Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, March 09, 2006


Refuting Joe

Why does he make it so easy?

Lieberman recently "sat down" with Connecticut Local Politics to answer six questions. Actually, it was via email and it apparently took the responsive Senator over six weeks to answer all six. Still, I guess that's what passes for meaningful interaction with constituents for Joe.

Though, with over a week to answer each individual question, you'd think he'd have come up with better answers than these:

The good people of Connecticut have elected me to represent them three times and I hope I have earned their support a fourth time.

The good Democrats of Connecticut have not had a chance to elect you in a primary since 1970. Remember Democrats? The party to which you claim to belong? You have never been elected to represent Connecticut Democrats in the Senate. You defeated a more liberal candidate to win the seat in 1988. Next?

I have taken on a lot of tough fights - to save jobs, to secure funding for local projects, and to protect our environment. But there is still more to do. The future of the Long Island Sound is at stake, local jobs are being threatened by big corporate mergers and overseas competition, women's privacy rights are under siege, our school children are being shortchanged by...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up. "Women's privacy rights are under siege?" By whom? By Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court nominee you allowed to go through the Senate? You told your "pal" Sean Hannity that "I did vote against the filibuster cause I thought that, you know, it was time to move on." Back then, it was time to "move on" from protecting women's reproductive rights. Now you're a strong defender of them. Gotcha.

Let me be clear on the issue of Iraq. Like everyone, I want to bring our troops home.

Joe Lieberman, today: "I want to bring our troops home."

Joe Lieberman, November 2005: "Our troops must stay."

I'm going to say to people who disagree with my position on the war, "Let's talk about it and I'll hope you'll conclude, whether you agree with me or not, that I've been talking about this for a long time now because I sincerely believe it is the right thing for our country."

Joe Lieberman, today: "Let's talk about it."

Joe Lieberman, December 2005: "...in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

If Democrats are ever going to want to get back in power we've got to come up with a positive constructive program, particularly on security.

How is "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right" a "positive constructive program" on national security? How does unquestioningly supporting a policy that your mentor William F. Buckley calls a "failure" help Democrats define themselves? The vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, know that Bush is making us less safe. How does defending his policy without asking any serious questions of it prove "seriousness"? To me, it proves precisely the opposite: that you are not serious about our national security. And that your continued defense of a failed policy that many Republicans won't even defend anymore hurts our party and our country immensely on this issue.

As you know, I did vote for cloture on Judge Alito's nomination. As part of my agreement with the Gang of 14 I agreed to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. Though I strongly opposed Judge Alito’s nomination, I did not find that the situation met the extraordinary circumstances threshold. Unfortunately, it was clear the nomination was going to pass and I felt it was time to move on to other Senate business that affects our state.

Yeah, why fight for something worth fighting for when it's just going to pass? Why fight at all, since Democrats are in the minority and the GOP can ram anything they want through? I guess your previously stated strong defense of "women's privacy rights" wasn't an "extraordinary" enough reason to fight. What would be?

I am sending this as an email to Joe. I wonder if he'll answer my questions, too.
Oh yes,
Also ask Holy Joe about his relationship to Pfizer. Why is Joe the only er um "democrat" receiving GOP-type contributions from the pharmaceutical industry? Is there a conflict of interest if say, he holds stocks, his wife works with Pfizer and he responds to lobbyists with a series of legislation, so that you know, like, Pfizer can extend their patent on the epilepsy drug Neurontin? Doesn't letting the pharm companies spike their prices and extend patents contribute to the rising cost of healthcare that he "deplores" so much?
See I am just an average citizen, so . . . we could all benefit all benefit from one of those bon mots that you are so good at, Joe.
P.S. You did your darndest to back the preznit on that UAE deal. So Sorry, things didn't work out.
But hey! Who said the path to hell is paved with political opportunism?
By the way Joe, if you have to enter the private sector sometime soon, I suggest you (1) work as a lobbyist for the pharm industry or insurance, or (2) convince Israel to let Pat Roberts** develop his Jesus playground there, so that you and all your End Time buddies can get the ball rolling. It must be hard coming out of the closet as a neocon in a blue state.
Blogswarm alert! Get the posters to CLP and drown Lieberman in reaction and response. It's clear that only Republican posters are showing up there to defend him. Any Democrats online are dissecting Joe's facile answers.
Post a Comment

<< Home