It’s so embarrassing to watch the Committee on Armed Services question Rumsfeld and company and have to compare Joe Lieberman to Lindsey Graham. As a Democrat I mean.
Matt Yglesias said it well:
I should note in the spirit of bipartisanship that Sens. Lindsay Graham and Susan Collins both turned in much better performances than Lieberman. Indeed, Graham’s was probably the best of all the ones I saw from either party.
Actually, that’s rather understated. Graham made virtually everyone else there look like sniveling lickspittles.
And Lieberman!
Would he just join the the GOP already? As a Democrat he’s really pathetic and pointless.
Lindsay Graham is my favorite Senator right now. Mostly I just like the guy, appears to have a brain.
He was like a well-sharpened cleaver, that guy.
Saxby Chambliss did a more or less respectable job, too. Who’d have thought?
I’ll still never forgive him for what he did to Max.
A bunch of the Democrats–Jack Reed, Clinton, Daniel Akaka, Bill Nelson, Carl Levin–did just fine. But man. I did not expect to be that impressed by Lindsay Graham. Or that unimpressed by Joe Lieberman.
(Saxby Chambliss did a more or less respectable job, too. Who’d have thought?)
I would be happy to send Joe Lieberman a VRWC Memebership card. He should be one of us. Hope he brings Zell Miller, John Breaux and some others. Good men all.
Here’s his address spc67. Get him to switch before the election please.
Senator Joe Lieberman
One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Chambliss was pretty insipid; his pitch was that because Rumsfeld apologized–it absolved him and made him a great leader.
Truly the worst was Jeff Sessions, who came perilously close to saying anything goes.
Sessions was all, “That was totally awesome. Everything you guys are doing is the best. I have no further questions.”
You do understand, Edward, that you need folks like Lieberman to win this election. Right?*
(Apparently, the first thing you do is kill all the moderates. Heck, it seems to have worked for the Republicans.**)
von
*Speaking as a supporter of St. Joe’s presidential campaign.
**If the Republicans started fielding more candidates like Ahnold, I’d join the VRWC (Rockefeller wing) today.
I’ll have to wait for the transcripts to comment further; I’m confused by these comments, because I thought I saw Lieberman go out quite hard. I said so, as it happened, on my blog. What did I see?
von: You do understand, Edward, that you need folks like Lieberman to win this election. Right?*
Yeah, Lieberman did the Democrats a fat lot of good in the last election. The man is enthusiasm repellant, if you ask me. Gore needed charisma in the second seat, to make up for his own deficiency, but he instead opted for the least offensive self-loathing Democrat he could find.
Gary Farber: I’ll have to wait for the transcripts to comment further; I’m confused by these comments, because I thought I saw Lieberman go out quite hard. I said so, as it happened, on my blog. What did I see?
I didn’t think Lieberman particularly coddled Rumsfeld. His preamble was just incredibly clumsy, in my opinion.
About seven hours ago, I wrote this. I dunno, maybe I was deluded to think Lieberman was “excortiating” Rumsfeld.
Maybe Robert Byrd was better. (Does everyone agree he “served with Truman”?; is that uncontroversial and unworthy of comment?; apparently.) I await the transcript.
Separately: I’m not referring to any specific Democrat, as I would if I wrote “As a Democrat I mean.” I’d wonder which Democrat that writer meant. I’d even ask. “What Democrat do you mean?”
But if someone wrote “As a Democrat, I mean,” I’d know what they were talking about. They were speaking as a Democrat. That’s the difference a punctuation mark can make. Just saying. In written form, we only have words and punctuation. No telepathy available. We can confuse, or be precise; it’s a choice. (No offense intended. Which would read differently if put as “no, offense intended.” Hey, it’s just a punctuation mark; who cares?)
von, Lieberman’s not exactly a moderate — in his public positioning, at least. I’d argue strongly that, while appeal to the moderate base is essential for the Dems, Lieberman’s actually damaging to Democratic chances come November.
Lieberman is a neocon who has not changed political parties like the other neocons because he couldn’t get elected in Con. as a Republican. I would guess he will have a serious fight in his next primary.
the problem with lieberman’s remarks is as follows.
We did X to party A. Okay, that was bad.
But party B did Y to us, and they never apologized.
But you see, Joe, A and B are not the same party.
In fact, 60% of A may not have even done anything wrong, according to the Taguba report.
In addition, it’s pretty sad if you think that saying “we’re still better than a bunch of terrorists” is an effective argument.
Moral clarity and all.
Edward,
Anybody else the “party of inclusion” would like to throw overboard?
Conservatives seek converts, liberals drive out apostates.
-some smart guy
Conservatives seek converts, liberals drive out apostates.
If Dennis Kucinich didn’t change his politics, merely his party registration, then spent the next few years doing nothing but badmouth the Republicans (covered, you see, because he was a member and therefore entitled to criticize them) and advocate his current agenda, would you be so blithe in your characterization?
would you be so blithe in your characterization?
Yup. Especially if I was billing the Republican Party as the “party of inclusion.” Otherwise I’d be admitting to being …wait for it, a blatant hypocrite.
Plus that is hardly a fair analogy to what Lieberman has been doing.
Actually, that’s a pretty reasonable characterization of Lieberman’s most recent actions IMO. Every time I’ve heard him speak over the past few years he’s taken potshots at the Democrats (the party to which nominally belongs). [I seem to recall some fairly nasty attacks towards the end of his candidacy, but I don’t have the time to find them now.] His actual policies haven’t been as outré as Kucinich’s AFAIK — that’s why I restricted to “public positioning” — but even so they’re still well to the right of the rest of the party.
Does that I mean I think he should be punted? Not really. I guess it depends on whether he stops undercutting the Democrats on such a regular basis; “party of inclusion” notwithstanding, I don’t think it’s asking too much for a little restraint in attacking one’s fellow teammates, and if that opens me to charges of “blatant hypocrisy” then so be it. I do think, however, that Lieberman — like Zell Miller, obviously, but also a slew of Republicans to some degree — is on the wrong side of the way the party lines are being redrawn. I’ll be happy to see him remain despite our ideological differences, I just think that he’d be happier as a Republican.
Or, to misuse a phrase that’s been making the rounds recently: “The Party Of Inclusion” is not a suicide pact 😉
I’ve been pissed at Lieberman for some time now. It’s not that he supported the war (lots of people I admire did); it’s the way he gransdstands as if he’s better than everyone else. And then there’s this:
“The people who attacked us on September 11 never apologized.”
He’s comparing Rumsfeld to bin Laden????
Really, what the f%^k does that even mean?
The committee did not call Rumsfeld to the Hill to praise him (they could have done that any time, any where). They called him to the Hill to explain how the communications and chain of command had broken down so badly during a war. It’s a serious problem. Lieberman has no business apologizing for that breakdown in any sense (none of them did, but he’s on my s*#t list), especially via a comparison with the hateful bastards who attacked us on 9/11.
Graham didn’t feel the need to preface his questions with pointless flattery. No one suspected him of being partisan because of it.
I don’t offer up Lieberman to the Republicans because I believe he’ll help the GOP. I believe he’ll hurt whichever party he belongs to.
You’re right about his image though, Von. He definitely sees himself as St. Joe. The thing about Saints though is you only get to be one after you’ve passed away. Lieberman needs to keep in mind he’s still among the sinners and his holier than thou attitude is not helping anyone.
As for the charges of hypocrisy: Anarch’s line is a real gem
“The Party Of Inclusion” is not a suicide pact 😉
But I’d also note that the inclusion is only valuable if it’s a shared value. If Lieberman is so convinced he’s better than all those around him, he’s hardly able to join us in that spirit, now is he?
Gary, do you offer grammar lessons? What’s your rate?
Hey Gary, have you read “Eats, Shoots and Leaves”?
Bravo Anarch. GREAT line.
“An idiotic argument, of course! If you were so unfortunate as to marry off your elder daughter to a sergeant in a battalion of ex-convicts, this is no reason why you should marry of her younger sister to the most elegant detective on the [ex-convict] society squad; one black sheep in the family is enough. And yet the idiotic arguments works, as is proved to us every day. When anyone brings up the slave in the colonies and calls for justice, he is reminded of prisoners in Russian concentration camps, and vice versa. And if you protest against the assassination in Prague of an opposition historian like Kalandra, two or three American Negroes are thrown in your face. In such a disgusting at outbidding, one thing only does not change–the victim who is always the same.”
–Albert Camus, 5/10/53
Lieberman seemed to be making the argument Camus is talking about. And yes, it’s an idiotic argument.
This works on both a grand and a very petty scale, by the way. (Grand scale: 9/11 does not justify or do much to mitigate Abu Ghraib does not justify or mitigate the next school blown up by terrorists in Iraq. Petty scale: Ann Coulter does not justify or mitigate Ted Rall does not justify or mitigate Rush Limbaugh.)
And it in no way contradicts a clear belief about which side is in the right, or which side you’re on. (Grand scale: U.S., or the west more generally. Petty scale: liberals/Democrats.*)
*that last one’s an illustration, not a statement I’m trying to convince anyone of just now. 😉