The Quisling from Connecticut Strikes Back

I’ve noticed Joe Lieberman’s name and picture have been everywhere all day since he announced his maybe sort of maybe I will maybe I won’t it all depends on how righteous I feel that day intention to vote with the Republicans to filibuster any health care reform that includes a public option.

And I can’t help thinking that’s the point.

Not that he will help them filibuster or filibuster all on his own if he gets a mind to.

That his name and picture have been everywhere.

Joe Lieberman is the vainest politician in America.  Everything has to be about him.  This is the guy who came to national prominence because he thought the Impeachment Scandal was focused too much on Bill Clinton.

Look at his record.  Whenever any political story goes on for a while he will find a way to work his name into the headlines.  Give him enough ink and airtime and he will make sure that you’ll know that whatever you thought was at issue, the real story is what Joe Lieberman thinks about that issue or plans to do about it.

Will he or won’t he?  Wrong question to ask about Joe.

The right question is did the cameras get his good side?

Updated 15 Times: From Huffington’s Rachel Weiner, a slideshow presentation of the Quisling’s Top 15 Double Crosses.

 

Comments

[Rana]

What I want to know is why/how he keeps getting re-elected. Is it a case of "he's an asshole, but he's our asshole"? Or is there a picture in a basement somewhere that depicts him as a used-car salesman?

[mac macgillicuddy]

Rana,

I'm sad to report that Lieberman is my senator -- which is to say, I live in CT, and he's one of the two sad excuses for representation we have here. I didn't vote for him.

In fact, the Democratic party tried to get rid of him. He lost the primary. He ran anyway.

He got reelected because he has the endorsement and the backing of the seriously corporate and wealthy base indigenous to this state. In CT, those people vote, and the large numbers of the poor, of whom in number there are a lot more than the wealthy, do not. The minority rules in CT.

I'm not surprised by his behavior in the face of this bill, or any bill, and I think Lance's characterization of him is dead on.

[Victoria]

Ahhhhhhhh... how calming... to read something so perfectly true.

[Belvoir]

A wretched, wretched man. Of course, it's all about him. Get rid of him, CT- he's just bad news.

And I hope he's stripped of everything, if the Dems have any balls to address his treachery. Rat.

[Victoria]

PS. I need to mention, Lance, that I was so struck by this entry that I forwarded it to several friends, all of whom sent back emails with the same message: "perfect"

[Dutch]

Oh yeah. Seriously.

Aren't people in the center just totally annoying?

What this country needs is more loony fringe candidates.

Surely we can find a Kennedy who hasn't self destructed under a rock somewhere, right? Does Alan Grayson have a brother or a sister or a cousin who is just as crazy as he is? How about Maxine Waters, can we clone her?

Oh, but we do hate middle of the road, don't we?

I'm seeing it too. Specter ran for his life. Chuck Hagel is toast in 2010. Frickin' Newt Frickin' Gingrich was just bitch-slapped to the curb for one too many dalliances across the aisle. His tribe name was changed to "Dances with Libs."

Yep. The middle is being thatched. It's all about the polar fringe now.

Once again, Liberals prove unable to say the words "Yes, great, but then what?"

"Killing off the moderate Dems? Sounds great! That couldn't possibly come winging back on us in the... oh wait [Seth Meyers ear touch] aaaaand it has."

[actor212]

No, Dutch, what this country needs is more people who can create movies in their heads and then claim the movie is better than the book!

[Lance]

Victoria, thanks to you and your friends.

[mac macgillicuddy]

The movie in MY head is no better than the book.

[calling all toasters]

"The right question is did the cameras get his good side?"

Is that the one that looks like it's melting, or the one that looks like it's rotting?

[Dutch]

That was a joke, Actor. Reread.

"Nuns. No sense of humor."

I was actually managing a Blockbuster back in the early 90s as a night job.

A kid came in looking for for the Movie version of "Catcher in the Rye."

Being a Salinger scholar, I tried to explain to the kid that there WAS no movie, and that Salinger refused to sell the movie rights.

He called me a damn liar.

A liar. Me. That's kind of like oh... say... Aaron Sorkin's fantasy that liberals were the ones who passed Civil Rights legislation. That'll sure come as a surprise to the estate of Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. They'll be relieved to hear revisionist history has let them off the hook.

[Dutch]

Libs: "If a political opponent is wrong ever, then they are wrong always."

This is what happens when you learn to debate from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals instead of Aristotle's Rhetoric like the rest of the educated populace.

So, keeping with your thesis, Actor:

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The original House bill (with all the anti business riders in it):
Democratics: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republicans: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Yup. Wrong ever? Wrong always. That's your logic.

[GeoX]

Yeah, Aristotle was all about obscuring debate with flurries of right-wing non-sequiturs. It was kind of his trademark.

[actor212]

Errrrrrrrr, Dutch?

Are you that misinformed that you always equate liberals with Democrats?

Are you ignoring great liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits or Nelson Rockefeller or Lowell Weicker?

You know, the LIBERALS who helped pass those bits of legislation?

Moron. Go close your eyes and watch "Catcher In the Rye," lying weasel.