It wasn’t enough that Joe Lieberman has betrayed his party again and again and again, but now he’s decided that speaking out against the war isn’t acceptable. Joe Lieberman has decided to disgrace the country
Lieberman, whom the Bush administration has praised repeatedly for his war stance, defended the president. “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years,” the senator said. “We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”
What is wrong with this person? Its one thing to be George W. Bush’s sock puppet while angling for a cabinet job, but Lieberman has now aligned himself with the facistic elements of the right. Lieberman, who couldn’t get the support of his own party in a single primary or caucus, is advocating the most anti-democratic idea out there: shutting up. Maybe he should take his own advice.
UPDATE: Hello Post readers. More commentary here, including this further bit on Joe Leiberman…
When the point of the dissent is that “dissent is unpatriotic”…
Where to begin the circular reasoning?
“betraying his party” .. so much for “dissent is patriotic”.
Dissent is patriotic, but political stupidity is asinine.
I can’t wait to see Joe out there stumping for republicans at their national convention in 2008 with Zell Miller.
This guy is a mole for the Republican party. I wish he’d just join the party he actually shares political beliefs with because it sure as hell isn’t the Democrats.
Actually, I agree with Joe. Democrats *should* leave the job of undermining the President’s credibililty to George Bush. He’s doing a better job of it than we ever could.
TomY,
*snort* That’s a good one!
JWG,
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No. He should switch parties. Yesterday.
LIEBERMAN BLOWS
Lefty Leonardo di Luna s more lefty sister Louise lamented the loss of Joe Mentum. Lieberman says he wants a war cabinet for Bush. They must have all the little wars stored away, ready to be pulled out. Then she
Lieberman has a 75 rating from the ADA. Only Ben Nelson has a lower rating at 65. For some reason Kerry has only a 25, which must be some kind of mistake, or have something to do with Kerry missing a ton votes while campaigning.
ADA
For the years 2002 & 2003 Lieberman had the same rating as Harry Reid. Yet I don’t recall any cries of “traitor” about Reid. Obviously, the facts tell a different story than mr.curmudgeon’s fantasies.
One might add that the 2004 rating gives Murtha a 50 compared to Lieberman’s 75. Is Murtha a Liberal traitor? I guess not as long as he sees Iraq as a failure. Let’s not worry about the other liberal issues, right mr.curmudgeon?
Obama Sez Those Calling For Withdrawal Are Doing it For Political Gain
Obama Sez Those Calling For Withdrawal Are Doing it For Political Gain
…
How exactly did Senator Lieberman “disgrace the country” ?
Dissent is patriotic to Oliver provided that it is dissent that he agrees with.
In this case, Sen. Lieberman is dissenting from his party’s virtual lock step party line, and it is no longer patriotic.
Right .. the next thing you know Oliver will call the Senator racist.
Here is some more info on Lieberman on various issues, all from Project Vote Smart:
NRA gives him an F
NARAL gives him an A
National Taxpayers’ Union (Norquist’s right-wing outfit) gives him a 15 out of 100
Small Business/Entrepreneur Association gives him a 20 - which is a little high for a Dem, but nothing like, say Alabama’s Democratic Congressman Bud Cramer who gets an 87.
National Association of Manufacturers gives him a 28, about the same as Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow.
The ACLU gives him an 83 for the 2003-2004 session, which is much higher than the ACLU’s 40 rating for him in 2001-02, and 57 in 2000. Lieberman actually got a higher ACLU grade in 03-04 than Chris Dodd.
Human Rights Campaign (gay rights) gives Lieberman an 88, also higher than Dodd.
For 2004: Family Research Council gives Lieberman a 0.
Christian Coalition gives Lieberman a 0.
American Conservative Union gives Lieberman a 0.
League of Conservation Voters only gives him a 56, much less than Dodd. Other environmental organizations also rate him in the middle of the pack.
Peace Action gives Lieberman a 38, much less than Dodd. Lower than Ben Nelson, in fact. Jack Murtha gets a 20, by the way.
AFL-CIO gives Lieberman an 83, and UAW gives him a 92.
Center for Security Policy (”strong defense”) gives him an 80 - very high for a Democrat. And right in the mid-range of most Republicans.
So what’s the verdict on Lieberman? A liberal hawk. On every social issue Lieberman votes reliably liberal. On economic matters he is also reliably liberal (with the exception of the environment, where he is in the middle). Only on defense/national security matters does Lieberman come out as conservative. Take away defense issues, Joe Lieberman is a solidly liberal Democrat.
JWG,
That’s my point. I’m a liberal Democrat, and I get annoyed at the way Lieberman openly attacks his party in hostile quarters - like Fox News. The audience for his attacks are not reform-minded Democrats looking for an alternative voice to Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, etc. They are Republicans looking for ammunition against Democrats. They can say, “See, even a Democrat says XYZ…” Republicans make the same charge against McCain - he goes to the NY Times editorial page and pens a lengthy critique of the Bush Administration. The audience is Democrats looking for a Republican to attack his own party, not so the Republican Party can “reform”, but so it can appear divided and lose. Yet, in the end, Lieberman is a reliably liberal Democrat and McCain is a reliably conservative Republican. Their “independence” is mostly a media creation, with a few policy exceptions thrown in. As a liberal Democrat, I’d still take Lieberman, even if his media strategy is annoying.
Somebody once said that when choosing sides in a fight, history has shown that the good actors have always been on the side of Israel.
This is not really about National Security, or terrorism, or oil, or democracy for Lieberman. It’s all about Israel. That’s where it starts and that’s where it ends for Joementum. He just won’t say it publicly.
Reid, Kerry, etc. do not attack their party and the idea of disagreeing with the President.
Ahhh…in other words, You Must Always Demonstrate Loyalty To [insert particular group here]
Got it.
What Lieberman is saying is questionable– not because of party politics– but because the Congress (both sections) is supposed to serve as a check and a balance to the White House.
More basically, though, Lieberman’s logic is full of shit. The “president’s credibility” is not the responsibility of the Congress, the Judiciary, or even Michael Moore. The president is responsible for upholding his own credibility through his own actions, and it is up to the other branches of the Fed, and up to the voters, to decide what to do in response to those actions (voting his congressional allies out in 2006, impeachment, Lieberman-style sycophancy, etc.).
As far as Lieberman’s ‘loyalty’ to his party is concerned, well, that all depends on what (if anything) you think the Democratic Party stands for. Furthermore, Lieberman is a U.S. citizen and can say whatever the hell he wants; it’s up to Connecticut’s Democratic voters to decide if they want to keep a right-wing ass-kisser in office, or if they’re going to pick a more progressive senator at the next opportunity.
I found this to be laughable:
Somebody once said that when choosing sides in a fight, history has shown that the good actors have always been on the side of Israel.
Who said that? Ariel Sharon, or Jackie Mason?
I’ll bet it wasn’t the crew of the U.S.S. Liberty.
Do you leave no room whatsoever to consider Joe may actually believe the things he is saying? And is therefore putting his principles above party politics? Most sane people, who are not political junkies, or who unlike you don’t buy into this stupid party loyalty thing (that goes for lock-step R’s as well) would find this display of integrity quite refreshing. And lets not forget that Lieberman does not answer to Dean, or Kerry, or the members of the peanut gallery such as yourself and the media matters and aswer types, he answers to the people of CT. If they don’t like his stance, let them take care of it.
I think Lieberman thinks for himself. I just think he’s wrong.
[...] ng on winning the next election here in America rather than winning the war in Iraq. (via Oliver Willis)
Related Posts:
Lieberman Gets It RightLieberman To Repl [...]
That, elrod, I can respect. Oliver is impugning his integrity, not simply disagreeing with him.
Nawoods,
What drives Dems nuts about Lieberman is not his stance on the Iraq war, but his penchant for criticizing the Democratic Party in hostile quarters. When he goes on Fox News to criticize the Dems, his audience doesn’t think to themselves, “Oh, here is a Dem I’d vote for, or I wish the Dems would listen to this guy.” Instead, the audience thinks, “Look how bad the Dems are that even one of their own is calling them out. I hope a Republican uses Lieberman’s words against other Dems.” It’s much like Americans who criticize America while abroad. The audience abroad does not include those who want to make America better, but those who truly dislike America and wish it ill. Republicans accuse McCain of the same thing in reverse, by the way. It’s this aspect of Lieberman that bothers Democrats more than his particular support for the Iraq war.
I understand that argument as well, elrod, I just reject it as part and parcel to much of what is wrong with “politics” in general. The message, especially about something as important as the war, should not be tailored to suit the particular audience, in an effort to insure that “our side” wins the political battle. Rather, our leaders should speak their minds, and do what they think is right and best by the country. I haven’t a clue what Lieberman is actually up to. I would like to believe, however, that he is acting with integrity in this instance, regardless of whether I agree with his message or not.
Nawoods is right. The politics of personal destruction rears it’s ugly head.
More targets for OW -
“Dean’s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,” said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)
Damn Repug lapdog…
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi’s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
C’mon OW better get busy impugning the character of these fellows too. Party line…zeig heil!
I found this to be laughable:
Somebody once said that when choosing sides in a fight, history has shown that the good actors have always been on the side of Israel.
Alex - care to explain what is so laughable about that?
Looks like Pelosi “is advocating the most anti-democratic idea out there: shutting up” -
“The Washington Post reported today: “Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today’s meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.”
Pelosi is a trader to the party!
Looks like the patron saint of Democratic Imperialism, Senator Scoop Jackson is smiling down on ole’ Joementum. Lieberman’s unprincipled flacking for Bush’s imperial crusade is unbecoming a man nominated by his party for Vice President and a betrayal to Al Gore. Gore eloquently stated last year:
“There was then, there is now, and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation — because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution, or nation who disagrees with him.
He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet’s nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.”
Joe Lieberman has been with the esteemed one, the Imperial Dunce, every step of the way. This war is a lie, a sham, a farce, and a damn travesty. We have debased our constitutional form of government and subverted the principles that underlie our freedom. We have never done a thing like this to rescue colored people anywhere or anytime from the clutches of evil and oppression. We do this for one reason only, and that is to secure our continued economic, political and military hegemony over the world by securing dominion over the second largest oil reserves on the planet.