Quotes From Around Yon Blogosphere
I don't have any love for Joe Lieberman. I want to be clear about that. I think he grandstands and covers for rank ambition with bullshit talk of bipartisanship. His attacks on Obama were disgusting, especially given that Obama supported him in his losing primary effort. His support of McCain seemed to be much more about his wounded ego than anything else, and in typical self-centered fashion, he's now waffling between the Dems and the GOP.
But here's the thing--in terms of pushing forward a progressive agenda, is booting a dude who votes with Dems on every issue except Iraq really the best move? Lemme add one other thing: What impressed me most about Obama's run is that when so many of us wanted Obama to bring the battle-axe, he held back. People scorned him as weak, but really he was smart and knew when to unload and when to be magnanimous. I strongly believe that talk of "anger" and "respect" won't be the keys to our future. This is business. And is booting Lieberman the best business move? I am willing to be convinced here. I'm seriously just asking.
As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.
Obama passed on her as vice president but can still put Hillary Clinton on the team by backing her for Senate Majority Leader.
In that role, Harry Reid has been ineffectual in rallying Democrats to curtail Bush's excesses or even effectively articulate an opposition view. Now, with a Senate reshuffling that includes the stepping-down of Robert Byrd and the throwing-out of Joe Lieberman, "change" could be served by bringing Clinton to the forefront.
Have you noticed how all these right-wingers, like Bill Bennett, want to claim credit for Barack Obama's election as some kind of racial vindication for America, when they're the very people who were indulging the worst kind of dog-whistle stereotypes in their strenuous efforts to keep him from becoming president?
What could be a more appropriate coda for the Republican defeat than the fact that its diminished band of senators will apparently return to Washington with a convicted felon in the ranks? That should do wonders for the party’s tarnished image.
Ted Stevens of Alaska – newly convicted on seven counts in a federal corruption case – seems likely to retain his seat after all the votes are tallied. All of which prompts me to wonder: Why is it legal for a convicted felon to run as a candidate in an election…yet it’s illegal in most states for convicted felons to vote in elections?
We must refuse to allow Obama and his allies any room to breathe when it comes to opposing their stated intent to "remake" America into something it was never intended to be. But we can and should do it if not "graciously," then certainly by recognizing that our disagreements should not devolve into the kind of mindless deconstructionism that the left has used against us for the last 8 years. Gleaning intent from Obama's proposals should not concern us as much as fighting what he will attempt to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment