"Joe is no conservative" says conservative
A friend sent me the link to this article where conservative Warner Todd Hudson slams conservatives for their support of Lieberman. Why do some conservatives "fall over themselves" to praise Lieberman?
No, I don't claim that Iraq is an insignificant issue. But the three issues that I feel most passionately about are education (esp. higher education), the environment, and civil rights (particularly LGBT rights). On those vital issues, Lieberman has a record that I would put up against anyone in the Senate. Those are fights that Joe Lieberman has been waging alongside progressives for 40 years, starting with the time that he risked his life to march for civil rights and education access in the 1960's - and make no doubt, a New Englander marching for civil rights in the South during that era was risking his life.
I want to make sure my kids don't have the massive debts that I had to take on in order to attend college. I want my children to grow up in a world where the air is breathable and where they can go outside without risking a heat stroke (100 degrees in Philadelphia today, folks). And when my best friend finds someone he wants to spend the rest of his life with, I want him to be able to get married without having to fly to Canada.
And if we ever want to see those things happen, then maybe we need to have more people on Capitol Hill like Senator Lieberman - not fewer.
Sadly, even though they haven't a vote, Conservative Republicans are also one-issue voters where it concerns Joe Lieberman. They support him merely for his support of Bush's Iraq strategy...Isn't that a wonderful irony? Lieberman's opponents love to slam him for the praise he draws from some conservatives. But the kind words Lieberman receives from Sean Hannity are motivated by the same one-issue mentality that drives the Lamontistas. It still all comes back to Iraq.
It must be. Because it sure isn't because of Lieberman's voting record...Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.
He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alito's Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.
Lieberman is not a "conservative" Democrat. It's just that simple...
To vocally and forcefully claim him an ally is a step too far. In fact it is many steps too far. Lieberman, save for this one issue, as important as that issue is, is not our friend. He is not our ally and he cannot be looked to when we need crucial support for conservative initiatives and ideals. The man is a classic 1970's liberal.
No, I don't claim that Iraq is an insignificant issue. But the three issues that I feel most passionately about are education (esp. higher education), the environment, and civil rights (particularly LGBT rights). On those vital issues, Lieberman has a record that I would put up against anyone in the Senate. Those are fights that Joe Lieberman has been waging alongside progressives for 40 years, starting with the time that he risked his life to march for civil rights and education access in the 1960's - and make no doubt, a New Englander marching for civil rights in the South during that era was risking his life.
I want to make sure my kids don't have the massive debts that I had to take on in order to attend college. I want my children to grow up in a world where the air is breathable and where they can go outside without risking a heat stroke (100 degrees in Philadelphia today, folks). And when my best friend finds someone he wants to spend the rest of his life with, I want him to be able to get married without having to fly to Canada.
And if we ever want to see those things happen, then maybe we need to have more people on Capitol Hill like Senator Lieberman - not fewer.
posted by Matt Smith at 6:33 AM
30 Comments:
"The Kiss" speaks for itself.
What more could you possibly need to know?
Trying, as Lieberman does, to intimidate people into lying, or into shielding their eyes from what's actually happening in the world, is much more perilous than criticizing the President
Who do you think you're fooling with that load of BS? Lieberman wasn't trying to intimidate people into silence, and you're either dishonest or ignorant for saying otherwise. Here's what he really said:
"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.
It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.
It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."
You took his quote out of context, which is a very Republican tactic. Then again, that's just par for the course for the Lamontistas.
On SocSec, he has always voted against privatization, and only someone dishonest or completely unfamiliar with the situation would say that he ever put SocSec at risk.
On Alito, the Lieberhaters' lie about the significance of his cloture vote is staggering in its dishonesty. First, all he was doing was abiding by the agreement of the Gang of 14 - which SAVED filibusters. The other six Dems in the Gang agreed that Alito did not meet "extraordinary circumstances," which meant that no filibuster on the matter could hope to succeed. Both votes were then foregone conclusions, even before Lieberman announced he would vote for cloture. The cloture vote was no more important or even any closer than the confirmation vote.
I agree that the government should have stayed out of Schiavo case. But Lieberman is an orthodox Jew, and even though I'm an agnostic, I'm not gonna bash him for following his religious beliefs. Besides which, that was hardly a major national issue of our time.
And we have no clue how Lamont will vote on those three issues. I agree with Lieberdem - take the man with the proven record on them.
On Lieberman-Lamont, the media has certainly taken the side of the Lamontistas. But I think it has more to do with them having a dull summer than anything, and a major primary challenge to a one-time VP nominee was exciting enough to fill the airwaves with.
Honestly, I think now that the middle east has exploded so violently, the media attention on Lieberman will wane, and Lamont's campaign will stall.
The Lieberdems refer to "crazed lefty bloggers cults" and "Lamonistas. A big problem is that these "lefty bloggers" are really Connecticut voters.
Is demonizing the voters really a smart thing to do? It is a fact that Joe is currently pretty unpopular here in CT. Is "kill the messenger" a good strategy, when the message is coming straight from the voters?
Liebermanforlieberman obviously missed out on the whole "learning how to read" thing in school. You see, those people might like Lieberman's position on Iraq, but he doesn't support the GOP position on pretty much anything else.
And also, he wasn't endorsed by any of those people.
So on top of being too stupid to actually read through and understand the post, Liebermania here is also a bad liar.
And anon - how many of those bloggers are Connecticut voters? Last I checked, the vast majority of people who have internet access aren't from Connecticut. Same with a vast majority of bloggers.
Man, you and Liebermania must have lying built into your DNA.
anon: on the middle east, people where I am are saying that the lebanon/israel is a big reflection on the lieberman/bush foreign policy. so from here it seems doubtful that the new conflict will do anything but hurt joe as he is held to account.
Hahaha! You actually think that the conflict in Israel is going to spill over and hurt the most prominent pro-Israel advocate in the Senate!
Oh my god, I can't stop laughing...
wow, the lieberdems seem so shrill today. tough weekend? watch out or people will start to think you're a crazed bloodthirsty rightist cult.
heard that "The Float" showed up at Joe's AFL-CIO rally... too funny! surely you guys at least see some humor there?
The Lieberman/Bush foreign policy??? Since when did Bush and Lieberman agree on ANY foreign policy other than Iraq and the war on terror??
Do they agree on Kyoto? The International Criminal Court? How to deal with North Korea? Foreign aid spending? Intervention in Darfur?
No they don't. Lieberman and Bush have VASTLY different foreign policy outlooks, and any foreign policy expert will tell you that. Unless you equate "foreign policy" with "Iraq."
liebermanforlieberman: Remember that Joe Lieberman can always count David Brooks amongst his conservative supporters. Good cartoon today about that:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/07/17/tomo/index.html
balbari: any challenger in this race would have to have a ton of money to take on Pharma-PAC Joe. Are you accusing Lamont of being rich and educated? if he weren't, he couldn't even be in the race.
The sequence of events is well known. Joe took some heat from the left wing on his Social Security stance because he spoke vaguely about the need to make changes in Social Security. He then started to talk with some Republicans about it, including Lindsdey Graham of South Carolina, who had previously supported the President's reforms. A few weeks later, Graham announced that he was no longer going to back the president. Without the support of Graham and a few other key Republicans, the initiative failed.
Did Joe help persuade Graham to jump ship? It's hard to prove one way or another without reading Graham's mind. But it is indisputable that so long as the GOP controls both Houses of Congress, you need Republican support to stop anything coming out of the White House.
Yes, Lieberman was "keeping his powder dry".
Great. Now we have some nice powder instead of a reasonable Supreme Court.
I don't think the Lieberdems should worry too much. Joe's $17M in pharma-bucks should be enough to buy that Connecticut seat for six more years.
You Hope..
liebermanforlieberman: good point on principles. here's a lieberman web-ad on his insane vote to confirm torturer "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales as "Inquisitor General":
http://webpages.charter.net/micah/liebadgonz.jpg
The real issue here is: while Republicans support fellow Republicans, even when he or she is on the LEFT of the rest of the Party- Democratic activists/bloggers viciously try to drive away a Democratic Senator whose record, puts him in the CENTER af fellow Democratic Senators.
This is the mindset and behavior that keeps us a minority party!
anon: lieberman is not a democrat. this is his problem. if he ran as a republican he could win election.
Unfortunately for "liebermanforlieberman" and some other Lamontistas, there are two facts which you aren't grasping:
1) You all come up with little anecdotes, but nothing that shows Lieberman to be anything other than the progressive he is on issues other than Iraq. Every single bit of objective evidence that there is shows Lieberman to be a tried and true progressive Democrat. Go ask any conservative politician if they consider him one of their own. They'll all tell you no, even the people you dishonestly claim "endorse" him.
2) You all are either too ignorant, dishonest, or pigheaded (actually, probably all of the above) to acknowledge it.
Fortunately, most Connecticut Democrats know better, and the campaign of dishonesty being waged against Lieberman will fail.
centrist: how is supporting gonzalez or alito progressive? liebermanforlieberman seems pretty factual. tiresome, but factual.
also, it is a fact that buckley supports lieberman. don't try to deny that.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
just curious - do you have to condone torture like Lieberman to be a "practical progressive"?
Lieberman has released all his tax returns and all his campaign financial records. Is Hadassah not allowed to have a job? Do you Lamontistas think that all women should stay in the kitchen? Or just those who are married to politicians you don't like?
liebermanforlieberman:
What a liar.
Yes, supporting Gonzalez is equivalent to supporting torture. Because by voting for someone, you're clearly endorsing everything they've ever done.
That's exactly the level of intelligence I've come to expect of Lamontistas.
And Lieberman, of course, did not support Alito. He voted against him. And don't lie and say that the cloture vote mattered more, because BOTH votes were foregone conclusions - or did you miss the fact that the cloture vote passed by a wider margin (13 votes more than needed) than the final vote (8 more than needed)?
That's exactly the level of dishonesty I've come to expect of Lamontistas.
actually liebermanforlieberman is right about this. lieberman financial breakdown has not been released yet and lieberman whined about it anyway. why is lieberman avoiding the issues?
liebermanforlieberman: good thing joe bolted from the democratic party.
joe - don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
LIEBERDEMS: Iraq isn't a significant issue. It is THE issue.
negative attacks coming from lieberman are not credible. they need to try something else.
This "Lieberman is a Republican" business is just as laughable as Howard Dean's tendency to label all his rivals for the presidential nomination as "Republican Lite."
I believe it will be just as successful.
Good points all. But it seem to me that we can have all the good points you listed and, a Senator that takes good position on the war. One who does not roll over and proclaim critic of the administration traitors. I fail to see what the support of Lieberman over Lamont achieves in this regards. Except just as a general principle of always support the incumbent.
Post a Comment
<< Home