Tuesday, July 18, 2006

A Good Answer to Jane Hamsher

I just got a chance to read Jane Hamsher's latest rant about the Lieberman-Lamont race on Huffington Post, and I was struck by this thoughtful comment from a non-Lieberman supporting HuffPost reader. It is such a good summation of what's wrong with the angry purge campaign against Joe Lieberman from a progressive perspective that I thought it was worth sharing with a wider audience.

Wouldn't it be something if all that piss and vinegar was turned on a Republican where it could make a difference?
The purging of the Democratic party, it seems, appears far more "doable" to the "netroots" than actually demonstrating the values I would hope they support.
In other words, it's just great to some that these wits are devoted to slaying one of the Democratic senators (who gets a zero rating from all conservative groups because he votes with the Democrats 99% of the time.)
I don't think Lieberman is the issue. Maybe he deserves a challenge. But if his record really was the issue, there wouldn't be all the juvenile bs: the "joey" and the "holy joe" and all the teenager venom leveled at him. It is all so personal, so hateful.
Liberal means open minded. I would like to see a progressive movement that cares about people. And acts like they care about people, not power. These "net root" people aren't liberal. They are simply totalitarians from the other side of the spectrum. And they are truly scary in their viciousness.
I shudder to think how someone they could really support would actually govern. Remember, this isn't about Lamont. This is about a hungry pack of wolves tearing apart a beast they believe is bleeding to prove they can do it.
How sweet. There's something we all can admire. Who do they remind you of?

By: buzz on July 18, 2006 at 03:26am

16 Comments:

Blogger SeedFreak said...

I have an answer for Jane Hamsher--what a xxx mouth she is. She totally ignores hospital rights so she can have her self-engrandizing tirade and get some attention to being a horrid example of an American woman. She is NOT my idea of a liberated women, she isn't even my idea of a liberal woman. And from her language, I won't call her a lady either.

So for Jane Hamsher, something she really needs to do.

Bite this!
http://www.soapsgonebuy.com/photos/D1001-2T.jpg

7/18/2006 4:22 PM  
Anonymous leksah said...

what an incredible waste of valuable time, money, energy, etc., is the I hate Joe crusade.
we just keep on shooting ourselves in the foot.

7/18/2006 8:44 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

BREAKING: Joe Lieberman Collaborating With GOP to Permit Foreign Ownership of US National Security Assets:

"In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. . . . As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor."

Link:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=849F046D-E0C3-F08F-991D793F942625E6

This is why patriotic Americans oppose Lieberman. How can Joe Lieberman possibly be on the wrong side of this issue?

Joe Lieberman is selling us out on national security

7/18/2006 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if this isn't treason, what is?

7/18/2006 9:56 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

The Constitution, Article Three, Section Three:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Oman is a country friendly to the United States.

7/18/2006 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rachelrachel-

Don't blame the Lamontistas - they can't help it. Only Dick Cheney is quicker to shoot without looking first. They can't help but play fast and loose with the truth.

7/18/2006 10:50 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

This just in--Lamont admits having Halliburton stock but won't dump it! Says it doesn't matter.

Well, well, looks like its okay for Neddy to be against the war but wants to still profit from it. Old Money is what he is all about--certainly MONEY comes before hypocrasy. What a joke he is--this guy is a first class hypocrite and deep pockets come before everything. I can't wait to see the brainwashing TinFoil KosKap spin on this one.

Fuel for our fire!

I wonder what else is in his portfolio that needs to be looked at.

7/19/2006 5:13 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Stamford Advocate Denounces LiebermanForLieberman:

" NORWALK -- The Norwalk Democratic Town Committee has passed a resolution denouncing U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's intention to run under a new independent party if he loses next month's Democratic primary to Ned Lamont."

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.dems7jul19,0,3602335.story

Joe's cut-and-run act is very unpopular with many CT Democrats. He should run as a Republican if he runs at all after August 8th.

Lamont will back the winner of the Democratic primary. Why won't Joe?

7/19/2006 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lieberdunces: lieberman's halliburton position was about $50k in a blind trust. any thing he made on that is chump-change. and lamont didn't eveen buy hit himself.

much more interesting is the lieberman pharma/defense million$$$, and the effect of those bigga, bigga bucks on his votes. possibly it explains why he's really a repuke.

7/19/2006 7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liebermanforliebmern: looks like you are right. lieberman was one only a few sellout democrats to side with gop on that ports thing. joe voted for it a few weeks ago - shameful.

7/19/2006 7:42 AM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

Why all this "purge" language? It's just an election. It's fine to support Lieberman, or to not support him, but I don't think you can argue that it's not okay for some one to run against him.

7/19/2006 7:52 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Two things -

1) Complaining about the ports deal is nothing but Arab-bashing for political gain. It's shameful to engage in it. Why is it ok for companies from Europe and Asia to run some of our mundane port operations, but not ok for an Arab country to do so? Obama and Kerry certainly didn't seem to have a problem with it.

2) Whoever said it wasn't ok for Lamont to run? I just think that his campaign is insane because it's energy being used to run against a Democrat instead of against a Republican. And don't make the ridiculous claim that he already is a Republican, because every voting analysis ever done shows him to be a mainstream Democrat, even if he is slightly to the right of the party median. You all act like being a moderate is a sin, which is an insane if you want to win control of Congress.

7/19/2006 9:54 AM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

Centristdem: I think that calling Lamont's campaign a "purge" pretty much implies that it isn't okay for the guy to run. As for why Lieberman, well, because he is a Democrat and it seems that there are at least enough Democrats in CT who don't feel adequately represented that Lamont is able to pose a formidable challenge. That's not the same as calling Lieberman a Republican, btw. All Democrats shouldn't be expected to be happy with their incumbents, right?

7/19/2006 11:22 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Many people on the blog have called Lieberman a Republican, which risks turning off moderate Democrats nationwide. And we need moderates to turn out and vote Dem if we want to take back Congress.

I agree that Democrats shouldn't all be expected to be happy with their incumbents. I sure was no fan of Zell Miller (the one Dem who really WAS a GOPer, since he caucused with them) and am pretty chilly towards Cynthia McKinney. And I disagree strongly with Lieberman on the war.

I just think the guns that so many in the blogosphere have trained on Lieberman are better pointed at taking the Gov Mansion back from Jodi Rell, or at the 6-8 vulnerable GOP Senators nationwide.

THAT'S how progressives could make their biggest impact - by taking back Congress from GOP control.

7/19/2006 12:13 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

You know, people who are new to the rough-and-tumble of the Internet shouldn't post a lot until they get their feet wet and know what the heck they're talking about.

People - all people - tend to be a lot ruder online. (I hate it too, by the way.) It's a simple fact. It's not a defining characteristic of any one group, such as Lamont supporters, and it's a cheap and naive tactic to try and make that case.

It is is breathtakingly dishonest to run bear cub ads one minute and express shock at the rudeness of the online rabble the next.

We're watching. Keep it up.

7/19/2006 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're missing one big fact, buddy - we're not with the Lieberman campaign.

And we aren't expressing shock. We're just saying that it's sad that you all have nothing offer but opposition. No ideas other than "get out of Iraq," which this election will have NO impact on.

Like the rest of the Lamontistas, you are either illiterate or dishonest. Since you obviously know how to write, it must simply be that you are a liar. Setting up fake straw men and knocking them down, like a true Republican.

7/19/2006 1:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home