Joe Lieberman: The man and his symbols
A lot of comment today about Ned Lamont's attack
on Lieberman for missing so many Iraq votes . The issue, as I
understand it, is not his absentee record as a whole, Rather, it's his absentee
record when it comes to voting on anything Iraq. According to Joe's spokeswoman,
the votes didn't matter, because they were largely
symbolic:
Lieberman's spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, has referred to the tally as "procedural" and Lamont was asked if, in fact, the vote was just symbolic, since Lieberman's vote would not have made a difference.
The votes included such procedural issues as whether or not the United States should be in the business of funding a database for the purpose of disseminating pro-war propaganda.
Joe had a slightly different spin (besides attacking his opponent for pointing out his deficiencies. Someday I would like to see someone ask him how you run against someone without criticizing their record). According to Joe, there's no need to vote unless your vote tips the balance:
Talking to reporters from Washington, Lieberman said he would have been present if his vote had the potential to tip the balance. His first reaction to the question of missed votes was to tear into Lamont.
Lieberman says he would have voted with the good guys on the propaganda bill. No word on why he couldn't make it to the vote. He also would have voted with Ted Kennedy to make the Bush Administration give quarterly reports about whether Iraq is in a civil war, but gosh darn he was busy getting an award for trying to censor Hollywood. But as he says, it doesn't matter, because each bill would have lost anyway. With all due respect to the Senator (meaning none) that's an odd sort of standard to set. Couldn't his enormous prestige have made a difference? Couldn't that famous bi-partisan credibility have swung a few "no" votes into the righteousness column? After all, isn't his ability to reach across lines his raison d'être for his re-election campaign.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought one reason we like to see our representatives vote, even when they're not the deciding vote, is so that we have some idea where they stand on the issues so we can decide whether to re-hire them. And I wonder, adopting Joe's logic, why we should give him any credit for any vote he actually does cast, if that vote was not the deciding vote, given that any such vote is by his definition, merely symbolic. Should his vote against Alito be stripped of whatever shred of principle that has still managed to cling to it?
But, look, I'm getting old, but I'm still adaptable. All I ask is consistency. I suggest that if Joe's votes are symbolic, so are those of his supporters. Each and every one of them should consider: Why should I go to the polls on election day, since my vote is going to be merely symbolic, absent the small chance that the election is decided by a single vote. And talk about procedural, a vote on election day is almost the definition of procedural. You're not voting on anything of substance, you are merely voting to determine who gets to cast symbolic Senate votes in the future. I mean, if you look at it that way, the whole thing is a waste of time, a symbolic vote once removed from a lot of other symbolic votes. So, if you have somewhere else to go on election day, or just feel like watching tube, by all means stay home Joe voters. Joe would certainly understand.
Lieberman's spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, has referred to the tally as "procedural" and Lamont was asked if, in fact, the vote was just symbolic, since Lieberman's vote would not have made a difference.
The votes included such procedural issues as whether or not the United States should be in the business of funding a database for the purpose of disseminating pro-war propaganda.
Joe had a slightly different spin (besides attacking his opponent for pointing out his deficiencies. Someday I would like to see someone ask him how you run against someone without criticizing their record). According to Joe, there's no need to vote unless your vote tips the balance:
Talking to reporters from Washington, Lieberman said he would have been present if his vote had the potential to tip the balance. His first reaction to the question of missed votes was to tear into Lamont.
Lieberman says he would have voted with the good guys on the propaganda bill. No word on why he couldn't make it to the vote. He also would have voted with Ted Kennedy to make the Bush Administration give quarterly reports about whether Iraq is in a civil war, but gosh darn he was busy getting an award for trying to censor Hollywood. But as he says, it doesn't matter, because each bill would have lost anyway. With all due respect to the Senator (meaning none) that's an odd sort of standard to set. Couldn't his enormous prestige have made a difference? Couldn't that famous bi-partisan credibility have swung a few "no" votes into the righteousness column? After all, isn't his ability to reach across lines his raison d'être for his re-election campaign.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought one reason we like to see our representatives vote, even when they're not the deciding vote, is so that we have some idea where they stand on the issues so we can decide whether to re-hire them. And I wonder, adopting Joe's logic, why we should give him any credit for any vote he actually does cast, if that vote was not the deciding vote, given that any such vote is by his definition, merely symbolic. Should his vote against Alito be stripped of whatever shred of principle that has still managed to cling to it?
But, look, I'm getting old, but I'm still adaptable. All I ask is consistency. I suggest that if Joe's votes are symbolic, so are those of his supporters. Each and every one of them should consider: Why should I go to the polls on election day, since my vote is going to be merely symbolic, absent the small chance that the election is decided by a single vote. And talk about procedural, a vote on election day is almost the definition of procedural. You're not voting on anything of substance, you are merely voting to determine who gets to cast symbolic Senate votes in the future. I mean, if you look at it that way, the whole thing is a waste of time, a symbolic vote once removed from a lot of other symbolic votes. So, if you have somewhere else to go on election day, or just feel like watching tube, by all means stay home Joe voters. Joe would certainly understand.
Posted: Wednesday - September 13, 2006 at 04:16 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM