Monday, November 13, 2006

Why oh Why, Joe?

This is what makes me crazy about Joe Lieberman (from the AP):

If that's [being the I/D] not confusing enough, the three-term lawmaker who will caucus with Senate Democrats would not rule out entertaining entreaties from the GOP if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats...

He said that because voters returned him to Capitol Hill as an independent, "I am now an Independent Democrat, capital I, capital D. Matter of fact, the secretary of the Senate called my office and asked, `How do you want to be identified,' and, and that's it. Independent Democrat," the senator said on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

With many Senate Democrats having campaigned or raised money for Lamont, as the party's nominee, Lieberman acknowledged it might be "a little awkward" for him back in Washington.

"They played by the traditional partisan political playbook. And I can't say I enjoyed it, but we're all grown-ups, we've got a job to do, and I'm going to do my best to get that job done," Lieberman said...

He was asked about a scenario in which he might become uncomfortable as Democrats sought to enforce party discipline and then the GOP offered to keep him as a committee chairman and respect his seniority if he switched.

"I'm not ruling it out, but I hope I don't get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, `We're doing this because we, we want you to switch over,'" he said.
I just have to wonder if this preening is making even the Lieberman supporters a bit squeamish. He makes up new party affiliations like most people change their underwear. My father used to say to me, "If you don't stand for something, you're likely to fall for anything." Picture this scenario: Hillary is Senate Majority Leader and Joe does an interview that throws her and the rest of the Senate Dems under the bus -- how will those people who kept the gloves off here in CT to let the Rs fund Joe's campaign feel then?

I just don't get it. But capct in the comments may be on to something:

Joe's new party: I/D, (or ID) couldn't better describe the man, at least in Freudian terms:

THE ID: functions in the irrational and emotional part of the mind. At birth a baby’s mind is all Id - want want want. The Id is the primitive mind. It contains all the basic needs and feelings. It is the source for libido (psychic energy). And it has only one rule --> the “pleasure principle”: “I want it and I want it all now”. In transactional analysis, Id equates to "Child".

Id too strong = bound up in self-gratification and uncaring to others
What do you think? I would really appreciate some reasoned arguments from Joe supporters -- not pot shots -- about A. Joe knowing what is best for CT and the nation without any input from his constituents, and B. his inability to commit to anything -- hence, instead of I, for now it has to be I/D, but then if the Ds piss him off, it could be I/R. Why can't he just be I or CFL since that is the party he created for August 9- November 7?


Anonymous said...

I'll help you Bob,
A- Joe has plenty of input from his constituents. It so happens that he listens to both sides of issues then makes a conclusion which is the best. But honestly he would know what is better for CT then anyone else

B-What would be the point of committing to a party. Right now he is in a great position to use both the Democratic and Republican parties to get the most production out of Washington. Hopefully this will start a trend and get our country back on track

Your A and B comments/questions actually make a very good argument as to why Lieberman is exactly what the senate needs, someone who is not going to follow the crowd but will lead.

See Bob I knew in time you see how Joe can help.

thanks for supporting Joe CT BOB. You are the best

ctblogger said...


This has to be the nuttiest thing I ever heard.

1. Lieberman only cares about one thing...Lieberman. His house has been for sale in New Haven for the longest and I'd bet my house that Lieberman's apartment in New Haven is nothing but an address. Also, Lieberman is never around Connecticut to listen to his constituents which was one of the major reasons he was challenged in the first place.

2. He is up for the highest bidder (in the case of the senate, he'll hang out with the party that can give him the most goodies.

3. Mind teling me one thing that Joe's done for the bet interest of CT? CT is 49th when it comes to money coming back from D.C. We've lost so many military contracts and jobs that it's not even funny, our homeland secutity funding in the state was drastically cut (although we're a rock throw away from NY), and this was ALL UNDER JOE'S WATCH.

Liebertrolls like you are really annoying and are part of the problem in wonder the last Democratic governor in CT was O'Neil.

CT Bob said...

Adam, that was Kirby's article, not mine. Read the bottom of the article to see who it's posted by before going off on someone.

Anonymous said...

I take offense to being called a LieberTroll.(even though I really don’t know what it means) I have done nothing wrong but answer your questions and express my opinions. Chill out Bob I dont hate you.

"Lieberman only cares about one thing... Lieberman" Opinionated Hearsay not facts

He works in DC so he should live there. Just like the majority of representives

"He is up for the highest bidder" Opinionated hearsay again

"49th when it comes to money back from state" I case you didnt know we are the richest state and frankly we should be 50th. I rather money go back to the poor and not the rich

"we've lost so many military contracts" this is true but Defense Companies with plants down in Mexico can out bib us. Not Joes fault. But you negect to mention the New London subbase and all the just Joe and the other state reps work so hard to keep. Plus didn’t Ned want to take troops out in 1 year what do you think that would do to the remaining military contrtacts

"homeland security funding in the state was drastically cut (although we're a rock throw away from NY)" Yea well NY budget was slashed worse then ours so what are you saying???

I truly respect this blog for it's encouragement of taking an interest in politics and expressing opinions. But when you don’t present all the facts or distort the truth you should expect someone to correct you. I have my opinions just like you and I am sometimes wrong just like you. Please keep an opened mind and accept other views. If you dont then why do have a blog. Your job as a blogger is to inform, discuss and debate issues. So do it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bob

carterman said...

CTBlogger really hits the nail on the head here.

The bottom line is Lieberman is for Lieberman. Believing otherwise is foolish. Joe does what ever is best for Joe.

The purging of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic party did not happen by mistake. The people who care about the party (by voting) decided that Joe no longer represented the party. Honestly, I wish Joe would remove that "D" from his "I/D" he did not EARN it. However, knowing how Joe operates, I am sure he will keep the "D" because serves him the best (for now).

A wishy-washy politician that adjusts their own political views with the winds of change is NOT going to provide a bridge between the major political parties, no matter what Joe Lieberman says.

Gary said...

I'll tell you why, Bob. Because Joe is losing his mind. It all started back with his 2000 loss. He can't come down from his star status. He needs to think of himself as uniquely wise and powerful - and appreciated to the point of adoration.

Also, he won't be the first "liberal" who turned into a "neocon". But he's late to the party. The neocons are on their way out.

Anonymous said...

this blog has more conspiracy theories than an x-files episode. give it up, you were spoon fed attacks from the lamont people that were barely credible, now that its time to think for yourselves, and your going even farther off the reservation. I/D/CFL? who cares? must mean he's lining himself up to be Sec Def right?

amy said...

Of course members of Congress have homes in D.C., it would be silly for them not to, but they are required to have legal residency in the state which elects them, so it is expected that he spend some time in the State of Connecticut!

gchaucer2 said...

Lieberman owes his seat to the Republicans. Fine. But be honest about it. He has changed his stance on the Iraq war so many times it makes my head spin. Nobody wants to bring the troops home more than he does -- how about folks who actually have sons, daughters, husbands, wives, parents, etc. there? He wants to send more troops -- huh?

I can listen to adam and respectfully disagree because he identifies himself. Anyone who posts under anonymous, I ignore because there's no credibility. Don't care if you are pro or con.

@adam -- The wealth in this state is concentrated. Our cities are teeming with poor and middle class folks. Our highways are a complete disaster -- hope we don't need them for an evacuation plan. Our ports are not secure.

I know the Senate Dems have to hold their noses and kowtow to Lieberman for now, but he is truly an embarassment to this state by holding everyone hostage to his whims.

ctblogger said...


If you can't take the heat...

Well, lets take each of your Lieberman defenses.

1. "Lieberman only cares about one thing... Lieberman" Opinionated Hearsay not facts:

FACT: Joe Lieberman threatened various DTCs that he would not support Congressional candidates (with cash) if he was forced to run in a primary. Lieberman also noted that if would ignore the results of the primary if he lost and run as an indy. I posted him saying this back in April and I posted the audio.

FACT: Lieberman was told by several bigwigs about the danger he would create for the Congressional candidates if he continued his campaign after losing the primary. He continued anyway (eventhough he promised the people of CT back in 1988 that he would only run three terms).

Lieberman actively supported Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson. Again, unlike you, I happened to be at all the events when this took place. Shays and Johnson supported Lieberman in return while Simmons thought he really didn't have to worry because of what he did with the base.

2. "49th when it comes to money back from state" I case you didnt know we are the richest state and frankly we should be 50th. I rather money go back to the poor and not the rich.

More nonsense. As gchaucer2 accurately stated, wealth in CT is concentrated to Fairfield County. Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk and about the entire east side of Connecticut is suffering from lack of jobs. The highway system is down the tubes (I-95, I-84 between Danbury and Cheshire), rail is a joke, and jobs are leaving the state at an alarming rate due to this (Bayer). Where's Joe? Hell, I can't stand earmarks but CT doesn't even get that while Alaska gets a bridge to nowhere (which Joe voted in favor for). Don't get me started on the energy bill and all the tax breaks to big oil while companies in CT get the short end of the stick.

3. "we've lost so many military contracts" this is true but Defense Companies with plants down in Mexico can out bib us. Not Joes fault. But you negect to mention the New London subbase and all the just Joe and the other state reps work so hard to keep. Plus didn’t Ned want to take troops out in 1 year what do you think that would do to the remaining military contrtacts

FACT: CT has lost the helicopter contract as well as countless other military contracts which people depended on. The subbase was saved (which Joe LOVES to talk about) but you and Lieberman defenders fail to mention the jobs that were lost in New London after the base was "saved." Bottom line, Joe could have stepped up and at least tried to do what was best for CT and defend the state when the contracts were pulled but he didn't. Again, this is a FACT.

BTW: lets take a look at your quote again:
Plus didn’t Ned want to take troops out in 1 year what do you think that would do to the remaining military contrtacts
are you advocating keeping the troops in Iraq just so we can keep getting military contracts? Blood for money...have you no shame?

4. "homeland security funding in the state was drastically cut (although we're a rock throw away from NY)" Yea well NY budget was slashed worse then ours so what are you saying???

I'm saying that I'm in CT not NY and Joe "Mr. Homeland Security" allow the government to cut funding for CT without saying ONE WORD.

5. I truly respect this blog for it's encouragement of taking an interest in politics and expressing opinions. But when you don’t present all the facts or distort the truth you should expect someone to correct you.

It's you who don't present the facts, just talking points. Unlike you, bloggers like CTBob, Spazeboy and myself HAVE BEEN on the front lines throughout this entire campaign. We've seen ALL the politicians up close and traveled across the state, from DTC meeting to DTC meeting, from rally to rally, from debate to deabte, even going as far as interviewing each of the candidates multiple times.

I'm certain I have more knowledge in Connecticut politics and Lieberman's record than you ever will. If you're so wise in the ways of Lieberman, I challenge you to go over to My Left Nutmeg, create an account, put your chips on the table and take me or any of the other bloggers who spent the last ten months covering this race from every angle on in a battle of "facts."

You'll get served up like a item on a snack tray.

gchaucer2 said...

Whooaaaaa!!!! CTblogger -- well said! Thanks! If I were Joe, with the microscopic scrutiny that you guys will continue, I'd be very afraid. Of course, he'll just be very, very angry. Time to control the internets!

Anonymous said...

holy crap! there are a few dozen members of the nut roots talking to each ]other of CT boob's failed character assasination site! There will definately be a memo on Lieberman's desk tomorrow morning, and your right gchaucer2, he will be afraid and angry!

gchaucer2 said...

I hear wind whistling here -- must be another incoherent anonymous posting.

Anonymous said...

"You'll get served up like a item on a snack tray"

ohh I like that. Very catchy

We can argue Joey Lieberman till we are Blue (or Red) in the face. But in reality whats done is done. You have 6 years to figure out how to get him out and I'm sure you will but why not focus your energy to the 2008 election.

2008 will be upon us faster then you think. I purpose a thesis change to this Blog. Instead of an Anti-Lieberman Blog lets change it to a pro-democrat blog or a blog that discusses presidential candidates for 2008.

Look, I enjoy coming to this Blog I like to read people's opinions and ideas and I'll admit to get in the occasional debate but how much longer can we talk about Joe Lieberman. The rest of the country and State is moving on and so should CT Blog.

P.S. I don’t mean this negative I’m just sick of reading about Joe Lieberman and I don’t want to stop coming to this Blog because I enjoy it

gchaucer2 said...

@Adam -- I agree and disagree with you (hmmm, sorry). Agree that the focus should be on 2008 and beyond, both national and local. I disagree about not continuing a focus on Lieberman, mainly because his vote is so critical and his subtle threats, or inuendos, if you will, regarding which party will get his allegiance, is disturbing -- and should be.

For me, the most recent alarms went off when he changed from bringing the troops home theme to sending more troops. I think we all can discuss this and other topics civilly.

I'm glad you like this site and hope you continue posting. After all, CTBob did say he wanted to hear from opposing viewpoints.

gchaucer2 said...

Ooops, sorry to Kirby -- it was she who welcomed other views -- but I'm sure CTBob does as well. I'll be more careful in the future re: attribution.

ctblogger said...


Nice to see that you backed move.

This is a pro-Democrat site just like the 66% of the voters who voted for the Democratic nominee.

You're right, 2008 is around the corner and Joe will be neutered as the Dems will pick up more senate seats and really let Lieberman have it for everything he did to the party in CT (I'm sure Farrell and Courtney are happy with all the fine work Joe did). By 2012, Lieberman will be history (he'll be an idiot to run again) and we'll have a real race for the spot (well, if the CT Republicans can learn to actually offer a good candidate).

The ISSUE that will shape the 2008 elections will be the war...period. It has effected everything and the Republican Party domination over this country came to a crashing end because of it.

The person who can offer a realistic vision on saving the enviroment, getting off of oil, and getting serious about poverty gets my vote.

Two words: John Edwards
Two more words; Al Gore

Anonymous said...

CTblogger I think you may have confused Adam with all those facts because he now wants to change the topic. Adam, being "anti-Lieberman" is pro-Democrat! (Sorry, but you left yourself open for that one!)

Kirby said...

To answer an earlier comment: Joe sold his house in New Haven in April, but didn't close on it until after the primary in August. He currently has a month-to-month apartment rental in New Haven (in the building where the Advocate offices are). Don't know if he decided to extend the lease after he won.

When Bob and I post, our names are at the bottom -- while we have the same worldview, if you have comments to make to one of us writing the original post, please direct it to the one who wrote it.

Finally, those supporting Lieberman -- do you favor a D or R majority in the Senate? Who would you like to see chair the committees there? Were you happy with the Senate under R rule for the past 6 years under the Bush administration?

I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.

And, thanks CTBlogger, for chiming in today!

Anonymous said...

CT Blogger.

I wouldnt say I'm backing down but I realize that you people have your mind set and I really shouldnt care what you think especially when the vast majority of the State agrees with me. So I dont need to prove anything its already happened last week.

Anyway I havent heard any Gore plans have you??

Anonymous said...

"anti-Lieberman" is pro-Democrat"

Well then 33% of Democrat party in CT is anti-democrat. Can that be right? I think you are Joking so Hahahaha

ctblogger said...


Avoiding the facts is what you're doing. This was never about who voted for Lieberman, this about debunking your nonsense you tried to pull with your "facts." Trust me, your sight of hand in changing the topic doesn't fool me.

33% of Dems weren't anti-Dem, they just foolish in supporting a guy who stated constantly that he would keep his word and caucus with the Dems only to change his tune FIVE days after the election. Those 33% of Dems are the same DLC types who love dolts like James Amann and are probably your DLC types that keep us from having a Democratic governor.

The 66% percent of Dems who voted for Lamont are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party in Connecticut and I'm proud to be on that team even if Lamont lost.

You're like the freshman on the first day of school thinking he can play on the varsity team. Uninformed, outmatched, and green as grass. Just another member of the keyboard brigade who thinks he can tangle with bloggers who ACTUALLY were on the front lines covering this election from every angle.

Just because you picked from the tree of knowledge doesn't mean your any brighter.

Anonymous said...


I am not certain that Joe gets to paint his own wagon. We have an I party in CT and a D party, and he ran on the CFL party. Our state statutes require that parties not make use of either the words in the major party names, or the words in previously registered third party names, which would appear to rule out both of these names. The next question is, how does the CT statute relate to the name used in the Senate? Does the Senate take its cue from the party affiliation of the elected official, or does the Senate allow senators to pick misleading, confusing nicknames?

Per MLN, a call has been placed to the Rules Committee's Chief Counsel to pose this question, after the Secretary of the Senate started referring people to Joe's office to find out how he'd like to be designated.

I/D acts to confuse the voters -- I would be surprised if the Senate allowed senators to pick their nickname in the Senate (why not just use BigStud?), and confusion was a significant measure why Lieberman garnered both D, I and R votes in the election.

This is not a Dem issue or a Joe issue - it is an umpire and rules of the game issue.

The Independent Party has also been contacted in the event that they might like to try to push for clarity about the fact that Joe is not a member of their party.

The MLN site will likely have updates on any callbacks from the Senate on this issue, but I for one am not holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Adam, I agree with CTblogger's description of the 33% who voted for Lieberman. Most of them were the ones who did not have the facts that CTblogger laid out because they didn't want to know Joe wasn’t all he pretended to be. There's a quote that I'm going to paraphrase that I think represents the 33% Dems who voted for Joe: "To not to know is bad; to not to want to know is worst; but to not to care is unforgivable." I think most of them feel in the middle of this quote and they were willing to believe Joe's "bi-partisanship" crap. Joe's problem is he’s more in love with power and his self-importance and none have anything to do with serving his constituents. On the contrary, the 33% constituents ended up serving him by making sure he didn’t lose any of his entitlements!

CT Bob said...

anonymous, I removed your duplicate comments that you said were posted in error. The final one is the one I left up.

Anonymous said...

"bloggers who ACTUALLY were on the front lines covering this election from every angle"

you cant be serious. I been on this blog almost everyday for the past 3 or 4 months and I have only seen one angle.

"The 66% percent of Dems who voted for Lamont are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party"

Who the hell are you to say they are heart of the Party. I see it as 33% were smart enough to realize when they are being brainwashed.

Look I'm not a "freshman" or "Green" I just know that Iraq war clouded your vision and a person who was not qualified won a senate primary. The people of CT saw that Democrats made a mistake and simply fixed it.

Didnt Lamont only win the primary by 51% or 52% so only half of the "Heart and Sole" of the party didnt even want him.

I try to be sympathize with you people but I think I've just realized that Liberals are becoming much worse then Conservatives. I can’t believe I just said that buts it's true and the rest of the mainstream is starting to feel that way. Better take a real good look at yourselves and how you look to us to rest of us. It aint pretty but sad, very sad

Anonymous said...

Did he change his New Haven affiliation?>

If not, it's time for a little Maoist purge to get some purity back to the voter roles. This - almost by statute - requires his removal from the (D) party, and his automatic banishment for the specified period of time. Our own little cultural revolution.

Anonymous said...

You guys should recall Lie-berman. I would donate money to those efforts. As a Californian, I can tell you, it will at the very least make his life very difficult. Plus, it is very difficult to calculate the dynamics in such a case. You have nothing to lose and the country has much to gain.

Anonymous said...

This latest Lieberman outrage is a THREAT. Lieberman is threatening the democratic senators - be nice to me or I'll go republican on you! Lieberman is a loose cannon, who WANTS to be in the cat-bird seat. Read some of the other national blogs, Lieberman has made Connecticut a laughing stock. Instead of voicing our anger at this pos, we should be organizing a Connecticut Against Lieberman group. Keep that jerk in line.

I'm tired of Lieberman's THREATS.

CaptCT said...

@ adam and other Joe supporters...below are some facts about Joe's record. If you don't mind, please take a look and then explain to me why this is the man you want representing us in Washington:

1. IRAQ WAR -- Joe gave us no truth on how bad the war was really going, no demand for a strategy, no oversight on government contracts, and there's still no sign of Osama bin Laden.
2. KATRINA -- Lieberman approved the appointment of Michael Brown as deputy director of FEMA; helped neuter FEMA by folding it into the Dept. of Homeland Security.
3. $8 TRILLION in National Debt -- Joe approved various pork-ridden bills, including the one that paid for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. 
4. TORTURE BILL -- Joe voted in favor of bill that lets the President, George W. Bush, define torture and that obliterates the right of habeus corpus.
5. TERRY SCHIAVO -- Joe supported the government's intervention in the very personal decision of a man who wanted to remove his wife from life support after seven agonizing years. 
6. Bush-Cheney ENERGY BILL -- Joe voted in favor of a bill that gives billions of dollars of tax breaks to the oil industry, almost nothing for energy independence, and opens Long Island Sound to development by the gas industry.
7. 66 CENTS on the DOLLAR -- that's the amount that CT residents get for each dollar they send to Washington, the second-worst return in the nation. The number has dropped steadily since 1990, when it was 80 cents on the dollar.  
8. ZERO NET JOB GROWTH -- in CT for the past 15 years, including a loss of half of our defense and manufacturing jobs. For each manufacturing or defense job Lieberman has claimed to have saved, we have lost about two others.
9. JACK MURTHA -- when war veteran Jack Murtha demanded that we re-think our strategy in Iraq, Joe Lieberman branded him as unpatriotic by saying: "In times of war, we undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." Murtha, it turns out, was right.
10. LOBBYISTS -- At the expense of consumers everywhere, Lieberman has supported bills that helped the banking industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and the real estate industry, some of the biggest contributors to his campaign.

I didn't even mention all the missed votes, running as Senator and V.P. at the same time, telling rape victims to take a cab for a morning after pill, the way he throws stones at both political parties while doing almost nothing to make things better for Americans.

Do you agree with his positions on Iraq, Energy, Campaign Finance reform, etc. and with his votes and statements outlined above?

Or do you like Joe because he comes across as "independent" by making statements that rile Democrats? Or because you see him being interviewed on TV and radio shows? Or because he looks and sounds confident and "should" know what he's doing after 18 years in office regardless of how he actually votes?

Anonymous said...

IRAQ WAR- Joe wants the troops home but not at the sacrifice of our country's safety...I and many others agree
$8 TRILLION- Not just Joe... "Bridge to Nowhere was supported by many senators...your point??
TORTURE BILL- I don’t like this bill but I understand why it exists (I think torture is sometimes necessary but congress should turn their heads)
TERRY SCHIAVO- None of my business dont care.. Media frenzy
Bush-Cheney ENERGY BILL- this is the one issue I dont agree with
ZERO NET JOB GROWTH- Yep Joe is soley responsible for our economy.. Sorry I forgot
JACK MURTHA- "In times of war, we undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." I dont know how this is branding him as unpatriotic but its a very true statement
LOBBYISTS- Lobbyists have always been a problem in both parties. To single Joe out is stupid. Trust me Lamont would have worked with them too.

Bottom line is that I would never agree with any politician on all the issues, just wont happen. But I’ll tell you this Ned Lamont would be impotent as a senator. He have been would be young, stupid and a lackey for the Democratic party while Joe could accomplish much, much more for CT in the Country then Neddy could ever do.

See unlike you the Iraq war was like my 4th or 5th most important issue so I didn’t fall for Lamont’s single issue campaign. I’m sorry I’m just too smart.

CaptCT said...

Adam, you say Joe "wants the troops home"? What makes you think that? Is it because you heard him say it on TV? What actions has he taken to bring home the troops?

You add that the troops shouldn't come home " at the sacrifice of our country's safety"? How is our country safer with our military getting picked off one by one in Iraq? Based on this reply, I'm going to assume that you agree with Joe that the troops should stay in Iraq.

Bottom line:
1. Iraq: You agree with Joe that our troops should stay.
2. Katrina: silence.
3. National Debt: Not sure where you stand. My point is Joe could've voted no, and he didn't. You're OK with that, I assume.
4. Torture bill: You disagree with Joe.
5. Terry Schiavo: unimportant
6. Energy Bill: You disagree with Joe.
7. 66 Cents on the dollar: silence
8. Zero Job Growth: not Joe's fault; he has no impact on jobs. Did it occur to you that Ned Lamont, as a businessman, has created more jobs in the state than Lieberman has in 18 years? Jobs make a state viable. The revenue generated from businesses and working people pay for roads, schools, everything. Wouldn't you want a Senator who could work toward making CT more attractive for job growth?
9. Murtha: You agree with Joe that our nation was put in greater "peril" because of Murtha's statement. So you must also agree that in 2004, when Joe was asking for Rumsfeld's resignation, Joe also was putting our nation in peril.
10. Lobbyists: Joe is as bad/good as all the others. No. Joe could have voted to protect consumers instead of stiffing them, but he didn't. Wouldn't you want someone in office who looked out for your rights when it came to bankruptcy laws, buying and selling real estate, or getting health insurance? ... Also, Ned Lamont refused to take lobbyist money during his campaign, and he made it a goal of his to minimize their influence in Congress.

It seems like you agree with Joe on a few points, disagree on a couple, and make excuses for him on the others.

It's obvious that Ned Lamont didn't get his message across to you that he could serve CT better than Joe could. That's a fair point, and that's probably why Ned lost.

But in terms of Ned's potential as a Senator, Ned Lamont would have had as much power as Barack Obama did his first year, and more importantly, he would have the power to cast his single vote in favor of bills that would get us towards energy independence, reduce global warming, improve trade imbalances, etc.

You have to judge Lieberman by his actions, not his words. And the fact is Joe hasn't helped to make us safer or less dependent on oil, hasn't helped make health care more affordable, hasn't worked to improve our trade imbalance. In fact, his votes have made these problems worse. Those are just the facts.

In my opinion, Joe is like Superman's arch rival Lex Luthor, a diabolical genius who, if he used his power wisely and justly, could be a hero to mankind. But he doesn't. It's a shame.