Joe Lieberman – gee thanks, Connecticut
There are some Senators who drive me nuts, but nobody more so than Joe Lieberman. Some years ago, I used to have a modicum of respect for the guy as a moderate. Now he’s a snake. At least my more-red-than-red Senators here in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, are predicable in their unthinking Bush loyalist stance. They can always be relied upon to vote exactly the way I don’t want them to vote.
Oh sure, Joe, let’s go into Iran now. And to think that you ran on a platform for bipartisan cooperation to end the war. You’ve lost all credibility with me. That’s it.
I can see why people in Connecticut are finally waking up and regreting re-electing Holy Joe.
David Sirota has a great blog post on Lieberman’s strategery…
During the campaign, we did all that we could to point out how Lieberman was lying about his position on the war through as many venues as possible – blogs, candidate speeches, and television advertising making the point that “a vote for Lieberman means a vote for more war” (an ad that Lieberman actually held a special press conference to attack for supposedly being not true). But in the general election’s stretch run, the independent validators in the race – the local and national media – refused to report on Lieberman’s actual positions and votes continuing to support Bush and the war, and this key slice of Democratic and Independent voters remained confused. They voted for Lieberman because they believed that he perhaps had been pro-war before, but had changed – when in fact the only thing that had changed temporarily was his language, but not his actions.
…
Had Connecticut voters had more information about exactly how Lieberman’s campaign to reinvent himself as an antiwar leader was a complete sham, that key segment of the Democratic and Independent voters might not have been confused, and the election – as the poll now confirms – would have gone the other way.
Meanwhile, some important voices within Lieberman’s own ingroup are calling for him to resign or to be “recalled”.
The chairman of Joseph Lieberman’s minor political party has asked state officials to determine whether the U.S. senator founded it last year under false pretenses and broke election laws.
“I think he took unfair advantage of his many years of incumbency,” said John Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor who took over the party Lieberman formed after losing last year’s Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. “He decided to run as a minor party candidate without actually joining that party, knowing there would be protection from the various officials in Hartford he’s been friends with for 30 years or so.”
… More recently, Connecticut for Lieberman asked the senator to resign from office for advocating a military strike against Iran. Orman said Connecticut for Lieberman was the only political party willing to hold the senator accountable.