« Not So Extraordinary After All | Main | New Orleans: You're On Your Own »

December 05, 2005

Comments

You're welcome to him. Iirc, he voted for the bankruptcy bill, the Graham amendment, and all sorts of awful things, and his recent op-ed on Iraq was, to me, nearly delusional.

Altough there is this in his favor: he votes for Harry Reid for majority leader.

Although. Although. I cn spl.

I echo hilzoy's sentiments. You want Joe? You're welcome to him. His only redeeming quality is the (D) next to his name. Otherwise, he's a reliable vote for nearly everything which is anathema to me.

I should also note that a hypothetical matchup between Lieberman and McCain is one of the few things that could cause me to vote for a Republican president at this point. I suspect that pace your churlish slur, this attitude towards Lieberman is in no way confined to the "crazies" of the left, but is actually a quite mainstream displeasure.

I thought Lieberman was still in the bulk of votes a liberal senator, but one who on some high-profile signature issues supports Bush vocally. Is that wrong?

You're not entirely wrong, rilkefan, but in my view the issues on which he sides with Bush Republicanism are deal-breakers for me. He does vote liberally on a variety of small-potatoes issues, but that does not and can not make up for his staunch support of some of the most heinous stances of the Bush administration.

Worse still, he provides Republican pundits with a convenient token Democrat they can use to (dishonestly) provide the illusion that even a mainstream, respected Democrat supports ____ or thinks ____.

Holy Joe's a liability whose sole redeeming value is as a vote for a (D) Majority Leader.

Yes, Rilkefan. He contributes to establishing the boundaries of a media/government-acceptable discourse in which serious questions are not asked and serious challenges not raised. His vocal support of bad policy is regularly used as a rhetorical hammer against Democrats acting in genuine opposition, or simply failing to toe the line as much as he does. If he kept silent and voted as he does, he'd be an asset. But he's gone beyond "useful idiot" and well into the realm of "deliberate aider and abetter" when it comes to the Bush administration's lunacy.

The Democratic Party would have an easier time establishing a sane and productive identity without his constant, visible, highly useful stances in support of Bush.

That’s odd…the same folks who brought us Bush in Iraq want us to listen to their wisdom concerning Joe in Iraq.

Just let go and let God.

If Lieberman was the Democratic candidate in 2004, I'd venture to guess that he would have won. Basicly, all he would have had to do was to take away one state that Bush won. In the Presidential elections, the candidates really do have to play to the center. The primary system, in my opinion, is flawed.

von, you should hope for centrists in the Democrat party, for the good of the country. I'd say McCain, Giuliani and Rice are pretty liberal Republicans and are odds on favorites, even though they aren't exactly on that party's wish-list.

I feel bad for Tom Daschle, a Bob Dole type make-deals kind of guy, everything is so polarized.

DaveC: McCain, while a decent guy, is by no stretch of the imagination liberal. Last time I checked, he supported the gold standard, for heavens sake. And Rice's credibility will be entirely gone by the time she is done with this crew. Guiliani ... ugh, but more on performance than ideological grounds.

McCain, while a decent guy, is by no stretch of the imagination liberal.

Yeah, Lieberman is almost the anti-McCain. Holy Joe votes with the party most of the time, except for a few notable exceptions. Yet is the first one to get up and yell "j'accuse" against his own party.

McCain, on the other hand, usually votes with the party and will stand up for any GOPer (or at least refrain from badmouthing them - e.g. Tom DeLay) except he is a maverick because he thinks we shouldn't be torturing people. Ohhh, what a bold stand for morality.

DaveC: Even if the election of 2004 had been conducted in a verifiably honest way, which it wasn't, why on earth would people have voted for a Republican-toadying Democrat rather than the real thing? Particularly after the Republican attack machine got through with him. Goodness only knows what charges they'd have invented, but given what they've done to former allies in their own party as well as to other Democratic challenges, it's safe to assume that it would have been vicious, cruel, unfounded, and unchallenged in the mass media until too late.

In any event, Lieberman would not have been the candidate for a sane foreign policy.

How is Lieberman qualified for Secretary of Defense? Whatever else Rumsfeld might be, he is a manager and something of a wonk. Cohen, tho a Republican, was also wonkish. Lieberman might be imaginable for State or Treasury or Commerce, but what does he bring to defense?

Oh well. Don't bother to name other barely-qualified Secretaries, I know of them. But it still foesn't sit well.

Take the bastard so we can get a real Dem who doesn't spend half his time backstabbing his own party into office.

Von, DaveC, we really don't need the advice of Republicans. As for Lieberman, his biggest sin is that he's always been ready to betray his party, to give 'bipartisan' cover for the GOP's actions.

I'd rather have McCain for SecDef, and the chances are about as good for that happening as Lieberman's. This is talking-head silly talk.

I'll join the chorus--you can have him. Since the Senator already insists on pissing inside the tent, I think I prefer Lieberman the moderate Republican to Lieberman the immoderate Democrat. (I'm a big fan of truth in advertising.) Pace DaveC, Holy Joe's moderating influence on his fellow Republicans would be service to his country.

DaveC:

"I'd say McCain, Guiliani, and Rice are pretty liberal Republicans..."

AND

"everything is so polarized."

No fair using two different languages in the same post. And talk into my good ear, because I didn't quite catch that.

This is why I'm in favor of total global warming. The poles melt and then we can slosh around up to our hips in bi-partisanship.

;)

Charles! I am pleased to agree with you 100% for a change.

The crazies in the Democratic party don't appreciate you.

I appreciate that there are plenty of Republicans around here to the left of Bush' favorite Dem Senator, that's for sure.

It's fine for Joe to be as conservative as he is...it's just not fine for him to pretend he's a good Democrat by being so.

Someone has to fight for those of us to his left...he won't do it.

Yeah, you guys can have Lieberman. Let me know when you plan to tell Rumsfeld he's fired though, I'd like to be in a shelter somewhere.

DaveC: If Lieberman was the Democratic candidate in 2004, I'd venture to guess that he would have won. Basicly, all he would have had to do was to take away one state that Bush won.

No, he would also have had to win all the states Kerry won. Having a D next to your name doesn't guarantee you electoral votes. You have to actually stand for something people want to vote for. And for traditional Democratic voters, that isn't "torture", nor is it "torpedoing a successful Democratic president over a personal indiscretion". Had the Democrats been idiotic enough to run Joe (as opposed to just stupid enough to run Kerry) I suspect Nader would have enjoyed a major bump in the polls.

In the Presidential elections, the candidates really do have to play to the center.

Great advice. Just ask President Kerry, or President Gore. Or Vice President Lieberman.

The primary system, in my opinion, is flawed.

On that we can agree.

hilzoy writes: "Rice's credibility will be entirely gone by the time she is done with this crew. "

Sigh. It damn well should be gone now.

The fact that it isn't suggests to me that, if she ran for Pres in 2008, the press would fawn all over her and ignore every last pimple, wart, and festering barnacle on her record.

I'm thinking you probably meant carbuncle, since barnacles aren't primarily known for their festering properties.

festering gemstone? (i've been reading the annoted Sherlock Holmes. Highly recommended for those not intimately acquainted with the idiom of the time.)

oh, the other definition.

ahem. never mind.

.. annoted Sherlock Holmes...

Ooooh, that brings back memories! Now if I could only find my copy of the Treasury of Science Fiction I could have a long talk with Gary.

Digby shreds Joe. You're welcome to the pile of strips, von.

OK, ditch Joe and embrace Loser-Defeatist Howard Dean. See where it gets ya.

I suspect Dean's going to get me the House and Senate, but we'll see.

OK, ditch Joe and embrace Loser-Defeatist Howard Dean. See where it gets ya.

Yes, because Lieberman was such a powerhouse of electoral success in 2004.

Joementum!

I have to say, if anyone could put me off morality for life, it would be Joe Lieberman. Luckily, having had such a solid upbringing that it wasn't until I was nearly done with my BA, majoring in philosophy, that it dawned on me that anyone actually believed that there was no such thing as moral truth*, even he can't manage it.

(I mean, I knew people said that; I just never thought they really believed it. I thought they were like those annoying people in high school who affected to think that physics showed that there was no such thing as beauty.)

smunnndioasdiotttfff

Could we trade Joe for, I don't know, Snowe and a draft choice to be named later?

Why ask for anything? I could see no bigger benefit than having Joementum on the other side for a change. Maybe he can start checking out Bush for old blowjobs and keep himself amused.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad