WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son.
In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.
It's so reassuring for the Republic to know that the New York Times and it's political writers are right on top of the subtle undercurrents of Democratic politics. Without an article like this, most Democrats would not know any Democrats at all had a beef with Joe Lieberman.
Especially since Lieberman has just, in the last few days, riled Democratic activists and politicians.
Gee, I guess the New York Times and it's overpaid and under-educated and hardly edited or supervised political writers slept through the outrage and disgust of Democrats at the Republican talking points Lieberman stupidly and embarassingly called "Jomentum" during the Democratic primary in 2003, where he got about six votes in eight states.
I guess the New York Times slept through the speechless disbelief of Democrats when Joe declared Republicans should be allowed to mail in votes after the election in 2000.
I guess the New York Times has missed the utter revulsion the entire Democratic party has had for Joe Lieberman for years. It's just recently. In the liberal New York Times.
Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."
"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said…
Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week.
"He is entirely correct," Mr. Cheney said on Tuesday at Fort Drum, N.Y. "On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission…”
I don't expect the New York Times, or it's worthless overpaid hacks to draw a sensible conclusion from this, but again: think about it. Gee, Democrats are angry with him and, yet, he's being embraced by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The two guys who couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq.
Lieberman's biggest supporter is Dick Cheney, who calls Lieberman "entirely correct" about Iraq. And the New York Times reports this without mentioning the fact that Cheney is the guy who, even after it's been thoroughly refuted, kept on saying that Iraqi agents were meeting with al-Qaeda operatives in Prague.
Cheney and Rumsfeld like him! The two architects of the worst American foreign policy failure in the history of our country! Wow! That's some reference. That's some balance. Democrats despise him, but Cheney thinks he's "entirely correct".
Christ, even the Bush administration won't let Cheney appear with Bush anymore, that's how embarrassing that jerk is. But the New York Times cites him as a reputable supporter of Lieberman.
How do conservatives stand it? This liberal media???
Doesn't that say something? Doesn't that, in itself, mean something? The wrongest, stupidest, most relentless bullshitter in the history of the United States is calling Joe Lieberman "entirely correct"? I mean that, alone, should be enough to title this article "White House Confirms Joe Lieberman A Total Irresponsible Moron".
In the interview on Friday, [Lieberman] said the two sides were making too much of his comments, and he argued that the overreactions reflected how politically polarized the debate over the war had become…
Mmmm, that must be it, Joe. It must be politics. It probably doesn't have anything to do with the 2000 Americans dead in the desert, or the 15,000 horribly wounded, or the two hundred billion tax payer dollars that vanished into thin air. It's just politics. As usual.
He has always been something of a maverick in his party. He was the first prominent Democrat to chastise President Bill Clinton openly for his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.
And, yet, when he was sucking the kneecaps of the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton non-scandals, when he was self righteously and pointlessly and stupidly denouncing Clinton, you notice Joe Lieberman never once said, "We undermine the president's credibility at our peril"?
Even though Clinton's credibility got zero Americans killed. Even though Clinton's credibility should have cost the American taxpayer zero dollars(it ultimately cost the American taxpayer about 100 million dollars, mostly because jackasses like Joe Lieberman allowed the national tragedy that was the Starr investigation to go on and on and on for no reason at all). Back then, Lieberman thought it was a great thing to undermine the credibility of the president. He couldn't stop!
More recently, Mr. Lieberman, a centrist, angered Democratic activists by expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to overhaul Social Security, an effort that ultimately stalled in Congress.
Joe Lieberman, who denounced Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War, who continues to support the Iraq War, who failed to oppose the Bankruptcy Bill, who wants to work with Bush to overhaul Social Security is, according to the liberal New York Times, a centrist?
You can't find a stupid grinning garden gnome anywhere in the federal government who's more right wing than dopey Joe Lieberman. He's not a centrist. And he hasn't recently pissed off Democrats. Democrats hate him nearly as much as Zel Miller, for Christ's sake. I, for one, have despised him for nearly a decade. And, anyone, with any sense, who saw this catastrophe in 2000 feels just like I do:
LIEBERMAN.... I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, "Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Most people would say yes. I'm pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you're better off than you were eight years ago, too.
CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: This question is to you.
LIEBERMAN: I can see my wife and I think she's saying, "I think he should go out into the private sector."
CHENEY: I'll help you do that, Joe.
As I wrote at the time, and again and again, afterwards:
Does everyone remember Joe smiling like a retarded garden gnome while this was going on? While the studio audience was laughing at his prime time debate stupidity? Does everyone remember the national hurricane center going to red alert as the barometer dropped suddenly as one hundred million Democrats suddenly, in unison, gasped at the sudden realization of what a shockingly, horrendously moronic running mate Al Gore had chosen?
Hey, Joe, since your brain and your mouth haven't amounted to much more than a punchline at Republican cocktail parties, if you really want to be a tough guy and a hawk on "defense", make yourself finally usefull. Pick up a weapon.
Or shut the fuck up.
Joe Lieberman is not a principled man. Joe Lieberman is an American villain. He's been a prominent Democratic Senator during one of those few times when prominent Senators had an opportunity to actually make a difference, to make a principled, thoughtful, important vote.
And this jackass? He voted for the money. He voted to get on FOX News three times a week. He voted for his job. And he voted without a care in the world for your sons and daughters and husbands and wives and your hard earned dollar bills.
Did I say knee sucker?
Vote this prick out.