Reply With Quote
he told the country the truth
their party sucks
republican party sucks to
the third party does not but does not have enough power or money now
that is the problem with congress
they have way to many committies to do anything
he told the country the truth
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.
Sorry . . . pet peeve.
Being for the war is one thing. Campaigning AGAINST the Democratic candidate is quite another.
He's technically not even a Democrat! He's an independent.
...unless Obama plans on dissolving Homeland Security the department.
A complete self-contradiction in under 3 sentences.
Impressive.
Then why should you care if Lieberman gets kicked off of Dem committees?
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 er is a Judas as far as most progressives are concerned.
Yup.
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 er said a lot of ed up 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 .
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...)
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.
I agree.
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.
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.
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.
JoeC, Liebertwit didn't just not support Obama, he actively attacked him and campaigned for the GOP candidate. Big difference.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
