Seeing Joe Go
Having previously lived in Connecticut for several years, I have a few quick thoughts about Joe Lieberman's apparently imminent defeat. First, his current nadir is striking when one considers that, not too long ago, many speculated that a reversal of the ticket in the 2000 campaign (Lieberman for president, Gore for vice-president) would have been more attractive. (And as an added measure of how dramatically political fortunes can change, many said the same about the Bush-Cheney ticket that year. Ponder that one....)
As a referendum on Iraq, a Lieberman defeat will be unambiguous---a clear message that a welcome period of accountability has started. Eventually, some of the architects of the war and its related policies may have to do time in the pokey; in the meantime, the "get along, go along" enablers and "stay the course" apologists need to be punished and tossed from office. While obviously this benefits the Democrats for now, Lieberman's troubles carry a deeper anti-incumbency message that makes establishment Washington very nervous. That's apparent in the number of both Democrats and Republicans backing Lieberman. When you see the usual suspects on the Right slam Lamont, you know the right people are starting to sweat.
Beyond that, while Lieberman may end up running as an independent, a Lamont win here would be a stunning success for the grassroots bloggers on the Left who've supported him. I'm not sure how much of that support accounts for Lamont's surge, but my sense is that it's significant. To the extent that too makes the right people---both Democrats and Republicans---start to sweat, that's a good thing.
As a referendum on Iraq, a Lieberman defeat will be unambiguous---a clear message that a welcome period of accountability has started. Eventually, some of the architects of the war and its related policies may have to do time in the pokey; in the meantime, the "get along, go along" enablers and "stay the course" apologists need to be punished and tossed from office. While obviously this benefits the Democrats for now, Lieberman's troubles carry a deeper anti-incumbency message that makes establishment Washington very nervous. That's apparent in the number of both Democrats and Republicans backing Lieberman. When you see the usual suspects on the Right slam Lamont, you know the right people are starting to sweat.
Beyond that, while Lieberman may end up running as an independent, a Lamont win here would be a stunning success for the grassroots bloggers on the Left who've supported him. I'm not sure how much of that support accounts for Lamont's surge, but my sense is that it's significant. To the extent that too makes the right people---both Democrats and Republicans---start to sweat, that's a good thing.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Saturday, August 05, 2006
12 Comments:
A better reason to dislike Lieberman: He lead the charge against the SEC and the FASB in the early 90's to avoid having corporations list stock options as compensation, as an expense, which created an environment for rampant corporate corruption and earnings manipulations - the beginning of Enron. He politicized the FASB and which helped to destroy business ethics.
"Worse Than Enron" It was political suicide for Gore to partner with Lieberman. So many people dislike Lieberman for his actions. I'm not sure exactly what makes him a Democrat when his actions speak otherwise.
Agree with Anonymous above. I don't know who thought a reverse ticket in 2000 would have been better ... maybe electorially, Lieberman as top dog might have been better but, from the electorate's point of view, I very much doubt it.
judyo
It's hilarious watching Beltway fuckwits pin Smokin' Joe's implosions on internet Wobblies and the 'single issue' of Iraq. As the prior comments note, Lieberman's finance industry pandering ought to be enough to deserve ostracism from any party that purports to represent working people. His role in bankruptcy 'reform' was especially slimy. And in the midst of helping the well-connected, Joe decided that "morality" required a puritanical attack on -- video games and black musicians. Nope, Lieberman more than deserves the humiliation he's getting, and I hope he's only the first incumbent to get a real lesson in public shaming.
-- sglover
Three months ago, I didn't give a hoot who won the primary as long as the Dems ultimately held the seat. But now, I'm rooting for Ned primarily because someone must be held accountable for the tragic mess in Iraq, even it's a weak-kneed enabler like Joe.
We may as well start with him. I just hope that many more will follow.
"...not too long ago, many speculated that a reversal of the ticket in the 2000 campaign (Lieberman for president, Gore for vice-president) would have been more attractive."
I just think it deserves mention that those would be the "moulders of public opinion", purveyors of conventional wisdom, punditry corps that we all admire so much for their ability to press their heads firmly up into their colon.
Once upon a time (2000)I liked Joe Liberman, what I knew of him anyway since I'm from the midwest. Now I've donated to Lamont and am anxiously waiting the results from Tuesday.
Yes, my change in heart started off because of his stand related to Iraq. But watching him on TV, Sunday after Sunday, slamming any Dem who "dared" to question the president, well that was too much. I guess I am one of those blog readers that the MSM is so worried about right now. Used to be a bit of a political junkie. Now a bit more of a political activist - donating, writing letters to the editor. Arguing with my son and son-inlaw about politics.
See Joe Go, I certainly hope so.
I agree with Azael. I only hope the icebergs are big enough to bring sea change this November and in 2008 (barring electoral shenanigans of the Ohio/Florida kind).
If only it were true that some of the architects of this war in Iraq would do time in the pokey. Not going to happen, because there would have to be someone holding them accountable and as of yet no one has taken up this banner, certainly not this administration and not the weak sister Democrats.
Nothing happened to Custer, Battle and they pinned the Abu Graib matter on an E-2. Didn't know E-2s ran the military.
Tossing out Lieberman is the first step in abandoning support for Israel and the end game is very, very ugly.
thirdeye said: Tossing out Lieberman is the first step in abandoning support for Israel and the end game is very, very ugly.
Things are pretty ugly now... Maybe if we stopped enabling Israel, she would learn to use diplomacy and start getting along with her neighbors. Israel has the power to end the conflict, but with US support, she does not have the will to end the conflict.
That said, to equate the people of Conn. choosing a new guy over Holy Warhead Joe with the end of support for Israel is ludicrous. Is AIPAC closing up shop?
Just wanted to point out that it isn't just grassroot bloggers that have helped Ned Lamont and are changing the way politcal information is disseminated. Much credit has to be given to the new progressive radio station, Air America. Many shows on that station such as The Randi Rhodes Show and The Majority Report have been quite vocal in their support for Ned Lamont and their disgust with Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman has been a prime enabler of George W. Bush's completely misguided policies in Iraq and in the war on terror.
If anyone should ever have to wear the t-shirt "I'm with stupid ----->" it's Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman is out of touch with his constituents and the majority of Americans. He just doesn't get that at all. It's time for you to go, Joe.
Post a Comment
<< Home