4 votes short

Senate Dems. Weigh New Iraq Restrictions
Sunday February 18, 2007
By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer

The [US] House passed a nonbinding resolution Friday that rejected the president's 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq. The vote put Bush on the defensive going into a far more consequential confrontation over paying for the plan.

On Saturday, Senate Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate Bush's deployment of additional combat troops. The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed, but Democrats quickly claimed victory, noting that a majority of senators voted against the escalation.

And how did Senator Lieberman (Rat-Conn.) vote on this? If you're familiar with "Joe", I think you'll be able to guess how he voted. If you'd like to know how he and other US Seantors voted on this resolution, follow this link to the Boston Globe story.

Does anyone out there suffer under the delusion that CT is anything other than a rather large golf course for a clutch of robber baron fucks? If so, please allow me to correct that. First off, realize that CT elected Lieberman - AGAIN, despite having a much clearer idea this time where the senator's allegiances were. I suppose anyone with eyes could have seen it before, but you'd have to have deliberately looked a bit and for many reasons (some of them even really good reasons) people sometimes just don't look. But this last time, the true nature of Lieberman was pretty much in the faces of even the less deliberately attentive. And he won anyhow. I know there could be some reassurance in the fact that it wasn't a clear victory for him. There was a nice turn out of progressive voters who gave Lieberman a good run for his money (and it was a lot of money). But lacking any substantive evidence that this group is anything more than a completely unaffiliated set of inconsistent, unstable voters which includes in its ranks a large number of folks who know very little about candidates or races who lack national name recognition, I felt the minor bouyancy of seeing what had to be at best a pyrrhic victory for Lieberman was limited in scope and duration.

So while I am happy about outcomes like Joe Courtney beating Rob Simmons for the US House in the last election (because Simmons creeped me out in an X-files smoking man kind of way) I still feel unimpressed with CT's political leanings. I still feel that CT is a state of rich and/or well off bastards who manage to project a very superficial appearance of yankee-moderate values but who consistently vote craker, and of an unfortunately large number of apparently quite idiotic working poor (hey, I'm in that socio-economic group so yes, I'm knocking my peers here) who consistently vote like it's an act of sympathetic magic which will bestow upon them the affluence and dignity of the american dream they desperately, irrationally cling to.