About That "Single Issue"...

I hope this is enough (4.00 / 2)

for those at State Central to remove Joe Liebermans picture from the wall at our party headquarters.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:03:13 AM CST

Doubt it (4.00 / 1)

No matter how hard certain Dems try, they just can't quit Joe.

It appears to be like trying to quit smoking, or stopping eating french fries because you know they are bad for you. Or.

Just play that song that begins, "Through the years", with plenty of violin backup.  The words don't matter; the upwelling of sentiment that shuts off the cranial connection to clear thinking may be the important thing to observe.

Earth to Dems:  The party does not exist as your personal scrapbook. 

You'd think the Democratic party was about shared memories from class picnics and not about any shared principles.  I am not comforted when people say, "we go way back years and years" as an explanation to why questions of principle were not addressed.  The 200t senatorial race is an example of that, but in the future we will have the same issues to deal with again if the underlying root is not addressed now.

Is this what happens to a party that's in the majority for so long it gets complacent, and confuses "we've always done it that way" with "it's still a good idea"?

Inquiring minds want to know: is the Democratic party leadership in CT so caught up in itself and its own frame of reference that it forgets why it exists?

I'm new here, but I do ask questions.  Self-referentially run political parties, if that's what we're doing here,  imho sow the seeds of their own irrelevancy.  Could there  be great value in stopping the saying "It's over because we say so" and starting to do some careful reassessment of how we got where we got, and where our past and present actions are likely to take us?

I am not so certain the path we are on is a happy trajectory.  The ability to make nice on the surface and make coded comments about progressives to those in the not so progressive circle is duly noted.  Making nice does not equal "I support the candidate".  Just so we're all clear on that BS.  Nobody's fooled for long, and two or more can play the "we are pretending not to notice" game.

My question to Dems who just can't quit him:

Are you thinking about where the party is going?  Or are you just not thinking?  (And if the answer is question 1, I'd love to hear your vision of where this all is taking us.)

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:55:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You'd hope that he'd consider the COMPLETE candidate... (4.00 / 1)

...even if he disagrees with them on Iraq.

What's important is that the candidate votes their conscience, even if it's not in agreement with their consituency. "Just because you disagree with me on Iraq, doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for me." It's the Record of Trust over many years that matters.

A President should be beholden to the people of the United States of America and their conscience, that's all.

---

by: bluestater @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:35:53 AM CST

ROTFL LMAO -- how pathetic is that? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:57:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And Joe gets the Atrios "Wanker of the Day" Award (0.00 / 0)

http://atrios.blogsp...

Brownback Knocks Down Lieberman Claim That Iraq Resolutions `Encourage The Enemy'

via ThinkProgress

---

by: Sue @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:51:07 AM CST

Pathetic (4.00 / 1)

This man is truly pathetic. In the last few days he has suggested that his colleagues in the Senate are committing treason by opposing the escalation in Iraq. Now he says he'll vote for a Republican or an independent who's right for him on Iraq? What a wanker.

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:37:13 AM CST

Go ahead, Joe (0.00 / 0)

..Pull the trigger. You know you want to.

---

by: Scarce @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:08:39 PM CST

It's going to be fun to watch (4.00 / 1)

the Connecticut press fall all over themselves trying to ignore this...

$387,000? What $387,000.

Keep digging Joe.

---

by: notcho @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:27:09 PM CST

Transcript (4.00 / 1)

FOXNews.com
Transcript: Sen. Joe Lieberman on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday , January 28, 2007

The following is a partial transcript of the Jan. 28, 2007, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now, Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000, defeated in his party's primary last August and reelected as an Independent from Connecticut.

Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

LIEBERMAN: Good to be with you, Chris. Thank you.

WALLACE: Let's start with the State of the Union. During the speech, I couldn't help but notice that there were a number of times when you were the only one on the Democratic side of the aisle - and here's one example of that - to applaud the president's ideas while the rest of them sat on their hands.

Your hometown newspaper, the Hartford Current, actually counted and saw that there were 13 separate occasions when you applauded the president's ideas and your fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, did not.

Question, do you ever question whether you should continue to maintain your support for the Democratic majority in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I made a decision last year after the Democratic primary that I wasn't going to let it end there, and I went on to run as an Independent, and thanks to the people of Connecticut of all parties, I was elected.

So I consider myself today an Independent-Democrat, and I'm staying in the Democratic Party because I believe in the historic principles and commitments of the party to be both progressive here at home and muscular, strong and principled in the world.

I'm a Harry Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson and Bill Clinton Democrat.

WALLACE: But as you saw, what a lonely figure you were, does that shake your feelings about that?

LIEBERMAN: Here's what it says to me. First off, I think that standing and sitting stuff at the State of the Union speech is a silliness and it demeans the process.

But the second point is this. There was a large message from the election last year, and it wasn't just about Iraq. It was about too much partisanship in Washington. The president said afterward he got it. Leaders of both parties said afterward they got it.

And yet we seem to be sliding back into the partisanship. The people understandably want us to work together to get something done for them. And you know, I stood a few times when very few or no one else on my side did because I happened to agree with what the president was saying. Why shouldn't I do that? That's my responsibility.

WALLACE: But let me give you an example of that. The president endorsed your idea, speaking of bipartisanship, for a bipartisan panel that would advise the president on the war on terror. He raised that in the state of the union.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

WALLACE: As soon as he did, Senate Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi said nope, there's a bipartisan structure, it's called the committee system.

LIEBERMAN: Yes. Well, I was really disappointed with the reaction of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to the president's offer or invitation to have essentially a bipartisan war council, and it's a war on terror council.

You know, I talked with the president about this, and he said to me at one point in December when I met with him before - John McCain and I were going over to Iraq. He said to me you know, it's obvious that we're not going to be able to have the broad bipartisan consensus I hoped we would have on Iraq, but we need to build that consensus on the larger war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, because this is going to go on for a generation.

The president said do you have any ideas how to do it, and I said why don't we convene a group of senators and congressmen, chairmen and ranking members, with the administration regularly to talk about the war on terrorism.

The president said he wants to get this group together first to talk about an increase in the size of the Army and the Marines. So I hope he does it. I believe if he does, Democrats will come.

Here's the problem, Chris. When the president makes an offer like this, Democrats think back to what they believe, and with some justification, are the times when the White House has been partisan with Democrats. We've got to start thinking less about yesterday, more about today and tomorrow.

And again, remember two things. The public told us last year they want results here, not partisanship. Second, the Islamist terrorists who we are fighting don't distinguish between Americans based on party affiliation. They hate us all. They want to kill us all. And therefore we ought to pull together to defeat them.

WALLACE: Well, you say pull together. In the State of the Union, the president said - in effect, pleaded with Congress - give my plan, the new troop surge, a chance to work, as he put it.

The next day the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted a resolution of disapproval. If that passes, and it seems almost certain that either this week or next week it will pass, do you think it will have any practical effect on the war effort?

LIEBERMAN: Well, it certainly - and here's my gripe with that resolution. I mean, obviously, I disagree with it. First off, I think the plan that the president has offered with the advice of a lot of people is the best hope we have of stabilizing the situation in Iraq and succeeding so the Iraqis can take over their own country.

And we've got a new commander, General David Petraeus, confirmed unanimously on Friday by the U.S. Senate, which is about to now go ahead, it appears, and adopt a resolution that will condemn the mission that we have just confirmed General Petraeus unanimously to carry out which he said he needs in order to succeed in Iraq.

WALLACE: But my question - do you think passing this resolution will have a practical effect on the war effort?

LIEBERMAN: In the most literal sense, this resolution will not have a practical effect because it's non-binding, and the president has said he will go forward with what he believes as commander in chief will help us succeed in Iraq.

But I fear, as was discussed by General Petraeus this week, by Senator Lugar, by the retired chief of the Army, General Jack Keane in testimony before the Armed Services Committee - I fear that while this resolution is nonbinding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we're asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don't want your enemy to be given any hope.

WALLACE: You have signed on to a resolution being written by Senator McCain which would set benchmarks for the Iraqis to keep their promises on both the political and military front. If they fail, if you pass this resolution and if the Iraqis fail to meet their targets, what would you do about it?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we'll face that reality when it comes. I mean, this is why I've said, and I believe the president is right to have said to our colleagues, the legislative trains seem to be heading down the track on these resolutions, and I believe they're going to have a collision that's going to hurt our country.

Why don't we step back? The resolution doesn't do anything but express an opinion. Let's give this plan a chance. Let's give it a chance to work. And if, God forbid, it doesn't work to succeed in Iraq, then there will be plenty of time for the resolutions, for the troop caps, for the cuts in funding for support of our troops.

I want to say a word about what John McCain and I and others are doing. We're saying the Biden resolution, the Biden-Hagel, the Warner-Nelson resolution - these are resolutions that don't have any effect, but we worry that there's a risk that they will encourage the enemy and discourage our troops.

John McCain and I are trying to put together a common ground resolution that can bring people in both parties together to say what we all apparently believe - maximizing the chances of success in Iraq are critical to everybody, because America has a lot on the line there. All my colleagues agree with that.

Secondly, we need to give General Petraeus and our troops everything they need to succeed. And third, the Iraqis have to step up. And we're going to list in this resolution what we expect them to do. And you know, if it doesn't happen, we'll face that reality then. But it's going to be an awful one.

WALLACE: Let's look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?

LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country.

I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.

So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned.

WALLACE: But looking at the three frontrunners - Clinton, Obama, Edwards - all of them in varying degrees expressing their opposition to the war and wanting to end our involvement there - could you support any presidential candidate who you didn't feel was committed to victory in Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism.

Here's where I am and maybe why it's - I am genuinely an Independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy. I'm an Independent.

WALLACE: And we've got less than a minute left.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

WALLACE: Joe Lieberman grew up in John Bailey's Connecticut, Democratic vice presidential nominee. You're saying you might vote Republican in 2008.

LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.

I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I'm saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide who to support for president.

WALLACE: Senator Lieberman, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Please come back. Always a pleasure.

LIEBERMAN: I will.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed except by MyLeftNutmeg blog.

Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

---

by: Scarce @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 13:00:04 PM CST

CNN clip of Lieberman (0.00 / 0)

...just ran by as well, that he may vote Republican in 2008.

Question: Just how stupid would someone feel who voted for Lieberman, as a Democrat, seeing that type of nonsense crawl across their screen?

a) really stupid
b) somewhat stupid
c) not stupid, just surprised
d) not stupid nor surprised
e) sticking with Joe no matter what, come hell or highwater

---

by: Scarce @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 13:20:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I knows some Lieber-crats who would choose answer e (0.00 / 0)

The Speaker of the House, Amman, would come to mind immediately.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 13:38:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Given the number of people (0.00 / 0)

who voted for Rowland the second and third time because he vowed to repeal the State Income Tax the first time... And given the fact that he never even attempted to repeal it but instead expanded the State Sales Tax,

I'd say "e" is a lot closer to reality. We just have to hope  'lil Joey stays the course and continues to support every failed Bush policy, every failed Republican agenda item, and keeps spouting failed, divisive neocon/DLC rhetoric.

It's all going to come back to bite him. Then they'll get to watch him wallow in his petty vindictive victimhood.

---

by: notcho @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 15:17:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the war on terror (4.00 / 1)

LIeberman has been the biggest aider and abetter of Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists in the United STates Senate by pursuing this war in Iraq at the expense of cracking down on terrorism and capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden.

If Joe wants to use this kind of language, it's time we start using the same words back at him within our frames.

Joe Lieberman and George Bush believe that our govt should cut and run on capturing Osama Bin Laden so that Bush and the neocons could invade Iraq. Despite no Wmds and no links to 9/11, Lieberman supports that decision.

---

by: bigdavefromqueens @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 13:45:51 PM CST

Shooting the moon (0.00 / 0)

A great deal of terrorist activity has being growing in the Islamist social laboratories, but his obsession with Islamists seems to be to the exclusion of all else.  I want to see professionals who will look at terrorism in every form. 

Running your career based on singling out Islamists as our chief threat may get you a lot of airtime, but can't he see that a) the unitary executive will be dismantled and b) he is burning every bridge in his wake?  How would any of his neo-con-lite dreams come true?  I do not believe Lieberman is stupid, so I'm really scratching my head over what his real rewards/goals are.  If he is not shooting the moon for a McCain victory with him involved, what else is there?

---

by: drowsy @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 14:14:08 PM CST

LIEberman (4.00 / 1)

I do not live in CT., but how LIEberman votes affects me and my family here in MARYLAND the same as what our SENATOR in MARYLAND has an affect on the people in CT., We saw throw KARL ROVES personl chosen to run for SENATE here STEEL was a KARL ROVE lacky just the same that LIEberman was. There is a differnce we did not elect ROVES lackey STEEL. It is too bad that H.CLINTON  helped throw Ned Lamont under the BUSS. Now she would like for my vote to be PRESIDENT I say no way FOR I consider her the same as LIEberman, and Steel just a lackey FOR KARL ROVE. LIEberman will do all he can to start a war with IRAN. It is too bad that we are stuck with LIEberman for the next six years,just think how many of mine and your FRIEND my die or be wounded in a very terrable way between now and then. And LIEbermans son will be safe at HOME.

---

by: blackjack @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 14:50:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Neoconservative (0.00 / 0)

Yes, this is not about intelligence ("I do not believe Lieberman is stupid"), this is about an ideology and this ideology is not simply an adjective to be used to describe those whose politics differ or who support the Iraq invasion/occupation. This is a word formulated around a deeply held belief system in ways and means of achieving very specific goals. Lieberman is not supporting the CIC or, the president or John McCain. He is a devoted member of the ideology known as Neoconservativism. To understand what they want - predating concerns about "terrorism" btw - I'd suggest a look, if you haven't already, at the manifesto that is the Neoconservatives gameplan Project for the New American Century (PNAC). That may help with some of the "head scratching". Proof - well his alignment with the American Enterprise Institute where he recently met and spoke. AEI is a think tank for the Neocon cause and is one telling example. Also, his repeated desire to include Iran and Syria in the fight and the confluence of Hazballoh and Hamas as global terrorists - which is pure propaganda since these organizations are indigenous to the region. Little of this had to do with Saddam.

http://www.newameric...

How the good senator from Connecticut evolved in this direction will be left to his biographer (assuming he has one), I suspect. But as for the Middle East - the grand plan is a reconfiguration of the region. This will be done, according to the plan, with the lives of many, but the name of the grand cause of "liberalizing the world" and so military force is definitely essential - not simply an "option" among many. War is the tool of domination; and besides that's why the huge military complex exists.

I really think the point is missed when we talk about our Joe, the Senator from CT, as if he's just on the wrong side of an "issue" - except when it politically suits Joe's political needs.

---

by: FairTrade @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 16:34:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Single Issue (4.00 / 3)

This what I posted at C&L
  Honor, integrity, wisdom, strength, human qualities addressed here in the context of addressing a war that is both-immoral and unjustified-H/T Arthur.
If anyone is hurting our troops or anything ancillary to them it is the Joe Leibermans who can never quite come to grips with the fact that this war was started based on lies, propaganda and the manipulation of intelligence, and if Joe cannot speak to that, then he cannot speak, anything else he would say is in direct opposition to the truth and I would hope that I would not be as craven as he if put in the same position.
  This is what I would add, those four words embody the character of a man or woman, and it is clear that Joe does not have any of these qualities in great abundance. It is easy to denigrate someone from in front of a computer screen and not something I enjoy doing but in this case we are dealing with a war that has caused death and misery for tens of thousands all unecessesary and based on lies, that cannot be stated enough, based on lies. Here at home in America we are facing the attempted takeover of our government by a group of people who care not one iota for humanity, or our country, Katrina should be example enough. We have people in the highest positions in  our government that outed one of their own agents, Valerie Plame, to not mince words that is a traitorous act as I understand the definition. Joe says nothing, ergo Joe is a self serving fool who can't see past his own agenda, which has nothing to do with anybodies welfare but his own. God I am mad.

---

by: maddy @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 18:18:48 PM CST

Hey Maddy (4.00 / 1)

Welcome to MLN - always nice to see new commenters posting. Hope you can stick around for a while!

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 18:28:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]