Liberal hypocrisy

by liebermanlives, Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:31:57 PM EST

The liberals are raising the roof because Joe Lieberman is supporting George Bush on the war and a few other things. The octive level rises each time they think that Lieberman is selling out the Democrats. They want his scalp on a platter. They want a challenger to oppose Lieberman in the 2006 race. Buzzflash, Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo are filled with rage everyday calling Lieberman a traitor to their cause.
But the liberals are silent when it comes to the increasingly chummy relationship Bill Clinton is having with both Bush Sr. and Jr. When the Bushies, and Jimmy Carter went to Little Rock to dedicate Clintons library, all of them were laughing and having a great time in the rain. When Clinton came to the White House to have his picture painted and shown, it was a laughfest between Bill and George.
Bush Sr. and Clinton are making commercials raising money for tsunami victims. The media made a big deal about Clinton giving Bush Sr. the bed during a recent trip and Bush Sr. praising him for it. Bush Sr. and Clinton are playing golf in the rain just the other day to raise more money for tsunami aid. Bill Clinton is agreeing with boy George on his fraud war in Iraq, (along with Hillary).
If your a liberal, shouldn't this make you sick?? The last Democrat to be elected president is being friendly with the enemy. I don't hear a single peep from liberals about this. Where's the outrage!!!???
If you think Clinton is just being gracious as an ex-president, this goes against everything the liberal bloggers are saying about attacking the Republicans at every turn. They attack Lieberman for supporting the war, yet both Clintons and Joe Biden get a pass. This is liberal hypocrisy at it's worst. How about a little fairness when you attack someone.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

Sort by

permalink

let's make a deal

How is Clinton working with Bush 41 on a charity project similar to Lieberman cutting the legs out from under the party on security issues by delivering the Bush talking points?

But I will pledge to never vote for Bill Clinton again if you pledge never to contribute to Lieberman's campaign again. Deal?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 02:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's make a deal

Carl, yes Clinton and Bush are working on a charity event, but according to the liberals, this is traitorous. A Democrat working with a Republican on anything cannot be tolerated.

by liebermanlives 2005-03-12 02:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Whaaa....

You've got to come off it? I read a lot from the progressive end of news media and I've never heard that frustration. So if you please give me a several reputable people making that charge or bugger off you're just making stuff up or taking a comment you read somewhere and passing it on. Carl can back me up this, the vast left-wing echo-chambers vote on whether Bush 41 and Clinton helping Tsunami Relief was actually unamimous in favor though some delegates for the center thought the Vast Right Wing media would say it's nother more than a helping hand for Hillary for President.

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-03-12 02:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

irrational about Lieberman?

Irrational about Lieberman?

What's the one issue that causes otherwise normal people to get completely irrational that's associated with Lieberman?

Hmmm...

I can't think of it right now, but it might come to me later...

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: irrational about Lieberman?

I'll drop this little bomb here in the diaries since I don't like getting involved in party squables and would rather focus on taking on Republicans. I like Lieberman as a person and a senator. I also worked for Joe in the primaries and I think it's silly to look for a primary challenger for Liberman, though that view is a personal view that I don't want to has out when there are bigger issues on the table. I tend to think the DLC comes up with a lot of really good policies, and sometimes comes up with some bombs of a policy. Having said all that, while there is definitely an uneasiness towards Lieberman here and on Kos most of it is well reasoned. Should Lieberman have voted for Cloture on the bankruptcy bill, hell yes. Should he have voted against Rice, hell yes. Does Joe look past all his own views on the lead up to the war, and the level of planning that went into it so he can seem bi-partisan by saying good things about the president? You betcha. Look over some of the record on Joe from before the war and during the beginning of the war and you're likely to see a lot of things we argue about here about the failures of the Bush Administration, lack of planning for the peace, slapping our allies when we needed them, making sure our soldiers had the adequate equipment. Check Check Check. On so many of these issues Joe is right, but he can't sqaure the circle when he goes on Hannity and Colmes and slaps around Dems while making people who share those same views but were against the war seem somehow outside the mainstream.

It's an easy rhethorical game that some people decide they want to play, like the above nonesense about some liberals having it in for Bill Clinton because he raised money for Tsunami relief, it's Bullshit (and I haven't ever heard of it.) The question is easily reversed, Does Lieberman have a problem not acknowleding and trying to correct so many serious blunders by this administration in foreign policy, (blunders he's talked about in the past) so that he can share the warm blanket of ideology? Those problems haven't gone away, and they are indimic of this administration, so why doesn't he talk about those issues when he's living it large on Hannity? I think more so than any other person Lieberman could be respected for being pro-war and trying to fix the problems this administration creates but I haven't seen it in a while. And lest not forget that our party top two nominees and vote getters in the primary were Kerry and Edwards, both voted for the resolution, and Edwards was only slight less pro-war than Lieberman.

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-03-12 04:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: irrational about Lieberman?

The above point since I can't edit the diary is that Joe should have voted against the bankruptcy bill during the vote for cloture.

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-03-12 04:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: irrational about Lieberman?

Lieberman has become the focus of a lot of ire that is rightfully directed against the entire DLC caucus, and specifically against every single Dem who voted for the bankruptcy bill. There is a split, but it's not left/right, it's middle class/corporate. I don't know how to resolve it, or if it can be resolved.

The problem is that the Credit Card Corps is joining a unified Republican party to help them pass some absolutely evil legislation. The WSJ was against the bankruptcy bill. How do that many Dems get to the right of the WSJ? Corporate corruption. They were bought off, pure and simple.

Among his other faults, Joe has terminal foot in mouth disease. If he would just vote his conscience and STFU, he wouldn't be getting such a violent reaction from the Democratic wing of the party. When he tries to be the sensible centrist by bashing Dems he has nobody to blame but himself if it comes back to haunt him.

Personally, I am not in a forgiving mood when it comes to Joe or Biden. I'd like to see a primary challenge against both of them and Feinstein isn't far behind. If the DLC can't sign on to a small core of Democratic kitchen table economic issues, then they are the ones splitting the party, not us.

If it comes to internecine warfare, so be it. I said the other day that the Dems have until the 2006 election to shape up or I'm shipping out. I'll go with Nader or the Greens or any semi-viable third party option. I'm not a yellow dog democrat and never will be. I don't thiink most of the people going to DFA Meet Ups are yellow dog democrats.

If the DLC doesn't come back to the left on economic issues real quick, the party could lose a real big chunk of their most dedicated workers. Move On would probably join them as well. I think the DLC is making some bad bets and bad assumptions that will come back to haunt them.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 05:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: irrational about Lieberman?

You aren't dropping any bomb laddy, the DLC is. First it was Class Action lawsuits. Now it's bankruptcy. Are caps for Medical Malpractice next? Is Social Security safe yet? After Bush and the GOPers get a victory on those two, with help from the DLC, what's next?

The only force that can change Bush from a lame duck to another Reagan is the DLC. So far, it looks like that's what they intend to do.

I'm not the one the Democratic party has to worry about. I'm trying to figure out why the trial lawyers and labor is hanging around. That's what I meant about making bad bets and bad assumptions. They think there's no where else to go.

If the DLC keeps going down the path they are on, DFA, trial lawyers and labor could Move On and Go Green. Like I said earlier, I'm not the one that's threatening the party. It's the DLC that is more pro-Bush than moderate Republicans on corporate issues.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 06:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's make a deal

You are making it very clear that being a total idiot may not be a requirement to support Joe Lieberman, but it obviously helps. This is a ludicrous comparison and a ridiculous diary.

The only person who can help Joe is Joe. He has to get off the damn fence and start bashing Bush. He's already stepped on his anatomy too many times to rehabilitate himself any other way.

The Joe twins both are playing footsie with Bush and the GOPers against the best interests of the party. We don't need sensible centrists in the party, we need Democrats who understand that that you can't make a deal with the devil without selling your soul.

Joe's time in the Democratic party is running out. Unless he has an ideological epiphany he might as well retire gracefully and save us the time a trouble of sending him into retirement in disgrace. Joe's future is in Joe's hands.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 03:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

not an idiot

He's making irrational arguments, but he's not an idiot.

He seems to have a strong emotional reaction to criticizing Lieberman though.

I wonder what could cause an emotional reaction that completely overrides his sense of reason.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 03:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes, an idiot, according to the evidence so far

The original meaning of an idiot was a private person incapable of participating in public life. Seems to fit our troll to a "T".

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

is it a troll?

If you consider the past diaries, do you judge LL to be a troll?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 04:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: is it a troll?

I can't say I've read them all, but given the overall trajectory of what I've read, the answer is "yes."

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes, an idiot, according to the evidence so fa

Liebermanlives is actually just a delusional Lieberman fan. He's trying his damndest to defend the indefensible. Like Joe, Liebermanlives is probably a DLC type that just doesn't get it. Over at the Bull Moose a former McCain advisor is making a more thoughtful, but still misguided effort to do the same.

Bull Moose made the claim a little while ago that the Democratic party needed Lieberman more than Lieberman needed the Democratic party. It's the typical DLC line. Liebermanlives just does it very poorly.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 04:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes, an idiot, according to the evidence so fa

"Bull Moose made the claim a little while ago that the Democratic party needed Lieberman more than Lieberman needed the Democratic party."

That's just silly. The Democratic Party needs Lieberman like it needs a hole in its head. And Lieberman already has a hole in his head.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

what would I give?

I would give up the Connecticut Senate seat to the GOP to not have Lieberman undercutting the party on security issues.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 04:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes, an idiot, according to the evidence so fa

I'd make the same claim about Biden and most of the DLC. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to dump all of them. I think the Democratic wing of the Democratic party should split off and join the Greens, but it ain't gonna happen.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 05:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

how would you split?

On what issue(s) would you split the party?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 05:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: how would you split?

Social Security and bankruptcy for starters. I don't think we're safe on Social Security yet. Bush and the GOPers are going to keep trying to peel away a few Senators. I'm troubled by DeLay and Hastert coming out strongly against raising the cap.

Bush and the GOPers are insisting that the Senate has to go first on S.S. and a few Dems could peel off with the belief that the House wouldn't go along with raising the cap. Then Bush would twist arms and the House would pivot and agree to a terrible compromise.

Bankrkuptcy has already split the party. That one isn't going to be forgotten any time soon. How potent it will be in 2006 is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of surprising primary challenges from the Democratic left.

Like I've said several times, I'm giving the Dems everything I have until 2006. After that, we'll see. If the Blue Dog Dems and the DLC are running the show and making policy to a greater degree than the Deaniacs, I'll probably move on, even if it means more wins for the GOPers. The demon republican corporate victory threat doesn't work so well if Dems are helping them anyway.

The bankruptcy bill proved just how right Nader was about the Dems and GOPers being more alike than different. So did the vote on the Iraq War. In 2004, I was very skeptical and critical of Nader. Not any more. After the bankrutpcy vote, it is clear he was exactly right.

I'm willing to keep working through DFA for changing the party from the ground up for a while, but if it continues to look hopeless after 2006, I'm gone.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 05:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

We don't have to dump all of them

Just one of them would scare the shit out of the rest.

by noalternative 2005-03-13 05:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Biden's Never-Ending Shame

If Lieberman didn't exist, Biden would be him. He has the same sanctimony, coupled with a weakness for rightwing lies.

Two things in particular from the early 90s are everlasting marks of shame. First, he played a crucial role in getting Clarence Thomas confirmed, rushing things through and scaring off other witnesses who would have supported Anita Hill's portrayal of him. Second, he turned around and helped sink the nomination of Lani Guinier by reinforcing rightwing racist talking points against her.

As a result, I'm always surprised when he does something good. I'm never surprised when he does something evil and/or stupid.

So, I would dearly love to get rid of Biden, too. But for now, I think that just getting rid of Lieberman would "send a message" as they say in the trade. Since he's far and away the worst and most prominent offender, he's the one that should go.

Go-mentum, anyone?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-13 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Biden's Never-Ending Shame

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

Biden definately ranks up there on my top list of contenders, but the point is to make them feel vulnerable to a primary challenge and Lieberman seems to have to most detractors at this point.

by noalternative 2005-03-13 08:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Projection City

It's such an obvious case of projection here. A dogmatic Leiberman defender who insists on claiming--without any evidence at all--that the people he is railing against are blind dogmatists.

Then, when he notices that they aren't being blind dogmatists, he accuses them of being hypocrites.

Is there really any wonder why we have trouble telling people like this apart from Beltway Republicans?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Projection City

It's the Beinart Syndrom writ tiny. This is getting to be such a stale tactic, you wonder why they keep using it, except that the RWCM still hasn't figured it out. Or maybe they have and just don't give a damn.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 04:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

William Jefferson Clinton

Best President in a generation.

Leave Bill out of it...

by ROGNM 2005-03-12 02:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: William Jefferson Clinton

ROGNM, yes, Clinton was the best president in a generation, but isn't it hypocritical for a Democrat to be working with a Republican on anything??? According to the liberals, it is. Does Clintons support for the war in Iraq leave the left steamed??

by liebermanlives 2005-03-12 02:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lib'ruls

seems like you like saying that with as much contempt as Rush or any of the other wingnuts.

According to the liberals...oh...because you know lib'ruls so well...

by Parker 2005-03-12 02:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: William Jefferson Clinton

I personally wish they'd work together more often. Get some damn things done..

As for Clinton, ya.. Greatest president of our generation.. HANDS DOWN. Bush wouldn't stand a chance against bill in a 50 state general election

by falcon4e 2005-03-12 03:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

You're A Broken Record, And Have No Evidence

Where is you proof that liberals say it's hypocritical for a Democrat to work with a Republican on anything. I defy you to find one iota of proof for this ludicrous statement.

I'm not talking about broad, but (implicitly or explicitly) qualified statements, such as those saying we should do nothing to give Bush a legislative victory. This is a very sound and defensible partisan Democratic position, whether you agree with it or not, that can be put forward by centrists as well as liberals. No matter who puts it forward, it says nothing about working together in other venues, and certainly nothing against working with Republicans in Congress to deny Bush a legislative victory...on something you might not have head of called "Social Security," perhaps. (I think that Talking Points Memo might have done something about this in some obscure post at one point or another. Something about a Conscience Caucus, I think.)

No, I want just ONE example of a liberal who actually takes the absurd position that you ascribe to all of them as a group. Just ONE, fuckwad!

And if you can't, then shut the FUCK up!

We have enough weaselying, liberal-demonizing assholes in the GOP, we damn sure don't need them in our party.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Talk About Damning With Faint Praise! n/t

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

I never liked Clinton...

...but working with an ex-president to raise funds for tsunami relief at the behest of the UN is so different from defending the war in Iraq, irresponsible tax-cuts, and privatizing Social Security that it's just absurd to compare the two.

by craverguy 2005-03-12 02:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I never liked Clinton...

No it's not absurd to compare the two. Bush and Clinton are enimies. They come from different parties. Both far wings of the parties cannot like this!!!!

by liebermanlives 2005-03-12 02:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way! n/t

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 03:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I never liked Clinton...

Bush and Clinton are enimies. They come from different parties.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the United States, being from different parties does not make two people enemies. It just means they disagree about some things, and it is almost never grounds for the kind of enmity you're suggesting.

Except for a few discrete periods in history, one of which are living through right now.

by shamanic 2005-03-13 03:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

And Now You're Using History! + 5th Grade Civics!

You're so unfair using all these liberal elitist insights from high school history and grade school civics against LL.

If you would only confine yourself to screaming the first illogical thing that came into your head, then you'd fighting fair!

But libruls just don't know the meaning of the word "fair." We know that, because they pick on poor old Joe and stole all his mentum away.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-13 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Oh There You Go THINKING Again! Damn Librul! n/t

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman needs to stop acting like a Big Baby

So do his supporters.

by blogswarm 2005-03-12 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman needs to stop acting like a Big Baby

Not likely, prior to T=HFO. [Temp(Hell) < 0C]

"So do his supporters."

Oh, they don't act like Big Babies. They act like little ones.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman needs to stop acting like a Big Baby

It's too bad a real troll won't show up. I've been trying to catch one and bait them into staying, but they just hit and run. That's how you know Liebermanlives is not a troll, he keeps coming back because he genuinely believes we are abusing poor sensitive Joe.

Hell, Joe has a hide like a kevlar rhinocerous. Unfortunately, his brain is similarly shielded from common sense.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 04:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Oh, that's funny

Hell, Joe has a hide like a kevlar rhinocerous. Unfortunately, his brain is similarly shielded from common sense.

That's fucking classic, JB.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-12 04:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Why Pick On The Rhinoceri??? n/t

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-12 04:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Pick On The Rhinoceri??? n/t

I apologize for my insensitivity to a noble species.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 05:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

ITS THE ISSUES, STUPID...

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but normal people don't think in the 'tit for tat' way you do..

"Liberals" (in this case, I think the definition should actually be "people who care about OUR country's future") take each ISSUE and judge it on its merits - or lack of them, INDIVIDUALLY..

And the bottom line is that we have to take care of our own well being, America's well being, first..

I couldn't give a rats ass what Bill Clinton or GHWB is doing.. But I do care what GWB or Joe Lieberman are doing because it effects all of us..

Welcome to Earth..

by ultraworld 2005-03-12 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

I know it's evil heresy to even whisper it but...

Lieberman puts Israel before the interests of America.

That's why he's such a hawk on Iraq. That's why he's so pro-neocon when it comes to the war. He'd have us going into Iran, too, and too damn bad all the American kids that would be killed.

He's very much in favor of using American tax dollars and lives to enhance Israel's security in the Middle East.

Let the name calling begin.

by coldeye 2005-03-12 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

It's evil heresy to even whisper it but

You won't get any argument from me coldeye. I have a Jewish friend who told me Joe Lieberman is evil, before I even got the chance to say the same thing. The American Jewish community is not a monolithic Likudite bloc.

A primary tenet of the neo-cons is that Israel is vital to American control of the Middle-East. They are willing to sacrifice American lives and American treasure in defense of Israel and so is Joe. I think you are just stating the obvious.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-12 06:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

This diary is retarded.

Clinton was chummy with Bush at his library opening? Yeah, that's why Bush was such a jerk and shoved his way past Clinton through a doorway against the already arranged protocol.

See: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/19/national/19library.4.583.jpg

And fuck Lieberman. He's a Mossad agent as far as I'm concerned. I'd vote for a republican over him as long as he puts America before Israel. What's the difference anyway?

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-12 11:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Clinton is out

Clinton is not in office right now. He is an ex- President working with another ex- President for a good cause. He has become an elder- statesman. Lieberman is an elected Senator from one of the bluest states in the union, yet he is voting like he is from a red state.

by Max Friedman 2005-03-13 07:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

whine some more liberals

My God, there are some whiners and racists out there. People calling me a troll and a fucktard when I only said that liberals have to be some of the biggest hypocrites in the world, and it this case, it's true. Hillary is most likely running for president in 2008, yet she is a traitor to her party, if you believe most liberal websites. She along with Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards and other Democrats voted to authorize war, yet only Lieberman is roasted because Joe isn't a liberal. The three main liberal websites I listed in my earlier column are in the forefront when it comes to dissing Joe. Why don't they diss Hillary? Simple you're a bunch of hypocrites!!! Bill is playing golf with Bush, and according to the liberal websites, this is a crime. Ben Nelson and Tom Carper might vote with Bush on some elements of social security. Are they traitors as well?? Are they cutting the legs from under the party?? You whine, moan, bitch and complain when Joe does it, yet your silent when other people do it. That's why you're a bunch of hypocrites!!! The truth hurts don't it??!!

by liebermanlives 2005-03-13 08:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman Speaks With 2 Tongues

Whenever any Democrat, whether Clinton [or whomever] goes off the reservation, you can expect some reaction. By the way, Clinton is not a member of the Senate with an important vote. This is what makes Joe so insidious. No, I have no hatred for him, and this is NOT a personal vendetta. Lieberman has been kissed by the King. He has stated on CNN that he would totally reject privatization. Then, after some dancing with Lindsey Graham who is trying to set up a "group" of amiable [ha!] Democrats that can be [seduced to dilute the Democratic position on Privatization], Joe decides to tell Russert on MTP that he would " consider other solutions". This is rampant opportunism at a most critical moment in the fight to save Social Security from dissolution by GOP. This is hardly a personal issue. Lieberman is being two faced and irresponsible........."I voted for cloture on Bankruptcy bill, and then I voted against the bill". Sound familiar?? Why put up with this ?

by morris1030 2005-03-16 04:38PM | 0 recs