Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dead Dem Walking

By Rick Gell, AlterNet. Posted July 27, 2006.


It's not just Joe Lieberman's support for the war on Iraq, or his steady backing of the Bush agenda. There are many reasons why Joe must go -- and now.
072706_story1

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rick Gell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As any Mafia watcher knows, when a family member commits an act of betrayal, out of self-interest, stupidity, jealousy or greed, eventually he must pay the price. And since the betrayer is family, any Sopranos or Godfather fan will tell you, justice may take years and the timing and location must be well-planned. Luckily for Joe Lieberman, politics is less violent than the mob, but for Joe, the time has come. And while most progressives want his head for support of the Bush administration's Iraq war, his true betrayal was far more devastating and happened a long time ago.

The night was Oct. 5, 2000. The night the Democrats lost the 2000 election. The night that every Democratic fault of the last 20 years -- timidity, naiveté, chumminess with power, lack of emotion and policy wonkishness -- was on full view. The night when Joe Lieberman betrayed his party and his country by choosing to protect his self-image as a gentlemanly politician, instead of warning America that the man sitting across the table was a dangerous and unprincipled man. The night when Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman had their one and only prime-time debate for vice president of the United States.

Joe Lieberman knew. It was the only night that Americans were going to see, hear or learn about Dick Cheney. And while Dick Cheney had a long career in Washington -- 11 years in Congress, secretary of defense for the first President Bush and chief of staff for Gerald Ford -- to the man on the street he was a blank page.

Joe Lieberman knew. Anyone who was anyone in Washington knew. There was a long record of controversial votes, private sector decisions, and neocon policy papers from which Joe could have chosen. During the first Bush administration, Cheney and his neocon gang were even known as "the crazies" around the Beltway. We have now seen the results.

Joe Lieberman knew. It has always been the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate to wield the hatchet and keep the presidential candidate above the fray. It was Joe's job to go for the jugular -- especially in light of Dick Cheney's' cleverly constructed persona as the grandfatherly, unassumingly reasonable old man. Dick's low-key style concealed a ruthless, uncompromising, hard-edged conservative. It was absolutely essential to Gore, the campaign and viewers at home that Joe stand on his chair and shout to the rafters that Dick Cheney was a dangerous man.

But Joe was only thinking about Joe. And nothing is more important to Joe than to show the world what a reasonable, mature, thoughtful and gentlemanly politician he is.

Revisiting that night is to relive a left-of-center political nightmare. The press was in major sucker mode and celebrated the "civilized" proceedings. AP characterized the night as a "gentlemanly debate of campaign understudies." Jack Tapper at Salon.com said "two candidates show their younger bosses how to keep it clean." The San Francisco Chronicle called the debate a "civil and cerebral conversation." Translation -- total victory for the Bush campaign and not even a paper cut for Dick Cheney. Thanks, Joe.

It's not surprising that Joe Lieberman has been defended of late by David Brooks of the New York Times. In a recent column on the "liberal inquisition" of Joe Lieberman, David describes Joe as a "heterodox politician who distrusts ideological purity, who rebels against movement groupthink, who believes in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity."

But I have a different categorization for David and his pal Joe. They are not "heterodox" -- they are "rational elitists." A "rational elitist" revels in the gray area and the long view, sees both sides of virtually every issue, never gets angry enough to "blow his or her top," hates shouting and recognizes, as the mature and wise fellows they know they are, that compromise and slow change are the realities of the world. They are "elitists" because their acute self-knowledge, wise and thoughtful ways allow them to continually look down on those of us who just can't seem to control our anger and frustration at the injustice, greed and moral compromises we see around us.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Lieberman stinks - that's why Gore lost!
Posted by: DataDoc on Jul 26, 2006 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe represents the evolution of the Democratic Party. To be a Major Player, you've got to have money. Centrists get more coporate money. Joe plays to both sides of the aisle, and widens his donation base. But what does he represent?

He not only voted for the war, he gave patriotic defenses of the war, telling us how important it is to bankrupt this country. Many democrats follow his lead now, and support the war, whatever the cost. Not only Republicans, but now some Democrats want to build a fence along the border with Mexico, pushing up the deficit. And Democrats can even swing around and support abortion restrictions now. Look at our great Democratic party, and how little they reflect the American worker that built the party. They're the lapdog of big business, and they can get away with it, because self-proclaimed leaders like Vice-Presidential nominee Lieberman encourage that behavior with Republican-lite speeches. And when it all comes crashing down (the national debt, I mean), then Lieberman's cronies will provide him with a golden parachute.

This guy is the leader of the neo-con-men Democrats, and when he goes, the party will feel a great weight lifted!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gore lost because of Gore Posted by: jlohman
Lieberman's strings pulled by Israeli puppet masters
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 26, 2006 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lieberman should not be supported for the simple reason he does not act primarily in the interests of the US. No pseudo lobbyist for foreign causes should be allowed to be a presidential candidate.

He always comes across as a slime bag. The Democrats, if they have a hope in hell, need some credible candidates. Gore so far is the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Now you're making some sense Posted by: WhuThe?!?
degradation
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 27, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leiberman started out as a really decent person with a good voting record. Now he stands as a supporter of war crimes by Bushies and Israelis alike, a supporter of dropping huge bombs on Lebanon and a pusher of the worst corporate destroyers of democracy. His path from decency to war criminal is an ugly reminder of how pols can get really, really corrupted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe Lieberman is an Outstanding Public Servant
Posted by: coldeye on Jul 27, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate when the Dems were in control and as its ranking member today, Joe L has provided oversight that exposed many Bush excesses. He is one of the key players in fighting for rational limits on carbon emissions and fuel efficient vehicles in the Congress. He is consistently rated highly by the AFLCIO. Dick Cheny's reputation in 2000 was not as implied in the article as a right wing kook. He was, like it or not, a fairly respected, highly intelligent, quiet member of Congress who voted conservative but often worked with Democrats on major spending bills that the pro-educaton and welfare crowd liked. The issue with Bush was experience and intelligence in 2000. Cheney was recognized by liberals and conservatives alike as an intelligent, well-ingormed conservative with whom disagreements could be discussed rationally. Cheney turned out to be sneaky and conspiratorial. I don't blame Lieberman for not exposing something no one else would have exposed.

Joe's record on Iraq, for which Wall St rich guy Lamont is so upset, is no worse than Kerry or Hilary. I somehow missed the bolt of the left wing from the Democratic Party when Salutin, I'm a Vet Kerry "reported for duty" like a tin soldier in Boston in 04.

If you are for pro-public health and labor programs, and for an intelligent, practical approach to global climate change, you will support Joe Lieberman. If he does disagree with you, he will not call you a fascist or a Commie. I cannot explain this human failing of his to be respectful of all people and not to name call. Nevertheless, he deserves re-election.

If you are against all Demcrats, and are working to create a democratic socialist party, then I have more respect for you if you oppose Joe. But that is not what Ned Lamont, scion of the Corliss Lamont-Vanderbilt fortune is about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forget About Hilary Posted by: Vani
» Here here! Posted by: Vani
» Jesse, Take A Hike Posted by: coldeye
» RE: Jesse, Take A Hike Posted by: Jesse
» Wrong! Posted by: Thundergod
» Thank you Posted by: Capybara
LIEberman
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 27, 2006 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe Lieberman has let it be known that if he loses in the up coming Connecticuit democratic primary he will run in the general election in November as an independant thereby virtually assuring a republican victory in that state. With democrats like that, who needs republicans?

Our only hope is that his presence on the ticket will split the vote - the republican vote! Based on his past voting record, that is a very likely scenerio. He's pathetic.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
The Daily Rant

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LIEberman Posted by: coldeye
» Roosevelt a fascist? Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: oosevelt a fascist? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: LIEberman Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: LIEberman Posted by: xbj
Don't worry about the R vote
Posted by: Uncle Tupelo on Jul 27, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The R candidate is only a sacrificial lamb, so most R voters will be doing the natural thing and voting for their bosom buddy Holy Joe. Lamont, meanwhile, will easily win the D activist vote that will have gotten him through the primary. The battle for votes between Lamont and Holy Joe will be among casual D voters and independents. Could be a fun fight to watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't worry about the R vote Posted by: Thundergod
Lieberman and Zell Miller: Repubtards posing as Democrats
Posted by: marklar on Jul 27, 2006 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's pretty obvious where their loyalties are. But last night watching Florida congressman Wexler frothing at the mouth while ranting like a rabid right-wing neocon on Wolf Blitzer caught me off guard. He sounded as cruel and anti-Arab as Benyamin Netanyahu and to be honest it's pretty scary that a guy who's supposed to be a more sane, Liberal, democrat could be so hateful and gross in his unflinching support for poor little Israel as it bombs the life out of Lebanon civilians with bunker busters and white phosporous and cluster bombs. I could not tell if Wexler was an American or a right-wing Israeli. No doubt he's politcal career is funded handsomely, (like Leiberman) by AIPAC - who spies on our great nation. My belief is that he puts Israels interests above his own countries interest, as do so many neocons - like Holy Joe Lieberman. AIPAC funded, Necon minded, Repubtard all the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Gore Lost
Posted by: ArchiesBoy on Jul 27, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Lieberman stinks, that's why Gore lost." Hm??? Methinks not.
Gore lost because Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped around Monica Lewinsky. And the stink of that galvanized the Republican Party and the Religous Right like a hive of killer bees. It was the perfect gift. Clinton GAVE them his OWN DEFEAT. (It takes an intelligent person to make a REALLY stupid mistake.) And the stink of it got all over Gore. He was forever associated with the Clinton Administration and that's why he lost. Joe didn't help anything, but he wasn't the reason Gore lost, it was Clinton's STUPID sexual activity. He disgraced himself, his family, the Presidency, the Democratic Party, the American People, and the United States. And I will NEVER forgive him for it. His sexual idiocy set the stage and buttered the skids for George W. Bush and his incipient dictatorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Gore Lost Posted by: domenico234
» RE: Why Gore Lost Posted by: kmeyer
» RE: Why Gore Lost Posted by: ElectronRunes
» How is that possible? Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: Why Gore Lost Posted by: Thundergod
Holy Joe is #1 - First, Last and Always
Posted by: 3reddogs on Jul 27, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget that when Gore tapped Lieberman to be his running mate in 2000 Holy Joe was also running for re-election but, what a surprise, he refused to take his name off the ballot in Connecticut. Nothing like making sure you'd have a job, Joe, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. Adding insult to injury, if the Supreme Court had upheld Gore/Lieberman's victory then the Republican governor of CT would have undoubtedly appointed a REPUBLICAN to fill Lieberman's Senate seat and Lieberman undoubtedly knew that. In short, Lieberman's relentless loyalty to himself isn't something new ... his first priority has always been to put his own self interests above the interests of the Democratic party and/or his constituents. Lieberman should have disappeared back in 2000 ... he sure as heck doesn't deserve another 6 years!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not only Lieberman
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jul 27, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that Lieberman was the only one soft on Cheney. Maybe I'm cynical but I think that the Democrats don't fight too hard because they can't oppose the corporate establishment that bribes both parties with campaign contributions and lobbying.

The establishment allows the Democrats to be the "loyal opposition" and "the lesser of the evils", up to a point. But they're still on the leash. When the majority of voters realize that the Republicans are evil the Democrats will win. Then we'll get back a little of what the Republicans stole.

At every election the public is told to ask, "am I better off now than four (or eight) years ago?". This is the wrong question. A better question is, "Who runs the government: the voters or the corporatocracy?".

I believe that if we look at the results; the lack of affordable healthcare, the state of public education, the exportation of jobs, the fights to kill the unions and social security, etc., we will find that the corporate dollars trump our votes. Both political parties are controlled by big business.

The corporatocracy wasn't elected and we can't vote them out. The only effective strategy is to take control of the platforms of both parties. We could do this before the next election with a strong grassroots movement.

Join The Lincoln Inititive today. Make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on URGENT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JOE LIEBERMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Posted by: xbj on Jul 27, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of Israel.

Oops, sorry, that's Prime Minister.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll Take Joe and Trade You an Arlen
Posted by: i.R.i on Jul 27, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's nothing wrong with Joe that a little screwing from the leftwingloons won't cure. Thanks for pushing a good man a little more to the right with the rest of the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» W's Decline? Posted by: i.R.i
» RE: W's Decline? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Gore Lost, LOL
Posted by: i.R.i on Jul 27, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate "LOL". But Gore did lose and sore losers like Gore will always lose. ROTFLMAO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gore Lost, LOL Posted by: jimb
Lieberman is only one symptom
Posted by: CTvoter on Jul 27, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe is only one symptom of the mess our party is in. In a country where it takes big money from corporate lobbyists in order to win an election, the Dems have become nothing more than Repub-wannabes. They are left sucking the hind teat in order to retain their positions, and thus they need to satisfy the hand that feeds them.
The best argument against Joe is that if he DOES run as an independent, it will be the Repubs that re-elect him. Joe does NOT represent the voters of CT. A vote against Joe is not necessarily a vote for Lamont, either.
A vote against Joe is merely a signal that the average voter is sick and tired of having two Repubs to choose from. Joe is only the canary in the coal mine, and if the rest of his cronies don't take heed, they will all be back working for large corporations, where they should be. But not on our payroll, and not handing the country over to Halliburton, AT&T, et al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reasonable Joe
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Jul 27, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am amazed at how you left wing loonies react to the one remaining reasonable Democrat in the U.S. Senate. You would think that Joe Lieberman was a child molester (oops...never mind....being a child molester would guarantee his re-election) the way he is being flogged by the lunatic fringe of the left. The man has merely decided that whether you agree with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or not that these conflicts must result in victory. In every other respect Joe is as left wing as they come. Personally I would like to see him lose the primary and run as an independant resulting in either a Republican win OR an independent Joe Lieberman with an ax to grind against the feckless Democrats who turned their backs on him in the Senate. That would really make him more interesting to watch should that happen and he returns to the senate.for six more years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: easonable Joe Posted by: lively56
» RE: reasonable Joe Posted by: Ian B.
» NO the war in Iraq must end in defeat Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: uneasonable Joe Posted by: Thundergod
» Republicans Love Joe Posted by: DataDoc
Israeli citizenship
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Jul 27, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it true that Lieberman holds dual citizenship with Israel and as an American? Is it merely by "default," because he is Jewish and all Jews are tacit citizens of Israel? Or does it come with obligations and responsibilities to the state of Israel? Are they equivalent to his duties as an American citizen and senator? Do Israel's priorities displace America's, or are they seen as one and the same? Which country comes first?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Israeli citizenship Posted by: coldeye
It goes way beyond Joe
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jul 27, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at the last Israel resolution in the House. What was it, 420-8 in favor of giving Israel a blank check? A blank check to blow up UN bunkers and Red Cross ambulances? A blank check to kill over 100 children?

It's exactly the kind of insanity that occured right after 9/11. What did I miss? Did another round of anthrax letters go to democratic senators? Or is the Israeli lobby just that powerful?

It's easy for someone like Lamont to say they'd do what's right and not just what everyone else does to please Israel or the neocons. But had Lamont been in Lieberman's position, I bet he would have gone along just like Lieberman. That's the funny thing.

Of course, Lamont, like any sane person would admit that it was a mistake. But how can that be enough? What good does it do to admit you were wrong after all the damage is done. Especially when Israel is attempting to do exactly the same thing we did when we invaded Iraq. It's the same thing. And the damn congress acts the same way. They vote almost unanimously in favor of it. Despite Iraq.

So what now? Is it going to take 3 years and 200,000 dead Lebanese for these bastards to come around on Israel? Hell, we'll be into Iran by then. This is disgusting. What will it take to make people stop being so naive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It goes way beyond Joe Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: It goes way beyond Joe Posted by: ghoster
Lieberman for BIG BROTHER
Posted by: rwa on Jul 27, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Orwell got it right in this passage from Nineteen Eighty-Four, a tale of the ultimate empire:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in . . . practices which had been long abandoned - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions . . . and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lieberman for BIG BROTHER Posted by: Thundergod
Well done, Rick
Posted by: jimb on Jul 27, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad you're pointing out Lieberman's toothless performance in the debate. I've been sick of him ever since then.

All you need to know about Joe is demonstrated by the extent to which Republicans (and Republicans claiming to be posting as Democrats) will go to defend and promote him. They want him bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parties Voting in Unison Get Things Done
Posted by: psychochurch on Jul 27, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thats how DC works. The only thing that matters is whether a politician will form unyielding coalitions with his fellow party members. They all must be on the same page. Thats why the Repugs are killing us. When they vote, they vote as one. Like it or not, we are stuck with a 2 party system, and there is no room for independents like Nader or Lieberman....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rasmussen has Lamont ahead
Posted by: brunowe on Jul 27, 2006 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lamont 51%--Lieberman 41%. Here's the link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: asmussen has Lamont ahead Posted by: mythbuster
sluggo
Posted by: scearfo on Jul 27, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not lose track fo the fact that -- even with smarmy Lieberman at his side -- Gore did not lose. Bush was anointed by the Supreme court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberman is out of the closet...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jul 27, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberman represents all that is bad about the Democrapic party. He is a closet Repuke and should leave immediately...maybe join the Jewish army and help kill innocent Arabs.

Someone needs to start a third party, a true progressive party. If one was founded I predict a mass exodus from the Deomocrapic party I now despise almost as much as the Repukes.

To the Democraps--I will not give one more dime to you until I am confident that election fraud is at a bare minimum. Until you can do so, all else you try to accomplish is moot and I refuse to waste my hard earned money on you like I did in the last two elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Bill Clinton fits into the plot to keep 'ol Joe aboard
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Jul 27, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, good 'ol, you know, the husband of that war-monger New York senator, uh, Bill Clinton, has rushed to the aid of Joe Lieberman this week, going and speaking on his behalf. What a guy! I won't knock everything Clinton did, but in a way, his indirect support for this stupid, immoral, twisted and sick Iraq quagmire, isn't a surprise from the same man who cut off basic supplies to a nation for 8 years resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqi children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: what does joe say about the dimocrats
Posted by: marklar on Jul 27, 2006 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes how did joe get the top slot
joes not just a loser (the Israel lobby forced Gore to choose Joe)

Good satire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

R.I.P. Joe
Posted by: galen on Jul 27, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every healthy organism has a process whereby those of its cells, which have become old and disfunctional, are allowed to die, or are actually rejected and discarded by the organism. This is a natural and healthy process, for if these cells are allowed to remain, not only does the organism put its entirety at risk by carrying around the "dead weight", it risks the mutations in the ageing cell becoming cancerous, infecting other, normal and healthy cells.

Joe Lieberman has become old, has mutated and cancerous. His organism, the Democratic Party, is badly infected, and its largest metastasis, the DLC is now in charge. The DLC is a very clever mutation, as most cancerous tumors are, and it prolifically produces quantities of little metastases, which may for all the world look like normal cells. (Bill, Hillary and Obama are all currently suspected deviant cells!) Unless, and until, that is, one observes what they do as they invade and take root in other vital organs of the organism. I fear the prognosis is grim, for the entire organism is corrupted and rotten.

Yes, Joe has stayed, literally, too long at the party. The chemotherapy required to extinguish him and the other metastases will likely destroy the entire organism. And if the chemo does not kill the body, it may euthanize itself out of its own intense pain, knowing that it is steadilly wasting away from within, and can no longer compete as a functional organism. Regardless, left to its own devices, it will die a slow, miserable death.

It is natural selection, gradual maybe, but certain. Nature, like politics, has a way of eliminating the dysfunctional. Ultimately, the strong, healthy and adaptable will survive.
Life is abundant, prolific, and progressive. New and better organisms spring forth all the time. I'm hoping to become a functional, healthy cell within one such emerging organism.

Sleep with the fishes, Joe, into eternity with the body you unwittingly helped destroy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repoop/Democrap
Posted by: larry278 on Jul 27, 2006 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-semites might be uncomfortable in the party of Barry Goldwater & which soon will welcome Joe Lieberman. Perhaps the anti-semites will start a populist gut reaction, grass movement (bowel movement of hay seeds) when the Repoops & Democraps merge in a de jure sense. These crypto-Christian identity clods have no place in a new progressive party to replace the reactionary elements of both parties who now dominate politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: epoop/Democrap Posted by: Thundergod
In This Country, We Get What We Deserve-And We Deserve Better
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jul 27, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't the United States elect philosophical politicians with some compassion, intellect, people who want to make our country more in tune with the world, instead of some ideological backwater?
We blew it when Al Gore chose this dummkopf Joseph Lieberman to be his running mate, and we've seen what a disastrous choice that was for the Donkey party.
I remember watching that debate and Lieberman blew his chances to expose Cheney for what kind of predator he is.
Since then the Donkeys have been in a full-scale retreat from the American political scene who have offered feeble resistance to the Elephants.
Lieberman blindly supprted the "war" ON Iraq and he hasn't made much noise on the political map. (But those in Connecticut surely keep tabs on what he's doing.) That could have cost him his career. Unfortuantely he still has his seat.
We surely deserve better leaders who won't sell themselves out or who are under the influence of something else (money, various incentives, etc.)
But it's mainly our fault when we elect people to office who may not be of high mind. But we get what we deserve if we don't present a challenge to these elected officials. Philosophy doesn't count in American politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe needs to retire.
Posted by: CovertRage on Jul 27, 2006 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you're kissed by the Chimp in public, that is a high sign to exit the field of battle in disgrace quietly. When hacks and sell-outs like the Clintons and Senator Boxer are thrown at you like rocks in stoning by your own party, that is a hint and a half for your hiney. No one should have to show you the door. Even dazed by the bashing you're taking in the form of shells fired at you by your own party no less, you should still be able to see your way clear into retirement.

Joe shouldn't run. He should just walk while those K Street jobs as, er, uh, consultants, yes, consultants are still lucretively available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kissed by the chimp Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Joe needs to retire. Posted by: Thundergod
Gee, and I thought it was the left that was supposed to be Angry
Posted by: Ian B. on Jul 27, 2006 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ha ha, too bad. Sorry If we have a hard time seeing much wit or wisdom in your posts. That might be your own fault, no? Could it be that you're not very funny or wise? Who's acting like a 10 year old throwing a tantrum? I think you are engaging in an act of projection. Must suck not being able to see yourself in the mirror, but right wing blood-suckers are like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just Joe
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jul 27, 2006 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you looked around lately? Each Party is trying to one-up the other and all the while their forign partners get us further into the quagmire. The US wants a bigger war in the gulf,they got their pals in the area to help them out,while they were busy on the homw front running for office.
We are ,once again, being assailed by the best con artists in the business,dressed up as your public servant. They are not,never have been or will soon be. The window dressing is in full swing. Most,if not all, of them are so far removed from the People,they could'nt walk down the street at night and not feel scared. They have good reason to be.People hate Hypocrites,Liars,Thieves,and Butchers. That 'is' what we have now. Don't say we don't. Their actions scream louder than all the sound bites they can buy. No incumbant deserves to be returned to office. If we fail to do so,we are the same as these scum that call themselves 'Leaders'.
Their rap has always been the same,'To have Freedom,we need Strong Security.' This is the biggest Lie that was even told!! To have strong security your need Great Freedom.
Freedom is Security. The Govt and everyone of their elected ones are your enemy. They,are controlled,by the Rich. They are the Enemy of Earth. Now who is it you want to vote for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe, Hillary, the same idea
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 27, 2006 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dems like Joe, and Hillary, simply exemplify the Democratic party as the "other" party of the rich and powerful. Joe is simply serving his coporate masters, be they defense contractors, big business campaign contributors, or the massive banks. No matter how progressive you claim he is, he supports GW's Iraq debacle. Now, you tell me, is not that alone a 100% disqualification from the ranks of any true progressive or real liberal? I mean just to support GW's lies and falsehoods. Of course, Joe, and Hillary, unlike GW Bush, do happen to have a real IQ, but it's an IQ in service of the ruling elite, Republicans dressed now as Dems. How sad and pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]