Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Lieberman leads the way

By

No, seriously.

Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today issued the following statement regarding his intent to introduce legislation to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

“I will be proud to be a sponsor of the important effort to enable patriotic gay Americans to defend our national security and our founding values of freedom and opportunity. I have opposed the current policy of preventing gay Americans from openly serving in the military since its enactment in 1993. To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause.  I am grateful for the leadership of President Obama to repeal the policy and the support of Secretary Gates and Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen.”

Let’s finally get this done, for God’s sake.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. to attack Iran.

    <

    p>Why are we allowing Joe to rebuild any credibility? Political expediency?

        • someone had to do it.  No other Dem did, and I have no freaking idea why not.  Lieberman did it.  Credit where credit is due.  Kudos to him.

          • Here’s an excerpt from a New York Daily News “exclusive”:

            <

            p>

            The reasons why Lieberman, who was asked by the White House and gay rights groups to sponsor the legislation, would choose this battle are not hard to divine. Indeed, they strike at the heart of the political tradition of which he is the lonely standard-bearer: Social progressivism married with foreign policy hawkishness.

            In an exclusive interview with the Daily News, Lieberman told me that his commitment to repealing DADT is twofold. First, allowing gays to serve openly fulfills the bedrock American promise of providing citizens with “an equal opportunity to do whatever job their talents and sense of purpose and motivations lead them to want to do – including military service.” Second, and no less important for a lawmaker whose commitment to national security the Pentagon can’t doubt, is that “When you artificially limit the pool of people who can enlist then you are diminishing military effectiveness.”

                • From VetVoice a project of VoteVets.org
                  More Progress on DADT

                  As I’m sure everyone can guess, I’ve got no love lossed for Joe Lieberman. With this, however, I’m with him. No one’s going to be able to accuse this bill of being the cause of some radical leftist who wants to use the military for social experimentation. This is Joe Lieberman, the guy who has said he may run for reelection as a Republican, who spoke at the 2008 Republican convention, and who was nearly the GOP Vice Presidential nominee. Also, Lieberman’s relationship with ranking member Susan Collins (R-ME) on the Homeland Security committee, which he chairs, may tip her vote in favor of repeal giving the proposal even more bi-partisan cred.

                • but I’m not sure he’s got any cred in the Senate past being on the Armed Services Committee.  He’s got plenty on the teevees, since he’s on every Sunday and is a known hawk, and that may matter as this plays out in the media (Lieberman and Powell both support it, etc).

                • The NO crowd is already out spinning.  From the same article:

                  <

                  p>

                  Even McCain, Lieberman’s good friend and ally, is opposed, stating: “At a time when our armed forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

                  Sarah Palin echoed the line: “I don’t think so right now. … And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the military.”

                  <

                  p>If it were also anyone else, they’d be accusing him of being anti-military.

                • Mr. McCain, when would be a good time to change the policy?  Mrs. Palin, under what circumstances would it be appropriate to remove DADT?

                  <

                  p>

                  <

                  p>Get them on the record for describing when it’s appropriate.  If they do give a time, then BAM! they’re for the removal of DADT.  If they say “never” then you can ignore their kvetching, because they’re not worried about the timing; they’re simply opposed to removing DADT in the first place.

          • but this deserves support – whatever the motive.  He likes playing up his unique, unpredictable politics.  Sometimes he even get’s it right.

          • Sarah Palin was an afterthought. McCain wanted Lieberman on the ticket with him. On hearing this, conservatives rebelled because of Lieberman’s positions on social issues, especially abortion.

            <

            p>As Lieberman shuffles his healthcare positions about to cause the Democratic caucus the maximum discomfort, it is mildly reassuring to find that he hasn’t changed much on social issues.

  3. It’s still the right thing to do.  Cheers to Senator Lieberman.  I’m sure there will be something new to rip him about soon enough.

    • Some people respect him because he’s a “centrist” on military issues, which may actually lend more credence to the effort.

      <

      p>(Now, he’s not really a “centrist” and is in fact little more than a Machiavellian back-stabber, but sometimes appearances count for everything. For the sake of actually getting repealing DADT done, I’d probably rather have Lieberman sponsoring it than someone like Bernie Sanders).

  5. He’ll probably be around for quite some time too. We enjoy his support on the right and hope he continues to caucus with the Democrats to fill us in on what they are planning.

    <

    p>Cool!

        • and the preview gave me a red error…. so I didn’t submit it.  I’ll try it here and submit it anyway:

          <

          p>Disallowed HTML tag:

      • The embeddable code contains two tags: a script tag and an object tag. SoapBlox gets upset with script tags, so just delete the script tag.

      • Joe’s not up for reelection until 2012 right? So… polls 2 years 9 months in advance are worth what? Can you saw Martha Coakley?

        • Scott Brown was the new kid on the block.  The flavor of the month.  The breath of fresh air.  Plus he looks nice.

          <

          p>Joe Lieberman is none of those things, and in addition, has the charisma and the good looks of a toad.  

          <

          p>Like I’ve said repeatedly, kudos to Lieberman for doing the right thing on DADT.  I hope and expect that he will stick with it, and if he does, he might actually get it through the Senate before he is inevitably defeated in 2012.  That will be an honorable exit for him.

          • Joe Lieberman is none of those things, and in addition, has the charisma and the good looks of a toad.  

            <

            p>Just wondering, how would we feel about a statement commensurate to this about a female Senator?

            • David and his goose-stepping followers here just don’t get it. Saying something is so (e.g. Lieberman will lose; public option is good for you; cap and trade is wonderful, etc.) does not make it so. It’s as simple as that.  

              • …that the liberals, at least, on BMG generally don’t just “[say] something is so” without being able to cite any reasons why it should be.  I mean, your criticism doesn’t even make any sense: you’re accusing David of something he didn’t do.  He provided evidence for his claim, which is something I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen you, or JohnD, or billxi, do.  We can provide evidence for why the public option is a pretty good idea for health care reform.  We can provide evidence for why cap-and-trade is reasonably likely to be a workable partial solution to the greenhouse gas problem (though I don’t know how likely you are to find anyone earnestly calling it “wonderful”).  If you want to dispute that evidence, or you can provide contradictory evidence, then great!  We can have a discussion and debate those things.

                <

                p>But you don’t appear to have any interest in doing that.  You’re not engaging in debate, or really even in conversation.  You’re just yelling.  I think it’s kind of hilarious that you’re accusing us of just making unsupported assertions as if that constituted an argument.

                <

                p>I mean even leaving aside your cute little Goldbergism in that first sentence.

                • I see a lot of “facts” such as greenness will create jobs; Lieberman is evil; climate change is settled science; Scott Brown is blah, blah, blah; Sarah Palin is stupid;  it goes on and on.  But what would goose steppers like you know about the truth? Your little left-wing minority is in lala land by itself for a good reason: most of you and your opinions are batty. When any of you actually produce results in reality by electing your candidates or having your ideas accepted then I will concede.  Until then accept the fact that the only thing you are producing on this blog is bs to please each other.

                • You just stick your fingers in your ears and yell “LALALALALA” when you do, to mix sense metaphors.  (I assume your memory can’t possibly be so short that you’ve honestly forgotten that David provided evidence supporting his prediction of Lieberman losing a mere seven comments up in this very thread.  Again, if you have some kind of argument about why that evidence isn’t convincing, by all means surprise me by presenting it; but to claim David is only making unsupported assertions immediately after he offered support for his assertions, is nothing short of malicious lying.)

                  <

                  p>I really have no idea what you mean by this:

                  When any of you actually produce results in reality by electing your candidates or having your ideas accepted then I will concede.

                  unless you’ve got some kind of post-hoc special-pleading excuse for why 2006 and 2008 don’t count.

                  <

                  p>Anyway, I’ve tried, on occasion, to engage in actual argument with you, but here is one thing I do (as you like to say) “have to admit:” you are completely impervious.  It’s a shame; I would really prefer, as I’ve said a number of times on various threads recently, to have constructive debates including conservative as well as liberal viewpoints, but most of the conservative voices on BMG do nothing but yell the same half-dozen things over and over again.

                • All of you were so sure that Lieberman was going to lose to that dimwit who beat him in the primary three years ago.  The key to his reelection will be the kind of opposition that he has: if your ilk puts up another Ned Lamont, Joe will win in a landslide. Keep deluding yourselves with your so-called “facts.”  It must really hurt, too, that he is leading the fight now for equality in the military.  Where was your boy John Kerry?  What has he done for true equality lately? Does it hurt so much to face the truth?

                • Who are you talking about?  Certainly not the folks on here.  

                  <

                  p>Your categorization of evidence as “so called facts” is more than a little out there.  I expect better from you.

                  <

                  p>Did you fall asleep listening to talk radio again?  

                • One of the best non-fiction books I have ever read and I recommend it highly to you. (based on his New Yorker articles)

                • I mean, I’ve tried to read yours, but keep getting Pat Buchanan speeches from the late 80’s…. đŸ˜‰

                • Okay, obviously you and only you are the arbiter of what is true.  We get that.  We also get that you rather imperiously believe it is your moral imperative, apparently, to come over and save us deluded goose-steppers from ourselves.  We get that, too.   Consider us saved.  

                  <

                  p>Now, I betcha got more important stuff to do.   BTW,  I hear you can get your Palin and Lieberman posters laminated at your nearest FedEx/Kinkos for a pittance.  They can even leave a little 1/2 inch laminate margin around the poster itself so you won’t have to put any tack holes in the actual poster.  That should brighten up your day.  SWEET!  

                • Liberals have arrived at a number of positions from an examination of the evidence. We agree. We don’t have to prove it to you every time. You are not the center of our universe.

                  <

                  p>Can you not accept that a lot of us simply disagree with you? Can you not accept that disagreeing with you and agreeing with each other doesn’t make us morons or cultists? Why are you so convinced that your positions, stated with no more proof than ours, are so very reasonable?

                • EdgarTheArmenian can supply evidence and he can be fun to debate with. However, I notice he has a tendency to rush to the defense of Lieberman — and Palin too. Sometimes, as now, with an excess of heat.

                  <

                  p>P.S. I’d be surprised if he subscribed to Jonah Goldberg’s thesis.

                • are fans of certain politicians on the other side. Yes, I do have a certain pavlovian reaction when Joe and Sarah are slurred.

                • but I’ve never seen him do so.  In my experience this line of “argument” is typical.

                  <

                  p>If he doesn’t agree with Goldberg, I’d suggest he stop using language that implies he does.

                • Your side, however labeled, is convinced that there is some kind of hoax afoot. You guys are so convinced of this that you need only the weakest evidence to believe it.

                  <

                  p>Thus, the “cult” accusation is a better fit for the gullible conspiracy theorists who seem to embrace every bit of “evidence” they lazily run across no matter how feeble, inaccurate, or unscientific.

                  <

                  p>Skepticism is great, but the climate change conspiracy theorists are clearly the opposite of skeptics.

                • Goose-stepping.  You know, I’ve seen a lot of bullshit taunts tossed around this site, but it’s usually from the folks who are too lazy to think for themselves.  You know things are hinky when mostly rational types go for the Hitler on the first volley.  

                • sect known as ClimateChangeUniversalism against non-believers; those who would have us occupy the same boat as Holocaust deniers.  Don’t talk to me about being too lazy to think for oneself.

                • Almost as bad as the “denier” taunt thrown by the religious sect known as ClimateChangeUniversalism against non-believers; those who would have us occupy the same boat as Holocaust deniers.

                  <

                  p>Few would argue this equivalence seriously and you should know that.   The proposition that all people concerned about climate change consider those who are skeptical akin to Holocaust deniers is freakin’ silly, rhetoric by a few people on this website aside.  That YOU are unable to place that sort of rhetoric in rational context combined with your “goose step” reference suggest, however, that you might be prone to that sort of hyperbolic frothing yourself, no?

                  <

                  p>BTW, there are evolution deniers out there, too.  And there are young earthers who claim the planet is 6,000 years old.  Do they also display the level of critical thinking you admire?  How about the vaccine/immunization deniers out there?  What about them?  Are they displaying the level of critical thinking you admire?  Where do they fit on your spectrum of lazy thinkers?  

                  <

                  p>Let’s be clear about who is lazy and who values “truthiness” over science:  conservative Republicans.   If you want to get in their “boat,” go right ahead, but I suggest you have an alternative plan for when they freak out, thinking they’re about to sail off the edge of the earth.  

            • After all, you never referred to the attorney general by anything but her first name during the election. Now, when it’s convenient, you’re soooo sensitive.

  6. Personal attacks, no issues discussed, rehashing of flames, taunts, past wounds, etc. I question what value they bring to any discussion, because it eventually devolves into a school yard brawl.

    <

    p>  

    • I sometimes speculate about where a discussion might have gone if not derailed. Some guesses:

      1. The left blogosphere has been full of examples of Lieberman saying something pro-Democratic from his 2006 Senate run and then doing the exact opposite now. The accusation is that he has sunk to being a mere opportunist. On its face, his action on DADT would seem to contradict that as his base is now on the Right. Does it?
      2. More generally, as Lieberman has been an opponent of the progressive wing of the party since at least 2002, we progressives correctly view him as an opponent. That might introduce some cognitive biases in our assessment of him. Has it?
      3. Who does Lieberman represent? Polling in Connecticut has put him in negative territory since at least 2008, but are there people outside of Connecticut who continue to feel he represents them — I mean aside from Republicans in concern troll mode? Or, as the UnDemocrat Democrat is he just a media creation on the national stage?
      4. What’s Lieberman been up to in Congress other than gumming up Democratic initiatives?

      • I give up. I’ll be back after his successful reelection and you’ll still be feeding each other the “false equivalence” cliches and  ignoring the fact that pompous asses like John Kerry have done absolutely nothing for the causes which you espouse.  KBusch, you can’t be this naive; I have faith in you. đŸ™‚

        • I’m open to seeing evidence or analysis that Lieberman will be re-elected or is more beloved than I think. Instead of that, this discussion has had mere assertions.

          <

          p>I don’t find mere assertions convincing — or even that interesting.

Archives