Lieberman's Biggest Crime Of All
[ Nouvelle discussion
| Répondre au groupe
|
us.politics ]
Sujet: Lieberman's Biggest Crime Of All
De: ...@fakemail.com (Wag The dog)
Groupes: us.politics, ca.politics, wash.politics
Suivi-à: us.politics
Organisation: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Date: 19. Nov 2008, 13:25:46
|
There's a giant gray area in how the United States Senate operates and,
as someone who covers that body, I'm aware of that and try not to react
too quickly when I see something I don't like. Maybe my proximity has
made me too sympathetic, but I'm aware that there's very often more than
meets the eye when something happens in the Senate that people on my
side of the political divide may not like.
But this thing with Joe Lieberman is different and I'll tell you why.
When it comes to Lieberman, I've really tried to understand. I even did
a brief study in early September in which I set out to discern what good
Lieberman actually did do the Democratic caucus in the 110th Congress,
by looking for the number of votes where Lieberman's presence on our
side of the aisle actually made a difference. And I admit, my dislike
for Lieberman is so deep that I truly wanted to find that his membership
in the Democratic caucus made no difference and that Senate Democrats
could have kicked his butt to the other side of the aisle after his
reelection over Ned Lamont in 2006 with little or no consequence.
As much as I hated it, that wasn't what I discovered.
Instead, I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31,
2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote
and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on
most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote.
I didn't like seeing that, but the results were real and they made me
conclude that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was right to not
push for Traitor Joe's ouster two years ago and that, like it or not,
Democrats actually did need him on their side, at least some of the time.
So I get it. I've learned about nuance and I've learned that the party
leader's job in the Senate is a lonely one, fraught with political peril
and no-win situations.
Despite all of that, I was as aghast and disgusted as anyone yesterday
when Reid and most of the Democratic caucus, let Lieberman off scot free
for his repulsive and disloyal actions in 2008. Even with my eyes filled
with the gray that is Senate life, I believe Lieberman should have not
only been stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, but he should
have been removed from the caucus entirely.
We all know the conventional wisdom why: He spoke at the Republican
National Convention. He smeared Barack Obama for things like allegedly
voting to take money from combat troops in Iraq, despite knowing damn
good and well that he was incredibly misleading tens of millions of
conventions viewers on Obama's record. And he hit the campaign trail
with John McCain and Sarah Palin, participating in hideous personal
attacks on Obama and sharing the stage with those calling the
president-elect everything from a terrorist to a Marxist.
But as I mulled a stomach made queasy over what took place yesterday, it
suddenly struck me that Lieberman's main breach was far more general
than any of that and it comes down to this: Joe Lieberman seriously
wanted John McCain to be the next president -- and he worked damn hard
to make that happen.
So it goes way beyond Lieberman's personal loyalty to a GOP Senator and
some nasty comments about his own caucus's guy and becomes a startling
view of what Lieberman would actually have liked to see over the next
four to eight years -- and there's nothing in it that even remotely
resembles being a Democrat or having the right to remain in their Senate
delegation.
Because in wanting so desperately to have John McCain taking the oath of
office on January 20th instead of Barack Obama, Lieberman wanted the
following:
* Years or decades more of endless occupation of Iraq and thousands
of more dead American troops
* Acceleration of al Qaeda's strength as the U.S. further ignores
real threats in favor of Iraq
* Greater erosion of U.S. image and prestige in the world
* More charity for Big Oil while devoting zero resources to energy
independence
* Less oversight of Wall Street and more of the recent price we
have paid
* Millions more Americans without health insurance to add to 47
million who already have no coverage
* More children living below the poverty line
* Further debasement of our Constitution and national creed
* Even more elderly making a monthly choice between food, home
heating and prescription drugs
* A deficit ballooning to such size that our children's children
will be paying it off
* Reversal of Roe v. Wade and criminalizing every woman's
reproductive choice
And add to that the significant fact that, as a campaign insider,
Lieberman knew for certain that Sarah Palin was an ignorant
third-stringer, embarrassingly and dangerously unqualified to be so
close to the Oval Office -- and yet he pushed to make that happen.
So, yes, Lieberman said terrible things about Barack Obama and stabbed
every Democrat in the back in making allegations about Obama that would
by extension also apply to most of them. And he deserved to have his ass
kicked to the Republican side of the aisle -- or at least have his
committee Chairmanship revoked for that alone.
But what's even more telling is that deep down, underneath all the words
and speeches and photo opportunities with the McCain-Palin ticket, what
Lieberman was really after was four to eight more years of
neo-conservative Republican rule. At least four more years of the same
leadership that made 80 percent of Americans believe the country was on
the wrong track. And up to eight, 12 or even 16 more years of the same
policies that have driven the United States to the point of social,
economic and political ruin.
Beyond every outward thing Joe Lieberman did in 2008, he finally came
out and admitted through his actions that he is exactly what we've
always known he is -- a Republican.
That alone disqualifies him from leading a committee in a Democratic
Senate or, for that matter, even sitting in the same room with the
Democratic caucus.
And, for dismissing all of that, 42 Senate Democrats should be
profoundly ashamed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/liebermans-biggest-crime_b_144903.html

|
 cette fonctionnalité est reservée aux membres ayant une session active !
|