Monday, September 11, 2006

Lieberman Misses Key Votes

Joe Lieberman's own campaign material says this:
You also need to know that I [Joe Lieberman] have never suggested that the President or anyone else – including me – should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions.
The first sentence is a downright lie ("It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."). But, since he apparently challenges the President's policies, you'd think he would be the first in line to bring some oversight. So, Lieberman, in an effort to make sure everybody knew what a huge critic he's been, decided to miss key votes, saying they were "typical party-line procedural votes". So what were these "procedural" votes on?
The votes on Democratic amendments had to do with artificially influencing the Iraqi news media, and requiring the Bush administration to report on the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. [Courant]
If Lieberman really wanted to send a message the president that he was for oversight, he'd have made sure he was there, supporting his "fellow Democrats".
-------
Iraq. Joe2006.com. 9/11/06.
-
Jon Kantrowitz. Lieberman Says His Skipped Iraq Votes Just “Procedural” and Do Not Matter. My Left Nutmeg. 9/11/06
-
Associated Press. Candidates spar over Senate votes. Hartford Courant. 9/11/06.

27 comments:

turfgrrl said...

As long as an amendment requires 60 votes to be enacted, if your side doesn't have the votes, it's just show, and the symbolism just becomes campaign fodder. Otherwise known as the "he who controls the pork, deals the game" rule.

justinh said...

Hey turfgrrl,

So much for the sleeping bear.

truthteller06 said...

Bobby,

I really think that this is a new low for you, and for all of Ned Lamont’s supporters in making a story out of this non-issue. As turfgrrl said, you need 60 votes to win, and the Dems, unfortunately were not close to that. Senator Lieberman has said that he would have supported the two amendments, and that’s what is important. He has been a frequent critic of President Bush’s handling of the war, and yet you, and other extreme bloggers distort, and often times flat out lie, about Senator Lieberman’s record.
I guess on one hand I can understand that this is your only hope to win, as your candidate is running a one issue campaign, but can't even figure out what his position on that one issue is. This is part of a desperate campaign to divert attention from Ned Lamont’s inability to settle on one position when it comes to Iraq. He is the only candidate I ever remember who has taken 3 distinct positions on an issue.
Why don’t you stop your negative, divisive distortions, and figure out who the guy your voting for is, then come back and try to tell the voters of Connecticut a reason to vote FOR him. My guess, is we won’t be seeing you back for a while.

Anonymous said...

Yes, for many people, standing on your principals and showing leadership is just show.

Then, there are real leaders.

Bobby McGee said...

But if Lieberman actually wanted to be a big critic of the administration, wouldn't he have used these votes to send a message?

leaveonlyfootprints said...

He shouldn't miss votes like this just because there is a campaign going on. He can't just disappear from the Senate. It's almost as if Joe were some kind of large, hibernating mammal...maybe one that Stephen Colbert would be afraid of.

Bobby McGee said...

truthteller06 said..."Senator Lieberman has said that he would have supported the two amendments, and that’s what is important. He has been a frequent critic of President Bush’s handling of the war..."

My point was, that if Lieberman supported these amendments, and is in fact the critic of the war he says he is, why did he brush off this vote that would have been an easy way to send a message to the Administration and voters that he's for more oversight?

turfgrrl said...

bobby mcgee-- if you aren't aware by now, this Administration doesn't listen to messages. They have mandate and think Congress is irrelevant.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Goldwater & Humprey used to skip votes every so often if the other one wasn't there for some reason.
(They tended to cancle each other.)

No one ever accused either of not being Conservative or Liberal enough.

There's plenty of non-issue votes and missing those is a non-event.

Anonymous said...

Truthteller06 said...

I really think that this is a new low for you,

Not bad for Bobby M - a new low on his third post.

turfgrrl - what a surprise... if Lieberman ate a kitten on national tv, the next day you would have three posts about how heroic he was in battling a tiger.

BTW - if you are making one of the talking points of your campaign how you hold hte president accountable, its a bad idea to miss votes that are trying to hold him accountable - regardless of whether you know they are doomed to failure or not. Especially when you were elected 18 years ago running campaign ads about how your opponent missed votes.
And the message he could have sent would have been to the voters.
You would agree if you didn't have so much invested in not agreeing. Or so much invested in you.

ACR -
Who was Lieberman cancelling out by not voting?

Anonymous said...

Sound familiar?

Before answering the question, Burns attacked Tester's answers and said, “Mr. Tester has taken four different stands on Iraq.”

Seems like someone got the Rove/Lieberman playbook!

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 9:41 -- For the record, if Lieberman ate a kitten on national tv, i'd think it was some sort of Lamontie/Fear Factor stunt ... unless it was on Fox, which of course would mean it was important news and part of some new anti-terrorism measure ... ;)

Anonymous said...

The wink normally means someone is kidding. (sigh) Would that it were...

One day, please, address a substantive point.

Anonymous said...

BUT I'd say its it fair to critisize Joe for missing votes since that was one of the main themes in his campaign against Weicker?

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 10:32 -- You mean you were seriously suggesting that Lieberman would eat a kitten on national TV? You must be missing that Joe 2006 blog ...

disgruntled_republican said...

I'm with turfgrrl on this one...the vote was irrellavent. Just curious if you Lamonters had a problem with him missing REAL votes when he ran for VP? but I suspect you didn't then and won't admit it now.

Furthermore, I am so sick of Lamont supporters constantly harping on,

"It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"

Bobby Mcgee-

Where does that statement say or imply that he should be immune from criticism? Last time I checked a President serves a 4 year term or did they change the Constitution when I was on vacation?

All that sentance says is that the partisan bullshit in Washington needs to stop...and it does. I full admit that some on both sides are guilty of it but it is ridiculous. There is a difference between overcite and criticism and a downright witch hunt...many Dem's intentions are clearly the latter...

Anonymous said...

Turfgrrl - this is the part that I hoped you would address:

BTW - if you are making one of the talking points of your campaign how you hold hte president accountable, its a bad idea to miss votes that are trying to hold him accountable - regardless of whether you know they are doomed to failure or not. Especially when you were elected 18 years ago running campaign ads about how your opponent missed votes.
And the message he could have sent would have been to the voters.
You would agree if you didn't have so much invested in not agreeing. Or so much invested in you.


D_R - the second part of that statement seems to be saying that any criticism of the president is a betrayal of the united states. We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

What scares me about your side is that you seem like you would be comfortable ending partisanship by eliminating one party...

Where was the pearl clutching about partisan bs when a president was impeached for getting a hummer?

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 713 -

I have said on numerous occassions that I thought the impeachment of Clinton was a huge mistake. Did he break the law? Sure, but by no means should he have lost the Presidency because of it. The entire proceeding made the United States a laughing stalk...I do however think that Lieberman's comments then were appropriate.

I do not want the elimination of any party. Debate and the ability to have debate are what makes the USA the greatest country in the history of man. What I would like is an end to the opposition simply in the interest of opposition...and mainly in extreme cases. In recent history the D's have been guilty of this more than the R's but that is simply because the R's are in power. Debate is one thing, party politics is completely another and it is the partisan party politics that I, as are many mainstream Americans, am sick off.

TrueBlueCT said...

Disgruntled--

Are you really suggesting that Democrats are more partisan than Republicans? 'Cause that sure doesn't describe the current political landscape.

If the D's weren't opposing, think where we'd be. Abortion would be illegal for starters. Environmental regulations would be tossed out the window. Big Pharma would have its patents extended by several years. And oh yeah, private accounts would be beginning to spell the end of Social Security.

Not to mention civil liberties.

Let me tell you what I'm sick of. That lamest of all presidents, George Bush, and the nasty way in which the GOP has used race and religion to divide this country, --just so the richest of the rich can pay less taxes and get even richer.

Southern CT Conservative said...

TrueblueCT said:
"Let me tell you what I'm sick of. That lamest of all presidents, George Bush, and the nasty way in which the GOP has used race and religion to divide this country, --just so the richest of the rich can pay less taxes and get even richer."

Can you please cite me one example not from Kos or MLN that backs your point? Honestly, Reagan, the greatest Republican of the last 100 years was blind to race. It didn't matter to him what color your skin was. He was raised that way by his father. Yet, when he expressed his opposition to affirmative action, he was branded a racist. You lefties drive me crazy.

disgruntled_republican said...

TrueBlueCT -

That is exactly what I am saying. And it is the political landscape. Do I think they should "fall in line"? No, quite the contrary but arguing to argue only hurts us as a nation. And I do think there are some R's that are partisan but as a whole the D's are the bigger offenders.

I am curious as to where you get the idea that abortion would be illegal since that hasn't even come close to being discussed and the President himself said it isn't something he look to do?

There is some merit to your comments about the envirnment and pharma companies but that is what debate is about. Debate IS different than partisan politics. I don't know if I can say it any clearer.

And on SS...this is a perfect example of partisan politics. The the end of Social Security has already been spelt. Harry Reid made sure of that. It is going to go bankrupt if it isn't changed.

Was the President's proposal perfect? Not by any means but the fact is he started the discussion. Reid ended it. When FDR invented SS, it was great. It has since outlived it's life and needs to be changed before it is too late. Why couldn't the Congress taken up the discussion now? Something tells me the next time we have a Democrat President, it will be discussed and acted upon...simple party politics. The Democrat leader needs to hold onto the only Democrat initiative still around to save it for HIS PARTY to propose changing it. That is disgusting.

And how on earth can you say that President Bush has divided this nation with race and religon? It would be funny if I didn't think you really beleive it. I just don't get how accountability and/or tax cuts translates into class warfare? Did your taxes not go down? Mine did substantially and I don't even make 100K. Obviously, those who pay more would save more. Is that so wrong? Do you know what happened to the taxes of the lowest tax brackets when Clinton ran the show? You guessed it, they went up...and now they pay nothing...hmmmm.

And speaking of class warfare...was it not Democrat John Edwards who told the story of 2 Americas? What the hell is that? Guess which of the 2 he was in...

Southern CT Conservative said...

You can't seriously be censoring my comment about Reagan and affirmative action! You guys are worse than the Soviet Politburo! I was only trying to make the point that liberals always deride conservatives about race and religion like they did Reagan's opinion of affirmative action. Reagan wasn't against affirmative action because he was racist, he was against it because he was raised to be blind to race and AA flew in the face of his beliefs.

disgruntled_republican said...

S CT CON-

It wasn't censored. Keep in mind that all of us have regular jobs and from time to time it takes a little bit of time to publish comments.

bluecoat said...

Pastor Bush spoke from the Oval Pulpit last night with his normal keywords directed to the religiuos right and wrong when he spoke about his ongoing holy war in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

You Conservatives and Lieberman Supporters should go to dogfood-for-america blog and read about the instagators that got us to this place and time and how we need to stand up and take a stand against the NedManiacs,Lamontsters and Lamontistas Also No-to-Ned has some good reading as well.

It is nice to have a different Viewpoint(Non-Liberal and Uncensored)to read for a change

Dean Vernon Wormer said...

Lamont is Left.....Way too Left thats why he is going to lose the election and then we say goodbye to dumpjoe.com and Dogfood for America and all these liberal Icon and Moron sites.

I bet all you Lamontistas will be kissing up to Joe once he wins re-election in November.

I look forward to seeing Keith and Petey kiss up to Lieberman after all the trash they have talked over the last year or so.

Doug Niedermeyer said...

Uncle Ned Lamont has "jumped the shark" his campaign is toast.

He hasnt been to Litchfield County in awhile I guess he has tapped the rich people and Liberal Wackos dry for money and support.

Bye bye to Ned, DFA, dumpjoe.com , my left nutmeg and all things bad and Liberal Oriented.

You Liberals are all worthless and weak Now drop and give me 20.