Triumph of The Money Party: Lieberman and the Convenient Amnesia

Triumph of The Money Party

The "three wise guys" at the Republican National
Image cc

Lieberman & the Collective Amnesia

Michael Collins

(Wash. DC) The full exoneration of a clear traitor to the Democratic Party predicts how Congress will treat the dire challenges facing the country.

There will be little is no opposition to the arranged marriage between corporate and government interests.

There will be no remedies for the problems that were created as a result of this arrangement.

There will be no accountability for the crimes committed over the past eight years.  The looting of the United States Treasury will continue.

And the projection of power in behalf of corporate interests will continue when needed, unopposed, without regard to the well being of the nation as a whole or the interests of citizens.  The Senate cave-in is a paradigm for past behavior by corporatist Democrats in both houses of Congress.

Lieberman's retention of his committee chairmanship and caucus membership is all the proof we need that a majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus finds nothing objectionable to a member actively campaigning for the Republican nominee for president, live and in person.  It doesn't matter that Lieberman dismissed the Democratic nominee's qualifications to be president.  Could they be any more obvious?

Lieberman spoke in support of Senator McCain's candidacy in prime time at the Republican convention.  He derided the importance of parties by saying,

"But when they (citizens) look to Washington, all too often they don't see their leaders coming together to tackle these problems. Instead, they see Democrats and Republicans fighting each other, rather than fighting for the American people."

This description of party conflict is a total lie as Lieberman well knows.  The tyrant Bush got nearly everything he asked for from Congress without any noticeable opposition, even after the Democrats assumed the majority in 2006.

Lieberman went on to remind the assembled that George Washington had warned of the dangers of political parties.  Then he told the audience, "Well, I'll tell you what: I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party."  By implication, he argued that President-elect Obama did not put country before party.

What country is Lieberman talking about?

Is the country that saw nearly a trillion dollars (and counting) given away to corporate failures on Wall Street while millions lose their homes?

Is it the country that was tricked into supporting an invasion of Iraq to catch someone in Afghanistan?  Wasn't this the invasion that precipitated events resulting in the death of 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, caused tens of thousands of deaths and injuries to U.S. soldiers, and began the road to bankruptcy?

Is it the country that was attacked on 9/11 that never saw a real investigation other than the one choreographed by Condoleezza Rice's former collaborator.

It is certainly the country in which the majority of citizens have little say while their government is looted by the corporate elite represented by Lieberman and those who endorse him.

He does well by his friends.  When the Enron scandal broke and tens of thousands lost billions in that pyramid scheme, Lieberman's Senate committee was in charge of investigating.  But as the New York Times pointed out, Lieberman

"received $25,000 from Enron. Critics have also pointed out that Citigroup, Enron's largest lender, is Mr. Lieberman's top donor, giving his campaigns $112,000 since 1997, campaign records show. A longtime Republican strategist put it this way, ''Lieberman's problem is simple -- Enron's biggest creditor is his campaign's biggest contributor.''  New York Times, Jan. 2, 2002

Lieberman delivered.  There was no serious investigation of Enron by the Senate.  The people were without an advocate.  All we got was a wink and a nod paving the way for the latest corporate thefts.  This is the best clue to Lieberman's morality and philosophy, the same morality and philosophy endorsed by the Democrats who welcomed him back to their "party" with open arms.

He does put one country first, corporate America.  His record is riddled with this sort of self serving deals that benefit of those who pay his campaign bills and employ his ex staffers.

How serious can those 42 Senate Democrats be?   Quite serious, actually.  Most of them are guilty of the same betrayals that Lieberman committed.  They're just a bit less obvious than the low key male hysteric that they find so irresistible.

They are the hollow men and women who act as though political parties mean nothing.

They are the political zombies with feigned amnesia allowing them to forget the crimes of the past eight years, crimes to which they've been a party.

They represent the triumph of The Money Party:

"It is not about Republicans versus Democrats. Right now, the Republicans do a better job taking money than the Democrats. But The Money Party is an equal opportunity employer. They have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. Democrats are as welcome as Republicans to this party. It's all good when you're on the take and the take is legal."



Permission to reproduce in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and attribution of images as indicated.

More on The Money Party

No votes yet


Michael, I think (or you might say hope) that you are premature in the conclusions you are drawing. Keeping Lieberman on may be simply a means to come close enough to the 60 votes to allow cloture and prevent a successful Republican filibuster. Leiberman now is in a very weak position to do anything to cross the Senate Democrats. I think that Obama's recent statements (for example in the 60 Minutes interview) suggest that your dire predictions will not be the case.


On that I suspect we agree.  I didn't mention Obama on purpose although I had a line in there saying, "Obama is the only political force between the decadent and corrupt Senators and the well being of the citizens of this country." 

I'm taking an incremental approach on this.  I don't really care who Obama appoints to the cabinet because I'm sure that he needs to pull in some outsided egos to keep an eye on them (unless it's Elliot Abrams;).  So we will see what is proposed in the first 90 days.  That's what I'm looking for.

He will not have a willing or cooperative Senate.  All five new senators are rumored to have voted with the 42 embarassments who condone the post modern fascism of LIeberman.  I suspect that Obama will need to go over the heads of the Senators and Representatives, directly to the people, to get anything done.  They are such a sorry lot, complicit in all Bush did, with a few exceptions.

So I'm waiting.  It will be very interesting indeed.


"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton