lapsedmodernist: (Default)
[personal profile] lapsedmodernist
One more reason to hate Lieberman

What a shameless whore.

Democrats who voted for him are going to regret this when he starts caucusing with Republicans.

Behold the video of him grinning to Russert about how he's got Democrats over a barrel.

Date: 2006-11-12 10:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contrasoma.livejournal.com
Grah. As much as I hate Leeb, I can't imagine him actually crossing the floor. I imagine we'll just be seeing some extra Connecticut-smoked pork get doled out.

Date: 2006-11-12 10:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
yes, hence the whore. Essentially he just announced he would blackmail the dems.

And I can totally see him crossing the floor, depending on which way he thinks the wind will be blowing in 2008. He will certainly continue to vote with the Republicans on key issues, as he has already been doing, which led to his disenfrenchisement from the party in the first place.

He is not as batshit crazy as Zell Miller, but is equally morally reprehensible.

Date: 2006-11-12 11:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cascadianista.livejournal.com
Joe does what's best for Joe.

Date: 2006-11-13 01:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contrasoma.livejournal.com
Yup, as evidenced by the "The Connecticut for Lieberman Party," in a dramatic inversion of a famous Kennedyism.

Date: 2006-11-13 01:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contrasoma.livejournal.com
It's funny, I hadn't even thought about him as a Repub candidate for '08...sorta makes sense, although he might be treading dangerously onto McCain's "sensible moderate" turf.

If nothing else, Miller's (apparently) acting out of principle, as repugnant as those principles are. If, as you say, the wind blows to the left by '08, I imagine we'll see Lieberman toe the line, whereas that wouldn't be the case with Miller (were he still in office).

...And boo to Feingold opting out. :(

Date: 2006-11-12 11:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jacflash.livejournal.com
I dunno, if I were Joe I'd be feeling pretty thoroughly backstabbed right now... and I'd be savoring thoughts of revenge, even if I didn't plan to carry them out.

I don't really like the guy, but I totally get where he's coming from.

Date: 2006-11-12 11:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
um...anyone who feels betrayed by his party after he has completely failed to be loyal to it has a persecution complex and a lack of accountability.

Date: 2006-11-13 04:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nightspore.livejournal.com
Backstabbed by whom? He got plenty of support in the primary from the Party, which funded him almost unanimously against Lamont. Was the Party not supposed to support its voters' nominee when he beat Lieberman? Sure, if the nominee is David Duke or something. But no party could afford to run against its own nominee if that nominee were half-way presentable. And Lamont was a lot more than that. Lieberman managed to combine whininess and viciousness to a degree that seemed to violate the laws of chemistry.

Date: 2006-11-13 04:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alice-ayers.livejournal.com
Unanimously? Funded maybe but not endorsed...

Um, Lamont had some issues, too.

Date: 2006-11-13 05:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nightspore.livejournal.com
I don't think the endorsements were...enthusiastic. But they were there: even surprising ones. Clinton certainly endorsed Lieberman. Even Feingold waited till after Lieberman lost the primary to endorse Lamont. The pre-primary defections were the exceptions (which is why they got the press). Yes, Lamont had issues too. And I was all set to be more or less ok with Lieberman (distasteful as I've found him since the eighties) till he started playing kingmaker, and claiming that both parties are on probation. No, only one party is on probation, the Democrats. The Republicans are guilty as sin, and don't deserve another chance for two decades.

I had no trouble at all with Lieberman running as an independent, and was against the outrage at him for doing so. That's democracy, especially since he wasn't a spoiler (like Nader) -- he won. But I do not like the guy, not one little bit, and I think what he's doing now is typical.

Date: 2006-11-13 12:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bing-crosby.livejournal.com
apparently the poll numbers show that basically the same people who voted Lamont into the election stuck with him for the long haul. Registered democrats voted with the party and everyone else voted for Lieberman. Toward the end Lieberman was saying "a vote for S___ (not sure his name, the republican candidate) is a vote for Lamont"-- making clear to republicans that the choice was Lieberman v Lamont. Not that this contributes much to what you are saying, just that people who voted for him probably won't be regretting it.

I kind of agree with jacflash-- the dems were willing to stand behind others who swayed from the platform (e.g. pro-life Bob Casey) if they calculated a win. Here Clinton et al took a risk and bet wrong. I wouldn't have a whole lot of loyalty either.

Date: 2006-11-13 04:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nightspore.livejournal.com
Driving down to NY I saw a car festooned with Connecticut4Joe insignia, or whatever their stupid name and slogan was. It filled me with as much revulsion as a Hummer. When I recall him saying that late military ballots should count in 2000, because he was deep and earnest.... The man combines the stupidity of Bush with the knowingly mendacious self-dealing of Cheney. He's the Nadar (and nadir) of the Democratic Party.

Date: 2006-11-13 06:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] billetdoux.livejournal.com
While I can't blame him for stringing the dems along (I certainly would if I were in his position), it would be political suicide for him to caucus with the republicans if he ever wanted to run for senator in CT again - no republican, not even Joe Lieberman - can take that state, regardless of the way the winds blow.

Date: 2006-11-13 09:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] orpheusinhades.livejournal.com
He left the party a long time ago. Problem for him is that the Republican party has even more contempt for its moderates, which is why Jeffords switched sides in the first place.

Anyhow, with a Senate that evenly split and a Republican president, I wouldn't count on anything that positive happening regardless.

hey there

Date: 2006-11-17 04:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jackson-bliss.livejournal.com
it's me. add me as your friend, and that way, we can read each other's journals.

i totally agree with you about lieberman, though frankly, we'll take his "independent" vote, even if he's been pro-war, like almost all of the other republican lites that call themselves democrats. . . maybe now, because it's politically expedient and safe now, the dem's will have some fucking backbone.

miss you nika.

peace and love,

--j2b

Re: hey there

Date: 2006-11-18 01:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
hey, welcome to lj-landia!

added and also you still owe me a Real Email!

I am in California at a conference at the moment, but once I am ensconced back in my study, I will look-see what you have done with your new blue cyber-world...

Profile

lapsedmodernist: (Default)
lapsedmodernist

February 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 25th, 2026 03:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios