The "Fuck Lieberman" Thread - Page 2

I think Reid was quoted as saying how Liebermann votes with them most of the time, more reliably than some of the Dem. Senators.

That's a good point, actually. Just because Obama is a Democrat and the Senate are controlly be the Democrats, it doesn't mean that they will accept every bill Obama tries to pass. I have a feeling Obama might anger certain Democrats in the House/Senate, because he's going to be more of a centrist than an outright liberal.

Now, Josh Marshall is saying:

I think there's irony in there somewhere.

Personally, I think Lieberman deserved being ousted as chairman of Homeland Security committee. After he not only blasted Obama at GOP convention but continued the assault when he campaigned for McCain, he knew the risk and after McCain lost, he doesn't deserve the position as chairman. However, if Obama and Reid decided to keep him around, albeit with a short leash, I guess they have the right to do so, if only to prevent him from caucusing with GOP. Although as Independent, he can backstab Dems anytime he wants.

Something tells me this also has to do with the GA and MN Senate races still being unresolved and tilting in the Dems favor. And maybe the fact that Obama generally doesn't sweat the small stuff, if that's what one could call Lieberman.

Might as well torpedo any drama that may have come from kicking him to another committee. Smart move.

While I admire Obama's magnanimity, but Lieberman needs to face some sort of consequence for his actions. This is a guy who stabbed Obama in the back, stabbed the Dems in the back, and would probably stab his own mother in the back if it meant his own political advancement.

If the people of Connecticut don't kick his ass to the curb in 2012, they'll looks as bad as Alaskans.

Does Obama really need to do anything? Everyone knows what Lieberman did. They know he flip-flopped out of political expediency. He'll be tolerated but not trusted, by both sides.

He doesn't need to do anything, that's why he hasn't. Let Liebermann stay, he already votes with the Dems on most issues and they didn't seem to mind having him favor them when they had a smaller majority.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry..._Democrat.html

Obama, Bill Clinton hoping Lieberman will stay a Democrat

President-elect Barack Obama has expressed support for keeping Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) in the Democratic Caucus, although it's unclear if Obama favors Lieberman still remaining chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Obama served on Lieberman's committee during the last two years.

Huffington Post first reported today that Obama "has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress,' although the report added that it was "unclear whether Obama would be comfortable with Lieberman maintaining his current committee post."
Democratic insiders told The Crypt that Obama had spoken directly to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about Lieberman, although Reid's office declined to comment on the nature of that conversation.

Josh Marshall over at talkingpointsmemo.com is reporting that former President Bill Clinton "is making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf."
And Keith Olbermann on MSNBC said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is seeking to strip Lieberman of his chairman's gavel.
Reid is under heavy pressure from some Senate Democrats and party faithful to punish Lieberman for his active support of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz..) presidential run, including a speech at the Republican National Convention.

Reid met with Lieberman last week to discuss the situation, and he reportedly offered Lieberman the chairmanship of a lesser committee, such as Small Business, if he voluntarily stepped down from Homeland Security. Lieberman rejected that offer, suggesting he would quit the Democratic Caucus if that happened. Reid, in turn, warned his longtime colleague that he will put the matter to a secret vote of the Democratic Caucus next week if they can't reach an agreement first.

Senate Democratic sources acknowledged that Lieberman would probably win a secret vote if it were held today, but the netroots are putting on the full-court press to convince Democrats to vote to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.

Clinton is now denying he's speaking for Leiberman, as far as a report I saw last night.

And it's true Obama didn't have to do anything, public. His release of that statement is annoying because he could have handled behind the scenes and let Harry Reid deal with it. Obama's statement fueled the drama in this story which probably would have died down until the Senate vote on Tuesday.

That's the thing, though. They didn't have a smaller majority without Lieberman. Without Lieberman they hada minority.

My inner vindictive bastard wants punishment. If Obama lacks an inner vindictive bastard, that's probably a net plus for the country.

So Leiberman gave Democrats a majority for two years after Democrats rejected him first in the Democratic Primary and that is worth nothing?

Leiberman has been consistent on the pro-war issue, not flip-flopping. His firm stand on the issue lost him the primary, won him the seat as an independant, and drove him to support John McCain for President. How many politicians stay true to their core principals in the face of adversity?

As a pro-war Democrat myself, I understand how he feels. It would be like trying to be a pro-choice Republican.

That's all well and good, but most Democrats see an unwavering, immovable stance in support of the war as a negative, not a positive.

"pro-war Democrat" = lololololol

I before E, except after C. I before E, except after C. I before E, except after C.

Or, yea, you could just look at the title of the thread.

Please. For the sake of my sanity, don't quote that bullying thug. I can feel those brain cells responsible for remembering his opinion trying to die.

Err... two bits. Democrats supported him in the Democratic Primary. And Lieberman had a chairmanship which he likely would not have had if he caucused with the Republicans. That's what he got out of it.

I can't really hate on Lieberman for his foreign policy stances. I absolutely disagree with him, as I think what's good for America is not always necessarily what's good for Israel, but he has a right to his worldview and his work in that field is generally well respected.

What I find absolutely despicable is his personal conduct and two-faced lying during the campaign. But he's a politician, and I don't think you can run him out of town for that sort of thing. It would be better, I think, to keep him close, on an extremely short leash, and then spring an extremely strong Democratic candidate on him in 2012 with no warning. One good turn deserving another.

At least this whole thing gave me something to put in the unsubscribe box for the Obama campaign e-mails, whch is still asking for money: "Fuck Joe Lieberman."

So Lieberman was not fucked, 42-13. The netroots want blood. They want any Senator that voted to keep him in the caucus to get the Ned Lamont treatment and they're furious that the vote was not made public (secret ballot meaning little to them, I guess). It's a little frightening. Some people don't know how to win with grace.

Like FDR. Or JFK. Or LBJ. Not that they were "pro-war", but they certainly were more hawkish than their contemporaries.

Dems used to be red-meat on some of this stuff. JFK wouldn't recognize some of the softies on his side of the aisle these days.

And Lieberman was spared to support the President-Elect and his message. You can stick it to Lieberman later.

Please don't make me quote one of President-elect Obama's less eloquent turns of phrase regarding dumb wars. Lieberman is pr-dumb war.

It's weak and spineless shit like this (allowing Joe the Traitor into the caucus) that made me vote for Nader in 2000.

What kind of party allows someone to disrespect the leader of thier party and then allow him to chair a key oversight committee? A party of Candy Asses that is what.

Its like James Coburn in Affliction (paraphrasing) "This is what we have for political partys in American: A bunch of Jesus Freaks and Candy-Asses.

I dunno. Seeing Lieberman snivel his way through a press conference and publicly apologize to Obama is more satisfying than watching him demagogue against his rather self-serving definition of partisanship.

If Franken wins his recount, and Chambliss loses his runoff, the payoff is potentially huge. That's why. That 60 Senate majority isn't possible without Lieberman.

Personally, for the next two years if the Senate gets that majority we could be witness to some amazing things coming out of Congress, and I want this to happen more than anything. If the D's fail it will be their fault and I'm willing to accept that. It's time to see what really works.

Evan Bayh also made the good point on Maddow's show that the Dems can yank Lieberman's chairmanship whenever they want. It's not a now-or-never type of deal.

I've heard various rules regarding how someone is removed from committe chair when the Senate is in session. According to to John Avarosis

But then you have Senators Brown and Feinstein saying they'd wait until the beginning of the new Congressional session to decide who chairs what.

They all just covering their asses because they don't want to publicly say they endorsed Lieberman, which is a pretty sad state of affairs. If you make a vote stand by it.

So today it only takes the Democratic caucus but tomorrow it takes the whole Senate? Methinks these rules are a tad fuckered.

I have a feeling its like the NFL and none of the players knowing the rules regarding overtime.

hay as a Jesus Freak I dislike being labeled as a Republican!

Haha. Don't count on it.

well one can hope right?

I'm inclined to agree with Muharulz on that one. Congress is fucked, no matter which party has the majority. The Democrats in Congress aren't Obama, they aren't above partisan politics and certainly don't want to unite everyone to their cause. Expect a whole lot of power grabs and political payback for all the years they haven't had the majority.

In fact, Democrats in Congress could wind up being Obama's greatest enemy, as they shit all over everything he is trying to accomplish.

Yeah, it's not like the last Democratic president who had over 50% of the popular vote and a Democratic congress passed most of the civil rights legislation we currently have on the books or anything. Wait...

Different era, not applicable.

Anyone expecting great things from Congress is dangerously naive. It is broken. Badly broken. That's why I found the ranting at Daily Kos so hilarious. They legitimately believed that by voting Democrats into Congress, some magical, golden age was going to be ushered in.

I don't guess there's anything wrong with hope, but at least make sure your hope is coming from a realisitc place. Realistically, Congress is badly fucked up no matter who happens to be in charge.

Given the light of recent events, this thread definitely needs to be ressurrected.

Gentlemen?

I always wondered why this guy annoys me more than most conservative republicans and then I remembered who this guy was before 2000...

-His crusades against violent movies and videogames plus his push for the v-chip.

-His holier than thou attitude towards Bill Clinton. He voted against impeachment (at least he was loyal in the 90's), but for censorship.

-I probably would have voted for Al Gore in 2000 instead of Nader if he didn't choose this piece of shit as a running mate. I live in PA so it didn't matter anyways

Nothing wrong with the V-chip.

Other than the fact that the chip became obsolete with the rise of cable/satellite parental locks and the fact that it was the government getting into the business of parenting kids and/or regulating content.

No, it was a tool that allowed parents to personally regulate what their children saw. Basically the perfect alternative to censorship.

The problem with lieberman isn't the V-chip per say. Its that his priorities are on the morality of Hollywood, when he himself will probably cause the death of many Americans due to his blocking of any meaningful health care reform. The extra millions or so of Americans that will be uninsured will die because he is a corporate whore.

Yet he wants to tell Oliver Stone or Tarantino what they can do. He alligned himself with Michael Medved and anti-hollywood conservative organizations.

I have nothing to add to this thread that isn't already spelled out in the thread title. I just wanted to add my voice to those who hate that bitter old POS

The one piece of solace in all this is this: the reason Lieberman is being such an out-and-out corporate whore these days is that he knows he's very unlikely to win reelection. He put all his eggs into the McCain basket for VP and Secretary of State consideration and it turned out to be a losing bet. 2012 and he's gone.

That also seems to be the reason the Dems haven't gone after him. Sure, he's been making it hard to push through the major agenda items, but keeping him happy for the next couple years guarantees cloture. I think you'll see them turn on him like made in the election.

No, the company I used to work for just cut a deal to incorporate the technology (somehow) into Cyberlink PC-TV stuff. It's not obselete. And even if it is, hey, a 52-week high is a 52-week high.

If it makes you feel better, the V-Chip tech is privately owned by a Canadian public company. Your government is not involved, to my knowledge.

Anyway, Lieberman's crusade against videogames (and Gore's against rock and/or roll music) are the good ol' days as far as I'm concerned. Much lighter fare than arguing about whether or not its okay to torture prisoners an' stuff.

The republican's wouldn't take shit from the Maine Girls or Spector back in 2005 if they would threaten to join a Democratic Filibuster. They would have been bounced out of the party immediately.

Spector was astonished at the lack of party discipline when he switched sides last year. He was shocked that none of the party leaders would threaten the chairmanship of any democrat who joined a republican filibuster on Health Care.

Back to LIEberman, This is Al Gore's fault for thinking that voters and his base gave a shit about whether a politician was "moral enough" after Monica Lewinsky. It showed the democrats were willing to play into the Republicans hands. Plus, no one believed Gore when he deep throated his wife at the Democratic convention.