I’m tired of a lot of things. One of the things that is fatiguing me is the tendency of Washington insiders to lament Lamont. Why, oh why, sweet Lord, are people getting uppity and challenging Holy Joe Lieberman? Weren’t we thrilled, just six years ago, when Holy Joe was selected as our Vice-Presidential candidate? Isn’t he a cheerful and swell guy? Don’t we have room under our big-ass tent for bloodthirsty warmongering appeasniks? Well, no. We don’t. And for the everlasting love of God, our opposition to Joe Lieberman is NOT JUST BECAUSE OF HIS UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR UNLAWFUL, IDIOTIC, INVASIONS OF ASIAN COUNTRIES. Have you ever heard of the charge “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”?
Apparently, the Los Angeles Times editorial board has not heard of that charge. Because they seem to think we are just a bunch of intolerant and petulant roughnecks.
Democratic voters in Connecticut have the right to nominate the candidate of their choice. But it is more than a little disturbing for the longtime popular senator (and the party’s 2000 nominee for vice president) to be targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views. There were principled people on both sides of the debate to go to war in Iraq. This page did not support the war, but it cannot cheer on liberal activists who run the risk of being guilty of the same sort of insistence on ideological purity that they deplore in Republicans.
The Democratic Party — the party of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy — is a big enough tent to include voices on the conservative end of national security policy. Lieberman’s views shouldn’t trigger a nationwide jihad against him. To their credit, most party leaders are backing Lieberman.
Even though IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE WAR, let’s tackle that ‘ideological purity’ thing as if it were. If we have a principle that says it is wrong to invade a country based on Silvio Berlusconi’s badly forged documents and to kill 30,000+ people, mostly innocent, and to hook people’s balls up to electrodes, and to rape them, and to set german shepherds on them, and to religiously and sexually humiliate them, and to summarily execute them, and to destroy their internal security apparatus without replacing it, and to call them all terrorists, and to leave them without water in the desert, or air conditioning, and to keep doing it year after year after year…then what are we supposed to do with someone like Joe Lieberman? Do you, the Los Angeles Times editorial board, have a pat answer for that one? Do you recognize that we find Joe Lieberman’s foreign policy views to be a tad bit more than “a little disturbing”? Do you get that we don’t want his bloddy little hands anywhere near the hors’ doerves under our great big massive tent?
We do not need, nor can we tolerate, a man that will go on Fox News and yuck it up with the likes of Sean Hannity, all the while lamenting Lamont, and complaining about crazy liberals that don’t support George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s evil, disastrous, disgraceful, shameful, extraordinarily violent and expensive policies. We are patriots that actually do not think that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Haditha should be seen as politics as usual, with no consequences. We don’t think the president and the Governor of California should be reading our emails, listening to our phone conversations, and infiltrating our political meetings without any judicial or congressional oversight. We threw Nixon out of office in disgrace for that…IN WARTIME. So, get over yourselves, you lazy fucking contented insider bastards. Because even though IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE WAR, the war and all it’s accompanying atrocities, expense, failure, and loss of inalienable rights, is plenty enough to oppose Joe Lieberman.
it all seems rather simple to me. Joe made the decision to go with the “uniter” and “decider” .. hence we, as a party have decided to unite against a divider. It’s all very simple when explained in Bushspeak … don’t ya think
Nice one, BooMan. People seem to forget that the "angry left" is usually pretty easy on guys like Ben Nelson, who are conservative Democrats from conservative states. Big difference is that Ben Nelson doesn’t use his more conservative voting record to ingratiate himself with Republicans and make himself a right-wing darling.
Too bad the motherfuckers ain’t listening.
Maybe Lieberman nose down in the primary will get their attention.
AG
Please tell me you sent that letter directly to the L.A. Times.
also with oranginess.
So they’re telling us (well, telling the Demoocrats in Connecticut in particular, but all Lamont-supporters across the country also) that to oppose a long-time senator whose public stand and voting record on a hugely important foreign policy issue (that by its very size and nature affects hundreds of other issues as well), and seek to replace him with a nominee whose viewpoints are better reflective of the Democratic party members of that state is NOT a proper use of the democratic electoral process?
What part of “democratic process” do they not understand?
It is all about Iraq…
The Iraq war is a 200 billion toliet that we keep throwing money at and flush when its full.
The Iraq is the reason it cost $3.00 dollars a gallon for gas and Big Oil is making record profits.
The war in Iraq, made Joe a non-team player, he wasn’t on board, jumped on an elephant instead of a donkey.
If you are not a team player, don’t expect the team to support you. It is that simple.
Great one. I`ll be reading this response of yours again in my paper “THE LOS ANGELES TIMES”, real soon I hope. I`m also sending it to friends, that I know read the same paper.
It is probably important to remember that the burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq is Bush’s direct response to the ghastly attacks of 9/11.
9/11 = 3000 dead + 100s of billions of dollars in damage: Of the 3000, some had their throats slit; some were vaporized; some jumped to their death; some died of smoke inhaliation; some were burned alive; etc.
Iraq = Tens of 1000s dead or injured + 100s of billions of dollars in damage: Of these tens of 1000s, some were beheaded; some were tortured; some were sodomized; some were raped; some were malnutrioned; some drowned; some were shot; some were mutilated; etc.
9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq
WTF?
I think our resident Boo is try to kindle some heightened moral outrage at what is going down and for that I am very grateful.
Amen. I will never read enough anti-Lieberman comments. I watched the debate with Ned Lamont, and Lieberman was odious. Who the fuck does he think he is??!! That kind of over-the-top arrogance is matched in only one place: the Bush family. And that is one reason why Lieberman is most certainly going down in flames.
Put money on this. There’s no point even talking about it any more, except as a diversion. Lieberman is politically dead.
What do you think about the poll that has Joe at 56% and Ned at 18?
Howie, I’ve managed to keep my family afloat with honest law practice, but when it comes to investing my motto is “Buy High! Sell Low!” and I’m similarly inept at political prognostications. Shoot, I believed the exit polls–I was sure that Kerry had won. (And I was right.)
I haven’t seen that poll. I’ll look for it. In any event, I don’t believe it. (Did I mention that in the last national Democratic primary series I preferred Dennis Kucinich, the only peacenik in the bunch?)
Nicely said BooMan, (not that the schmucks are capable of hearing it).
to be targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views.
This is of course b.s., since Lamont is supporting himself with 1000’s of small contributions from people like me and his own money. He doesn’t have the pharmaceutical and defense industry money that Lieberman has.