Where’d You Go, No-Show Joe?
There’s a great new ad up by VoteVets regarding George Allen’s refusal to provide body armor for the troops he yee-hawed into harm’s way. It’s a fabulous spot that points up the fact that those whose puerile bellicosity made them believe that one becomes tough by risking the lives of others were rarely prepared to back up their grandiose schemes with practical support. Nobody evidently told them that bloated rhetoric on the Senate floor never stopped a bullet.
And what of Joe Lieberman? There’s a new site from the Lamont campaign called "The Truth About Joe" which highlights Joe’s lame record when it comes to voting on bills regarding his war:
LIEBERMAN MISSED 31 OUT OF 61 TOTAL VOTES ON IRAQ: That’s right, out of 61 total votes the Senate has considered on Iraq since the invasion, Lieberman has missed 31 of them, or more than half.
LIEBERMAN MISLED REPORTERS; VOTED OPPOSITE OF HOW HE SAID HE WOULD VOTE: But even worse, Lieberman misled Connecticut reporters yesterday about his position on the legislation in question. He claims that had he decided to attend the vote last week on critical legislation to demand President Bush report to Congress on the growing chaos in Iraq, he would have voted for the legislation because he says he believes, “Why not have more information?” Yet, Lieberman has actually voted the opposite way on the rare occasions he’s actually shown up to vote. According to Senate records, in 2004, Lieberman cast the deciding vote against legislation “To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq.” Had Lieberman not voted against the legislation, it would have moved forward. Instead, it died in a Senate debate decided by one vote.
LIEBERMAN SAID MISSED VOTES “AN IMPORTANT ARGUMENT” IN 1988: Lieberman said yesterday that asking questions about why he has missed so many votes on the critical issue of Iraq supposedly means people are “running a negative campaign” against him. But in 1988 when Lieberman questioned why his opponent had missed Senate votes, Lieberman’s campaign said that questioning a Senator’s willingness to skip votes is “an important argument ” and “an issue [because] Connecticut needs a senator who is there.” That’s exactly the same thing Ned Lamont said yesterday when he asked: “How can you hold anyone accountable when you are not there to vote? These are not procedural matters they are issues of life and death, war and peace.”
It’s ironic that Lieberman beat Lowell Weicker for the seat in the first place by criticizing him for not showing up for votes (hence the "sleeping bear" ad that got its sequel in the incomprehensible bear cartoon against Lamont). But No-Show Joe has a penchant for adopting the tactics he criticizes in others, ergo his unnatural embrace of all things GOP. Joe now says such votes don’t matter :
[W]hen asked why Lieberman missed these votes, Lieberman’s campaign responded saying Senate votes on Iraq do not matter. His spokeswoman claimed such votes are just “typical party-line procedural votes.”
I think we should let Tim Tagaris have the last word on this one:
Skip work tomorrow.
Just tell your boss you were interviewing for another job in New Hampshire or something. Maybe you’re accepting some random award down the street and can’t be bothered to come in? Either way, I’m sure s/he won’t care. And if things get dicey, just explain your participation wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
If memory serves me correctly, Lowell Weicker showed up for Watergate and changed history. Joe can’t be bothered to give a toss about his signature issue, the war. I know, I know, kinda toxic and the ass-kicking in Iraq he probably did not expect certainly is no party, either.
Still, there are a few soldiers over there who might want to live to be veterans.