Speaking of Bush's Knesset speech (see below), Joe Lieberman put out a release saying he heartily approves of the president's remarks. I wonder how Joe's old pals at the DLC and so forth will respond to Lieberman's increasingly demagogic attacks on the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. I suspect the strategy will be to argue that this is a new, Zellified Lieberman, but in truth this is the sort of rhetoric New Dems regularly engaged in back in 2002-2005 when it was cool.
« Equality in California | Main | History for McCain »
Lieberman Plays the Munich Card
15 May 2008 02:13 pm
Comments (12)
in truth this is the sort of rhetoric New Dems regularly engaged in back in 2002-2005 when it was cool.
In truth this is the sort of rhetoric -- the appeal to 'Munich' and appeasement in particular -- which has been used to justify colonising and ethnic cleansing the Palestinian arabs for many a decade.
I wonder how Joe's old pals at the DLC and so forth will respond to Lieberman's increasingly demagogic attacks on the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
I'm not sure "respond to" is the right characterization. Try "supplement."
This is infuriating, but it's also perfect for the Dems. It is the best of all worlds for the argument to be between Obama and Bush. Bush has no credibility, he's a failure, and people hate him. The more we are able to keep the focus on Bush, the better for us.
Edge Hillary out. Then edge McSame out. Obama vs. Bush is exactly the choice we want the voters to concentrate on.
McCain probably hates Bush upstaging him like this. But Bush's ego won't let him fade away. I love it. He can't help himself, and the Obama camp is smart enough to pounce on the idiot's injection of himself into the political race. He's infuriating, but this is good for us.
Somebody should make up a point by point comparison checklist for Germany in 1939 versus Iran in 2008. The comparison would be so laughable as to make Bush and Lieberman look like utter idiots.
I shook hands and chatted briefly for Lieberman when he was on the stump in '04. He seemed amiable, reasonable, intelligent: a real
mensch". I really liked him.
That he would sell out his party's ideals to play the Munich card as you say. We can justify, I suppose, feeling the same way Clintonistas (as expressed by James "Skeletor" Carville's Judas comment) felt about Gov. Richardson.
We though old Joe still had a bit of donkey populism in him. Alas, he's sounding more and more like a hawk hack.
Still, anybody's got the right to change their mind, right Joe? We do place far too much importance in modern life on the principal that one should have an unwavering point of view for a lifetime. Even McCain considered converting to a Dem, as I recall, again, like Joe, for political reasons.
Weighing and considering all information, the ever-changing melange of factoids and false-factoids out there, seems prudent to keep an informed - and flexible - rationale in this overly wrought world.
Which makes me wonder why Joe Lieberman would be so categorically (and politically calculated of course) condemning of the very frame of mind that allowed him to switch parties: the right to weigh all input, and forge policy from what you learn.
Keeping an open mind about something implies that you're willing to listen to other points of view. Statesmen by nature are those who excel in considering all points of view. Obama seems like a statesman in the rough, to be sure. His sentiments seem to lie in that direction, rather than all this petty back-and-forth Clinton has successfully dragged him into.
Psychologists will tell you the healthiest and longest-lasting marriages are those based on listening to your partner, especially when you disagree. Otherwise, divorce. War. Demonizing. Talk to Iran, to Syria, to other Arab countries rather than just blasting the hell out of them. Look where that's got us.
Americans will never appease tyrants. But there's a better way than slamming the door on every frowning face. We should know better than that by now. Sadly, we don't. WE still call for blood, for vengeance, for our righteous (read entitled) share of the world's resources, whether we deserve them or not, just because we are the Great America, the Great Saviour. Self-important rot.
Want to improve the world? Spend more time listening, and less time talking.
I'm thinking now of you, Mr. Bush 43. You are a disgrace to the meaningful exchange of human thought. And we as a nation put you in office...twice. So we deserve what we're suffering through at your hands and the hands of your sub-evolved minions.
Which brings us back to you, Joe. We don't blame you for being political, or changing your political philosophy for example to keep office in your home state.
But parroting the worst, most dangerous-to-peace President in U.S. history by mouthing off against a policy that considers all points of view, is just kind of sad, and shameful.
Obama is no Chamberlain. Alas, you have proven to be no Churchill either. You keep strange company indeed these days, Joe.
There's a time for raising the national alarm. Hearing the rattle of political sabers is not that time. Shame on you. You've lost my vote forever.
I'm with Raenelle on this one -- the election may pivot on this notion of Bush v. Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama, Saddam Hussein, And Al-Qa'ida By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Thursday, February 28, 2008And as long as Obama's borrowing phraseology from other politicians, we're surprised he hasn't paraphrased the words of the late William Borah, whom he rivals in naivete.
On hearing of the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, the Idaho senator lamented: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
Ah, if only Barack had been able to talk with Saddam . . .
Obama channels IBD through Bush
Or rather, Bush's speechwriters clearly read Investors' Bullshit Daily, whose op-eds make the WSJ look sane.
I do like the idea of making this an Obama-Bush fight. Bush obviously thinks he's being very clever by dog-whistling away -- and isn't it just grubby of him to be doing domestic politics overseas? -- but the more he speaks, the worse it gets for the GOP, because they can't easily denounce and reject him.
It's so easy to judge what's already happened.
Try on this concept: What if that Idaho senator had indeed led a secret diplomatic mission to Berlin and had promised Hitler that the US and its allies would kick his country's ass with extreme prejudice if he annexed Czechoslovakia or marched on Poland, for example?
And what if Hitler had reconsidered, and his road to conquest thus delayed long enough for America to build up its mighty war machine, bolster its early warning defense in Hawaii, also promised Mussolini disaster if he went to war with Hitler, and sent massive non-military aid to Germany, thus so isolating Hitler that he might have been drummed out of power -or assassinated - by his own people before he ever took those disastrous first steps into Czechoslovakia and Poland?
We can endlessly speculate, but there are many many plausible scenarios beyond the only one we know - the one that actually happened.
Some historical records cite Roosevelt's desire to be drawn into war as a boost for the economy. True or not, diplomacy could have saved the world from 6 years of horrible conflict and the loss of millions of lives. Think about it.
We can't solve all our problems with a closed door and an open bomb bay door.
History is a guide, but never a foolproof dictum, for what should be done. Ask the fool in the White House about that.
The world of human affairs is a fluid medium, not a checkers game with only right and wrong moves. We decry trying to achieve true understanding, as always, at our own peril. That and that alone is the undeniable truth that history keeps trying to teach us.
It's long past time to kick Joe's butt out of the party. He's a disgrace.
Actually the DLC pretty much stopped this kind of rhetoric before 2004. The DLC started out trying to beat back the more liberal excesses of the Democratic party. This is tricky business since they also preferred the liberals they were criticizing to the conservative alternatives. Sometimes, and especially prior to 2004 the DLC was a little to focussed on criticizing fellow Democrats and a little to willing to work cooperatively with Bush. However endorsing the Republican nominee and echoing his criticisms is not something the DLC ever did (at least not publically). I imagine most DLC members hate Lieberman because a lot of people have assumed for a very long time that his current behaviour is no different from theirs. Personally I think what Lieberman is doing is worse than what Zell did, because I don't think Lieberman is crazy. He is deliberately and conciously undermining the things he used to claim to believe in. I'm truly saddened by his remarks and his actions.
Comments closed May 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Recall!!! This is utter madness. Don't continue to kiss this preening freak's ass for the sake of the caucus--recall him and elect a real democrat--now!!
Posted by elle loco | May 15, 2008 2:32 PM