Another Reason To Vote For Lieberman: Jimmy Carter Wants Him To Lose
I shi..er, kid you not:
Lamont’s campaign got a boost Wednesday from former President Carter, who offered a blistering critique of Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war. “He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified,” the former Democratic president said on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”
“He’s joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism,” Carter said. “So for all these reasons, I’ve lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don’t wish to see him re-elected.”
Thank God for the wisdom of the Founders, who, you recall, narrowly rejected the “let failed ex-presidents decide” clause of the Constitution in favor of a representative republic (with the hat tip to the MinuteMan)…
If what you’re doing is disapproved of by Jiminy Carter…you know you’re doing the right thing. Simple as that.
I’ve asked this question on a couple of leftist sites and can’t seem to get an answer: why is Lieberman a target and HRC not? Perhaps being a right leaning wing nut I am devoid of the ability to apply a nuanced look at such things, but I see no appreciable difference between them on the issues in general, and on the war specifically. Cripes, HRC and Joe were about the only Democrats who publicly expressed disapproval of Bill’s Monica behavior – they even have that in common.
I’m left to believe that it is simple political calculus – they think they can beat Joe, he has no future (POTUS upside), they know they can’t beat HRC, and they don’t want to damage her chances of running for POTUS in ’08 – and/or there is some anti-semitic animus at work here.
Thoughts?
Lieberman has been a pretty staunch defender of the war. Hillary has been a little more cagey; she throws more barbs Bush’s way. Still, clearly much of the Kossack Korner doesn’t much like her either, figuring she’s either not antiwar enough, or else that she’s just a hollow ball of polling decisions. I’ve got to figure the fact that she’s nearly impregnable is the primary calculation here. She’s got way more money than Lieberman could ever hope too.
Connecticut actually shares something with my own state of New Jersey, in terms of media coverage. Both states are fairly prosperous, yet neither has any real overdominating hub. Consequently, most of our TV coverage comes from depending on nearby big cities for scraps (NJY and Philly for NJ, NYC and, I guess, Boston for CT). They’re both states where newspapers and grassroots campaigning play a bigger part than media wars. I suspect something like the Lamont campaign would have a harder time catching fire in a place with more centralized coverage. But I could be wrong.
(Meanwhile, much to my shock, I’m starting to think NJ might elect Tom Kean Jr. to the senate this fall. Both parties here have more than their fair share of corruption, but the Democrats dominate right now, and they’re getting the worst headlines. Menendez has just enough ethical clouds swirling now that his future is looking surprisingly bleak. However, I suspect if things get really bad, the Dems will probably pull a Torricelli once again, and replace Menendez with Dick Codey, a former acting governor whom just about everyone in the state admires, Republican or Democrat.)
TMS – HRC gets a pass on this issue primarily because Joe took Clinton to the woodshed over his MonicaGate thing – that’s basically the bee in their bonnet, the war is mostly incidental. Even though Bill Clinton thanked him later (for basically pulling his nether regions out of the fire), the hostility remains in many quarters. Illogical, but there you have it.
One possible cause for the antipathy to Lieberman was that he concurrently ran for VP and Senator in 2000. Had a few hundred Floridians voted the other way, the Republican governor of Connecticut would have likely named a Republican to his Senate seat and tilted the balance of power there.
That’s entirely possible, but no one on the Dem side said anything when Lieberman made that decision. For someone to claim that this is the reason now for this behaviour would seem to be making up excuses after the fact.
Lamont’s campaign got a boost Wednesday from former President Carter
Did anyone else notice the bias in the article which automatically concludes that Carter endorsing Lamont is a plus?
As far as New Jersey goes, why don’t they get Lautenberg to run. With about a month to go in 2004, he was a last minute replacement for the Dem who was going to get beat. Lautenberg could resign his current seat, Corzine could appoint a Dem replacement, he could then be placed on the ballot just like two years ago and get elected. Dems keep the seat. Better yet, the replacement Dem could resign just after the election, and Corzine could appoint Menendez. What could be better? The Dems would still have Lautenberg and Menedez as Senators.
Muffin, Machiavelli had nothing on you!
“Did anyone else notice the bias in the article which automatically concludes that Carter endorsing Lamont is a plus?”
I’d venture that in CT, an endorsement from Carter is a plus.
Muffin…wow.
I can’t say that they won’t try it, and for that, you have freaked me out more than any Stephen King novel, with a sentence.
Brilliant work.
Aaron,
You are probably right that in Connecticut, it is a plus but my comment was to highlight how writers put their opinions into articles. A good journalist would have asked a Lamont supporter how Carter’s endorsement would help Lamont and then quoted that person in the article. A better journalist would have then gone to a Lieberman supporter and asked the same question and then quoted both in the article and let the reader make up their own mind. This
journalistpolitical hack just wrote their opinion into the article and called it a “news”. If they want to insert their opinions into articles, write an editorial and publicize it as one.Why can’t the dolt shut-up?
“…I’ve lusted after pin-ups”.
Huh?
“…I’ve asked WWAD (What Would Amy Do)?”
Double huh?
“…I wuz chased by a rild wabbit!”
Ok, whatever. //cue tweeting birds and rotate finger around circumference of left ear//
All was forgiven and fine with that habitat thang.
Then he thot’d he’d be America’s unappointed “grandfatherly” statesman.
Psst. There’s a reason why we didn’t get King George Washington, even tho it was conferred by popular vote — absolute power corrupts… Altho in his case, the adage should be “Absolute madness corrupts absolutely”
And this guy used to run a nuke sub? Was he really an nuclear engineer & protege of Admiral Hyman Rickover, or did he just work in the “boiler” room?
Multimedia clips of Homer Simpson comes to mind for every scene.
As you point out, when it comes to meddling and undercutting our elected leaders, he was an equal opportunity c**kb***ker.
Nonetheless, to this day, he’s still batting an even 1000 — in whiffs.
Speaking of strikeouts. Love or hate Ann Richards, she was dynamite in Texas politics.
As we were talking about yesterday about last minute replacments.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj–njsenate0914sep14,0,3922067.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey
It was 2002, not 2004. I was off two years.