Decision ‘08

Lieberman On The Nutroots®: The Personal Attacks Are Just Outrageous

Call it the revenge of ‘Rape Gurney’ Joe (are you listening, Jane Hamsher?):

Liberal bloggers have been attacking you pretty hard. What do you think of all that anger?
I don’t like it and I don’t think it’s healthy for our system. Speaking beyond [the attacks] toward me, we’ve seen two presidents, President Clinton and now President Bush, who’ve been the targets of just the worst vituperation and I’d call it hatred from people in our country. It’s not healthy for the country. Our politics is much too partisan. We see it in Washington. Part of why the politics is partisan is it’s a less mainstream group that dominates primaries in both parties and that’s not healthy. As far as the vituperation on the blogs—periodically my staff will show me some of it and I don’t recognize myself. It’s not me. The personal attacks are just outrageous.

Lieberman also took the opportunity to once again address Iraq, and what it’s cost him, and why he stands by our mission:

What about voters whose No. 1 issue is Iraq?
Look, I have always tried to level with people in Connecticut, I’ve tried to do that on the war. Obviously, my position’s not politically motivated because it doesn’t help me at all to take the position. I honestly think it’s right for our security. Then we talk about it and I listen. There’s no question among Democratic voters, support for the war is low although I do think many of them are concerned about the consequences of a hasty retreat.

Is part of the problem a perception that you’re too close to President Bush on Iraq?
I supported removing Saddam Hussein before George Bush was president. [Arizona Sen. John] McCain and [former Nebraska Sen.] Bob Kerrey and I put in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 after Saddam threw the U.N. inspectors out and that called for the overthrow of Saddam. Therefore when President Bush chose to do something about Saddam after 9/11 I supported it though I was critical of his unilateralist foreign policy before the war, which I think made it harder for us to get allied support after Saddam was overthrown. I was outspoken about the consequences of a failure of adequate planning and preparation by the Pentagon. I have supported the goals, the mission. I have been critical, when I thought it was justified, of the methods, the tactics that are being used. But I have said I will refuse to play politics with national security.

From a purely political standpoint, is it a smart move for the Democrats to sell themselves as the party that supports quicker withdrawal from Iraq?
That’s up to the individuals in the party. I think it’s wrong, as a matter of military policy and national security. On this, there needs to be debate, discussion—diversity of opinion is healthy. I’m not going to play politics with the war, I don’t want to impute political motives to anybody else. They’ve got to measure their own political consequences.

You’re not used to having tough primary challenges. Is this primary battle mainly about the war?
Totally. My opponent might try to say otherwise but there’s no question about it: He is running a one-issue campaign.

A man of substance…

7 Responses to “Lieberman On The Nutroots®: The Personal Attacks Are Just Outrageous”

1 mtl Says:
July 6th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
While lieberman could not have embarked on the Iraq war were he president, it still would stand to reason that he would be running higher in the polls if he were overseeing it.

Bush’s two most eloquent supporters for Iraq? A senate democrat and the the leader of Britain’s labor party. What drives the left so crazy is that joe’s argument for Iraq is well spoken and reasonable-it migth contaminate otherwise ‘pure’ minds. The english language has often failed ‘w’, but never joe.
2 Ben Cartwright Says:
July 7th, 2006 at 4:31 am
The guy he is running up against, Ned Lamont, is a complete joke. Here’s and exerpt from one of their debates:

“I [Ned Lamont] do find that Senator Lieberman too often is willing to undermine the Democrats, be it on issues of war and peace like the war in Iraq, or be it on a variety of other issues. Be it um… you know, social security, be it affirmative action, be it vouchers.”

What kind of real politician says “um?” Not only that, the last time I checked, Leiberman was against Bush’s SS plan and for affirmative action. So, what is Ned talking about? All of his major talking points are for the war, as it is his only real issue. He has no hope.
3 Pug Says:
July 7th, 2006 at 7:02 am
You guys, unwttingly I think, point out Joe’s basic problem. Republicans just love the guy.

The attacks on Joe have not been personal for the most part, though I’m sure you can use the O’Reilly tactic of going through blog comments and think you have disproven that statement. Joe has been attacked mostly for his stance on the issues. That’s politics. In the debate last night it was Joe who engaged in personal attacks.
4 The Heretik » Blog Archive » A Right Followed by a Hard Left Says:
July 7th, 2006 at 8:53 am
[…] Fight fans clamored to see the Heart Attack in Hartford last night between bantam weight Joe Lieberman who labeled Left Lamont a lightweight and then fought to a draw. Draw your own conclusions. It was Democrat versus Democrat in a blood match to determine if Lieberman is really a Republican or just acts like one. Lieberman hit with a a hard right that he votes ninety percent with Democrats, but is it the other ten percent that really matters? It was war on the floor over the war. Lieberman claimed Bush was not in his corner. […]
5 Mark Says:
July 7th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Yeah, Pug, ‘Rape Gurney’ Joe is not personal…give me a break!…
6 proximity1 Says:
July 8th, 2006 at 7:03 am
‘ What kind of real politician says “um?” ‘

Gee, does it _have_ to “um” only ?

“The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they’ve, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they’re universal values, they’re not American values or, you know — European values, they’re universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere.” —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

“Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.” —George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

“And one of the things we’ve got to make sure that we do is anything.” —George W. Bush, discussing the Middle East after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2002
7 Ben Cartwright Says:
July 8th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
This topic is about Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman; If the topic would have been George Bush, my response would have looked something like your’s. Then again, I never claimed that leftist were the smartest in the bunch. Thanks for nothing.