Skip to main content

Excellent editorial in today's Manchester (CT) Journal-Inquirer.  I have been very impressed with their editorials in recent months after not having read the paper in several years.  They used to be a strongly partisan newspaper, but it was very Republican.  However, after not reading the paper from 2001-2005, it has been a pleasant surprise to find them now fairly progressive this year.  Not sure if they went through an ownership change or what, but I like it.

This is almost as good as their "GOP Joe" editorial from a few weeks back, and emphasizes how truly like a weathervane the whiny Joe Lieberman really seems to be.

I am embarrassed that this man has represented my state for these past 18 years as a Democrat, and will be even more embarrassed if he gets another six.

Joe, it's not just the Times
11/01/2006

There aren't many endorsements that change political horse races.
(snipped)

It's just hard to believe that there are many voters waiting for a newspaper to tell them what to do.

But Joe Lieberman seems to care a lot about whom the Times endorses.

He seemed personally hurt by the Times picking Lamont.

His No. 1 flack wrote a long diatribe on the subject.

And Joe resorted to what has sometimes been his ultimate defense in this campaign: No one understands me.

If we did, you see, we would appreciate him sufficiently.

Lieberman's exact words about the Times editorial board were:

"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq."
It's not every man who can out-condescend The New York Times.

Why not just say, "They have their views and I have mine"?

And, anyhow, who does understand Sen. Lieberman's position on Iraq?

Maybe professor Irwin Corey.

To the rest of us, Lieberman's position on Iraq has long been incomprehensible gibberish.

(snipped again).

The senator's "position" is a pudding without a theme.

If you want more detail, look up a long piece in the same New York Times, which appeared Oct. 24. It is an exhaustive examination of Lieberman's many and constantly changing positions on Iraq. (The piece was amended the next day.)

But the key thing is that the senator's position was never moving toward anything - any goal, mission, or even intellectual coherence.

(more snippage)

Let us ask the senator this simple question:

For what purpose should the troops now stay?

What is their mission?

Is it to subdue the civil war and organize a new nation, or nations?

If so, we need twice as many troops.

We don't have them unless we institute a draft.

This seems unlikely, but calling for more troops in Iraq is an intellectually honest and respectable position. It is, roughly, Sen. John McCain's position.

(snipped)
It's not just the Times that fails to understand Joe Lieberman's position on the war. Nobody understands it. Because it is contradictory and illogical on its face.

And why is that?

Because Joe Lieberman does not want to choose.

(snipped)

Joe Lieberman refuses to make any of those choices, and then he whines that those pointy-headed eggheads at The New York Times don't appreciate the position he never took.

Read the whole editorial at.  Feel free to leave them comments, too.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/...

Originally posted to newjeffct on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 11:08 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And the size of a realistic draft would (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newjeffct, highacidity, Cedwyn, revbludge

    cause heart palpitations among the electorate, especially the subset of priviledged Repub chickenhawks. If you figure out the current ratio of combat troops to support troops, you come out with a number on the order of 7 million MORE new troops. Which of course would take 6 months to one year to train. With an infrastructure not built to train so many at once.
       Which is why neither Lieberman nor the Republicans will discuss the issue publicly. They suspect that it would collapse even the dead-ender level of 38 percent support they have now. If the Repubs were to actually publicly call for a draft of that size, then the mother of the soldier killed in Iraq, and dogging the administration by protest, would become our next president.

  •  Great editorial (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, wader, Catrina

    Basically, they're saying that Joe is trying to have it both ways on Iraq: finish the fight but bring the troops home soon. I also appreciated their use of the word "whine" in reference to Joe. The Manchester Journal-Inquirer has been one of the few CT papers doing fair coverage of the race. Thanks for highlighting this editorial.

    •  Yes, it's a great editorial. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mauimom, grayslady

      I wonder when the Democratic leadership is going to support Lamont ~ their silence is deafening.

      Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Yet, there has been little support for the legitimate winner of the Democratic primary from his own party.

      This race more than any other has acted like a sieve in collecting the residue of the Democratic Party and totally clarified why we lost on so many critical votes in Congress, imo ~

  •  Bingo!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Catrina, NoMoJoe
    My favorite:

    Because Joe Lieberman does not want to choose.

    (snipped)

    Joe Lieberman refuses to make any of those choices, and then he whines that those pointy-headed eggheads at The New York Times don't appreciate the position he never took.

    In a nutshell!  Just as he waits until the vote has been decided to cast one of his "90%" votes with the Dems, when he votes at all, or, changes when convenient, or, even better, can't really decide just what party he belongs to...that's Joe.  If he'd had the balls he claims he has he wouldn't have been hedging his bets all these years, but we've seen it time and time again and that, my friends, is why I want him gone.

  •  I still can't believe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity

    that this late in the game Holy Joe is so far ahead of Ned.  What is wrong with the CT electorate?

    It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by oibme on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 12:02:16 PM PST

    •  Well, to analyze Aug - Sept (0+ / 0-)

      I would say that Joe Lieberman was planning to ignore the primary results all along.  So, his campaign really hit the ground running after he lost the primary.

      From the day after the primary through the end of September, Joe Lieberman generally got very favorable media coverage throughout the state, which allowed him to extend an early slight lead to a bigger one now.

      Also, after Joe Lieberman lost the primary, the Republic reaction was very swift and very coordinated.  Every single one of them, from George Bush & Dick Cheney on down to the local RW hate mongers on the radio all said basically the same thing: "Joe Lieberman is a fine senator and it is a shame he was purged from the party by radical terrorist enabler bloggers because he supported the President on Iraq.  It is a victory for the terrorists."  I even had an lengthy letter published on this subject, saying it was too bad Republicans were not nearly as good at fighting wars and terrorism as they were at playing politics.

      But, the message from Bush on down was that it was okay for Republics to vote for Joe Lieberman and do so with a clear conscience.

      •  You forgot the other half (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newjeffct, Mauimom

        The silence from the Democratic party, from Reid, Schumer, Clinton(s), Emmanual, Obama, on down was -- and continues to be -- deafening.

        There are a few notable exceptions, like Kerry and Clark, but they are too little, too late.

        If (when) Lamont wins, it will be in spite of the national Democratic party.

        •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mauimom

          If Bill Clinton came into town this weekend to campaign for Ned Lamont, and a few others came by as well (Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama to name the other biggies), it would make a huge difference.  I bet Lamont's numbers among Dems would go up at least 10-15 points, if not more.

          Unfortunately, we get wimpy responses like Joe Biden saying they support Lamont, but won't campaign against Joe Lieberman

          •  Bubba is out in CA campaiginng (0+ / 0-)

            but he can't make it up the road on 95 to CT.  If they lose the Senate over this, they have only themselves to blame.  They think Holy Joe will vote with them.  He hasn't been up to now, what makes them think he will change his ways now that he belongs to the CT for LIEberman party.  It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.  Democrats are self-defeating.  How they ever held the Congress for 40 years I will never understand.  Oh wait! back in those days, Democrats were Democrats, not rethug lite.

            It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

            by oibme on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 02:28:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Beautiful! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theark, Catrina

    Beautiful editorial; says everything
    that needs to be said, and says it just
    right. This piece should be syndicated
    throughout Connecticut. Is there time?
    JIM/Hartford/SantaFe

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site