Lieberman Stays

@JPB,

Quote:

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?

Of course you are right, but there are very many people who want to believe that while the "other guys" are political hacks, "their guy" is a public servant who cares only for the interests of America and Americans.

Never more so than now when there are millions and millions of people who want to believe Obama is such a transcendent political figure.

There is a rather obvious paradox here: Expecting people to be a-political when it is their aptitude and love for politics that put them in the position in the first place.

There are two times when we have some reason to believe that a politician will forsake politics for the welfare of the nation:

1) A small window of time when a national crisis is acute
2) During the final term of a position that is subject to term limits.

Only the most primal human interactions have any hope of being devoid of politics: rage, lust et al, and very few of them are better for the absence of politics.

Our brains are hard-wired for politics by our genes.

Observe any human interaction and you will find subtle and not so subtle indications of dominance, alliances, and compromise.

Observe a troop of baboons.

The only difference between us and these cousins of ours is that we have many more subtle ways to bare our teeth, groom each other, and offer up our private parts for sexual congress.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Let's begin with the caveat that no parts are being offered up.

I'm torn on this one and would love to know what communications have preceded the decision.

But along with being unusually bright and thoughtful, not to mention charismatic, Obama is clearly a very shrewd fellow (as if his campaign alone hadn't taught us that). And I don't consider that a negative quality in a modern politician. It's a necessity. So long as it is paired with the sort of personality which also gives a tinkers damn about peoples' well-being.

That last element is where your survey of primate behavior/societies is deficient, finn. We are as programmed for cooperative effort as we are for self-concern. Any individual primate (including us) will sit somewhere on a scale which stretches from self-centered to charitable. Stalin and Lincoln aren't the same even if both political men and both primates.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Of course you are right, but there are very many people who want to believe that while the "other guys" are political hacks, "their guy" is a public servant who cares only for the interests of America and Americans.

political hacks vs public servants -- perhaps worthy of a thread of it's own but this is partly why I dislike factions and support term limits. One can start out as a public servant but over time becomes a political hack, imo.

Quote:

Never more so than now when there are millions and millions of people who want to believe Obama is such a transcendent political figure.

There is a rather obvious paradox here: Expecting people to be a-political when it is their aptitude and love for politics that put them in the position in the first place.

There are two times when we have some reason to believe that a politician will forsake politics for the welfare of the nation:

1) A small window of time when a national crisis is acute
2) During the final term of a position that is subject to term limits.

Two comments -- first, although I didn't drink the Obama Koolaid I did vote for him and hope (rather than believe) that he is such a transcendent political figure. There was much made of his inexperience in politics which to me was an added bonus not a negative. We are certainly looking at a time when 1) above applies as an acute national crisis. And, second, your second point reinforces my interest in term limits.

Quote:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Exactly right until one becomes indistinguishable from the other.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

You guys are stuck on position when this is about politics. [..] 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. [..]

I don't care how many reasons either of you want to come up with [..] 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 know that's how it works - doesn't mean I have to like it, or shut up about disliking it.

I also dont think the 60-seat thing is really a major consideration. First, chances of the Dems actually getting to 60 are very slim, considering the current state of play in MN and GA. Second, Senate votes rarely fall exactly along party lines. There will always be dissenting Democrats and a couple of Republican cross-overs. So to get to 60 on any given vote, it's all about building coalitions and consolidating your base, and whether you have 59 or 60 nominal Democrats doesn't mean much.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Quote:

it's all about building coalitions and consolidating your base

That's precisely what I think is going on here. It's practical and it works (if we define 'works' as moving the chess pieces around strategically so you get a win).

The way Obama appears to be doing this has another important advantage. It celebrates/supports moderation and rejects divisiveness. This makes it fundamentally different from the conservative movement coalitions which have been built upon rejection of the moderate voices and the strengthening of divisions.

0 Replies

@blatham,

If not in this thread than in another I have stated my belief that Obama is a hell of a politician and warned that if he is not, we are in deep doo doo.

I don't consider it a negative either, I just find it amusing that his followers bought the shite about New Politics which, in itself, was a clever political ploy.

Your interpretation of primate behavior is not surprising.

Cooperation is the foundation, but it is self-interest that steers day to day activities and results.

If altruism was the norm, we would hardly be so inclined to celebrate it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Your interpretation of primate behavior is not surprising.

Perhaps not, as I've actually done primate studies under one of the three women mentored and sent into the field to study them by Louis Leaky.

Quote:

Cooperation is the foundation, but it is self-interest that steers day to day activities and results.

That's a sentence which tells us nothing at all. It's effectively meaningless. And whatever meaning you think it might contain will rest on assumptions for which you have nothing but a facile faith or formula to rely upon.

Quote:

If altruism was the norm, we would hardly be so inclined to celebrate it.

It is, unlike strict self-interest, a communal phenomenon so will necessarily have a communal expression (which you mean by 'celebrate'). This is the difference between a grunt and a language, the latter being a communal phenomenon.

The point is that both modes are evident in our behaviors and that each of us varies in our expression of either one (as do groups). Nurses and Hells Angels aren't the same. Stalin and Lincoln aren't the same.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lieberman Will Join Republicans In Blocking Health Care Bill

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman reiterated his opposition to a public option today by announcing that he will join Republicans in filibustering Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care bill. "If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," Lieberman stated earlier today. In opposing the bill, Lieberman could potentially affect other moderate Democrats who are still unsure about supporting a plan that includes a public option. While Lieberman originally said that he would not support a public option that charged taxpayers, under Reid's plan, the option would be financed by premiums. Lieberman's move could make it harder to Democrats to reach the 60 votes needed to block a Republican filibuster

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2233745/?v=1#1

SHOCKING!*sarcasm*

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

FLASHBACK: Lieberman pledged support for health reform

Watch video to hear him say it in his own words:

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/

Quotes:

October 27, 2009:

If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.

October 23, 2006:

I've been working on health insurance reform for more than a dozen years. ... I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25.

MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have. Medical malpractice reform.

It will cover 95% of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others.

July 6, 2006:

What I'm saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

tnx, butrflynet.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

Connecticutt is not known for a large Jewish constituency. In my opinion, you should really have said old-line Lieberman supporters (read: Jews and Catholics). Are you aware that northeast Catholics are not as alienated from Jewish politicians as some parts of the rest of the country might be?

0 Replies

Oh well, he is blocking the bill because he feels relevant.

Joe Lieberman: "I feel relevant"

0 Replies

LIEberman is no Independent nor is he a Democrat. That worm is and always has been a two-faced, back stabbing Repugnant.

1 Reply

@Magginkat,

Magginkat wrote:

LIEberman is no Independent nor is he a Democrat. That worm is and always has been a two-faced, back stabbing Repugnant.

Now that's a rational and well considered expression.

So what was his problem? Was he too "moderate?"

0 Replies

Lieberman Stays

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know