Monday, September 18, 2006

"You're all so mean to me!"

In an AP article in yesterday's Hartford Courant, Joe Lieberman accuses Democrats of going beyond normal politics, and that they are basically mean people who don't like him.

I guess Joe Lieberman is now going after the "whiney mama's boy" vote.

Joe, here's a clue - we don't really hate you. Just your politics.

We hate the way you support Bush's policies, especially with respect to the war in Iraq.
You know what troubled me throughout this is the number of people that I found...who approach politics with an emotion that really comes close to hate," he said. "They don't just disagree with the other side. They hate the other side."
"Waa-waa-waa! They're being mean to me!" Joe, the reason emotions run so high is because we are 100% convinced that you are dead wrong about these major issues, and the fact that you refuse to consider that you might be wrong is infuriating.

In the meantime, every single day Americans are being slaughtered in a war we can't "win", and our nation is inching closer to economic ruin. What you perceive as hatred is actually anger at your complete abdication of responsibility to the good of the nation.
"The fact that Lamont was making a big deal out of the fact that George Bush gave me a hug after one State of the Union speech, you know maybe we'd better in this country if there was more hugging and less hating," he said. "I mean it."
You have GOT to be kidding me!

Joe, have you gone completely round the bend? Hugging isn't going to solve the problems facing us.

We need good leadership. We need a senator who considers the "common good" over his desire to reach "common ground" with the Republicans. We need someone who will stand up to George Bush and his ruinous and corrupt policies.

There's nothing partisen about wanting our nation to regain the high moral ground we've lost due to Bush's failure to lead us. There's nothing partisen about wanting sane and effective leadership. And there's certainly nothing partisen about wanting to see us become a stronger and safer nation.

Not a single thing about our foreign policy has enabled us to come any closer to achieving those goals.

Hugs ain't gonna cut it, Joe. You want to hug the President? Do it on your own time; there's a war that needs to be ended and you're worrying about hugs.

You think there's too much "hatred" in politics? Funny, it didn't bother you 18 years ago when you mocked and teased Senator Weicker about him missing some votes. Suddenly, it's become a hateful thing to make fun of someone for stuff like that. Someone who has MISSED MORE VOTES than Weicker in the same 7 year time frame.

We don't hate you, Joe. Not at all.

We just want you to go away.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

That is hysterical!!
The only time politicians talk about civility is when they can't talk about anything else.
It would be great to get a video montage of Joe's rudeness to some kind of song like "big girls don't cry," (I know there has to be a better song).
UptownNyChick

CT Bob said...

NyChick - welllll....I might be working on something fun. That's all I'll say.

Sharoney said...

The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

I couldn't give a shit about how "Number Two" Lieberman feels.

Re: song--how about "It's MY Party (and I'll Cry If I Want too)"?

Anonymous said...

i think the opposite of love is hate

CT Bob said...

No, it's entirely possible to feel both emotions at the same time.

Just ask my wife.

Anonymous said...

I used to feel some fondness for Joe, despite disagreements. His despicable behavior the last few months, though, have turned that to contempt. Not hate, but disappointment and disgust. And it is your own fault, Joey short ride.

Oh...and LOL Bob!

J

Ned_Opportunist_2006 said...

Not to chnage gears - but I just saw Ned's new "Turncoat" ad. The second in a series apparently designed to remind CT voters that Joe Lieberman is running as a third party candidate. The first piece was the Red Sox v. Yankess spot. I have to wonder whether Ned is in fact being fleeced by the Hillsman/Swann media juggernaut. I'd go back and check the contract to see how big their piece of the buy will be. Ned needs to win Is and Rs if he is going to take his little act to DC. Advertisements that reinforce the fact he is beholden to the Kos/Stoller wing of the Democratic party aren't going to get him over the finish line - especially if Lieberman holds some percentage of the Dems who were with him in August - which he clearly wilI. I admit they are good for Hillsman's POLY reel and bottom line, but little else. Keep trying guys - you have seven more weeks.

CT Bob said...

Correction: Joe is running as a FIFTH party candidate. The Green Party and The Concerned Citizens Party have the third and fourth spots.

Don't worry...you can just say Joe is in a three-way tie for Third Party! LOL!

"U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), running for re-election as the Connecticut For Lieberman Party candidate, will appear no higher than the fifth row of the ballot and no lower than the eighth row of the ballot on Election Day on November 7, 2006, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said today."

Ned_Opportunist_2006 said...

b.a. - I enjoy many of your posts - but that was a swing and a miss.

You also failed to address my point. The math isn't there unless your guy can reach beyond Dems. Ned turned off/ignored significant segments of the broader CT electorate. First with his divisive and opportunitic primary campaign, and second by essentially taking August off. Even you would admit Lieberman dominated the post 8/8 news vacuum when Ned was apparently yachting. He stepped into the void and framed the race for HIS general election audience - 60+ plus Dems, thoughtful I's and moderate R's. He e did so elequently and forcefully. Cute quips are no match for quantitative analysis. I can't find one Lamont supporter who explains how Ned gets there. I am all ears if you can.

CT Bob said...

You're right. I didn't address your point in that last comment. It shouldn't qualify as a "swing and a miss", because as I was writing it, I felt so good about that "3-way tie for third PARTY" line that I rushed out and wrote a new article using it.

'Cause, I hate wasting my best material in the comments section.

Anyway, you mention how Lamont needs to attract R's and I's. Of course. No candidate can win in CT without across-the-board appeal, at least partially. I don't doubt there are a lot of R's and I's who are just as annoyed at Lieberman's pandering to the conservative Bushites as the majority of Dem's who voted for Lamont.

You mention a divisive campaign. It's funny how Lieberman called Rev. Sharpton and asked him to come to CT and endorse him (and probably Joe played up his big 1960's civil rights claims; you know, back when he was a Democrat), then when Sharpton chose to back Lamont, some of Joe's operatives (Goodstein, anyone?) started playing on white prejudices by loudly asserting that Ned is divisive because he's backed by Revs. Sharpton and Jackson. And now Gerstain is saying that Joe asked Sharpton to stay away from CT.

I'll admit that Ned slowed way down in August. I think the campaign missed an opportunity to rally the Democratic party to put up a united front to encourage Lieberman to accept the results of the primary and leave the political field with some dignity. That was a wasted chance.

But now Lamont's campaign is ramping up, and Joe's continued misteps and outrageous lies are only fueling the Lamont effort. I think Lieberman made a disastrous error in replacing Sean Smith and Marion Steinfels with Sherry Brown and Dan Gerstein. That's a good thing for us. I can't get enough Gerstain, and his little dog Eric, too. Love them guys.

Here's the short answer to your final question about how Ned got there:

"It's the war, stupid!"

That was the overriding issue, along with others such as Joe's pandering to conservative invasion of privacy issues like Terri Schiavo and their ridiculous opposition to equal marriage rights for gays. If you had ever heard any of Ned's early stump speeches, you would have heard all the reasons he got into the race.

And basically, because nobody else stepped up. He feels it's as righteous a call to duty as there is.

Ned_Opportunist_2006 said...

I don't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the campaign staff - or at least not enough to call them demeaning names like you.

And I know how Ned GOT there in August. What is unclear is how he GETS there. The war doesn't get you enough. It just doesn't.

Seriously - if you are a Dem who supported Joe in the primary, what new information could peel you off of him in the general? And if it is out there, why doesn't Ned put it on the air rather than merely preaching to the choir? I have respect for Ned's primary campaign tactics - but up until now his general election effort has been average.

Calling staffers liars persuades nobody B.A. - that's the simple truth. For Ned 8/8 was about motivating and turning out. November is all about persuading people who feel insecure that government can help keep them safe. That's Joe's terrain, like it or not. You guys are now playing an away game.

ifthethunderdontgetya said...

Thanks for your concern, ne_opp. It's really touching (hugging, even!) to see people like you giving helpful advice.

And by the way, November 7 is going to be the exact same game as August 8: motivation and turn out. Too bad you're losing the last shreds of your union support.

CT Bob said...

Well, if I was a Democrat who voted for DEMOCRAT Joe Lieberman in the primary, and then after LOSING, Joe Lieberman decides to IGNORE the results and basically say he thinks all the people who voted in the primary wasted their time, and that despite being a lifelong Democrat, once the results don't match what he wants to happen, he turns his back on the Party and runs as an independent.

I dunno, but if I prided myself in being a Democrat and had supported Joe, I might feel a little miffed at his selfishness.

And I'd guess that a good number of them; more than people think, will show their anger at Joe by voting FOR Ned.

And take my word for it; I'm not trying to change people's minds with my comments here. All I'm doing is writing my take on the campaign and maybe revealing some interesting stuff through research or my videos.

Let me ask you a question. Are you such a big Joe fan that you're absolutely comfortable with his missing over 400 votes in the last 3 1/2 years? Why would you even WANT him to stay in the Senate, anyway?