I Hate Joe Lieberman January 11, 2007
Posted by threadingwater in feminism, iraq war, lieberman, politics.trackback
After my post earlier in the week, in which I criticized NARAL and Planned Parenthood for their endorsement of Joseph Lieberman in last fall’s election, I received one comment and a few private emails asking me to explain, “what’s so bad about Joe Lieberman?”
You could take it from me that he’s a sanctimonious, war-mongering, unprincipled, political tool of the Bush administration, or you could come to that conclusion on your own by reading the quotable “joe” in his own words.
What makes NARAL’s and Planned Parenthood’s support during a tight senate race against a true Democrat in the form of Ned Lamont particularly egregious, is Lieberman’s stand on access to emergency contraception. According to the New Haven Register:
Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for “principled reasons” shouldn’t be forced to do so. “In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital,” he said.
How’s that for a compassionate response to a victim of rape? And folks, we’re not talking here about forcing Catholic hospitals to perform an abortion or to dispense abortifacients. This is about emergency contraception for victims of a violent crime.
And that’s not the only time Lieberman has come out in favor of handing over personal rights to larger institutions. Remember the embarrassment of the Terri Schiavo case? Lieberman was front and center in that debate, expressing support for legislation that would allow federal courts to intervene in the Schiavo case and others like hers.
Still not convinced that Lieberman deserves widespread scorn and derision? Take a look at today’s headline in the Harford Courant: Lieberman Applauds President’s Plan for Iraq.
And don’t even get me started on Israel . . .
I had no idea…sorry. Not sorrowed to be the one who asked, but only that the answer is so brutal.
I did read this entire post, but I really didn’t need to. The title was more than enough for me to start cheering. Thank you.
And now you can write another post on another comment. Didja see this outrage?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/16/1335/9364
I guess Laura doesn’t think Condi has supportive friends. Heh.
I will never understand how Ct. democrats voted
for Lieberman. He is an immoral and disgraceful
man. Ned Lamont should have won that senate
seat, and sent Joe, the Bully, packing. I don’t see
Joe’s kids volunteering to go fight the war in Iraq..
politician’s kids should be the first to go.
Blue Gals Blog Round Up
Crooks and Liars
ThreadingWater: hates Joe Lieberman. She’s got lots of company. I mean , a lot. Really.
Brilliant at Breakfast: When Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows
Hughes for America: Rice and Boxer: So…
Connecticut Democrats did not put Lieberman in office-the
Connecticut Republicans did-they elected just what they
wanted-a stand in for Bush
WILL lIEBERMAN STOP THE dEM’S FROM NOT FUNDING THE WAR WITH THREATING TO SWITCH PARTIES AND THEN tHE rEPUBLICANS IN CHARGE
I get it with regards to Sen. Lieberman. He is an apologist for the Bush Administration and supports the views of this adminstration as they are indirectly in support of the Right Wing in Isreal. Being of Jewish heritage I do not say this lightly but why else would this supposed Democrat be so Republican.
Always glad to see another hater, but in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’d like to point out that Lieberman was an insufferable ballbag long before he was a Republican mole. Kissing Bush’s ass was just one straw over the limit, camel’s back-wise.
I live in CT and Joe is in the same category as W. I cannot stand to listen to him speak. Literally.
Yes, Republicans in CT voted for Joe big time. But he couldn’t have won the race without the Independents. And I believe Independents (and some misguided Democrats) voted for him because of his involvement to prevent the Groton subbase from being closed. That was a major economic issue the previous year and I think Joe called in his chips when it came to that. He also got big support from the firefighters union leadership (IAFF) (I think due to past connections.)
But anyone who knew a little bit about his position when it came to supporting Bush, Iraq, torture, “bi-partisanship”, etc. could not support the man. In fact, that was the reason Ned Lamont gave for getting in the race; he wanted someone to challenge Lieberman and he couldn’t find anyone to do it. So he did it. And Lamont worked his tail off holding meetings all over the state to introduce himself to the voters.
We can only hope Joe really does become irrelevant in 2008 when the Democrats pick up more Senate seats.
I saw one comment elsewhere, asking if CT could recall Lieberman the same way CA recalled Davis. I’d work for it in a heartbeat if there was some legal way of doing it.
Joe and W, besides supporting the involvement in Iraq, have another item in common. They will outright lie about their political position in order to get re-elected.
On some other blogs it’s been pointed out that CT voters CAN’T recall Holy Joe: Article I of the Constitution limits that action to the US Senate. [Grey Davis was governor of CA, not Senator.]
My latest speculation/freaky thinking, especially as the Libby trial starts, is that Cheney will step down and Bush will attempt to select Holy Joe as his “Ford.” Talk about impeachment insurance!!!!
As I understand it, the CT legislature is working on a bill to change the way a replacement for Holy Joe would be chosen: taking away the right of the governor to appoint and requiring a special election. Any chance the bill will get through and the Republican governor will sign it?
I don’t think you can blame the CT Dems for LIeberman’s re-election. He was defeated in the Democratic primary. I think Lieberman’s lies and skillful use of his incumbency tilted enough of the “low information” voters, Dem and Repub, who traditionally have supported Lieberman back to him. Progressive Dems overwhelmingly voted against Joe. That would be me. Now we are saying “We told you so.” to those who believed Lieberman was really considering advocating an end to the Iraq War, investigating FEMA’s handling of Katrina, and representing progressive Democrats or CT.
Lieberman is a spineless twit, and so is his buddy McCain.
Lieberman stinks!
I hate the Senator for Tel Aviv.
I hate to say “hate,” but I hate Joe the Schmo even more. I still think Al Gore could probably have pulled it off (at least more successfully) in the 2000 election if he’d had a different running mate.
Watch this sanctimonious priss. He’s going to switch parties and toss control of the Senate back to the Republicans. Watch.
If Holy Joe switches parties I sure hope he can be recalled by the voters of his State. It’s hard to figure out how two Senators from the same State (Dodd and Lieberman) can be so far apart on this mess Bush has gotten us into. Do you think a permanent presence in Iraq, close to Isreal could have anything to do with Holy Joe’s agenda?
Lieberman is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. He has been worshipping at the feet of the Bushies since they came to DC, and he’ll be licking their boots on their way out, wimpering and trying to figure out where his savious has gone. However, he could not be in the position that he is in without the help of the people of the state of Connecticut. They are dispicable warmongers who are more interested in making a buck that they are in the lives of flesh and blood human beings.
Connecticut voters — be ashamed but don’t be stupid another time. Send Lieberman home — cut him off from benefits and consider every single possible avenue to get him thrown in jail! This guy is simply a terrible blot on the good name of the smart folks who live in Connecticut.