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.

NEXT: Everybody's Favorite Human Rights Abuse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is Lieberman considering a 2008 Presidential run?

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. “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

  5. “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.

  6. Lieberman is in Israel’s pocket.

  7. Is there anyone Dave Weigel can talk about without being accused of liberal bias? Carrot Top maybe?

  8. Yeah, Weigel can talk about Carrot Top, but the second that Ron Bailey does, he’s in the pocket of the GMO lobby.

  9. 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

  10. 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.”

  11. 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 Ko?ciuszko’s rep as a Revolutionary War hero.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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.”

  15. 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.

  16. Exactly who gave Nesta Webster this wide acclaim? She appears to have been a generic anti-semitic crank.

  17. 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.””

  18. 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?

  19. 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!

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. Lieberman combines the worst aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans in one slimy package.

  23. Garry:

    Lieberman is in Israel’s pocket.

    More accurately, he is in the pocket of the current Israeli government and the American neocons.

  24. Right, Rick. American neocons run our government on behalf of the Israeli government. Same pocket.

  25. “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

  26. 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.

  27. How Israeli terrorism and American treason caused the September 11 Attacks

    http://www.davidduke.com/writings/howisraeliterror.shtml

  28. 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.

  29. Garry, is David Duke one of the people who acclaim Webster as a great historian?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. “Historians still debate her [Nesta Wenster’s] historical work.”

    Bullshit.

  38. Sorry, this is the full URL for the cite on Wenster:

    http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/webster_n.html

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. Rick

    You are a moron and probably a racist moron.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. I’m just dismissing you and Nesta, Rick.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. Josh, spouting off LGF-style doesn’t impress many people. It just weakens your case.

  48. Oof.

    This is a whoopin’.

    Stay down, Josh! Stay down!

  49. 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!

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. Josh

    You’re the nut case for taking a Nesta Webster fan seriously enough to argue with him. Get a life.

  53. 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.

  54. 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

  55. 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.

  56. 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 🙂

  57. 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.

  58. Rick, No disagreement. I defer to your knowledge of debate contemporary historians are having on the merits of Nesta Webster’s work (:

  59. 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. 😉

  60. Joe,

    It’s really a crowded field. 😉

  61. So when does an exaggeration become a lie?

  62. I haven’t heard this one before.
    I give up.
    When does an exaggeration become a lie, Josh?
    (This had better be funny.)

  63. Is it some sort of zen joke, then?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.