While Jesse Helms was a Senator, I refused to set my foot in North Carolina. After all, who wanted to mix with people who voted for Jesse Helms? Yaak!!
Now it is Connecticut. Who are the yobos who are voting for Lieberman?
After all, what is common between Joseph Lieberman and Jesse Helms?
1- Both were/are US Senators, and their first names start with “J”
2- Lieberman’s dilemma: “Free Ham”. Jesse Helms’ dilemma: “Freedom with bodyguards”
Fortunately, Jesse Helms is gone. But, unfortunately, Lieberman is still a US Senator. Am I the only person who claims that Lieberman’s position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans. And yet, we hear that George Bush is considering asking Lieberman to join the administration to succeed Rumsfeld next year as defense secretary. No wonder, Lieberman has expressed a willingness to work with George Bush to overhaul Social Security.
What is wrong with the people of Connecticut? I thought they had a reputation for “intelligence”. Should we boycott Connecticut as we did North Carolina?
You want to boycot Connecticut because Sen. Lieberman supports the war in Iraq and wants Social Security reform? A lot of states have senators that support the war in Iraq and want Social Security reform. What’s he done that particularly offends you?
When I lived in Charlotte, the only person I knew of for sure who voted for Jesse Helms was a left-leaning gay anesthetist. He had experienced problems getting to emergencies when he was needed, and so he wrote Helms a letter about it. Helms wrote him back that he had contacted key members of the NC House and Senate and advised them of the problem. In a few weeks, they passed legislation allowing anesthetists and anesthesiologists to sport red warning lights the same as ambulances either on top of their cars or on the dashboard. Needless to say, the guy was delighted.
Incidentally, I think that choosing to “mix” with people based solely on how they voted is just about the snottiest and pettiest bigotry I’ve ever heard of.
All the ones from red states. The point was that there are many Republican senators that support the war and SS reform. Does the OP call for a boycott of all the red states? Lieberman is being singled out because he is a Democrat, and these positions are in the minority among Democrats.
Here are twelve senators representing ten states (that’s 20%) who support something resembling SS reform: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1302 (And those are just sponsors, there are probably more votes available.)
And Sen. DeMint’s bill, S. 1302, setting up personal Social Security investment accounts, has 11 cosponsors, all of whom also support the war in Iraq. They are:
Sen. Browback (KS)
Sen. Cornyn (TX)
Sen. Crapo (ID)
Sen. Graham (SC)
Sen. Lott (MS)
Sen. Sununu (NH)
Sen. Coburn (OK)
Sen. Craig (ID)
Sen. Enzi (WY)
Sen. Isakson (GA)
Sen. Santorum (PA)
Lib. You and I have had our confrontations in GD before, leading to the Mods giving me 2 warnings. I am not going to childishly finger-point to who starts the insults. In the past, you have called me and other posters “myopic” and “narrow-minded”, in addition to calling me “petty” and “snotty bigot” in your above post. We let this pass as, in the eyes of the Mods, you apparently have seniority over me with your 25,000 posts versus my mere 300.
I did, however, googled your story above on left-leaning gay anesthetist, Helms, and legislation. Couldn’t find anything to support your story. But the search clearly showed what an ass-hole Helms was. Try the search yourself. It is an eye-opener. It may teach you a few things about the real meaning of “bigotry”.
What insult? It would be an insult only if you weren’t so proud of your bigotry. Your OP, meanwhile, insulted a couple of million people. Plus their friends.
You’ll need to find a cite that archives conversations that residents of Charlotte had twenty-five years ago.
The “gossip” is, that Lieberman is no longer a “golden boy”.
http://www.billpressshow.com/wp-content/LIEBERMANundermineBushatnationsperil.mp3
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), yesterday on the Bill Press Show:
… Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) shocked many people on both sides of the aisle when he said critics should be silenced during a time of war:
It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the Commander in Chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential crediblity at our nation’s peril.
In this morning’s Big Interview on the Bill Press Show, we asked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to weigh in on Lieberman’s statement:
I’ve spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he’s out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don’t agree with Joe. …
Lieberman’s attacks on the president
by kos
Interesting that Lieberman, who today told us we weren’t allowed to criticize President Bush, had no problems whatsover attacking a different president: Bill Clinton.
But of course, lying to drag a nation into war is nowhere near as bad as lying about a blowjob. Or something like that.
If Lieberman is OK with censorship and has no problem equating dissent with treason, then to hell with him. If, as “we” keep hearing from the more extreme right that party loyalty trumps everything else, then we have no choice but to show “Lonesome Joe” the door. The far right can have him with my blessings. Hasta la vista baby.
Excellent. After you’ve finished purging your party of the moderates, the Democrats won’t be able to be elected as dog catchers anywhere but on the coasts.
If Lieberman, who is still a respected senior member of the party, flips to the Republicans and says he did it because it party is too pacifistic, extreme, and defeatist, it’s going to do a world of damage to Democrats among moderates and undecideds. And of course, it adds a swing of two votes to the Republican side in the Senate.
Yes, please show Lieberman the door. Replace him with someone more like Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi. That’s the ticket to electoral success.
Hey, thanks for the advice, big guy. Now, can you tell us how to clean our party of corruption?
If Lieberman flipped to the Republicans, he’d have his ass handed to him in the next election. The worst he might do would be to become independent, and hope that Connecticut voters respect that as much as Vermont voters have supported Jeffords.
Considering that the Republicans have an interest in showing Lincoln Chaffee the door, I’d spare us all the lectures on how to keep moderates in the party. I’ll also be shocked if you are in a position to lecture on electoral success in one year’s time.
I fail to see any “moderation” in someone who is A-OK with the “yer with us or yer with the terrorists” meme, or anything near that. I fail to see any “moderation” in someone who is A-OK with any form of censorship. Lieberman, right now, is a liability. He is a war hawk, at a time when people are still waiting for a straight explanation for the war. He is militantly pro-Israel. He parrots what the right says. In short, he is a closet NeoCon. He may as well switch parties, as far as I’m concerned, since he shares much of their philosophy already. It could help the Dems tremendously, since they are always being “scolded” by the right for internal divisiveness. Let’s call it a closing of the ranks, or playing to the base. What’s the point of an “opposition party”, if they never oppose???
Isn’t it sort of traditional, though, not to criticize the president in times of war, or to argue about foreign policy generally? You know, that whole “Politics stops at the water’s edge” sort of thing?
