Joe, Dodd, etc.
The title to the front page article in this
morning's Courant is Bush
Urged to Defy Hill, but that's a tad
misleading. The appropriate title should be
Lieberman Urges Bush to Act
Unconstitutionally. Unless you count Dick
Cheney, no one else is cited as urging Bush to ignore Congress, should it assert
its constitutional right to de-fund the Iraq disaster, or any part
thereof.
I get the Courant and the Day, so I can't speak directly to the other state newspapers. However, based on those two papers, it seems our state media has been slow to recognize that our junior senator has reneged on the campaign promises that presumably led to their judicious endorsements of him, and re-entered (he left briefly just before November) the Land of Delusion, occupied, along with Bush and the rest of his Merry Pranksters, by Joe, McCain, and an ever shrinking band of neo-cons. When Ned said that a vote for Joe was a vote for more war, Joe dismissed the charge, and the media dutifully reported and swallowed Joe's line. Have any of them noted that his present calls for escalation are at odds with his own pre-election "10 point plan", which specifically disclaimed any escalation of forces? For that matter, have we heard much (anything?) from our media about Joe's decision to give Bush a free pass on Katrina, despite his campaign pledges to the contrary. (I searched the Courant website for "Lieberman Katrina" and found this article, about a CNN news anchor getting married)
It must be nice, if you're Joe Lieberman, to know that you can tell your constituents any lie you want, and the only people who will ever call you on it are a bunch of bloggers, who can be dismissed with a catch phrase. Of course, in the current climate it's only right that the bloggers that opposed Lieberman should be ignored. They were right about him from the start and have been right about him ever since, which in this country disqualifies one from being a serious person.
It must be even nicer, if you're Joe Lieberman, when the senior senator from your state, who claims to have the ability to lead the nation, is afraid to call you on your demagoguery:
Lieberman, who has repeatedly urged support for the Bush plan, kept up that drumbeat, appearing Sunday with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., and two other senators. But it was not Dodd, whose fervent opposition to the president's Iraq strategy puts him at odds with his state colleague, but Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who challenged Lieberman directly.
Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has split with the president over the Iraq war, told Lieberman he was "offended" by Lieberman's comments suggesting that opponents of Bush's strategy were advocating retreat and defeat.
"That's ridiculous," Hagel said, "and I'm offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would ever suggest such a thing."
He also tore into Lieberman for invoking the specter of his children and grandchildren - part of the senator's explanation for supporting Bush's stance.
"Senator Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren - we all have children and grandchildren; he doesn't have a [corner on the] market on that, nor do any of my colleagues," Hagel said. "We are all concerned about the future of this country, but we have an honest disagreement here, and that's what democracies are about."
The exchange reflected the escalating tension in Washington and the increasing willingness to take on Lieberman over Iraq. Dodd has taken pains not to criticize Lieberman, even after calling his colleague last week to tell him he was going to seek the presidency.
Lieberman would not offer his support. Lieberman, who got strong backing from Dodd when the junior senator made his own White House run in 2004 and was the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, politely said he was going to stay out of presidential politics for a while.
Dodd is running for president while suffering from Beaten Wife Syndrome. He sits there and smiles while Lieberman attacks his patriotism, and then expects people to vote to make him president.
Doesn't he realize that Joe will bear any burden and pay any price, to assure that Dodd fails in his bid for the presidency? There is no way that Joe will sit idly by and let a Democrat from Connecticut, particularly one who (pro forma) supported Ned Lamont, become president if he can do anything to stop it.
Can't the Democrats as a whole see that Joe is intent on spending the next two years undermining them at every turn? They passively assisted his campaign against Ned, but that's not enough for Joe. He is a bitter, bitter man and an increasingly isolated man. His world has come crashing down around him. In 2004 he actually thought he could be president. That didn't work out. He was humiliated. He began 2006 expecting a coronation at the Democratic convention despite the fact that he was taking positions with which Connecticut Democrats disagreed and questioning their patriotism to boot. That didn't work out. He had to lie his way into a third term, which he was perfectly willing to do, but it must still have been somewhat demeaning. Now it's just him, Bush, and John McCain. He is now so low that Republicans are in a position to lecture him on democratic principles. You can't get much lower than that.
I get the Courant and the Day, so I can't speak directly to the other state newspapers. However, based on those two papers, it seems our state media has been slow to recognize that our junior senator has reneged on the campaign promises that presumably led to their judicious endorsements of him, and re-entered (he left briefly just before November) the Land of Delusion, occupied, along with Bush and the rest of his Merry Pranksters, by Joe, McCain, and an ever shrinking band of neo-cons. When Ned said that a vote for Joe was a vote for more war, Joe dismissed the charge, and the media dutifully reported and swallowed Joe's line. Have any of them noted that his present calls for escalation are at odds with his own pre-election "10 point plan", which specifically disclaimed any escalation of forces? For that matter, have we heard much (anything?) from our media about Joe's decision to give Bush a free pass on Katrina, despite his campaign pledges to the contrary. (I searched the Courant website for "Lieberman Katrina" and found this article, about a CNN news anchor getting married)
It must be nice, if you're Joe Lieberman, to know that you can tell your constituents any lie you want, and the only people who will ever call you on it are a bunch of bloggers, who can be dismissed with a catch phrase. Of course, in the current climate it's only right that the bloggers that opposed Lieberman should be ignored. They were right about him from the start and have been right about him ever since, which in this country disqualifies one from being a serious person.
It must be even nicer, if you're Joe Lieberman, when the senior senator from your state, who claims to have the ability to lead the nation, is afraid to call you on your demagoguery:
Lieberman, who has repeatedly urged support for the Bush plan, kept up that drumbeat, appearing Sunday with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., and two other senators. But it was not Dodd, whose fervent opposition to the president's Iraq strategy puts him at odds with his state colleague, but Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who challenged Lieberman directly.
Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has split with the president over the Iraq war, told Lieberman he was "offended" by Lieberman's comments suggesting that opponents of Bush's strategy were advocating retreat and defeat.
"That's ridiculous," Hagel said, "and I'm offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would ever suggest such a thing."
He also tore into Lieberman for invoking the specter of his children and grandchildren - part of the senator's explanation for supporting Bush's stance.
"Senator Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren - we all have children and grandchildren; he doesn't have a [corner on the] market on that, nor do any of my colleagues," Hagel said. "We are all concerned about the future of this country, but we have an honest disagreement here, and that's what democracies are about."
The exchange reflected the escalating tension in Washington and the increasing willingness to take on Lieberman over Iraq. Dodd has taken pains not to criticize Lieberman, even after calling his colleague last week to tell him he was going to seek the presidency.
Lieberman would not offer his support. Lieberman, who got strong backing from Dodd when the junior senator made his own White House run in 2004 and was the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, politely said he was going to stay out of presidential politics for a while.
Dodd is running for president while suffering from Beaten Wife Syndrome. He sits there and smiles while Lieberman attacks his patriotism, and then expects people to vote to make him president.
Doesn't he realize that Joe will bear any burden and pay any price, to assure that Dodd fails in his bid for the presidency? There is no way that Joe will sit idly by and let a Democrat from Connecticut, particularly one who (pro forma) supported Ned Lamont, become president if he can do anything to stop it.
Can't the Democrats as a whole see that Joe is intent on spending the next two years undermining them at every turn? They passively assisted his campaign against Ned, but that's not enough for Joe. He is a bitter, bitter man and an increasingly isolated man. His world has come crashing down around him. In 2004 he actually thought he could be president. That didn't work out. He was humiliated. He began 2006 expecting a coronation at the Democratic convention despite the fact that he was taking positions with which Connecticut Democrats disagreed and questioning their patriotism to boot. That didn't work out. He had to lie his way into a third term, which he was perfectly willing to do, but it must still have been somewhat demeaning. Now it's just him, Bush, and John McCain. He is now so low that Republicans are in a position to lecture him on democratic principles. You can't get much lower than that.
Posted: Monday - January 15, 2007 at 11:39 AM
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