I've never quite gotten why Joe Lieberman engenders such hatred among web activists, especially as compared to much, much more conservative members of Congress like Sen. Ben Nelson [D?-NE] or Rep. Allen Boyd [D?-FL]. But then again, I also thought that Ned Lamont couldn't close Lieberman's 65%-19% lead in May. He just did. He's ahead by four points. I still don't get the Joenimus. But considering that I agree with Lamont on Iraq, health care, and marriage, whereas Lieberman's on the wrong side of all of those issues, I'm not complaining.
Cambridge Amigos
Collegiate Amigos
DC Amigos
Divisive Identity Politics
Musts
Media Elites
Foreign Affairs
Politicking
Formidable Opponents
Nerdery
Lolz
« Yes, Virginia, Andy Sullivan is a Conservative | Main | Obama's Heading to Iowa »
July 20, 2006
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834517f4f69e200d834d6970869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lamont and Lieberman:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Recent Posts
- The Promises You Meant to Carry Out Leave You Tasting Doubt
- Dueling Headlines
- Freedom of Action: A better conversation
- Ivy League Legacies Are Privileged. News at 11.
- But Is It Good for The Aspies?
- Taking Toffee With Your Vicodin
- In Nature of a Substitute
- Ted Kennedy
- On the Non-Existence of Objectivist Historical Analysis
- Harlan County, U.S.A.
Lieberman is more prominent than Nelson or Boyd. I don't know exactly what Nelson and Boyd have to say. Lieberman's comments on the war in Iraq are singularly irritating, regardless of his other positions. He has bought into the White House fraud about the war, and it really messes things up for other Democrats. He comes across more as an opportunist than a conservative.
Granted, almost all Washington politicians are insufferable opportunists, so this is a somewhat unfair criticism.
Posted by: Greg Kuperberg | July 20, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Nelson and Boyd are both firmly anti-choice, pro-FMA, pro-Social Security privatization, pro-Bush-tax-cut, pro-war - need I say more? Nelson even voted against the stem cell bill, the only Democrat to do so. But you're right, they're not as big of a deal as Lieberman.
Lieberman's rhetoric is annoying, yes. But I'm not sure it justifies a primary challenge. In any case, I like Lamont's policy views better, so I won't mourn Joe. And, yes, I'll be as pissed off as anyone if Joe actually runs as an independent.
Posted by: Minipundit | July 20, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Lieberman loves to criticize & badmouth other Democrats while strongly supporting Bush & other Republicans.
Posted by: mike3k | July 21, 2006 at 02:39 AM
Mike Cohen has a point, Although again, I don't know about Nelson and Boyd. There is a singular sense with Lieberman lately that he is campaigning against the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, I have to agree with you, Dylan, that the first question should simply be who we agree with more, Lamont or Lieberman.
Posted by: Greg Kuperberg | July 21, 2006 at 01:10 PM