That ad that morphed Joe into bush worked great. How about morphing that selfish egotist into Freddy Krueger on the next batch?
Hearing Mary Maggotbleeder proclaim the Lamont victory as defining the dem party as cut and runners was laughable. Is this all they have for their current hate-strategy?
Posted by TIKI AL at August 9, 2006 12:14 AMTwo issues that struck me about Joe, his poud talk about him being a bipartisan, and a man of principles. It's easy to go after these two issues and use them against him.
Joe champions himself on being a bipartisan. And yes why did he need to be a bipartisan when the other side doesn't do bipartisan. Joe, republicans are in the majority in both the House, Senate and they occupy the WH. They control 3 branches of gov't, they don't need democrats to get their agenda and policies passed Joe.
How many times did R's shut dems out of any negotiation on committees Joe? Didn't they call the cops because the democrats actually found a room to read a bill one day and the republicans screamed and cried about it? Joe,I"m gonna tell you really slowly. R's... don't... do... negotiation... and bipartisan.... with dems. Period. R's only take marching orders from the WH and then with their majority in both the House and Senate they arm twist, hold votes open past their allotted time until they rubberstamp what the WH wants. Why do you think it is Joe that Bush has only vetoed one item in 5+ years? Could one reason be because everything that comes his way is what the WH wants. (and plus he just tacks on a signing statement if it isn't, but that is a whole nother issue that Dems like Joe don't really think is important enough to balk at)
Joe was part of that gang of 14. You know the one in which the minority party of which Joe is a member,totally capitulated to the republicans who were threatening them by changing the rules and getting rid of the filibuster, one of the only tools availabe for the minority party. Heckuva job Joe! (He also was ranking democratic member on the committee responsible for Brownie).
Joe, thinks bipartisanship is a good thing. Little does he care that most of the republicans in power think as does Grover Norquist, that bipartisanship is another word for date rape.
Lastly, on the issue of Joe calling himself principled...Sure. Most people I know who actually possess character and principles and who know the rules of the game going in, don't change hats under them to suit their needs after they lose. What a loser Joe, those mean democrats didn't elect me so, I'm gonna run anyway under a different party. Can you say can't accept defeat gracefully. Joe ran under the rules of one election, and then when he lost under those rules, well... he'll just change parties. Can you spell unprincipled. Riddle me this Joe...If you weren't a democrat then why did you run as one in the primary?
It will be interesting as to what Dems in the Senate and House follow Joe down the pathetic little path he is headed.
Did I mention how much I dislike unprincipled egotistical individuals like Joe Lieberman.
End lengthy Loserman rant!
Posted by emal at August 9, 2006 07:18 AMSen. Joseph I. Lieberman loses but this "closet Republican" is no independent. His loss to Ned Lamont was a referendum on the Joseph Liebermann support for the Bush Iraq war. Now Liebermann says he plans to run as an independent in November. He also predicts that he would be returned to the Senate for a fourth term. This is the same Senator that predicted he would win the Democratic Primary, predicted he would be Vice President of the United States and predicted that we would find Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) in Iraq. Whatever!
This "closet Republican" lost the election because of his "blind faith" in Bush and his support of the Bush war in Iraq. End of story.
Candidly, I'm glad he lost. He was no Democrat and he is no independent. I hope other "closet Republicans" and other politicans both Democrat and Republican who support the Bush War in Iraq feel the wrath of the African-American voters in November.
It is a zero-sum game.
The center and left have bent over backwards for years to be accomodating.
When David Brooks can say on NPR that there is now a McCain/Lieberman axis at the center (?!) of American politics, we are in deep doo-doo.
I'm all for being more than civil, but that doesn't mean accomodating.