David Asked, and this is After all MY BLOG....
David, thank you for asking. While this is a knitting blog, I have reserved the right to post what I want, about whatever, and your question deserves a public answer. I could've taken the quieter route and emailed you directly, but 'quiet' is not my style.
I did start an answer once, already, but my computer was apparently progammed by a lefty so it actually spontaneously shut off in the middle of my response! No joke. I was raised by knee-jerk liberal parents who never really demonstrated any consistency in their views. I think I actually voted for George McGovern which was the first election in which I was eligible to vote and have voted in every election since - mostly Republican. I am a registered Republican. Former chairman of the Bolton CT Republican Town Committee. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT: I am part of a contingent of Republicans that are mightily embarrassed by our own party, but have nowhere to go. Believe me, I will not join the party of Michael Moore, and I can't stay in the party of George W. OKAY. So: Joe Lieberman is a good person and the Democrats are idiots, a fact I've always known. A thinking party does not turn on a person who has one of the highest liberal ratings in the Senate, 90% of the time over 18 years. Did Hillary not support the war? Did many Dems not support the war? So Joe becomes the poster child. This is typical of the inconsistency and hypocrisy that I grew up with. Lamont is an ass. And the anti-semitic tenor of Lamont's campaign was abhorrent and should have been abhorrent to the Democrats. Oh, I'm sorry. I must be mistaken. Wasn't that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (of 'hymietown' fame) standing behind Ned Lamont? My husband think's Joe is spineless, and there is some justification for that. He does tend to hedge is bets...leaving his name on the ballot for Senate while running for VP. I don't blame him for collecting signatures to run as an independant prior to the primary, and I hope he wins in November. The great irony is that 18 years ago Joe Lieberman defeated Lowell Weicker because the Republicans despised Weicker. We were watching the returns in the home of our State Senator, and when Lieberman won, the crowd cheered. The Republicans were stupid and short-sighted enough to give up a seat of seniority in the Senate. The idiot Dems are doing the same, and they truly are stupid, stupid, stupid. I understand the sentiment. I am not inclined to return most long time incumbents. But Joe Lieberman does not deserve this, and I'll probably make a donation to his campaign. Had we been in CT, I'd have been among the 28,000 that registered Democrat just to vote in the primary. That's another pet peeve of mine. Registered "independants" or "unaffiliated"...I've never understood that. If you don't pick a side, you don't get to choose who runs. You always come late to the party. Indies always hold this air of intellectual superiority, when it's actually a pretty stupid and spineless place to be. Sooooo, Mr. David, I guess that answers your question, "How do I feel about Joe Lieberman's defeat in CT", Yes?
P.S. As long as I'm on my soapbox, I also am of the group that sincerely believe WWIII is upon us and the Democrats better think about how they are going to hold onto their New York, FLorida, Illinois voting blocks, as any clear thinking Jew will understand that their greatest ally in the U.S. is the religious right. This is going to pose quite a dilemma for people like my own parents. So there. (I guess more than any little trivia or knit-worthy contest, I will know if anyone actually reads my blog by the comments I receive. I suspect I just vented to myself!..and maybe Mr. David. ;))
P.S. I am so sorry, again, about your injuries & I read your blog and have lots to say on your issues, but can't figure out how to post a comment. I sell health insurance, and unfortunately you have lots of company: 1 in 5 Utahns are not insured. Can I also say that your mom has some heartless and tasteless friends?
posted by Gwen at 6:42 AM
4 Comments:
Lieberman, like the Clintons and Howard Dean, is a centrist, whatever his voting record. I've spent several hours in the same room as him, and I find him totally uninspiring, as he was later on the campaign trail in 2000. I don't know Ned Lamont, although I worry he's a bit too much of a one-issue guy (and I think unilateral withdrawal as a campaign soundbyte is completely irresponsible). But I won't be sad if Lieberman doesn't win in November.
That said, I also don't think that Jews share any particular set of interests. One can be Jewish and still think that Israel's offensive into Lebanon and/or strategy is objectionable. I may wish that all women would agree with me that Bush's policies have been deeply misogynist, but they don't, and I don't think there's any reason to assume that just because they are women they SHOULD see things that way.
My two cents (cause you asked!)
Yup, I did! I agree with you Michaele, that Joe has all the charisma of a dishrag. Just reflecting on the combo of Al Gore & Joe Lieberman seems kind of funny in retrospect (ideology aside - just on personality). And I have never been a fan of Joe. BUT, trading Joe Lieberman for Ned Lamont on a single issue is just politically foolish. Oh, and do I feel for the Lebanese people? I certainly do. I used to ask my parents why the Jews allowed themselves to be persecuted in Germany - why didn't they stand up and fight? And the answer was always that they didn't believe it could happen; they saw themselves as Germans. Well, it's time for people, especially WOMEN, around this world to stand against religious beliefs that treat them like dirt; for the Lebanese people to give their lives to throw the Hezbollah into the streets and stop allowing them to hide amongst. Would any of us in our country allow the equivalent of Hezbollah to hide among us and not rise up and fight back? I think not. I did support giving the Palestinians a place of their own. The Israelis are not perfect. Hmmmm. I guess it wasn't enough. It'll never be enough. The Hezbollah are thugs and all that Israel ever gains by being the more honorable and civilized party is to give them time to re-group and come back stronger and with a strategy that they hope once and for all wipes every Jew off the face of the earth. I'm never going to accept any policy that won't recognize that that is exactly what this is about. Hamas and Hezbollah are animals who are willing to use their own people as shields because they know there is a more 'civilized' people that has respect for human life and certainly would not want to kill innocent people if there were a choice. There are always going to be policies set forth by people of flesh and blood who are capable of error. Unfortunately,there was a better military strategy that Israel probably should have used, and not every military leader makes the right decisions, as we know from our own American experiences. It's a pretty crappy world right now.
Firstly: Gwen, thanks for the sympathies, I really do appreciate it. And yes, my mom has some dumb, dumb friends, but that doesn't really bother me anymore.
Regarding Lieberman... I don't think I had a reason for asking other than I knew you lived for quite some time in CT and probably had an interesting opinion on the subject. You didn't let me down!
As far as the Israel-Lebanon conflict: I have difficulty accepting the idea that the Lebanese people are somehow at fault for being bullied and used as human shields by Hezbollah, or for electing a government that tolerates Hezbollah. It keeps me awake nights, the thought that there are people in the world who would have no qualms killing me, an innocent civilian, simply because they don't like the actions of my country's government, a government with whom I disagree but am virtually powerless to stop.
Which is not to imply that I'm siding with Lebanon on this one, just that the idea that the so-called "collateral damage" of dead civilians somehow "asked for it" is deeply disturbing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home