Skip

Do as Joe says, not as he does
July 30, 2006 7:59 PM   Subscribe

"It's time for politicians to let Terri Schiavo rest in peace", says the politician who santimoniously went on national TV, and voted in the Senate, to prevent exactly that. Now he says it, when he's in a tight re-election race, and government intervention in private medical matters doesn't anymore seem like popular vote-getter. But why's the politician bring it up now? To santimoniously dismiss Terri's husband Michael Schiavo for having the unseemly affrontry to remind voters of the politician's vote to interfere in his family's private and agonizing end-of-life decisions. Now that's chutzpah Joementum!
posted by orthogonality (91 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm not so much interested in arguing the Schiavo bill. But for a politician to use the Schiavo case to "show" how Holier-than-thou he is on national TV, and then turn around and criticize, of all people, Schiavo's husband for bringing it up when it's time for the voters to consider the Senator's record, is just breath-taking hypocrisy. A fine example of how arrogantly out-of-touch career politicians can get; the husband's not letting his wife rest in peace because he reminds voters how you voted? Now that is Holy, Joe.
posted by orthogonality at 8:11 PM on July 30, 2006


just when you think you understand how galling politicians can be, they kick it up a notch.

who falls for this shit, really?
posted by milarepa at 8:11 PM on July 30, 2006


I almost regret voting for that bastard for VP.

Pick a better running mate, Gore!
posted by graventy at 8:23 PM on July 30, 2006


Joe Lieberman sucks more and more every day.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:28 PM on July 30, 2006


I don't know if this has been mentioned in the blue previously, but the NYT has endorsed Lamont.
posted by misterbrandt at 8:34 PM on July 30, 2006


"sanctimoniously", unless I am missing something.
posted by Tullius at 8:36 PM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]


misterbrandt writes "I don't know if this has been mentioned in the blue previously, but the NYT has endorsed Lamont."

And woo-hoo is that worth reading. It pulls no punches slamming Holy Joe. It's like the pleasure of a movie review that deservedly pans a shlock-fest of a film, only more fun because it's a santimonious hypocrite being pasted.
posted by orthogonality at 8:43 PM on July 30, 2006


I've never liked or respected Lieberman. Orthodox, fundamentalist adherents from any faith scare me, as they always side with the collective "need" rather than the individual right.
posted by twsf at 8:48 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]


All this Joementum is really hurting my wallet, because every time the guy opens his mouth I want to send more money to Ned Lamont.
posted by aaronetc at 8:50 PM on July 30, 2006



Lookout Joe, you're comin' home.
Old times were good times,
Old times were good times.

posted by bukharin at 8:54 PM on July 30, 2006


One more reason to push for Lamont, I guess.

With respect, Senator Lieberman, please - shut the hell up and retire gracefully. This sort of thing just makes the rest of us look foolish for supporting you in the past.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:59 PM on July 30, 2006


Chinless Joe would sell his mother to the devil for one more term. He is the epitome of a scumbag politician and an embarassment to human beings.
posted by fenriq at 9:14 PM on July 30, 2006


Joe Lieberman represents a paradox of politics: the more one tries to distinguish oneself as virtuous, the less virtuous one is. His Schiavo grandstanding; his support for the Iraq war; his ostentatious religious zeal; his craven cozying up to insurance companies -- he is a real all-rounder as a vile human being.

I'm lovin' the prospect of his Senate defeat --- and delighted that Lieberman's ambition to be president will almost certainly never be gratified. (And can you imagine the vast collective misery that would be caused by seeing at least four years of First Lady Hadassah all over the news?)
posted by jayder at 9:17 PM on July 30, 2006


Don't forget his support for allowing Catholic hospitals to refuse emergency contraceptive treatment for rape victims and give them a ride to another hospital instead. I think that's my favorite joementum story.

the vast collective misery that would be caused by seeing at least four years of First Lady Hadassah all over the news?

Allright! Way to play into the anti-semitism thing! Whoo-hoo! Or was there some point to that I'm missing?
posted by mediareport at 9:26 PM on July 30, 2006


Huh? How is that anti-semetic?
posted by delmoi at 9:36 PM on July 30, 2006


Or was there some point to that I'm missing?

Aparently that's her name. I can't say I knew that previously, but I did look it up before calling someone anti-semetic, just out of common courtesy.
posted by scottreynen at 9:38 PM on July 30, 2006


Anyway, We haven't seen too much of ole Joementum here on metafilter, but it's been the talk of the blogsphere. He's really embarrassing himself. It will be interesting to see if Clinton's endorsement will be enough to save him.

His campaign is ridiculous as well. It's built entirely around attacking a person who's never really done anything wrong other then is rich and run against him. I mean seriously arguing that he once owned Halliburton stock (even though Lieberman's campaign owns Halliburton stock today) and that he voted with the republicans a lot while on the city counsel.
posted by delmoi at 9:40 PM on July 30, 2006


Huh? How is that anti-semetic?

I believe mediareport was making (at least) two mistakes. The first was confusing her name with the Women's Zionist Organization of America, also named Hadassah. The second was equating anti-zionism with anti-semetism.

But back to the point: Joe Lieberman should be fired.
posted by scottreynen at 9:52 PM on July 30, 2006


I did look it up before calling someone anti-semetic, just out of common courtesy.

Thanks, but I know that's her name. I just can't figure out what jayder meant, other than the fact that it's a funny Jew kind of name. Either that or jayder thinks she's ugly or something; it's not clear. Which, of course, is why I asked if there was something I was missing. But if it helps, feel free to replace the last part of my comment with a simple, "What the heck does that mean, jayder?"
posted by mediareport at 9:54 PM on July 30, 2006


I'm basically filled with schadenfreude about Lieberman's desctruction, but you seem to have a strange definition of "bringing it up". Lamont brought it up, Lieberman responded.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:13 PM on July 30, 2006


Interesting FPP, but

DUDE.

S A N C T I M O N I O U S

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimonious
posted by stenseng at 10:19 PM on July 30, 2006


My dislike of Hadassah Lieberman is no more about her Jewishness than my dislike of Joe Lieberman is about his Jewishness---that is to say, not at all.

So you assume me to be anti-Semitic, just because I happened to express an unspecified dislike for one Jewish person? Bizarre.

Would you accuse me of hating Protestants if I had made the same statement about Laura Bush?
posted by jayder at 10:27 PM on July 30, 2006


Sorry, I didn't know how to spellcheck on this Apple.
posted by orthogonality at 10:28 PM on July 30, 2006


Would you accuse me of hating Protestants if I had made the same statement about Laura Bush?

Of course not. That would just make you an freedom-hating terrorist.

(I kid, of course.)
posted by scottreynen at 10:30 PM on July 30, 2006


So you assume me to be anti-Semitic, just because I happened to express an unspecified dislike for one Jewish person? Bizarre.

Not much more bizarre than attacking a politician's wife without explanation. And I did make sure to ask if there was something missing in my reading of your comment. But, ok, I will apologize for suggesting you were playing into accusations of anti-Semitism among anti-Lieberman folks.
posted by mediareport at 10:34 PM on July 30, 2006


There's a pretty interesting deeper story here that I think should be talked about: the internet progressives vs the old-school democratic machine. Now that it looks like Joementum might lose, in part becuase of the lefty blog noisemakers, the old-timer big guns have been called out. Clinton and Boxer have come calling, and he's pulling in $100K/day in out-of state contributions, mostly in >$1000 chunks (i.e. corporate money.)

I'm too much of a noob to be allowed to embed links, but if you read 'Lieberman's National Establishment versus Lamont's National Movement' over at MyDD you'll get one perspective on the story.

Truthfully, I think the machine has picked a pretty bad horse to back in Leiberman, but I guess the DLC types dont want to lose a sitting senator. Hopefully, it will just speed the machine's demise.
posted by overhauser at 10:38 PM on July 30, 2006


No, I think the deeper story is that Lieberman has represented the interests of the Democratic Party very poorly in the last few years. I think the "lefty blog noisemakers" are overestimating their influence, and that their instinct to self-congratulation on this is annoying. And I'd like to repeat that I support his defeat wholeheartedly and I'm one of those DLC types you mention. The "lefty blog noisemakers" badly misrepresent the DLC and it's damn annoying.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:59 PM on July 30, 2006


I think should be talked about: the internet progressives vs the old-school democratic machine. Now that it looks like Joementum might lose, in part becuase of the lefty blog noisemakers,

Bah. Joe is being called out for his past actions is all.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:59 PM on July 30, 2006


Thanks, but I know that's her name. I just can't figure out what jayder meant, other than the fact that it's a funny Jew kind of name. Either that or jayder thinks she's ugly or something; it's not clear.

What a weird thing to assume. I mean, why would he be talking about seeing her face on TV if he was making fun of her for her name? What was he supposed to do, call her something else? (Ester maybe?). Talk about a hair trigger.

I'm too much of a noob to be allowed to embed links

Really? What happens if you try? They get stripped out?
posted by delmoi at 11:01 PM on July 30, 2006


I developed a system in java to remotely interface with our network security devices using XML, A system to manage user Identities, I also did research into the effectiveness of the Bayesian Filtering system we were using and some other technologies.

No, I think the deeper story is that Lieberman has represented the interests of the Democratic Party very poorly in the last few years. I think the "lefty blog noisemakers" are overestimating their influence

Actually the stuff I've read shows them being pretty humble and downplaying their actual effect (MyDD, My Left Nutmeg). One of the things is that CT has a pretty effective progressive "machine" in place, a machine that's really swung Lamont's way. Lamont also has some seasoned people working for him (the guy who helped Jessie Ventura win in MN). The problem is Liberals have basically abandoned Joe and the other big problem is that Joe had absolutely no idea what to do in this situation. He's run his entire campaign with a sense of entitlement and contempt. Up until a few weeks ago he was hardly doing any campaign stops -- it was pathetic really. If Lieberman had had his eye on the ball from day one, this wouldn't have happened.

And it's still might not. We'll have to see (only nine more days!)
posted by delmoi at 11:05 PM on July 30, 2006


from the first linked article:

In Ansonia, Dorothy Bivens held a Lieberman sign on the sidewalk. A Mobile, Ala., resident visiting her daughter, Bivens seemed overcome when Lieberman stopped, shook her hand and thanked her for helping him on her vacation.

"I love Joe Lieberman," she said.

Asked why, her answer did not come from the day's suggested talking points: "Because he supports the president, and I support the president."


It's pretty hard to see why Democrats might want to get rid of him...
posted by pruner at 11:11 PM on July 30, 2006


Shit that first paragraph should totally not be there :P
posted by delmoi at 11:11 PM on July 30, 2006


I developed a system in java to remotely interface with our network security devices using XML, A system to manage user Identities, I also did research into the effectiveness of the Bayesian Filtering system we were using and some other technologies.

Was that supposed to be there?

One of the things is that CT has a pretty effective progressive "machine" in place, a machine that's really swung Lamont's way.

That's a good point. Maybe it would be better cast as local vs national machine politics. Plus lefty bloggers.
posted by overhauser at 11:17 PM on July 30, 2006


What a weird thing to assume.

Do you need me to apologize again?
posted by mediareport at 11:22 PM on July 30, 2006


"Actually the stuff I've read shows them being pretty humble and downplaying their actual effect (MyDD, My Left Nutmeg)."

Heh. Since I don't read them, I'm probably just as guilty of stereotyping them as I think they are of stereotying the DLC contingent. I'll try to keep that in mind.

Yeah, I sort of think the deeper, more long-term relevant story is the ways in which Lieberman has responded to criticism, as you mention. His obvious sense of entitlement is astonishing. It's indicative of all the things which are wrong with the current state of affairs where incumbents have such overwhelming advantages. It's also revealing, I think, of exactly what Lieberman has been doing for a while as he's played the role of party centrist. Being somewhat of a centrist myself, I am inclined to favor them; and there's some I like. But I think it's clear that Lieberman has, at the very least, mutated into a centrist who is a centrist not primarily for good-faith reasons, but for deal-brokering and back-room power. His sense of entitlement in part arises from how disproportionately powerful he's been—and how that power is remote in many ways from CT. The idea of losing the primary, for crying out loud, is so deeply humiliating to him. But that's because he got way, way too big for his britches.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 PM on July 30, 2006


I happen to be one of ol' Joementum's constituents. He's pretty much the epitome of everything that's wrong with American political culture these days, as far as I'm concerned. Eternal pessimist that I am, I seriously doubt all of this will end with Ned Lamont in the Senate, but I'm going to make it to the voting booth on August 8 come hell or high water, all the same.

Ethereal Bligh: And I'd like to repeat that I support his defeat wholeheartedly and I'm one of those DLC types you mention. The "lefty blog noisemakers" badly misrepresent the DLC and it's damn annoying.

The DLC enthusiastically supports Joe Lieberman.
At least in this case, I don't think it's much of a misrepresentation.
posted by a louis wain cat at 11:44 PM on July 30, 2006


Yeah, I don't think it's really the new-blog-nation, but I hope they continue their efforts, just in case.

I don't live in CT (I live in NY, which, with Sen. Clinton, gives us our own curretn Dem. political quandary) but my sister does, and I've spent quite a bit of time there, and more than enough to know that they are intensely informed and involved with their politics.

When I was up there about a week ago, Ned Lamont was essentially the local hero. Not only did every other block have a new Lomont banner hanging from it (at least in Ridgefield) but people would cheer loudly as they passed them. Half the cars seem to have Lamont bumper stickers, and generally everyone just seems excited about him winning. And it has much less to do with Lamont himself than with being rid of Leiberman.

I don't know where polling numbers are now, nor do I know who is doing the polling (presumably Quinnipiac...?) but I have to wonder if they're polling all CT voters, just Registered dems, or just likely voters out of registered CT dems. From what I saw, though, I think Leiberman is a goner, and if he had an ace up his sleeve, he would've played it by now.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:08 AM on July 31, 2006


"The DLC enthusiastically supports Joe Lieberman. At least in this case, I don't think it's much of a misrepresentation."

Seems to me that what they're saying there is far more nuanced than you are claiming. Also, I'm pretty sure that Ed Kilgore, for example, doesn't support Lieberman against Lamont.

I do think that purges are bad things, and I share the DLC's concerns about this. But at the end of the day, I disagree with Lieberman and strongly think he should go.

I don't pay much attention to the DLC beyond regularly reading Ed Kilgore, with whom I almost always agree. But I've generally agreed with a lot of their ideas ever since I learned about them way back when when Clinton was a governor. There was very little about which I disagreed with Bill Clinton.

I dunno. Certainly for those few Democrats who still favor the Iraq war and the President's policies on terror which are (supposedly) related to it, there's no other place to be than among the so-called moderates or centrists. But the mistake is, and has always been, assuming some monolithic character to everyone who for whatever reason finds themselves sitting at the moderate/centrist table. In my case, there's a long list of particular policy issues in which I'm farther to the left than most of the Democratic Party, not to mention most so-called moderates. But on a few things I'm pretty far to the right—trade is an example.

Finally, the one thing I very strongly agree with the DLC about is that the language of values and morality belongs in political discourse and that the Democratic Party has really dropped the ball for the last three decades on this. Oddly, while I think that the "progressive noisemaker bloggers" are badly overindulging in demonizing paranoia across the board, I often find myself pleased to see language that contains unambiguous moral condemnation. I do think that BushCo is evil, I do think they are morally corrupt.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:10 AM on July 31, 2006


Oh, and another thing. I'm sure Lieberman has done innumerable favors for the DLC in the past, and hooray for loyalty and all that, but they really should look outside for a second.

This primary is THE political story of the moment, because it's the best example of using these midterms as a referendum on Bush. The DLC should loudly and publicly abandon Lieberman in favor of Lamont. After all, Lieberman has already abandoned the party.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:11 AM on July 31, 2006


Joementum always sounds to me like something I'd be deeply distressed to find on my clothing.
posted by blacklite at 12:12 AM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]


"From what I saw, though, I think Leiberman is a goner..."

I think the nail in his coffin was when he talked about the possible necessity of forming the Joe Lieberman Party if he loses the primary. But that's just my impression, I don't live in CT, nor even close.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:12 AM on July 31, 2006


"The DLC should loudly and publicly abandon Lieberman in favor of Lamont. After all, Lieberman has already abandoned the party."

I agree.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:13 AM on July 31, 2006


Was that supposed to be there?

Again, no it wasn't :)

His sense of entitlement in part arises from how disproportionately powerful he's been—and how that power is remote in many ways from CT.

Exactly, exactly. It's interesting though, I've read some editorials saying he's basically being played by the administration. The fact that he felt he could actually berate other democrats for not supporting the presidents speaks volumes. It goes way beyond not being liberal enough into being a traitor to the cause in a way. Democrats and Liberals feel like their being attacked and here this guy is supposed to be representing them (CT is a very liberal state) and he's taken the republican stand.

Personally I think politics is more about posturing and appearances. The tone of what you say matters a lot more then what you actually say. The republicans know that, and they attack liberals all the time.

Liberals, more then anything right now want honor and respect. And Joe Lieberman isn't giving it to them.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 AM on July 31, 2006


This primary is THE political story of the moment, because it's the best example of using these midterms as a referendum on Bush. The DLC should loudly and publicly abandon Lieberman in favor of Lamont. After all, Lieberman has already abandoned the party.

Err, what you probably don't realize is that the "DLC" is actually just a select group of centrist/conservative/corporatist democrats. They routinely bash Liberal democrats and always say we'll lose if we get to liberal (never mind we keep losing while being overly conservative) They're not the democratic party.

The Offical democratic party is called the Democratic National Committee and is headed by Howard Dean of all people.
posted by delmoi at 12:26 AM on July 31, 2006


some of you seem a little confused...

the DLC is not the Democratic party... they actively work to undermine Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee (the party) all the time.

Joe is their freaking poster boy... they're not gonna throw him under the bus now or after he loses the primary... they'll likely encourage his indy run, or better yet, call in some favors with their PNAC bros and help get Joe a cabinet position.
posted by pruner at 12:26 AM on July 31, 2006


*rolls eyes*
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:46 AM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]


And, by the way, it seems perfectly obvious to me that navelgazer knows exactly who the DLC is.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:49 AM on July 31, 2006


Not being in the US anymore, I turned Wikiward to see what a certain Citizen Miller was up to since leaving the Senate last year. No Astroturf under his feet: he joined a K Street firm, became a Fox News commentator, wrote a book (A Deficit of Decency) with foreward by Sean Hannity, spoke at Justice Sunday II where he bashed the activist Supreme Court, endorsed Ralph Reed for Lieut. Governor of Georgia ...

If Joe needs a role model post-politics, he could do worse than Zell.
posted by rob511 at 12:51 AM on July 31, 2006


Re-reading the DLC's statement on Lieberman, I find myself agreeing with a lot they say. It is true that by many metrics he's solidly liberal. And it's also true (as I've already said) that the Democratic Party needs room for dissent. And, too, I think that a good portion of the antagonism against him is based simply on that he's very religious—there's an example of that in this thread. All those things are good criticisms of the sentiment against him.

But, for me, at this point the matter of Bush's foreign policy now overrides every other consideration. Even if it were true that the only thing Lieberman's done is enthusiastically support the President's "War on Terror', the Iraq invasion, and all that's related to it...it's enough. I think that's a legitimate point of view. We're not talking about a small thing here.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:00 AM on July 31, 2006


Hmm, an intresting post on tpm about this.
posted by delmoi at 1:03 AM on July 31, 2006


Yeah, I read that earlier. Funny how he posted it just before we were talking about it. And it's funny how he doesn't see as obvious (or, I'm inferring that he doesn't) what you and I have been saying. He lost touch with his constituency because he became, and say himself, as a national politician.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:10 AM on July 31, 2006


And it's also true (as I've already said) that the Democratic Party needs room for dissent.

Decent in the party? Sure. Decent between a senator and his constituents? What's the value of that? The senate is a representation of the people, and if the people disagree with the senator then what's the point of having him.

It is true that by many metrics he's solidly liberal.

He may be liberal, but he doesn't do much to advance liberal causes. For example, voting for cloture on Alito, allowing him to be a Supreme Court justice, putting abortion rights at risk (plus a host of other rights as well, Alito voted with the minority on Hamdan, for example).

Plus I've always hated him for his stand on video games. He's probably the first senator I've ever heard of, reading about his crusade against Video Games in magazines like Game Players and EGM as a kid. Heh. I'll be happy to see him go for that alone :)

Lieberman may be a liberal, but he's an authoritarian, corporatist liberal.
posted by delmoi at 1:10 AM on July 31, 2006


Ethereal Bligh: Seems to me that what they're saying there is far more nuanced than you are claiming.

I can't say that I'm seeing much nuance in that article. It's hard for me to see something which calls Joementum an "outstanding and respected U.S. Senator", praises his "utmost integrity" and claims that "we need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party" as being anything but an expression of enthusiastic support.

Really, I don't think we disagree on much here. I'm pretty far left by most people's standards, but I'd never insist the Democratic Party has to be completely, monolithically liberal, and I don't think most of the "netroots" crowd would either. The DLC presents the effort against Lieberman as being an attempt at an ideological purge by "liberal fundamentalists", but my impression is that they're targeting Lieberman because he actively harms his own party, not just because he's a pro-war centrist. The "netroots" aren't just blindly against anyone who's centrist- I'm pretty sure Daily Kos has actively tried to get a few pro-war centrists elected, in the past. The main problem with Lieberman, and the reason he's won the ire of so many Democrats, is that he very loudly and publicly sides with the Republicans on practically every issue that becomes a major media focus. There's a reason why I've heard him dubbed "Own Goal Joe."

The DLC, though, seems to think it has to support him just because he's a centrist, and attack anyone who opposes him. In essence, they're doing just what they accuse the "netroots" of doing by placing ideology over the good of the party. I think it's important that centrists have a place in the Democratic Party. I just don't think the DLC is that place.
posted by a louis wain cat at 1:11 AM on July 31, 2006


I don't see people realizing that even if Lieberman loses the primary, he probably will recapture the seat running as an independent. It is not hard for a well-known independent to win in Connecticut, and the Republicans have a non-entity nominated. Lieberman will likely be able to combine Republican votes with conservative Democratic votes to win the general election. I'm not sure that's a better outcome than Lieberman winning the primary. Yes, it would send a message, but...
posted by spira at 2:49 AM on July 31, 2006


Not only did every other block have a new Lomont banner hanging from it (at least in Ridgefield) but people would cheer loudly as they passed them.

You must have driven past my place. I had the second Lamont banner on the street after attending a fund-raiser a couple months ago, now they seem to be everywhere. Very encouraging, despite the efforts of the entrenched to do us in.

Delmoi nails it above, whether you think Lieberman is a conservative Democrat, a centrist Cemocrat or a Democrat in name only, it's worse than that. He's a demagogue who thinks he knows better than his constituents. Proved even further by his cynical bid (if it comes to pass) to run even if he LOSES his party's nomination.

Spira, if Lieberman loses the primary and tries to run as either an independent or unaffiliated Democrat, he will be branded as a sore LOSER who is trying to circumvent the primary process. I think this stench will be enough to turn off even the most conservative of Democrats.
posted by psmealey at 3:11 AM on July 31, 2006


In 2003, with the democratic presidential primaries coming up, I was at the Hopkinton (NH) Fair with the woman who would be my wife. While standing about 40 feet from her, I saw a young man, conspicuous because he was wearing a tie, approach her and say something. My wife replied with a firm, appalled "No!" that startled me and he walked away. I asked her what had happened; kid in tie had asked my wife if she wanted to shake hands with Joe Lieberman.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:58 AM on July 31, 2006


was Joe trying to pick her up?
posted by matteo at 5:05 AM on July 31, 2006


New York magazine had a pretty good story about the waning days of the campaign.

What you guys seem to be forgetting is that polls show Joe wins the general as an independent. Though I wonder if that would hold up all the way to November.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:57 AM on July 31, 2006


Ugh, here's the right link.

Also, much as I was appalled by the Terri Schiavo circus, am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:01 AM on July 31, 2006


What you guys seem to be forgetting is that polls show Joe wins the general as an independent.

The polls do show him winning the general as a theoretical independent. But what do the polls show if, after he actually loses the Democratic nomination, he contemptuously thumbs his nose at his fellow Democrats and runs as a loser? Impossible to say.

Polling data aside, I think the psychology of it changes significantly once he gets the "loser" tag.
posted by psmealey at 6:17 AM on July 31, 2006


am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?

Why is it 'icky' that Schiavo's going on record against the politicians that made his life a hell in an attempt to benefit their public image?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 6:21 AM on July 31, 2006


Polling data aside, I think the psychology of it changes significantly once he gets the "loser" tag.

Yeah, I think the polls might change if he loses the primary, but there are still a lot of Republicans and independents who like Joe and will vote for him, especially since the Republican candidate is a non-starter.

As to the ickiness factor, what I viscerally rejected about the Schiavo shenanigans on Capitol Hill was the politization of a deeply personal, private tragedy. Isn't that what Michael is perpetuating?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:32 AM on July 31, 2006


Also, much as I was appalled by the Terri Schiavo circus, am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:01 AM PST on July 31


If someone had done to me and Mrs. Chyme what those politicians did to Michael and Terri Schiavo, they'd be fortunate that I was only campaigning for their opponents instead of hunting them down like the inhuman trash they are.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:38 AM on July 31, 2006


It is not that you have supported the President in this war, Senator Lieberman. It is that you have continued to support the President as he leads this country where it must not go. You have supported him with zeal, with a twinkle in your eye, and with a spring in your step. You have excoriated your fellow Democrats for their opposition. You have forgotten what it means to be the opposition. For these crimes, Senator, we impeach you in the only court of our jurisdiction; We impeach you at the polls. - Me

Dude, I would *so* rule at writing invective-filled "attack speeches".
posted by The Confessor at 6:38 AM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]


Also, much as I was appalled by the Terri Schiavo circus, am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?

If politicians interfered in your family affairs, tried to keep your wife in a vegetable state, and did it to score points on the national political scene, you might take it personally too. Powerful senators tried to screw him for their own interests, and it's IMO understandable that he might show up again when one of the senators comes up for reelection.
posted by adzuki at 6:40 AM on July 31, 2006


Isn't that what Michael is perpetuating?

maybe it's just good old-fashioned revenge
posted by matteo at 6:58 AM on July 31, 2006


Isn't that what Michael is perpetuating?

No. He's making sure they don't do it again.
posted by mediareport at 7:09 AM on July 31, 2006


I hate Joe even more than I hate Bush because he's a much bigger hypocrite.
posted by mike3k at 7:33 AM on July 31, 2006


Lieberman is burnt toast and the day after election day he'll be in the trash. Praise the Lord...and thank you Mr. Shiavo!!
posted by sgobbare at 7:35 AM on July 31, 2006


I guess what annoys me at the moment is that Clinton and Dodd and Boxer have all come out to endorese that guy! In fact, if Joe loses he will run as independent, thus hurting the Demcrats in the election. Joe is loved by Connecticut Republicans. As for someof his positions: recall that the orthodox, or fundamentalists, in any and all religions oppose right to life, euthanasia etc But since I am not that stripe of Jew, I see no reason to support him, his overly ambitious wife, and his sanctimoney, let alone the anti-liberal positions he has taken.
posted by Postroad at 7:50 AM on July 31, 2006


Also, much as I was appalled by the Terri Schiavo circus, am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?

Probably not given the vicious smear campaign the "christian" right ran against the man, for no reason at all.
posted by delmoi at 8:11 AM on July 31, 2006


"There's a guy from Greenwich with a lot of money who's trying to kick me out of the Senate," Lieberman told bingo players at the Joseph A. Doyle Senior Center in Ansonia. "I hope you don't let him do that."

The quintessence of Washington insider bullshittery, all hail Joseph Lieberman.
posted by blucevalo at 8:38 AM on July 31, 2006


I guess what annoys me at the moment is that Clinton and Dodd and Boxer have all come out to endorese that guy!

But think about it: They're about the only national Dems to have done so. The last page of that New York mag link CunningLinguist posted has a cute tidbit about Clinton's endorsement:

(Though Hillary won’t support Lieberman as an independent, she’s the one who arranged her husband’s visit after Lieberman cornered her on the Senate floor and asked for her help.) “Clinton is Mr. Democrat, the last great successful national Democratic leader,” says Lieberman with relief. “I think he will be very important to any Democrats who may be troubled by the allegations that Lamont is making.”

Keep dreamin', Joe.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 AM on July 31, 2006


There's another guy from Greenwich (who pretends that he's from Texas) whom you are a little too beholden to, Joe. That's why that other guy from Greenwich is going to take your seat.
posted by psmealey at 8:58 AM on July 31, 2006


All this panic about someone trying to buy the election, surely people should be more worried about the traitorous fucker who's trying to sell it
posted by fullerine at 9:29 AM on July 31, 2006


...Lamont supporters actually aren’t ideologues. They aren’t looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They’re looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don’t have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman’s support for the bankruptcy bill -- because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that’s what blows the mind of the traditional Dems. They can handle a challenge from the left, on predictable, narrow-constituency terms. But where do these other issues come from? These are “elitist insurgents,” as Broder puts it - since when do they care about bankruptcy? What if all of a sudden you couldn’t count on Democratic women just because you said that right things about choice - what if they started to vote on the whole range of issues that affect women’s economic and personal opportunities?
But caring about bankruptcy, even if you’re not teetering on the brink of it or a bankruptcy lawyer yourself, is part of a vision of a just society. And a vision of a just society - not just the single-issue push-buttons of a bunch of constituency groups - is what a center-left political party ought to be about. ...

posted by amberglow at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2006


"There's a guy from Greenwich with a lot of money who's trying to kick me out of the Senate," Lieberman told bingo players at the Joseph A. Doyle Senior Center in Ansonia. "I hope you don't let him do that."

Isn't it a little bit cavalier to essentially write off Fairfield County when you're running in such a small state? Or is he hoping that the rest of the county all hates Greenwich as well? What the hell?

Occasionally we'll get people in New York who slam the city in order to win state-wide office, and they always get, predictably, bitch-slapped for it. I don't get it. Surely you can create differences between yourself and your opponent without shitting on part of the state you're campaigning to represent.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:15 AM on July 31, 2006


The main problem with losing Lieberman will be all the military contracts Connecticut will lose over the coming years. There will basically be nothing to stop companies like Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney from picking up and moving to states where it's cheaper to manufacture.

Joe's the most senior Democrat in the Senate's Armed Services committee and, as such, weilds considerable influence over where and how money gets allocated. Ned Lamont isn't.

I expect to see a lot of high-paying manufacturing and engineering jobs leave CT if Ned Lamont is elected.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2006


(Sikorsky is already moving a ton of business to Huntsville, Alabama. They're also converting a lot of the factory floor in Stratford, CT to offices, which already impacts their manufacturing capability there. So it's happening NOW, and it's only gonna get worse.)
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:23 AM on July 31, 2006


Or is he hoping that the rest of the county all hates Greenwich as well?

He might get some mileage out of it, but not much. At a certain level, it's self-cancelling noise. To explain, Fairfield County is one of the principle habitats of the North American over-achieving hypercompetitive jerk subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens. The rivalries that most often manifest themselves at the office and the squash club often play out at the municipal level as well: Darien hates New Canaan, Wilton hates Westport, Norwalk hates Stamford, Stamford hates Greenwich and everyone in New Canaan hates each other.

Disclaimer: I live in Fairfield County and love it for the most part, but I frequently encounter a fair number of unpleasant types here. I try not to be one of them.
posted by psmealey at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2006


I expect to see a lot of high-paying manufacturing and engineering jobs leave CT if Ned Lamont is elected.

Well, that's a trend that's been going on for a long time in CT. The twin forces of lower labor costs and greater political payoff has been moving the northeast's defense industry inexorably south for the last 25 years. Interestingly Schlesinger, the Republican candidate in the Senate race, has decided to make the spending imbalance (CT is 49th in federal tax-spending ratio at about 60%) his signature issue, and is promising to get CT 'more of the spending it deserves'. And he's probably right; if CT wants a better share of defense contracts, it should skip Joe and just vote Republican.
posted by boaz at 10:49 AM on July 31, 2006


It’s kinda funny how being a prick transcends anyone’s politics.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2006


Goodbye Joe, me gotta go, me oh my oh . . .
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:20 PM on July 31, 2006


The main problem with losing Lieberman will be all the military contracts pork Connecticut will lose over the coming years.

Fixed that typo for you, Strasbourg.
posted by MikeKD at 2:03 PM on July 31, 2006


I'm another reluctant Lamont supporter. As Ethereal Bligh said, the Democratic party needs room for dissent, and that includes the kind that pisses people off. I've never seen Lieberman disagree other than respectfully. Even in his famous quote that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril," I believe he's making a point about the President's negotiating leverage with Iran (and North Korea, etc), not accusing liberal critics of deliberately undermining national security. Its a dumb point, but not a haughty one. But if influential members of the party aren't challenging the conventional wisdom, we probably aren't coming up with the smartest policies we can.

Furthermore, I believe, as a matter of principle, that legislators deserve to be judged by their votes, and not by what they say on talk shows (the internet community may follow that stuff, but the other 80% of the country doesn't give a shit), and Lieberman's liberal legislative record is superior to those of many other moderate democratic senators.

Unfortunately, that stuff all pales in comparison to the danger of this administration's destruction of congressional oversight, international law and civil liberties. That fundamental balance of power stuff should be enough to earn the vociferous resistance of any Senator, but Lieberman's support, even on other issues, has helped hide the radical nature of these policies. As another mefite once said, he can't see the forest for the trees, and the goddamn forest is on fire.
posted by gsteff at 3:30 PM on July 31, 2006


Lieberman's a hack and a hypocrite. As far as I'm concerned, he has no credibility. He made a huge deal about defending the "life" of a brain dead woman but supports this bullshit war in which perfectly healthy, innocent citizens are slaughtered daily. He's completely out of touch. Time to cut out the dead wood.
posted by chance at 4:03 PM on July 31, 2006


What gsteff said.

"...guess what annoys me at the moment is that Clinton and Dodd and Boxer have all come out to endorese that guy!"

I really think that most of us in this thread, and probably most of the people that are now anti-Lieberman, have very narrow focuses. I am almost positive that the extremely negative judgments about Lieberman that implicitly include the totality of the man and his political record, are unfair and based upon false assumptions. In other words, I think that in the absence of this president and this current context, there's not that much to complain about against him. I do think all the things I said earlier are true: he long ago became arrogant and entitled about his position within the national Democratic leadership and influence, and that this has removed him from being in touch with his constituency's concerns. But I don't think that mattered much to them, either, until his strong association with Bush and some of his policies, the way in particularly, of course. That's made all the difference.

And my argument is that it rightly makes all the difference.

But I'm fully capable of comprehending why someone would think otherwise. The continued support of Lieberman by some people, like Clinton and the DLC, makes sense to me and I can't fault them for it, assuming their rationale is that this very particular recent context (in comparison to his years of service and his true long-term record) is not all-important. Also, personal loyalty is important between politicians and I can't really fault that.

I think the Clinton, the DLC, and others are all making a mistake in continuing to support Lieberman. But it's possible for me to understand where they're coming from, assuming it's in good faith, which I do.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:21 PM on July 31, 2006


Isn't it a little bit cavalier to essentially write off Fairfield County when you're running in such a small state? Or is he hoping that the rest of the county all hates Greenwich as well? What the hell?

Stamford, where he is from, is in Fairfield County, right next to Greenwich. One might go so far as to say its the "center" of Fairfield County. Psmealey sort of hit on it, Lieberman was campaigning in CT, and to a lot of people that don't live there but live near it, Greenwich is a dirty place to come from. IE Joes trying to play it like Lamont is the old money big business interest insted of himself, and sadly, it works on a lot of people who don't really know whats going on.
posted by teishu at 10:49 PM on July 31, 2006


here is an intresting story about the race.
posted by delmoi at 8:48 AM on August 1, 2006


am I the only one who thinks it's kind of icky for Michael Schiavo to be campaigning?

Probably not. But I personally question why people think people like Schiavo and Sheehan are somehow distasteful because they have made life choices based on their personal experiences. Maybe they have come to different conclusions that you and you disagree with their goals but for them to be somehow bad people because they're reacting to the events in their life? I don't get it.

John "America's Most Wanted" Walsh was on the hill recently, are his efforts in the crime arena distasteful because they're informed by his experience with his son? Yes, that was a career as well as a calling for him but almost all of us have to do something for a living. He chose to do something that he felt impacted the world in an area he'd come to feel strongly about. Jim Brady similarly altered the actions he would take in the rest of his life because of getting shot.

Thankfully I haven't had any tragedy quite like that in my life, but my feelings about gay rights and marriage are impacted by the fact that I have an immediate family member who is gay. We all make decisions in our lives because of our experiences. Why is it distasteful when people make BIG decisions or take serious steps to be involved in the things they care about?
posted by phearlez at 11:27 AM on August 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


what phearlez said. Is Carolyn McCarthy icky bec she went into politics when her husband and son were shot on the LIRR? Michael Schiavo actually was horribly slandered and accused of murder daily and thrown into the public arena by others--now he's making lemonade. It's the furthest thing from icky--it's actually noble. He had millions of people baying for his blood--and raising money from it too--those are the icky ones.
posted by amberglow at 4:00 PM on August 1, 2006


« Older Baby Pictures   |   “Now I can say I have been in... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post