Lieberman
I’m not sure I understand what leverage Joe Lieberman is supposed to have in his battle to save his committee chairmanship. The Democrats get to pick the committee chairs in virtue of having won a majority of Senate seats. Lieberman didn’t campaign for any Democratic Senate candidates but IIRC he did campaign alongside some GOP candidates. And, of course, he not only endorsed John McCain but he stood behind McCain applauding as McCain described standard-issue progressive economic policy as socialism. And as chair of the committee charged with government oversight, he declined to hold any oversight hearings. So Democrats might want to get rid of him. But Lieberman wants to stay:
Lieberman believes he should remain in the Democratic caucus because he helped give the party its majority in the past two years in the Senate, and because he has been “a very reliable Democratic vote” on most issues, except the war in Iraq, the aide said.
“Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus,” the aide said. “However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. … He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security.” [...]
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has approached Lieberman about joining the Republican caucus, but Lieberman’s first preference is to remain a Democrat, according to the aide.
“He’s keeping all his options open,” the aide said. “He has made no decisions whatsoever. No one knows how this is going to be resolved.”
But look. Lieberman can’t swing control to the GOP. And presumably Lieberman isn’t going to adopt liberal views on foreign policy to make Democrats happy and keep his seat. Is he saying that if Democrats decide to put a more loyal partisan in charge of the committee he’ll disavow his previous views on domestic issues and become an opponent of Roe v. Wade and a climate change denier? It’s in his power to make that threat, I suppose, but if he wants to make it he ought to say so plainly and squarely for everyone to hear — that would be a pretty dishonorable kind of threat to make. But if that’s not what he’s saying, then he ought to be asking for forgiveness not “keeping all his options open.”
As it stands, Lieberman seems to be saying that he deserves to stay in charge of the committee in virtue of his moderately progressive domestic views, but that continuing to hold those views is contingent on him getting favors from the Democratic leadership.
73 Responses to “Lieberman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Why in the world would anyone respect the Democrats if they don’t respect themselves?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
As it stands, Lieberman seems to be saying that he deserves to stay in charge of the committee in virtue of his moderately progressive domestic views,
Then shouldn’t he be moved to a committee where those views are relevant? As opposed to Homeland Security or such?
If Obama wants to save Lieberman’s scalp, then so be it. But he really should be begging for favors at this point, not getting all arrogant. What a sad little man Lieberman is.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Er, he has leverage now, as none other than Barack Obama has said he should stay in the caucus, and Bubba himself is reportedly encouraging Dems to keep him in his Homeland Security chair. Regardless of the merits, he’s basically a “made man” now. Who does that bastard have compromising pictures of???
November 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
the fool has the flip side of the point i wanted to make: leiberman’s leverage is that too many democratic senators are wimps who think “collegiality” is more important than anything else.
sadly, the early reports (from the huffpo. and i can’t speak to their accuracy) is that obama wants lieberman to stay in the caucus, which reminds me only too much of obama’s sellout on telcom immunity and FISA.
but really, as the fool notes, do the dems want to start out by disappointing their most committed supporters, donors, and voters? are they that stupid?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
but really, as the fool notes, do the dems want to start out by disappointing their most committed supporters, donors, and voters? are they that stupid?
This falls into the simple questions that have simple answers category.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Obama should appoint Lieberman to Homeland Security Secretary or perhaps Ambassador to Israel. Get him out of the Senate for good.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
It’s truly telling that Mr. Yglesias thinks that one of the bedrock pricniples of the Democratic party is to protect the legalized butchery of Roe v. Wade.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
This is US politics: Parties are weak, interest groups are strong. Lieberman’s still big with israeli-lobby types who want to keep his brand of Middle Eastern hawkishness viable within the Dem party in DC, and so he’s likely to stay.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Looks like Obama is reaching out to Lieberman which is a wise move on his part.
sadly, the early reports (from the huffpo. and i can’t speak to their accuracy) is that obama wants lieberman to stay in the caucus, which reminds me only too much of obama’s sellout on telcom immunity and FISA.
Now that the election if over, I’m hoping Obama will revisit the FISA issue. People need to agitate on that. Whereas the peacenik’s jihad against Lieberman was stupid and spiteful. You just drove him into McCain’s arms.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Truly, we want him in the party.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Leaving Lieberman in charge of the Senate Committee that basically exists to check executive power and investigate abuses is a sure road to ruin for the Obama Administration (God! I love writing that!!)
Lieberman first got strong national attention for being the first Democratic Senator to take to the floor and excoriate the Democratic President for getting a blow job. Lieberman learned then that no one in Sunday TeeVee Land really cares about Democrats who abuse Republicans — that is supposed to be their job. But the TeeVee heads are all over a Democrat who abuses Democrats. What a maverick! What a non-partisan! What a man, willing to put ethics, morality and country above party!
And, since then, Lieberman has been a One Trick Pony. He is an “independent” who can “rise above the political fray” and “speak honestly” about the failings of even his closest friends. When, actually, his closest friends are the Republicans who benefit so greatly from his schtick.
Lieberman campaigned in 2006 in part on his promise to use his Committee Chairmanship, if elected, to investigate the federal cock-up that was the Katrina response. Once he got the Democratic Leadership to give him the Chairmanship, he promptly forgot all about that and instead kept up his shtick — which wouldn’t be served at all by taking a tough line on a Republican President (and might screw up his dream of being part of a “bipartisan dream ticket” with his BFF McCain.
But make no mistake — he WILL use the power a Chairmanship position gives him to subpoena and investigate an Obama Administration on the slimmest of excuses. It is his patented move, and it will keep him getting invited back on the Sunday TeeVee shows.
For this obvious reason alone, the guy has gotta go.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
peter k, you have things backward: it was lieberman’s embrace of neocon policies, and his puppy-dog happiness in dissing democrats, that led to what you call the “peacenik’s jihad.”
ben nelson, for example, is no better on policy matters than lieberman, and in certain ways he is worse, but the reason that nobody is agitating about ben nelson is that he didn’t join up with the other guys.
in actual reality, btw, it was the democrats of CT who booted joe, not any of us outside agitators. they do know him best, after all, and they see him for what he is: the senator you’d most like to punch in the nose for being an asshole.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Living in CT, our Jr. senator has turned out to be a disappointment and also a rat. He has no business being a powerful part of this government – what has he done at Homeland Security?
Reid should show him the door – I expect there is a better chance of getting a republican(s)to vote with the democrats on key legislation than Joey. I do like the suggestion of making him the ambassador to Israel…
November 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
al, trust me: stick to sports!
if you think for a second that joe lieberman as vote 60 will actually vote for cloture, there is a well-known bridge for sale.
for that matter, ben nelson will vote the same way.
insofar as the dems have a shot at closing down filibusters (which jon kyl has already discovered a new affection for), it’s going to be with the votes of snowe and collins, who, not being idiots, can read the tea leaves concerning gop congresspeople and new england.
PS. we also have here an interesting difference between the median democrat and the median republican. the median democrat wants the chair of the homeland security and government affairs committee to be vigorous in investigating the executive branch regardless of party; the median republican wants the committee to be vigorous in investigating democrats and spinelss in investigating republicans.
we’ve already seen lieberman fulfill the republican desire wrt bush, at which point he has no credibility to pursue same wrt obama.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Thank you Matt! However, I have no faith at all left in Harry Reid having the backbone to stand up to Joe. I hope that some of the Democrats in the Senate other than Reid can step up and articulate these points. The chairmanship belongs to the Democrats as a whole party, not to the individual. If the individual has betrayed the party AND done a shitty job in the position, he has no right to it. If that makes him leave the caucus, good riddance. If it doesn’t, he is welcome to vote with the Democrats but after all the pathetic shit he has pulled, the party does not owe him a thing.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
1. Any Senator who even tacitly threatens to move to the other caucus should expect to lose his or her chairmanship. Period.
2. Lieberman wants to be judged on his contributions to the caucus over the last two years. He apparently doesn’t feel he owes the Democratic party and caucus anything for decades of support as state attorney general, Senator and vice-presidential nominee. Can’t have it both ways, Joe.
3. Have Rahm handle it.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I would love to see Rahm Emanuel handle this for Obama. I could just see the closed door meeting:
“Joe Lieberman, DEAD!”
November 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
If the Democratic Party can’t find the balls to punish a guy for the degree of scurrilousness, sliminess and disloyalty as egregious as Lieberman has displayed, what makes anyone think they will be able to maintain the party discipline to pass the ambitious Obama agenda, 60 vote majority or no 60 vote majority? If they don’t vividly demonstrate that there is a price to be paid when you go beyond wandering off the reservation, and start lobbing nuclear Republican stinkbombs into the reservation, then the Blue Dogs will soon be running the show.
Keep him in the caucus, if he wants to stay there. But he loses that chairmanship. Now!
November 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Dan Kervick is right– how do you whip the party into line if senators are free to speak at the other party’s convention without even losing a high-profile committee chair?
Only way he can keep the Homeland Security committee is if they disband the DHS.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Unless I’m missing something, Lieberman is attempting to blackmail the Democrats into not punishing him for acting according to his principles by voting with the Republicans regardless of what his principles would otherwise dictate.
Fuck Bill Clinton. He should be irrelevant in deciding Lieberman’s fate. Obama has to look above the fray, and can’t be openly arguing for retribution; it would him look partisan and petty. The senate needs to strip Lieberman of all of the privileges of seniority, especially his committee chairmanship.
A price needs to be paid for actively undermining your party. Joe should be left to decide whether he wants to play a role in passing the progressive legislation to come out of the Obama administration, or wants to work against the interests of millions of middle and working class Americans out of a frustrated sense of entitlement.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
It’s amazing to me the disconnect here. You get thing like committee chairmanships by playing the game. The Dem caucus decides on these things and they give them to people according to principles that will advance the interests of the caucus. Seniority, party loyalty and effectiveness all play a role. Lieberman doesn’t have any leverage and he has failed miserably on the party loyalty bit. Dems should just ignore him and strip him of the chairmanship. I’m just surprised that there is any real debate here.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
If the Dems can’t dropkick Lieberman, I’ve had it with them.
After all, we’ve now elected our black president. It’s not like the guy is suddenly going to cut the military budget, or end the drug wars, or even ask Congress for universal health care coverage.
Maybe the Dems should try real hard to remember how that Lieberman thing worked out for them in 2000.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
all this virtual ink being spilt by the blogosphere discussing Lieberman and few bloggers bring up his strong connections to AIPAC as a possible reason for him getting a pass.
while it might not be the reason, it seems strange that it is not at least being discussed as a possible reason or a factor in treating this assholes so softly
November 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I do not understand how we cannot simply say that due his inability to effectively chair the Committee, Lieberman must go. “Change” can come in such a form.
While it does not have to come from Obama’s mouth, I do hope the Dem caucaus says “No to Joe.”
Personally, kick the man to the curb. He wants to caucaus with Republicans, go right on ahead.
I’d rather have his taint removed from this new administration than extend reconcilation towards him.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Obama looks good if he allows Lieberman to reconcile.
He’d have the appearance of giving something in the spirit of bipartisanship while giving nothing at all (in terms of real power). The opposite scenario, where Obama gives the Democrats his blessing to boot Lieberman, involves a sacrifice of power in exchange for what, pride?
I actually think the best resolution (strategically) is for Reid to make bad noises about giving Lieberman the proverbial finger while Obama sweeps in to the rescue.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Obama has pointed the way to the approach here. He called for Lieberman to remain in the caucus but refrained from offering an opinion on the committee chairmanship. That in itself is a gracious gesture of reconciliation, and the natural step for Lieberman would be to back down and reciprocate this act of presidential forgiveness by agreeing to remain in the caucus, but to resign his chairmanship. If Lieberman now rejects that gesture because he wants it all, then he is clearly the one who is being a selfish, arrogant turd, and President-elect Obama can’t be blamed for any vindictiveness or lack of generousness.
Nice move Barack!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
… or lack of generousness.
Or lack of generosity even!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
> But Lieberman may very well be vote #60 for
> the Democrats.
Charlie Brown. Football. Lucy.
Lieberman will stab the Democrats in the back at least 2/3 of the time that 60th vote is needed. Guaranteed.
And I will double guarantee he will so stab on every Supreme Court nomination. John Roberts Lite here we come.
Cranky
November 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
This probably won’t happen, But Obama could do something really Lincolnian by hiring Lieberman as his Secretary of Homeland Security. Sure, it would mean losing the Senate seat to a Republican appointee, but it would sure show a lot of guts to offer the position to a guy who was a harsh critic during the campaign. The key is to have the offer leaked, so Lieberman has no choice but to take it or else look like a total “country first” hypocrite and lose all credibility. The more I think about it, the more sensible it seems.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
cranky, if you think that lieberman will only stab the dems in the back 2/3 of the time on vote 60, you don’t deserve your name anymore: that’s much too mellow a number!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I forgot to mention the part about how Lieberman will be fired after a few months because of philosophical differences and will be out on the street. Payback’s a bitch.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
You wonder why the dems always look weak. Here is a perfect example. Get rid of him now. How can this even be a discussion. Get rid of this joker.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
And I will double guarantee he will so stab on every Supreme Court nomination. John Roberts Lite here we come.
Exactly. And Obama will have the cover of the Senate to get the right-center Justice he wants all along.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Can you imagine how fast a Republican would be tossed out on his ear? Senate Dems = timid little kittens.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I’m of a mind that goes with the compromise idea floating out there: that Lieberman can get another chairmanship position, just not the Homeland oversight committee. The Dems can offer him the chair on Armed Forces, which still oversees military matters, or maybe the Energy committee, which will be a major focal point for alt-fuel and climate change issues. But leaving him on the Homeland committee is inviting trouble. Lieberman needs to understand that after all the BS he’s pulled between 2002 to now that he’s not in a position to ask for a big slice of the cake.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Lieberman has very low approval rates. IF he moves to the Republican Caucus his political career is over in 2013…
November 10th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
The political calculus may be that there are more supporters (as a % of pop) of Lieberman in Nevada than in Connecticut. And so this may be what prevents Reid from a straight up jettison.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
WTF did Lieberman think was going to happen when he started campaigning for McCain? Play the game, win the prize.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
McCain´s chance of political survival would be to get a cabinet position on a McCain Administration.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I can see offering Lieberman a committee, but the obvious one is Small Business, where he’s next in line with Kerry moving up to Foreign Relations, and which is a shitty little committee with no real power. Mildly face saving, but not putting Lieberman somewhere where he can do any damage (and I think he could actually do a lot more damage at Armed Services than he could at Homeland Security). Furthermore, the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works committees, which are Lieberman’s two other committees (he’s not a member of Energy) already have chairmen who will not want to give up their places to a turncoat like Lieberman – I can’t imagine Levin or Boxer stepping aside for Lieberman.
Small Business is there for the taking, and it’s almost certainly what Reid was thinking of offering him. That Lieberman didn’t take that deal is pretty shameful, even if small business is a lame committee – it’s not about you, Joe, you wanker.
Beyond that, I don’t get the idea that Lieberman would oppose cloture on judicial appointments – that’s just obviously ridiculous. Lieberman would totally sell us out and vote for cloture for a Republican president appointing right wing justices. But I don’t see any way he opposes cloture on Obama appointments, which would presumably be people like Ginsburg and Breyer, both of whom were approved overwhelmingly back in the day.
Also, I get tired of the attacking on Reid. Reid’s not the problem. The traditions of the Senate are the problem, and the fact that it’s incredibly difficult to keep a caucus in line. Chris Dodd and Bill Clinton are the problem. Reid seems to be doing as much as he can towards demoting Lieberman. The rest of the caucus has to back him up.
But, Jesus Christ, Lieberman is a fucking asshole
November 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Yeah, I don’t understand what leverage Lieberman has here. What does the Republican caucus get with a guy that’s not going to vote with them most of the time? Or is Lieberman really threatening to change his positions on domestic issues out of spite? I have to believe that that would kill his chances for reelect. Give him a bone, some small committee, but can’t walk away from this election without some kind of punishment.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am
There is likely to be some turnover at the top, and bumps in seniority. There are also going to be a lot of Senators from the 2006 and 2008 elections who regard Lieberman as a Republican in all but name. That adds up in the caucus. In that regard, John @41 is right: the traditions of the Senate Gentleman’s Club actually set the relative newcomers against the old guard, and the idea that you have to kow-tow to the veterans to climb the ladder may go out the window.
I don’t think that Claire McCaskill, who put in the miles and days for Obama, is likely to treat Lieberman any better than shit on her shoe. She’s a moderate in the caucus, but she’s also shown loyalty and integrity in all the ways Lieberman hasn’t. I also don’t think that the Udalls or Jeanne Shaheen or Kay Hagan or Jeff Merkley (and potentially Franken, Begich and Martin) are likely to look kindly on him.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:20 am
The Dems should tell Leiberman he has a choice. Lose his chairmanship, pay his penance, caucus with the Democrats and have a chance to rebuild good will; or have the full weight of the Democratic party against him in his reelection run in a New England state that has tossed aside Republicans left and right. The only way he could possibly get re-elected after all of this is if the national party and Senate stays out of it. As of now they have plenty of time to find and fund a terrific candidate. Obama gave him an opening, Joe can show a little humble pie and win his way back in. He was a victim of the wrongs of 2000. There is some there, there.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:34 am
If Lieberman is permitted to retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, the era of personality responsibility is indeed over.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am
All the talk about Lieberman and reelection to me seems off base. Isn’t it pretty much a foregone conclusion that he will lose his race in 2012? Dem-type voters won’t be fooled again by that snake.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Isn’t it pretty much a foregone conclusion that he will lose his race in 2012? Dem-type voters won’t be fooled again by that snake.
Lieberman had a lot of union support against Lamont. If they withdraw that support, then he has no shot.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:55 am
It would be supreme foolishness to leave Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, for reasons I won’t even bother to mention, other than that it would also be a direct insult to President Obama and his platform.
To put it diplomatically, Senator Lieberman has shown himself to be a dullard on foreign policy and homeland security, while paradoxically also being something of a hysteric, and has proved himself through word and action to be a remarkably unqualified individual to have any influence over these processes.
I don’t care about the loyalty part, where obviously there is some traction in kicking him to the curb as well. The guy is just not qualified to be in a position of influence in these important security matters, and he has proven that by being completely wrong and in direct opposition to the mandate that Obama will be operating under, not to mention committing various sins of critical thought, demeanor and character as well.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:57 am
True. Much as Lincoln made Simon Cameron his Secratary of War for party unity. Cameron was inept and corrupt and undoubtedly caused thousands of unnecessary deaths – but they had party unity.
The country deserves better than Joe Lieberman. It is within the power of the Democratic party leaders to give us better than Lieberman. It would be disgraceful if he were a charman or worse, a cabinet level officer, simply to save a few politicians some heartburn.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Last year (I believe )on The Daily Show, Harry Reid said Lieberman has been very loyal on everything save the war.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’m glad Ifv brought the point up that I’ve been thinking has to be on JL’s mind: the 2012 election. Joe’s 66 – for a Senator, that means he’s pretty young. He’s got to figure he’s got 16 more years in the Senate, if not 22.
So he wants to start making nice now so by 2012 the good folks in Connecticut will have forgotten all about the past…5 years. It’s the same trick he pulled 2 years ago when he starting talking about ‘doing everything in his power to end the war’ – and CT’ers bought it hook, line, and sinker.
All Reid has to do is call his bluff, put him in his place, and let him slink away into the shadows. If he goes to the Republican Party, he’s a political dead man walking. Sure, 4 years is a long time, but remember, Joe wants to be in the Senate for 20 more years. He knows there’s no way Connecticut re-elects him as a Republican.
PS – I put zero stock in Obama’s public statements about Lieberman. BHO must realize it wouldn’t jibe with the ‘conciliation’ message if he was the tough guy here, so he said what he had to say in public, but (my guess) privately called Reid and suggested a very different approach. I keep running through the video of Obama pulling Lieberman aside on the Senate floor and giving him a stern talking to…he’s gotta be pissed.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:48 am
If Lieberman becomes a Republican, his constituents vote him out of office in two years, no? Seems to me he has very little leverage over the Dems. Staying a Dem is only chance of staying in the Senate long-term.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Aside from the obvious point that that was then, this is now, and Lieberman did an awful lot of things in between: this seems like a mediocre argument for giving him some committee that has nothing to do with the war. Not Homeland Security – the very issue on which he is a bitter enemy of the Democratic Party.
In 2012 President Obama will be running for reelection, and remobilizing his impressive volunteer and fundraising base. He won’t need much help to carry strongly-blue CT, so his CT supporters can be profitably employed to back a Democrat in the Senate race that year, if Obama so chooses. Lieberman better see the writing on the wall and start kissing ass now in order to be allowed back into the party then, or he’s toast. If he doesn’t see this on his own, send Rahm over for a little chat… that’s what you picked him for, isn’t it?
November 11th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hillary Clinton’s SNL character asked the Dems to grow a pair. If they can’t, she can lend them hers. This has never rung more true than on this situation with Lieberman. I think that the Dems should drop him like a bad habit. leiberman needs to be made an example of. If he’s not punished, that only invites more disloyal acts in the future.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Howard:
peter k, you have things backward: it was lieberman’s embrace of neocon policies, and his puppy-dog happiness in dissing democrats, that led to what you call the “peacenik’s jihad.”
ben nelson, for example, is no better on policy matters than lieberman, and in certain ways he is worse, but the reason that nobody is agitating about ben nelson is that he didn’t join up with the other guys.
Actually, Lieberman is better than Nelson from what I understand. I think it’s debatable whether he would have campaigned for McCain if Lamont hadn’t run against him.
What better way for Obama to show his bipartisanship than to give Lieberman a second chance. Saint Al Gore did pick him to be his running mate in the “stolen” election of 2000.
I bet most of the people crying and bitching weren’t even for Obama in the primary.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
What better way for Obama to show his bipartisanship than to give Lieberman a second chance.
The people of Connecticut gave Lieberman a second chance. I don’t think that giving third chances is a good idea.
In any case, I believe Lieberman really went off the rails not when Lamont beat him, but rather when he was repudiated during the Democratic primaries in 2004. He really thought he had a big fanbase within the Democratic party, and being so resoundingly rejected caused in him a deep sense of betrayal.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Peter K. Says:
“What better way for Obama to show his bipartisanship than to give Lieberman a second chance. Saint Al Gore did pick him to be his running mate in the “stolen” election of 2000.”
*Any* way which does not reward somebody for repeated betrayals. For example, working with any and all Republican senators who are willing.
Think of a military situation – one might accord decent treatment to enemy prisoners, while executing deserters and traitors.
“I bet most of the people crying and bitching weren’t even for Obama in the primary.”
When that’s the best that you have to offer, it isn’t much.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Lieberman will retain his chairmanship. That is what Obama wants so that is what Obama will get. It is too early for the Democrats to take a firms stand against the newly elected Democratic President.
Either that or Obama is cynically hoping that Reid plays the bad guy and throws Lieberman out while allowing Obama to look all generous and willing to give his support to traitors like Lieberman in the name of post-partisan politics. Reid is too smart to be played like that by a young inexperienced Obama. He will pretend to take Obama at his word and allow Lieberman will keep his committee chair.
Either way this does not reflect well on Obama.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
peter k, what you’re arguing now is that since actual voting CT democrats had the nerve to tell joe lieberman that they wanted someone in congress who opposed the war in iraq, this forced him to support mccain?
this is about as good an argument as john mccain’s claiming that if only that nasty obama feller had been willing to conduct 8,000 town halls, mccain wouldn’t have had to go so negative.
i’m sorry: lieberman brought this on himself.
in fact, he not only brought it on himself, he delighted in being a front man for mccain, he delighted in opposing anti-bush-judge filibusters, he delighted in questioning obama’s judgement.
and i am delighting in wanting to punch him in the nose literally, although i will settle for symbolically.
why, exactly, are you defending him? i can’t figure out a basis.
PS. i am someone who has long defended gore’s choice of lieberman in 2000 because his job was to win florida, which he did (it wasn’t lieberman’s fault that the palm beach ballot was so poorly designed). it’s been a great disappointment to me to see him evolve into a neocon, but he has, and not merely a neocon but an active supporter of republicans as a result.
again, as i say (perhaps you didn’t read me carefully enough), in many ways he’s better than nelson, but nelson didn’t work for the other side. lieberman did. fuck him.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I worked my tails off to get Obama elected.To get more deomcratic senators not to see Libermna as as dem again.
President -elect Obama is betrying all of us for supporting Liberman ,He was with Bush 100% of time when it came to foreign policy .Shame if dems keep him.they wont get my trust anymore.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Is Obama paying back jewish voters for Florida’s support by keeping Liberman in dem’s camp?
What a shame! Did he make a backdoor deal before the election to keep Liberman ,.How soon you forget .Even democrats in his own state dont want him .It was the republicans who elcted him .Mr Obama dont lose our trust you will need us more than Liberman.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Welcome to http://www.powerleveling2000.com . We are a world class wow gold store online. We supply
cheap wow
gold to our loyal l2 power leveling and
reliable customers. you can buy really cheapwow gold here. We have mass
available stock of gold wow on most of the servers, so that we can do a really instant way of wow
gold
delivery. We can deliver your gold wow on the order in a short while. We have been an ebay power
seller and paypal confirmed sellerbuy WOW Gold
of wow gold for years.So it is securest and safest to buy wow
March 1st, 2009 at 6:31 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am
d7UVhy izfguftcqotk, [url=http://nrsuuojgzhdu.com/]nrsuuojgzhdu[/url], [link=http://vitqutzmopkj.com/]vitqutzmopkj[/link], http://gkyfflddkudi.com/