Hey, Connecticut, Thanks For Lieberman:
Really, if you think about it, Connecticut's usefulness to the nation at large was probably sealed back in September of 1781. That'd be when Benedict Arnold led British forces into New London and burned that town down, seizing Fort Griswold and it supplies. Oh, and then Arnold's men slaughtered dozens of the soldiers who had defended the fort. When a man turns on his own nation, his own state (for, indeed, Arnold was born in Norwich), the son of a bitch is gonna turn with all the viciousness and self-righteousness of a drunk preacher at a whorehouse.
Right now, there's only one thing that's stopping Democrats in the Senate from attempting to cut off funding for even an escalation of the war in Iraq, and that thing is named Lieberman. In his goddamned scary article in the New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg shows us, through Joe Lieberman's own words and actions, how much depraved power the Independent from Connecticut holds by agreeing to caucus with the Democrats, thus giving them the Senate. Goldberg writes that Lieberman "told me recently that his attachment to the Party is based in some measure on sentiment, and should not necessarily be thought of as eternal...Lieberman was not willing to say whether he would remain a Democrat if the Party cut off funding for the war. 'That would be stunning to me,' he said. 'And very hurtful. And I’d be deeply affected by it. Let’s put it that way.'"
That's code right there, you know, for something along these lines: "Harry Reid can lick my balls while Carl Levin gives me the rim job of his life. One fuckin' step away from what I want and I'm bailin', bitches, so line up, Teddy, Joe, Barack, Pat and the rest of you, 'cause my dick ain't gonna suck itself."
Being an "independent Democrat" apparently gives Lieberman license to cozy up to the President, who himself spent a good deal of time in Connecticut: "So why do I trust President Bush in spite of the mistakes that were made, consequential mistakes? Because having watched him, having talked to him, I believe that he understands the life-and-death struggle we are in with the most deadly and unconventional enemy, Islamic extremism. And that he has shown himself, notwithstanding all these mistakes, willing to go forward with what he believes is right for the security of the country, regardless of what it has done to his popularity." It's sad, in a "let's-unplug-comatose-Grandpa" way, to watch a man debase himself so before fools, to be idolatrous of idiots. But Lieberman goes even a bit further now, musing about a "war-on-terrorism" tax. Which, considering the way Americans feel about the waging of the "war," is kind of like making it official government policy to ass rape you and then give you a bill for the rapist's nice lunch after he's done fucking you. Rapists gotta eat, motherfuckers.
In his floor speech about not allowing debate on the non-binding resolutions in the Senate, Lieberman rightly pointed out, "This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution." And while there's no guarantee, of course, that the Senate would actually consider voting to defund or get specific with the funding for the war, the reason actual action isn't even on the table in the Senate is because of the guy who has threatened to give the majority to the Republicans if Democrats want to start "taking responsibility."
So, hey, thanks, Connecticut, for so fearing Ned Lamont and change that you went with the guy who thinks it's worth more blood and bone of the sons and daughters of your state to "stabilize" Iraq, who thinks that George Bush is a fine Commander-in-Chief of those sons and daughters, who thinks you oughta pay more for the privilege of waging this clusterfucked conflict. Lieberman's on the warpath, man; New London oughta be quaking in fear.
(Good blogger etiquette: Digby's also covered the New Yorker article.)