Letters to the Editor
-
Are you kidding?
"Despised by Democratic liberals for his unrepentant support of the Iraq war ..."
Give me a break. We despise Lieberman for giving cover to the Republican party on scores of issues, not just the Iraq War. The guy borders on Zell Miller, the only difference being Lieberman attends Democratic conventions.
The Iraq War is big, but there are still plenty of Demcorats in Congress who think we should have gone to and should still be in Iraq. None of them receive the vitriol of Lieberman, because of their unwillingness to stab their fellow party members who oppose the war in the back.
It's things like suggesting that people opposed to the war need to realize that Bush is the Commander in Chief and stop attacking him that angers us. It's things like suggesting that people opposed to the Iraq War are not supporting the troops. It's the cover, not the opinion.
-
A surprisingly sympathetic article...
...about someone for whom I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
I'm afraid that this article comes off as a propaganda piece sponsored by Friends of Joe. I'm not accusing Shapiro of being on the take - I am certain that he is not - but this piece is difficult to stomach on its face.
Particularly egregious is what appears to be a concerted effort on somebody's part to recast Lieberman's apparent close relationship with Bush as the product of a Rovesque dirty trick. Is that what Shapiro is trying to say? Was the SOTU embrace and kiss a craven, predestined politically calculated move by Rove via Bush to discredit Lieberman within his own party? Walter - if you are reading this - is that what you were saying there?
The 100% fair and just political reality is that Lieberman has lost the support of the far-left in his party where he at one time, at least (2000) nominally had all of our support. If Lieberman wanted us in his corner he could have earned it. There is nothing selfish about pointing out that he absolutely failed to do so. If enforced respect/deference to the President is Lieberman's genuine position vis-a-vis Bush then more power to him for having strong convictions. Most of us on the far left disagree and Lieberman will suffer the consequences of that. That's politics - it isn't hatred or a silly game.
Salon: I would enjoy reading a response to these comments from Shapiro and/or Lieberma himself.
-
My Way
I hate to be a pain in the ass, but didn't Pual Anka write the song My Way? Would seem Joe is quoting the wrong philosopher, wouldn't it?
-
Connecticut moved left, Lieberman moved right
As a Connecticut resident, I was happy to vote for Lieberman twice in 2000. And now I am even happier to vote for Lamont.
Back when Democrats held at least some power, and reason and reality-based thinking dominated the political and policy spheres, Lieberman's positions were fine. It was all right to be bipartisan because Republicans had to deal honestly or there were consequences.
In 2006, with Republicans in control of everything and propaganda as their main political tactic, bipartisanship is a farce. As Grover Norquist put it, bipartisanship is just another word for date rape. So Lieberman no longer looks independent, he looks like a stooge. And when he appears on Fox News or other right-wing media outlets and criticizes other Democrats, he is worse than a stooge. He is the new Zell Miller.
Lieberman's hold on Connecticut comes down to money. He brings in a lot of money, much of it from traditionally right-wing supporters (fun fact: a suprising number of big dollar contributors to Lieberman also contributed to Bush in 2004). He uses that money to support the state Democrats, who are, as usual, starved for cash. This payoff has worked for years. State dems turn a blind eye to Joe's politics in exchange for the money.
But the equation breaks down if Lamont can fund himself, outside of the party, to a primary. If you can get beyond the money, and actually get to the voters, Leiberman will lose.
On a personal note, I have a relative serving in Iraq right now. Whenever Lieberman expresses enthusiasm for keeping our troops there for three more years, my blood boils. How eager he is to shed other people's blood.
-
Lack of Insight
Lieberman's blinkers work in two ways: he goes to Iraq and gets snowed by the PR and obviously filters everything we know about the country, its history and current state.
But he also lacks insight. It's astonishing that he can make a statement like this:
"In the Democratic Party there are a lot of people who have the same kind of hatred -- which I find is self-defeating and almost certainly wrong -- towards Bush that a lot of Republicans had toward Clinton."
Clinton-bashing was irrational--he was even accused of murder. Republican Congressman abused him in foul ways: remember the "scumbug" remark? How about the time Clinton was warned not to go down south because he wasn't popular--this, by a Congressman implicitly threatening his life.
But Bush-hating is based on quite rational loathing for the evisceration of the Constitution, abandonment of the environment, contempt for our allies, continued lies about the War and many other demonstrable policy disasters.
Lieberman is also a fine one to talk about Clinton haters when he helped undermine Clinton by attacking him in the Senate. He thought Clinton's lying about sex was a national threat, but the misdeeds of this administration aren't worth comment, and pointing them out is unpatriotic?
Joe "McCarthey" Lieberman has to go.
-
Shapiro's Sources?
Did Shapiro actually read any blogs or talk to anyone organizing against Lieberman for this article? It doesn't seem like it. This article reads like DC common "wisdom" that likes to pretend like denizens of the blogosphere and "Deaniacs" are young, radical, leftists who are new to political activism and consumed by emotion. None of that is true in my experience. The rage in the Democratic rank and file is about a Democratic party that's living in the past and refusing to adjust to contemporary political realities and become a meaningful opposition party.
Lieberman is loathed by the party's rank and file above the likes of Feinstein, Clinton, or Biden (none of whom are well-loved in the progressive blogoshpere) because he is the poster child of a clueless party establishment that keeps trying to appease a Republican party that is hell bent on shutting them out of the process completely. As others have pointed out, it is his parroting of Republican talking points, his attacks on the Patriotism of other Democrats, and his apparent strong personal loyalty to President Bush that stands out above policy disagreements to make him the Democrat the rank and file loves to hate. How could Mr. Shapiro miss that this willingness to attack other Democrats and support Republican propaganda at every chance is the primary source of anger against Lieberman? Any quick perusal of progressive blogs makes it obvious.
Overall this was a good article with a lot of useful information. I thank Salon for running it. I'm just disappointed to see the most frequent criticism of Lieberman be ignored.