The Liberal Cleansing of Joe Lieberman
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General Politics
The L.A. Times has a great editorial about the frustrating attempts by the Daily Kosers and others to bring down Lieberman.
A taste…
Democratic voters in Connecticut have the right to nominate the candidate of their choice. But it is more than a little disturbing for the longtime popular senator (and the party’s 2000 nominee for vice president) to be targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views. There were principled people on both sides of the debate to go to war in Iraq. This page did not support the war, but it cannot cheer on liberal activists who run the risk of being guilty of the same sort of insistence on ideological purity that they deplore in Republicans.
And lest we forget…there’s an important piece of info in that above paragraph. Lieberman was just a few thousands votes away from being our Vice President.
Listen, I’m not a big Lieberman fan, but what I find truly fascinating is it’s very likely the majority of those who believe that Gore/Lieberman actually won in 2000 are now trying to get Joe kicked out of the Senate. And say what you like about him, but Joe is a principled guy. That means in all likelihood he would have had the same opinions about removing Saddam whether he was VP or not. Would these same Dems be calling for his removal now? I’d bet a large sum of money the answer would be no.
Some food for thought…
This entry was posted on Friday, July 7th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:20 am
How many times do people have to say it — Joe Leiberman is not under fire for his foreign policy views as much as he is under fire for the way he elevates himself by stepping on his own party-mates. In 2000, his policy views were the same, but he hadn’t spent six years crapping on his own party.
July 8th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Indeed. If Joe Lieberman, VP, had spent six years going on talk shows and bashing the Democrats every Sunday, bashing President Kerry, bashing everything liberal, voting with the Republicans in the Senate, etc. etc., I’m sure he’d be getting the same amount of anger.
Lieberman’s a Republican and that’s the ticket he should be running under. That’s the ticket he should have run under in 2000.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I agree fully with your post.
It speaks to the extent our two political parties have become polarized.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:06 am
For the party that claims the high ground in their support for diversity, it appears that diversity in thinking is completely off limits. The new age Democratic party seems to be more of a religion than a political party. Of course, I guess you can say the same thing about Republicans.
So what’s most important? Toeing the official party propaganda talking points so you fit in, or being your own independent thinker. I think Lieberman is the latter and that’s why some people call him “principled”. I wish we had more like him in both parties.
I liken the Kossers to fundamental religious. They believe what they believe and if you disagree, they curse you to death. They are so incredibly brutal and merciless it amazes and amuses me. That will (or perhaps already has) limit their influence to the fringe.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Phillip – I’m not sure what you are talking about because I don’t follow Leiberman, but you certainly are consistent in this strain. Can you give some examples of the Leib “back-stabbing” his breathen? You make it sound mighty personal, rather than just policy differences. While I’m pretty sure, we are on the exact opposite ends of the political spectrum, I feel your pain in terms of party spot/apparatus being hijacked by an imposture closer to the opposition than with the party platform on which he/she runs.
July 8th, 2006 at 11:57 am
I support Joe Lieberman, even if I don’t support all of his positions. Let’s not look for people to attack within our own party; let’s focus on exposing the Republican criminals for who they are.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The real problem with Joe Lieberman is that he has lost touch and is out of step with the people of Connecticut who have elected him. This isn’t simply about the war in Iraq. Lieberman is no longer seen as representing the interests and views of the people of Connecticut. He has spent way too much time “playing nice” with President George W. Bush and other Republicans, instead of being the Senator “from” Connecticut. He has only himself to blame for what is now happening to him. Senator Clinton, who also supports the war in Iraq isn’t having the same problems, because she is seen as faithfully representing the views of the people who elected her to office. There is a big difference here; Joe is simply out of step with Connecticut on many issues. Electing Ned Lamont won’t end the war in Iraq, but it will ensure that the people of Connecticut will be properly represented…something that has not been the case for many, many years with Joe Lieberman. Joe is only interested in Joe.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Lieberman is as responsible for 2,532 confirmed deaths, untold innocent lives and future needless deaths for lies as bush is. I don’t give a damn WHAT party he belongs to. The blood is on his hands too.
Period.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
From a different perspective, I’ll offer that Bush and Lieberman are responsible for freeing millions of people from a brutal dictator, saving untold countless thousands of innocent lives from either brutal death or unjustified incarceration in the worst prisions suffering miserable torture. That blood would have been on your hands if we would have listened to you. You ought to thank both of them for keeping you pure.
July 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Wow. What vituperation I find on the net today against people like Lieberman and H. Clinton. You all try to make it sound like its not all anti-war but it is, thats where it started. Someone tried to say it was also about his willigness to run as an independent Democat, even though that decision came just a few days ago. What was the issue before then? The war. Cant you all understand that people of good moral character and conscience had and continue to have different opinions on what to do with Iraq? That people who never would have gone in there on their own had they been in charge fear the consequences of a pell mell pullout? That even today people of good conscience can disagree on the best strategy? If Dems target a dem and push him out we are in big trouble my friends. Its wierd that the response to 9-11 by Bush has been to divide us and make us suspicious of each other, and the Dems are also divided and suspicious of each other to the point of fratricide. I am readying for more Repub government because this other fractured party has no chance. One thought to those of you saying Lieberman is a Repub: Joe was marching in Mississippi in the FRONT LINES of the civil rights movement, at risk of life and limb and arrest and jail and ridicule. He put his life on the line so that others could have the full measure of liberty and justice. Joe has walked the walk. Have any of you Joe haters done anything other than talk the talk?
July 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
And from another different perspective, there are no “thank yous” rendered to murderers who have now topped Saddam’s atrocities and all for their damnable lies.
Don’t preach to me, sir. I know what “Thou shalt not kill means.”
July 8th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I wasn’t preaching. I presented a different but valid take on the situation. To pretend that there aren’t any other valid viewpoints except your own is just plain wrong and self-serving.
You can’t get around the leaving Saddam in power alternative while claiming Bush and Lieberman have bloody hands. Unless of course you subscribe to the Kos religion where being consistent only counts if it supports your beliefs.
July 8th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
I’m not from CT, but my opposition to Lieberman certainly isn’t only because of his support for this illegal and unwinnable war. It began during the vote recount in FL 2000, when he argued that Gore should allow the counting of overseas ballots which didn’t meet FL’s election laws – while the Bush camp was arguing AGAINST counting them in counties that favored Gore! I’ve watched him move to the right ever since then; he is far too influenced by the AIPAC lobby, he was tentative about Bush’s disastrously expensive plan for Social Security privatization. and he didn’t work very hard to oppose Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. The last straw for me was his callous comment about how a victim of rape could always go to another hospital if the one she went to initially for help refused to dispense the morning-after pill. As people who’ve been to Iraq recently said, he’s delusional if he thinks things are getting better there. Mary was right; he has dipped his hands in the blood of thousands.
July 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I’m considering contributing to Lieberman’s campaign. If there were more Dems like him – there really would be an alternative to the Right. That’d be nice.
July 8th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Mary, while I’m sure that you know what “Thou shalt not kill” means, it is really too bad that you don’t know what “Thou shalt not murder” means. Since that is the accurate translation of the original Hebrew.
To murder, for your information, is “to kill unlawfully”. The term doesn’t even say anything about the quality of the law involved, only that if the law requires, or does not forbid, killing, it isn’t murder. And by simply changing the law (or going thru a process defined by law) the same action can move from murder to not-murder and back.
Now if you want to argue that the war in Iraq was illegally entered into, and the deaths there therefore constitute murder, that’s a different discussion. But note that, if the actions were authorized by Congress, EVEN IF THE CONGRESS WAS MISLED OR WRONG TO DO SO, then they are legal — immoral, perhaps, but not illegal. And those deaths are therefore not, in general, murder.
Feel free to oppose Lieberman because you think he was misled too easily. Or because you feel he know the reasons given for invading Iraq were bogus, but voted to do so anyway. Or even because you think it was OK to have done so, but he should have changed his position when the incompetence of the Bush administration became apparent. But crying “murderer!” just because people have died is simply laziness. Or hype on a par with the administration’s usual behavior.
July 8th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Well, I’m not a “Joe hater”, but I just cannot support him any more. He doesn’t listen to the people of Connecticut who elected him, and he doesn’t represent our ideas. Joe seems to be much more interested these days in just promoting “Joe” than the issues that affect us daily. That’s a politician with a huge ego who’s really out of touch. Yes, Joe did do some wonderful things in the past that both he and Connecticut can be very proud of, but there comes a time to finally move out of the way when you become ineffective and stop listening to the people. That’s why we have a democracy, so the elected will do the will of the people who elect them; not the other way around. By attempting this end run around the primary election, he demonstrates that he’s only in favor of democracy when it benefits him. Joe just doesn’t represent us anymore, and I hope he loses both the primary and the general election in November soundly. I would even much rather see a real “Republican” elected than a “fake” Democrat win…at least that’s a more honest choice. Hopefully, a “real” Democrat, Ned Lamont will win both elections and “faithfully” represent the people who elect him to office…just like Joe used to do many years ago.
July 8th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
WJ –
You’re playing with semantics – if you want to put it within the framework of what is man-made “law” based upon one country’s view, then certainly, you have a point.
However, when a law is cited but the supporting facts that lead to the enactment of that law are lies, any resulting decision from there on is faulty.
And yes, morality certainly does play into it, regardless of what stage the process of deciding to war was in. And in each instance, the moral vacancy was evident because again, a faulty decision was made because faulty information was given to those who voted for it. Furthermore, regardless of the wording of the “law,” it all comes down to its interpretation. Were this not true, we’d have no need at all for the judicial branch and all of the levels in existence. For that matter, the same is true of morality.
In this instance, with both subject to interpretation, I will maintain my stance that the crime that has been committed here by all those who knowingly voted for this war are those with the blood of innocents on their hands. For those who understood this after the fact and have refused to amend their thinking and acknowledge their grevious mistake, like Lieberman who instead has almost lovingly embraced this war, they, too, are participants in murder.
Dead is dead, no matter what you want to call it…i.e., “a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.”
July 8th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Sorry, I took your quotation of the Commandment to be simply tossing Lieberman’s faith back in his face. Inaccurately. If that was not your intent, I’m sorry that I misunderstood.
You seem to be saying, in your third paragraph, that a crime is committed by those who got bad information and voted (wrong, in your view) based on that. Does that mean that, if YOU ever make a mistake based on bad information, YOU are culpable? It would seem to. Personally, I would fault those who knowingly gave out bad information, but not those who did not know it was bad. (And I’m sure you did not intend it, but your last sentence there would have Bush be innocent of a crime merely because he hasn’t, yet, been convicted of one. Which is nonsense.)
If you are simply taking the position (in your last paragraph) that nothing that results in someone’s death is acceptable, I do not envy you the mental contortions of dealing with situations where someone with a different view will kill someone unless YOU kill them. Do you just estimate the number of dead both ways and hope you counted correctly? Or do you have some system for deciding who is “an innocent”?
July 8th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
I’m not certain that the statement “Lieberman doesn’t listen or has lost touch with the people of CT” is entirely accurate. Maybe some of them, especially when limited to only democrats who vote in primaries. But if he runs as an independent in the general election, then it appears he’s going to pull in not only mainstream democrats, but also independents and some republicans. What I’ve read is that he has a good chance of winning.
Now if I was a democrat desperately yearning for the glory days of winning elections and being in charge again, I’d pay real close attention to that.
July 8th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
WJ –
I used a biblical quote as a frame of reference highlighting what I certainly hope is considered a universal tenet. I personally could care less what the religion of any politician is. I’m far more interested in ethics, values and the job they do in representing me as an elected official.
From what I understand, Joe considers himself a religious man – if I didn’t know that, I’d certainly have picked it up from his display during the debate I’ll just define as his “holier than Ned” attitude. It was quite clear he was insulted he even had to be there, vividly displaying his pompous sense of entitlement…but, I digress.
To your next point, if and when I have made mistakes and inevitably will continue to do, based on faulty information, then yes, I hold myself accountable. I am a nurse and people’s lives depend on my making sure that whatever information I make decisions upon is based upon correct knowledge but beyond that, I am held to a standard via my profession that makes ME accountable for whatever action I take because I take on the responsibility of making SURE that I know what is correct and what isn’t. As an example, if an MD is being sued for malpractice let’s say because he ordered a wrong medication, that doc will most likely be convicted. However, do you know that the nurse who gives that medication is liable as well? We could say, well, it’s the doctor’s fault because he ordered the wrong med but it is up to the nurse to make sure that he/she performed the standard they are held to in making sure they have the right information about that medication. That’s the only analogy I can think of at the moment. So, yes, I hold myself responsible and accountable for actions I take, both good and bad.
There is plenty of evidence available from good, solid, credible sources that illustrate that the bush cabal indeed knew that Saddam had no WMD. There has been no conviction because there has been no charge because there is no PRESS that tells this country the truth because…well, have you taken a look who owns the press? The American people have not been GIVEN the truth and without that, of course there is no conviction. But when the truth does come out, as it inevitably will, maybe they WILL need those secret prisons they’re building just to house simply one layer of all the perpetrators of the war crimes that have been committed. If these things I cite are not familiar to you, I will be most happy to communicate with you via email and share with you the things the mainstream has purposefully and deliberately withheld from the American people.
As to your final paragraph, maybe you can try that on someone more gullible than I am because it’s a ridiculous stance to suggest what you’re saying. However, I’ll indulge you in your last question before I break for the evening simply because I have that strange, niggling feeling I get when I’m speaking with a neocon in disguise and if I’m right, I won’t waste any more of time – that, I have no “system” as you query. I don’t need one. A life snuffed out for another’s evil agenda qualifies as an innocent life. Tell me, how is it that they won’t even release the numbers of “collateral damage” from Iraq. Do please enlighten me should you have the answer because I’ve searched the Internet(s) many times over and still have found no accurate numbers. And by the way, do you know that soldiers who aren’t immediately killed on the battlefield but later die in the hospitals are NOT included as a war death? Just thought you’d like that tidbit too. And don’t you worry about my mental contortions one single bit. As a psych nurse, be assured you’ve revealed far more to me about yours than I would possibly reveal about mine.
Now, should you like to lose the condescension and carry on a respectful dialogue, you’re more than welcome to email me privately. Having addressed your attempt to change the topic and not wishing to subject other posters to this distraction, I’d like to stick to Lieberman/Lamont on this thread. That’s common courtesy.
Good night.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:31 am
I would take the position that, as a nurse, you may be legally liable if the medication you give turns out to be wrong. But are you GUILTY if, in good faith, and based on the best information that is available to you, you do something that later, with new information which was not available at the time, turns out to be the wrong thing? No.
I’m afraid your neo-con diagnosis (even if based on the best information you had ;-) is wrong. Personally, I think most of them are dangerous lunatics . . . and the rest are merely out of touch with the real world (as opposed to the world the way they would like it to be).
As for Lieberman/Lamont, I don’t have a major personal stake in the race, being from another state, and therefore haven’t researched them in detail. Except for this: I figure the odds are good that if Lieberman wins the primary, he holds the seat for the Democrats. If Lamont wins, the Republicans take the seat in November. Perhaps the Republican candidate is more right on the issues of war and peace that matter to you than Lieberman . . . but if so I will be much surprised. And it seems very unlikely that he would be to the left of Lieberman on domestic issues. And unless that is so, a win for Lamont has to rank right up there with shooting oneself in the foot. Sure, after a term or so the people of Connecticut may turn back to the Democrats, and even select someone to the left of Lieberman. But how much damage will be done in the meanwhile?
Good night.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:41 am
ONLY if Lieberman trys to run as an independant.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Perhaps I am overly influenced by watching the luckiest politician in the country. The general political philosophy in California is somewhere between Diane Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenager — this, after all, is a state which has had mainly Republican governors for 40 years, including Reagan twice. Certainly a majority is far, far to the right of Barbra Boxer.
But what happens every time she runs? The Republicans avoid any moderately conservative (let alone moderate) candidates available in their primary, and got for ideological purity, putting up someone who is ever further out in right field than Boxer is out in left field. I’m a conservative, and a Republican for decades, and I couldn’t see voting for some of these characters! Obviously you don’t have to run from the center to win; you just need to be lucky in who you get to run against.
Somehow (on admittedly minimal data, from across the width of the country) Lamont looks like someone who would do for the Republican Senate candidate in Connecticut (and I have no idea who he or she might be) what the Republicans keep doing for Boxer.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
The term doesn’t even say anything about the quality of the law involved, only that if the law requires, or does not forbid, killing, it isn’t murder.
Yeah because that argument worked out real well for the Nazis at Nuremburg.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Lewis, perhaps you really don’t understand what I am saying…it really doesn’t matter if Democrats lose this seat to a “true” Republican candidate…because Joe Lieberman is already an ultra conservative who backs Bush and the Republican Agenda right now. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose by supporting Ned Lamont, because the seat is “already” occupied by a “Republican” who only calls himself a “Democrat”. We don’t have the seat now. This so-called Democratic “secure” seat is in play because of Lieberman’s actions; not Ned Lamont’s. Trust me, I won’t be voting for Joe Lieberman no matter who wins the Democratic Primary. Sometimes you just have to cut off a bad limb to save the body. Yes, I would rather have even a “moderate” Republican represent Connecticut than Joe Lieberman, if it comes to that…and I bet a lot of other voters will agree with me come November. Ned Lamont is the only “true” Democrat running in this election.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:59 am
ExJoeSupporter –
Your remarks are right on the money. I got some wonderful news from a reporter from NH who has been following this race and wrote an excellent piece about there being a great fallacy among the spinner out there who are just assuming that should Holy Joe run independent, which he will, that Lamont will lose.
After writing her for some clarification, she returned a note to me telling me that “she has spoken to MANY republicans out there as part of her research and not ONE of them is planning to vote for Lieberman.
Funny how a CA neoconservative Republican from CA considers himself an expert on what’s going on in our state. Highly amusing but come August, we’ll be having the last laugh.
Nice rebuttal, ExJoeSupporter. And keen insight.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Dos Pereos
It’s stuff like this:
It’s not that he is strongly for the war — many Democratic senators are, and are not facing a primary challenge. It’s the way he expresses these views, by bashing those who disagree with him, and providing cover for the President and the right wing, that is torquing people off.
Given this blog’s centrist posture, I know partisan politics are not popular, but this is what’s going on. As Ezra Klein put it:
July 10th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Mary, is there really no difference between who will run the Senate, and what they will do, if the Democrats or the Republicans have a majority? Maybe one Senate seat won’t be the size of the majority, but at the moment that at least seems a possibility.
No matter how much you think Lieberman’s positions are identical to those of the Republicans, is there any doubt that he would vote with the Democrats when it came to organizing the Senate, appointing committee chairs, etc.? Even if he ends up getting elected as a nominal Independent, he’ll do that.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Phillip J. Birmingham:
I guess I can see what you’re getting at. But it ignores something real: if you bash your nation’s leader in a time of war, then you hurt your nation. The greater the portion of the nation that believes that war is legitimate, then the greater the hurt.
It doesn’t matter how many people believe in “incontrovertible proof” that the war is illegitimate, unless that war has not yet been declared. If there’s any sort of decent argument in existence for the war afterward, then any attempt to decry the war and administer justice before the war is even completed commits the venial sin of being reactionary, and the mortal sin of making the nation appear weak and indecisive, and thus encouraging more external aggression in the future.
Lieberman apparently gets this. The Democrats he decries, do not.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Phillip – thanks for the link to the Ezra Klein. Very interesting stuff. Apparently Lamont got his butt kicked in a debate with Lieb. The Not-So-Nice-Joe came out and was rather sharp.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I guess I can see what you’re getting at. But it ignores something real: if you bash your nation’s leader in a time of war, then you hurt your nation.
Not if your leader is hurting the nation more.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Not if your leader is hurting the nation more.
One of my major points is that that is not a settled question.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:52 am
1. It really seems like Dems are mad at Lieberman for being a Republican in Democrat clothing, while Repubs are mad at McCain and/or Giuliani for being Democrats in Republican clothing. Maybe we should generally take these complaints as a sign that these are the people who we should vote for because they might be the most centrist – when neither party wants you because you aren’t spewing their BS enough.
2. On a semi-unrelated note, and as an example of my sometimes juvenile character, I just remembered the bumper stickers that came out when there was still some debate over who won the 2000 election. SORE / LOSERMAN. At that time I was still a Repub, so I thought they were hilarious, but even now as a socialist democrat, I still find them to be hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Joe Lieberman is a tacit politician. I found its ludricious saying Joe stand for value, ethics and integrity; During Gore-2000 election Lieberman never gave up his Senate position. Was Lieberman so committed to be the winner he should drind Red Bull and spent 100% of his energy. Ironically, the synergy for Lieberman is close to an opportunist.
If Lieberman really loves his party and constituents; he should just stay at home. But out of sheer GREED, Lieberman will be depicted like another loser in the history, just watch !
July 12th, 2006 at 11:22 am
The polls clearly indicate Lieberman winning a three way race, with Lamont second. The national GOP doesn’t have much going for it right now in CT, and the candidate they’re nominating doesn’t seem to be inspiring people.
I’ve said this many times, and I’ll say it again–while I’m not a CTer and this is really up to them and not us, if I were I’d vote against JL but not because of his stance on the war. It’s his profoundly selfish, arrogant political posturing that makes deeply dislike him. He parrots right-wing talking points to keep his centrist cred with the pundits, and enhances their leigitmacy. Look, Clinton supports the war too, as do plenty of other Democrats that have no primary challengers. I think they’re wrong to do so, but at the end of the day it’s not the big issue for me. My problem with Lieberman isn’t that he supports the war per se, but that he thinks supporting the war means doing things like providing Bush with political cover for Abu Ghraib.