FOXNews.com - Poll: Sen. Lieberman Cutting Into Challenger Lamont's Lead in Democratic Primary - You Decide 2006I've wondered just why Lieberman's been so reviled by the left any more. He was good enough to run with Gore, he was good enough to be considered a Presidential candidate in 2004 (or at least a contender - admittedly Sharpton and Kucinich were in the race...) The conventional wisdom is that he voted for the war and didn't recant later.HARTFORD, Conn. — U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, fighting for his political survival, appears to be cutting into challenger Ned Lamont's lead the day before Connecticut's Democratic primary election, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.
But I think it's because he's an apostate. He doesn't BELIEVE, deep down, that Bush is the source of all evil. That the world would be a fine and tidy place if only Kerry or Gore were President. He dares to look at the real world and judge things by what he SEES, not by what he BELIEVES is out there.
You don't hear the phrase 'Reality Based Community' all that much in political discourse any more. Ever wonder why? Could it be that when actually tested against reality, the 'Reality Based Community' fell visibly out of alignment? (And then manifestly refused to admit it?) 'Reality Based' means that you actually are aware of reality, and use it to form and guide appropriate actions and responses to the situations you find yourself in.
(For instance, when driving, it's NOT a good idea when faced with an obstacle in the road to pull BACK on the steering wheel in an attempt to get your car to lift over it. You might have a deep belief in the ability of your car to fly, but when tested against reality you'll find it faulty.)
Joe Lieberman sees reality, and votes according to what he thinks is the best way of dealing with it. I wish him all the luck in the world tomorrow. Because we need more politicians who can tell the difference between 'reality' and 'Reality-Based' fantasies.
J.
Comments (2)
If you really want to know why the left has turned against Joe, you don't have to speculate. The answers are out there:
1. Most of us (the left) were kind of down on him for coming out and being all sanctimonious about Clinton's sex life.
2. Most of us think that he was terrible as Gore's running mate... remember, "he was good enough" wasn't based on an election. He was picked by Gore, and after the initial enthusiasm (hey, a Jew, that's a new one!) wore off, it turned out that he wasn't much of a campaigner. In particular, he rolled over in the veep debates against Cheney, letting Cheney lie to his face at several points and not challenging it. He later said he was actually proud of that, because he wanted to change the tone.
3. Iraq, of course. Since I disagree with you on this, you see his views as correct and I see them as crazy. Never the twain shall meet, I suppose.
4. (This is the big one for me). How to talk about Iraq. Joe came out and told Democrats in 2005 that we should STFU if we knew what was good for us, and just support the President without question. As you might imagine, you don't even have to be against the war to get upset about that one.
Personally, I've never liked the guy. I feel the same way about a lot of the long-term incumbents in both parties. I don't think he's doing good for the country anymore. Incidentally, I feel the same way about Hillary, even though she's not a long-term incumbent.
I think both parties will benefit from fresh blood, especially if we are going to continue with the crazy partisan blasting. Joe's just not up for it.
Posted by Jason | August 8, 2006 12:34 PM
Posted on August 8, 2006 12:34
1. Damn those moralistic bastards - you KNOW they're doing the same thing in private, just not telling anyone, right? And how DARE he actually parade his moral standards in front of other people, like keeping your dick in your pants when you're married is something to be proud of!
2. Damn that Cheney anyway - by the way, just what lies didn't Joe call him on?
3. Most likely. I see it as something horribly expensive that was needed to avoid an even higher butcher's bill down the road. You don't. We'll agree to disagree.
4. My biggest problem with the Democrats/Left re Iraq is the message they've tacitly transmitted to our enemies with their very vocal disagreement on how to fight the war (not that they've had much in the way of ideas on how to actually fight it, but they've had a hell of a lot of criticism about what's gone on) - which in the Arabic world was seen as the rather explicit message - "Hold on until we're in power and we'll pull your enemies out."
Jason, I'm pretty sure you don't agree with me on this, but I see the war on Terror, the war on Islamic Facism as a generational war, not something that can be done in one or two presidentical terms. I think Aaron MIGHT see the end of it, I'm pretty sure I won't, unless we capitulate. In the short term, the Islamists don't have to WIN - all they have to do is not LOSE. The divided front shown by the lack of cooperation between the two parties is a clear indicator that when/if a Democrat gets into office, (or they even get a majority in the House or Senate) the pressure's going to be severely reduced or off the Islamists completely.
Because I don't believe the Democrats take the threat seriously. They haven't since shortly after 9/11. I think Joe Lieberman realized that our political chattering classes needed BADLY to show a united front. If that had happened, if we had shown that no matter WHICH party was in office that we were going to keep on fighting, then I think it possible (30, 35% chance) that the Iraq insurgencies would have lost heart and given up. But the disagreements gave them a real morale boost, and now that Iran's drawn back the curtain and revealed themselves as the players we suspected, it's going to be a lot harder to finish the job.
But we'll see. I agree that both parties could stand to clean out some of the long-standing actors. And as long as we're looking at crazy partisan blasting, it'd be nice if they can remember that their loyalty should be to COUNTRY first, not the Democratic or Republican party.
J.
Posted by JLawson | August 8, 2006 9:48 PM
Posted on August 8, 2006 21:48