You want narcissism? I give you Joe Lieberman
Joe Lieberman is a stupendously arrogant, self-absorbed man. When Monicagate was exposed, he was quick to break ranks with his party and lament that his ten year old child could not have watched the evening news. He did so in a calculated, melodramtic fashion that made evangelicals proud, I'm sure, and won him a spot as Gore's running mate. Then he went against the prevailing sentiment in his party and vigorously supported the invasion of Iraq. So, guess what? His party kicked him off the democratic ticket in his state's senate race; certainly a foreseeable outcome. Now he's going to make sure that his party suffers for such impudence, and run as an independent, thereby almost guaranteeing that his party will lose the final election. He will take his party down with him.
I'm the last person to judge a person for getting a divorce. But the fact that Lieberman left his longtime wife a number of years ago is worth noting for the hypocritical public explanation he gave for it--she wasn't religious enough for him. I'm not a democrat, but Joe Lieberman as a human interest story really leaves me disliking the guy. He's going to reap the results of all this bad karma he's made for himself till he takes his last breath, I venture. |
which all in all makes him a pretty good guy among politicians.
|
I read the first line of your titled post and thought this was going to be about you or Robin.
|
Quote:
|
man did lieberman ever jump the shark!
His nutty recent comments, echoing those of prince dick, suggesting that his loss in the primary is a signal to terrorists that the U.S. has no spine, is a slap in the face of democracy. What a pair of idiots. |
Lieberman, in the latest poll, is favored to win. The Republican is only drawing single digits. And I understand that some Republicans are fund-raising for Lieberman. He has an excellent chance of winning as an independent.
One way to beat the extremists in the primary process. |
Quote:
|
I look at the third party as a safety valve. Third party candidates keep the other two parties honest.
I'm all for third party candidates, but I'm also all for ignoring them. |
That has to be one of the less coherent criticisms I've read of a public figure. He's stupendously self-absorbed because..... why again? Because he stood on principle during the Lewinsky discussion? (And who are you to call it melodramatic or calculated? That's subjective judgement SU, not an argument you can hang anything). And then because.... he had the nerve and independence to go "against prevailing sentiment in his party?" That has to be one of the most feeble charges ever made against a public figure. For once an elected official doesn't take the easy route and cave to his constituency. For once an official doesn't calculate the best odds for re-election and you call it self-absorption?
Hilarious. |
Quote:
|
Hell, a popular second party candidate always screws things up (in the eyes of the other party). Let's just clean the whole thing up, go to one party elections and force everyone to vote. It's worked in parts of Europe, why not here?
I don't understand why people shouldn't be given a chance to vote for whom they want. The fact that it now looks like Lieberman is going to win this thing says something about who the people of Connecticut want representing them in the Senate. Isn't that what elections are for? Lamont is a one-trick pony. It doesn't appear that there is much there. He captured the anti-war extreme of the Democrat left and rode that to victory in the primary. It appears that that may not be a winning strategy in general elections; at least in this particular general election. If current trends hold, it will be interesting to see where Lieberman settles. Will he be brought back into the Democrat fold? Will he jump ship to the Rebuplicans? Or will he maintain his independent status, which could make him a mere sidenote in the Senate. |
I think I understand. But it's not much of a point. He ran as a Democrat presumably because, over the years, either HE or the Democratic Party has moved. But when he ran, he was a Dem. Ever consider the possibility that he's been perfectly true to his ideals and the ideals of the Democratic Party as he understands them (as many Dems do) but that the Party moved away from him? And that for him to move WITH the Party away from his own principles would have been a form of self-betrayal?
And the whole "dissembling about his divorce" thing is probably the weakest link in the argument you want to make. Again, this is nothing but you making judgement calls you don't have enough information to make. It may seem to you that he's dissembling. But you actually have no clue. He could be 1000% sincere in his rationale and you would have nothing beyond mere speculation to challenge it. Finally--is he really one of the people most responsible for us being in Iraq? More responsible than Bill Clinton, whose admin had planned (by his own admission and that of his aides) its own pre-emptive invasion of Iraq? More responsible than Hillary Clinton? More responsible than John Kerry who also advocated for it but then just bolted when it became politically inconvenient? More responsible than the world's intel agencies which delivered a consensus belief that SH had WMD programs? There is no ONE to blame for our decision to go into Iraq. And every retroactive review of our decision to invade judging on the basis of what we know NOW is fundamentally flawed. Based on what we knew and thought we knew in March of 2003, invading Iraq was the right call. |
Quote:
Additionally, this is not a Ross Perot scenario where you are doing nothing more than giving the electorate your opposite by competing with an ideologically similar candidate. As understand it the Republican candidate is scandal plagued and has no serious shot. Conservatives, who have ALWAYS, liked Lieberman will probably back him now. A McCain v. Lieberman presidential election, for example (though unlikely) would be a hard call for me. Both so moderate it is hard to tell them apart. Maybe this country would be less polarized if either party could produce a moderate candidate. I has to tell you something when the democrats nominate John Kerry because the guy that had all the grass roots support was just too liberal. I guess I'm not as cynical as some about the political opportunism here. If Lieberman wanted to take the most popular position he wouldn't be a consensvative Democrat trying to run in New England. He could just jump on the Kerry "I was Lied to" band wagon. I for one hope he wins. As I have said before, I think this country needs to hear from democrats who are more than just anti-Bush. |
Quote:
2. I think he will remain independent. 3. I think that independent status will enhance his power, not make him a sidenote, particularly in a Senate that may soon be even more evenly divided in terms of numbers. |
Quote:
|
If he is as committed to his values as
many say he is he won't stray too far from the Dems on domestic issues. He is very pro-union, he was against the Bush tax cuts and he is pro-choice. Outside of his Iraq stance he isn't very Republican. Would he forsake all his stances just to spite the Howard Deans of the party? If he does than most of his values weren't all that firmly held.
It seems strange all the cougarboard Republicans and Sean Hannitys of the world are getting orgasmic over the guy, he is quite liberal. He will be an independent like Jim Jeffords or Bernie Sanders is an independent. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.