AMERICAblog: Leahy and Sander publicly opposes Lieberman chairmanship
Patrick_Bateman
· 1 year ago
Smart fellows.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 1 year ago
Leahy and Sanders, as always, are 100% right.
Rev_Sacrilege
· 1 year ago
Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more said about this by the Democratic senators. I wonder what my senator (McCaskill) had to say... off to Google!
Apparently when asked about it this week, she sternly and assertively said: "Next question." Wonder what that means...
martha
· 1 year ago
She is my senator too. I love how she came out so strong and early for Obama but .... on some other issues - spying on Americans she is not so great.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
It means she's not very good! No one has the right to not answer, damn it - they work for us! Next tiime, stand on your chair and just go off until the police come. Seriously. Get the people to start chanting 'answer the question' ...
An_American_Karol
· 1 year ago
I just got this email from my Senator this morning.
Dear Ms *******:
Thank you for contacting me about Senator Joseph Lieberman's (I-CT) recent appearance at the Republican National Convention. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Like you, I was very disappointed by Senator Lieberman's speech at the Republican Convention and his criticism of Senator Barack Obama. However, with only a few months left in the 110th Congress, I believe it is better to wait until the beginning of the new Congress to reevaluate Senator Lieberman's Committee Chairmanship.
Once again, thank you for expressing your concerns. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.
Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
makes sense, but what does that mean - she won't vote?
An_American_Karol
· 1 year ago
I have no idea what she meant. I thought it was strange.
Our state is so crazy. We elect avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders AND Republican Jim Douglas.
Now, shut down Vermont Yankee!!!
SkippyFlipjack
· 1 year ago
It's cool that Leahy continues to do good things, even after his high point of the "Dark Knight" cameo.. some senators wouldn't have tried topping that
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
wooo hooo ;) it's called leadership. deal with it.
cab02149
· 1 year ago
"Good on" for those Vermonters. I'm proud of them. I would rather be proud than enraged at men who represent us. Seems that it is hard to find those who make a citizen feel proud of the men in his own Federal Government these days.
Wolfsinger
· 1 year ago
Rock On! Bernie Sanders! Rock On! Pat Leahy!
This is LEADERSHIP. Not FEAR.
I'm too am very proud of you both.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
Much as I despise Lieberman, I'm very, very disappointed in Obama ... make that disgusted, revolted, etc. Yeah, it is said there is an outside chance that the Democrats might have a 60 vote - filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Maybe, but if so, I suspect Lieberman is waiting for the right time to betray the Democrats again, on the most crucial of issues. And, if the Democrats don't achieve that 60 vote majority, then Lieberman must go. His treachery matches that of the Republicans and he belongs with them though I understand they wouldn't trust him either. Lieberman has shown his colors and they are only treachery, no loyalty to anyone or anything other than his own selfish self-gratification.
The real tragedy of this is what it says and proves about Obama. We were taken for suckers. He promised us "Change we can believe in," but now we find that he only intends to give us "Politics as usual." Nader was right. At the core, no difference between the two parties. Neither party is on our side, they have their own side and it is not the American people or the American nation. From what I can see, the corporations may also be betrayed. These politicians, including Obama, serve only one small, selfish, self-serving group, themselves.
terjeanderson
· 1 year ago
Nader wasn't right, and we weren't taken for suckers by Obama.
Obama promised us that he would come to Washington to get things done and that he would change the way things are done in DC by reaching out to people he disagreed with -- he never promised us some kind of ideologically pure administration that would satisfy some impossible standard of narrow partisan interests. Obama knows that he needs to govern and get legislation passed over the next 4 (hopefully 8) years, and that getting pulled into internal Senate battles wouldn't help get meaningful legislation passed.
Obama has weighed saying he hopes Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus (something that every Democratic Senator, and even Bernie Sanders, say they want) -- he has not stated that he wants Lieberman to remain as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, instead remaining neutral and stating that is the decision of the Democratic caucus. If the caucus votes to make someone else chair and Lieberman leaves the caucus as a result, that is his choice, but Lieberman isn't going to get kicked out of the Democratic Senate caucus. (Even if many of us in the blogosphere wish that would happen.)
Obama and the Democrats shouldn't trust Lieberman -- but that doesn't mean we don't want and need his vote to get things done, votes on issues that Lieberman has usually voted correctly on (especially domestic issues, as opposed to his horrible record on foreign issues).
You trot out the tired old canard that there is "no difference between the two parties." Good lord, have you been paying attention for the last 8 years? Do you still really think it would have made no difference if Al Gore had been President instead of George W. Bush? Pick an issue, almost any issue, and Obama will be far better for the American people than Bush or McCain -- health care, tax policy, civil rights, court appointments, environmental policy, jobs, energy, education, treatment of veterans, reproductive health, immigration, labor rights, building a green economy, sane foreign policy, etc etc....
If your standard for judging Obama's performance is based on a procedural issue like this before he even is sworn in, you're writing him off long before he gets to things that count. Me, I'm going to wait and continue to support him while he works for real change on the real issues that he campaigned on - reviving the economy, restoring our standing around the world, expanding health care access, and reversing the many disasters of the last 8 years of Bush.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
totally agree with your post except: 'reaching out..'? omg, no. obama needs to seek-and-destroy every loyal bushie in every corner. every one. remember, repubs by thier own words are 'at war' with dems. they all know it, but many dems don't. http://consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html
terjeanderson
· 1 year ago
I tend to agree with your assessment about the need to fight aggressively -- but certainly the rhetoric of the Obama campaign was one of unity, inclusion, reaching out, and bi-partisanship--- so none of us should be particularly surprised when his actions are be consistent with that.
I think the focus should be how he can build broad bi-partisan support for progressive policy initiatives. In that regard, I think that it is possible and necessary to reach out on individual issues to people like Lugar, Grassley, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Brownback, Martinez, or many other Republicans. None of them will ever be trustworthy members of an Obama coalition on most issues, but they are potential supporters on any one of a number of individual initiatives. If Obama does that successfully, he will be able to pass meaningful progressive initiatives AND maintain/build strong public support as someone who breaks through the DC political stagnation to really get things done. That kind of action probably reflects the reality of where American public opinion is and what they hope to see from an Obama presidency.
FeifeiLaRue
· 1 year ago
"the rhetoric of the Obama campaign was one of unity, inclusion, reaching out, and bi-partisanship"
if they have any brains it will remain just rhetoric. your opponents are already running with the 'let's be friends' you see in action movies when the bad guy drops their gun and is stealthily reaching for a hidden weapon. fuck that noise. load up on willie pete and burn them out of their holes.
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
...My will is even this: That presently you hie you home to bed. Thou subtle, perjured, false, disloyal man! Think'st thou I am so shallow, so conceitless, To be seduced by thy flattery, That hast deceived so many with thy vows?
To really insure loyalty to pre-inaugural bi-partisan promises onlookers must see excessive partisanship judiciously pruned no matter the short-term unpleasantness. Lovely if a certain person could sweet talk the chastened maverick into tossing Joe under the Change bus...
mobius
· 1 year ago
That's it! I've started bombarding Obama's Change.gov site with "wtf are you KIDDING about Lieberman??
Thus far I've managed to be more eloquent and literate than that, although it's exactly what I'm thinking.
okojo
· 1 year ago
I really think what Durbin and Schumer are saying or scheming at this moment is the really important, given they have leadership positions, besides Schumer is going to be in the heavyweight category, given he has helped 12-13 new Democratic Party Senators for the past two elections. Lieberman supporting Susan Collins and Norm Coleman is to me why he should either kicked out of the caucus or given small business, or actually something he would want given Foxwoods, Indian Affairs (one of the least wanted seats in the Senate
dad
· 1 year ago
Democratic Senators with spines.
Look how straight they stand, Sen. Dodd.
ggm1957
· 1 year ago
No wonder I keep voting for Leahy and Sanders! They aren't afraid to take a stance on issues.
kiki
· 1 year ago
"Leahy and Sander publicly opposes Lieberman chairmanship"
Good, let the varmint be gone for good. Who needs someone like that around. Kudos to Leahy and Sander and anyone else who opposes this creep.
stymie
· 1 year ago
It is not a matter of revenge but a matter of integrity. And if the democrats let Lieberman retain his seat they show that they are willing to operate withot integrity. I think we need more from our leaders in this regard even though we might give up the majority of 60 senators, we will benefit in the long run if the party does what is right, and IMHO that is not to give hm a 3rd -4th, or umpteenth chance to fuck us over again. Lieberman reminds me of the post about bush mutt Barney which says "when it comes to biting barney is a repeat offender" ; when it comes to backstabbing Lierberman is a repeat offender. He needs to be on a short leash.
MyVoice
· 1 year ago
As a Vermonter, I knew how my delegation would vote just by who they supported during the CT primary. It is great that both have put their opinions out in public since it will be a secret vote. I do not believe that Bernie will be allowed to vote in the caucus chairman decision on Joe but having my two Senators on record as opposing Joe is great. It takes some wind out of Joe's sails Great firsts for VT this year- first blue State recorded- first Senators speaking out on Joe. First to establish civil unions was another step for equality for everyone- signed by none other than DNC chairman Gov. Howard Dean.
terjeanderson
· 1 year ago
Bernie does get to vote in caucus -- even though he is elected as a Democrat, because he chooses to caucus with the Dems he has a vote there. The downside is that Joe Lieberman has a caucus vote too, so the 2 votes cancel each other out.
We've got lots of reasons to be proud of our Congressional delegation - this is just one more.
terjeanderson
· 1 year ago
John
Thanks for giving me the shout out on this -- nice to know that I'm considered a credible source
All Comments
Apparently when asked about it this week, she sternly and assertively said: "Next question." Wonder what that means...
Dear Ms *******:
Thank you for contacting me about Senator Joseph Lieberman's (I-CT) recent appearance at the Republican National Convention. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Like you, I was very disappointed by Senator Lieberman's speech at the Republican Convention and his criticism of Senator Barack Obama. However, with only a few months left in the 110th Congress, I believe it is better to wait until the beginning of the new Congress to reevaluate Senator Lieberman's Committee Chairmanship.
Once again, thank you for expressing your concerns. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/14/12...
Diane doesn't want you to know that the decision will be made next week.
Our state is so crazy. We elect avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders AND Republican Jim Douglas.
Now, shut down Vermont Yankee!!!
This is LEADERSHIP. Not FEAR.
I'm too am very proud of you both.
The real tragedy of this is what it says and proves about Obama. We were taken for suckers. He promised us "Change we can believe in," but now we find that he only intends to give us "Politics as usual." Nader was right. At the core, no difference between the two parties. Neither party is on our side, they have their own side and it is not the American people or the American nation. From what I can see, the corporations may also be betrayed. These politicians, including Obama, serve only one small, selfish, self-serving group, themselves.
Obama promised us that he would come to Washington to get things done and that he would change the way things are done in DC by reaching out to people he disagreed with -- he never promised us some kind of ideologically pure administration that would satisfy some impossible standard of narrow partisan interests. Obama knows that he needs to govern and get legislation passed over the next 4 (hopefully 8) years, and that getting pulled into internal Senate battles wouldn't help get meaningful legislation passed.
Obama has weighed saying he hopes Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus (something that every Democratic Senator, and even Bernie Sanders, say they want) -- he has not stated that he wants Lieberman to remain as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, instead remaining neutral and stating that is the decision of the Democratic caucus. If the caucus votes to make someone else chair and Lieberman leaves the caucus as a result, that is his choice, but Lieberman isn't going to get kicked out of the Democratic Senate caucus. (Even if many of us in the blogosphere wish that would happen.)
Obama and the Democrats shouldn't trust Lieberman -- but that doesn't mean we don't want and need his vote to get things done, votes on issues that Lieberman has usually voted correctly on (especially domestic issues, as opposed to his horrible record on foreign issues).
You trot out the tired old canard that there is "no difference between the two parties." Good lord, have you been paying attention for the last 8 years? Do you still really think it would have made no difference if Al Gore had been President instead of George W. Bush? Pick an issue, almost any issue, and Obama will be far better for the American people than Bush or McCain -- health care, tax policy, civil rights, court appointments, environmental policy, jobs, energy, education, treatment of veterans, reproductive health, immigration, labor rights, building a green economy, sane foreign policy, etc etc....
If your standard for judging Obama's performance is based on a procedural issue like this before he even is sworn in, you're writing him off long before he gets to things that count. Me, I'm going to wait and continue to support him while he works for real change on the real issues that he campaigned on - reviving the economy, restoring our standing around the world, expanding health care access, and reversing the many disasters of the last 8 years of Bush.
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html
I think the focus should be how he can build broad bi-partisan support for progressive policy initiatives. In that regard, I think that it is possible and necessary to reach out on individual issues to people like Lugar, Grassley, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Brownback, Martinez, or many other Republicans. None of them will ever be trustworthy members of an Obama coalition on most issues, but they are potential supporters on any one of a number of individual initiatives. If Obama does that successfully, he will be able to pass meaningful progressive initiatives AND maintain/build strong public support as someone who breaks through the DC political stagnation to really get things done. That kind of action probably reflects the reality of where American public opinion is and what they hope to see from an Obama presidency.
if they have any brains it will remain just rhetoric. your opponents are already running with the 'let's be friends' you see in action movies when the bad guy drops their gun and is stealthily reaching for a hidden weapon. fuck that noise. load up on willie pete and burn them out of their holes.
That presently you hie you home to bed.
Thou subtle, perjured, false, disloyal man!
Think'st thou I am so shallow, so conceitless,
To be seduced by thy flattery,
That hast deceived so many with thy vows?
To really insure loyalty to pre-inaugural bi-partisan promises onlookers must see excessive partisanship judiciously pruned no matter the short-term unpleasantness.
Lovely if a certain person could sweet talk the chastened maverick into tossing Joe under the Change bus...
Thus far I've managed to be more eloquent and literate than that, although it's exactly what I'm thinking.
Look how straight they stand, Sen. Dodd.
Good, let the varmint be gone for good. Who needs someone like that around. Kudos to Leahy and Sander and anyone else who opposes this creep.
I think we need more from our leaders in this regard even though we might give up the majority of 60 senators, we will benefit in the long run if the party does what is right, and IMHO that is not to give hm a 3rd -4th, or umpteenth chance to fuck us over again.
Lieberman reminds me of the post about bush mutt Barney which says "when it comes to biting barney is a repeat offender" ; when it comes to backstabbing Lierberman is a repeat offender. He needs to be on a short leash.
We've got lots of reasons to be proud of our Congressional delegation - this is just one more.
Thanks for giving me the shout out on this -- nice to know that I'm considered a credible source
Terje