Joe is ... well darn, I ran right out of polite adjectives and adverbs. How do you like that?
Knock yourselves out, something I won't have to censor.
Showing posts with label Lieberman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lieberman. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, November 14, 2008
Homeland Joe, I Think No
I'll blame GWB for as long as the name Homeland is attached to any official agency for the hair standing up on the back of my neck every time I see it. I have very nearly the same reaction to Joe Lieberman keeping his chair of the Senate Committee bearing its name.
I approve of politicians acting on the basis of their conscience rather than votes or personal gain. I don't have a problem with politicians disagreeing with their Party, frequently the most effective resistance to stupidity comes from inside. It has automatic validation as sincere. It is something to have attention paid to it and it is fairly rare.
Anyone who paid attention to politics and foreign affairs over the past six years knows where Joe Lieberman stands on Iraq and over the past four years where Obama stands and they are opposed. Lieberman supporting McCain on the basis of Iraq alone wouldn't be a surprise and shouldn't have been. Given Joe's views, it was the right thing to do, a lot of important aspects of that issue were heavily weighted by who won. So far, so good.
Then the train runs off the track. A former Democratic VP nominee, a Senator supported by Obama in his contested Primary - which he lost - and an Independent caucusing with Democrats and holding an important Chair not only criticizes that Party's nominee on that issue, but goes on about experience and the security of the nation in very negative terms. Once you've gone past disagreeing about a policy to questioning the very patriotism of your Party's nominee you've signalled your complete opposition to your Party's President Elect and your determination to harm him politically.
There is absolutely no reason for the Democratic Party Senators to give such a platform and such power to an avowed opponent. If you are to excuse his McCain backing on the basis of principle then you cannot discount his vote on the issues you'd expect him to support as a part of the Democratic Caucus simply because he shifts to Republican Caucus. If he is so childish as to switch his social issues positions over that Chair, then he is a dangerous ally. If he is that untrustworthy and unprincipled there is no forgiving his Election behavior. Supporting him in his quest to keep his Chairmanship is not rational thinking, it is wishful thinking to avoid a conflict which is inevitable in either scenario.
I have respect for Evan Bayh but his position that avoiding this conflict helps to keep Lieberman's vote within the Caucus' positions is poor thinking. This needs to be resolved cleanly and quickly, there is no reason to leave a scab to be picked at. I'm real sure a bunch of Senators have been waiting with bated breath for my analysis...
I approve of politicians acting on the basis of their conscience rather than votes or personal gain. I don't have a problem with politicians disagreeing with their Party, frequently the most effective resistance to stupidity comes from inside. It has automatic validation as sincere. It is something to have attention paid to it and it is fairly rare.
Anyone who paid attention to politics and foreign affairs over the past six years knows where Joe Lieberman stands on Iraq and over the past four years where Obama stands and they are opposed. Lieberman supporting McCain on the basis of Iraq alone wouldn't be a surprise and shouldn't have been. Given Joe's views, it was the right thing to do, a lot of important aspects of that issue were heavily weighted by who won. So far, so good.
Then the train runs off the track. A former Democratic VP nominee, a Senator supported by Obama in his contested Primary - which he lost - and an Independent caucusing with Democrats and holding an important Chair not only criticizes that Party's nominee on that issue, but goes on about experience and the security of the nation in very negative terms. Once you've gone past disagreeing about a policy to questioning the very patriotism of your Party's nominee you've signalled your complete opposition to your Party's President Elect and your determination to harm him politically.
There is absolutely no reason for the Democratic Party Senators to give such a platform and such power to an avowed opponent. If you are to excuse his McCain backing on the basis of principle then you cannot discount his vote on the issues you'd expect him to support as a part of the Democratic Caucus simply because he shifts to Republican Caucus. If he is so childish as to switch his social issues positions over that Chair, then he is a dangerous ally. If he is that untrustworthy and unprincipled there is no forgiving his Election behavior. Supporting him in his quest to keep his Chairmanship is not rational thinking, it is wishful thinking to avoid a conflict which is inevitable in either scenario.
I have respect for Evan Bayh but his position that avoiding this conflict helps to keep Lieberman's vote within the Caucus' positions is poor thinking. This needs to be resolved cleanly and quickly, there is no reason to leave a scab to be picked at. I'm real sure a bunch of Senators have been waiting with bated breath for my analysis...
Friday, August 11, 2006
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Joe Lieberman has managed to offend CT Democrats enough to lose the Democratic Primary to a newcomer and he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it enough so that he'll run as an Independent. Partisan politics gets the blame from his camp.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)