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).

Sunday, September 10, 2006

 

Shorter Joe

"I shouldn't have to show up for a Senate vote unless my vote will break the tie... Even if I'm in D.C.... And the vote is about holding President Bush accountable on Iraq."

Sen. Lieberman and his surrogates have spent this entire camapaign - from February until today - defending the status quo of politics in Washington D.C. His campaign has called Ned Lamont "naive" for thinking that representing his constituents' views is actually important, no matter what the end result of any particular vote. He has defended earmarks and wasteful spending such as the "bridge to nowhere," as if the system wasn't broken. And after a primary campaign spent burnishing his Democratic credentials, he now routinely hammers home the evils of "partisan polarization," as if Democrats were just as responsible for the disastrous state of the country as Republicans - who represent well under 50% of the country yet control 100% of government power (and sometimes it feels like more).

More than merely expecting Senators to show up for votes, Connecticut voters expect much more than this type of do-nothing cynicism from their elected representatives.
Comments:
Well, most intersting is the second vote regarding "tampering with the media." Having Goebellstein as his propaganda agent, I could see why he would be squeemish about voting to restrict interference with the media. Oy!

I cannot believe that an incumbent, in a serious race, would miss votes when he is in D.C. What was he doing instead of acting as our representative?
 
Principles Lieberman Strikes Again

The Lieberman Principle: If it's good for Joe, it's good
 
The story is more important than the space it is given here. David Sirota has a good article on the votes that Joe missed. Votes that would have put his current feelings towards the Bush administration on record were avoided.
You talk about shirking responsibility!

The one thing I could not find was the vote that was important enough for Holy Joe to give his attention to.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm
 
So who would want this guy to caucus with them?

Republicans? He can't show up to vote to support W.

Democrats? He can't show up to oppose W.

Is there a Phone-in caucus in addition to the Hannity caucus that we don't know about?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home