Posted on 08/08/2006 8:30:19 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
Let's hope Joe Lieberman's Hail Mary toss on Iraq isn't the wave of the future for the Democratic Party.
In their story on Lieberman's desperate, clammy, last-ditch attempt to save his political hide, Times reporters Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina called Lieberman's verbal retrenchment on Iraq -- a mea culpa without the culpa -- "a new set of talking points for Democratic leaders who are struggling for the right words to reconcile their support for the war initially and the fiery antiwar stance of many Democratic voters today."
Talking points? More like a recipe for disaster. Read John Zogby's terrific post on what Democratic voters are looking for. A hint: it ain't the muddled mush Lieberman was dishing out Sunday night.
After much hand-wringing and midnight oil burning (and, no doubt, poll reading), Lieberman's advisors finally convinced the Senator that in order to have even a shot at breaking his downward Joementum, he'd have to at least soften his bellicose stance on the war.
You could almost hear their plaintive pleas: "C'mon, Joe, Hillary just called it a failure -- can't you at least say something like, 'Iraq: it wasn't the best idea America's ever had'?"
But the best they could do was convince Lieberman to play the "let's agree to disagree" card. A shift from his previous criticize-the-president-and-imperil-the-nation rhetoric, to be sure... but a new set of Democratic talking points? Please... how low are we going to set the bar?
"I not only respect your right to disagree or question the president or anyone else, including me, I value your right," said Lieberman. Nice to know he now values the First Amendment.
He also said he understood that many Democrats "are angry about the war" and that since he doesn't believe "there is anything I can say to change your mind about whether we should have gone to war or when to bring the troops home...at this point I'm not going to insult you by trying." In other words, he still thinks those opposing the war are dead wrong but has decided not to "insult" them by trying to convince them otherwise. So it's comity uber alles. How generous of him. But not the kind of leadership Democrats are looking for on the war.
Lieberman also said that he wants to bring the troops home "as fast as anyone" -- as long as "anyone" doesn't include all those folks who'd like to bring the troops home before they get any further caught up in a civil war conflagration.
Anxious to move Iraq to the backburner, Lieberman dug deep into his long history in the Senate to find a reason why Connecticut voters shouldn't send him packing tomorrow. The biggest selling point he came up with?
"I don't hate Republicans," he said, while arguing that he wasn't President Bush's "best friend and enabler."
Talking points for the ages.
I thought the Dems' "America, Together We Can Do Better" was the worst rallying cry money could buy... but Lieberman just topped it: "I don't hate Republicans."
Earlier in the day, Lieberman had made campaign stops at a pair of churches. At one, the preacher invoked the Biblical story of Joseph, who "refused to sell out to the haters."
Lieberman picked up the theme, saying: "Joseph had faith that God will take care of the haters, and I have a certain faith that this Tuesday God will take care of the voters."
Huh? I love the story of Joseph, but I have no idea what Lieberman was talking about.
Was he saying that, for him, "the haters" = "the voters"? That he believes God will "take care" of "the voters" by getting them to vote God's and Lieberman's way? That God will smite down Lamont voters on the way to the polls? That Lieberman is hated by his brothers? That when he loses his Senate seat he'll switch to dream analysis for Pharaoh? That he plans to run as an independent on the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat Party ticket?
I'd love to know what point you biblical scholars out there think Lieberman was trying to make, because I really don't have a clue.
That about sums Arianna up.
lmao, Joe calling the voters in his own state 'haters!'
Why doesn't Arianna just take a very, very long vacation? Good Lord, but she is annoying.
Its going to be pathetic that the Dems think anti-war, anti-israel and impeachment rhetoric are winners. They have no idea whats about to happen to them as they run to the far left.
Does anyone think for one minute that Arianna actually believes half the sh*t she spews. She's a star-chaser and her "liberalism" has gotten her a slight entree into their world...she has no core.
I predict that Lamont will win the primary, and he actually will have a good shot of winning the general election.
This year in general is not going to be good for Republicans, as it's more a referendum on Bush than anything else. But that's ok, since it will solidify the moonbat stance of the Democratic party, thus clearing the way for an easy win in 2008.
I can't believe she thinks she's still relevant.
lol!! Joementum in full effect, I want them both fighting and spending money to the wire
When will the MSM drive-by-media bring up the fact that a large amount of Joes enemies on the left are just virile anti-Semites? A lot of leftist blogs are flush with pro PLO, Hezbo, Hamas sentiment. They are the same hate america types that blame us for 9/11 etc.
I am really offended that the AP and dumb broad Arianna Huffington would take a religious term "Hail Mary" to decorate their trash Lieberman article. Huffington needs more than the virgin Mary to validate her incoherent ramblings.
I love how the haters don't seem to realize they are haters.
Personally, I hope Ned wins. The more the D party goes to the single-note candidates who's entire platform is "we hate Bush and everything he's done", the more I like it.
Altho it would be a RIOT if Ned loses, the gloom and depression among the moonbats would be delicious.
I am so glad Arianna went over to the dark side, she's a twit.
This was written by a woman who sounds like Gerda the Gestapo Guard and was married to a man for 13 years, and claims she didn't know he was gay until the end.
Those sure sound like great qualifications for a liberal columnist to me!
I fear you may be right, but it's not 'ok', and for the following reasons:
1. One of the first items on a Speaker Nancy Pelosi agenda will be re-enactment of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine', which will effectively silence the most forceful opposition to the leftist agenda: conservative talk radio (methinks NPR and Air America will be spared from F.D. strictures ...). And I believe that GWB would be coerced into signing it into law instead of vetoing it.
2. The next agenda item will be zeroing out the budget for Iraq, and maybe even the WOT in general. This will force an Iraq bugout when the money spigot is closed (shades of Vietnam 1973-1975).
3. The inevitable attempt to impeach GWB and the Iraq bugout will prove Osama Bin Laden's assertion that we are a paper tiger correct in the eyes of our allies and enemies throughout the world. This will speed up planning and execution of any attack the terrorists may have in store for us.
My point is that in 2 years, a left-wing-controlled Congress may do irreversible damage to our country. Even if the Republicans could in theory muster enough support to retake Congress and retain the White House in 2008, I believe the 'Rats will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening --- and I mean NOTHING, up to and including violence.
grab the popcorn, crack-up on the left continues...
wow i see it the other way with us picking up NJ and Md and Bush continuing to raise big money for the GOP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.