The swiftboating of Lieberman continues

Over the last couple of days, the liberal bloggers have turned up the heat on Joe Lieberman. The attacks have grown more incessent, and personal. I remember back in 2004 when the swiftboaters went after John Kerry. They attacked and made up lies that the rightwing media, especially Foxnews, wasted no time in repeating. I won't bore you will all the details, because you already know all about it.
   I will not attempt to criticize all the bloggers because it would take too much time, but one man in particular, has taken it upon himself to lead the charge against Joe, and that man is David Sirota.
    Now, Mr. Sirota is not a bad man, but unfortuneatly, he is very much misguided on why he's against Lieberman. He says he doesn't think Lieberman has the best interests of Connecticut voters. Sirota points out that Lieberman is for NAFTA and GATT, but he conveniently seems to forget that the last three elected Democrats to run for president, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, were also for these trade agreements. Sirota will go after Lieberman for supporting these free trade agreements, but seems to take a pass at Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

Then Sirota claims that Lieberman is for privatizing social security. The lie continues because Lieberman has been very much opposed to privatizing social security, and has voted against it everytime the subject has been brought to a vote. Lieberman has said from time to time that the matter was worth exploring, but that was it. At no time did Lieberman ever say he approved privatizing social security, but the lie continues to be told. Lieberman supported the Clinton-Gore plan to setup seperate accounts, and to invest in private markets if they want to.

The Lieberman haters also don't want you to know that Lieberman marched with Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement, led the fight against global warming and ANWR drilling in Alaska, led the effort to save the Groton sub base from closure, just to name a few instances where Lieberman stood with the Democrats, and opposed George Bush. In fact, during his 2004 campaign, most of what he talked about was why he was against the Republicans and George Bush.

What the Lieberman haters biggest problem is with Joe is of course the war. Yes, Joe is, and still supports the war 100%. But what the haters seem to forget is that 24 other Senators, including John Kerry, and former president Bill Clinton also supported the invasion of Iraq. Since then, Kerry has flipped on the issue, but that does not absolve him from the fact that he voted for the war. Lieberman has been consistant all along, and still is to this day. That bothers people like Sirota since Lieberman doesn't follow the doctrine of hate that Sirota does.

Finally Sirota says that Lieberman isn't entitled to his Senate seat. He might not be entitled to his seat, but he is entitled to a FAIR AND HONEST ASSESSMENT OF HIS RECORD, and not the lies and half truths spoken by Sirota and others in the blogosphere.

Joe Lieberman is not outside the mainstream of the Democratic party. In fact, the ADA gives him an approval rating of 82%, which is higher than Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, and is on par with Joes senate colleauge Chris Dodd.

Before you dismiss Lieberman as a Republican, I say take a look at his whole record as a Senator. Then I think you will agree that Lieberman is a solid Democrat that deserves to be reelected to his seat in November. Of course the far left has already made up its mind on Lieberman, and won't change their minds. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when Democrats act like Republicans and try to destroy a mans career simply on the basis of ideological differences.Also it's a sad state when the facts never get in the way when your trying to smear a good man like Lieberman because he isn't you.



Display:


Re: The swiftboating of Lieberman continues (3.00 / 1)

The way I look at it, when Joe Lieberman loses his seat, there are going to be two additional benefits.

The first will be watching Marshall Wittman have a meltdown.

The second will be watching you have a meltdown.


by allpaintedcold on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 02:50:49 PM EST

Re: The swiftboating of Lieberman continues (3.00 / 3)

When choosing between Clinton/Bush I, Clinton/Dole, Gore/Bush or Kerry/Bush, the democrat was in the best interest of Connecticut voters.  When choosing between Lamont/Lieberman, Lamont is likely in the best interest of Connecticut voters.

If you really think that cherry picking moments in the history of Lieberman and then cobbling them together in the hopes of making a coherent Democrat out of the present Lieberman is going to help anything, then it's laughable that you're going to try pinning every poor vote on everyone else.

And on the war- if you insist on claiming this as a single issue, well...I don't know what government you're watching, but it ain't mine.  Supporting the war means supporting the way this President is running the war and everything that goes along with it.  That means wire-tapping, Guantanamo, Halliburton, murdered civilians, a lack of forward progress, spiking gas prices, the castration of Congressional power and oversight, the elimination of a functionally inquisitive press, mindboggling deficits, loss of international credibility and the corresponding reduction in foreign investment, a legislative, governing and financial focus on anything BUT health care and education which leads to the diminished ability of Americans to compete in the global marketplace, the rise of anti-immigrant xenophobic nonsense centered around neo-protestant racial nationalism, and on and on.  It's all grown out of the war.  The war has shaped the entire public discourse, on every issue, since before it even started.  And it's not going to stop.

If my one issue is the war, then my one issue is this country.  If your one issue isn't this country, sit down and shut the hell up.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 03:29:30 PM EST

Wasn't one issue good enough before? (none / 0)

Lucas, remember when the public seemed to be more on their side, the Carvilles and Lieberman types were going about saying how national security was the main issue one cared about (code word for - get lost you anti iraq war people regardless of your other principles). THat one issue was good enough to serve as a litmus test for them at the time. Why else was their stringent opposition to Dean at the time? It was over the war issue. Good god, there is lIeberman tut tutting over Dean like he is an embarassment over that one issue. In the debates, the only time Lieberman got angry with Dean was over that one issue.

Well, the Iraq war is national security. Let us turn the establishment's back at them "CAN YOU TRUST THESE GUYS ON NATIONAL SECURITY?" I say "NO".


by Pravin on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't one issue good enough before? (none / 0)

It was and remains the same issue, it's just that the tide has turned against those (like Lieberman) who either never understood or never applied the implications of the issue.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't one issue good enough before? (none / 0)

Exactly. When they MSM harps on the one issue crap, whoever in the blog community gets on those shows should remind them that national security was hyped by the establishment as the only real issue that mattered. And now , after having been proved wrong, they dont want people to use that one issue against them .


by Pravin on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 11:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't one issue good enough before? (3.00 / 1)

This Iraq war is more "Lieberman's war" than it is Bush's war. Lieberman's been howling about attacking Baghdad since before we pulled out of Kuwait in 1991. He spent the next 13 years (from 1991 to 2003) working to achive his dream. He's the one who authored the Iraqi regiem change act in 1998, and he didn't want anyone like a Howard Dean raining on his parade. That's why he chased Howard all around the country during the Dem primary calling every Fox News chanel where Dean went to tell them, "Dean is wrong for the country, wrong for the Democrats, and just plain wrong!" Here's a couple of links to good articles that tell a lot about it.

Candide

The unbranding


by William Domingo on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Truth is probably wasted on you but (3.00 / 3)

read this column and at the worst you will understand why your argument does not play well here and is insulting not just to the liberals but all of the Democrats not supporting Joe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101204. html


by KosTexasliberal on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 03:36:45 PM EST

And the trolling continues (3.00 / 2)

This would have been a very reasonable diary if you were the type who never posted here before. the trouble is the points you brought up have been addressed here before. You just keep bringing them up again and again. Wait a minute! Didn't I just say something like this? Oh! Just a day ago where you had another lieberman diary.

Social Security privatization is not a big deal to me. If he had thoughts of exploring it or never did does not matter to me one bit.  

You say we dont want people to know he marched with MLK an civil rights? Idiot! Go look at your lasst diary and read the comments where we actually brought that point up ourselves. But noooo. that would mess up your narrative.

You say he led the fight against global warming. "Led" is such a loaded word considering Lieberman hasn't chastised Bush publicly outside a primary race about Bush being the worst president regarding the environment. Lieberman has not once gone on radio bashed the Bushies for gutting the EPA. But he has found time to bash democrats on another issue in which he "leads" - the Iraq war. What Lieberman has done is to warp the national narrative on what is going on. If a democratic veteran like him never chastises Bush on the environment and others, well Bush may be disappointing, but he can't really be that bad on the environment or others, can he? But if a dem veteran like Lieberman bashes democrats while he never bashes Bush on national security, it just reinforces that "oh thse dems cant be trusted" narrative.

NAFTA is not such a big issue for me personally. But if someone chooses to bash Lieberman on NAFTA, do you have proof that the same people denied Clinton or others did not support NAFTA? TH4e last I checked, anyone who bashed Liberman for NAFTA did not attempt to justify the support shown to NAFTAA by the other democrats. The only reason they dont get bashed for it as much is becxause they have not exhausted the quota of patience a supporter has for any one candidate.

All that 82% bullshit and how he has voted right most of the time - I am not even going to waste much more time explaining why it is relevant because that point of his "good democratic" voting scorecard HAS BEEN ADDRESSED in many diaries and comments before. All you freaking had to do was put in a comment trying to explain why said comment or diary was wrong for saying so. If you bring it up now again, we do not have the fucking energy to explain something so obvious again and again to you.

YOu got some replies in your previous diary which you chose to ignore for the most part. Like a coward, you just start a new one because you just dont have the capability of engaging in honest discussion.


by Pravin on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:01 PM EST

Post that over at DailyKos (none / 0)

You will be banned quicker than you can blink.

You may as well go over to the wingnut blogs and support abortion rights ... you'll actually get a warmer reception.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:03:16 PM EST

Re: Post that over at DailyKos (3.00 / 1)

Probably not banned, just vehemently argued with.

Lieberman is, after all, a Democrat. If he wins the primary, most Kossaks will (reluctantly) support him over any Republican, just to get that one extra vote for Reid for Senate leader.

Still hope Lamont wins, though. He'll be better for Connecticut and for liberals in general.

As for the Iraq vote, well, I've known reasonable people in private who, like Kerry and the others, got fooled by the Administration's claims and decided to support invading Iraq. After all, what kind of government would want to go to war unless they knew--maybe had top secret intelligence that us regular folks don't know--that it was absolutely necessary, right?

That was then.

Now we know exactly what kind of government would do that, and what the consequences have been.  To continue to carry the Administration's water and give them "bipartisan" cover for their crimes is a character defect. A bad one.

Vote your conscience.


by admiralnaismith on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny (none / 0)

I thought you promised to disappear until "Joe wins, and you'll dance all over rubbing it in".

Please feel free to go back to your original plan.


by ElitistJohn on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:16:17 PM EST

Re: Funny (3.00 / 1)

LiebermanLives should correct that typo in his alias. He typed a "v" by mistake.

Just watch him put up another diary about his hero while he ignores a slew of comments addressing specific issues on the race.


by Pravin on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lieberman's Real Problem (3.00 / 1)

No great mystery enshrouds the challenge to Lieberman, nor is the campaign of his challenger, Ned Lamont, a jihad of crazed nit-pickers. Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president's enablers in this year's elections. As well, Lieberman's broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats.

Lieberman's ultimate problem isn't fanatical bloggers, any more than Lyndon Johnson's was crazy, antiwar Democrats. His problem is that Bush, and the war that both he and Bush have championed, is speeding the ongoing realignment of the Northeast. His problem, dear colleagues, is Connecticut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101204. html?nav=hcmodule


by William Domingo on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:05:01 PM EST

Re: The swiftboating of Lieberman continues (none / 0)

It's not 'cause Joe's Jewish. Hell, I could fall in love with some Jewish woman. And not 'cause Joe's a DINO, I suppose God could punish me by making me fall for some DINO woman (please God, not Ann Weaselwoman).

But maybe it turns out to be a natural possibility for a man to fall in hate with another man. And yes, I HATE JOE LIEBERMAN TO THE VERY BOTTOM OF MY SWEET LITTLE HEART!


by blues on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 11:25:40 PM EST

One interesting thing (none / 0)

Notice LL says we're "destroying a amn's career".

Cluetrain. This is not a career. Its public service. A career implies some right to retain a job. Being an elected representative grants no such right, nor should it ever be a "career".


by ElitistJohn on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 11:45:10 PM EST

On the plus and minus (none / 0)

I think Joe Lieberman has some plusses, for example - lieberman intel reform act was a plus.

But the minus column here seems to show us a senator who snuggles up to the most corrupt - ever.

LL - what does Joe think about the War between Israel and Lebanon that seems to be starting today?
Do the people of Connecticut, and the state of Israel - line up?


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:35:48 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.