CT-Sen - Excellent Anti-Lieberman editorial

Excellent editorial in today's Manchester (CT) Journal-Inquirer.  I have been very impressed with their editorials in recent months after not having read the paper in several years.  They used to be a strongly partisan newspaper, but it was very Republican.  However, after not reading the paper from 2001-2005, it has been a pleasant surprise to find them now fairly progressive this year.  Not sure if they went through an ownership change or what, but I like it.

This is almost as good as their "GOP Joe" editorial from a few weeks back, and emphasizes how truly like a weathervane the whiny Joe Lieberman really seems to be.

I am embarrassed that this man has represented my state for these past 18 years as a Democrat, and will be even more embarrassed if he gets another six.

Joe, it's not just the Times
11/01/2006

There aren't many endorsements that change political horse races.
(snipped)

It's just hard to believe that there are many voters waiting for a newspaper to tell them what to do.

But Joe Lieberman seems to care a lot about whom the Times endorses.

He seemed personally hurt by the Times picking Lamont.

His No. 1 flack wrote a long diatribe on the subject.

And Joe resorted to what has sometimes been his ultimate defense in this campaign: No one understands me.

If we did, you see, we would appreciate him sufficiently.

Lieberman's exact words about the Times editorial board were:

"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq."
It's not every man who can out-condescend The New York Times.

Why not just say, "They have their views and I have mine"?

And, anyhow, who does understand Sen. Lieberman's position on Iraq?

Maybe professor Irwin Corey.

To the rest of us, Lieberman's position on Iraq has long been incomprehensible gibberish.

(snipped again).

The senator's "position" is a pudding without a theme.

If you want more detail, look up a long piece in the same New York Times, which appeared Oct. 24. It is an exhaustive examination of Lieberman's many and constantly changing positions on Iraq. (The piece was amended the next day.)

But the key thing is that the senator's position was never moving toward anything - any goal, mission, or even intellectual coherence.

(more snippage)

Let us ask the senator this simple question:

For what purpose should the troops now stay?

What is their mission?

Is it to subdue the civil war and organize a new nation, or nations?

If so, we need twice as many troops.

We don't have them unless we institute a draft.

This seems unlikely, but calling for more troops in Iraq is an intellectually honest and respectable position. It is, roughly, Sen. John McCain's position.

(snipped)
It's not just the Times that fails to understand Joe Lieberman's position on the war. Nobody understands it. Because it is contradictory and illogical on its face.

And why is that?

Because Joe Lieberman does not want to choose.

(snipped)

Joe Lieberman refuses to make any of those choices, and then he whines that those pointy-headed eggheads at The New York Times don't appreciate the position he never took.

Read the whole editorial at.  Feel free to leave them comments, too.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/...