...

another dumb anti-Obama diary.

If you like Lieberman now you'll love him even more when he's campaigning for McCain this fall.  He only stays in the Democratic caucus to keep his committee chairmanships.

You don't see Ben Nelson campaigning for McCain.  Lieberman is no Democrat.

Reading the recent diary by MBNYC on how Hillary will ,nuke` Iran, I came to this realization:  these people aren't really democrats, nor are they progressives.  After all, what is so progressive about allowing nuclear proliferation?

Sweet. Callouts are bannable here, I seem to recall.

Going to the substance of what you say, it's worth noting that my diary actually argues for active counter-proliferation. If you'd, like, read that, instead of engaging in the Cult of Hillary Vilification Dance, you'd probably know that.

As to really being Progressive, please. You're writing a diary extolling Lieberman. It's not a particularly good diary, but the effort speaks volumes.

It would seem that it would be easier for anyone wanting Joe back to go to him: join the Republican party where the Necons presently reside.

It is true that on many important issues Lieberman is a solid Democrat and on some issues he is a true progressive.  You identify Iraq as the only issue on which you and he disagree.  I would think that issue alone is sufficient to put into question his judgment, it being the most transcendentally important issue of the day, and the one that will frustrate the realization of every core item on the progressive agenda.  Let me flesh out some others.

In any case, your concerns about Sen. Obama and his supporters, including the ridiculous fascist charge, is a thin basis for launching a pro-Lieberman screed, particularly in that his point about forces 'tearing the party apart' is entirely unrelated to those you point to in the Obama case.

1.  He is not just for the Iraq war, he is for it on a long term basis, embracing McCain's 100 years doctrine in so many words.  This includes endorsing the preemptive war doctrine that is a recipe terminal conflict.  He is out on the campaign trail stumping for McCain for goodness sake and he will continue to stump for McCain even if Sen. Clinton is the nominee.  Are you joining Lieberman in effectively abandoning her too?

2.  He appears to be on board with President Bush's constitution-eroding power grabs across the spectrum of activities: spying via phones, email, etc.; Patriot [sic] Act; assertions of extreme executive power; an apologist most of the Gitmo, rendition, and torture activities.

Let me stop right there and sum up.  On the two most important issues of the day (the war and executive abuse of power) he is squarely in the camp no progressive could or should ever support.  To me, these issues are sufficient to outweigh his other progressive bona fides, even while acknowledging there are some.  Elsewhere you decried the sometimes destructive impulses and demands of the "far leftists".  What about extreme hawks?  Do they get a pass?  Your appeal to the Cold War liberal tradition of Acheson, Kennan, Scoop Jackson, etc. is an appeal to spreading war in the name of spreading democracy.  That's the myth that was used, in part, to sell an unjust agenda of US global dominance.  I won't argue with you on this issue but I will suggest it is not possible to have a reasonable debate about the basic contours of US post-war policy unless you have read or are familiar with the declassified internal planning documents which could not be more effective in disabusing one of this City on the Hill myth.  Among the most important planners of this tradition was George Kennan (arguably the most important exemplar of the tradition you applaud) and he penned many of the most important long-range national security planning documents, including the Policy Planning Staff 23 memo (28 Feb 1948):

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
...
In the face of this situation [long and violent struggles in Far East Asia including the embrace of the Soviet Union by China and India] we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and--for the Far East--unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

For this and many other comparable documents: Etzold and Lewis Gaddis, Containment: Documents on American policy and strategy 1945-1950, (New York Columbia U Press, 1978) or just pull out random years of the FRUS series.

3.  He is an extreme saber-rattler on Iran, fanning the flames of the next war by helping to undermine diplomatic alternatives.  This is no mere difference of opinion: this is laying the foundation for war, in more or less exactly the manner that lead us into the current war you say you oppose.  And I note that all the recent intelligence suggests that Iran is not on the cusp of realizing a nuclear weapon, not to mention that a policy of military response to the prospect of nuclear proliferation will fail, but not until leaving a flood of blood in its wake.  For instance, perceptive analysts argued that Gulf War I provided a major stimulus to accelerate the pursuit of nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, and North Korea.  I have no doubt that the nations of the world are drawing the same lesson from this more recent war in Mesopotamia, Libya notwithstanding.

4.  He is a military pork specialist voting for almost any and every unnecessary weapons system, particularly those connected to the ship complexes in his state.  New nukes?  Yep.  Weapons in space? Yep.  Useless weapons systems?  Yep.

5.  He supports the extreme Israeli agenda, making his contributions (real but relatively minor as one person) to sustaining the current course in Israel/Palestine that is a) profoundly immoral; and b) augurs the eventual destruction of the State of Israel after much bloodshed and pain.  Peace is necessary for the survival of Israel.  The Israeli state will not survive long term on permanent war footing.  It will destroy the democratic fabric of the nation and they will eventually lose a catastrophic war.

6.  He does not merely disagree with majority opinion within the party.   He actively gives weight and credibility to the charges of GOPers and helps them undermine the entire party, thus helping overall to advance the extreme GOPer agenda across the full range of important issues even as he votes correctly on most of them.  Let me reiterate that he does vote correctly on most issues and in his role as a Senator has been for the most part exemplary on discipline issues outside those described above.

I'll close by noting that we can have all the benefits of Lieberman's record without any of the downsides.  I had my issues with Lamont, but there are others perhaps who will be even better than Lieberman.  Are we to refuse to see that merely because he and you brandish the 'destructive force' canard?

I also disagree with Joe on Iraq, btu I respect him and the old Sam Nunn wing of the party. I am a moderate on the 2nd Amendment, and fiscal issues.

I supported the old John Edwards, and was bummed that he veered to the left . . . but I stuck with him.

You neglected to mention that he is campaigning for the 'effing Republican nominee!  

That is reason enough to cross him off my prom card.

Real progressives support Joe "Short Bus Ride Bomb Tehran Vote McCain Katrina Was No Big Deal" Lieberman.

Lieberman in the past two years has voted for torture and warrentless spying on U.S. citizens, without any semblance of a check on Executive authority.

That's a true progressive according certain Clinton supporters.

You want an idiot who has  been the biggest cheerleader of the worst war in American history? A war that has helped further bankrupt the coffers of the treasury and will continue to do so with the long term damage to the soldiers that are still alive but injured? All, for what???

How exactly did the Iraq war help curtail terrorism?

And didn't Lieberman bash his own party over the Iraq war even before Lamont got into the fray? And yet, Lieberman has the audacity to say he was attacked by his own party over one issue when he has done the same many times?

Whatever. I'm just tired.

Tired of those that expect to be paid homage and demand burnt sacrifices on the alters of their egos before they'd even consider uniting to support the democratic nominee.

Tired of the mass clinging to propped-up fantasies about their own candidate's record, while pandering to willful, hateful distortion of that of the other.

Tired of the faux outrage at perceived slights from the opposing side, while blissfully in denial over the rivers of bile sourced out of their own camp.

Tired of petty, childish, small-minded tantrums from adults who, after being assaulted, pillaged, and looted by their own government for the past 8 years should darn well know better.

A people get a government they deserve. This, you will all most assuredly get.

I dont want lieberman -

Endorsing McCain?

Well, I'm not allowed to say who I'll vote for if Obama wins (i wont vote for obama) as its against the rules of this blog.