He is not a Democrat. He was kicked out of the party. The Democrats should be gateful that he caucuses with them.

He wasn't kicked out of the party, asshole. He lost the primary and decided to run anyway, as an independent/republican/small-d­-democrat hybrid. And why should he become a republican? As a rat, he knows a sinking ship when he sees one.

oxboggle:

He wasn't kicked out of the party, asshole. He lost the primary and decided to run anyway, as an independent/republican/small-d­-democrat hybrid. And why should he become a republican? As a rat, he knows a sinking ship when he sees one.

<link>

Seems to me that his record indicates he is a pretty liberal democrat by his voting record. His comment for being against the public option was purely fiscal. It costs way to much . period.

<link>

That's what annoys me about Liebermann's mentality. He has no problem spending billions on wars, but needs to draw the line at paying for health care for people who need it.

ckone wrote: "His comment for being against the public option was purely fiscal. It costs way to much . period."

But as the article points out: "But the Congressional Budget Office has said the stronger versions of the public plan actually save money, which means Lieberman doesn't have much of a case."

Public option: Works better, costs less.

You have to be kidding! The Democrats cut him loose and assumed the voters would follow. I guess the joke is on the DNC.

The voters were the ones who cut him loose, asshole. He LOST THE PRIMARY. I'M WRITING THIS IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN READ IT. HE LOST THE PRIMARY. HE WANTED THE DNC TO VOID THE PRIMARY AND LET HIM RUN AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ANYWAY. AT LEAST SPECTER WALKED AWAY FROM HIS PARTY CLEAN AND STRAIGHT, WHEN THE RNC CONSPIRED TO SHAFT HIM. AND WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

Too bad your rant does not have at least a hint of honesty in it. Who won the election? Apparently the PARTY was wrong?

I am being lectured about honesty by a drooling nutbag. Heavens, what would mother say?

SteveH:

ckone wrote: "His comment for being against the public option was purely fiscal. It costs way to much . period."

But as the article points out: "But the Congressional Budget Office has said the stronger versions of the public plan actually save money, which means Lieberman doesn't have much of a case."

Public option: Works better, costs less.

You are joking, aren't you? The reason the plan will "save" money is that it raises taxes NOW, and presumes Congress will make deep spending cuts LATER. Now every year congress is supposed to cut doctors' payments, and every year NOW they add a one-year extension so that in reality they haven't made any cuts -- that's "now".

What makes you think that congress will deeply cut doctors' and hospitals' reimbursement a few years from now when they never have yet?

Answer is: they won't. The "savings" are a lie.

WOW! You got me there.