DailyKos attempts a rebuttal
DailyKos decided to put my story debunking the myth that Lieberman somehow betrayed Clinton on the front page of their website (I guess I should start by thanking Kos and Co. for driving some more traffic here). She called some of my arguments "absurd at best," accused me of trying to "rewrite history," and said that my pointing out Feingold's role in the impeachment era somehow constitutes "whin[ing] that Russ Feingold has gotten away scot free."
Well, I will now rebut their rebuttal. I have to get up early for work, so I'll only hit some of the parts of mcjoan's rebuttal that address my post directly:
(I'm sorry to be snide, but claiming to know their motivations seems a little presumptuous)
The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton.
I can't explain why the press covered Lieberman's statements more than Feingold's; I don't know the motivations of the press any more than I know the motivations of Feingold and Lieberman. Perhaps the differential coverage was based on the fact that Lieberman had been a longtime political ally of Clinton's, and were both founding members of the New Democrat movement which swept Clinton into office. Perhaps it was because Feingold had already been a critic of Clinton during the GOP attempts to push the Clinton/Gore fundraising stories, so his calls for greater scrutiny seemed less surprising. The point is that there's no way to know. In any case, it's preposterous to blame Lieberman for the actions of the media.
Here's another interesting part of it:
If, on the other hand, she used "LieberDems" to mean all of Lieberman's Democratic supporters, then I have no problem agreeing with mcjoan that any Lieberman supporter who thinks that the Lamont campaign is somehow motivated by anti-Semitism is seriously deluding themselves. That's why I've never made any such charge, and never will.
I want to end with one last point - I don't think either Lieberman or Feingold did anything wrong.
My post was not at all about trying to criticize Feingold, since I think all his statements and actions were in good conscience. I personally believe the whole impeachment ordeal was a waste of time and taxpayer money, since it had no chance of actually succeeding and distracted the entire nation from far more important matters. But Russ Feingold thought Bill Clinton had done something wrong, and wanted to see something done about it. I find no inherent fault in that, even though I would not have done the same thing myself if I were in his position.
I only had two points - both of them related, both of them simple, and neither (I think) too controversial:
UPDATE: PoliticalWire linked to the Lieberman/Feingold story as well, and (like mcjoan) accused me of trying to "rewrite history."
It's interesting...they didn't take issue with any of the facts or votes cited in the post. So I'm not exactly sure what they're taking issue with.
I'll say it again - I have no beef with Russ Feingold. I'm simply pointing out that, despite the fact that Lieberman and Feingold's respective campaigns (Lieberman for Senate, Feingold for President) are much-talked about in the blogosphere, only Lieberman is skewered by the Kossacks for stabbing Clinton in the back. And since no one can honestly say that they know what was running through the minds of Lieberman, Feingold, and the media in 1998, we can only judge them by their words and actions at the time.
I laid out what those words and actions were, but I wasn't trying to interpret (much less re-interpret) those events and I certainly wasn't trying to pass historical judgment on Feingold and Lieberman. I think we should all leave that to the historians.
Well, I will now rebut their rebuttal. I have to get up early for work, so I'll only hit some of the parts of mcjoan's rebuttal that address my post directly:
Lieberman, as was and is his wont, craved the approbation of Republicans and the Media, and he got it big time for that speech. Damaging President Clinton and Democrats while aggrandizing himself. Sound familiar?First off, this post should be taken note of by neuroscientists all over the world, because apparently mcjoan can read minds! She states with certainty that she knows the respective motivations of Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman during the Clinton scandals. Well, since she never has talked to either of them about it, the only explanation is that she somehow has the ability to read and interpret their brainwaves from 1998. Professor Xavier would be jealous.
To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out.
(I'm sorry to be snide, but claiming to know their motivations seems a little presumptuous)
The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton.
I can't explain why the press covered Lieberman's statements more than Feingold's; I don't know the motivations of the press any more than I know the motivations of Feingold and Lieberman. Perhaps the differential coverage was based on the fact that Lieberman had been a longtime political ally of Clinton's, and were both founding members of the New Democrat movement which swept Clinton into office. Perhaps it was because Feingold had already been a critic of Clinton during the GOP attempts to push the Clinton/Gore fundraising stories, so his calls for greater scrutiny seemed less surprising. The point is that there's no way to know. In any case, it's preposterous to blame Lieberman for the actions of the media.
Here's another interesting part of it:
(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)I certainly have never made any such accusation, although I appreciate anything that stokes my ego by associating the entire pro-Lieberman movement with my pen name. If she's referring to me specifically, then I should point out that I have expressly said that I very much disagree with "John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of 'supporting home cooking'."
If, on the other hand, she used "LieberDems" to mean all of Lieberman's Democratic supporters, then I have no problem agreeing with mcjoan that any Lieberman supporter who thinks that the Lamont campaign is somehow motivated by anti-Semitism is seriously deluding themselves. That's why I've never made any such charge, and never will.
I want to end with one last point - I don't think either Lieberman or Feingold did anything wrong.
My post was not at all about trying to criticize Feingold, since I think all his statements and actions were in good conscience. I personally believe the whole impeachment ordeal was a waste of time and taxpayer money, since it had no chance of actually succeeding and distracted the entire nation from far more important matters. But Russ Feingold thought Bill Clinton had done something wrong, and wanted to see something done about it. I find no inherent fault in that, even though I would not have done the same thing myself if I were in his position.
I only had two points - both of them related, both of them simple, and neither (I think) too controversial:
- Joe Lieberman was not disloyal to Clinton, and Clinton will tell you so himself
- Singling out Lieberman as disloyal because of his actions during Clinton's impeachment is hypocritical unless others (such as Feingold) are criticized as well
UPDATE: PoliticalWire linked to the Lieberman/Feingold story as well, and (like mcjoan) accused me of trying to "rewrite history."
It's interesting...they didn't take issue with any of the facts or votes cited in the post. So I'm not exactly sure what they're taking issue with.
I'll say it again - I have no beef with Russ Feingold. I'm simply pointing out that, despite the fact that Lieberman and Feingold's respective campaigns (Lieberman for Senate, Feingold for President) are much-talked about in the blogosphere, only Lieberman is skewered by the Kossacks for stabbing Clinton in the back. And since no one can honestly say that they know what was running through the minds of Lieberman, Feingold, and the media in 1998, we can only judge them by their words and actions at the time.
I laid out what those words and actions were, but I wasn't trying to interpret (much less re-interpret) those events and I certainly wasn't trying to pass historical judgment on Feingold and Lieberman. I think we should all leave that to the historians.
53 Comments:
That. Is. HILARIOUS. :)
Thank goodness for this site - time to debunk the Rovian tactics that DailyKos, MyDD and others have been using. Though I support Lieberman, Lamont seems like a nice enough guy. It's too bad that his supporters remind me so much of Republicans. For that reason alone, he'd never get my vote.
Bagdadjoe and L4L: nobody is listening to you. If we want to read biased misinformation, we'll head to dailykos or the free republic. Those two sites are two sides of the same coin.
BadgadJoe: I'm having trouble telling if you are one of the guys that regularly post on free republic. Your quote-what-ever-fits-and-ignore-anything-else tactics seem to be their strategy there. As with dailykos. Funny, I think both of those sites are run by Rove: they both help Republicans win.
Awesome Lieberman parody site - will spread the word!!!!!!
Huge fan of Lieberdem's blog - thanks for this site - and for doing your best to show that dailykos may be a popular site, but it's an unethical, hypocritical one. Such Rovian techniques on that site. Dailykos represents the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
L4L: I think you are hoping people will ignore your comments, since they are filled with misinformation. Additionally, ignoring what people write seems to be your tactic, since you obviously ignore what's on the front page and just use this space to spread dribble.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Lieberman doesn't want this to be a free country. Hyperbole, anyone? isn't that dishonest? Is that how you hope Lamont will win this election? Through dishonest posts all across the internet? Tell the truth: are you working for Karl Rove? Are you a member of his staff? Please say that you are. It would restore my faith in fellow Democrats if I knew that you were really a Republican.
Tee hee! L4L, it's funny how you think you can say that Lieberman doesn't want this to be a free country and then say you don't have to defend that statement. I think you should go back to the freerepublic.com where those tactics are more acceptable and you have friends.
C'mon, admit it: you work for Karl Rove, right?
L4L: Your hysterical baloney isn't helping you make your case. More fitting for Dailykos or FreeRepublic (I'm convinced they both work for Karl Rove).
Most appropriate post you've made yet: says nothing like the others, but this time, it's a lot quieter.
What I learned tonight:
1. Russ Feingold is running for Senate in Connecticut.
2. Russ Fiengold apparently asked for the Big Dog's help in the race, got it, and bloggers didn't bash him for his Clinton bashing in the late 90s.
Did I get that right? Because if I didn't, I don't understand what Feingold has to do with any of this. Whatever Feingold said about Clinton, Feingold hasn't gone begging to Bill to bail him out from the hostility of his own constituents.
Then again, Wisconsing LIKES Feingold. He represents their interests in DC. So he didn't need to ask B. Clinton for help.
Oh, and if the issue is that bloggers aren't angry with Feingold, it's because no one is as single-issue as you claim they are. People aren't angry with Lieberman because of one issue, just like people aren't angry with Feingold for his Ashcroft vote. It's the totality of the record that's under a microscope. The ocassional "wrong" vote can be accepted and tolerated. But a career based on undermining one's party? That tends to become problematic.
Not to bloggers. They have no real power. But to the people that senator claims to represent.
Im pretty confident that Clinton can help Lieberman pull it out, and that will be a good sign for democrats winning in '06 and '08 too, we will have rejected the extremists in the party.
I just hope though that Lieberman learns from this experience and lays off video games, movies etc... If he doesnt, its gonna make me wish Lamont had won.
Great blog, btw. Keep up the good work.
I think the point of the DailyKos article, and that no one is highlighting, is that Lieberman felt compelled to chastise Clinton. When it comes to many of Bush's dispicable actions, though, Lieberman has been frustratingly silent. At least Feingold is consistent and speaks up when he thinks a wrong's been done.
Such invective on both sides of this primary - I would be willing to bet that many of the commentators (including me) are not even from Connecticut. Personally, I have no problem with Lieberman, his party affiliation, his motivation, his character, etc. But, were I a CT resident, I would support Lamont precisely and principally because he is an anti-war candidate - in other words, given two Democratic challengers for the same spot, I will use the war as a litmus test to decide between the two.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Say it. Believe it.
Lieberman's Waterbury event today is like having JFK and Benedict Arnold on the same stage.
leiberman: broken link in last post
I am sure Lieberman wasn't acting on his own when he criticized Clinton on the Senate floor. Clinton probably had something to do with that.
Lieberman didn't approve of any moves to impeach Clinton, but that hero of the nutroots, Feingold, did.
It's hard to argue with cold facts here. Daily Kos readers are typically ignorant and want desperately to twist the facts to suit their own preconceived ideas.
The author claims that it's impossible to know what was on the respective minds of Senators Lieberman and Feingold back in 1998, but I think that's disingenuous. Everyone makes assumptions about other peoples' motivations for their actions. Especially when you factor in their prior and subsequent behavior.
Feingold voted to hear the evidence for impeachment, perhaps because he was genuinely curious as to whether a high crime had been committed by the President. And mind you he ended up voting against conviction.
On the other hand, even though Lieberman decided without hearing any evidence at all that no crime was committed, he nevertheless used Clinton's philandering as a stump subject to shore up his own family-values credentials. As Vice Presidential nominee, he ran more passionately against Clinton than Bush or Cheney.
But the fact that Lieberman supporters are dragging Feingold into this argument at all is pure hypocrisy: Assailing a sitting, duly-elected Democratic Senator because he represents what is, to them, an undesirable wing of the party. What idiocy.
And now accepting Billy Clinton's help after Joe made the latter half of his career by wagging his finger at the former President, and after the two of them colluded considerably in turning what was a liberal and succesful party into a group of lite-Republicans, but without the will to win elections, it's just baffling how anyone calling themselves a Democrat is still boosting this guy.
Lieberman has criticized Bush far more than he has criticized any Democrat - and far more than he has expressed agreement with Bush.
To name a few:
Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819
Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207942&&
Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207356&&
On energy and transportation spending:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251348
On education:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232428&&
And he ran against him for national office. Twice.
Sorry that all that just isn't good enough for you.
Besides, your opinion doens't carry much weight around here, remember? After all, you're:
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Say it. Believe it.
http://liebermania.blogspot.com
LieberDem and Ken Balbari are unfamiliar with the charges of antisemitism made by person associated with this site? Rewriting history again. Let me refresh your very bad memories:
"Asked specifically if he felt that the wave of opposition to his candidacy had anything to do with his religion or his support for Israel, Mr. Lieberman paused, stepped toward the blue sedan that would speed him to a meeting outside of Hartford and said, "That's too big a question to answer on one foot. We should come back to answer that one." This extraordinary interest has led to some uncomfortable moments. Mr. Lieberman's supporters have come to suggest that much of the burgeoning liberal opposition to his candidacy is motivated by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment. Mr. Gerstein says he has detected what he calls a "growing strain of anti-Semitism on the far left," which he believes is in part fueling the strident opposition to Mr. Lieberman."
That would be DAN GERSTEIN, the founder of this web site.
Link -http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/13/172556/832
I would expect a correction in your post if I thought you had any respect for the truth.
As it is, I imagine you;ll ignore this.
where would this site be w/o L4L? sheesh.
Actually, Matt Smith founded this website, not Dan Gerstein. Gerstein is just a contributor.
You have a beef with Gerstein, take it up with him. Smith never said anything of the sort, and you know it.
How's he rewriting history? Does Smith speak for Gerstein just because Gerstein is a contributor to his blog?
There isn't one thing in that post that's untrue, and you know it. Stop trying to twist people's words because you can't find real holes in his argument.
CentristDem:
Are you this obtuse? The dkos post said "the LeiberDems" plural.
LeiberDems is the name of THIS site.
Dan Gerstein is his coblogger, a fellow LieberDem. He prominently made the charge.
What is it with you? Obtuse or dishonest?
Sheesh. Are you people really this dumb?
Smith and Gerstein are the two contributors to a site called LeiberDems.
In this very post, Smith writes of DRONY's remarks, NOT Gerstein's remarks.
His post either has an error or is dishonest. The dkos post was clearly referring to Gerstein false smear.
This is pathetic from the supporters of Liebrman and the LeiberDem site.
Hey Seed freak,
You seem to be trumpting BJ Bill as Baghdad Joey's savior and seem to have a problem with Ned Lamont belonging to an all white country club. Do you remember who else had to quit and all white country club during an election?
freek: ridiculing prominent local dems - that's smart
I hadn't heard or read of Mr. Gerstein's remarks before you just mentioned them. Believe it or not, I had never had any contact with him before two weeks ago.
If the quote you gave is really from Mr. Gerstein, then I have no problem saying I disagree with it. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me.
Sorry if there was any confusion. The point I was trying to make was specific to me; I certainly wasn't trying to defend the statements of all Lieberman supporters everywhere. I didn't realize until this moment that my moniker was being used to denote all pro-Lieberman Democrats (thus the bad joke to that effect that I made in the post).
Now back to work.
Here's a question for l4l:
You still haven't told us: Why is saving millions of people's lives through stem cell research frivolous?
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Can someone explain to me how it could be that Joe's daughter, Rebacca, originally scheduled her wedding for Sunday August 6, less than 48 hours before the primary, and only recently and bitterly changed the date, according to the Lieberman profile in New York magazine (http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/18473/index.html).
I assume that Rebecca checked with her dad when she made the wedding plans. And I assume he said that he would be able to attend on that date. Logically, that means that Joe did not anticipate that he would have to, or should have to, campaign for the primary.
With such an attitude, no wonder he has acted so indignant that anyone would challenge him in the primary.
What puzzles me is that Joe raised some $6 million of other people's money for the campaign. But obviously he didn't feel there was any need to actually campaign. So why did he raise all this money, or why did all these interests give him money?
Here is the quote from New York magazine:
“My father is not the personification of evil,” says his daughter Rebecca, who had initially scheduled her upcoming wedding for two days before the primary but pushed it back a week out of concern for her father’s campaign. “This is incredible.”
don't see why they should bother with that e-mail.
You see, LieberDem has shown a tendency to do this thing called "research" for his posts. It's quite a time-consuming venture, but it results in the posts he makes being filled with accurate statements rather than the distortions, half-truths, and misinformation that define your comments, which insult the intelligence of everyone who reads them.
Research, and looking for both sides of the story. You should try it, L4L.
that's rich.
It is interesting that Lieberworld won't even take a shot at any of the "GregR" questions.
Then again, these are the questions they're trying to avoid, so maybe they won't even try.
seedfreak,
I don't know Rebecca. But I do know that the Lieberman family scheduled a wedding TWO days before the primary.
Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I don't know how to explain that except to attribute it to Joe's arrogant assumption that he would not, and should not, have to campaign for the primary.
What is your explanation?
That's Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. It's his, why should he have to campaign for it?
good job today L4L, thanks..
"BTW, how would I go about volunteering for the Lieberman campaign?"
Hmm, you claim to have been involved in local politics in the past even manning phone banks, yet you have no clue how to go about volunteering for Joe?
Seriously?
The point of the two posts here is that the nutroots is being hypocritical about Lieberman and Clinton while at the same time anointing Feingold as the next savior of the Democratic Party.
This isn't rewriting anything, but the nutroots knows that.
The Lieberman supporters accuse Lamont backers and/or Joe detractors of being one issue voters. I am here to say that for me, it just ain't so. Here is my bill of particulars against Lieberman:
1. The war. Its a huge issue. 2,500 Americans are dead and thousands more wounded, many seriously because of it. Its not just that Joe voted for it. Its' that he shills for it.
2. The 2000 election. His performance was disatrous. He forfeited the VP debate with Cheney, by issuing a stupid platitude about "Not saying anythign if you can't say somethign nice" when he knew damn well cheney would make no reciprocal promise. He also undecut the ticked by hedging his bets and running for reelection too, sending message that he wasn't sure about Gore's chances.
3. The Clarence Thomas vote. Yes, he voted the right way, but he was a wet finger in the wind. He waited to see what the vote was and made sure a "no" vote wouldn't sink him. What a coward!
4. The Sciavo mess. He got involved and pandered to the pro life crowd. Pure grandstanding.
5. The Anti Clinton speech in 98. This was pure garbage. Far from helping the Democrats fight impeachment, it provided bi-partisan cover to the fanatics who wanted Clinton out.
6. School vouchers. He supported them. These will hurt our public schools, which he claims to support.
7. Sean Hannity: What decent human being would willingly appear on his ultra right radio show and suck up to him.
8. Bob Grant. A vile, contemptable racist. Yet Joe frequently called the show to make nice and even wish Bob a happy birthday.
9. This independent bid. Its divisive. It will force loyal Democrats into a very awkward position. Imagine Chris Dodd's choices if Joe loses the Democratic primary then goes to run third party. He can either abandon his party that he's been in all his adult life or abandon a senate colleague since 1988, and someone he's probably known much longer. I would never put a purported friend in this position.
10. video games. A stupid issue aimed at pandering to the Bill Bennett crowd and for no good reason. The fundies won't like joe any better because of it.
As a Lamont supporter, let me just point out the following:
(1) These claims on the Internets that this is "for the soul of the Democratic party" is just nonsense. Lieberman does enable the GOP too much, with his appearances on Hannidate and Fox News, but I could say the same thing about lots of other Dem senators to some degree. I could say the same thing every time a senator goes on TV and doesn't adhere to the straight Dem line. How, exactly, is this for the soul of the Democratic party when there are so many senators who do exactly what Lieberman does?
The truth is, if you elect Lamont to the Senate, there will be another Democratic "enabler" to take Lieberman's place. Could be Biden, could be Schumer, could even be Dodd. This is because the Dems are the minority party, and it's more expedient for Dems to go along with the majority plans to get pork for their state. "Going along" doesn't have to mean votes -- you could be talking about saying not-so-nice things about other Democrats, or providing political cover on Fox News. All of these rabid supporters are misplacing their anger on Lieberman, when they should be placing their anger on having only 44 senators.
It really is such a shame that so much angst and energy is being wasted on a race between two Democrats. Can't we all put this much passion behind, oh I don't know, a race where a Democrat is trying to beat a Republican?
(2) All the nastiness being tossed about is ten times more damaging then it would be in a general election, since the winner will still have to actually win the seat in November. Usually, I believe primaries help the party, but this is an exception to that rule. In three weeks, either the nutjob Lamont backers are going to have to eat their words, or the nutjob Lieberman backers are going to actually have to work to defeat a Democrat. I honestly can't remember a primary that's been as full of vitriol, distortion, and blind groupthink as this one, and I have a pretty long memory.
(3) I'm not a Lamont supporter because of his stance on Iraq, or what Lieberman said about Clinton in 1998 (that was eight years ago, for crying out loud!), or all of these other things that the Kossacks and Eschatonites are taking way, way too far. I'm a Lamont supporter because Joe has made no secret that if he doesn't get the primary result he likes, he's taking his ball and running as an indy, consequences be damned to the Connecticut Dems in downticket races, or to the national party, or anything else that isn't Joe Lieberman. That's really the only reason. He's shown himself to be more concerned about his own self-interest than Democratic principles. It's Lieberman's right to run, sure, but it's also my right to be completely opposed to it and work to defeat that kind of selfishness. And that's the one thing that could really turn off Dems, Indies, and Repubs alike. This is nothing like Bernie Sanders -- the minute he leaves the party and becomes a turncoat, support for Joe will plummet, and rightly so.
Not Bernie Sanders -- I meant Jim Jeffords. Doh.
One question for Dan Gerstein: didn't you work on Lieberman's speech about Clinton? If so, then you probably do know what Lieberman's motivations were. Why not spell them out for us?
L4L - joe's right... "we're not gonna stop"
y.g. brown - thank you for the truth....
Oh, yeah. That cloture vote was so close. That's why it carried with 9 votes to spare.
The Lieberman-haters love to point at cloture votes that carried by huge margins as "evidence" that Lieberman somehow could have stopped a bill from passing. What a crock.
pro-joe: get serious.
It's ok. We're used to Lieberman-haters being dismissive of us here. It's ok...we'll keep making reasonable arguments, and they'll keep ignoring them.
I think the point is simple, although lost as usual on your razor-sharp wit. The cloture vote was going to pass anyway. Why make a useless symbolic gesture and piss off the Gang of 14 which formed the pact that SAVED FILIBUSTERS?
He voted against the final bill - even though most of the Dem caucus voted for it.
But that's ok. We know you aren't so big on facts L4L. After all, you're...
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Ken Balbari:
You really hve a problem with the truth.
mcjoan's post attirbuted the statement to GERSTEIN, one of two contributors of the blog LIEBERDEMS.
Are you unable to tell the truth?
"(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)"
Where does she attribute Gerstein? She doesn't. At all.
You obviously ARE unable to tell the truth.
LieberDem said:
On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's
Sure you can, and here's how. Senator Feingold was critical of President Clinton for his disappointing and immoral behavior, and was also critical of President Bush for his illegal, immoral, incompetent, arrogant, etc. behavior. Senator Lieberman was critical of President Clinton for lying about a blowjob, but was supportive of President Bush for lying America into a foolish, expensive war with no end.
When Senator Lieberman scolded Democrats (all Democrats, not just the politicians) for criticizing President Bush, I was highly offended and disgusted. How can such a "principled" man be so careless with the principles of our country? How dare he tell me what to say about the President! And thus began my support of Ned Lamont.
Senator Lieberman has a double standard for criticizing the President, and gee, what a coincidence, it's the Republican President who benefits from Lieberman looking the other way AND telling other Democrats to STFU and stop criticizing President Bush.
Lieberman is far more critical and disloyal than Feingold, because his "principles" change based on which party holds the President's office.
See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?
<< Home