About Lieberman’s voting: it is true that by the scorecards of interest groups his voting record is reasonably progressive. However, it is easy to suspect he is gaming the system with his refusal to support progressive bills at key junctures but then providing his vote at the final vote where the scorecards are tallied. This behavior occured in the Alito confirmations where he opposed filibuster and the bankruptcy bill where he voted for cloture- the only opportunity to stop the bill. In the end though his vote was tallied as ‘progressive’.

More than that his parading on Fox News as a ‘reasonable Democrat’ has earned him the enmity of the left.

If it turns out that Lamont is more conservative than Lieberman it would be an ironic twist. But I wouldn’t count on it.

Also, despite his other conservative stances, he does vote more often with the Democrats, it is just not as widely publicized or debated. I read somewhere that a liberal group gave him a better than eighty percent ranking in voting for liberal issues.

By the same token, according to Lanny Davis, LaMont has openly bragged about voting with the conservative Republicans in his state eighty percent of the time. Davis was talking about this on C-Span with the editor of The Nation, a woman named Van DenHeuval (?), who supports LaMont. He mentioned this several times but she never responded to the charge.

Focusing on the war ignores that Lieberman supported the GOP in the decision to interfere with Terri Schiavo’s life; access to emergency contraception; the awful bankruptcy bill; the Alito confirmations and a handful of other important issues. The real sin however, is that in any decision he makes that departs from the party line he uses for an opportunity for self-aggrandizement over the party. This is self-destructive behavior. If you belive in the agenda of a party enough to call yourself a member you should not be constantly questioning the principles of the party. If Lieberman doesn’t like the Democratic Party he is free to leave.

Not even Malkin specifically explains why this is offensive. I understand why Michael Steele would take offense at the characterization of him in blackface but what does it mean for a white person? And Clinton?

You’ll have to spell it out. (and it’s a cop out just to say that if the GOP did it that the NAACP would protest.)

Kinda’ like Sen Arlen Specter working as a Democrat opperative in the Republican party.

Joe Lieberman: honorary Republican.

(Probably not what his campaign is looking for as they worry about being trounced in a Democratic primary)