Quote:
Originally Posted by Cizungu
The Democrats are only responding to the extremely partisan Republican party, which abandoned long ago any attempts at being "reasonable"and "middle of the road."
I used to consider myself a moderate Republican, but the party has radicalized itself so much over the past decade that I must now call myself a liberal.
Lieberman was not a "middle of the road" Democrat. Such a Democrat would be a man of compromise. Compromise occurs when the two parties make concessions to reach a midpoint, where everyone, or almost everyone, agrees.
Lieberman never sought to obtain concessions from the Republican party; he went fully overboard, and adopted almost all of their positions. Therefore, it's perfectly understandable that his voters, who are, after all, Democrats, wish to get rid of him. He is now but a shill.
|
The dissatisfaction of his constituents stems from his stance on the war. On most other issues he is solidly with the Democrats. If the only people who are moderates are the ones who reach a consensus after compromises, then there are not many moderates of either party.
He votes with the Democrats on abortion, energy, environment, family & children issues, taxes, and health care. He votes the same as many democrats on the immigration issue and is rated a 100% by teh AFL-CIO for his support of unions. I don't see how people can say that he has adopted the same stance as the Republicans on most issues. If you take out his stances on foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror, he is solidly democrat. It is a valid issue for voters and if they want to take him to task on that issue, that is one thing, but to claim that he has crossed over is not looking at all of the issues.
Does being in one party or another mean you have to vote with your party on all issues? If it does, then there is no reason to ever vote for the man/woman, just vote for the party.
www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm