March 17, 2005

What's the matter with Joe?

Here is an excellent piece by Dan Munz, a guy who used to work for Lieberman. He lays out a case against Joe better than I ever could in comments. You might also want to follow the links in the story as well. I think these are more than convincing arguments for why Joe is so roundly deplored by the left.

And I'm still steaming from his B.S. on the bankrupcy bill. He cast a vote on cloture, cutting off debate and effectively handing the credit companies and Bush a victory with their outrageous bill which will ruin many people in crisis, while simultaneously making it easier for millionaires to shelter their assets if they go bankrupt! (there are too many equally outrageous provisions in the bill to list)

That was bad enough, but then he turned around and voted against the measure once it came to a vote, and now has the nerve to spout off denouncing the bill. That's a slimy move in anyone's book, and just one more reason I and millions of others have no respect for Joe Lieberman. He's not the future of the party, it's questionable whether he's even IN the party anymore.

Go read Munz's piece.

7 Comments:

At 3/17/2005 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a lot of things right about Senator Joe Lieberman!

You must be a closet right-winger trying to attack him with such vitriolic garbage. Or you're a left-wing socialist.

Senator Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights, pro-womens' rights, etc etc.

He does come from a state whose number one industry is financial and insurance, so on those issues like any Senator he has to lean toward his home state. That's understandable.

You seem to have a personal, rather than political grudge.
A guy who is progressive on those key Democratic Party positions certainly does not earn your vitriolic attacks.

Are you anti-Jewish or something?

 
At 3/17/2005 5:01 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And your comments show that you're a blithering idiot.

Sheesh. Unbelievable.

 
At 3/17/2005 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight.

A pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, pro-women's rights Democrat, who ran on the ticket with VP Al Gore, is now a Republican?

Your political radar is so far off I can't even begin to put words to it ... other than, you are full of
blarney!!!

 
At 3/17/2005 6:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You are simply incapable of actually reading what I write, or short of that, unable to comprehend what points I'm making.
I didn't say he was a Republican, I'm saying that he actively HELPS the Republicans by his disingenious actions.
And if you think sticking it to millions of people who are left flat financially after medical emergencies or divorce or loss of jobs while sheltering millionaires from losing assetts when THEY go broke is just peachy because, after all, Joe represents a lot of finanacial companies, then I can't help you.
You obviously don't have many core beliefs that you're not willing to throw in the trash for your guy.

Fine, he's in line with some traditionally Democratic issues. WOW!!! He should get a medal!!!
It's not those issues on which he's been so transparently sucking up to the right.
You really should actually read the piece I link to, and respond to that, rather than revealing how small-minded you are by your comments.

Your comments reveal you to be a pretty vile person that will stoop to anything to avoid facing facts. That's why I think you'd be a perfect fit with the Republicans.

To me, politics isn't solely about expediency and running after whatever the dubious political analysis of the moment may be.

But I'm done arguing. I've made my point. Lieberman is irelevant anyway, as he's got about as much chance of becomeing President as my neighbor's cat.

 
At 3/17/2005 6:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You are simply incapable of actually reading what I write, or short of that, unable to comprehend what points I'm making.
I didn't say he was a Republican, I'm saying that he actively HELPS the Republicans by his disingenious actions.
And if you think sticking it to millions of people who are left flat financially after medical emergencies or divorce or loss of jobs while sheltering millionaires from losing assetts when THEY go broke is just peachy because, after all, Joe represents a lot of finanacial companies, then I can't help you.
You obviously don't have many core beliefs that you're not willing to throw in the trash for your guy.

Fine, he's in line with some traditionally Democratic issues. WOW!!! He should get a medal!!!
It's not those issues on which he's been so transparently sucking up to the right.
You really should actually read the piece I link to, and respond to that, rather than revealing how small-minded you are by your comments.

Your comments reveal you to be a pretty vile person that will stoop to anything to avoid facing facts. That's why I think you'd be a perfect fit with the Republicans.

To me, politics isn't solely about expediency and running after whatever the dubious political analysis of the moment may be.

But I'm done arguing. I've made my point. Lieberman is irelevant anyway, as he's got about as much chance of becoming President as my neighbor's cat.

 
At 3/17/2005 8:46 PM, Anonymous James Joyce said...

Holy Cow! What did Joe Lieberman ever do to you or your family? Obviously, you are NOT telling us the whole story. I have never heard a progressive take out on Senator Lieberman like you do.

You must be one of those fringe activists who would rather have everyone perfect in your model rather than just good.

Good luck!

There won't be much of a Democratic Party left if we adopt your views, because there are millions of Democrats like Lieberman (centrist).

 
At 3/18/2005 11:44 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Lieberman has done nothing to my family. But he's harmed millions of people by his actions in aiding and abetting Bush policy that is incredibly damaging to the working people of this country.

I liked Lieberman fine as Gore's veep candidate. I wasn't in love with him, and found him incredibly tedious and uninspiring. His constant wearing of his faith on his sleeve got a bit old too. But other than that, I had nothing against him. I don't hate him, I just believe his sort of "moderation" hurts all Democrats. If you had bothered to read the piece I linked to, you'd see that it's not that he's moderate, it's the WAY he's moderate. There are plenty of Dem moderates. I'm not upset with them.

I believe you all are greatly over-estimating the importance of so-called moderation. The undecided in the middle is not so much convinced the right's agenda is correct as much as they just see it and hear it spouted every day from all directions.This isn't because of reality, it's because of perceived reality, which unfortunately, you've apparently bought into as well.

They would be just as receptive to, if not more so, traditional Democratic position on issues if it were drilled into their heads day after day. Poll after poll after poll show that when it comes to issues, the Dems win. (and don't be so myopic that you think defense issues are the end all and be all. The last election will not be frozen in amber. Things change.)

No one has offered a single factual argument against anything I've said or responded in any way to the article I linked to. Either they couldn't, or they just didn't bother reading any of it.

So far, the response has amounted to "You're nuts if you don't agree with me. You must be some young, college (educated), fringe radical, marching in the streets whacko. You should get out of the midwest. Lieberman actually supports some traditional Democratic issues. You must have some personal hatred for Lieberman for no apparent reason. (again, completely ignoring ever single point I've made) You don't know what you're talking about, young man."

That's not an argument or debate, it's a series of things which avoid the issue completely and instead attempt to change the subject. (see my F.A.Q. for my prediction that this would happen.) it's more like a tirade of some ill-informed, out of touch, bitter old man.

Though you've attempted to paint me as a fringe extemist liberal, you couldn't be more wrong. You haven't bothered to find out what my views are on various issues, preferring instead to resort to the tactic of the loser and painting me with a broad brush, while offering nothing in the way of convincing argument.

But as far as the "moderation" you defend, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, who no-doubt would be consider a fringe liberal today by folks like you, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Your motto seems to be "I'd rather switch than fight". Fine. More power to you. Again, the Republicans didn't get to where they are by moving to the left. They got where they are by a massive and lavishly funded effort to move the country to the right. If you want to chase after them, go ahead. I'd rather push back and regain all those people who have been sucked in to voting against their own interests, not adopt the positions that are against their interests.

Not one word has been said about any of my arguments or the contents of the piece I linked to. That's not a debate. If anyone wants to address them specifically, feel free. Otherwise it amounts to drivel and I've already wasted too much time on them.

 

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home