Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Yikes

Apparently, Joe Lieberman is not happy with Colin McEnroe (or with those lousy blogger types. Those jerks).

I have this odd sense that something major just shifted in this campaign. But we'll see.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like Paul Streitz entering the race has really shaken Joe up.

Anonymous said...

Joe tried to credit a specific quote to-- "BLOGGERS". Then Colin pointed out that said same quote came from the NY Times.

After that Joe, in obvious frustration, went and dissed America's paper of record!

Whoopsy-daisy..

Anonymous said...

Angry Joe Lieberman.

McEnroe: You probably know that I wrote in the Courant last Sunday that if I had to vote in the primary right now I would, with some sorrow, vote for Ned Lamont simply because you have kind of drifted so far towards the Bush Administration whose policies I don’t approve of very much."

Lieberman: "Well I....I think that your statement just then was as ridiculous and unfair as your column was. I was really upset by it. I don’t get to hear you a lot because I’m in Washington but if you’re saying that on the air really I hope your listeners are taking it with a grain of salt."

ctblogger said...

Too funny. Those evil bloggers...

Silver Fox said...

U gotta love it. Joe went from believing his own hype to believing ours...

Anonymous said...

at least Joe knows who bloggers are, unlike some liberals in Washington who still think Dan Rather and Harriet Miers were felled by forces of nature

MikeCT said...

Some shortcut references:
* Colin responds to Joe on his blog and cites the Lieberman speech in question
* Joe interview audio
* Partial transcript

Colin also cites an Bob Shieffer interview with Rep. Murtha:

SCHIEFFER: And it is very interesting to me that it has sort of split Democrats. It's put them all over the lot. For example, Joe Lieberman says the Democrats shouldn't undermine the president's credibility. And he says when we do that, we're doing it at our own peril. Do you think you've the president's credibility?

Rep. MURTHA: Bob, let me tell you what undermines the president's credibility. He says we've weapons of mass destruction. He says we got an al-Qaida connection. He says there's a nuclear connection. He sends troops into a fighting area without body armor. He sends inadequate forces into the area for the transition to peace. The mistakes that they've made is what undermines their credibility. And of course, once we become the enemy, 80 percent of the people in Iraq want us out; 50 percent, 45 percent, say it's all right to kill Americans. The surrounding area, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia say to us, more chance of democracy if we withdraw or if we redeploy to the surrounding area.


Contrast Joe's hysteria with Ned Lamont's interview yesterday on Air America Radio. Touches on why he's a Democrat, universal health care, emergency contraception for rape victims, and civil liberties.

Also, in unrelated news, CT Blog has video of Dan Malloy's presentation to the Shelton DTC.

Anonymous said...

Joe's radio ouburst is the beginning of the end. The new theme of his campaign is "Get off my lawn, you crazy kids!"

Anonymous said...

How about the embarassment in Hartford!!!

Could do nothing but laugh.

I actually feel bad for Perez...hope he realizwes now he isn't king.

bluecoat said...

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. advisers on Wednesday called for new information about psychiatric and heart risks on the labels of attention deficit drugs but stopped short of recommending the strongest possible warning, saying they did not want to frighten patients or parents from effective treatment.

The panel of pediatric experts reviewed reports of heart problems and psychotic behavior such as hallucinations in children who took the medicines, which include Novartis AG's Ritalin and Shire Plc's Adderall.


Here is the full link since it may effect who blogs here in th future.

Actually, this is a very serious matter of overmedicating kids.

JJ said...

I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be inclusive of all opinions...I guess not. If you are supportive of the troops and the US in the war against I guess you have no place in the party!

bluecoat said...

It irks me when people accuse those who challenge the way the war in Iraq has been handled of being unsupportive of the troops. I have to imagine JJ considers what the Tillman family is doing as described here in yesterday's New York Times to be unpatriotic. Whatever, you do - do not challenge your government!

Anonymous said...

The big-tentedness refers more to Democrats reflecting the views of their own constituency. Nobody is especially surprised or angry when Sen. Nelson (D-NE) supports conservative bills, or supports Bush because he is from an extremely conservative state that also tends to support Bush.

JJ said...

I have no problem with people who challenge the war...but I do take issue with people who don't offer anything as to how to fight terrorism or give any advice as to how we should proceed with the Iraq situation. To merely say the administration is incompetent while hoping the number of troop deaths rise to further your argument is in my opinion wrong.

As for the Tillman thing if the government was involved in a coverup it should be exposed. Plain and simple!

Anonymous said...

Genghis--

You should update this thread. Colin responded to Joe's accusations via his own blog, here.

Joe sures knows how to win people over-- NOT!

Aldon Hynes said...

I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be inclusive of all opinions

Do you mean the Democrats should include George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on?

I don't really see how anyone can believe that any political party should be inclusive of all opinions.

bluecoat said...

Astonishingly, JJ said ...while hoping the number of troop deaths rise to further your argument is in my opinion wrong but the only people hoping that are the insurgents and terrorist who began to operate in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad and the disbanding of the Iraqi security forces by Paul Bremer.

Puh-leez, no Amerciacn of friend of america is hoping, for anybody to die as karl Rove would like some to beleive.

jj said...

So what you are trying to tell me is all those people who oppose the war never use troop deaths to further their argument? Please!!! That's all they say!!! I have yet to hear what the plan is from Democrats as to what we should do in Iraq.

Let's hear the big plan the Dems have for Iraq? Let's hear it!!! Oh yeah, it's "George Bush is incompetent!!" Nice! Way to back your country!!!

CGG said...

I agree with Aldon. As a party we have to stand for something. Not standing for anything is why Democrats keep losing elections.

Anonymous said...

JJ, What's your plan for Iraq? Cross your fingers and hope the Shi'ites and Sunnis learn to love one another? Maybe we should start by sending you over there to teach them all how to sing C'umbya!

Iraq is Humpty-Dumpty, and all the kings' horses and all the kings' men won't be able to keep that country together. (Without the use of barbarically repressive means, a al Saddam and/or Syria and/or the Taliban.)

Dividing the country, (as we did Yugoslavia), would be the best idea. Unfortunately, Turkey will not stand for an independent Kurdish state.

So things are just plain FUBAR. The sooner everyone recognizes that sad reality, the better off America will be.

Anonymous said...

Your party has a pro-life Senate Minority Leader, and a very pro-life Senate candidate in Pennsylvania. How come none of you are all over them?

Anonymous said...

yeah, but neither of them think a woman should be forced to have a rapist's child!

The wackos are all yours, buddy.

CGG said...

Anon 3:25 I agree with you. I was actually commenting about why I could never vote for Casey on My Left Nutmeg yesterday. One of my biggest fears is a party full of Hawkish pro-life Democrats. If it comes to that why bother having two parties at all?

Anonymous said...

can we trade Casey for Linc Chafee even up?

Anonymous said...

I think Democrats can and do tolerate opposing viewpoints.

Lieberman's positions could be tolerated if he were from a conservative purple/red state. But he's in a state that supports civil unions and public campaign financing and doesn't support the Iraq war. He doesn't reflect his constituents.

Lieberman compounds with his recent habit of raising his national profile by criticizing all the other Democrats. He keeps telling them to be more like him - so he doesn't even tolerate differences of opinion himself.

"It's my ball now, you #$%&! kids" - Angry Old Joe

turfgrrl said...

aldon,

You missed the point of the democratic party's big tent. Yes, you can be a democrat and be against abortions, for balanced budgets, for invading and occupying Iraq. When you start ostracizing people because they believe in something you don't, then you start resembling totalitarianism.

The democratic party has always stood for making the government work for the American people. That means all the people, even the ones you disagree most vehemently with.

bluecoat said...

STAMFORD -- U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays took on some of the toughest debaters in town yesterday -- teenagers.
Gang violence, a widening educational achievement gap and the role parents should play in raising their children took precedent over national issues such as the Iraqi war and Medicare for a few hundred Stamford High School students.
Shays, R-Bridgeport, was asked to explain his support for the war at the start of the first of two 30-minute morning sessions with social studies classes. But the conversation turned to more local issues as one student said afterward he was tired of talking about Iraq.
"Any time we try to talk about something, Iraq gets brought up and is the excuse," said senior Fritz Chery. "We keep hearing the same things while things are getting worse here" in Stamford here in today's Stamford advocate and some off these kids will vote. take heed natioanl campaigners.