Joseph Lieberman's solidarity with Bush

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
"I am a Democrat. President Bush is a Republican. Today, there is no difference between us."--Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

Was there ever?

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Not in his case, no. I will not vote for him.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Liberman is Jewish. Dubya takes his orders directly from Jesus, who says, KILL KILL KILL all in the name of FREEDOM (but please don't let them burn those oil wells. Halliburton has enough on their plate already.)

badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:29 (twenty-three years ago)

My 'I don't care who I annoy' statement of the day:

This was the man who was a heartbeat away from a potential Gore presidency as much as Cheney is to the Bush one. His influence in that presidency cannot be guessed but it could well have been tremendous.

I have said before that I actually think the situation might well have been worse -- yes, WORSE -- after 9/11 with Gore as president, facing an equally unsettled economy and doubtless being hounded by a right outraged that they would have to 'put up with' four more years of an administration inherited from Clinton. The pressures on him to act even more swiftly and to be shown to 'do something' might well have been overwhelming, and it might have led to an election in 2004 where someone even more rabid than BushCo got in. That's how potentially terrifying it might have been, and now is bad enough.

Obviously there's no way to prove this, and now it is water long under the bridge, a battle admittedly not worth refighting. I am hardly saying I am happy with the current administration, at all. But still, I think it has to be said.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:37 (twenty-three years ago)

someone even more rabid than BushCo

Perhaps, but how much worse could they be? Its narrow victory has hardly reined BushCo in. The Alaskan oil drilling vote is about the only domestic gambit I can recall them not getting away with.

Having now spent my $.02, I declare this line of reasoning closed, as one can never know what would have been. ;-)

mookieproof (mookieproof), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Quite so. ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)

very interesting. It's occurred to me how badly gore would be scapegoated for 9/11, and the reactionary momentum the right would have gained would have been even greater. Even now, we cannot keep a new book blaming Clinton for everything 9/11 and Iraq related on the shelves, as it sells so quickly. If a Democrat was in office now.... sheesh...... my brain seizes up.

badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)

i dont see much of a difference at all, but i dont blame it on leiberman or gore or bush or anyone else. the fact that any elected official has to be beholden to zealous crusaders out for blood is not the candidates fault... for all of our posturing as being somehow civilized, only a fraction of the human populace can transcend the emotional desire for revenge and vendetta in search of a more objective and universal truth. as much as i am a feminist, its times like these that makes me want to toss gilligan out the window and bring back kolhberg (and before anyone says anything, i really do think this war is predicated on emotions, which is a weird inversion because supposedly the Left is about feelings, whereas the Right is the cold military industrial machinery. i dont think that binary is true at all anymore)

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 21 March 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)

it might be as true as it once was, but it seems that there has been a serious spectrum shift to the right.

badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)

What do you mean, "shift"? It's ALWAYS been like this, from my perspective, regardless of who's been in the White House.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 March 2003 20:37 (twenty-three years ago)

really? it feels far more to the right than it did even under Reagan to me. Perhaps it's just a personal feeling. There just seems to be more vocal militants and pro-lifers and looney tax-cutting freaks than ever.

badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)

and i meant to add that Clinton wasn't even much of a Democrat for me.

badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:45 (twenty-three years ago)

two years pass...
I bashed Lieberman on the Rumsfeld thread, and wanted to do it again, but I figger I'll put it where it belongs.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), yesterday on the Bill Press Show: "I've spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he's out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he's just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."

Well, somebody must, if he's gonna be Sec of Def.

Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 9 December 2005 23:23 (twenty years ago)

he made kissyface with the president on tv!

kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 10 December 2005 02:28 (twenty years ago)

he wanted to ban mortal kombat

latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 05:25 (twenty years ago)

still does. him & hillary were/are trumping about for paranoid parents support. games are all up in yer children's virgin areas, etc.

kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 10 December 2005 05:29 (twenty years ago)

Come on guys, feel the Joementum!

walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:14 (twenty years ago)

Joe me.

latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:35 (twenty years ago)

Joest kiddin' :-D

latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:42 (twenty years ago)

A friend of mine in Connecticut, contemplating a Secretary Lieberman: "Hey, then we could replace him with a Democrat!"

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:42 (twenty years ago)

I thought that the governor of Connecticut was a Republican.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:55 (twenty years ago)

The governor of Connecticut is an inmate. The substitute governor of Connecticut is a Republican, but of the Yankee variety. She's probably more liberal than Lieberman.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:59 (twenty years ago)

But if you mean she'd appoint a Republican, sure, probably. Who would then lose the next election. Connecticut's feeling pretty Blue State these days.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 08:01 (twenty years ago)

Here's a Slate bit on him, which I don't really agree with completely.

...Why so much affection? Lieberman, a conservative Democrat, has credibility, and Bush is trying to regain his. When Bush says there's progress in Iraq, moderates think he's spinning. When Lieberman says it, they might actually believe it. Quoting Lieberman highlights the Democratic Party's confused position on the war. White House aides hope Lieberman becomes the anti-Murtha, the sage Democrat who slows the push for speedy withdrawal.

Bush hasn't just cherry-picked Lieberman's complimentary remarks about Iraq policy. The president has also embraced Lieberman's criticism. He said the senator was correct to charge that "mistakes had been made" in the prosecution of the war. That's just a flicker of candor, but it's new for the president. The old Bush would have tweezed the good bits from Lieberman and pretended the criticisms didn't exist. Today's embattled Bush is trying to show those who doubt him that he sees things clearly. Embracing Lieberman's criticisms, however gingerly, helps Bush show that he's awake without looking like he's caving to political pressure from lefty partisans.

Lieberman benefits by the association as well. He gets to do a McCain. He has a free pass to candor. He can beat up President Bush and praise him—both help his image. As with McCain, Lieberman's showy acts of centrism inspire the hatred of the ideological core of his party. Lieberman rattled their blogs when he preached recently: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril..."

Though one would think the "anti-Murtha" bit would be a non-starter...

kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Sunday, 11 December 2005 00:29 (twenty years ago)

Who the hell does Lieberman have "credibility" with (apart from the people who book guests on cable news shows)?

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 11 December 2005 03:33 (twenty years ago)

Kerry got the nomination last time, despite being totally uninspiring, because he ran as "electable" and "centrist." Lieberman is trying the same strategy.

Mitya (mitya), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:00 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but he tried the same strategy last year too and the best he managed was a statistical three-way tie for third in New Hampshire. Get a clue, Joe.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:17 (twenty years ago)

oh, for the days of lowell weicker.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:49 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.