8 thoughts on “AWESOME”

  • BK says:

    J. Dryden Says:
    I’m HOPING these ‘few things’ will require the words “cocksucker” and “apocalypse.”

    /fixed

    If 'assclown,' 'traitor,' 'sell-out' and 'douchebag' could also find there way in there I would greatly appreciate it…

  • Scott says:

    I know no one will want to hear this, but Lieberman is actually a pretty solid Democrat on just about every issue other than the national security generally and Iraq specifically. His support for McCain largely stems from this issue and his personal friendship with the man. It was obviously stupid for him to campaign for the GOP, but I can understand why he did it.

    I would rather he not be the chairman of the Homeland Security chair, but he might be a valuable member of the caucus. Besides, with all the power the Democrats now have in the Senate, it seems likely that they will be able to persuade a couple of Republicans to vote for cloture on just about any vote. Lieberman may not be able to hold the party over a barrel like he has in the past. And really, where else is he going to go? He's too socially liberal for the Republicans to conceivably want him. My bet is that we're not going to hear much from Holy Joe until his reelection bid in 2012.

    Finally, if President Obama is honestly serious about real "post-partisan" change in government, isn't this the first step in doing that – letting by-gones be by-gones? Political cynics, which I am one, will probably say that Lieberman is a snake in the grass, but maybe this is actually a shift in political tone in Washington?

  • j says:

    I know I am not as well-versed in politics or political science as many of the others who frequent this site, in particular the illustrious Ed. Regardless of my naivete, it seems to me that the whole 2006 Lamont-Lieberman saga was a horrible fiasco on the Democrats' part, and they are now justly reaping their own rewards in having an independent Lieberman. Lamont knew that if he won the primary he was going to actually have an independent Lieberman candidate in the general election that he probably wouldn't beat. To me it seems the only frickin' purpose was self-mutilation. Happily there was no decent republican contender, else perhaps the seat could have gone red (although of course it is a solid blue state).

    Didn't Hillary support the war in 2003 also, just like Lieberman? I don't feel like looking that fact up right now.

    Also, if I were Lieberman and it were my colleagues who all turned on me in favor of their own expediency, then yeah I'd be pissed too. But I'm sure that personal feelings are rather insignificant at the highest echelons of government. The point is, if you're going to slaughter the pig then do it quickly and cleanly so that you don't have an angry stuck pig running around the barnyard.

  • Ed says:

    First of all, this is a matter of opinion about Lieberman. "Expertise" doesn't really enter into it. You know as much as anyone else.

    Second, challenging an incumbent who attained the role of "Dick Cheney's favorite Democrat" doesn't seem like a fiasco to me. It sounds like what members of a political party do when someone wears their label and rejects their ideology.

    Third, how did Lieberman's colleagues "turn on him in favor of their own expediency"? Not one drop of emnity has fallen upon Lieberman that he did not richly earn with his own actions and decisions.

  • j says:

    Yeah, you're right, I am extrapolating the part about turning on him in favor of expediency from the little info I have courtesy of wikipedia. It says 27 dem senators endorsed Lamont, plus a bunch of other high-ranking party officials, but only 5 endorsed Lieberman. I know that's how party politics goes, but if it were my workplace and only 10% of my labmates wanted me to stay in favor of a new guy with less experience then I'd be unhappy.

    His dick-ness notwithstanding.

Comments are closed.