Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Somebody, Give Joe Lieberman a Hug
He's lonely and he's always getting picked last in gym class:
JOE KLEIN: This is just a guess, but it's an educated and a reported guess. The Democrats in the Senate are getting really, really angry at Joe Lieberman, especially because he's been accusing them of undermining the troops' morale. And Joe Lieberman isn't too happy with the Democrats, either. I think there's going to be an explosion and perhaps a party switch pretty soon.
The only issue that separates Lieberman from the rest of the Democrats is the Iraq war, and specifically the surge. Yes, he's an Iran hawk, but so are a lot of Democrats. Yes, he's not a down-the-line liberal on social issues, but neither is around 1/3 of the party in Congress. He'd really be willing to quit his party because they're wrong on a war which he thinks will be over by the end of this year? There's more pragmatism on an average episode of My Super Sweet 16. Good call, 50 percent of Connecticut!
More pivotal reason why this switch won't happen: If Lieberman becomes a Republican no one will care about him anymore. A pro-war liberal Democrat is a media curio and a useful guy to have on your side when you're promoting a new resolution or a speech at AEI. A pro-war liberal Republican is... George Voinovich. Stay ornery, don't switch parties, and people will care about you. This is the trick Zell Miller mastered, and Chuck Hagel has figured out pretty well, for all of his absolute uselessness.
|2.12.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Its like being the indie kid at the emo show who wears cowboy boots and proclaims that Johnny Cash is his biggest influence. Six moths later everyone is doing it. And so on.
|2.12.07 @ 5:04PM|#
We (I'm registered as a Republican) don't want him!! Joe
Lieberman's ideological suckitude is horrific. He's a strong
supporter of government intervention and big spending, both foreign
and domestic.
All F's from the NTU, year after year, for total amount of spending
voted for!!
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?senate_id=21
|2.12.07 @ 5:23PM|#
"Is Lieberman considering a 2008 Presidential run?"
He wouldn't get the Democratic nomination, that is for sure. Maybe
he could form a "United States for Lieberman" party and run on that
ticket?
Ryan
|2.12.07 @ 5:31PM|#
"Somebody, Give Joe Lieberman a Hug"
I always knew DW wanted to give/receive a hand-job from old Joe.
This title confirms my suspicions.
|2.12.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Is there anyone Dave Weigel can talk about without being accused of liberal bias? Carrot Top maybe?
|2.12.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Yeah, Weigel can talk about Carrot Top, but the second that Ron Bailey does, he's in the pocket of the GMO lobby.
garry|2.12.07 @ 6:27PM|#
If the reader takes a look at the names and backgrounds of
individuals in very high places in the U.S. (and now state
governments) today, it will become obvious that Jews -- who
purportedly constitute only 3% of the U.S. population -- hold
disproportionate numbers of positions of great power and influence
in administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government,
as well as all branches of the military under the Department of
Defense. Not only that, they are advisors, speech-writers, and so
forth, to non-Jews in high places.
Nesta Webster
Germany and England
monkeylicious|2.12.07 @ 6:40PM|#
There's more pragmatism on an average episode of My Super
Sweet 16. Good call, 50 percent of Connecticut!
I've decided to name all of my children "Dave Weigel."
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Yeah, Ol' Steamin' Joe would be nothin' without his schtick as
the 'bipartisan' who supports the war. I mean, where would our
coalition of the willing be if Poland decided to apply for
statehood? Although boy would that be funny on a bunch of other
levels.
The bonus, of course, would be how much that'd piss off Texas,
who'd have to give up their "we were our own country" bit. But that
would probably do a lot to boost Tadeusz Kościuszko's rep as a
Revolutionary War hero.
|2.12.07 @ 6:59PM|#
So what, garry/Nesta? Jews are generally smart, hard-working and
ambitious so they tend to rise to high positions. They also seem to
have a knack for "people professions" like law and politics (as
opposed to, say, engineering and carpentry).
Black people are greatly over-represented among professional
athletes in America. Are you going to complain about that too?
Garry|2.12.07 @ 7:06PM|#
Nesta Webster is a widely acclaimed British historian of the 1920s and 30s She sets out not merely to catalog historic events of the last two hundred years; rather, she shows the causes for such events. Read her Secret Societies.
Eric Dondero|2.12.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Wrong! Joe Lieberman is much more Republican on issues besides
just the War on Islamo-Fascism.
I was up there in CT working for him as an Independent for his
Campaign.
Lamonte was slamming him -- no strike that -- savaging him for his
support for "Bush's tax cuts, school vouchers, ending affirmative
action, AND privatization of Social Security."
|2.12.07 @ 7:18PM|#
Joe is actually quite socially conservative... There's definitely more than just the war. And with Republicans no longer being the party of small government, the gap between them only narrows.
sean|2.12.07 @ 7:44PM|#
Exactly who gave Nesta Webster this wide acclaim? She appears to have been a generic anti-semitic crank.
Garry|2.12.07 @ 7:47PM|#
Nesta was cited respectfully by Winston Churchill, "This movement among the Jews ... as Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, [played] a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.""
sean|2.12.07 @ 7:51PM|#
yeah, I saw that in Wikipedia, but there was no footnote so I
don't know how accurate it is.
Besides the dubious, and certainly out of context, Churchillian
praise, who else acclaims Nesta Webster as a brilliant
historian?
|2.12.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Actually, Garry is right, but he fails to mention the sector in which we wield the most influence and have the most fun. Porn. Here's to getting hoovered by 4,000 shiksas in 25 years. It's been a wonderful life!
sean|2.12.07 @ 7:54PM|#
any historian who cites to the protocols of the Elders of Zion as a primary source deserves to be laughed out of the room. Acclaimed my ass.
|2.12.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Eric Dondero:
Joe Lieberman is much more Republican on issues besides just
the War on Islamo-Fascism.
Name some. He spends like he worst of the Dems:
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?senate_id=21
Jennifer|2.12.07 @ 8:17PM|#
Lieberman combines the worst aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans in one slimy package.
|2.12.07 @ 8:24PM|#
Garry:
Lieberman is in Israel's pocket.
More accurately, he is in the pocket of the current Israeli
government and the American neocons.
Garry|2.12.07 @ 8:26PM|#
Right, Rick. American neocons run our government on behalf of the Israeli government. Same pocket.
Garry|2.12.07 @ 8:34PM|#
"What is striking about Fox News Reporter Carl Cameron's
portrait of Israel's spy network in the U.S. is the sheer vastness
of his subject. The broad scope of the Israeli spy operation, with
its many fronts and activities conducted coast to coast...In the
months leading up to 9/11, Cameron claimed, Israel was waging a
covert war against its principal ally and benefactor, the United
States."
-Justin Raimondo "The Terror Enigma: Israel and the September 11
Connection," Chronicles Intelligence Assessment, August 2003
|2.12.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Lieberman combines the worst aspects of the Democrats and
the Republicans in one slimy package.
That is the best, most succinct description of Lieberman I have
seen.
Garry|2.12.07 @ 8:40PM|#
How Israeli terrorism and American treason caused the September
11 Attacks
http://www.davidduke.com/writings/howisraeliterror.shtml
|2.12.07 @ 8:57PM|#
Garry: (quoting Webster ?)
(Jews) hold disproportionate numbers of positions of great
power and influence...
What does that matter? After all, those Jews who are in
positions of great power and influence don't speak with one voice.
They're Jews, not the Borg. The only area that I can think
of where we should be aware of it is in news media. If persons who
are Jews are disproportionately in positions of influence in news
media, and they are, statistically we might expect what we see, the
more favorable treatment of the actions of the Israeli government
than reality would suggest. And the opposite for Arabs and
Iranians. Not that all the folks who are Jews and in positions of
influence in the news media are biased toward Israel.
The neocons who have so much influence in and out of the
administration aren't bad cuz they're disproportionately Jews,
They're bad cuz they place the needs of the Israeli government and
the Likud agenda first. There're non-Jews who are neocons and lotsa
Jews who oppose the neos and the Israeli governent.
sean|2.12.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Garry, is David Duke one of the people who acclaim Webster as a great historian?
|2.12.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Garry:
Nesta was cited respectfully by Winston Churchill, "This
movement among the Jews ... as Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown,
[played] a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the
French Revolution."
I think that that quote is incorrect. Churchill did praise her for
her work on the Bolshevik revolution, where she noted the
disproportionate influence of folks who were Jews. . But the word
"Jew" is never even mentioned in her book "The French Revolution".
In that book she nicely shows the conspiracy behind the French
Revolution but lays none of it at the feet of folks who were
Jews.
|2.12.07 @ 9:37PM|#
sean:
Garry, is David Duke one of the people who acclaim Webster as a
great historian?
I'll answer that if I may. Yes, David Duke probably does acclaim
Webster as a great historian. But that's cuz some of what she's
written dovetails with his racism. Webster did do some fine history
but she also, at different times in here carrier, expressed
anti-Jewish racism. BTW, she did not believe in Jewish authorship
of the Protocols forgery. She was complicated, neither a devil nor
saint. I've written some stuff about her. I'll just post it.
Including at least one well-known historian who came to appreciate
her work on conspiracy.
|2.12.07 @ 9:43PM|#
The first serious works of conspiracy analysis dealt with the conspiracies behind the French Revolution and did not even mention Jews. They include Augustin Barruel's four volume study, "Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism" (1799) and Professor John Robinson's "Proofs of a Conspiracy"(1798). These works were summarized and added too in "The French Revolution" by Nesta Webster (1919) which also did not mention the word "Jew". (Webster did address matters, Jewish, in other of her books and in her volume, "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" she makes some unfair generalizations concerning Jews when she leaves conspiracy analysis for sociology, though her comments are more understandable (not correct though) given the date
|2.12.07 @ 9:56PM|#
Webster's general view of the Protocols
forgery
Some of the Protocols describe the behavior of any ruling elite.
Note also that they were first made known to the world and
published by Sergye Nilus, a pronounced anti-Jewish racist. This is
not proof that they are a forgery, but it is certainly a good
reason to be skeptical. What's more is that many passages
of the Protocols bare a striking resemblance to much earlier
documented articles of Illuminism and of other secret
societies. It's easy to see Nilus weaving together these
earlier documents of world revolution and then putting a Jewish
stamp on them for the purpose of making his racist case. (see:
World Revolution by Nesta Webster)
In the above-cited title, the historian Webster observes the
anti-Semitism of Sergye Nilus and makes a strong case for the
possibility of this manipulation of other known conspiratorial
documents and cobbling them into his own creation, The Protocols,
and inventing other elements to give them a Jewish
pedigree.
|2.12.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Hang on here because Nesta Webster herself expressed
anti-Semitism at times. Not by the standards of the 1920s perhaps;
in fact in her day, she was not considered to be an anti-Semite.
Circa 1921, she was winning gratitude of Jewish groups for her
skepticism of the Protocols forgery. However, by 1938 when she was
not writing histories of conspiracies but instead, urging that Jews
be turned away from Britton's shores as they fled the horrors of
German National Socialism, her anti-Semitism was manifest, and even
her anti-German feelings seem to have given way to Nazi
apologetics.
Historians still debate her historical work:
http://www.premier1.net/~barkonwd/nwebster.htm
|2.12.07 @ 10:46PM|#
Garry:
Right, Rick. American neocons run our government on behalf of
the Israeli government. Same pocket.
That's going too far. American neocons *influence* our government
on behalf of the Israeli government. Recall how neocons inside the
Pentagon helped to enable the Israeli government to spy on us.
If they ran our government, why would they have to spy on
us?
... and Larry Franklin, another OSPer - recently convicted of
spying for Israel and sentenced to 12 years in the slammer.
Franklin is now cooperating with the government in prosecuting
AIPAC honcho Steve Rosen and top Iran analyst Keith Weissman, who
were caught red-handed [.pdf] as they turned over classified
information procured from Franklin to Israeli embassy
officials.
http://antiwar.com/justin/
BTW please note, Garry: Franklin is not a
Jew
Josh|2.12.07 @ 11:55PM|#
Nesta Webster was a pseudo-historian and vicious racist that
nobody outside nutsoid conspiracy circles takes seriously. This
site details some of the falsehoods she peddled.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti
Josh|2.13.07 @ 12:54AM|#
Sorry, this is the full URL for the cite on Wenster:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/webster_n.html
|2.13.07 @ 2:12AM|#
Josh:
Nesta Webster was a...vicious racist
You, like Garry, are going too far. As I noted in my posts, she
wrote some inexcusable racist things, but she also debunked the
Protocols forgery and pointed out that that they were first made
known to the world and published by a pronounced anti-Jewish
racist.
|2.13.07 @ 2:45AM|#
Josh:
Bullshit.
If you'd bothered to read the link that I posted, you'd know that
historians do indeed still debate Nesta Wenster's historical work.
No less than Crane Branton, wrote his Doctoral dissertation called
the "The Jacobins" to refute her thesis in her "The French
Revolution" (which, btw doesn't mention the word "Jew" once), but
later came to Webster's side on the matter of the French
revolution. I'm pretty sure that if you read that book, you'd never
call her a "pseudo-historian" again. Although she did write some
crap as well. But her proving of conspiracy in certain
political/historical episodes is very strong. I think that her work
on the French revolution is her best.
josh|2.13.07 @ 2:59AM|#
From Wikipedia:
Nesta Helen Webster (August 24, 1876 - May 16, 1960) was a
controversial, DISCREDITED, historian and author who wrote several
books on subjects. At least one work mentioned, among several other
things, a Jewish conspiracy. Arguably her most notorious was her
authorship with several others, in 1920 Britain, of The Jewish
Peril series of articles in the London Morning Post, centered on
the Protocols of Zion. These articles were subsequently compiled
and published in the same year, in book form under the title of the
The Cause of World Unrest.
|2.13.07 @ 3:01AM|#
Josh:
...nobody outside nutsoid conspiracy circles...
If your making a categorical dismissal of political conspiracy
theories, you're being naive . When we debase conspiracy analysis,
we're throwing out an invaluable tool for understanding real
politic. Political power is often transmitted via the machinations
of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Often, conspiracy
theorizing is the only way to apprehend political reality.
I think we need to engage in conspiracy analysis to understand
political power. We need to ask the question; who benefits? I like
Rothbard's extension of common sense conspiracy analysis from
smaller political situations like the collusion of labor and
management to enact tariffs, to larger things like entry into war,
the creation of the Fed. etc.
|2.13.07 @ 3:15AM|#
Josh:
You are a moron and probably a racist moron.
So now you're reduced to name calling. I accept your
resignation.
Read my posts in this thread and it's pretty clear that I'm
anti-racist. (all libertarians should be) I pointed out the racist
stuff that Webster wrote but contrary to the misinformation
contained in the Wikpedia article you cite, she attacked the
Protocols forgery, rather than supported it.
Josh|2.13.07 @ 3:30AM|#
Oh, wow! Nesta Webster denounced the Protocols as a forgery. Well, I guess she wasn't an anti-Semite, and neither are you, Rick. Take you meds now and go to bed.
|2.13.07 @ 7:43AM|#
Josh, spouting off LGF-style doesn't impress many people. It just weakens your case.
|2.13.07 @ 9:43AM|#
You're an anti-Semite! No you're the anti-Semite! No you're the
anti Semite! No you're the anti-Semite! Nooo… you're the anti
Semite!
Jesus! Where's Mel Gibson when you need him.
You know Mel if your reading this I got an idea for your next film…
ready… the story of the USS Liberty. Make it in American English
and Yiddish with Arabic subtitles, you'll make so much freakin'
money… you really could buy Malibu! I'm not kidding.
You're an anti-Semite! No you're the anti-Semite! No you're the
Hitler! Nooo… you're an anti Semite! You really are a Nazi! Really,
well your the biggest anti-Semite on the planet!
Jesus-H-Christ will you shut up already!
Thank You!
Andy|2.13.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Eh, get used to hearing this leak every few months for the next two years, at least. Right now Lieberman is holding the Dems over a fire, and he knows it. So, every time a pork project he wanted goes somewhere else, or he gets a seat too far back at a dinner, someone on his staff is going to casually mention to a press member they know that, gosh, Joe sure has been talking to those Repubs a lot, and gosh, I think I saw a memo in his office offering a MUCH better seat at the Republican side of the room. Now this isn't saying he wouldn't switch in a heartbeat if he thought it was helpful, but right now the Reps are waning, so I don't see him jumping ship for a 1.5 year benefit, only to have the Dems gain 5 or 6 seats in '08 and him to be the absolute persona non grata for the time they rule.
|2.13.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Josh:
Oh, wow! Nesta Webster denounced the Protocols as a forgery.
Well, I guess she wasn't an anti-Semite
Only an idiot could read what I've written on this thread and then
actually conclude that that's my inference. Do you have a reading
comprehension problem? Note my comment at 10:05 pm. if you're
capable and willing.
Joe|2.13.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Josh
You're the nut case for taking a Nesta Webster fan seriously enough
to argue with him. Get a life.
|2.13.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Joe,
As should be evidenced in my comments, I'm can hardly be called a
"fan". I can appreciate some of what she wrote while rejecting and
opposing some of what she wrote. Truth is where you find it.
Contemporary historians have certainly taken some of Webster's
writings seriously. (See my comment at 2:45 am.
Joe|2.13.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Whatever, Rick, I just hate to see a whole thread hijacked by this nonsense. You might be a bit simple, but I don't think you're an anti-Semite. Josh is a jerk
|2.13.07 @ 3:18PM|#
We are also disproportionately represented as Nobel laureates. Looks like we've got a new candidate for the master race, the chosen people. Calm down Gary, or we'll sit you down on that red-hot piece of rebar; set you in the corner on the grumpy chair and make an example.
|2.13.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Joe,
Yeah, I quite assure you that I'm not an anti-Semite or an anti-any
ethnic group. Thank you. And just why do you think I might be "a
bit simple"? Actually, I'm guessing that was motivated by some
disagreement you have with something I've written.
You wanna play some chess? I'll give ya simple :)
|2.13.07 @ 4:35PM|#
You are a moron and probably a racist moron.
Josh, speaking as someone who just yeaterday called out a fellow
poster as a 'racist moron', Rick Barton can be irritating at times
and it's rare that he and I agree but I've experienced nothing to
suggest that he's a racist.
He just has some nuanced positions on some controversial topics. If
you'd do less reacting and more actual reading of his posts you'd
get that.
Instead, you're acting like a hystrionic jackass.
Joe|2.13.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Rick, No disagreement. I defer to your knowledge of debate contemporary historians are having on the merits of Nesta Webster's work (:
|2.14.07 @ 1:59AM|#
madpad,
Thank you. I really appreciate it. I hope that I'm not irritating
too often...although, even if I am, I probably won't change. ;)
|2.14.07 @ 7:01PM|#
I haven't heard this one before.
I give up.
When does an exaggeration become a lie, Josh?
(This had better be funny.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245