Lieberman Stays

@Bi-Polar Bear,

I'm disappointed.

I thought the Democrats would have driven him into the open arms of the GOP, by soundly "punishing" him.

Politics.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

They should have, he does not represent any of the views of most democrats in the committee he is in charge of, plus the rhetoric he spouted during the campaign was unforgivable in my view, I don't understand why they rewarded him for it.

But maybe they are trying to keep everybody they can rather than throwing one more body to other side. But that really don't make sense since he is an independent and seems to go the way of the republicans on those issues he is in charge of, I guess that is what gets under my skin the most.

The Lieberman Vote: What It Means and Why

0 Replies

annoying.

But I can see why they let him stay - there's not much tangible gain from kicking him out. It's mostly an emotional satisfaction.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

It is rumored that the first family changed their minds about a puppy and got a chameleon instead.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

He brings them closer to that magic number 60 they're hoping for. With three Senate race yet undecided and Lieberman indicating that he would caucus with the Republicans if he was stripped of his chairmanship (Inds must indicate which party they plan to caucus with) he brings them to 57/60 needed to have a filibuster-proof majority.

They would never have booted him so long as there was a possibility of getting to 60.

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate politics?

0 Replies

Yes, more politicians should be punished for not sticking 100% to the party lines.

It's a good thing that nobody was campaigning on "reaching across the aisle".

oh wait....

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Lieberman is an interesting case study in those willing to buck party lines and sitting "in the aisle". I wish there were more of them (not that I'm a Lieberman fan), but I think any politician who bucks the two-party system and asks his constituency to vote for him as an Independent based on his record should be accepted for doing just that.

Sure, he's playing hardball. That's what those who sit in those chairs do. He knows the games and he knows the rules and he knows exactly what he's doing. He has caucused with the Dems since his reelection and has indicated his willingness to do so again. YES, he has a personal agenda! Show me a politician who doesn't.

I don't like him. I wouldn't have voted for him if he'd been on my ballot even though I like his spirit. But he and Harry both know exactly what's on the line and what political games they are playing.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Yes, more politicians should be punished for not sticking 100% to the party lines.

It's a good thing that nobody was campaigning on "reaching across the aisle".

oh wait....

There's a pretty big gulf between 'not sticking to party lines' and 'campaigning for the other guy and disparaging your own team's leader.' But of course you know this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think that's where the personal agenda comes in, cyclo.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I think that's where the personal agenda comes in, cyclo.

Yeah, but the thing is, he's not a Democrat. He didn't get elected as one, and he wasn't elected by Democrats - he was elected by Republican voters after Ned Lamont beat him in the primary and he illegally ran as a third-party candidate, though that got swept under the rug quick enough. There was no Republican worth mentioning running, so they teamed up with the few old-line Lieberman supporters (read: jews) and got him re-elected. And he's been a pain in the ass ever since then.

When your 'personal agenda' starts actively harming the Democratic party, you are actively working against the goals of your own group. In very visible and public fashion. He should have been censured and stripped of his committee chairs, which he shouldn't even have anyways really.

I understand why Obama wanted him kept ar0und - he'll be gone in 2 years and we can use the ********** in the meantime. Not a mystery. But not very emotionally satisfying. Yaknow what they say, though: keep your friends close...

Cycloptichorn

4 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo... He was elected by the registered voters of the state of Connecticut to represent their (and his) interests. If he's done that they will re-elect him. If he hasn't then they won't.

If ANYTHING came out of this election cycle then it's perhaps that the two-party system doesn't speak to everyone. And perhaps that those who it doesn't speak to have found a voice.

Screw the aisles!

<my new mantra...>

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Cyclo... He was elected by the registered voters of the state of Connecticut to represent their (and his) interests. If he's done that they will re-elect him. If he hasn't then they won't.

If ANYTHING came out of this election cycle then it's perhaps that the two-party system doesn't speak to everyone. And perhaps that those who it doesn't speak to have found a voice.

Screw the aisles!

<my new mantra...>

Fine with me. But we don't reward isle-straddlers with committee chairs, which are plum positions that Senators jockey for and carry a lot of power.

There's also the fact that he's spectacularly bad at his job. He sits as the chair of Homeland security committee and hasn't done **** during that whole time. He refuses to investigate Katrina. He refuses to investigate any aspect of the Bush administration at all. I mean, c'mon, wtf is he actually doing for us by keeping his committee chair?

This highlights the bullshit of the seniority system in the Senate; Lieberman, traitor and general asshole, keeps a position in which he does nothing he's supposed to, while Hillary, influential leader who almost got elected, has nothing.

Lieberman's numbers in CT are terrible, he'll never get re-elected now. It's just a masturbation session on his part until 201o.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, but the thing is, he's not a Democrat. He didn't get elected as one, and he wasn't elected by Democrats - he was elected by Republican voters after Ned Lamont beat him in the primary and he illegally ran as a third-party candidate, though that got swept under the rug quick enough.... And he's been a pain in the ass ever since then.

All sour grapes, cyclo. He was elected by the registered voters of the state of Connecticut and what that means to you, me, or Bob's uncle is irrelevant. For as long as he's there he gets to play the two party game and he's very good at it.

Quote:

When your 'personal agenda' starts actively harming the Democratic party, you are actively working against the goals of your own group. In very visible and public fashion. He should have been censured and stripped of his committee chairs, which he shouldn't even have anyways really.

You just said he wasn't a Democrat and then you said he was actively working against his own group. Which is it? Oh, wait... maybe he's an Independent who has been around long enough to twist the shorts of both parties. Maybe that's why Obama said he should be allowed to caucus with the Dems. Maybe people are FINALLY figuring out that there are more voices than Dem and Rep. Who woulda thought it?

3 Replies

@JPB,

Good posts JPB, I don't think Cyclops really understands that there are more than 2 points of view in America. A while back (during the primaries) he said something along the lines of "If you're not a democrat, I don't care about your opinion".

0 Replies

@JPB,

jpb. Obama did not say that Lieberman should be 'allowed to caucus with the Dems.' Reid made that determination in 2004 when Lieberman won. Lieberman signaled that he would like to continue to do so.

Then he turned around and spent two years fighting for the other team.

I get that you are a moderate, or at least see yourself that way; I don't have a problem with that. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Lieberman should hold a plum position in the Dem-controlled Senate or not.

I wish you would stop projecting yourself onto this asshole, for that's what Lieberman truly is. He's nothing like what you describe; just an opportunist, who was angling for something to extend his career past it's expiration date. He doesn't 'twist the shorts' of Republicans; he's a valuable ally of theirs on pretty much every issue that has mattered over the last 4 years.

Maporsche,

Please do not speak of that which you cannot remember accurately. It's embarrassing for you and does not advance the conversation in a meaningful fashion. You also are seeing this as an opportunity to project your 'I'm a moderate!' feelings onto a politician; it's inappropriate in this case and has nothing to do with Lieberman at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The point is that the democrats (not independents) are in charge now because they elected in by the people and one of benefits of being in charge is that you get to set the agenda and control committees in party's platform. If you have a guy who is against the controlling party's platform and actually works against them, it just does not make sense to put that guy in charge of the very committee in which the guys disagrees with the most. I mean he has been huge supporter of the Bush policies along with McCain in most homeland security and global affairs issues. If they had to keep him why didn’t they keep in charge of the committee like the environmental committee where he agrees with most of the democrat who were elected in the majority seat in congress?

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB, what about the points Cyclo made about Lieberman simply having done a lousy job as Chair of that Committee?

It's all nice to talk in general terms about "not sticking to party lines" or "being an independent", but there's more to the issue than just symbology. The man was the chair of the committee on homeland security and government affairs, and he did zilch. He exercised zero oversight.

Regardless of whether the guy is a Rep, an Indy or a Dem, that alone should have been reason enough to kick him out. I'm all with Cyclo on the insidious effects of the seniority system. You can get away with doing a lousy job or even doing nothing at all, as long as you have enough seniority. Thank God at least Dingell got thrown out of his job by Waxman in the same week, that's at least something of a counterbalance on this.

1 Reply

@nimh,

You guys are stuck on position when this is about politics. Harry Reid was flipping furious at Lieberman. Performance aside, opinion polls aside, whatever other argument you may want to throw in there about right and wrong or ethics or dem philosophy aside, why did Harry Reid let Lieberman keep his chair? Simple -- they're looking at the possibility of a filibuster-proof Senate. The count is now at 58 (including Lieberman) and it's possible for MN and GA to both go to the dems.

Now -- given that Lieberman told Harry that he would caucus with the Republicans if he didn't get to keep his seat and Harry is looking at the possibility of having a caucus of 59 without Joe or 60 with Joe what do you think Harry is going to decide?

I don't care how many reasons either of you want to come up with to kick him out there was only one needed to keep him in and he played that card to his own advantage. Say what you will about what "should" happen in Washington. Don't ever forget who the players are.

I have a great personal disdain for any and all career politicians. Harry and Joe are both pretty high on my list.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, but the thing is, he's not a Democrat. He didn't get elected as one, and he wasn't elected by Democrats - he was elected by Republican voters after Ned Lamont beat him in the primary and he illegally ran as a third-party candidate, though that got swept under the rug quick enough. There was no Republican worth mentioning running, so they teamed up with the few old-line Lieberman supporters (read: jews) and got him re-elected. And he's been a pain in the ass ever since then.

Cycloptichorn

I am not sure if there is an inference above, by you, that there are no Jewish Republicans in Connecticut? If Jews of either party voted for him, that is not because Lieberman is Jewish, I believe, but because he is Orthodox, and is conservative when it comes to foreign policy. In Brooklyn, where there are the Chassidim (Ultra Orthodox), many vote Republican, because the belief is that the Democratic party has aligned itself with the Progressive/Liberals that are pro-gay, anti-Israel, secular and basically against much of what Orthodox Jews believe in. It is not clannish Jews, as it can be construed (or misconstrued) from the way you wrote it above, that voted for him, but those that do not identify with the agenda of Progressive/Liberals, in my opinion. Just saying it was "old line Lieberman supporters (read:Jews)," is just a popular notion, in my opinion, of those that do not really understand what Jews value as voters, without any clannishness being a factor.

In effect, your statement above can also be interpreted as a poorly composed thought, since it can be thought to imply that the Jewish voter votes based on his/her ethnicity, and not like all the "good Christians" that chose to vote for Lieberman for his specific politics. The inference being that Jews do not vote intelligently, based on the candidate's politics, but some sort of atavistic clannishness. I hope this was not your intent.

It also turned out that in the country three out of four Jewish voters voted for Obama. I believe they voted for someone that mirrored their politics, unless of course Barack is really Baruch mispelled?

0 Replies

Lieberman Stays

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know