Monday, August 07, 2006

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE (AKA, ACTUALLY DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL)

Well, here's your daily update from the "Joe Lieberman Loses His Lead, His Mind, and Hopefully His Seat" story. Yes, folks, that sad & sorry spectacle we've watched unfolding in Connecticut continues unabated: continuing to chew up the scenery in his role of a lifetime -- "Paradigmatic Politician" -- Joe Lieberman raises shameless political hackery to new levels by the hour.

As that flagship of his own would-be kingdom -- his Senate seat -- slips beneath the waters, Joe's reaching for every floating plank of wood, sheet rock, plastic or fiberglass, bobbing in the rough seas of electoral politics, struggling to keep his head above the waves. He seems to be failing. A few of Joe's latest bon mots, courtesy of AP:
"I am the only Democrat in America to run against George Bush in a national election twice."
Huh?
"You know why I ran for president in 2004? Because I believe that his agenda was wrong for our country and our future. And that's the truth."
He ran against George Bush for President in 2004? He selfishly threw his hat in the ring early on in the 2004 primaries, only to withdraw after a dismal showing in the Five State affair on February 3 of that year. That's running against Bush in 2004???

Not to mention, the second I hear a politician protestingly toss out the T Word, well I'm thinking there's a good reason he feels the need to do so. You know what I mean?
At a campaign rally, he told the crowd he'd opposed nearly every "major domestic issue Bush has backed."
I guess he considers the Patriot Act -- which he voted to reauthorize this year -- a non-domestic issue. Or maybe just not one that's "major."
Discussing his decision to act as cheerleader in the drive for war in Iraq three years ago, he also added that, "I still believe that was right. What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush administration decisions regarding the conduct of the war. Don't think for a minute I do not grieve for every casualty of this war. In fact, as someone who voted for the war, I feel a heavy responsibility to try to end it as quickly and successfully as possible."
Save us your tears, Joe. I agree that it's ok for someone to have supported the war three years ago, come to a later conclusion that its prosecution was flawed, and decide to withdraw that initial support, without qualification or excuses.

But Lieberman, as usual, flips when he flops, blames everyone but himself, and tries disingenuously to lump himself with the overwhelming majority of legislators who merely abnegated their constitutional duties, handing the keys to the nation's warmaking powers to the executive. That alone is worthy of a judicious toss-onto-one's-ass come November.

But Lieberman was a driver. He was rah-rah-rah about the whole thing. And now he's trying to distance himself from the consequences of those acts. Sorry, Joe, but it doesn't wash off that easily. Hopefully the tear stains on your face'll come off with a little less effort Wednesday morning.

Starting tomorrow, let's hope we see Step One in the 2006 Massacre: the year we tossed the incumbents out, GOP & Dem, as many as we can fit on the rail leaving town.

11 Comments:

Blogger Weaseldog said...

I love the way he trashes Ned Lamont for spending his own money on his own campaign, as if whoring out and spending other people's money makes Joe seem a bit more dignified.

There were many of us that believed that the war on Iraq was a stupid and evil idea all along. Still we're marginalized as unpatriotic whackos, for believing for good reason this whole thing was sham that was doomed to failure.

Clearly the best way for a politician to get media support is to lie, waste lives, screw up, and then later lie and tell everyone that you took a different position. Few in the mainstream will call you out in public. Oh, yeah, you should steal and take bribes too...

Hrmmm, it's becoming clearer to me now, why the media is trying to wage war on people, I mean bloggers....

3:16 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

The Super Rich Individual vs. The Merely Very Rich, But Well-Connected Individual battle line in politics always interests me.

There's obviously something a bit untoward about a guy buying his office. But the alternative -- that of a guy pimping for the bucks, and remaining beholden to the promises & backroom deals -- is worse.

Unfortunately, the fact that these are our two choices is awful.

3:23 PM  
Blogger Otto Man said...

This is going to be a close one. Lamont's still leading in the latest polls, but by a slimmer margin. And it's impossible to predict turnout in an August primary. Should be interesting, to say the least.

Joe's slam on Lamont's wealth is an odd tack, especially for a party which has long been filled with aristocratic politicians who are revered for their common man touch -- FDR, JFK, etc.

4:07 PM  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Joe is justing throwing poo, hoping some will stick.

I'm in Mike's camp on this, we don't know Ned, but we know Joe is a poo throwing monkey, owned by Republican interests.

If I had a vote in this, I'd go with the unknown.

The poo throwing republican monkey I'm voting against is Pete Sesssions. His claim to fame is working to cut domestic programs to increase funding for Halliburton. He hates Amtrak.

4:12 PM  
Blogger Ed in Westchester said...

I normally stay out of the political discussions, but this race has me interested. It is interesting to see Democrats eat one of their own.

Democrats blast Bloomberg for buying the NYC Mayor's office, so it is not that odd Joe would use the same tactic here.

I'm a democrat, but Leiberman is more than just the Iraq issue. At least he has not flip-flopped. He made a decision, and stuck with it. I admire him for that. It would be easy for him to say "I made a mistake" just to get votes.
The guy was the Dem nomiee for VP, and now he is going to be turned out? I believe that at the end of the day the seat will still be in Dem hands, but what happens in 6 years if Lamont is not doing a good job, and the Republicans can mount a challenge. The seat could be lost. Does Connecticut really want a freshman Senator at this point in time? The guy is going to be totally marginalized. Leiberman at least has some experience.

Ask yourself this, overall, has Joe done well enough as Senator to be re-elected? I mean beyond this issue. Him losing is not going to change anything insofaras Iraq is concerned.

4:44 PM  
Anonymous nyhmr said...

Different day, same stuff. The incumbents will easily win in November. Americans are still scared of terrorism and their own shadow so the bums will not be thrown out.

And watch for the return of Tom Delay.

5:36 PM  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

I can admire a politician that sticks to his guns when he believes in an issue.

But if he votes opposite my interests, he won't get my vote.

George Bush has a long history of almost constant flip-flopping on issues, where Al Gore only has a few instances of such behaviour in his record.

Yet Republicans voted for the lying flip-flopper and didn't vote for a man that had more integrity, simply because Al Gore didn't represent their interests.

Now quite hypocritically Republicans want Democrats to vote for a man who stands firm for Republican issues against his own party, because we are supposed to admire him for standing fast.

What do you think about Lieberman saying he fought against the bankruptcy bill, when the record clearly shows he voted for it?

Republicans seem to be very supportive of liars.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

Ed sez:

at the end of the day the seat will still be in Dem hands, but what happens in 6 years if Lamont is not doing a good job, and the Republicans can mount a challenge. The seat could be lost. Does Connecticut really want a freshman Senator at this point in time? The guy is going to be totally marginalized. Leiberman at least has some experience. Ask yourself this, overall, has Joe done well enough as Senator to be re-elected?

I'll agree that if the goal is maintenance of a Senate seat with the word "Democrat" on it, then voting against Lieberman's probably not a great idea.

But if the idea's to get a candidate that won't support the Patriot Act, won't invoke god in every damn speech, won't bang the drum for war in the middle east like a crusader, and won't look to reward himself and his high-priced patrons over his constituents, then a vote for Joe's a mistake.

I want to see all the entrenched & out-of-touch incumbents go. I don't care if they're Dem or GOP.

Nyhmr's prognostication is surely a sound one. But I guess I can't give up hope.

Not til these midterms pass, at least.

6:01 PM  
Blogger ross said...

Well done, Mike. Lieberman is a hack's hack, and you've exposed his egregious hackdom well. He ran against, Bush. More like he hopped slowly on one bad leg. And that little blurb about Lieberman's trying to veneer over his slimy support of The Patriot Act during with self aggrandizing comments about opposing Bush's domestic agenda. I can honestly say I never liked Lieberman, and when a few years back he made that perfectly asinine statement about
morality devolving from religion he just confirmed what a cretinous idget he truly is.

8:28 PM  
Blogger ross said...

Well done, Mike. Lieberman is a hack's hack, and you've exposed his egregious hackdom well. He ran against, Bush. More like he hopped slowly on one bad leg. And that little blurb about Lieberman's trying to veneer over his slimy support of The Patriot Act during with self aggrandizing comments about opposing Bush's domestic agenda. I can honestly say I never liked Lieberman, and when a few years back he made that perfectly asinine statement about
morality devolving from religion he just confirmed what a cretinous idget he truly is.

8:29 PM  
Blogger Alan P. said...

How could you not love this

http://tinyurl.com/edmcw

cute, pudgy-faced, all-American, middle class boy? Shame on you!

10:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home