Lieberman’s Chairmanship Upsets Liberal Bloggers
By Don | November 20, 2008
Liberal bloggers expecting Joe Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanship Homeland Security Committee vented their anger at Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
From the Washington Times
The liberal blogosphere that helped elect President-elect Barack Obama has erupted in fury over his successful push to let Sen. Joe Lieberman stay as chairman of a key committee despite the Connecticut independent’s active support for Mr. Obama’s opponent during the presidential campaign.
Many in the “netroots”—the Web-based movement of progressive bloggers and activists—had insisted that Senate Democrats strip Mr. Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and howled in protest when he was not.
“Apparently, the American people didn’t vote for change,” complained Markos Moulitsas, founder of dailykos.com, in an entry posted on his site that was laced with angry sarcasm.
To calm the waters, Obama ally Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and one of the first politicians to harness the power of the “netroots,” did four separate conference calls with liberal bloggers within hours of the Senate’s Tuesday vote allowing Mr. Lieberman to retain his chairmanship.
On one call in particular, Mr. Dean faced an angry audience.
“With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves,” said Jane Hamsher, the top writer at firedoglake.com, a widely read liberal blog, according to a transcript of the call with Mr. Dean that was posted on her site.
“We were told to go ‘Cheney’ ourselves,” she said, referring to the vice president’s famous 2004 use of an expletive directed at a Democratic senator.
The episode served as a warning to the future Obama administration. Although the blogosphere has been used to rouse and mobilize passionate supporters, those supporters can be fickle.
With the Democrats on the cusp of gaining a filibuster proof majority in the Senate this move was more about the political advantage of keeping Lieberman in the Democratic caucus than payback for his supposed betrayal during the campaign.
9 Comments | Post a Comment
What a bunch of jokers? Plus what’s the deal with this fairness docterine - There’s nothing fair about it. sounds like Freedom of Speach is having trouble being recognized as part of the constitution?
- Todd Charske
Extremist lefty loon bloggers are no worse than the extremist righty radioheads. If the Fairness Doctrine might eliminate or at least limit both - I’m all for it! Both extremes (one mostly young, the other mostly old = generational clash) accomplish nothing with their bitchin’, moanin’ and slimeballin’ except fueling and re-fueling extremely hostile partisan division. Is Moulitsis any worse than Savage? I don’t think so.
In fact, for 38 years (1949 to 1987) of my lifetime, the original Fairness Doctrine was in force and, honestly, I believe that all through that time, ALL the media were MUCH more objective, fair and balanced.
And, I thought the “equal time” provision on TV worked particularly well.
You know, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is illegal because it falsely incites a crowd to engage in behavior that might be dangerous to one or all - similar to “inciting to riot”. A LOT of the divisive extremist blogging and radioranting, to me, is pushing the envelope at becoming the same, e.g., falsely inciting paranoia and hatred which many endanger others.
???
TK-
Bein’ offended is no reason to stifle free speech, and that’s exactly what the “fairness” doctrine will do. If you are offended by extremists then don’t read or listen to them.
And btw, if you think Leftist extremists are no worse than radio talkshow hosts on the right, than I seriously doubt you have read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Firedoglake, and DU underground.
They use vile language at those sites and constantly express their wishes that prominent Conservatives die horrible death’s.
No way does the most extreme right wing radio hosts talk like that. Even Savage doesn’t.
But they all have a right to use their 1st Ammendment rights, and vile as the far Left is, and the far Right, to a lesser degree, I wouldn’t want to stifle their free speech.
It’s not surprising the far Left hates Lieberman.
I’m glad to see he has kept his chair.
Funny how quickly the far Left will turn on their representatives.
I will simply revert to what has become a VERY popular quote-
“Why can’t we all just get along?”
Really and truly - are not we all “one country under GOD”?
There is room for opinion, respect, conversation, dialogue, debate and this is supposed to be “getting along”.
Let’s keep the sacred rules of communication- don’t attack the person just listen and try to understand.
If both do this voila! you have “getting along” which BTW entails
cooperation and willingness to give and take.
United we stand - divided we fall
let’s look at the BIG picture here : )
USS Ben, Post 4;
The Fairness Doctrine was officially in existence from 1949 through 1987. Does that mean that freedom of speech was being restricted by the government during all that time? (It really didn’t seem so to me.)
While I might be a little ambivalent about the whole issue, it seems to me that the “equal time” provision might actually result in at least TV news and cable-TV newschat programs becoming a little more objective - or, at least, a little more fair and balanced.
And, of course, there is precedent for “restricting free speech”, e.g., it’s a criminal act to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. And, speech which is determined to “incite to riot”, or speech inciting others to commit illegal acts, is also prohibited.
And, there used to be strict standards regarding the making of false claims in advertisements, etc., and, while some of those restriction may still exist, they’ve obviously been overlooked as regards political advertisements.
Personally, I’m in favor of “Truth” in media!
“Plus what’s the deal with this fairness docterine - There’s nothing fair about it.”
what’s unfair about it, Todd?
“sounds like Freedom of Speach is having trouble being recognized as part of the constitution?”
Sometimes I think there should be literacy requirements; for instance you should show that you can SPELL ‘free speech’ before being allowed to exercise it….
Gloria, Post 5;
I’m with you!
Although - I often think the ideological Red State/Blue State social, cultural and political divisiveness has progressed so far and has become so ingrained that we can may never become truly “united” again. Often, I believe the only sensible step is to divide into at least two different countries.
And the three things that are completely missing in the worst of the political divisiveness? R-E-S-P-E-C-T, consideration of others, and The Golden Rule.
And it never ceases to amaze me how UNchristian so many Christians can become when it comes to certain social, cultural and political issues!
“They use vile language at those sites and constantly express their wishes that prominent Conservatives die horrible death’s.”
Vile language isn’t as bad as misusing apostrophes.
November 20 at 3:08 pm | #1 | Link
It sounds like liberals are against bi-partisanship movements…regardless of what they say. I’d like to pose a question: Does it seem that liberals emulate certain characteristics? If so…what characteristics? What about conservatives?