Some of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s colleagues are not happy with him:
“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.
According to Politico, Connecticut doesn’t have a recall law on the books currently.
56 responses so far ↓
There is no statute giving voters the right of recall, otherwise we would have tried that avenue already.
Rosa DeLauro should be recalled… to Romulan Command.
What sanctimonious bullshit. Rosa DeLauro is upset because one person held healthcare hostage. I didn’t see such protestations from from the alien being when Senator Mary Landrieu was bought in the “Louisiana Purchase” for her vote.
I guess she’d be okay with it if Lieberman would just name a price.
Simply retarded.
No state has the right to recall a sitting US senator. That’s a matter for the Senate to decide.
Right Bob! So she’s angry AND incompetent.
There is a funny side to politics. Politico reports Kristin Davis, the Manhattan Madam who accommodated former New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s sexual fantasies when his political rocket was in the ascendancy, is fully prepared to run against her former client should he decide to enter the Big Apple’s comptroller race. And Connecticut’s pro partial birth abortion advocate in the U.S. House of Representatives Rosa DeLauro feels that Sen. Joe Lieberman should face a run-off election owing to his stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama’s universal health care initiate. Of course, there is no provision in the U.S. Congress for run-off elections. But obviously DeLauro, who has locked horns with the pope and bishops united against partial birth abortion, feels about run-offs the way the great Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky felt about God when he said if there were no God, men would be forced to invent Him. The Connecticut General Assembly, led by Chris Donovan and Don Williams, convened for a moment to say a prayer and adjourn without considering Gov. Jodi Rell’s ardent plea to please stop spending money. They wanted to be home for the holidays to celebrate the birth of Christ.
Legalities aside, it’s still interesting that Rep. De Lauro would go there with those comments. John Larson and Chris Dodd’s reactions to her comments would be interesting to get on the record, even as they hurriedly changed the subject.
Every so often Lieberman steps up to the plate and reminds me why I should be happy he’s there and not Ned Lamont.
Now is one of those times.
Anyone who can get such reliably horrid liberals such as De Lauro to spew such venom can’t be all bad.
>> So she’s angry AND incompetent
Yes she is all of that and more; however in her defense I will say I know an young atty who worked for her while in law school and when it was time to get a job in DC at Justice despite literally 1000’s of applicants, he was among the few selected and is therefore gainfully employed.
The only saving grace to politics is that it’s warm blooded; those that fail to recognize that as good thing have no business playing.
I’m continually surprised by how personal and vicious Senator Lieberman’s detractors are.
In this case there are a handful of Senators who have not yet committed one way or the other on the Senate healthcare bill; but for whatever reason it’s Senator Lieberman who is the ‘individual holding healthcare hostage.’
What do Ben Nelson of Nebraska or Olympia Snowe of Maine need to do to get some attention in the press these days?
Nelson and Snowe have had their share of coverage, as have Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. That a handful of Senators, including Sen. Lieberman, should have such (undue) influence over important legislation is rather telling of the so-called “world’s greatest deliberative body” [sic]. Lieberman has gotten special attention for the past few days because of his inconsistent stands on various aspects of the bill, and the use of the filibuster. At least the others have been consistent in their opposition.
FWIW I went to the Massachussetts site to price some plans (all you need is a Zip Code and a birth date and family size). Springfield Zips like 01104, 01105, 01106 work fine.
Using the Health New England Network option as a vendor (same as many employers use including my last Mass employer).
I came up with these options:
50 year old single male monthly premiums:
$442 Bronze (medium – $5,000 out of pocket)
$581 Silver (medium – $2,000 out of pocket)
$650 Gold (low co-pays only)
55 year old single male
$532 Bronze (medium – $5,000 out of pocket)
$636 Silver (medium – $2,000 out of pocket)
$714 (low co-pays only)
There’s no reason to believe the Medicare option would be priced any better or any other plan coming from the Feds at this point.
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/menuitem.55b6e23ac6627f40dbef6f47d7468a0c/
Medicare has some brute force cost containment by fiating reimbursement rates but that’s about it.
Draw your own conclusions but the Medicare buy in premiums now are around 650 for buy in and were rumored to be 7600 a year for the Reid plan.
ACR–
Why do you hate the safety net policies of Democrats so much?
What’s wrong with allowing people to buy into Medicaire at the age of 50 or 55?
And do you really think it’s morally okay that many hard-working people, with jobs, (often multiple jobs), don’t have health insurance?
Adam, Lieberman is the one who’s taking this all very personally. He’s still very upset about what the Democrats “did” to him in 2006. It’s not about serving the people of the state…Lieberman’s primary motivation is revenge.
Why else would he flip on the Medicare buy-in from just a couple months ago? Because he thought at the time the Dems would never go for it. When they recently started making noises like they might, suddenly Joe finds religion.
He’ll string the Senate Democratic leadership along until the bitter end, and then he’ll go ahead and vote against whatever compromise they finally settle upon anyway! You don’t have to be Kreskin to predict that. It’s so “Joe” of him.
Just a random thought directed towards the bloggers on this site besides Heath. 12 of the last 13 blog posts were done by Heath. Now that’s not to say I don’t enjoy reading what Heath has to say but come on other bloggers. Why put your name on a blog if you will only write on it sporadically?
I just wish Joe would go to a JJB Democratic dinner.
>>Why do you hate the safety net policies of Democrats so much?
“Safety net”??????
What on earth are you smoking?
It’s a trap!
The Dems arranged to sell out the CNA test to a NJ firm that charges over 300; do you see a lot of Miss Porters grads taking that?
The Dems have made sure that CT is among one of but a few states that goes after former welfare or other state aid recipients and garnishes their pay should they bootstrap their way out of poverty and (heaven forbid) become taxpayers.
The fact is the Democratic Party has systemically done everything within it’s power to keep those in poverty right where they belong; (down and out; *and* out of their neighborhoods) dependent upon them for otherwise a major voting block would be lost.
It’s nothing less than the new slavery.
>>JJB Democratic dinner.
Considering the fact that Jackson committed genocide, aren’t you embarrassed that your party continues to honor him?
>>Why put your name on a blog if you will only write on it sporadically?
Coming up with fresh content on a regular basis isn’t as easy as it might seem; and it’s more time consuming than anyone would aside from Pesci would guess.
“what’s wrong with allowing people to buy into Medicaire at the age of 50 or 55?”
Besides the fact that it is going bankrupt, is inefficient and can barely sustain its current population?
Nice, chief. Let’s take a program that is going bankrupt and add tens of millions more users, in so doing sending costs skyrocketing while simultaneously driving down the incomes of physicians and providers in the most at-risk hospitals and locales, eventually causing many medical providers to go out of business.
Yes, we can! This is the way to “reform” health care, all right, if by reform you mean make it so miserable you’ll have the public coming to you begging for MORE government aid, in the end destroying private health care entirely.
This has always been a problem on this site. There’s one heavy lifter (formerly GC, now Heath) and the others chime in when they get a press release from the cause or candidate they are in the tank for.
Although I often disagree with her perspective, Sara has been pretty consistent and sincere to her beliefs with her submissions. I also have not be able to detect that Vincent is “in the tank” for any particular candidate.
>>>This has always been a problem on this site. There’s one heavy lifter (formerly GC, now Heath) and the others chime in when they get a press release from the cause or candidate they are in the tank for.<<<
Even if it was possible to recall a senator, and even if it wasn’t an embarrassment that our senior House member doesn’t know it’s not possible, DeLauro’s only reason for wanting a recall is that she disagrees with Lieberman.
Given that she supported his opponent in the election, this is all the more ridiculous. It’s not like he ran as a member of her party and THEN switched. Her party opposed him and lost, she should learn to live with the consequences of elections.
Rosa DeLauro is a mess.
DeLauro objects to the Catholic Church’s excommunicating politicans (including herself) for their stance on abortion but wants a recall of Lieberman for taking a political stance her party is in opposition to. Next up: DeLauro calls for the excommunication of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party while someone whispers in her ear: “but Rosa, you senile old coot, Lieberman ran as an Independent. BTW, how’s Pope Benedict?”
If you really look at the polls, out of CT’s 6 Congressmen and 2 Senators only 1 of the 8 represented the ‘No Public Option’ voters on National Health Care. Rosa, my dear, based on the polls I’ve seen that group is underrepresented in the CT House still.
FWIW I support the House Bill and Rosa’s vote but little of anything else that escapes her two lips .
My guess is DeLauro knows full well that senators can’t be recalled. She made her statement for the same reason Jodi Rell claimed she would use a line item veto knowing full well that she couldn’t: Political theater.
Her frustration, however, is understandable given Joe’s flip flop on several health reform related issues. The shocking thing is that he isn’t simply going to not vote for the bill… he’s actively going to prevent it from getting voted on by not voting to end debate. Given his inconsistent stances on this issue, which in my view simply demonstrate a lack of understanding (he’s far more versed on, say, defense issues), and the clear support a public option has in Connecticut, it seems that the most honorable thing for him to do would be to allow everyone else the opportunity to vote a bill up or down.
I have one proposal, that maybe ol’ Joe can get behind. Recently, the Courant reported that COBRA subsidies were about to end, meaning that unemployed persons using COBRA would have to pay their full premiums (not sure what became of this). That got me thinking. Most Americans don’t realize how much they benefit already from government entitlements already (e.g., “Keep your hands off my medicare” signs). So I say, get rid of everything…. Medicare, medicaid, COBRA, federal subsidies to hospitals, the whole 9 yards. Then see how people feel about health care reform. After we finish doing that, then let’s see how people feel about a public option, or government intervention.
COBRA was voted on by the Hosue today for an extension.
It goes to the Senate for action later this week.
Michael Moore is calling for a boycott of Connecticut for not recalling Lieberman.
http://faustasblog.com/?p=17450
Looks more like a snarky tweet.
http://twitter.com/mmflint
And why did I have to go back through two other links to try to find the origin of this?
Here is one person’s response:
http://ctmag.blogspot.com
And then there’s that anti-Moore organ, The Wall Street Journal, which thinks Ned Lamont is responsible for the Democrats difficulty in passing ObamaCare:
“If, after all this fuss, the Senate manages not to enact ObamaCare, one man we will have to thank for it is Ned Lamont. He’s the liberal-left cable-TV executive who successfully challenged Joe Lieberman, Connecticut’s junior senator, in the 2006 Democratic primary. Lieberman, taking advantage of the Nutmeg State’s nutty election laws, ran as an independent in the general election and trounced Lamont.
“The Republicans didn’t put up a serious candidate for the seat, so that if Lamont had not run, Lieberman would have coasted to re-election as a Democrat–and as a Democrat, he would have felt much greater pressure to back ObamaCare in its original version out of party loyalty. Instead he has emerged as a holdout against some of its worst provisions, and we can credit him with making the Senate bill unacceptable to the likes of Howard Dean (though we shall see if enough “progressives” who actually have seats in Congress are willing to buck the party line in Deanlike fashion).”
Dean, not the best of friends with President Barack Obama’s Chicago coterie in the White House, wants to junk the effort to pass the senate’s rump bill and “go back to the House and start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes [in the Senate].”
McMahon has this one out today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F623LAMQvbs
Looks like all the guys and gals — Obama included — were just having a little fun.
Politics can be entertainment too.
And finally, Politico has a story up that explains how Lieberman’s opposition helps Obama: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30711.html
Someone tell DeLauro
Don…the WSJ is in error in that what was front and center in 2006 was the Iraq War and not so much national healthcare.Lieberman would have had a primary over his hawkishness regarding the war by a credible candidate whether it was Lamont or not.If the results were the same against this unnamed credible candidate,as seems likely,then I submit to you that Lieberman’s actions now would have also been the same as if he beat some other reasonably credible Democratic challenger.
The only way Lieberman has “helped” Obama is draw some of the ire of the liberal base of the democratic party, and provide some momentary cover for the inept handling of health care reform by the White House.
Bruce,
The premise of the WSJ piece is that Lieberman may have been more amenable to the Democratic Party line had he remained in the party. He was driven out of the party by Lamont’s challenge, and to that extent Lamont is responsible for Lieberman’s intransigence; Lieberman would call it independence. That analysis is respectable. At least its not psychobabble of the sort Caruso indulges in.
Has anyone in Connecticut considered boycotting Michael Moore. First he harpoons Dodd — http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2009/09/dodd-and-him-michael-moore.html — now Connecticut. It ought to be possible to appeal to the state patriotism of Democrats.
Don….Once Lieberman was hawkish on the Iraq war….his being driven out of the party was inevitable, whether by Lamont or some other creditable candidate.
Bruce,
I’m not so sure we can say that because A happens, A was inevitable – especially in politics. Politics is all about making choices and abiding by the consequences of those choices. Lieberman did this and he lost the battle (the Democratic primary) but he won the war, in every sense of the word; he won his seat, and he was shown to be right in his support of the Iraq war. For all practical purposes, that war has been won. What were the casualties of American troops in Iraq last year? Have the forces of darkness prevail in Iraq? The loss of the war in Iraq was not inevitable, as Harry Read said it would be. Lieberman’s treatment at the hands of the anti-Iraq-war progressives should make non-wacky Democrats like you a little nervous – because President Barack Obama has now borrowed several pages from the much despised ex-president George Bush in his prosecution of the War in Afghanistan. And there are bound to be American casualties. In fact, last year there were more American casualties in Afghanistan than in the preceding Bush years, for obvious reasons, and every argument against the war in Iraq now applies to the war in Afghanistan. It is not inevitable that the United States should lose that war. But if the decision makers in the U.S. Congress are won over by the kinds of arguments made regularly by anti-war activists during the Bush years, the Afghan war, Obama’s war of necessity, may very well be lost. And there are some who think that because of the nature of Afghan society and the inhospitable terrain in Afghanistan, the war will be lost in any case. Should this happen, you may be able to pin the loss on Lieberman, Obama and Dodd. I hope I know you well enough to suppose that you will take no joy in this.
Don…you are quite correct that if the war is lost I will take no joy in that.The blame…and there would be plenty to pass around, would in my honest opinion,be about equally shared between the Bush and Obama presidencies.
What I meant about the use of the word “inevitable” is that my party is perhaps comprised of 40% that would be labeled progressives…and most of them are decidedly anti-war progressives. Nationally and especially here in Connecticut those 40% within my party have a larger say then most other interest groups both within the delegate process and within a party primary.Pissing them off is done to one’s own peril.As Lieberman became more hawkish he pissed off those 40% and they would have voted in a convention for any creditable candidate who had bonafide progressive credentials and who’s primary issue was the anti war message.Lamont being pushed by the Democratic Party Left,Weicker,Labor,Citizens Groups,The anti-war activists and others ( including this writer of course) was a bonafide candidate and as you recall captured the endorsement and won the primary.If Joe Blow, a selectman in Goshen who was a anti-war candidate tossed his hat into the ring instead of Lamont, I submit to you that he would have won the delegates and primary also.In that regard, the loss by Lieberman was inevitable.Correspondingly throughout the years Lieberman was “doing political business” with Governors Rowland ( the media had caught them having dinner together more then once) and Governor Rell.I dont say that in a negative way, but to merely point out the close relationship between them.As the Democratic Left ( including me) organized against Lieberman,he was busy lobbying Rell for her support and the evidence suggests he got it.The Republicans headed by a Lieberman friendly Rell, put up a weak candidate and the word was out to help Lieberman at the expense of their own candidate.The result as they say is history.
Bruce,
I can tell you right now based on the anti-war rhetoric and rallies I’ve seen under Obama your party uses war and war victims as political tools. The compassionate sighs and protests are at their loudest at election time and during GOP administrations then the killers fade into the woodwork the first Wednesday of November.
Both parties have pandered to the military for decades out of political expediency given CTs reliance on weapons production.
That quiet 40% (more like 4% at best) gets their egos massaged by party apparatchiks. What they really need is leadership to call them out and get them marching–whether the candidates or sitting politicians be GOP or Democrat. It would be good for their hyprocritical little souls if nothing else. In reality there are maybe 100 dedicated anti-war activists in CT. The rest are political tools to be used by party apparatchiks.
Democrats calling themselves anti-war in CT? Got anymore cocktail party jokes for me Bruce?
You think Code Pink really cares about war? Not on your life. It’s all about abortion. Killing Iraqi or Afghani children means nothing to them. Why should it? Killing their own children means nothing to them.
http://codepink-aot.org/calendar/showevent.php?eventID=86
Remember that great anti-war protest in Bushnesll park in Hartford, March 17, 2007′.
.
Remember just how vocal Susan Bysiewicz was at that anti-war rally
C’mon. Admit it. Need I restate my case for political opportunists using ‘war protests’ as anti-GOP rallies and then disappearing into the woodwork once Obama got in office and escalated our Afghan presence?
It was never about sympathy for the victims of war here or overseas. The victims are just political tools, as are we all, in the manipulative little minds of local politicians.
Is it possible you don’t see Susan Bysiewicz that way? Seriously, I missed her protests over Obama’s Peace Prize.
Represent that 40% all you want Bruce. But don’t try selling those goods to the independents in CT OK? We have bigger problems than financial corruption my friend. It’s the moral corruption and delusions of hypocrisy encased in the party apparatchiks.
Bruce,
I agree with almost everything but the last line: “The Republicans headed by a Lieberman friendly Rell, put up a weak candidate and the word was out to help Lieberman at the expense of their own candidate. The result as they say is history.”
You give Rell too much credit. She is only the titular head of the party, and that party, I think you will agree, has been in disarray since Weicker, who appointed his chief aide, Tom D’Amore — the same bloke who served on Ned Lamont’s campaign — as chairman of the party. Thanks to missteps by state Democrats, that party is beginning to revive.
As for the future, I think Republicans are due to be disappointed with Lieberman’s domestic policy. Obama seems comfortable with it.
Afghanistan is, and will continue to be, a mess. And I will remind you that it was prominent members of your party — including Dodd and Lamont — who urged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq at a time when those withdrawals would have doomed the war effort. Dodd was even in favor of tying military appropriations to withdrawals. This time around, he will have as an opponent someone more well positioned than Lieberman’s last Republican opponent to remind him of the likely consequences of his past votes.
I don’t want to hijack this post, so I will say no more than this: If Republicans were to behave in the matter of the Afghan war the way Democrats behaved during the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan would certainly be lost, because every preceding argument used by Democrats to oppose the commander-in-chief of the Iraq war may also be used to oppose the commander-in-chief of the Afghan war – including the notion that presidents are perusing unicorns in their war policy. It certainly was true that there were in Iraq no weapons of mass destruction that Hussein might have used against New York; but it is likewise true that the pursuit of Osama binLadin in Afghanistan may be a will’o’the wisp. We do not know that he is alive. And if he is alive, he appears to be biding his time outside of Afghanistan, perhaps in the badlands Pakistan, and therefore not in reach of Marines who might pull him from a hidey-hole, as was the case with Hussein. Hell will freeze over before Pakistan invites the marines to do there what they did successfully in Iraq.
And you know something, if the pressure in Afghanistan and Pakistan becomes too severe, Osama – assuming he has not assumed room temperature — can always move to Somalia, the home of 21st century pirates, a problem we in the United States may have thought was permanently settled by Thomas Jefferson in the good old days. Jefferson decided to settle the matter militarily rather than diplomatically. A good thing too, because the pasha’s were no more amenable to sweet reason than is the present pirate in Iran, Amadinijad, who is now holding three innocent Americans hostage.
Obama has not yet been compared to Jefferson, the scourge of the Barbary Pirates, or Teddy Roosevelt who, a century ago, sent the U.S. Marines into Columbia (1902), the Dominican Republic (1903), Syria (1903), Abyssinia (1903), Panama (1903-14), Korea (1904-5), and Tangiers, Morocco (1904) – which should be of some interest to us all.
On that occasion, a Muslim bandit, Raisuli, had kidnapped from their home two Americans, Ion Perdicaris and his wife’s son Cromwell.
The Muslim kidnapper demaned from the Sultan Abdelaaiz of Morocco a ransom of $70,000, safe conduct and control of two of Morocco’s wealthiest disctricts which agitated Roosevelt, who disparched the Marines with a demand, which he announced to the Republican National Convention: “This government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.”
The convention went wild. A Kansas delegate said, “Roosevelt and (Secretary of State John) Hay know what they’re doing. Our people like courage. We’ll stand for anything those men do.”
Muli-lateral negociations between the French, Moccoco and the United States having broken down, Roosevelt despatched several war ships and seven Marine companies to the area and got — Perdicaris alive.
That’s what a Big Stick is.
Goatboy….I respectfully disagree with your figure that perhaps 4% of my party are anti-war after being as you say “massaged” by party apparatchiks.I myself make up my own mind on the poltical questions of the day,without guidance from some party apparatchik.I do not have any idea of SB’s real commitment to the anti war position or feelings about Obama’s recent committment to Afganistan other then to say that she has mentioned being against the Iraq war at past anti war rallies,though it might only be one of many issues that concern her and might well be not among her top prioty of issues.
In many races Goatboy the independants were succesfully educated to vote Democratic and in many thay werent.The burden will be on the particular candidate to make their case and we will see if the independant’s buy it.
Ive already posted my disagreement with Obama’s latest policy on Afganistan…and I am not a pacifist.
Hypocracy ? Both parties are loaded with it Goatboy.
Goatboy…I dont do “cocktail party anti war jokes.” I was a student radical and a leader of SDS in the VietNam era and was recruited into The Weathermen…yes THAT Weatherman…and i assure you that I was doing much more then cocktail party jokes….I was indicted and was forced to live underground ( by that time I was at war against the government anyway) for 5 years until a sharp lawyer got my indictment dismissed and then I emerged from the underground at age 26 finished the last semester of college that I was missing,slowly but surely decompressed and got rid of my anger over the war and government,went to law school.As for THIS war,Ive marched etc and make up my own mind.
Don….I have to go somwhere now or I would respond completely….as it is your post # 41 is interesting from several points of view.Suffice it to say that time will tell how Obama does in Afganistan and how he is perceived in thei nation and the world….Best,Bruce
Yes, time is the great truth sayer, the Cassandra of our day. It always tells, but not everyone listens to it.
Don….I would be the last to know what shape Damore left your party….I do know that when Rowland took over in 1994 you have had 15 years to rebuild…as a sidenote I know Herb Shepardson a former Republican State Party Chair and I know Mr Healy….in my view, both of whom are competant and within the mainstream of your parties conservative thought.
As to Lieberman….he is dead within my party….I see him as either retiring to a law firm sinecue in DC for alot more then he makes as a Senator….or just as likely, changing to Republican and running for re-election…or…remaining an “Independant” and running that way….
On the pirates and Iran….we dont have the will or the logistical treasure to do what Jefferson and Roosevelt did….we seem to be floundering around…( both parties are) while we get stuck in wars and mired in a bad recession…. while China is emerging as the next true superpower and financing our wars…imagine this bastion of free enterprise and individual liberty as a joint venturer with the chinese communists.
WAR? With few exceptions, the left are only passionate enough to protest war when the Republicans are in control of the White House. Most of the past protests were ginned up by Democrat party activist with the sole intent of getting people riled up so that could get a Democrat President elected.
They really could care less about bloodshed, body bags, giving peace a chance or whatever songs or lines they liked to sing or chant. With 51,000 total troops ordered to Afghanistan under President Obama, the lefts abandonment of “war protest” should speak volumes as to their true intent.
Pufnstuf…..With all due respect,your war diatribe is totally wrong and shows your party affiliation has warped your logic.
WW1….massive protests against the Democratic President Woodrow WIlson…
WW2..massive prtests against the Democratic President FDR…
Korean War…not much protests against Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
VietNam….massive protests against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson..and Republican President Richard Nixon
Iraq War..massive protests against Republican President GW Bush
As you can see factually, there HAVE been more protests against Democrats then Republicans.
Seriously Bruce, do you need to go back 35 years to make your point? How about we stay focused on today and Bush protesters vs the nonexistent Obama protesters because that’s what I am talking about.
BTW, were far left commentators like Oberman, Maddow, Matthews around during the 1914 Woodrow Wilson was President? People are a little different these days.
I suspect Obama’s honeymoon with the left won’t last much longer. And if troops are not withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011, as he stated they would, if conditions allow, he’ll have lost them for good.
BTW, were far left commentators like Oberman, Maddow, Matthews around during the 1914 Woodrow Wilson was President? People are a little different these days.
There were some far left commentators in 1914. Obviously not on television, but in newspapers and magazines. There was Oswald Villard’s Nation magazine (well, he didn’t take the helm until 1915). The Metropolitan Magazine employed John Reed, and he was highly critical of Woodrow Wilson. (Although oddly, before Wilson got the US into WWI, Teddy Roosevelt was editor of the magazine, urging the US to enter the war).
Most of the newspapers of the era were also outwardly partisan (they’d often have Democrat or Republican in their name). Everyone knew that such and such a paper was biased, and the paper would also admit that they were biased.
And things weren’t more civil back in the past in politics or journalism. In the late 1800s, Thomas Nast, the cartoonist, had the word “nasty” named after him. Political slogans included things like “My opponent has the backbone of a chocolate eclaire” and “Ma, ma, where’s my Pa? He’s off to the White House, ha ha ha!” Not to mention the pre-civil war case when Preston Books beat Charles Sumner to a bloody pulp with his metal topped cane, on the Senate Floor!
Hmmm, a 209 year old editorial wound up in moderation, go figure.
Automod is busy today.
Pufnstuf…..the Students For A Democratic Society….the largest radical group in the country, with 300-400 chapters are doing protests against the buildup of Afganistan all the time.There are on going protests from the Peace Community in all major cities as well….millions have and are writing letters to their elected leaders as we going into the holiday season…you need to get out of that republican office at the capital and get around more.
We’ll see if this can get by seeing as after 10 and half hours the other has yet to be cut loose.
Scroll down to page 5 for 1800 Courant editorial:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:cXiIbPN5Lw8J:www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/mcpcweb/unit1_1800/pdfs/1800unit.pdf+hartford+courant+editorial+thomas+jefferson&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Bruce, thanks for letting me know about the War protest taking place in “ all major cities” across the country. Please let me know when the protest begin in Harford, West Hartford, Middletown, New Haven on a regular basis just like they did when Bush was President. Right now, it looks as like all the hypocrites on the left live in Connecticut since the other cities in other states have taken to the streets to stand up for their beliefs. I’ll keep peeking out my window -)
>>>>Pufnstuf…..the Students For A Democratic Society….the largest radical group in the country, with 300-400 chapters are doing protests against the buildup of Afganistan all the time.There are on going protests from the Peace Community in all major cities as well….millions have and are writing letters to their elected leaders as we going into the holiday season…you need to get out of that republican office at the capital and get around more.<<<<
Here you go pufnstuf. Make of it what you will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjmsytnpJc4
You must log in to post a comment.