<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Monday, April 24, 2006

Lieberman does Waterford

CT Blue gives the details and lets just say that Joe didn't win over the crowd.

My wife asked the following question, penned by yours truly:

Even after Bill Clinton endured an impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate, you felt he had not been punished enough, and you suggested that he be censured.

Recently George Bush admitted that he has been systematically engaging in criminal behavior by wiretapping Americans in violation of Federal law. Not only that, he vowed to continue his illegal activites, esssentially asserting that he had no obligation to obey the law. Your response was that you didn't want to "Scold" the president. Needless to say you failed to support Senator Feingold's call for censure. Can you please explain why Bill Clinton's transgressions deserved a "scolding" and George Bush's did not.

First he tried to claim that he hadn't pushed for censure after the trial, but he backed down on that. Then he told us that his speech in the Senate had been the very thing that prevented impeachment, and that if we ever had the chance to talk to Bill Clinton he would surely back Joe up on that. (I'm not kidding, he really said this) I suggested that he have Bill call me, but he forgot to take my name and number. As to George's crimes, as a lawyer he is sure they were in fact illegal, but it is more productive to fix the law to make sure that George has to go to court in order to wiretap. Odd, really, I thought that's what the law already said. Maybe if the law said "we really, really mean this" George would pay attention. Upshot: When George breaks the law, and keeps on breaking it, it would detract from the people's business to do anything about it. We never did learn, by the way, why Clinton deserved censure and Bush does not.


Here's the question: why is Lieberman doing this? What does he expect to gain. He treats his audience with a sort of thinly veiled contempt. He knows that they know that he is bullshitting them, but he also knows he controls the situation, so they can't effectively call him on it. But that's no way to persuade people, it only pisses them off. He persists in maintaining that the only problem is his position on Iraq, which is clearly not the case.
Sweet! Joe, I don't you impressed CTBlue and I think he's voting for this guy in the primary.