Poor Joseph Liberman

First, a link to the article I'll be referencing:  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/14/america/lieberman.php?page=1

"Joseph Lieberman, the lapsed Democrat from Connecticut, strolled into the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats, unaccompanied by a food taster."

That's the first sentence of the article, but it says quite a bit.  He's a "lapsed" Democrat (which means he doesn't fall into lock-step with the party's ideals.)  Second, he didn't have a food-taster.  That was, I suspect, an attempt to inject humour into the article, but it's actually quite telling, given the next sentence. 

Here it is:  "He greeted his colleagues, including some who felt he should not have been there last Tuesday." (emphasis added)

Wow.  So now things are so polarized in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption that you need to fall into lock-step with your colleagues?!? 

If Mr. Lieberman is that dis-liked because he's out of favour (called out of step by some,) can you imagine what the reaction to my showing up in DC again would be like?  I'd be dead before my body hit the ground.

Before anybody says anything, there are those on the other side of the fence who are the same way.  If you disagree with what some Republicans are saying, you're on their shyte-list too.  (This probably explains why I was never invited back to the White House Dinner.)  I've p*ssed off so many on both sides that I fully expect if I showed up in DC again, I would be dead before my body hit the ground.  (Assuming I made it that far.  I'd probably be stopped by agents from a three-letter government agency.  "I'm sorry, Sir, but we can't let you past this point.  It's for your own safety.  Not to mention what would happen to us if we let you through.")

Sadly, then, the answer to the hypothetical question of whether or not Mr. Lieberman actually needed a food-taster ... is apparently yes. 

And again, sadly, this confirms that things are so polarized there that if you disagree with what your colleagues are saying that you can't even sit down and eat with them.  Remember, a few of them didn't want Mr. Lieberman there.  This is the truly sad state of American politics.

Whatever happened to listening to the other side's viewpoints in a calm and rational matter?  Whatever happened to "Problems won't be solved without discussing them in depth and passion.  Let's not make some joke of the Bill of Rights.  Let's make so certain that we listen to all viewpoints, especially those with which we strongly disagree."  You might not have been alive when Sen. Al Simpson said that to Sen. Ted Kennedy, but I was.  It was in the early 1980's.  (I think it was in 1983, but I could be wrong on this.  For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was 1983.)

So....since 1983 we've gone from "Let's make so certain that we listen to all viewpoints, especially those with which we strongly disagree," to needing a food-taster.  We've gone from discussing things in depth and passion ... to not being able to sit down with one's colleagues because their views on issues differ.

The politician$ are that sad.  And that, my friends, is a very sad place to be.  If you did need any more proof that things in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption are indeed in a sad and sorry state, there you are. 

In 25 years we've gone from discussing things in depth and passion ... to needing food-tasters.

We've gone from people on both sides praying for a sick or dying person on the other side of the divide ... to praying that they die.

We've devolved.