>
Monday - March 19, 2007Go, Joe go.Joe making more noises about switching parties . I wish he would
just do it or that the Democrats would call his bluff. This is getting
tiresome.
Tuesday - February 27, 2007Ted Mann scores some hits on Saint JoeOne of the disadvantages of being a part time
blogger, particularly one that posts at night, is by the time I finish with my
RSS feeder, a lot of the good stories look done to
death.
Take Joe Lieberman. Every time he says something stupid or hypocritical, blogs from here to California descend on him like so many vultures. By the time I turn my bleary eyes to the computer, there's nothing left of his rottting carcass but a few bleached bones. However, I do want to add my voice to those in the Connecticut community who have noticed that the Day's Ted Mann is perhaps the only journalist in the state who has noticed that Lieberman has not only threatened to welch on a series of campaign pledges not to stop voting with the Democrats to organize the Senate (he's already left the party), but also has espoused some rather un-democratic views about the proper role of a United States Senator and, for that matter, citizens of a free country. As Ted relates here, and has been remarked elsewhere, it is Mr. Lieberman's considered opinion that we should all shut up: But later, a reporter (this one, actually) asked him what he thought about the potential for further debate in the Congress on the administration's war plans, and the desire of many Democrats to somehow proscribe any further war-making by the executive branch without having to cut off funds to troops already deployed abroad. The senator's response was a little stunning, particularly upon playing back the tape. The compromise he proposes is essentially for the Democrats to pipe down and get out of the way. "My own hope would be that, having had both houses (of Congress) express opposition for the increase in troops but their support for the troops, that Congress declare a cease fire for four or five months and let the troops, under their new general David Petraeus in Iraq carry out this new plan, and let’s all hope for success. "If it doesn’t work, by the end of the summer let’s say, which Gen. Petreaus has said is a time when we’d have a much clearer idea of how it’s going, then there’ll be plenty of time for cut-off of funds and troop-caps and all the rest. I just wish that we could come to a point here where we say, ‘Okay, Congress spoke, they don’t support the increase, president’s gone ahead with it.' "If in fact we all do support the troops, let’s support the troops by doing something that politicians, including myself, don’t do so well, which is to keep quiet and let the troops fight." The self-deprecation aside, it's a pretty startling view -- from a U.S. senator -- of the legislators' inability to make decisions in a time of war. Monday - February 26, 2007More lies from Joe LiebermanMust reading on the Joe Lieberman front.
Apparently Joe deliverd another lecture on Iraq from the pages of the Wall
Street Journal, encouraging, nay demanding, that we all shut up and let he,
George and Dick have their way in Iraq. Glenn
Greenwald exposes Joe's lies quite
effectively:
Lieberman has stood up today to assure us that we now have a great, brand new strategy in Iraq, that the fundamental problems with our prior tactics have been fixed, and that it is therefore our duty as Americans (still) to keep our mouths shut and be led to Victory: And a new strategy is being put into
action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi
capital. . . .
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering
and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually
entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts.
For the first time in the
Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous
forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
security--meaning an end, at
last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has
paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle
these problems. Where
previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they
had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are
either in place or on the way.
Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable
to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their
Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital. . .
.
But the fact is that we are in a
different place in Iraq
today from even just a month
ago--with a new strategy, a new
commander, and more troops on the ground. . . .
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to
step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen.
Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his
troops the time and support they need to
succeed.
This is rank deceit of the lowest order. Lieberman wrote almost exactly the same Op-Ed, on the same Wall St. Journal page, more than a year ago. Whereas today he is pretending that the problem has been one of insufficient troop strength and a lack of a coherent military strategy, he said exactly the opposite in his November, 2005 Op-Ed. Back then, he assured Americans that we did have an effective strategy for preserving order and also had a sufficient military force, and not only that, he insisted that we were succeeding in our mission to bring security to Baghdad and that conditions in Iraq were rapidly improving: I have just returned from my
fourth trip to Iraq in the last 17 months and can report real progress
there. More work needs to be
done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation
from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing,
self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them
and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. . .
.
The leaders of America's military
and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad,
have a clear vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in
which Iraqi democracy, security, and prosperity can take
hold and the Iraqis themselves
can defend their political progress against those ten thousand terrorists who
would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for
doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we
do. . . Mistakes, some of them
big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should
hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in
characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the
ground in Iraq. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold, and
build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last
week.
Today, Lieberman said that the U.S. is focused on preserving security "[f]or the first time in the Iraqi capital" and that "previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias." But in 2005, Lieberman assured Americans that he had just returned from Iraq and that "the administration's recent use of the banner 'clear, hold, and build' accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week." So whereas Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007." At this point it's fair to say that Joe really has no incentive to be either consistent or honest. His platform to spew this nonsense is guaranteed. The press never calls him on the inconsistencies, with noble but insignificant exceptions such as Greenwald. For Joe, now that he has lied himself back into a six year term, there are no consequences for this type of behavior. In fact, there are only rewards: column space in the Wall Street Journal, air time on Fox, and lionization by the sociopath in chief. Friday - February 23, 2007We can't make Joe go, and anyway, he isn't going anywhereI got an email today from someone asking if I
there was any provision of the Connecticut constitution that would enable us to
get rid of Joe Lieberman. I answered in the negative, without reviewing the
Connecticut constitution, because I'm reasonably certain that even if there were
such a provision, it would violate the federal
constitution.
A few minutes ago my wife told me that Keith Olbermann had something on his show about Lieberman violating the Connecticut constitution. A friend called her to tell her about it. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, we couldn't watch it, so I have no idea what he was talking about. It did lead me to quickly skim the Connecticut constitution, and unless there's something buried deep down in there, I couldn't find anything that remotely fits the bill. For a number of reasons, I don't think a recall provision, even if we had one, would be constitutional. Federal office holders hold their offices pursuant to federal law. The states can't pass laws that would impair the right of a duly elected federal officeholder from holding his or her office. I very much doubt that, absent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that Congress could provide for recall elections of federal office holders. The closest case that comes to mind is the term limits issue as it applies to members of Congress. (U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al.) Joe deserves to lose his job, but it would be bad public policy, in my opinion, to allow for recall of U.S. Senators. Given the Senate's abdication of its constitutional role in the run up to Iraq, this quote from the Federalist Papers (No. 63) may merely seem outdated (or, as our attorney general might say, quaint), but it summarizes nicely part of the theory behind the Senate's longer terms: [S]uch an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next. In theory, at least, the longer Senate terms allow Senators to feel less pressured by transient popular impulses. Put crudely, they have time to breathe between elections. Connecticut is going to have to live with this embarrassment for another six years. He will not switch parties. Here's why: 1. If he switched, the Senate would remain under Democratic control. 2. Given 1, if he switched, Harry Reid would relieve him of his chairmanship of the Government Affairs Committee. In fact, the act of switching would immediately relieve him of his chairmanship without Reid having to act. He would be making himself a member of the minority. 3. Given 1 and 2, Bush would not want Lieberman to switch, because it would mean he would be subjected to meaningful government oversight on Katrina and "homeland security" issues. Bush would rather his favorite "Democrat" stay a "Democrat" to avoid that possibility. 4. There is a train wreck coming in 2008 for the Republicans in the Senate. If Lieberman switched he would find himself really high and dry for the final four years of his political career. If Joe was going to emulate his fellow Nutmegger, Benedict Arnold, he had to do it at the beginning of the session. It's too late now. If he does go, it would be good riddance and proof positive that we were right about him being a lying hypocrite, though there are those in the media who would undoubtedly spin it as proof that there is no room for centrists in the Democratic party. At some point the Democrats have to call his bluff. Sunday - February 11, 2007A good idea dashed against the rocks of realityAs everyone knows, the Connecticut for Lieberman
party has been the subject of a hostile takeover, and is now in the hands of
Joe's political enemies. From what I understand, it is entitled to a place on
the ballot in 2012, no matter who it
nominates.
It occurred to me that the obvious candidate for the party (in the unlikely event Joe runs again) would be Joseph Lieberman. There must, I thought, be a number of Joe Liebermans in this state, one of whom would be willing to lend his name to the ticket. It would be a patriotic thing to do, and would require absolutely no work. Indeed, part of his electoral strategy would be to do absolutely no campaigning and make no demands to participate in any debates. He would run the type of campaign Jefferson always claimed to run, maintaining an Olympian aloofness while, in this case, his supporters also did nothing. His name would appear at least one row above that other Joe Lieberman. Could he be blamed if some people mistook him for the other guy? Unfortunately, this brilliant idea appears to be a non-starter. A quick internet search reveals just a single Joe Lieberman (other than you know who) in the entire state, nor could I find anyone with interesting variants (e.g., Liberman). I don't know if the one Joe Lieberman I found would be willing to run, but the odds, alas, of that single person being willing are probably not good. It is, unfortunately, probably the case that a potential candidate could not simply change his or her name to Joe (or Jo) Lieberman. An honest to god Joe Lieberman would be needed. All is not lost, I suppose. It's a big country, and we might be able to import someone from some other state. I offer this idea for free to the party elders for their consideration. Some might argue that it would never work, because the word would get around. Sure, but not necessarily to the "low information" voters so critical to Joe's success. Anyway, wouldn't it be fun to listen to Joe whine about people taking advantage of loopholes in the election laws. Thursday - January 25, 2007New BlogCheck out LieberWatch , which opened its doors earlier
this month. I just found out about it today. A single issue blog like this
provides a useful service. It can't be easy having to wallow in Lieberman on a
regular basis, but someone should do it, and it's great that someone
is.
Monday - January 15, 2007Joe, 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) Saturday - December 30, 2006Joe returns from Iraq, and inflicts his wisdom on a defenseless nationJoe Lieberman crawls out from under his rock to
pen a column
for the Washington Post that may go down in history as every bit
the
reverse of prescient as his Wall Street Journal column of a year ago.
( "If all
goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there
by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need
to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.") I'll leave it to others
to deconstruct the lies, half truths and flights of fantasy.
Tuesday - October 24, 2006Post debate analysis and other stuff about JoePost debate
chatter.
My Left Nutmeg exposes Lieberman's lies about his Wall Street Journal piece. Looks like Joe is backing down from his seeming agreement to more debates. Jane Hamsher at firedoglake finds that the New York Times was a tiny bit wrong (well, a lot wrong) when it said Joe Lieberman never used the term "stay the course". Some TV stations blame Ned for yesterday's hecklers . The Day, for once, got it right and blamed the Larouchites. Monday - October 23, 2006Initial reactionsJust got back from the debate, where my good
friend, MZ, and I were drafted into carrying a banner, which read, if I recall
correctly, "Another unpaid volunteer for Lamont", or something to that
effect.
Much too tired for anything except some random observations. Thursday - October 19, 2006A little this, a little that, and not just JoeYesterday's paltry post followed by a whole lot
of nothing today. I just finished watching the
Lamont-Schlesinger-Knibbs-Ferrucci-Lieberman
debate, which I taped onto my computer as I wasn't able to watch it at 7:00. So
here it is 10:00 PM and I'm just too tired to think. So, here comes a stream of
near consciousness.
Wednesday - October 18, 2006Doing the numbersBoy, am I glad someone else got around to this.
It occurred to me that someone should take Joe up on his challenge and count the
"attacks" during Monday's debate. I was having a lot of trouble working myself
up to watching it again, when, lo and behold, I see the job has been done at My Left Nutmeg . The
intrepid and obviously masochistic Neil Fink, who wrote the piece, appears to
have used reasonable criteria:
Tuesday - October 17, 2006Another entry from Joe's DiaryWell, that's one debate victory out of the
way.
It was harder than I thought. Karl told me he would take care of that Schlesinger fellow, but apparently the message didn't get through. You could of knocked me over with a feather when he started in on me. It never occured to me that he'd do something like that. I called Karl after the debate and gave him a piece of my mind. He said they would "reason with him" and that it would go easier the next time. I hope so. Tuesday - October 17, 2006Monday - October 16, 2006Who won the debate, Chapter 1I just got finished watching the
Lamont-Schlesinger-Lieberman
Debate. Before doing so I read a number of internet reactions from people who
obviously don't have day jobs, so my own opinion is polluted by those of others.
Sunday - October 15, 2006Lamont fundraiserJust some pictures from tonight's fundraiser, at
the home of Nick and Camille (Lamont) Burlingham in Pawcatuck
Sunday - October 15, 2006I still have faithMy wife and I are going to a Lamont fundraiser
tonight, bringing to mind that I've had very little to say about the Lamont
campaign lately. For the most part that's because so many others cover it full
time.
Nonetheless, it's a sure thing that everyone has been wondering: what does CTBlue think is going to happen on election day? Well, somebody may be wondering. The polls have been all over, with Lieberman's lead anywhere from 13 to 2 points. I have no idea which are the most accurate, but I'm going to guess that right now he is 6 points ahead. I predicted months ago that Ned would win, and I still feel that way, Sunday - October 01, 2006Slight correctionLamont
Blog says that if Lieberman is re-elected, he will jump to the
Republicans if the Senate would otherwise be evenly divided. It speculates that
Joe would be offered a committee chairmanship if that's what it took to get him
to jump.
I beg to differ. The Republicans would never make such an offer if there were a 50-50 split. The logic is right; the arithmetic is wrong. They wouldn't need Joe if there were a 50-50 split, because they have Dick Cheney to break ties in that event. That's all they need to control the Senate. Thursday - September 28, 2006Joe votes for tortureJoseph Liebeman (Lieberman for Lieberman-CT)
voted today to deface the Constitution and bring eternal
shame on himself and this country
.
Voting with Lieberman were all but one Republican and the following 11 members of the Democratic Party. No excuses, no forgiveness. May they all burn in hell: Tuesday - September 26, 2006The Big Fool says to push onI said yesterday that I might write about
Lieberman's "plan" to end the war, but it's really too tiresome, and I'm too
tired. A few observations
nonetheless.
One of the more insidious arguments made by the war apologists is what you might call the Big Muddy argument. According to them, we must kill more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, because not to do so would dishonor those who have already died, as if we can validate a wasted life by wasting more. A variant is the argument that we must continue down the path we are on, because leaving it would be an admission of defeat, as if our enemies are unaware of our situation until we acknowledge it. Peter Seeger summed it up in his lyrics: But every time I read the
papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big
Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Jimmy Carter on Joe Joe Lieberman: The man and his symbols Independent Group challenges Joe A modest proposal Great new ad from Ned Lamont An Open letter to Joe Lieberman Joe's Diary Joe confirms, it's all about Joe Republican Joe |