right mentality are being pushed to the background for the charismatic, yet less refined individuals. The individuals who can change the party, who can help the party, are taking second seat to the glitz, arrogance and disrespectful individuals. The members who mudsling, who attack the members of their own party, are pushing the party in the wrong direction and the Chairman of the DNC is allowing it to happen, which will be his downfall.

Senator Lieberman is one who could make a difference within the party, as well as in America, but he will not stoop to the lower levels that others within the Democratic Party will. Again, I do not know where Mr. Lieberman stands on issues, but the DNC is wasting a true asset for what is easily marketable yet less substancial.

About Van Santos

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    I just watched an hour of Lieberman on Hardball and have to say that he doesn’t stand a chance against Bush.

    Lieberman is a “mini-me Bush-wannabe” and the real Bush would easily beat him. Again.

  • http://vansantos.com Van Santos

    See, I’m at fault for I do not know his views on many of the issues facing America today. But from watching him, the personal values which he holds and expresses is what the DNC needs to be pushing, not those like Dean.

    Lieberman won’t even get the chance to go up against Bush. With the capture of Saddam, it’s going to be hard for anyone to beat Bush in 04 unless the administration really trips up in some way.

    Furthermore, the DNC needs to stop the infighting and get it’s house in order.

  • Eric Olsen

    I like Lieberman too, but agree he doesn’t have a chance.

    Van it looks like the problem is with Amazon – lots of them aren’t showing up right now. Please put back in the one you had, I’m sure it’ll be fixed shortly.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    How can you endorse someone — and that is what it sounds like you are doing — without knowing where he or she stands on the issues???? Plenty of right-wing, anti-equality, anti-environment hawks are “trustworthy, upfront and honest” individuals. Doesn’t mean they should be president or dogcatcher. Lieberman is a right-leaning centrist. Clinton pandered to the right as well. It seems to me, as a non-Democrat, that many in the Democratic Party are trying to get away from the Clintonian legacy that creates Demublicanism. Joe Lieberman is the poster boy for Demublicanism. Even Gore is trying to get away from that, it appears — hence his endorsement of Dean (who is a wee bit left of Lieberman; no I am not a Dean supporter). Gore doesn’t get points for loyalty, but if he doesn’t support Lieberman’s issues, how can he support his campaign? And Demublicanism surely did not help Gore in 2000, did it?

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Natalie, you’re not being fair at all. Joe Lieberman would make an excellent dogcatcher.

    I have to say I don’t get the “disloyalty” accusation many are making against Gore.

    1) Al Gore chooses Joe Lieberman as his running mate, giving him his first national candidacy.

    2) Joe Lieberman, on his own, chooses not to enter the current race until Gore makes up his mind. Gore could give a shit. Whether Gore ran or not, Lieberman was not a threat to him. This “sacrifice” on Lieberman’s part helped Gore exactly zero.

    3) Gore determines that Howard Dean is the best candidate for the Democratic Party and for the nation, particularly because Dean opposed the war on Iraq, as did Gore.

    4) Gore endorses Dean.

    Where exactly did the “betrayal” happen?

    Gore should have notified Lieberman as early as practical, but it appears he did exactly that–the news broke before Gore wanted to break it, and his efforts to get through to Lieberman the day before the official announcement were not successful.

    In any case, even if Gore did fail to try to warn Lieberman, I don’t see how “betrayal” or “back-stabbing” applies. Was anti-war Gore supposed to endorse hawk Lieberman instead? Was he supposed to withhold an endorsement of a candidate he felt was vital to the health of the party, just because his old running mate was in the race?

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    My problem with Lieberman is what he did to the videogame industry, going nuts over “videogame sex and violence” and using that awful Sega CD Game Night Trap with the scantily-clad Dana Plato and friends as his poster child.

    He is wayyy too conservative for a democrat for my tastes. I’d vote for Bush before Lieberman, and it pains me to even admit that.

    I’m not sure about Dean, but I do not like how he has been out there suggesting that President Bush had some pre-knowledge of 9/11. What’s up with that?

    It’s one thing to be critical of the Iraq situation but it’s quite another to be insinuating conspiracies without proof.

  • http://vansantos.com Van Santos

    Hi All,

    Natalie, I am not endorsing Lieberman, the canidate. I’m simply saying he appears to be a stand-up guy, more so than other Democrats out there runnig right now. The Democratic party needs more people, like him, who give it straight than sling mud.

    As for Brian’s point about Gore, I think the main issue is that Gore’s camp never made a true effort to get in touch with Lieberman to let him know of Gore’s intent. So, in the press that comes off as a big stab in the back – and I would agree with this… it’s all about the way it appears I guess.

    I also think Gore sees Dean as the winner of the Democratic party, maybe he is looking for a job in his administration if Dean wins?

    And TDavid has a great point too. Lieberman and the video gaming industry was a odd adventure, I do have a problem with that.

    Also, to TDavid’s point about Dean suggesting President Bush had some knowledge. Dean repeated a rumor about the Saudi / Bush tie-in to 9/11 but he didn’t say specifically that Bush was involved… it was kind of a poor-mans mud slinging. You know the, “this is what I heard… but it’s up to you to decide if it’s true” approach.

  • http://www.smallbusinesses.blogspot.com Anita Campbell

    Good observations, Van, on your initial comments about Leiberman.

    Of course, Bush has become an historically significant president. In 100 years he will be remembered for having done more to preserve America’s global security and freedom, and its economic powerhouse status, than any other recent president including his father. The real question is, can anyone beat Bush?

    As to Dean, would someone please explain the popular appeal?

  • http://vansantos.com Van Santos

    Hi Anita!

    You hit the nail on the head with Bush, in both the way history will remember him (up until this point) and can anyone beat him.

    I would say that no one can as of right now. If the economy hit a huge recession or another huge terrorist attack is the only way I can picture him out of office at this point.

    As for Dean, I am wondering the same thing. Some, one has to figure, is the anti-war platform he is taking… but as for the rest, I’m not sure.

    (and to be frank, I’m happy with this Administration though I wish they would address a few issues.)

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Howard Dean said that Bush’s censoring of key parts of the report on 9-11–a decision which angered 9-11 survivors as well as Democratic and Republican politicians–has naturally resulted in speculation about what is in those pages.

    While specifically stating that he did not believe in the theory, Dean cited the persistent Saudi-warning rumors as an example of the kind of speculation that will keep happening if Bush doesn’t do the right thing and release the censored parts of the 9-11 report, which no serious observer (including Republicans who have read it) believe is being censored for “national security reasons” any more that Nixon withheld Watergate evidence citing that bogus excuse.

    Dean’s doing a brave thing that neither Democratic politicans nor the media is willing to do. He’s demanding accountability from a president who has ruled in the most autocratic manner of any president in memory. It’s outrageous that Bush and Cheney have made so many important documents secret, and they’re doing it because they believe they can just get away with it.

    The media has been letting them. Dean is not, and I’m proud of the man for braving the heat on this.

    The right wing is spreading the “conspiracy theory” meme about Dean’s efforts because it fears what will happen to Bush if the hidden portions of that report come to light.

  • http://vansantos.com Van Santos

    Deans comment to the caller who asked Dean why HE thought President Bush didn’t want to turn over his top secret daily briefing summary from the CIA to the independent commission was…

    “The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not.”

    I agree that the administration needs to be held accountable, and I have no fear about what is in the document, but the fact of the matter is some things need to be kept from public view for various reasons, but what Dean is doing in *this* case (or should I say the way he is doing it) is rather weak.

    If Dean truly wanted to offer why he thinks the administration is holding back documents he should not rely on pure rumor.

    Just a poor attempt at trying to drag down the administration.