The one where I have to explain things…(about Lieberman)

Dear conservatives – I read your blogs. I really like a lot of you. I think it is important that your views be balanced by progressive views, and that progressive views be balanced and challenged by conservative views.

In the interest of some balance to what I think is basically so far off the road that I have to comment despite the fact that I’m still dealing with the effects of a stomach virus:

1) The vote today in Connecticut is NOT about anti-semitism or about Israel or the fact that Lieberman is Jewish. Anti-semitism has been around for at least as long as Lieberman has been alive give or take 4,000 years. Yes, there is a slimy anti-semitic faction against Lieberman, but those dipwads, and their ilk, have been around for say, approximately 4,000 years. Joe has won a few elections in his portion of that timeframe.

2) The reason that Lieberman has a creditable challenger that may actually win is about ONE THING: THE WAR IN IRAQ. You know, the war that 60% of the people in the US oppose, the one that 62% of the people in the US think has been poorly executed..THAT ONE. Lieberman has not wavered in his support of that war and in his support of Bush insofar as it relates to the execution of the war. To his credit, Lieberman has not caved or equivocated in his support of the war, even though it might have helped him politically. Lieberman is an honorable man who, in this instance, is wrong-headed. If he loses, it will be because of the war.

3) Dear Michelle Malkin: the word for someone who talks excessively, spewing stupidity is logorrhea. The phrase ‘diarrhea of the mouth’ is disgusting and not anatomically accurate. Logorrhea is a perfectly good word that describes accurately what you are trying to say.

I hope this helps…



Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “The one where I have to explain things…(about Lieberman)

  1. I agree.
    If he loses, it will be because of the war. If he chooses to run as an independent despite his own party not giving him the vote, what does that say?
    To me, it speaks volumes. It speaks that being in the Senate is his ultimate prize, not the honor of representing his constituents.

  2. nm

    Well, no. If he loses, it will be because of the war and because of health care, Social Security, and a host of social issues. Bunches of Democratic Senators sided with Bush on the war, and some still do, and they are not facing credible challenges from within their own party. Unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on every single stand-up-and-be-counted issue of the past few years. Connecticut Democrats might have forgiven him for disagreeing with them on the war–but not for disagreeing with them about everything.

  3. Lee

    His constituents are the people of Connecticut, not those eligible to vote in a Democratic primary.

  4. Okay, Lee. You got me there, but this was a democratic primary and I was caught up in the moment of him losing and not losing.
    I admit defeat. Sen. Lieberman didn’t.
    And, ummm… he didn’t win the primary he agreed to participate in.
    But upwards and onwards for Joe.
    Bush and Rove are helping him now so that probably means he will be the next senator for the state of CT.
    Politiking is so odd these days. (and that wasn’t a judgement call, just an observation.)

  5. Lee

    “Politiking is so odd these days.”

    I’ll agree with you totally on that one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s