Lieberman Uses Parts of Bush Speech Hours Before Bush Delivers It

[I Kant]

Joe Lieberman on Imus this morning... using word for word, the Bush lines about taking our direction from the generals in the field, and not setting a timetable from politicians in Washington... hours before Bush delivered those words exactly. I just watched the whole interview with Imus here:

www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/30.html#a6117

Either Joe wrote the speech for Bush, or Rove just gave it to Joe first. Unbelievable!

[pauldp]

1. I wish

that f*cker would just join the Party he supports.
:puke:

[slay]

22. Same here

Joe needs to GO! If it walks like a Republican, acts like a Republican, sells out the people like a Republican, etc... :puke:

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. He should have to explain this one

TP isn't just for "Talking Points"

[Josh]

3. Well - often texts of upcoming speeches are delivered to

politicians and media markets before they are delivered - it makes it easier for them to report on the news quickly as they can just reference the text when they hear it and are writing, as opposed to having to copy it down or be given it afterwards.

It's quite a common practice for a politician to be able to use the text from another politician before the speech is given. It's just usually used as an attack - like when a campaign will respond to something before someone else has said it or *just as they are saying it* to emphasise an immediate counterpunch.

From the looks of it though, that's not why Lieberman was using it.

[niallmac]

7. Does Joe still enjoy unqualified popularity among his constituency

I wonder? There has to be a point where people ask themselves if his seniority is really worth it.

[Canuckistanian]

13. But politically it's in bad taste

You're stealing the original pol's thunder.

But for someone in the opposition to use parts of a speech to deliver the same message is disgusting, especially when the message is not the official party line.

Can Harry Reid censure him for this?

[katinmn]

4. Geeze. They really are in bed together.

We need to tell Harry Reid to keep Leiberman in line. He's really counterproductive.

[mmonk]

5. The big question is:

Has anyone yet come up with a way to defeat Lieberman? Is there a candidate that can run against him? Is there a financing mechanism to fund a campaign against him yet?

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Damn it! What more proof do you people want?

Lieberman is a perfect example of why our two party system is a fraud. Keep voting for people like Lieberman and nothing will change. I say we get some answers from Joey and find out who on his staff is putting this together for him because that person should at least be fired.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Last night, I flipped by Faux News and heard - guess who? Joementum

and Hannity commiserating. How sick is that? Didn't Bush even refer to Lieberman in his speech?

Truly disgusting.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

10. Yes he did, and quickly.

Just when bush is sinking, Joe offers him a paddle. What a humanitarian.

[lostnfound]

15. I haven't paid much attention to him but it's all quite bizarre

considering that he was the VP candidate that initially ran against the shrub.

And was called a certain awful nickname by probably the same rightwingers who now invite him on their talk shows..?

What the heck is it about Connecticut?
..
Okay, I just googled "Connecticut largest corporations" and I think I get it now. Duhhhh! Check http://www2.connecticutmag.com/site/ct100.asp">this out:

RANK IN 2005 RANK IN 2004 COMPANY TOWN SALES IN DOLLARS MAIN PRODUCTS OR SERVICES
1 1 General Electric Co. Inc. Fairfield 132,900,000,000 diversified manufacturing and technology
2 2 United Technologies Corp. Hartford 30,723,000,000 aerospace, defense, building products
3 3 International Paper Co. Stamford 25,179,000,000 paper products, packaging
4 5 The Hartford Financial Services Group Hartford 18,733,000,000 insurance, financial services
5 4 Aetna Inc. Hartford 17,476,000,000 managed health care
6 6 Xerox Corp. Stamford 14,704,000,000 copiers, office products and systems
7 9 Premcor Inc. Old Greenwich 8,803,000,000 oil refining and petroleum products
8 8 MeadWestvaco Corp. Stamford 7,553,000,000 paper and packaging
*9 -- Gerald Metals Inc. Old Greenwich 7,200,000,000 nonferrous and precious metals
10 11 Northeast Utilities Berlin 6,069,000,000 electricity
*11 10 Doctors Associates Inc. Milford 5,700,000,000 Subway fast-food franchises
12 12 Praxair Inc. Danbury 5,613,000,000 industrial gases

A idealist/cynic would say "Joe L., the senator from General Electric". A realist/compromiser would say "better a hawkish Democrat in office than a hawkish Republican".

[tinfoilinfor2005]

24. This is very interesting.

I would have said that his extreme orthodox Jewish background compels him to desire safety in that unstable region, i.e. to keep a strong American military presence in the neighborhood. And I can't fault him for that, even though I don't understand the justification for the loss of the lives of our soldiers in this foreign cause. But if this is all about G.E. and other corporations, then it just goes beyond despicable. As much as I dislike turncoat Joe for his recent actions, I just can't believe that this is his motivation.

[lostnfound]

27. Okay, I want to modify what I said.

It was accurate to say that GE was the largest corporation in Connecticutt. I'm sure it has some influence over the politics in that state.

However, I just checked opensecrets. Mr. Lieberman's biggest contributors by industry were lawyers, real estate, and investment firms.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=2004

However, when looking at individual companies, United Technologies (Pratt & Whitney) is at the top of the list.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=2004

Does this buy his votes? Probably no more than any other congressman. But I think it's Molly Ivins who says 'you dance with them that brung ya'.

[IronLionZion]

9. Sometimes Drudge posts speeches before they are given

This stuff is often available ahead of time. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes it's leaked. :shrug:

There's also the chance that Bush's writers stole it from Lieberman. :shrug: Either way, they are both assholes.

[win_in_06]

11. Presidental Medal of Freedom for Joe before it's all over

[bluedawg12]

12. Face it- NeoconJoe is more interested in the welfare of the

middle east and rebuilding it along the neocon dream than he is about facing the reality of this failed mess.

When Joe retires (soon I hope) he should go and join the staff of the Weakly Standard.

I heard his nauseating bit on the I-man, he is now officially a hand maiden in waiting for the chimperator.

[Al-CIAda]

14. Howard Dean last night on Leno:

Leno: Now what about Joe Liebermann?

Dean: "Ok, now you are really forcing me to be diplomatic"...

[Cha]

17. I was just going to post

about what Dean said when Leno asked him about lieberman..Dean also said something about Dems "marching to different drummers" when lie- berman's name came up..that's diplomatic :)

[Loonman]

16. Stay in Connecticut, Joe, off the national stage

Work for your contituents, and stop kicking your own party.

[UrbScotty]

18. Just switch to the GOP already, Joe (nt)

[Don Claybrook]

19. Part of the Doctrine of Preemptive Sucking-Up n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

20. He's a GOP tool!

Prove me wrong. :shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

21. I don't see the GOP licking the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2283160&mesg_id=2284650

He is a GOP tool for their illegal war...nothing more. Once he has out lived his usefulness, they will cast him aside as well.

[BrotherBuzz]

23. They keep inviting him to the poker game because he is the tool

Once his poke is cleaned out he will be thrown aside, we agree.

Poker Party

By David Mamet
Republished from L.A. Times

In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again.




ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.


Fold means keep the money, I’m out of the hand; call means to match your opponents’ bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.


The military axiom is “he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace.” The gambling equivalent is: “Don’t call unless you could raise”; that is, to merely match one’s opponent’s bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller’s motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.


If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.


In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one’s convictions, one’s intuitions, one’s understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.


For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.


His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.


The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.


Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.


The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.


John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely “calling” the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.


Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: “I served. He didn’t. I didn’t bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter.”


This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.


The press, quiescent during five years of aggressive behavior by the White House, has, perhaps, begun to recover its pride. In speaking of Karl Rove, Scott McClellan and the White House’s Valerie Plame disgrace, they have begun to use words such as “other than true,” “fabricated.” The word that they circle, still, is “lie.” The word the Democratic constituency, heartsick over the behavior of its party leaders, has been forced to consider applying to them is “coward.”


One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one’s stake.


The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.

[Miss Chybil]

25. Zell Joe Liebermiller. nt

[leesa]

26. Oh gee...what a surprise...and it would be a sign of weakness to boot the

turncoat out of the party. He is what's known as a plant, folks...he has been planted years in advance to establish a "liberal" voting record on safe issues so that when the big issues come, like WWIII in the Middle East, he can vote his true Party roots, for Israel and the GOP.