Printable View
The Dems are about to rip away his chairmanship and he's already met with GOP leadership today. Actually I don't know if he'll move to the GOP and even if he does I can't see his votes changing a large deal considering his constituents aren't going to deal with that one bit.
He's an independent thinker. I don't see him going GOP because he still votes majority democrat.
What makes him an independent thinker?
He votes his conscious and not always on party lines. Like we all should. But that is just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
I see the Democrats putting a lot of effort into defeating him the next time his number comes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The only thing Joe Lieberman cares about right now is having a committee chairmanship because of how much power that carries. If the GOP was stupid enough to offer him one he'd jump ship in a heartbeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Its not about independent thinking its about power.
change indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Depends on what he does. Chances are Democrats are going to lose seats in the next election unless things go spectacularly so there will probably be many other seats where the money is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I think if he goes to the GOP it will almost be self defeating but I honestly can't see this guy voting with the GOP on anything outside of a few national security issues. He votes almost exclusively with the Democrats because that's what his constituents demand.
We'll see.
That is wrong but then again...that's politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Uh, why would that be wrong? A political party is in place to win elections. Why on earth would them wanting to win a seat for their party be wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
i'd change things. i'd start out by stomping the guts out of people that called me a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
I disagree and party affiliation is blown out of proportion, IMO. Partisanship sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
That kind of thinking is why congress has such a low disapproval rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
personally being called a terrorist or calling the people that you hang out with, past or present tense, a terrorist?Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
so, what do you think about a party that runs their campaign on lies and hate? that tried to win by simply fooling the public? how many of them can we expect you to hire?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
is this where you pretend they were implying something completely different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Thats a complete non sequitor (and its not the reason congress has a low rating) but can you explain why it would be wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
You can disagree but its the truth. He met with McConnell today and tried to get a committee chair out of him but of course there are none to be gotten. I don't just make things up. Congress is run by these committees and having a chair is a huge boost to the power your wield.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
A party's platform doesn't mean a member of that party has to vote exclusively with that platform. I don't agree on every issue with democrats or republicans. I don't want any of this talk about regulating radio air time just because conservative radio kicks progressive radio ass. Gay marriage should be up to the voters and not legislated from the bench. And other issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
:toast little joe is scrambling for self interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I never said you make things up I'm just saying, and again it is my own opinion, that the way things are run now is bad for the country. Are they doing what is best for the people or what is best for them? Of course it is the latter. I just think that is the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
:huh
Yeah but you said you disagreed whats what he was trying to do?
If you can't see how being a self-serving politician is wrong then there is no need for me to try to explain it to you. The reason congress has such a low rating is because they don't know how to act like children and act like adults and get the job done. And there is no ONE reason why congress has a low approval rating but the partisan way of governing is a big reason why I give them a low rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
i didn't see joe arguing the merits of obama being a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
neither do i.Quote:
I don't agree on every issue with democrats or republicans.
sounds like another republican false alarm. don't see that happening.Quote:
I don't want any of this talk about regulating radio air time just because conservative radio kicks progressive radio ass.
i think that's what happened.Quote:
Gay marriage should be up to the voters and not legislated from the bench. And other issues.
I disagreed on the independent thinking part. If Joe feels something is not the right direction, such as his view on the Iraq war, he goes with it. I agree with much more of the democratic party platform as I do the republican platform but that doesn't mean I'd vote democratic all the time. The majority of the time yes. I guess I don't always make my point clear which doesn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The reason congress has a low rating is because the way those ratings are taken. Most people give THEIR congressman a high rating while giving the others a low rating so its not really representative by any means. Everyone thinks congress sucks except for THEIR guy. These so called congressional approval ratings are nothing more than foolish media anecdotes which do not serve to give true views on public opinion. When you take a look at the rating of congressmen/women from their constituents most people are very happy with their representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
A political party going after a seat is not wrong Joe and that's what you said yet somehow you've managed to morph it into it being about a self serving politician.
The Democrats are pissed at Leiberman because he was loyal to his own beliefs first, and those of the Party second.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
It goes beyond that.
Congressmen are expected, even demanded, to do this regularly. Party first, Country Second.
Both parties do it. Arm twisting; largesse, threats...hell, probably blackmail. Stay in line, protect the party.
Chalupa was right. THIS IS an example of why Congress is SO unpopular.
Hell, why is the Democratic Party seen as so liberal, and the Republican so Radically Conservative? Because the leadership is invariably slanted that way. Why is that? Because leadership has to come from long-standing members, which have to, by definition, come from "safe" seats. Safe seats come from areas that are heavily slanted one way or the other; who want a heavily slanted candidate. It's a fucked up system. Hell, the 2nd most powerful person in the Country is from San Fran fucking CISCO!!!!! Most DEMS don't like her!!!! But she has the power.
Congress sucks.
Except congress is not unpopular.
Yeah, the democrats are pissed that he tried to undercut their candidate. And what the hell does he expect? They're not going to give power to him anymore than their going to give power to any Republican. That would be foolish.
Committee Assignments are power and Committee chairs are even more power. Why on earth would the Democrats give power to someone that doesn't support them? That doesn't make any sense. They know he's going to have to vote very liberally or his constituents are going to vote him out.
No one is advocating Lieberman not stand by what he believes. But when that doesn't benefit the Democrats don't expect them to empower him out of some form of goodwill. They're in there to get things done, not make friends.
He should be put to death.
Sincerely,
boutons_
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I LOLed. :lol
I think Joe the Chalupa is having a "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for the rest." moment. He hasn't made to the second stage yet.
Yeah, but his vote is gonna be VERY important for Caucussing resons in 2 short years. Just ask the Republicans how much that ONE vote can mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I completely agree with that. This level of senate dominance isn't going to last more than 2 years unless they really do incredibly well. I don't believe they'll do well enough to sustain it because thats simply the nature of politics, but I think if they end up at 50-51 seats in 2010 they're going to really want Lieberman back.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
That weasel Lieberman called a conservative radio host in CT and asked him to give out a good word to the conservative listeners so he could pull the Conservative vote to defeat Lamont. Lieberman was defeated running as a democrat then switched parties to an independent and pulled enough Republican support to get re-elected to the senate.
The independant label is just there so he could have another chance to win his seat back.
Again, I disagree and you are not understanding my point. I don't think "MY GUY" is doing that great if he/she cannot figure out a way to compromise and get things done. I don't give a rat's ass about party affiliation because it should not matter because the way I see it they are elected to work for us and not bitch at each other so much that nothing gets done. My point is that if a politician is more concerned about power then they are self serving politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Go on with your bad self.
Hey, I call it as I see it and the USA is the best damn democracy in the world. I'm no government expert and neither is anyone else in here. My voice will not be silenced!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Then that Lieberman you like as such an independent thinker fits your definition of self serving politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
If he is all about the power then yes, he is. My point was that he didn't just bend over and follow party lines with the democrats about the war or whom he felt was the better candidate for president. As a democrat I'd fight any attempt to re-establish the fairness doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Lieberman is a scorced-earth campaigner. He survived it once. He shouldn't get a second pass. If he claims he'll always do whatever he feels is right, then it doesn't matter what side of the aisle he sits on. Might as well sit on the side he campaigned with.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Except he wasn't doing those things out of some principled beliefs - he was doing it for power Joe. The religious right and the election just happened to get in his way though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
I'm not even sure what the fairness doctrine has to do with this but ok.
And its fine if politicians don't want to follow party lines. By all means you should stand what you believe in and not some ideology. But if want the power allocated by the people in power then you better expect they're going to want something from you. If you want them to support you then you have to support them. That's not partisan ship that's common sense about how cooperation works.
Judas Iscariot = Joe Lieberman = Benedict Arnold = Pope Urban VIII
Despite the presidential issue, I doubt Lieberman would actually fit in at all with the GOP.
Don't forget Lieberman's broad support for McCain...the Demos were perfectly happy letting Lieberman be Lieberman, but when he openly supported McSame over he made his decision to lay all his eggs into the GOP basket, so why should the Democratic leadership continue to want Lieberman in a powerful committee chair?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
This is true and why the democrats got rid of him! He's nobody's patsey, and thats all the democrats want. Still, he's too liberal to do any good as a republican. The republican party already needs to clean house of liberal republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Jesus you guys really don't do irony.
True....looks like the electorate is doing that for them already...Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Then quit whining about how democracy works. No one person can get anything done so you have to choose sides. Lieberman picked McCain, which I believe is not on the side of the Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
I could care less that Lieberman supported McCain during the primaries. Every politician should be entitled to do what they feel is right in their conscious.
But Lieberman went above and beyond supporting McCain. He absolutely shredded Obama Zell Miller style in the RNC convention and trashed the Democratic party as well. There was no need for that, Lieberman knew the ridiculous things he was saying about Obama were flat out wrong.
For that reason IMHO he doesn't deserve anything from the Democratic Party. He turned his back on them in a highly inappropriate way.
that is the problem with congress
they have way to many committies to do anything
he told the country the truthQuote:
Originally Posted by TheMadHatter
their party sucks
republican party sucks to
the third party does not but does not have enough power or money now
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wash...Lieberman.html
McCain Backer Lieberman May Keep Committee Chair
Article Tools Sponsored By
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 17, 2008
Filed at 9:19 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman appears increasingly likely to hold onto his prized chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee as he meets Tuesday with Democratic colleagues unhappy over his vocal support for GOP nominee John McCain during this year's presidential campaign.
...
Obama has reportedly told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada it would hurt the message of unity that he wants for his new administration if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus.
...
Oh Dear GOD, if he keeps the committee chair.... The heads of 96% of the progressive blogosphere will explode. Instantly.
Conscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadHatter
Sorry . . . pet peeve.
Being for the war is one thing. Campaigning AGAINST the Democratic candidate is quite another.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
He's technically not even a Democrat! He's an independent.
...unless Obama plans on dissolving Homeland Security the department.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
A complete self-contradiction in under 3 sentences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Impressive.
Then why should you care if Lieberman gets kicked off of Dem committees? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
whatever, this dude is an independent only in terms of which way does the wind blow.
Bernie Sanders is the only real indepedent in the Senate.
That sound you hear is the ongoing uproar in the progressive blogosphere. Lieberman keeps his chair. I don't like it, and I don't think the people of Connecticut like it and I still think Joe's days are numbered. The man is spineless but then again it looks the the Dems might be as well.
I know Obama was the driving force to keep him because until he stepped in it appeared he was going to be massacred. I hope he knows what he's doing because this fucker is a Judas as far as most progressives are concerned.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
He will be kept around until he is up for re-election. In the meantime, the knives are being sharpened.
Et tu, Brutus...?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us...cs/19cong.html
Democrats Let Lieberman Keep Senate Chairmanship
By CARL HULSE and DAVID STOUT
Published: November 18, 2008
WASHINGTON — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, was allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday despite his support for Senator John McCain in the presidential campaign.
Democratic senators voted instead to oust Mr. Lieberman from the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he had been chairman of a subcommittee. That penalty was a slap on the wrist compared with the prospect of losing the homeland security leadership post.
"He's part of this caucus," the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said after the Democratic caucus voted behind closed doors in the old Senate chamber off the Capitol Rotunda. "We are not looking back. We are looking forward."
...
The vote was 43-12 in favor of keeping him on the committee. So, either there was no real threat (beyond vocal, harmless ones) of him losing his chairman spot, the again-realistic possibility of the Magic 60 was too strong, or Obama did an amazing job of turning the tide on a "massacre".
It was Obama's doing. It is extremely obvious that until he stepped in Leiberman was going down and he was going down in a huge fiery inferno of a wreck. The margin here is irrelevant as we all know lawmakers love to be on the "winning" side of things unless they have something to gain politically through opposition.
I don't know if I agree - Reid, even at his most critical, was still an apologist "he votes with me more often than a lot of my Senators". Perhaps Obama swung the tide, but I have no evidence that it was "obvious" that he was going down. The criticisms were generally meek and the rest was just whispers.
Well I guess there's no way we'll ever know for sure. I do think that if they didn't have a shot at 60 still today he'd be out. Then again the truth is that you always need votes in Congress, and having one less to have to worry about is never a bad thing.
I hate Lieberman though. Maybe part of it is wishful thinking, but I really believe his ass was on the way out pretty handily prior to this. The fucker said a lot of fucked up shit and it sucks that he's being allowed to get away with it. I think the people of CT will take care of business in a few years though.
Well, there are two things for sure.
1. He will not be able to run as a Democrat THIS time around either. No way in hell.
2. If he runs as an independent, he will likely get 35% or less.
Compounding those is the fact that, absent the scandal that undermined the CT Repub who was running, the Republican candidate should steal whatever leftover thunder he might have had.
I'd say his odds of winning a general election are maybe 5%. Tops.
(whisk, whisk... the sounds of metal scraping on grindstones...)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...nation/4384437
They need him for the filibuster proof caucus and that is why he was kept on, but don't think he doesn't have a giant target on his back.
Technically, he ran as an independent Democrat last time. He just got alot of Republican votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I can easily see the "Bachman effect" pumping up whatever Democrat is picked to run against him, and the nation bit that I posted shows that is happening already.
All the DNC has to do is pick ONE Vermont Democrat to back, and that person will have -3-4 years to raise a warchest the likes of which have not been seen for a Senate race before.
Time to buy stock in local TV affiliates in Vermont. :lol
I actually like the decision to keep Lieberman in his chairmanship for the time being, particularly if that move comes primarily at Obama's behest. While I don't think booting Lieberman would have had any real practical/political implications, Obama's general sentiment that we need more unity than division is well-served by the effort to save Lieberman. Far better to start off with embracing the recalcitrant Lieberman (and, perhaps, exacting some sort of quid pro quo for his salvation) and giving the impression of bipartisanship than to boot Lieberman in a fit of partisanship and appear to renege on a fundamental principle of the campaign.
I don't think that will get any play in hardcore right-wing crowds. They'll whine about him not being bipartisan enough unless he stocks his cabinet with nothing but Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Having 60 Democrats in the caucus does not guarantee filibuster protection. On a lot of the "controversial" issues Senators Nelson (NE), Lincoln, Pryor and Landrieu are often on the "other" side. If the Democrats get lucky and sweep the three undecided Senate races Obama should consider appointing one of the two Senators from Maine to his cabinet. Both are considered moderate, the state has a Democratic Governor who would choose the replacement and Obama has said he would have Republicans in his cabinet. That would make Lieberman the 61st member of the caucus.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
JoeC, Liebertwit didn't just not support Obama, he actively attacked him and campaigned for the GOP candidate. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
As it is, I think you'll be seeing and hearing from Lieberman a whole lot less now. The 60 seats thing is pretty much out the window, so Joe needs them a whole lot more than they need him. The stripping of that minor committee appointment was just the warning. If he were to actually lose the HomeSec chair down the line, he'd probably lose his seat the next election. That chairmanship enables the pork to flow to Connecticut. Without it, he's just a back bencher.