Lose Lieberman
I've discovered a way for the Democrats to show they have a tiny bit of spine--stop letting Joe Lieberman caucus with them. On ABC's This Week Lieberman (of the Lieberman for Lieberman party) said, "Democratic candidates including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards oppose the Iraq war out of deference to 'vested interest groups within the left.'"
OK, first what's a vested interest group? One that's been around long enough it can collect retirement? Sadly the peace movement might someday be vested, given this opinion that the Iraq War must rival the 100 Years War someday (since it's just like Korea, except for the part where Korea is two countries and we're there to prevent an attack over a border and there's no sectarian violence that kills scores weekly).
Second, when will the press point out how out of touch people are when they make such claims? So much for George Snuffalufagus being a lefty--he can't even be a moderate and ask probing questions. Here's a CBS poll released just last Friday:
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed.
Three-quarters of Americans are an interest group? Clearly they're a group more interested in reality and trying to end bloodshed than Lieberman is. I think the Dems should cut him loose. Let him go caucus with the Republicans and watch as he loses any power, for the Republicans will have no use for him. And if you can't do it, if you want to say he does represent what your party represents, well that tells us something, doesn't it.
OK, first what's a vested interest group? One that's been around long enough it can collect retirement? Sadly the peace movement might someday be vested, given this opinion that the Iraq War must rival the 100 Years War someday (since it's just like Korea, except for the part where Korea is two countries and we're there to prevent an attack over a border and there's no sectarian violence that kills scores weekly).
Second, when will the press point out how out of touch people are when they make such claims? So much for George Snuffalufagus being a lefty--he can't even be a moderate and ask probing questions. Here's a CBS poll released just last Friday:
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed.
Three-quarters of Americans are an interest group? Clearly they're a group more interested in reality and trying to end bloodshed than Lieberman is. I think the Dems should cut him loose. Let him go caucus with the Republicans and watch as he loses any power, for the Republicans will have no use for him. And if you can't do it, if you want to say he does represent what your party represents, well that tells us something, doesn't it.
Labels: toss liebermanout of the caucus
posted by George at 10:04 AM
2 Comments:
What is his motivation for supporting the war?
What is his motivation for supporting the war?
He's a huge hawk for Israel. He wants war (or at least military confrontation) with Iran too.
Unfortunately, Lieberman's vote is needed to make a simple Dem Senate majority, which is useful at least procedurally vs the obstructionist Repubs. But I think he's only marginalizing himself these days with his pro-war nonsense. The country has left him far behind, so I don't think he hurts the Dems like he did a year or two ago.
I'd love to see him punished for all that he's done, but I just don't see it happening. Maybe if the Dems pick up seats in '08 (which looks very likely), they'll decide to strip him of his DHS committee chairmanship and set him (and his idiot CT constituency) adrift for the next four years. More likely they'll keep him around and pacified. A "keep your enemies closer" kind of thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home