Monday, July 17, 2006

"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?
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...

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.

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.

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.


Blogger ReflectionEphemeral said...

Look, the debate here isn't over whether Lieberman is a closet Republican, it's about why Dems should support him in a primary. Congrats on addressing the "Lieberman is not a Republican!" and "Some Lamont supporters are rude!" issues; that's just super.

Maybe, after you address the "Only Jew-Haters don't like Lieberman!" issue, you could get around to defending the stuff that his critics have been talking about-- ie, going wishy-washy on Social Security when it really mattered, his bad vote on cloture on Alito, his Schiavo disgrace.

Also, what you have never addressed is that it's not just his _support_ for the War in Iraq that rankles; it's his Hannity-helping rhetoric. I mean, I would support a politician who called for doubling the troop levels in Iraq, if it were convincing that it would help stabilize the democracy there. But Lieberman is incapable of actual leadership or thought; he stakes out some meaningless middle ground, and speaks in language (ie, "undermine credibility at our peril") that helps the most rabidly partisan Republicans. He just loooooooooooooves to position himself as the centrist, in any issue, regardless of what's at stake, or what the facts at hand are.

Don't tell me that undermining president's credibility is perilous; it's not true. 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.

Joe Lieberman is hurting America. He makes his reputation on exploiting unfounded stereotypes about Democrats. His voting record does not tell the story of his immense value to the worst Republicans, who thrive on casting Dems as unpatriotic. That's hurting America, because the current Republican president is doing things that harm our security and reputation. Lieberman doesn't stand up to harmful, blind, counterproductive, pseudo-patriotic right-wing rhetoric; he uses it and basks in it.

Here, you wrote: "But the three issues that I feel most passionately about are education (esp. higher education), the environment, and civil rights (particularly LGBT rights) [plus the debt]." Surely Lamont will be every bit, or more, as supportive of those things you care about, without the Hannity-bolstering, right? So send your check to Lamont for Senate today!

Of course, if Lieberman wins the primary, it will be essential to support him, because his voting record, and his votes on leadership positions, will be better for America than those of any Republican.

"We heard you twice the first time, money, get it together."

7/17/2006 7:28 AM  
Blogger ReflectionEphemeral said...

Also, as to Lieberman's usefulness to Republicans, I think Sean Hannity may have a bit more cagey insight, and popularity, among bad Republicans than this fellow with one-too-many names that you managed to dig up.

7/17/2006 7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Kiss" speaks for itself.

What more could you possibly need to know?

7/17/2006 7:57 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Good Morning Lieberdem! It is already in the 90s here, it looks like a week ahead of roasting hot days. I don't remember summer days this hot when I was a little girl--global warming is undeniably upon us. Forcing polluters to reduce emissions should be part of every politician's agenda. Joe has been working for the people of Connecticut for decades to force polluters to clean up their wastes and stop dumping toxins into the air and water.

May I ask a favor, please edit your post to increase the font size of the lower paragraphs, age instead of smog has blurred my eyes and I need bigger text. Eek!

Finding that real neocons don't like Joe is no suprise, he's not a neocon and is a Centrist Democrat with an enormously long voting record for so-named liberal causes. Which, of course, remains completely opposite of Ned's significant 80% republican voting record--which is something that can't be ignored, because we even hear Ned say that it was small-time pothole stuff, but if it was small-time stuff, where does he have the cajones to think that a small-time pro-republican politician has the political skills to be a US Senator. It certainly isn't rational and it is a fraud to the American people to represent himself as being ready and capable of the job.

This morning I was reading some very alarming information about brainwashing, there are similarities between the Lamonsitas and religous extremist cults. After the elections, our society may have a huge problem on our hands as these people will be left without purpose.

7/17/2006 7:58 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

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.

7/17/2006 8:02 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

In my view Lieberman is also right on Iraq right now.

It's hard for me to find any politician who I agree with consistently on Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion. I wouldn't have trusted Bush with an authorization to use force, I wouldn't have believed he would use it only to have negotiating leverage. I didn't believe for a minute that there was a WMD threat, or that anyone responsible in Washington really believed there was. I thought we were already bogged down in Afghanistan and that getting the job done right there was more important. And I wanted us to act, when needed, with the co-operation of a broad coalition and with regard for internaltional law. I opposed the war then for most of the same reasons Al Gore did.

But I wasn't opposed on principle to removing Hussein from power. That in itself wasn't a bad idea. It was just the wrong time, and the wrong way; wrong in almost every aspect of how it was done, strategicallly, and tactically.

But now that that's done, and we're there, it's equally wrongheaded to want to just give up and pull out.

As much as I question the judgement of the majority of Democrats who supported the invasion, I also question that of those who want a deadline for quick withdrawal. Surrender is not going to make the situation better.

The invasion is over and done. I need to consider which candidate I trust to make sound decisions going forward. And right now, that's not Ned Lamont. I think Lieberman has the better policy on Iraq right now, and a bettter overall record of decision making.

It's easy for Lamont to say he's opposed to the war, now that it's the popular thing. That's alot like favoring withdrawal now, as it's the popular thing. But all I've seen from him so far suggests it's mere political opportunism. I haven't seen any ability to formulate sound policy. Not on Iraq, or on most anythig else. And given the flexibility of his positions during the campaign, I frankly have no doubt he would have voted for the war as well, had he been in the Senate.

7/17/2006 8:05 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Think of America's two political parties as two big overlapping circles with most of their space in common. Then think of independent voters as a substantial circle within that shared center. Strangely enough, the "base"of the Democratic and Republican parties turns out to be on the outer fringes of their circles."

"The President and Democratic Party leaders cowtow to the voters whose views are farthest from the huge centrist majorities. And no wonder. These "base" voters call the tune in the caucuses and primaries that determine in many cases not only who will run for President, but also party candidates for the Senate, the House and statehouses around the country."

It's interesting how negative much of the press has been on Lieberman lately. In a way I think that might be a good thing. When Howard Dean lost, alot of the Deaniacs blamed the media afterward. When the real reason he lost was that he was too far out of the mainstream of Democratic party voters. And who he had backing him showed it.

This time, when Lamont loses--and it won't really be close--they won't be able to blame the media, most of which has been dutifully echoing every far left talking point.

7/17/2006 8:12 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Gloria Borger

"The lefty bloggers consider him close to the Most Evil Man in America, and their vitriol and name-calling are enough to make anyone want to vote for Lieberman."

"'We can't send the wrong kind of message that we don't take these [national security] threats seriously,' says William Galston, a former Clinton domestic policy adviser. 'If that becomes the public face of the party, then we lose.'"

7/17/2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

7/17/2006 8:23 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman does have some strong conservative credentials. William F. Buckley, the best conservative thinker of our time, has come out in support of Joe Lieberman. You can find his endorsement, along with endorsements from Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly here:

The Official Site of Lieberman for Lieberman

7/17/2006 8:30 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Bio on Lamont

"A first-generation Democrat, he is the great-grandson of Thomas W. Lamont, a former chairman of J.P. Morgan & Company, and the grandson of Thomas S. Lamont, who served as vice chairman of Morgan Guaranty Trust. Though he now identifies himself as an unaffiliated voter, his father Ted, an economist, once was a member of the Nixon administration.

Like his great-grandfather, grandfather and father, Lamont followed up his years at the New Hampshire prep school, Phillips Exeter Academy by attending Harvard University. "

7/17/2006 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 8:39 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Anon, the message is that Lamont has aligned himself with a fringe that feeds on the hate they generate. How about we use Jane Hamsher as his chosen ProExpletive Left role model for American women--too bad she completely ignored that hospitals have rights too. I guess we should align Ned with being against any business having rights too. Kinda scary for someone who wants to be a senator to think that he can ignore the rights of any business, especially privately owned ones. That's conveniant when Campus Televideo partnered with Vonage, a notorious outsourcer.

7/17/2006 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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...

7/17/2006 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

7/17/2006 8:51 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

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."

7/17/2006 8:52 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I agree that Lieberman should definitely remain on Capitol Hill. He'd make a fine janitor.

7/17/2006 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liebermanforlieberman: Remember that Joe Lieberman can always count David Brooks amongst his conservative supporters. Good cartoon today about that:

7/17/2006 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 9:33 AM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

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.

7/17/2006 9:48 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

I've noticed alot of people criticizing the cloture vote on Alito.

But Lieberman voted against confirmation, and the vote on cloture was part of the "Gang of 14" compromise that ended the threat of the "nuclear option", and in turn killed 2 conservative judicial nominees, William Meyers and Henry Saad. All 14 voted for cloture on Alito.

So what are the alternatives? Shut down the the Senate completely? Permanently? Alow them to do away with the filibuster?

Alito passed the Senate 58-42. We need to replace some of the 58 who actually voted for him. That's the vote that really matters.

The outcome of that vote wasn't going to change in 2 weeks or 2 months, and the Democrats weren't going to win alot of popular support by the delay either.

7/17/2006 9:49 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Just would like to point out that when Lamont loses, not only will the Deaniacs not be able to blame the media, they won't be able to blame lack of money either.

Further, this guy sounds likely to be a heck of alot more "corporate elitist" than Lieberman ever was or will be.

7/17/2006 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Lieberman was "keeping his powder dry".

Great. Now we have some nice powder instead of a reasonable Supreme Court.

7/17/2006 9:59 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

heard that "The Float" showed up at Joe's AFL-CIO rally... too funny! surely you guys at least see some humor there?

I think the Lamonistas P'ing off an enormous vote-driving entity IS hillarious. Obviously, you folks don't have enough worldly knowledge (or aren't working age and hence not old enough) to understand that Union members vote for who the union wants them to vote for. They have mail and phone campaigns and they have major political punch. If you want to PO big labor then go for it, lol!

BTW, I'm sure you could understand how they feel about outsourcing.

7/17/2006 10:30 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Ken, I read the term "Limousine Liberal" to describe Lamont. That doesn't sound like a man of the people.

7/17/2006 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 10:47 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Do I hear conceding whispering its way into a Lamonista's post?

7/17/2006 11:05 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Maxine Waters, an actual progressive, talks about the "values" of Joe Lieberman:

Maxine Waters money quote:
Joe Lieberman is the poster-boy for what's wrong with the Democratic party.

Maxine sounds like she is coming to campaign for Lamont, possibly this week.

7/17/2006 11:12 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

What about Lieberman's procedural votes that have helped consveratives... he voted against Alito, but against a filibuster as well. He voted against the bankruptcy bill but voted for it to get out of committee where it was sure to pass... I've never seen Lieberman's defenders address those votes.

7/17/2006 11:14 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

anon says:
"A big problem is that these "lefty bloggers" are really Connecticut voters."

Which ones? Not Kos out in Berkley. Not Atrios in Philadelphia. Not Digby out in Santa Monica. Not stock-shill Jerome Armstrong, originally from LA, currently residing in DC suburb Alexandria, VA. Or Matt Stoller in DC. Or John Amato, another one out in California. Or Hollywood producer, Jane Hamsher.

I'm sure there are small time Connecticut blogs out there that are both for and against Lieberman, but the big blogs leading the anti-Lieberman campaign aren't from Connecticut. And they aren't very representative of Connecticut voters.

7/17/2006 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Hope..

7/17/2006 11:29 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe Lieberman gets so much support from conservatives it's hard to keep track of them all. John McCain is another big supporter of Joe Lieberman:


Isn't it amazing that Joe Lieberman's "principles" are compatible with those of so many fascists?

7/17/2006 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liebermanforlieberman: good point on principles. here's a lieberman web-ad on his insane vote to confirm torturer "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales as "Inquisitor General":

7/17/2006 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

7/17/2006 12:13 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

The Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden who support military force to remove brutal dictators like Saddam Hussien or Slobodan Milosevic prefer that US Military Force against another country occur with a strong support from the international community such as UN,NATO,etc. Unlike Bush and the Republicans who beleive the US should act unilaterly. The problem with the Iraq War was that International Community did not support Iraq War. Support from the International Community is necessary in the Global War on Terrorism.

7/17/2006 12:49 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"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!"

An excellent point. And they are wrong to think they can get away with it because they think Connecticut is a far left state. Not only is it hurting Democrats in Connecticut, but it makes moderates in other states more wary of the Democratic party as well.

Republican Tom Kean Jr. now has a slight edge in the
latest poll
over incumbent Bob Menendez in NJ. You can't tell me this isn't a spillover effect.

For all the talk about other "New England Democrats", I think Connecticut may be more demographically similar to NJ, than it is to Vermont or Massachusetts.

Or as Evan Bayh said today:

"Without an agenda that speaks directly to the middle class and all who aspire to it, we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. And we will not be a majority party," Bayh said, invoking the names of former Democratic presidents.

7/17/2006 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon: lieberman is not a democrat. this is his problem. if he ran as a republican he could win election.

7/17/2006 1:58 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Great new article on why the Graf Lieberman is going down in flames:

My favorite quote:

"Most Lamont Democrats were once Lieberman Democrats".

Lieberman has sold out American and Democratic party values one time too many.

7/17/2006 2:03 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

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.

7/17/2006 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/17/2006 2:27 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Of course buckley supports Jor. BUT, unless you're good at digging, you won't be able to tell eveyone why he does. So do some digging, and tell us ALL the reasons why. If you can. If you're up to it.

7/17/2006 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just curious - do you have to condone torture like Lieberman to be a "practical progressive"?

7/17/2006 2:41 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Interesting that Joe still has not divulged the financial details of his Pharma-Bux-powered campaign, even after badgering Lamont into it.

What a hypocrite.

7/17/2006 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

What a liar.

7/17/2006 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/17/2006 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

7/17/2006 3:24 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Can we have the details on Lamont's partnership with Vonage, the outsourcing-our-jobs specialist?

7/17/2006 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liebermanforlieberman: good thing joe bolted from the democratic party.

joe - don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

7/17/2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LIEBERDEMS: Iraq isn't a significant issue. It is THE issue.

7/17/2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

negative attacks coming from lieberman are not credible. they need to try something else.

7/17/2006 4:30 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

We've turned another corner, that's for sure. Way to go Bush/Cheney/Lieberman.


7/17/2006 5:57 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

negative attacks coming from lamonistas are not credible. you need to try something else ;-)

BTW--do you have anything info about Lamont getting it on earmarks equals JOBS, well, maybe it's important, but probably not--especially if Lamont's pocketing bucks that should go to Americans from the jobs his Vonage partner is outsourcing.

7/17/2006 6:01 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

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.

7/17/2006 8:25 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Yes, supporting Gonzalez is equivalent to supporting torture."

Let's take a look at the actual evidence behind this:

1> The DOJ Office of Legal Council determined that the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War (GPW) didn't apply to Al-Quiada and that the President had the authority, and reasonable grounds, to determine that they didn't apply to the Taliban.

2>The President determined that they didn't apply to the Taliban.

3>The Secretary of State requested that the President reconsider and that AL-Quaida and Taliban fighters be considered on a case by case basis.

4>Gonzales, as White House Council, wrote a memo outlining the legal issues, both for and against reversing this decision, and recomended that the President not reverse it, but that the military "remain bound by the principles of the Geneva Convention."

I believe that this decision was in error, but the White House council no where does anything close to authorizing or approving of torture. He merely relies on the legal determination of the Attorney General, saying "The Attorney General is charged by statute with interpreting the law for the Executive Branch. This interpretive authority extends to both domestic and international law."

The Attorney General approved not applying the GPW. The president made the decision. Gonzales wrote a memo based on the legal arguments of the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. Moreover, Gonzales was one of Bush's more moderate appointees. He was pro choice and pro affirmative action.

And even with all of that I would have opposed him. But it is customary to give a President a certain amount of deference in cabinet appointees. And I can understand why Lieberman would have voted the way he did. Heck, I think Gonzales is an improvement over Ashcroft, who Lieberman opposed. (Dodd and Feingold were among the only 8 Democrats in the Senate to vote for Ashcroft.)

7/17/2006 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/18/2006 8:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home