Steeped In Village Think

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:33:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein dives into the deep end of the Village pool:

Look at the Senate right now: If Democrats have 60 votes, it's because conservative activists kept running primary challengers against Arlen Specter. If they fall short, it's likely to be because liberal activists ran a primary challenge against Joe Lieberman.

Yep, ole Joe Lieberman was a down the line liberal Dem until the 2006 election. He was "with us on everything but the war." Ezra Klein -- now officially a Village idiot. See also Atrios ("[I]t'll be interesting to see how the Villagers will react. My guess is they'll portray [the NY-23 Teabaggers] as just folks exercising their patriotic duties, unlike those dirty f*cking hippie traitors who ran a primary against the greatest man in America, Joe Lieberman." (Emphasis mine.))

Speaking for me only

< CO Board of Health Weakens Medical Marijuana Caregiver Rule at Stealth Hearing | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Steeped In Village Think | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I really thought that they extracted (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:37:41 PM EST

an agreement for votes like this in exchange for the chairmanship. But that was a different error: having too much confidence in Democratic leadership.

: They denied there had (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:34:25 AM EST

been any such agreement at the time. We need to learn to take them at their word on their spinelessness.

: devil's advocate (none / 0) (#24)
by sancho on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:38:05 AM EST

what if lieberman is just doing what he is expected to do? as btd says, he's never been for meaningful health care reform. i can't imagine anyone (reid, obama) would expect him to change. but he could be a handy scapegoat for not passing something you never cared about passing anyway. darn that joe.

Another alternative (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by MO Blue on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:38:17 PM EST

is that we are stuck with Lieberman because the good old boys in the Democratic Party did not put their full support behind the Democratic nominee once Lamont won the primary.

Now Lieberman is fulfilling a useful purpose. He can go down as the one who killed the public option and take the heat off Reid and Obama.

: Reid and Obama (none / 0) (#9)
by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:10:43 PM EST

are idiots if they believe that Lieberman is going to take the fall. Leadership means taking responsibility for victories AND failures. If they didn't want that they should never have put themselves up for the job.

Lieberman The Down The Line Backstabber (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by john horse on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:45:14 PM EST

All Lieberman has done is:

unconditionally support Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq,

campaigned against Obama, his party's nominee for President, including claiming that Obama has not always "put his country first"

voted to impeach Clinton

is attempting to sabotage health care reform

Outside of not supporting the Democratic candidate or the Democratic agenda, Lieberman is a real down the line Democrat.

: Lieberman did not vote (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:36:56 AM EST

to impeach Clinton. For crying out loud. He made a sanctimonious ugly speech on the Senate floor, but he did not vote to impeach (or even convict, which is what the Senate actually votes on)

: And a blast from the past (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:25:55 AM EST

Tried to help Bush win Florida and on national TV.
And stayed on the ballot in Connecticut guaranteeing that if Gore was elected the GOP Governor would appoint a Republican to his old seat sticking Gore with a GOP controlled Senate.
Going back to the Lewinsky thing this guy's been a load of excrement for at least a decade.
Probably longer but my memory of him stops there.

On thing I like about Ezra ... (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:49:51 PM EST

he provides material for very entertaining posts by BTD.

Another zap from Tom Tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:53:47 PM EST

takes Lieberman to the Dem woodshed. If I could link, I would...

Try this: (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Anne on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:10:39 PM EST

Tom Tomorrow

Starring the most important politician in all of human history, Joe Lieberman

It's so true it hurts.


: Thanks, Anne. Yup...Tom nails it. n/t (none / 0) (#18)
by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:51:37 PM EST

Except that war... (none / 0) (#1)
by lentinel on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:36:51 PM EST

He's with us except on the war...

Rather a dramatic exception, don't you think?

That Klein could utter such a statement shows how little the war means to him. And to the democratic party from all appearances.

He did not say anything like that (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:40:57 PM EST

I said it sarcastically. Is this the first time you have seen the line "He is with us on everything but the war" used in connection with Lieberman?


No (none / 0) (#5)
by lentinel on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:45:48 PM EST

It is not the first time I've seen that line about Lieberman.
I did not realize that the attribution you gave to Klein was sarcasm.


Punctuation is important (none / 0) (#10)
by cymro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:24:28 PM EST

I think you are misreading it in this case. There is a period after the quoted phrase, "... everything but the war." A peculiarity of American rules of punctuation is that periods and commas are placed inside quotation marks regardless of sentence logic. So, in this case, the words "Ezra Klein" are not an attribution, they are the beginning of the next sentence. If this were a British or Canadian blog, there would have been less confusion.


: Attribution (none / 0) (#12)
by lentinel on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:40:58 PM EST

Whoever said it, it seems to be an accurate portrayal of the attitude of the democratic party towards Lieberman. They are supplicants before him. And his bloodthirsty stance on the war doesn't even enter the picture for them. And that goes for Obama and Clinton.

I take it people who (none / 0) (#6)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:49:48 PM EST

voted in NY 23 and did not toe your line did something wrong.

My Deniro impression (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:08:46 PM EST

You talking to me? I never criticize anyone for fighting for what they believe in.

The Tebaggers are right to fight for what they believe in.

What they believe in insane, but they are right to fight for it.


Liberal Democrats need to learn (none / 0) (#13)
by Coral on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:46:35 PM EST

this lesson.

That said, the teabaggers scare me. They are a lunatic fringe, but lunatic fringes sometimes gain power. I thought GW Bush was bad, but God help us if Palin or some Beckian crazy manages to make to to the White House.


: Lunatic fringe (none / 0) (#23)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:29:42 AM EST

This "group" has the express support of the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Oops. The mainstream of the Republican Party is the lunatic fringe.

Sorry, for a min. (none / 0) (#25)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:10:52 AM EST

I thought your teabagger reference was getting tiresome, but I will save it and drag it up at the appropriate time.


Meh (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:03:26 PM EST

Joe got beaten in his primary, waaah. I think the questions raised as to whether he is positioning himself to run as a Republican are interesting, but NY-23 shows how impossible that would be.

His best hope is to cuddle back up to Dems I would think. Unless he and McCain are going to form their own party in some unsuspecting country.

: Forming their own party (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:25:07 PM EST

might not be such a bad idea by the time the Democratic and Republican leadership are through with their "brands." I can just hear the slogan, "Vote for me, I'm not a member of either of the two parties responsible for screwing up the country any longer."

What is it about moving to DC (none / 0) (#19)
by s5 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:42:16 PM EST

that makes journalists become so stupid?

Maybe stupid is the wrong word. There needs to be a word for "so smart that you manage to convince yourself of exactly the wrong thing".