« Deficit halved in half the time | Main | Death of cursive »

Misleading nonsense at Firedoglake

If Connecticut wants to oust Joe Lieberman for his support of the war, then fine. Many of his critics, however, seem worried that the war alone might not be sufficient, so they're hurling everything they can at him hoping some of it will stick.

This trend reached its ludicrous apex, in my opinion, in this Jane Hamsher piece posted at Firedoglake.

Now I'm no fan of Joe Lieberman, but this strikes me as a grossly unfair and disingenuous abuse of statistics. Hamsher slams Lieberman because Connecticut sends more money to Washington than it gets back by a higher ratio than almost any other state.

True enough, but this ratio tends to increase as a function of a state's wealth. Richer states tend to have a net outflux of dollars to Washington and poorer states a net influx. Connecticut is, by some measures, the richest state in the union, and in an indirect way, that is why Hamsher is slamming Lieberman.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that pathetic. Perhaps it's just desperation, as Lieberman's lead four weeks out is beginning to look insurmountable. Perhaps when your "referendum" on the Iraq war looks as if it won't turn out the way you want, you start urgently trying to make it about other issues as well. Still, criticizing Lieberman for not turning Connecticut into Mississippi seems like a bit of a stretch to me.


Perhaps it's just desperation, as Lieberman's lead four weeks out is beginning to look insurmountable.

Oh yeah? At the same time in 1988 when Lieberman was elected for the rist time, Weicker was leading by a wider margin. Wanna bet a case of beers again?

Perhaps when your "referendum" on the Iraq war looks as if it won't turn out the way you want

Oh yeah? Wait and watch who will take the congress and the senate in November (yes the senate). And by the way, dont tell me that you still support the Iraq war. You know well that this was one of the greatest strategic errors in the history of the country and I am sure it is one of the reasons that you dont support Bush anymore. Am I wrong?

I agree. Connecticut, led by liberal Democrats, is the richest State in the nation. They subsidize the poorer Repug states, who flop around gasping because of the failed policies of their neocon Repug leadership.

There's a lot of blowback potential in those numbers, but as earlier commenters have already noted, they are not entirely unfair. What they actually reflect, more than anything, is the Blue State/Red State divide and the dominance of Republicans in Congress. A Republican-controlled Congress does not liek to send money to Democrat-favoring states. Lieberman's Republican lovefest has not worked to Connecticut's advantage, however, which is ultimately the point. NJ is dead last, I believe, in return on dollars sent to Washington, which is what we get for supporting Democrats. You can take that two ways. One way is that we better "stay the course" because we are looking like we'll have a Democrat-controlled Congress shortly and need to take advantage of that or you can say that our Democrat leanings have hurt us and therefore we should elect more Republicans. That's why I don't like using those particular stats. They don't really work to the advantage of one side or the other, but can easily be used against either side.

Well there is an updated version of the chart here. Independently of whether or not the chart is misleading, Lieberman sucks and hopefully will lose.

How about a little Rove food for thought?

You guys have made it abundantly clear that Lieberman is not welcome anymore, even when he beats the little dilettante, Lamont.

What say that Rove, knowing that the Dems will shun Joe, approaches him about caucusing with the GOP. The Dems in DC have said they will remove him from his seniority positions. Say that Rove promises to preserve same?

Hey, he'e more conservative than Chaffee and guess whose idea was it to send out the NRC attack dogs on Linc's challenger to try to hold a RINO seat in a blue state?

Keep treating the man as a pariah, guys. You may lose more than you realize.

And deservedly so.

Hey, he'e more conservative than Chaffee

Hell yes. Chaffee is a rational senator that I respect and like. Lieberman has been the rubber stamp for Bush's disastrous errors. I prefer a democratic minocrity without Lieberman than a democratic majority with Lieberman. And you are right, Lieberman should join the republican party. That's what he deserves.

Lieberman support the war for the sake of his homeland, Israel. Other than that, he votes like a normal Democrats. The people of Connecticut probably should elect someone who is American first.

Lieberman has taken many positions that are anathema to the basic Democratic platform and, in a very real way, to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So the people who oppose his positions took him on and he was beaten in the primary. It goes beyond the war. The notion that this is all about the war is bogus. Plus, he very publically defends BushCo on every possible matter even when BushCo is in violation of the Constitution. So yes, he has been made a pariah. Deservedly so. If he is a DINO, then let him caucus with the Republicans. What does it matter when he is so Republican on essential issues anyway?

I don't get some of the logic being offered here. It's like some of you are trying to convince others that Lieberman is A-OK as a Democrat even if his positions are Republican and that the Democrats who say he isn't a Democrat are all wrong. If it walks and talks and acts like a duck, it can call itself a crocodile all it wants.

He supports Bush in the Iraq invasion because destroying Iraq is in the best interest of Israel. He is an Orthodox Jew, so he allegiance is to Israel first. Except for that, I don't see how he is much different from most Democrats.

DBK is, of course, right on Lieberman. The problem with him is not just Iraq. The guy is a right-winger dressed in democrats' clothes. Bailey's comments are out of touch with reality, as in many other instances.

Oh and Bailey, I am sick and tired of your negative comments about Israel. Israel is a great country. Leave it alone.

A great country? Does murdering children make a country great? Does having your military paid for by the American taxpayer make your a great? Does spying on your "ally" and stealing their secrets make a country great?

Israel isn't great.

Oh, and take a look at Lieberman's voting record. Go ahead, really. Go on, take a look. Are you open to facts, or do you just want to be emotional?


Well, Blue is RIGHT about Israel (they are a good ally, in fact, along with England, perhaps our most reliable ally)...but amazingly enough, Barely's RIGHT about Lieberman's record. Lieberman is a reliable Liberal – even foolishly voted AGAINST the tax cuts that have halved the deficit and brought us this incredible economy (2.4% inflation, 4.6% unemployment, rising personal income, strong GDP growth, low interest rates and a Dow fast approaching 12,000) and against energy independence for America (opposing drilling in ANWAR and off both U.S. coasts).

Lieberman’s a Liberal alright.

And Israel is a stalwart ally.

Working class income is down in real terms, less buying power, stagnant or dropping wages, higher fuel costs, more debt, less security, less freedom ... just less of everything.

The future for working people is dismal. The future for rich con artists like Bush and Cheney is great!

Actually, that's not at all true.

Fuel costs are (1) NOT a governmental policy and (2) with current high reserves, a milder than expected Winter '05, a milder than expected hurricane season of '06 and lowered demand post-peak driving season, fuel costs are LOWER than they've been in years.

Real wages have been increasing steadily at about 0.2% per month (July, 2006 was 0.4%), or appx 2.5% per year.

With low inflation (under 3%) buying power isn't eroding at all.

More debt" - Actually that's LESS debt, as the Bush tax cuts have halved the deficit over the past two years!

Less security" - Actually, that's MORE security, as the ONLY way we can quantitatively measure such a thing is by the standard, "How many times has America been attacked since 9/11?"

The answer of course, is ZERO - translating into what can only be called "a great deal of domestic security."

"Less freedom" - For whom??? For terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?

Like the vast majority of Americans, I WANT a lot less freedom for them!

IF only someone...anyone could prove to me that terrorism was, after all is said and done, "just another crime," and even more than that, an, albeit a desperate one, a basic means of "free speech" ("speaking truth to power with the only language that power understands"), I'd immediately reconsider my views on (1) the use of military force to deal with Islamo-fascism, and (2) many of the strong domestic security measures we've taken at home.

I don't believe that case can be made. In fact, I know it can't.

"The future for working people is dismal." (BH)

I'm a "working person" and so's my wife and the future looks preety good to us.

Liberalism's foundation is negativity and despair. When the economy is good (like now) they focus on income disparities, the balance of trade (which they don't understand) and such. When the economy slows, they're quick to bemoan "the failures of the market."

A Liberal is one who could win the lottery and still bitterly complain that "The future looks pretty boring from here."

Barely, your very essence is Liberal.

I'm testing to see if I can bold everything like JMK, because that will make my points EVEN STRONGER

With bold italics I should be able to make LOUD yet subtle points like JMK

Does this work too?

OK, done testing, I found a page that refutes everything you have ever said, JMK:


Barely, I'm sorry that my points frustrated you so much, but you make so many obviously loopy statements;

"Fuel costs going up" as they've been declining over the past six weeks (gasoline is now under $2/gal in NJ)..."Less security" in the wake of our fifth year without an attack on U.S. soil..."More debt" in the midst of the deficit being halved over the last two years...and "Less Freedom" when you can cite no examples.

See? It's not that you're a liar.

You're not smart enough to lie well (most people aren't). You simply "know a lot of things that simply aren't so."

That's why facts frustrate you so much.

I wonder why you won't bet your future on this board that gas prices are only being temporarily manipulated. So you know it is really only a cynical ploy.

We have less freedom when our rights are taken away, not when they are inevitably abused in the future. Why fight gun control laws if nobody is trying to actually take your guns away yet? Duh.

We have less security because Bush has allowed more terrorists to set up camp in our country as he refuses to cut off cheap Mexican labor for the Corporations that own him.

We have less security because now their are far more terrorists, and we no longer have international support in our efforts to curb terrorism.

You are clearly a liar. You know what is true, but you say what you believe will keep "your" team in power.

You are deluded, but you are still a liar too.

A cold winter, &/or any major disruption in OPEC production will result in higher oil prices by early 2007.

Surely Bush has no control over that...if he did, I'd certainly bet that he'd work tirelessly day and night to keep our energy prices low, cause that's the kind of guy he seems like to me.

I've actually read the P{atriot Act and posted the link to the entire article and I'v esurmised that that Act does not violate, nor abridge any of our Constitutional Rights.

Roving wiretaps have long been ALLOWED for dealing with drug dealers and pedophiles...now they can be used on suspected terrorists.

That provision violates no Constituional rights, nor "gives law enforcement any additional powers," since they could already use roving wiretaps on some crimes.

Look it over yourself, if your able and if you think any provision violates any Constitutional Rights, post it and I'll most likely explain to you why it's no violation at all.

There are no "Mexican terrorists."

Actual Islamic terrorists may well eventually cross that border and that's why ONLY the GOP supports that border fence - recently passed by both the House & Senate.

We actually have MORE international support, with NATO taking responsibility in eastern Afghanistan.

There is also little, if any evidence that our military forays into the Mideast have "created any new terrorists."

In fact, the Muslim world has been so rocked by these wars that moderate Muslims have turned on the radicals who've, in their words, "hijacked their religion."

Fuel prices are low due entirely to our high oil reserves, due in large part to a mild winter of '05/'06 and a mild hurricane season '06.

The Patriot Act has not been abused at all(going on five years) and has been a great tool in securing domestic security.

The Republican Congress passed the "Enforcement First" bill that provides for a fence along the most traversable parts of the U.S./Mexican border...most of the Dems still support open immigration.

And the deficit has been cut in HALF over the past two years. Not "more debt, but actually, "LESS debt," Barely.

I'm going to keep correcting you until you accept the facts.

This is fun! It's kind of like whack-a-mole. You keep making inane statements and I whack'em down with the facts.

Post a comment