Letters to the Editor
-
Bedfellow or just fellow traveller?
Joe - I'm sure you were shocked, just shocked, by the idea of Hadassah Lieberman's (unspecified) employment by a big drug company, at a time when drug companies rule the roost in our most corporate Congress since the Gilded Age. But let's not take our eye off the ball. Lobbying and K Street corruption may titillate a lot of readers of Salon, but for the electorate at large, that dog won't hunt. The reason we want Lieberman out is a four-letter word: Iraq. We want him out because of whom HE was in bed with, not his wife.
Jonathan Scoll
-
I disagree
I think Iraq is an important part of why we want Lieberman out, but it's not enough all by itself. For one thing, though we disagree with Joe on Iraq, he's honest about where he stands. Working for the drug companies while those around him suck on the Big Pharma Teat is hypocritical, dishonest and possibly illegal. So, yes, it's important.
-
Stay on His Ass!!
He's also a tort reformer who sucks up to big insurance interests at the expense of consumer rights.
-
Conason's Desperate Sleaze
Is the Left so desperate that it descends into McCarthyite gutters to try to throw mud on Joe Lieberman and his wife? You can disagree with Lieberman on Iraq or any other issue. But no attack on his integrity can withstand intelligent scrutiny. Conason presumaby understands that Lieberman will win in a landslide even though he is not supported by Al Sharpton. You want to digress to chatter about a candidate's mishpacha? Consider this: Corliss Lamont, late leader of this inherited-money clan, believed that the ACLU was too right-wing! So he funded a rival rabble known as the Emergency Civil Liberties Union. Has anyone listened to Ned's breathless rants? He makes Howard Dean sound coherent. The aesthetics of Michael Moore may draw nosegays in a Dem primary, but they spell disaster for Lamont in November. So we can safely expect the Conasons of this world to continue the sleaze attack rather than discuss the relative abilities of the candidates.
-
Well it's been a week
I guess it was time for another Salon
Get rid of Joe/The Jews/The Zionists from the US government screed.
-
$77,000???
I really hope, for Joe Lieberman's sake, that the Liebermans are not selling Joe's political soul for $77,000. $77,000??!! Peanuts.
Joe, if you're selling your vote and making a fool of yourself for $77,000, you're worse than a whore -- you're a cheap whore. They've bought you for nothing; your wife could have gotten an honest job and earned at least that much. Every day, we learn another way you're a fool.
-
Are you looking for a job at the Bush White House?
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
How soon we forget back to 2000 when Hadassah Lieberman was the target of panegyric and praise from the left side of the public square, how could we have known that she was just a conniving, money-grubbing lobbyist?
Look, I hope that Ned Lamont wins in November, that the Democrats take back both houses, and that both George Bush and Dick Cheney wake up tomorrow, realize how much they've f***ed up the country and resign, but slimy personal attacks like this are part of the reason so many people don't bother to vote.
-
In bed with Big Pharma
Thank you for an interesting and informative report.
-
The leftwing's latest gaffe.
Yep, this goes down for a record stupidity among a group of people who I didn't think could possibly rank any lower on the IQ scale. Well up into double digit negatives now.
Instead of having Lieberman, a senior Democrat with a greater than 90% favorable Democratic voting record, and quite possibly a D majority in the Senate at last, they're going to have no say in the Senate, a Republican Majority, and Lieberman anyway - only a Lieberman very hostile to the lefty-lefts, and indebted to the GOP that gets him elected.
You'd think when Bill Clinton, Harry Reid and other noteable Democrats with some brains campaigned that hard for Lieberman the left might have woken up and smelled the coffee. But noooooooo the lefty-left's were going to run off that cliff with Maple-Powered Howard and there was no stopping them - again.
The vulgar left should just can their crap and admit their real beef with Lieberman was that he was openly religious. We all know it. They've entirely wrecked the Democratic Party and they can rot in hell for it. And these clowns have the NERVE to blame us moderate Dems. The frickin NERVE.
-
Don...
I don't know why you think Lieberman is so great, but the problem with him are his constant attacks on the Democratic party. Plus the Iraq war is a huge issue. I don't understand why a politician who allegedly stands for civility and integrety attracts supporters who can't write a single sentence without resorting to insults. Can you try and improve on that, please?
-
Lieberman's faith isn't the problem
> The vulgar left should just can their crap and admit their real beef with Lieberman was that he was openly religious. We all know it.
It's amazing how many things righties "all know" that are total crap. Lieberman's willingness to talk about his faith was one of the things that I liked the most about him. Huge numbers of us are very devout, but we mostly don't like to make a show of our religion. Still, we should talk more about why taking our faith seriously means rejecting the extremism of those on the right who defend hatred and violence, ignore the needs of the weak, and generally edit the Bible to match their preconceptions.
As regards Lieberman's supposedly liberal voting record, that's mostly a hollow shell. It doesn't matter how he votes when he knows the Republicans going to win. It matters when he attacks Democrats, speaks in favor of Republican positions, and votes with the Republicans on the procedural games that precede the final vote. It matters when he votes for business interests against the interests of his constituents.
It is clear that the Republican candidate will not win the Senate race in Connecticut, so the claim that Democrats will not win the Senate because of rejecting Lieberman is nonsense. If Lieberman wins, he will probably continue to call himself a Democrat and caucus with them, but he isn't one anymore. He formed his own independent party: "Connecticut for Lieberman". Has there ever before been a US politician so arrogant as to name his political party after himself? That arrogance is the real problem.