Joe Liebermann Question

[maxiep]

Ok, I should have said working majority.

Yep. It's precisely because the Dems have a majority all on their own that they're hanging ol' Joe out to dry. Of course, while there remains the specter of getting a caucus of 60 votes, they'll kiss his ass.

Lieberman thinks it's real that Obama wants to keep him in the chair, and Reid doesn't? Maybe, I don't think you or I have any real way to know.

barfo

I was just saying that it's clear the Dems wish to punish Lieberman for his independence--although they think Hegel is a visionary--and President-Elect Obama is the head of his Party. He could help to set a new tone by letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship. My guess is that he won't unless they can get close to a filibusterproof majority (Snowe and Collins will likely side with the Democrats on a number of important issues).

 

[Real]

Considering that there are three Senate races in Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota still going on, and considering that they'd need Joe Lieberman to get to 60 if they take all three races, it wouldn't be smart for the Democrats to be talking about removing him from his chairmanship or having him leave the caucus.

 

[Minstrel]

Considering that there are three Senate races in Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota still going on, and considering that they'd need Joe Lieberman to get to 60 if they take all three races, it wouldn't be smart for the Democrats to be talking about removing him from his chairmanship or having him leave the caucus.

I think this is pretty overstated. Lieberman isn't going to change how he votes based on who he caucuses with. He's pretty clear in his beliefs. If he opposes the Democrats on an issue, he'll vote against them even if he's part of their caucus. He's shown that (I don't begrudge him that...everyone should vote their principles).

60 is really not a magical number. All senators don't vote uniform party line every time out. Being close to 60 means that Democrats stand a good chance of persuading a couple of independents/Republicans to vote with them on a particular issue, if they require a cloture vote.

I don't think the 60-seat majority will have much bearing on how Reid and the Democrats deal with Leiberman.

 

[¹²³]

No way, I want real change.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[barfo]

I was just saying that it's clear the Dems wish to punish Lieberman for his independence--although they think Hegel is a visionary--

I think it is arguably true that Hegel was a visionary. Not so sure about Hagel.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I think it is arguably true that Hegel was a visionary. Not so sure about Hagel.

barfo

Oops.

 

[Real]

I think this is pretty overstated. Lieberman isn't going to change how he votes based on who he caucuses with. He's pretty clear in his beliefs. If he opposes the Democrats on an issue, he'll vote against them even if he's part of their caucus. He's shown that (I don't begrudge him that...everyone should vote their principles).

60 is really not a magical number. All senators don't vote uniform party line every time out. Being close to 60 means that Democrats stand a good chance of persuading a couple of independents/Republicans to vote with them on a particular issue, if they require a cloture vote.

I don't think the 60-seat majority will have much bearing on how Reid and the Democrats deal with Leiberman.

You say that Joe Lieberman won't vote based on who he caucuses with. I say that none of us really know Joe Lieberman, and neither do his colleagues in the Senate, Nobody thought two and a half years ago that he would return to the Senate as an Independent and speak at the Republican convention.

He could theoretically flip the bird to Reid. I wouldn't risk pissing Joe off...that's all I'm saying.

 

[STOMP]

heres the answer...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27782936

STOMP

 

[Stepping Razor]

Ha. Democrats, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

Mark my words, the 40 (41? 42?) Republicans will absolutely dominate the US Senate, even from their diminished minority. Congressional Dems will roll over and take it from *anyone*.

Also, I guarantee that Lieberman, who never once thought it was worth his while to use his Homeland Security committee to investigate one single act of malfeasance by the Bush Administration, will suddenly rediscover his zeal for the Legislative Branch's investigative powers, and will try to take down Obama for some dubious transgression. Just watch.

SR

 

[hasoos]

One point is to remember is a lot of the Democrats coming in are what you would call "Moderate" Democrats, which lean towards the center. Lieberman is more like them then the folks on the left. If you alienate him, you might alienate some of them. You never know how that might work out.

 

[Stepping Razor]

Lieberman has no ideology except his ego. All he cares about is himself. He will absolutely fuck over the other Dems... just like he did during this campaign, when he repaid their generosity in backing his third party campaign in '06 against the actual Democrat who beat him in the actual Democratic primary in Connecticut by going all Zell Miller this year against Obama.

I'm not a Democrat so I don't really care about how they manage (or mismanage) their caucus, but I have to say it does amaze me at how willing they are to cave into anyone who says "boo". The Dems in Congress are Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, perpetually mystified when Lucy (the GOP, Lieberman, whoever) pulls the ball away at the last minute and they fall on their ass in the mud. Again.

SR

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Lieberman has no ideology except his ego. All he cares about is himself. He will absolutely fuck over the other Dems... just like he did during this campaign, when he repaid their generosity in backing his third party campaign in '06 against the actual Democrat who beat him in the actual Democratic primary in Connecticut by going all Zell Miller this year against Obama.

I'm not a Democrat so I don't really care about how they manage (or mismanage) their caucus, but I have to say it does amaze me at how willing they are to cave into anyone who says "boo". The Dems in Congress are Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, perpetually mystified when Lucy (the GOP, Lieberman, whoever) pulls the ball away at the last minute and they fall on their ass in the mud. Again.

SR

I agree. He's a true liberal, yet he has really stabbed them in the back a couple of times.

 

[mook]

What would Republicans do if in the exact same situation? They'd summarily demote Lieberman without thinking twice about it. Why? Because, say what you will about them, Republicans like discipline. When you go off the reservation, you are putting your career in your own hands.

Lieberman campaigned directly against Obama and a number of other Democrats. If the Dems don't impose some discipline for this, then what's to keep the next guy from doing the same thing? If they don't act against Lieberman they look just as feckless as they always have.

Yet if they ignore all that and let Lieberman retain his position (which he's hardly used), that is somehow "change"? Whuh? "Change" is keeping the same guy in the same position despite him repeatedly stabbing you in the back? That's not change. That's just being an idiot.

What would you do in this circumstance:

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

What would Republicans do if in the exact same situation? They'd summarily demote Lieberman without thinking twice about it. Why? Because, say what you will about them, Republicans like discipline. When you go off the reservation, you are putting your career in your own hands.

Lieberman campaigned directly against Obama and a number of other Democrats. If the Dems don't impose some discipline for this, then what's to keep the next guy from doing the same thing? If they don't act against Lieberman they look just as feckless as they always have.

Yet if they ignore all that and let Lieberman retain his position (which he's hardly used), that is somehow "change"? Whuh? "Change" is keeping the same guy in the same position despite him repeatedly stabbing you in the back? That's not change. That's just being an idiot.

What would you do in this circumstance:

Well, I'm not a republican, but I would think they's do the same thing the dems are doing. Lieberman may be a turncoat, but he consistently votes with the dems. For the sake of votes, they will hang on to him. I'm sure rthe repubs would do the same.

 

[Minstrel]

Dean Defends Lieberman Decision, Speaks of "Mandate for Reconciliation"

In a brief but candid and wide-ranging telephone interview with a selection of bloggers and new media journalists, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean spoke frequently on themes of reconciliation and pragmatism, defended his party's decision to keep Joe Lieberman within its caucus, and said that the 50-state strategy will continue -- at least in spirit.

Much of the interview focused on Lieberman, as Dean received a tough and thorough line of questioning from Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake and John Aravosis of AmericaBLOG. "The truth is, Barack Obama got a mandate to bring the country together and to stop the politics of anger," Dean said, leaving little doubt that Obama's signal that Lieberman should keep his Homeland Security chairmanship had been instrumental to the party's decision today to give the Connecticut senator a pass.

Dean suggested that the decision should be political rather than personal, indicating that while "certainly [he] had anger" over Lieberman's actions during the presidential campaign, there was little space for what he regarded as a punitive action. When pressed by Hamsher about Lieberman's qualifications to chair the Homeland Security Committee, Dean said that he hadn't examined Lieberman's credentials in detail: "I was too busy trying to figure out how to win the election. [But] I certainly hope they did look at his record."

Dean also spoke of the decision in generational terms.

"If you get a mandate for reconciliation ... is your first act going to be to kick him [Lieberman] to the curb?", Dean said. "If you're in my generation you say, 'yeah, damn right we should'".

But, Dean claimed, the younger generation's tone and strategies are different. "The younger generation's message is, let's put aside something that we can't agree on and do something about the things that we can agree on." At the same time, Dean acknowledged that he expected dissension, particularly within the netroots -- "I'm sure the sentiment online is one of outrage".

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/dean-defends-lieberman-decision-speaks.html

 

[MARIS61]

Lieberman may very well be a lot of things, but he is in no way a liberal.

He is in no way a Democrat. He has been a huge supporter of the Bush/Cheney Regime.

What he is is a racist, sexist warmonger who serves only Israel, not America at all.

His immediate absence from power of any kind would be a blessing on the Earth in general, and would strengthen our country considerably.

He is the very last person I want in control of Homeland Security.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Lieberman may very well be a lot of things, but he is in no way a liberal.

He is in no way a Democrat. He has been a huge supporter of the Bush/Cheney Regime.

What he is is a racist, sexist warmonger who serves only Israel, not America at all.

His immediate absence from power of any kind would be a blessing on the Earth in general, and would strengthen our country considerably.

He is the very last person I want in control of Homeland Security.

If he's no liberal or democrat, why does he vote with them 90% of the time?

 

[mook]

"If you get a mandate for reconciliation ... is your first act going to be to kick him [Lieberman] to the curb?", Dean said. "If you're in my generation you say, 'yeah, damn right we should'".

But, Dean claimed, the younger generation's tone and strategies are different. "The younger generation's message is, let's put aside something that we can't agree on and do something about the things that we can agree on." At the same time, Dean acknowledged that he expected dissension, particularly within the netroots -- "I'm sure the sentiment online is one of outrage".

lol. Dean's a funny interview.

I'm pretty pissed that the Dems are just going to turn the other cheek on this. I guess I appreciate the tone Obama is trying to set, but it just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[MARIS61]

If he's no liberal or democrat, why does he vote with them 90% of the time?

He doesn't.

When he has voted, he has voted with the Dems 86.9% of the times he voted.

Most of that was fluff stuff. Procedural votes that mean nothing.

On the other 13.1%, the real issues that change and/or end lives, he voted Republican 100% of the time.

On anything important, like Iraq, protection from illegal eavesdropping, most anything having to do with individual freedom or basic rights of the individual he is a hard right-winger. His biggest threat is he wants to make America Israel's trained attack dog, and his goal is the genocide of Muslims everywhere.

As long as someone is willing to kill Muslims, Joe Lieberman will support them.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

He doesn't.

When he has voted, he has voted with the Dems 86.9% of the times he voted.

Most of that was fluff stuff. Procedural votes that mean nothing.

On the other 13.1%, the real issues that change and/or end lives, he voted Republican 100% of the time.

On anything important, like Iraq, protection from illegal eavesdropping, most anything having to do with individual freedom or basic rights of the individual he is a hard right-winger. His biggest threat is he wants to make America Israel's trained attack dog, and his goal is the genocide of Muslims everywhere.

As long as someone is willing to kill Muslims, Joe Lieberman will support them.

Check his voting record. I even posted it on a diff thread. Sorry to report you're flat out wrong. He's a liberal who's been playing some screwy games.

 

[maxiep]

Check his voting record. I even posted it on a diff thread. Sorry to report you're flat out wrong. He's a liberal who's been playing some screwy games.

Being socially liberal and a foreign policy conservative isn't a contridiction. In fact, it used to be called the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. Too bad it's been pushed out by people who don't understand that the freedoms they want so badly have to be defended.