The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada [said]: “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did,” he said on CNN Friday.
C’mon Harry, do tell, we’re all adults around here. Something tells me that Harry told Joe to give up Homeland Security or they’d send him back to Siberia and the back benches. Which leaves Joe to decide whether he wants to do the right thing and switch to the Republican side or get relegated to obscurity as a washed up Independent. Then he’d either retire before the next election or get his ass whipped by Ned Lamont or someone similar. Can’t wait.
Weasel Joe the Warrior (2 Vietnam deferments), and surely one of the Senate’s most pompous twits, I sincerely hope will accept Good Ole Mitch McConnell’s invitation to join ”that other” side. Should by some miracle the Democrats achieve a Senate majority of 59, there will, of course, be a problem: to accede to his undoubted extortion or to say, quite simply, “Enough is enough, Weasel Joe, you who enthusiastically joined the Republican team to assist in a rather modest way, I do admit, in their Buffoonery & Slime; their BS, that is.”
Yes but such language is un-becoming of a government official I thought this blog was against such crude unprofessional form of communication? Has this blog had a lapse of memory suddenly?
It should be noted that the quote is taken rather considerably out of context. A more complete transcript is up at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/09/reid-on-lieberman/
@Jeff Z: Surely you jest. THis is the best you can do in impugning this blog & Harry Reid. With such profound critiques fr. the other side the Dems are liable to be in power for quite some time.
@Eben:
No, you have a mistaken notion of lashon hara. It is “slander.” In other words lying about someone else. Calling Benjamin Emanuel’s comment racist is NOT lashon hara. It of course offends you because of your closeness perhaps to such people or attitudes in your own life. But racist it is. Neither the Jewish tradition nor the Chofetz Chaim called upon Jews to delude ourselves into not facing reality when it smacks us in the face. And Emanuel’s comment smacked me, and many other Jews in the face–not to mention Arabs.
@Eben:
No, YOU render my balance as zero. But you may not exactly be a trustworthy evaluator of my worth nor an apt interpreter of Pirkey Avot.
The Irgun was just as “terrorist” an organization as any Palestinian terror outfit. I condone the terrorism of neither side. But to claim the only terrorists are Arab is a delusion.
@Zed: “One of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut?” Who is Harry Reid trying to fool? If Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from Connecticut, then he’s just emptied the term of any meaning and state will never look the same to me again.
I haven’t spent the time to fact-check Reid’s claims, but it’s pretty easy to do (just time-consuming) if you wanted to do it yourself. It would actually be a fairly compelling evidence one way or another if someone could be shown to have done it fairly.
The first step is to break down the issues at Project Vote Smart into “Progressive Y”, “Progressive N, “Neutral”, “Conservative Y”, “Conservative N”. Tally up how many times Lieberman voted the same way on progressive issues, and how many times he opposed Conservative issues. Then do the same thing for two two moderate/obscure Democrats. Set a threshhold (+/- 15%?) for what constitutes significant departure one way or another, and run the math.
If you can demonstrate with numbers that his voting record clearly does not show his support, you’ll have something of pretty good significance that I don’t think anyone else has posted yet.
Just be prepared in the name of ethical reporting to also publish if the results go opposite to what you expect.
Lieberman’s record is here:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53278
If you wanted to subtly bias the result in your favor, you could probably even get away with only examining his positions in the last 8 years under Republican control, and ignore what he did under Clinton.
Richard, et. al.
It is undoubtedly my error that caused you to place your replies here without a reference to where those few who are interested may find my original comments. I apologize for the confusion. In the unlikely event that anyone reading this is interested in what I said, you may find it at https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2008/11/07/rahm-emanuels-pro-israel-past/#comments
Richard,
With all due respect, I believe that you have presented an incorrect definition of Lashon hora.
You wrote that it is slander, lying about someone else.
I do not believe that to be accurate.
I believe that Lashon hora is speaking disparagingly about someone, even when what you are saying is the truth.
I believe that slander or lying about someone is known as motzi shem ra.