NYT: Lieberman Shifts Tone (when politically necessary)

[Rose Siding]

...A close examination of hundreds of Mr. Lieberman’s statements on Iraq over the past five years shows that while he repeatedly praised President Bush, he was far more likely to criticize him. But those critiques dropped off markedly in the last two years, even as the insurgency in Iraq gained strength.

At the same time, Mr. Lieberman made negative comments about fellow Democrats three times as often as he made positive comments, particularly after his failed campaign for his party’s presidential nomination in 2004.

Near the end of this year’s primary, Mr. Lieberman ramped up his criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, and soon after his loss, called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. More recently he has called for “bringing the troops home.” Yet he continues to strongly oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal, echoing the position of the White House.

As the battle of interpretation continues, The New York Times sorted 362 of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks into content-related categories, and found that he has alternated his arguments about the parties and the war’s prosecution, shifting tone at critical points as political circumstances have evolved....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/nyregion/24lieberman.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

[ShortnFiery]

1. I'm disgusted.

Never again should Democratic Leaders have a right to bully us into voting a straight Democratic Ticket when they do NOT support the Democratic Nominee in Connecticut.

These representatives and senators seemingly think it's OK to justify their traitorous actions of supporting INDEPENDENT Lieberman, instead of DEMOCRAT Ned Lamont, by stating that he's senior. PLUS these smarmy Democratic Leaders have told "Holy Joe" that all is forgiven if he wins: He can keep his seniority and caucus with the Democrats. :puke:

Again, I'm disgusted. :thumbsdown:

I'm taking notes and giving money to EACH of their challengers (those Democrats who support Lieberman) in their next Democratic Primary.

That's NOT party loyalty but merely a POWER Grab.

Never again talk LOYALTY to me you bastards! :grr:

Please remember in two years when the Democratic Primaries roll around that these representatives work for US. We may have to VOID (Vote out Incumbents for Democracy). Let's be prepared to do exactly that if our "illustrious" Democratic Leadership dawdle with Iraq and do not make concerted efforts to raise the minimum wage. We need new (uncorrupted) blood to represent our TRUE Democratic Interests, no doubt. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

4. Outstanding post!

Brava!!!

TC

[ShortnFiery]

5. Thank you, it was heartfelt and I promise to follow through ...

You are very kind. :blush:

BTW Sam Seder (AAR) is presently doing a great job elucidating the points within RS's post above - to include sound bytes. ;) :hi:

[blm]

6. I'm honestly SHOCKED at the placating Joe routine and think those Dems

involved are giving the rest of us the finger.

[Demit]

2. Hedline should be: Jennifer and Anne Do Their Homework For a Change!

This article is a direct result of Jennifer Medina's ridiculous piece yesterday, accepting the Lieberman claim that that their slush fund is legal, without proof, and hilariously quoting an unnamed expert saying that the campaign slush fund is "probably not illegal". She got creamed in the comments on the NYT blog.
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/money-squabbles-in-connecticut/


Way to go, ladies! A little tardy, but fine makeup work!

[blm]

3. Joe lost Dem primary the moment he spoke against Kerry on senate floor

just because Kerry and Feingold had the temerity to offer a doable withdrawal plan for Iraq that just NOW the NYT and even other senators are finally seeing was the correct plan all along.