More Joe

[filkertom]

I didn't want this to get lost in the previous thread. Joe Lieberman has just been getting more and more insane by the hour today. You can see video at Crooks and Liars of his big-money quote ("I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party") and his insane complaint that, basically, not enough Democrats will vote in the primary. The CNN Situation Room interview is almost eleven minutes, but take the time -- it's remarkable.

And beaucoup points to interviewer John King, who actually asked Lieberman real questions, e.g., the one at 5:45 -- "Why have parties, and why have primaries, if the candidates who may be backed by the establishment, but perhaps don't win the votes of the people who turn out on Primary Day can just take out 'insurance policies' and stay on the ballot even if they lose the primary? Why have a party then?"

Comments

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Joe, we know you have priorities and loyalties that supersede those of your party. Your own pocket, your own ass, and that leash leading from around your neck to those you're a double agent for, namely the Neo-Cons. And thank you so much for vowing to essentially assure that it's going to be you or no Democrat at all, since you're planning to split the vote if you aren't the Democratic nominee for that seat. After all, if it can't be a Democrat in name only like yourself, it might as well be a Republican who admits his loyalties up front, right?

[wayward-va.livejournal.com]

What I can't get over is the stunning _lack_ of principle here. It's confirmation of the kind of mushy, indecisive, cowardly, CYA image that Republicans try to pin on Democrats all the time. If there was no other reason to vote against him that would be it. That when push comes to shove he's not liberal or moderate or even principled. He's just a whiny little brat who wants it both ways.

Joe Lieberman, stand up and be a man. If it's your party then support it; stay in the race and respect the result. If you truely have a 'higher loyalty' then honor that loyalty and get out.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

If Lieberman doesn't like the voters, he should impeach them and elect new voters.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't it have been...interesting...if he'd done this as Veep?

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

Voters get the government they deserve.

[stdharma.livejournal.com]

The sad part of this whole debacle is that he's done this before.

He hedged his bets when Gore announced him as the Veep, not resigning from his post in the Senate. Come to think of it, neither did John Kerry. The only one who had the courage to back his own play was John Roberts. Gore resigned from the Senate when Clinton announced him as his running mate.

What's the point, you ask? Simple....gutless, spineless cowards the majority of them are, and not fit to hold the office. Republicans aren't much better, but at least they have the courage of their convictions, even if it can make convicts out of them.

Saint Dharma

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

The difference is, Kerry wasn't up for re-election in 2004. Lieberman ran for the Senate seat and VP at the same time, in the same election. And he did it knowing that the Governor of connecticut was a Republican and that therefore if he made it to the White House, the Repugs would appoint his successor to the Senate, against the wishes of the state's voters, maybe making the whole Senate majority Republican by one vote (as it turned out, that's exactly what would have happened).

Why Gore picked that Vichy twerp, out of every Democrat in America, is beyond me.

[stdharma.livejournal.com]

Because the party establishment said so, that would be my guess. It was one of those "Hold your nose and vote" situations for me.

Saint Dharma