I was interested to see that Ed Koch did a sudden about-face recently and endorsed President Obama’s reelection. It was a rather dramatic transformation, as Koch had just led the charge to beat the Democrat running to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner because he wanted to send a message to the president about his policies toward Israel. However, the president asked for a meeting with Koch, and Koch came away from the meeting feeling that he had misunderstood the president’s words and actions. Koch hasn’t been an elected official for a very long time, but he’s probably the best example of an American official who transparently puts the interests of Israel (as he sees them) above any domestic considerations. He’s fairly open about it, probably because he’s not actually an office-holder.
This is obviously one of the most sensitive subjects in American politics. There have been so many lies and libels against Jews, and with such tragic results, that one must tread lightly around subjects of dual-loyalty. Yet, that doesn’t mean that we can’t question to actions of Jewish politicians when their behavior seems to indicate that they’re putting the interests of Israel (as they see them) ahead of the interests of their own constituents and their own political ideology.
How do we explain the recent actions of Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut? He’s not supporting the president on the jobs bill. He even opposes the bill coming up next week to hire back teachers, police officers, and firefighters. This is not consistent with Lieberman’s record over 22 years in the Senate. He’s always been a friend of public service workers, and even though he’s clashed with teachers over vouchers, he’s been supportive of teachers and education spending.
There are some senators who oppose the president’s plan because they’re up for reelection and they’re worried about more stimulus spending, even if it’s paid for. That’s certainly the case with Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana. But Joe Lieberman isn’t running for reelection, so he’s liberated to vote his conscience. Does his conscience tell him that we need more unemployed teachers, police officers, and firefighters? Has he suddenly decided that the Republicans are right about how to stimulate the economy? I kind of doubt it.
Joe Lieberman endorsed John McCain in 2008, arguing that he was better prepared to take on Islamic extremism. If Lieberman was worried about Obama on that score, his fears should have been alleviated by Obama’s relentless pursuit of bin-Laden and his super-agressive drone campaign. It’s hard to see why Lieberman would still want the president to lose his reelection bid, but that is how he is behaving.
Remember that this man was the Democratic Party’s nominee for vice-president in 2000. He hasn’t changed that much. Certainly, he has a more hawkish attitude than he used to, which is somewhat understandable in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But he was a leader in repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, he’s tried to lead on climate change, he’s pro-choice, and he’s generally on the left’s side of most political disputes. If he’s trying to sabotage President Obama’s presidency, there must be some powerful motivating force. Is it spite? Or he suffering from the same malady that Ed Koch so recently recovered from?
It’s an uncomfortable question. But when a man inexplicably votes against his entire history, against the preferences of his own constituents, against his own caucus, and when he doesn’t have any good excuses for his actions, you have to wonder what’s going on. Why is Lieberman jettisoning everything he believes in to try to destroy Obama’s presidency? Is it because he cares first and foremost about Israel?
It’s not a subject matter that I raise lightly because I know the history and danger of such accusations. The one thing I know for sure is that Lieberman’s opposition to the president’s job proposals in inexplicable unless we realize that he wants Obama to fail.
Well they better be careful what they wish for because after last night the R’s being polled are storming down the tracks to nominate Cain who couldn’t find Israel on a map with the help of a minder.
link
in some alternate universe, some version of booman is puzzling — along with the rest of us — over the actions of president droopy dog, who in 2008 succeeded al gore, who’d been awarded the contested recount in 2000 …
I think about that all the time. It’s the reason that I still don’t have much time for Al Gore, despite his good work on climate change.
I think he’s still pissed off about this:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15766.html
[D]uring a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.
While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.
Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.
Typical Joe to be holding that grudge when he should be bowing in shame for his original action. Course I’m still waiting for ghost of Paul Newman to pour some salad dressing over his head. As a Conn resident it must have driven him nuts to have to live with Joe.
Holy Joe was a bad apple long before that. Why do you think that mean, evil woman moved to Connecticut and worked to primary Holy Joe?
yes, but remember the context of the conversation. Lieberman had already endorsed his opponent.
I find “personal grudge” to be the most likely explanation for Lieberman’s behavior.
Certainly, he has a more hawkish attitude than he used to, which is somewhat understandable in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Say what?!?!?!? Holy Joe has always been a super-hawk. It’s why he was/is part of the DLC/Turd Way. Do you know what they make in Connecticut(or at least used to)? I don’t know why you try to excuse Holy Joe’s actions that easily. After all, who did the current President list as a mentor when he in the Senate?
” I don’t know why you try to excuse Holy Joe’s actions that easily. After all, who did the current President list as a mentor when he in the Senate?”
This is a nifty rhetorical device. You pose the puzzle in the first sentence, then answer it in the second. 😛
he didn’t list him as a mentor. He was assigned to him as a mentor.
Why? Because they are both DLC/Turd Way.
No, because they assign a mentor to each new senator. Getting the veep candidate was a nice bonus for a newcomer. If you keep acting like it means something, you’ll just make a fool of yourself.
I’m not the fool. You just can’t admit that the President is a DLC’er. And sure they assign a mentor, and how do you think HolyJoe got assigned to the future President? Do you really think they just draw straws and pick that way?
link
You really ought to rethink this post…reword it a bit, or remove it. I think it could be used by some people to smear you.
Bottom line is that the people going after Obama on Israel are not “pro-Israel” in any meaningful sense. They favor ruinous policies that will lead to the destruction of that country’s long term economy, security, and modernity unless reversed in the next 12-24 months (I’ve read a couple of convincing arguments lately that if Israel doesn’t seize the opportunity currently presented in Abbas and Fayed and the burgeoning palestinian non-violence movement, Hamas may take over the west bank in the next 5 years as moderates are shown to be unable to make any progress).
Lieberman’s actions can be explained by his own stupidity and his ego. He is one of many, many dems who are conservative groupies – they buy into right wing frames, particularly on security, because they see it as more masculine, and they like to act “tough”. I’m sure they’re compensating for something. Lieberman is one of the worst, but there are others, and they come from a variety of backgrounds. It just so happens there are a number of lobbying organizations that take reflexively (and self-destructively) “Pro-Israel” stands and he probably finds his ego nicely massaged there. Also remember dems rejected him in a primary; this probably solidified his dumbness.
Finally, there is probably some good old fashioned prejudice in this – prejudice against arabs and muslims in general, which is popular in all quarters these days. Obama is on the receiving end of a lot of “he must be antisemitic because he’s black and has a muslim middle name” thinking. I would point out that most of that comes from evangelical Christians and their sympathizers. Lieberman of course has associated with evangelicals when it suits him.
Also remember dems rejected him in a primary; this probably solidified his dumbness.
Bingo!!! And it wasn’t the 2006 one that really pissed him off!. As I keep telling people, he’s still pissed off over 2004!!!
people will smear me for being critical of Israel’s policies. people will smear me for supporting Israel. you can either be silent, or accept that you will be smeared.
this is in a different category than being critical of Israel’s policies… the dual-loyalty charge is a pretty serious one.
Just my two cents.
What’s provocative about pointing out someone’s dual loyalty? Americans of every ethnic background experience it.
The problem is that it’s usually used as a euphemism, to describe the situation that when the interests of America and another country are in conflict, an American will choose policies that benefit the other country. I think that that’s the charge that’s being made. And in that case, nothing really needs to be said about the person as a whole. It should be pretty straightforward to say “Lieberman supports this policy; this policy serves Israel’s interests as he sees them; it’s contrary to America’s interests as I see them.” That’s a pretty easy argument to make in the case of Lieberman’s positions.
I find that one idea that gets a lot of push-back from Likud supporters is that their agenda for Israel and the interests of America diverge. Whenever our “special friendship” starts being invoked, you know that you’re winning the argument on the merits.
Now you’ve done it.
It’s an interesting comparison between Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman. — The key to your question, I think, is not to put too much emphasis on Lieberman’s past. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat and he is not even an independent. He is a Republican. The fact that he endorsed McCain against Obama is not a fluke, especially when you consider that he and Obama were at one time quite close.
The second key factor is that there is a big split in the American Jewish political world. Most Jewish voters are Democrats and support Obama. Mirroring Democratic opinion in general, there has been some softening of support for Obama, but this doesn’t mean they are now going GOP. Many are disappointed that Obama has not been liberal enough.
Then there are the Jewish Republicans. They key point here is that there is no longer any moderate GOP. The Republican Jewish Coalition is just as crazy as the rest of the republican party.
The biggest moneybags on that end is Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas casino tycoon. Check this out:
http://mydd.com/users/bobswern/posts/progressive-enemy-1-quotthat-crazy-jewish-billionairequot
Third is that Netanyahu is not and never has been popular with most American Jews. But of course he’s VERY popular with the Christian right. And the influence of the latter is another polarizing feature not only in the general American political landscape, but also on the Jewish end of it.
The choice is stark. Lieberman has long since gone over to the dark side. That he is not running for reelection is not an accident, it reflects the fact that his sentiments are too far to the right for most Connecticut voters. This is no longer just about Israel. It’s about buying the whole package, because the GOP has become a party of ideological purity. Lieberman thinks this is good for Israel.
I have never much cared for Ed Koch, but evidently he is still a Democrat and he has not totally lost contact with reality.
I’ll buy a lot of your argument. But I don’t buy that Lieberman is a Republican.
He cast the 60th vote for the stimulus and the health care bill. He voted for Obama’s Supreme Court appointees. He cast the 60th vote for the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. He led the charge to repeal DADT. He led the negotiations on Cap & Trade, even though they failed. He remains pro-choice.
He’s always been a corporate-friendly DLC Democrat, but considerably to the left of, say, Evan Bayh.
He obviously broke with the Democrats over their lack of support for the war in Iraq, but that doesn’t make him a Republican. He’s supports the Republicans on foreign policy, but that’s about it. Until now. Now, all of a sudden he’s voting like a scared Ben Nelson on domestic policy.
He cast the 60th vote for the stimulus and the health care bill. He voted for Obama’s Supreme Court appointees. He cast the 60th vote for the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. He led the charge to repeal DADT. He led the negotiations on Cap & Trade, even though they failed. He remains pro-choice.
After helping water down most of them!!!!!!!!!!! Jeepers, Boo!! As I said, he’s had a burr in his saddle since Democrats said we didn’t want him as our 2004 nominee.
And certainly that’s your point. It’s not that Joe hasn’t always been a divided soul, it’s that his current positions are wandering off even his own track and it’s important to saw hey whatsup?
And he’s on Twitter now trashing the jobs bill.
What’s up is that the Republicans are now so paranoid about Obama that they need everybody on board to work against him, and that includes Lieberman. My point was that the kind of pro-Netanyahu right wing that Lieberman has been allied with on Israeli issues for a long time, has been fanatically anti-Obama since the campaign. They have been with the “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing — Daniel Pipes practically started that.
It doesn’t matter about the other issues. It’s now all about Israel, which now has become all about bringing down Obama. Perhaps Lieberman had to think about that a minute, but not too long.
It’s really pathetic, isn’t it?