Paul Krugman: Talk Show Joe (Lieberman)

[CatWoman]

:D

Friday was a bad day for Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Connecticut Democratic Party's nominating convention endorsed him, but that was a given for an incumbent with a lot of political chips to cash in. The real news was that Ned Lamont, an almost unknown challenger, received a third of the votes. This gave Mr. Lamont the right to run against Mr. Lieberman in a primary, and suggests that Mr. Lamont may even win.

What happened to Mr. Lieberman? Some news reports may lead you to believe that he is in trouble solely because of his support for the Iraq war. But there's much more to it than that. Mr. Lieberman has consistently supported Republican talking points. This has made him a lion of the Sunday talk shows, but has put him out of touch with his constituents — and with reality.

Mr. Lieberman isn't the only nationally known Democrat who still supports the Iraq war. But he isn't just an unrepentant hawk, he has joined the Bush administration by insisting on an upbeat picture of the situation in Iraq that is increasingly delusional.

And it's not just Iraq. A letter sent by Hillary Clinton to Connecticut Democrats credited Mr. Lieberman with defending Social Security "tooth and nail." Well, I watched last year's Social Security debate pretty closely, and that's not what happened.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman repeatedly supported the administration's scare tactics. "Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem," he declared in March 2005, "costs our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren $600 billion more."

This claim echoed a Bush administration talking point, and President Bush wasted little time citing Mr. Lieberman's statement as vindication.

http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2006/05/paul-krugman-talk-show-joe.html

[BillZBubb]

1. Bush's favorite "Democrat", and for good reason.

Lieberman undercuts the rest of the party on the big issues at every turn. He's poison.

[stepnw1f]

2. Yup... I Have Taken Notice of That Too

so hasn't Connecticut.

[redqueen]

3. hahahahaha

:D

[Skink]

4. Just think if Gore had assumed office in 2000 Lieb would be the front runn

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. I'm afraid that doesn't speak well for Albert's judgement or his

political alignment, does it?

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Well-spotted, CatWoman.

[Hamlette]

6. I had forgotten (never knew?) he supported Bush in the Schiavo case

that's enough for me to turn on him.

Oh, yeah, then there is the war.

[CatWoman]

8. you sure?

I had forgotten (never knew?) he supported Bush in the Schiavo case

If that's the case, er, um, damn!!

I'm at a loss for words :grr:

[Hamlette]

10. yes, I'm sure, Lieberman apparently supported Bush

"There's more. Mr. Lieberman supported Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair, back when Republican leaders were trying to manufacture a "values" issue out of thin air." (from the Krugman article)

Like you, I wasn't sure. So I googled it.

So...I found... this (the Bush in this article is Gov Bush) "Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman told Associated Press Oct. 22 he supports Gov. Bush’s actions in the Schiavo case. Government must “honor life,” he said." From here: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1712.article

And this from NewsMax:
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman says if it were up to him, he'd reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in order to keep her alive.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/213955.shtml

And this from the times on the 19th: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/nyregion/19lieberman.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Mr. Lamont, 52, says his frustrations with Mr. Lieberman solidified in the spring of 2005, when the senator voted to allow a federal court to review the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case drove a national debate over right-to-die issues.

Google is your friend, and mine (be careful. There was a Dr. Lieberman involved in the Schiavo case). This was basically all I needed but if you want more many of the link cite to THAT Lieberman and not Joe.)

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Well that speaks volumes in his favor, not agin it.

Unfortunately, no single issue, however voluminous counts for enough in this context.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. You think Bush's position/actions in the Schiavo case were the right ones?

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. Well now, that's a nice way to phrase your question, isn't it?

Remember the monkeys and the complete works of Shakespeare?

However, I'm not going to reiterate what I posted at the time to someone without ears to hear.

You people incense me. You personify for me the signature line of Einstein I quote at the bottom of my posts. For your information and that of the neurosurgeons pronouncing on her brain being effectively dead, consciousness is not coterminous with the activity of the brain. (When she sat up and smiled that sweet smile of hers to her parents, it was necessary for her spirit to coordinate certain muscles. Joy is a gift of God. There are many of you whose quality of life will be inferior to hers simply on that account.

True it requires the coordination of many more muscles to frown, but after one of the victims of the French Revolution was guillotined, when his head was raised up in triumph by the executioner, his face was seen by the spectators to scowl darkly.
However, an eminent British neuroscientist featuring in British cable program on near-death experiences carried out a controlled experiment with his colleagues, which proved the potential independence of a person's conscious awareness of any brain activity at all, during such n-d experiences. Furthermore, I have read of people absolutely without the requisite physiological requirements to see, in fact, being able to see.

A typical scientismificist nut on here asked me to state the neurosurgeon's name - as if I had nothing better to do with my life than remember his name to convince sceptics. Sceptics in these matters are sceptical, because they do not want to believe otherwise under any circumstances. They have an emotional - not to say "life-style" - investment in believing otherwise. Eighteenth century, atheist author, Emile Zola claimed that he'd believe in miracles taking place at Lourdes when he saw one. He saw one, but changed his mind, of course. Doubtless, he intoned that science would one day explain it - showing a level of ignorance and stupidity matched, nay, ever-increasingly exceeded only by our modern Scientismificist Western societies. Believe me, hunter-gatherers were and, indeed, are much smarter than modern Western man.

I witnessed not lucid arguments, but the reaction of Americans who wanted to have Mrs Schiavo die an agonising, drawn-out death, not because of the tender feelings they claimed for her husband's sensitive feelings, but out of a bilious envy, because they are able-bodied and might not have sufficient health cover if their life were imperilled, I can see the moral damage inflicted on so many of you, as victims or potential victims, as well as the physical mass murder of all but the wealthy, when stricken by serious illness - all of it due to to the lack of a national public health service.

[ribrepin]

11. It's bad enough that Republicans call me a unpatriotic, but for Lieberman

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril"? Joe Lieberman--2005.

[tabasco]

12. Thanks for posting Krugman.

He writes in a way that I can understand.

[necso]

14. I'm in favor of giving the voters

a real choice in the primaries.

And sometimes it's good to replace an incumbent as a way of getting some fresh perspective on things.

But sometimes it's good just to beat a guy up a little (even one of your own -- verbally), so that he takes on a little fresh perspective of his own.

And one gets the impression that more-or-less the whole DC gang is rather behind-the-curve with what's happening beyond the seat of (mis)governance.

However, Senator Lieberman does seem to be behind-the-curve more than most Democrats. (Of course, there's the mind-boggling performance of that late-blooming neocon, McCain, to set the benchmark.)

Now, sure, the neocons could come roaring back, at least in theory, and there's nothing that they won't stoop to in order to dominate. But that's also a reason to give them some "help" on their way down -- the further they fall, the less likely they are to recover. And as a tactic towards that end, increasing neocon isolation is most "helpful".

And it's not like there won't be people to take their place. Indeed, you can see the outliers emerging even now.

...

I find myself in recent times not posting replies to threads that I would have responded to in the past. A big part of this is the amount of time it takes me to edit -- and the amount of editing time that I have been spending on my book (which I should have a draft of in a few days... or so).

But what to do about those Democratic Congress-persons whose performance is disappointing is an important topic (and a rather pressing one). (There are other important, if quite not so pressing, topics that I hope to return to.)

Myself, I believe that many, if not most, of our legislators will eventually be swept along in the direction that we wish them to go, provided that we can continue to build momentum. And we must weigh the long-term benefits that numbers themselves (ie, attaining larger numbers) might bring in the medium term, versus the long-term harm that might be done by going after the uncooperative in the short term (as gratifying as this may be).

Generally, I'm in favor of taking a wait-and-see approach -- combined with the occassional good drubbing to make a point.

Moreover, if we're going to beat-up on those of our own who err, then we must also make a point of rewarding (if only with praise) those who do well, including those who correct their past errors and then do better... if not exactly great.

I am not, however, confident of this happening.

And it must be recognized that Senator Lieberman's seat may be of extreme importance in the next Congress.

But it must also be recognized that the neocons of today aren't the Republicans of yesteryear -- and that today's neocons don't warrant the same respect and treatment.