Talk-Show Joe (Krugman on Lieberman)

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

(sub. req.)

Friday was a bad day for Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Connecticut Democratic Party's nominating convention endorsed him, but that was a given for an incumbent with a lot of political chips to cash in. The real news was that Ned Lamont, an almost unknown challenger, received a third of the votes. This gave Mr. Lamont the right to run against Mr. Lieberman in a primary, and suggests that Mr. Lamont may even win.

What happened to Mr. Lieberman? Some news reports may lead you to believe that he is in trouble solely because of his support for the Iraq war. But there's much more to it than that. Mr. Lieberman has consistently supported Republican talking points. This has made him a lion of the Sunday talk shows, but has put him out of touch with his constituents — and with reality.

Mr. Lieberman isn't the only nationally known Democrat who still supports the Iraq war. But he isn't just an unrepentant hawk, he has joined the Bush administration by insisting on an upbeat picture of the situation in Iraq that is increasingly delusional.

Moreover, Mr. Lieberman has supported the attempt to label questions about why we invaded Iraq and criticism of the administration's policies since the invasion as unpatriotic. How else is one to interpret his warning, late last year, that "it is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril"?

And it's not just Iraq. A letter sent by Hillary Clinton to Connecticut Democrats credited Mr. Lieberman with defending Social Security "tooth and nail." Well, I watched last year's Social Security debate pretty closely, and that's not what happened.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman repeatedly supported the administration's scare tactics. "Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem," he declared in March 2005, "costs our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren $600 billion more."

. . . more

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Must be what he thinks of Lamont and his supporters. Just way out there in repuke land.
Again, this is a long-standing problem, and it ain't just Iraq. Gore made a tragic mistake choosing this man to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I hope to god our Conn. brothers and sisters are able to wage a campaign to defeat this man and elect a Democrat instead.

I so miss reading Klugman's views.

Notice how Pelosi is using lies to back Lieberman. Of course it is the only thing she can do since the Democratic party is backing him and if she told the truth she wouldn't be able to say anything in support.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/paul_krugman_ta.html

Looks like the same article.

This is the second time I was able to read a Klugman article because it posted on someone's blog. Appears the NYT is not checking blogs when it searches the web for non-approved reposting of its select items.

I just went to yahoo news, put the name of the article in and eureka. I tolerated Lieberman until he made this statement "it is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril"?

Where his simpering has hurt Democratic candidates all over the nation- even on the state & local level.

has made him the miserable little political weasel that he is.

He's wanted to be a democrat in a leadership role (pseudo under the circumstances) and get money from the DNC and he's wanted to be a centrist in order to get money from the RNC. And the republicans make out having a mole in the midst of the democratic party as he is the spoiler in any opposition that the party attempts to pursue. He has consistently undermined any protest, any plan that challenges the * administration without actually denouncing democrats.

Well the chickens have come home to roost. He's up for re-election. Let the people speak (provided Diebold will let them).

:loveya: