by David Lightman
"Liberated" from party affiliation, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman promised last fall to stake out a role as an independent "bridge builder."
But, although Democratic Senate colleagues routinely praise him and work with him, outside the Beltway he has only become more isolated from the public and from many in Washington as the war becomes the most polarizing issue of the day.
Meanwhile, Lieberman, still wounded by the Connecticut Democrats' rejection of him over the war in a primary last Aug. 8, has no relationship with the state party.
See the story from today's Courant:
Lieberman:
Alone At The Center
By DAVID LIGHTMAN
and MARK PAZNIOKAS
Courant Staff Writers
August 9, 2007
WASHINGTON -- As the Senate prepared for its all-night debate on Iraq last month, Joseph Lieberman stood with Republicans and lambasted war opponents, most of them Democrats.
"They're already asleep about the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq for our national security," Lieberman told reporters at a packed press conference.
Yet little more than an hour earlier, Lieberman had dined at the Democrats' weekly policy luncheon, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Lieberman a valued colleague, despite differences on Iraq.
The day was emblematic of Lieberman's double life since returning six months ago as an independent who sides with President Bush on Iraq, yet caucuses with Democrats - giving them a tenuous one-vote majority.
"Liberated" from party affiliation, Lieberman promised last fall to stake out a role as an independent "bridge builder." But although Democratic Senate colleagues routinely praise him and work with him, outside the Beltway he has only become more isolated from the public and from many in Washington as the war becomes the most polarizing issue of the day.
Meanwhile, Lieberman, still wounded by the Connecticut Democrats' rejection of him over the war in a primary last Aug. 8, has no relationship with the state party.
Nancy DiNardo, Democratic state chairwoman, said Lieberman's place in the party, if there is one, remains unresolved since he declared himself an "independent Democrat" after his re-election last fall as a petitioning candidate.
"It is awkward, but I don't have a solution," DiNardo said. "It is awkward for him, too."
The party's premier fundraising event, the Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner, was held this year on the Jewish Sabbath, giving the religiously observant Lieberman a graceful reason to skip the event. Last year, he was booed.
Bill Curry, a two-time Democratic gubernatorial nominee and ex-Clinton aide who now writes a weekly political column for The Courant, said, "I'm guessing the JJB will be on the Sabbath for the next four years, minimum."
Will He Stay In The Fold?
Lieberman's position on the war can inspire almost as much contention as war itself.
A Curry column last month with the headline "Lieberman: Blind To Folly," harshly assessed the senator's war stance, calling the senator "one of Bush's two best spear carriers," along with Republican John McCain.
The column prompted an op-ed piece by Lanny Davis, a friend and former aide to President Clinton, defending the senator as possessing impeccably liberal Democratic credentials, as long as Iraq is removed from the picture.
One question that hovers over many debates about the senator at home and in Washington is whether Lieberman will remain a Democrat. It's one that Lieberman seems to enjoy keeping the Democrats guessing about.
"He wouldn't be honest or human not to enjoy it," Davis said in an interview. "Anybody in political life would like to have that pivotal leverage. He is the 51st vote, and he knows it."
Good Democrat or not, Lieberman said last week that he has no interest in participating in that debate.
"I don't. I don't. Some people say, `Are you going to leave the Democratic Party?' And I say, `I don't have any intention to do that.' I am most troubled, of course, by where most of the party nationally is going on foreign and defense policy," Lieberman said. "But that debate goes on."
With a certainty never publicly expressed by Lieberman, Davis said Lieberman never would join the Senate Republican caucus. Democrats may revile Lieberman over the war, but Davis said the senator shares too much of their agenda to join the GOP.
His votes this year match up well with other Democrats. He has been with the party on 88.8 percent of the 303 Senate votes he has cast so far this year; take away Iraq-related votes, and the percentage would be closer to the 95.7 percent logged by the state's senior senator, Democrat Christopher Dodd.
Even with the Iraq votes, Lieberman's record is close to the Democratic Senate average of 88.9 percent and consistent with his earlier years' voting patterns.
He describes himself as part of a long party tradition of senators who were considered progressive on social issues and hard-liners on foreign and defense policy, and cites President Kennedy, former Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and others.
"He cannot leave the Democratic Party in the Senate without fundamentally turning his back on where he wants this country to go," Davis said, adding that a Republican majority would be anathema to Lieberman's hopes for the environment and social justice.
"`Government is a friend, not an enemy.' That philosophy is where Joe Lieberman still is," Davis said. "I have no doubt I am right about that."
Foreign Alliance
Still, Lieberman's strong Democratic voting record often is obscured by a willingness to go further and further to embrace those sympathetic to his views on the Middle East.
"I go where I am comfortable," he said last week after a public appearance in Milford. "And I'll be going to a lot of different places - and on all sides."
Last month, Lieberman warmly greeted Pastor John Hagee, a founder of Christians United for Israel and a man who agrees with Lieberman's view that a pre-emptive U.S. strike may one day be necessary to neutralize Iran.
"I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses," Lieberman told Hagee and his followers at a recent conference the group held in Washington, at which Lieberman was invited to speak. "He is an `Eesh Elo Kim,' a man of God, because those words fit him; and like Moses, he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of defense of Israel."
But Hagee also has preached that sin in New Orleans may have brought on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which Hagee says arrived just in time to stop a "homosexual parade."
Lieberman said he disagreed with Hagee's comments about New Orleans, but he did not regret addressing Hagee's group or comparing the pastor to Moses. A copy of Lieberman's speech to the group is on his Senate website.
"Frankly, I didn't know what he had said - I heard about it since then - about New Orleans," said Lieberman, who had never met Hagee before his speech. "But he is a very good man. He and his group, I think, represent an important force in our politics."
Lieberman also declined to comment on his feelings about Hagee's belief that the return of Christ is imminent - as is the "Rapture," a time when Christians will be lifted from Earth, leaving nonbelievers to suffer.
"I don't agree with them on every religious aspect of their lives," Lieberman said, declining to identify areas of disagreement. "I'm more interested in the political movement that Pastor Hagee represents than getting into all the details of theology."
And they agree, he said, on foreign policy.
"I feel, when I am with them, I feel a real bond of faith and a great sort of sense of, you know, shared ideas about foreign policy," Lieberman said. "That's why I go."
Supporting Republicans
To Lieberman, an alliance with John Hagee is no different from working across the aisle in the Senate with McCain, the Arizona senator who is seeking his party's nomination for president.
"I form partnerships with people in Congress on big issues, [whom] I disagree with on other issues, even my buddy, McCain," Lieberman said.
Davis said liberals have judged Lieberman by the company he keeps. "He took his friends where they came," Davis said. "That came with a price."
And Lieberman's Democratic voting record also is overshadowed by overtly helping Republicans or criticizing Democratic leaders.
After Reid remarked in April that the war in Iraq had been lost, Lieberman said he not only disagreed, but also that "Sen. Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there."
What has rankled the anti-war activists even more, though, was Lieberman's active effort to defeat Maine Democrat Tom Allen's U.S. Senate bid.
Lieberman in June co-hosted with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a $3,000-per-person fundraiser for Sen. Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, a longtime friend who campaigned for Lieberman in 2006.
Officials at MoveOn.org were so angry they organized an Internet effort to raise money to counter Lieberman's action and wound up raising at least three times as much as the $115,000 the event brought in.
Collins, though, was thrilled at Lieberman's work. "It was the most successful Washington fundraiser I ever had," she said. "And people said it was refreshing to have the bipartisan atmosphere."
Lieberman offered no apology.
"Susan Collins is a great senator and deserves to be re-elected," he said. "Why wouldn't I co-host a fundraiser for her? If I'm for her, I'm going to be for her. I'm not going to play the political game."
He said he criticized Reid publicly because of the leader's clout.
"I try not to get into personal attacks," Lieberman said. "But in some ways the war is being fought here at home, too. If leader Reid convinces people the war is lost, support will grow for that position."
Some Lieberman friends privately thought he went too far in the Reid and Collins cases. Longtime Lieberman critics were less shy about expressing their anger.
"He had already made a point of betraying his voters and his caucus," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org. "And he goes out of his way to endorse the White House talking points."
But trying to beat a Democrat, Pariser said, "was drastic."
Democratic colleagues say they remain comfortable with Lieberman, and understand, as Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., put it, "his view on the war is a matter of conscience."
A more cynical view is that Democrats have to be nice to him because his defection would cost them the majority.
"Democrats in the Senate generally know him and like him, but they also have no choice," said Donald Greenberg, associate professor of politics at Fairfield University. "They have to massage his ego."
Pursuing Bipartisanship
Lieberman has succeeded in applying at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the Senate.
In the Senate homeland security committee, of which Lieberman is chairman, members do not sit in the traditional way, with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other; they alternate, with a Democrat seated next to a Republican next to a Democrat, and so on.
Most Tuesdays, he and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., host a private discussion about key issues with members from both parties, sometimes as many as 40.
But critics question how Lieberman in today's climate - and perhaps beyond - can be seen as more than a war hawk. The war evokes passions like perhaps no other since Watergate in the early 1970s - and Lieberman has been more a stick of dynamite than a balm.
"He can't lead on anything. Instead of being in the center, he's on the far right on the war and a liberal on domestic stuff," said Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a progressive group. "He's a Democrat who's deranged on Iraq."
Lieberman argues otherwise, pointing to how he and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., worked together recently to craft an amendment condemning Iran's incursions into Iraq.
He said he has tried to get people together. During the Senate's recent marathon, he told colleagues he wanted to "stop the passions, the political passions of a moment from sweeping across Congress."
No one seemed to listen, not to a man who for weeks had been urging them to consider a military option against Iran, who stood at that press conference hours earlier surrounded by top Republicans and a hundred journalists, saying, "We don't really think this debate ought to be happening on this bill" or how the "political war" in this country "very often has no resemblance to the reality of what's happening over there."
Lieberman said he does not rule out urging a change in strategy, but he owes the new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, a chance to show progress with the troop surge.
"I think institutionally we made a promise to Gen. Petraeus - and I personally made a promise - not to act until we see his report in September."
Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker plan to give a progress report to Congress then.
"I hope sometime next year the troops added as part of the surge will come home," he said. "But who knows where we're going to be in March or April?"
Or next fall. Liberals crave the approach of the 2008 election - and the prospect of picking up more Democratic seats in the Senate. They say Lieberman will be seen differently by Democrats once he no longer is the 51st vote.
"Of course, Lieberman is no longer a Democrat," said Armando Llorens, who blogs at Talk Left as Big Tent Democrat. "Because his vote is needed for caucusing purposes, obviously Harry Reid has to hold his tongue on Joe. We do not. But if Dems win Senate seats in 2008, Lieberman's position will be quite precarious, it seems to me."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
In some ways, Lieberman's position is the best. He is not beholden to a particular party and can vote and do things according to his beliefs and perhaps even more representative of his state than before.
And before all the Lefty Loons jump in here and knock Lieberman, the above statement is looking at Lieberman's position neither from a Left or Right or Democrat or Republican position.
Too often candidates on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the ideological spectrum act for their party, not their constituents or conscience.
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 10:07 AM
It's a shame Lieberman is too SANE to be welcomed by the LUNATICS on the left wing. Guess there's no TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY there unless you agree to think like them on EVERY issue. Sounds INCLUSIVE to me. ;-)
Posted by: Will | August 9, 2007 10:31 AM
In point of fact, Joe Lieberman does have a party, though not organized in the traditional sense. It's the AMERICAN PARTY and it's comprised of millions of people like me who are disappointed in the self-serving nature of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Joe Lieberman is a man of principle, honor and integrity, qualities rarer than snow in Washington today. Joe, you are welcome in the American Party any time you wish.
Posted by: Kasha | August 9, 2007 10:47 AM
The Dems should also liberate him from committee chairs- since he refuses to do any oversight.
Posted by: tom | August 9, 2007 10:56 AM
Joe better enjoy being the 51st vote now while it lasts. When the Dems obliterate the gop and get a filibuster proof majority in 2008, he'll be as welcome as pork at a Bar Mitzvah.
Posted by: Bruce Y | August 9, 2007 11:13 AM
Lieberman-bridge builder?
Bridges are burned; time for him to jump off!
Posted by: John A | August 9, 2007 11:20 AM
Lieberman alone in the center?
Please.
Lieberman is far from being in the center politically.
He is an opportunist and nothing more.
He didn't get it when he nearly lost because of his views on Iraq and still hasn't changed his views.
He constantly challenges the Democrats by threatening to switch to the Republican party. Which he will NEVER do because he knows that he will lose any little political clout that he has left.
Just wait until 2008 to see what he will do. At that point the Democrats will probably get a larger majority in the Senate and will no longer need Senator Lieberman. At that point he will be totally DOA.
Posted by: dogjudge | August 9, 2007 11:31 AM
Hey John D, we're not finished. From this thread: http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/the_spin_room_open_for_big_gam.html
[quote]
"you hate it when facts get in the way of your delirium.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 10:37 PM"
Well, John D, we're still waiting for you to post proof of your "fact" that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does (several thousand apiece) - which I posted PROOF of several days ago.
Your "support" by saying that you read in Men's Vogue magazine that Edwards "buys imported suits" is useless, my suits purchased at Men's Wearhouse are imported too.
By the way, Men's Vogue magazine's web site doesn't have a search function, nor does it let you read past issues. So please cite the issue, story, page number and the exact quote that validates your allegation about the price tags on Edwards' suits.
Posted by: BC | August 8, 2007 11:05 AM
[/quote]
and your "reply":
[quote]
BC, you clearly have some brain abnormality, don't you? Edwards is on the stinkin cover of the Men's Vogue. I supplied the link once before and cut and pasted the verbage about his suits. You look it up, I am tired of your ceaseless infatuation about suits, whether Bush's or Edwards'.
Posted by: John D | August 8, 2007 11:14 AM
[/quote]
No you didn't John D; otherwise, you would have posted the link in this answer. Once again, you've been caught saying that you replied to a post and posted a link when everyone knows that you did no such thing. You continue to prove how incompetent you are as a journalist and a researcher by NOT backing up your allegations with facts that can be verified. Saying that he buys "imported" suits IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM backs up YOUR CLAIM that Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does. And, once again - it's not MY job to do the research to support YOUR allegations. if you can't back up your claims then the solution is easy: JUST DON'T MAKE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Isn't it time that you publicly admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
Posted by: BC | August 9, 2007 12:08 PM
Um, dogjudge, not sure how you define "nearly losing" an election. Yes, he lost to Lamont in the primary. But in a three-way general election race in Conn., Lieberman received 50 percent of the vote and beat Lamont by 10 points. Your opinion of what will happen to Lieberman after '08 is your opinion, and I'm not going to argue with you about it. But election numbers are facts. And a 10-point win is not "nearly losing." By that logic, I suppose, Bill Clinton "nearly lost" in 1992 and 1996 – and such statements would be silly.
Posted by: JB | August 9, 2007 12:21 PM
It's a shame Lieberman is too SANE to be welcomed by the LUNATICS on the left wing. Guess there's no TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY there unless you agree to think like them on EVERY issue. Sounds INCLUSIVE to me. ;-)
Posted by: Will | August 9, 2007 10:31 AM
Good point, Will. At least you wingnuts have the gumption to admit that you're intolerant, Wonder Bread (R) white, non-inclusive and closed to conflicting points of view.
The reality is that Traitor Joe (TM) reached positions of power only through the Democratic party, so his sharp turn toward fascism represents not just bad judgment, but a character defect in terms of recognizing his loyalties. Lieberman may be a "good American (and better Israeli), but that does not excuse his overt efforts to undermine the party to whom he owes everything.
Posted by: a blinkin | August 9, 2007 12:22 PM
I think that some people forget that Lieberman is a Senator because the constituency that he represents wants him in the Senate. He was ousted by the Dems in his home state and said, 'Ok, I'll go it alone' and he still won the election! Enough of th people he represents agreed with what he was campaigning for to send him back to the Senate. He did not say he would vote to end the war and then change his mind when he was re-elected. If the people from CT want him there, he stays. If they don't like him in another 5 years, he will be ousted. Senator Lieberman is voting the way the majority of his constituents want him to vote, which is what I thought any elected officials are supposed to do, right?
Posted by: dan | August 9, 2007 12:30 PM
John D....Could you find out for me what type of jockey shorts he wears? I also was wondering what type of toothpaste,deodorant, and hemroid creme. These are very important in the decisision of our president. Thank god you have taken on these important issues.
Posted by: bill r. | August 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Lieberman needs to retire and let someone else in with new ideas....He lost his election that was a sign to say people are fed up with him....Old ideas going no where
Posted by: Vinnie | August 9, 2007 12:58 PM
"LIEBERMAN LOST AT SEA"
Joseph Lieberman is no Sir Francis Scott Key. Sir Francis had the Constitution in his mind, Senator Lieberman is the "SCOTT TISSUE" OF THE GOP. WIPE ME WIPE ME. WIPE! WIPE!
WHAT A JOKE. WHERE WAS THE RECOUNT IN HIS DISTRICT? WHAT'S HIS IMPACT ON PURGING OF THE PROSECUTORS? HE BENEFITED FROM ALL THOSE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS STILL UNCOUNTED OR IN SOME VAULT SOMEWHERE THAT SOME VOTERS WATCHDOG GROUP HAS THEIR SIGHTS ON.
PEOPLE WAKE UP! THEFT BY DECEPTION IS A CRIME, AND JOSEPH LIEBERMAN IS THE 600 MILLION DOLLAR MISSING CLAIMANT IN THE ALTER BOYS CHOIR.
PINOCCIO DADDY, ONLY HIS NOSE GETS WIDER INSTEAD OF LONGER.
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 9, 2007 1:12 PM
Now that LIEberman has been kicked out of the Democratic Party he's become a fulltime member of the Neocon Chickenhawk Brigade where he joins forces with Swampers Little Johnny D'Jihad and Bruce Whinerdyce in talking tough and hiding behind the soldiers who are actually fighting and dying in Iraq.
Posted by: John E | August 9, 2007 1:18 PM
Will and Kasha,
Does this sound American to you? "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril." Sounds pretty un-American to me for a Senator from the opposition party to suggest that disagreeing with a President will ruin our republic. Only a run of the mill Fascist would suggest that questioning a President's judgement is wrong and dissent should be crushed. I thought the Republic party was all about spreading democracy now? Or is this what you say so you can hide your true totalitarian tendencies?
Posted by: jethro | August 9, 2007 1:38 PM
jb
By lost, I simply was referring to the fact that he lost the primary. In many states he would have been done at that point.
So if he despises the Democratic party SO much, why do you suppose that he joins their caucus? Couldn't be for the power could it? What other reason?
Posted by: dogjudge | August 9, 2007 1:59 PM
Lieberman needs to be ousted. He's a pseudo-American who is trying his best to fulfill his role as an Israeli senator in an American Congress. The reason he won Connecticut was because it was a manipulated Zionist power play for him to win so that he could put forth his pre-emptive strike of Iran agenda to make certain that almighty Israel alone maintains WMDs. Iraq was just a stepping stone to that agenda. Wake up and realize who the true Americans are - they are the men and women who are dying in Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11). These brave soldiers are not fighting terrorism, but safeguarding Israel's power in the Middle East.
The War on terrorism should have been fought in Afghanistan and against the neo-con fascists that infiltrated our government.
Posted by: the truth | August 9, 2007 2:31 PM
for those of you who think Joe is voting with his state's stance on the war in mind, you're absolutely mistaken. Connecticut is one of the most anti war states in the country.
I think much of the contempt that Lieberman is seeing (besides his war stance and denial of doing his job of oversight) comes from the instances in which he speaks negatively of the Democratic party in public. Even Nelson of Nebraska, who votes with Republicans much of the time never digs at his own party.
Republicans have been very harsh with those in their party who don't walk lock-step with the president. Those who speak against the Republican brand get chastised.
I'd be willing to bet that if a Republican Senator lost the general election for the party nomination, turned independent and garnered most of his support from democrats, you Republicans whould have ill feelings towards him/her. Unless you are living under the false pretense that your party's tent really is the "big tent".
Posted by: alex | August 9, 2007 3:11 PM
Bill R., please direct your comments to BC. He is the one who has an infatuation about who wears what. I could care less.
BC, the reason I did not provide a link the second time is because I've done it once. I am not wasting anymore time looking for news items on what John Edwards wears.
If you want to think that John Edwards buys "imported" suits at Men's Wearhouse for $300, then so be it. You can continue to believe what you want. I have no interest in continuing this absolutely silly discussion on John Edwards' suits and how much he pays for them.
The Men's Vogue article, and what I had cut and pasted from it as well as the link talked of his imported suits and how he drinks expensive wine when watching football games. You keep doing the digging, I have more important things to do!!
Here to make you happy, all I had to do ding dong BC was google John Edwards Men's Vogue and, walla, the very first item. Here is an excerpt, followed by the article link:
After two decades as the most successful trial attorney in North Carolina state history (with a net worth as high as $60 million), Edwards has a decidedly New South profile, a peculiar blend of country flavor and newly minted wealth. He prefers white wine with his NCAA March Madness, imported suits with his GMC truck.
Fairly or not, to critics and many locals, Edwards's new estate—a 28,200-square-foot, $6 million affair a few miles outside of Chapel Hill—has become a potent symbol of hypocrisy when placed against his political message of personal sacrifice, environmental conservation, and economic division. Top aides were furious that the Edwardses decided to build it just as they were launching the campaign. Elizabeth has said she has no regrets; she worked closely with an architect to design the house, down to the wide-plank pine floors and soapstone fireplace. (It also has a 1,762-square-foot room called "John's Lounge," two performance stages, a pool, and basketball and squash courts.)
So, ding dong BC, a guy who drinks white wine while watching college basketball, has a house with "John's Lounge" and nearly 30,000 square feet and who's worth about is about $60 million is going to wear cheap suits??!?!?
Here is the link, ultimate moron! And dude, get a friggin life!!
http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2007/06/john_edwards?currentPage=6
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 3:55 PM
BC and John D,
George Bush and John Edwards are wealthy individuals. Granted, one of them was born on third and thought he hit a triple, falling into wealth and political clout because of a storied family history and a whole lot of shady dealings, the other is a self-made millionaire who rose from real poverty to be a contender (albeit, not my pick) for POTUS.
I don't care what either man spends on haircuts or suits, and I'm baffled daily why either of you do.
Quick question for Dyslin, though. Why ARE you ripping on Edwards for building himself a mansion with his own earnings? Would you blanche if Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (all far wealthier than Mr. Edwards, by the way) built themselves a huge mansion?
Why do you espouse extreme supply-side theories and then go off when a Democrat makes good on them? Why do you only hate rich people when they are Democrats? Is it because Mr. Edwards is trying to do more with his wealth than simply enrich himself?
Jeez, I wish he'd just be a crass, self-serving pirate like most Republicans instead of trying to help eleviate poverty.
Posted by: Bryan | August 9, 2007 4:13 PM
Bryan,
In many way I could care less how big a house Edwards lives in. The point with the home, though, and with rich Hollywood, liberal, "environemtnal" folk is they tell us we must save the environment, but then they live in big homes that take mucho energy to heat, cool, etc. And some own many big homes that cost a lot of energy.
Edwards earned his bucks (course, the slimy way, but he earned em). He can spend his money as he sees fit.
Frankly, if you will notice, BC is the one who keeps this Edwards and his suit thing going from thread to thread to thread. Hopefully now he will shut up since ONCE AGAIN I have a link and cut and paste the Men's Vogue article, but I doubt he will shut up about it.
But I am through with John Edwards and his suits and in wasting my time arguing with a world-class idiot like BC.
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 5:08 PM
Guess there's no TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY there unless you agree to think like them on EVERY issue. Sounds INCLUSIVE to me. ;-)
Posted by: Will | August 9, 2007 10:31 AM
Coming from the right...that means so very little.
Posted by: bill r. | August 9, 2007 5:57 PM
Anon and Loserman, sittin' a tree...kissin'...
Hopefully, it knows the rest.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 9, 2007 9:05 PM
Senator Lieberman is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He is a member of the Likud party.
Posted by: CaptainVideo | August 10, 2007 3:21 AM
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Israel) is now supported by another jew, Mort Zuckerman who supports anyone who would best serve the interests of Israel. The US has at least 2 duel Isreali-US citizens in high places running this country into the ground. Unfortunately the US attacked and occupied the wrong country.
Posted by: Roccovet | August 10, 2007 11:18 AM
John D now leaves the field of debate a loser, since he cannot back up his words and instead goes to personally insulting me.
[quote]
please direct your comments to BC. He is the one who has an infatuation about who wears what. I could care less.
[/quote]
Yes, we now know that you could care less - because you've NEVER backed up your allegation that Edwards spends as much on his suits as Bush does.
[quote]
If you want to think that John Edwards buys "imported" suits at Men's Wearhouse for $300
[/quote]
A TOTAL LIE! Your Men's Vogue magazine article says he buys "imported suits"; I said that I buy "imported suits" from Men's Wearhouse. My "imported suits" don't nearly as much as you ALLEGE that Edwards' suits do.
[quote]
The Men's Vogue article, and what I had cut and pasted from it as well as the link talked of his imported suits and how he drinks expensive wine when watching football games.
[/quote]
The Men's Vogue article never supported your allegation on the cost of his suits. NOBODY HERE talked about Edwards drinking expensive wine - until you brought it up as a diversion.
[quote]
He prefers white wine with his NCAA March Madness
[/quote]
Just a few sentences earlier you said he drinks wine while watching FOOTBALL games - "March Madness" is the NCAA BASKETBALL tournament! They're not even in the same season! Way to get your 'facts' right, 'Mr. Journalist'.
[quote]
ding dong BC
[/quote]
Way to prove that you're a civil debater - NOT! By the way, can you use Google to post links to any Swamp threads where I've personally insulted you?
[quote]
a guy ... who's worth about is about $60 million is going to wear cheap suits??!?!?
[/quote]
I never said that, never implied it, but that's just a Red Herring. YOU'RE THE ONE who posted that his suits cost as much as Bush's; I'm sure that Edwards' suits are expensive, but I'M NOT THE ONE who WON'T BACK UP my allegation about their cost - that's you, John D.
[quote]
Here is the link, ultimate moron! And dude, get a friggin life!!
[/quote]
The story you link to DOES NOT OFFER ANY SUPPORT to your ORIGINAL ALLEGATION - that Edwards' suits costs as much as Bush's. And I do have a life - it's demanding that people who call themselves 'journalists' provide proof to back up their allegations, or see if they have the backbone to post a correction where they admit that they MADE UP THEIR CLAIM.
You've done neither. You've never proven your allegation and you've never admitted that you fabricated your 'fact'.
As a reporter, John D, you're useless.
Posted by: BC | August 10, 2007 11:23 AM
To me its real simple.. Lieberman votes with the Republicans on the most important issues of this decade..the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.
That is not a centrist administration but a collection of right wing radicals who are destroying the Constitution and who have led us into the greatest disaster in our history, next to the Civil War. I am not going to go into details because if you dont get it at this point you just dont want to get it..
Vietnam Era Vet
Posted by: Charlie | August 11, 2007 10:43 AM
Alternate caption;
'I wonder, does he French kiss on the first date?!'
Posted by: C.Morris | August 12, 2007 8:34 PM
Senator leibermen is a very very honest and great man who has every right as an independent to vote for how ever he chooses, wether to support John mccain, or to stay with the Democrats in most issues
Posted by: Ary | June 22, 2008 4:03 PM