-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/obama-making-phone-calls-on-behalf-of.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
We knew that. The only reason that more dems got elected was because Bush et. al. were so horrendous that people were scared of the repubs more than they agreed with dems. It's unfortunate, but this seems to be the case. The dems don't have a consistent message (like the repubs have).
The Obama people are trying to keep people motivated, though. They are trying to use those who signed up online to keep up the dem positions once he's in office. My hope is that that means a lot of people will be saying the same things, just like the repubs have been doing to their great benefit.
Oh, and Lieberman is a little sh**
Yes, he's a lying, disloyal scumbag, but sending him to caucus with the Republicans won't change that. What will change that is that, when he comes up for re-election, his constituents (and certainly his Democratic challengers) are going to remember that he campaigned on one platform and then, once elected, supported the exact opposite of that platform.
He's not going to get re-elected. By not booting him, I'm guessing that Obama is thinking is undercuts Lieberman if he tries to play the martyr card--"Those mean Democrats ran me out of the party just because I didn't agree with them on every issue!"
Personally, I'd run him out of the party on a rail, though.
As much as I despise Lieberman, he can be useful to the party, and I'm sure Obama and Reid recognize that, and are taking steps to minimize Lieberman's damage and maximize his usefulness.
Revenge would be sweet, of course, but sweeter still would be for Lieberman to be used for Obama's advantage. And used, and used and used.
What does it say about Joe that the Democrats have to BRIBE him to get him to do the right thing? What does it say that the Democrats would be spineless enough to play this game?
"We'll let you keep your chairman's seat if you vote for the change that Americans are demanding, ok Joe? Please? Pretty Please? We love you Joe..."
Are Lieberman's morals and positions on what is best for America so "flexible" that he'll only criteria he has for voting is whether you give into his list of demands?
This is the part of politics that I think everyone finds distasteful.
HE DOES NOT RUN THE CONGRESS.
The congress is supposed to provide OVERSIGHT.
These spineless Senators appear unwilling (or incapable) of making any decisions for themselves.
They have to wait for the President to TELL THEM what to do.
Regardless of who is President, I find this behavior unacceptable.
For the most part, it seems you provide a decent blog. I appreciate the information you and other left leaning blogs provide. But get off of the Lieberman thing already. You sound no better than any of the thousands of idiots hanging around sports bars yelling at professional athletes about how much they suck. I have been reading your posts and readers' comments for months about what Obama and the Democrats need to do to win. I think it's safe to say that they didn't follow your advice and they WON. The cleaned up. How does that not register with you folks? How do you not conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about? How do you not conclude that you have no idea what it takes to win a campaign or make any real change (if anybody really can)? It brings to mind Arianna Huffington. As I am sure all your readers know, she ran for governor of California a few short years ago. She got a whopping 2% of the vote. 2%!!! Yet months later she was blogging about what Democrats need to do to win. I'm sorry, but when you run for office and get 2%, you don't get to tell anybody ever again how to win an election. If you truly believe it is so easy, that you know exactly what needs to be done, that YOU know the American people and what they respond to, then, by all means, run for office. Show us how it's done. Make the changes that you believe are important. If you try, however, I think you will find that the American people are not who you think they are. They do not respond to the same things that we do. Yes, I said we. I, too, am far to the left of the Democratic party. The only difference is that I know I am in a distinct minority. Anybody running under a platform that I fully support might have about 1% of the people voting for her. It seems obvious to me that Obama has proven himself to be an excellent politician, probably, by definition, the best in the country. What reason could you possibly have to believe the you know better than he what to do about Lieberman?
Only, now watch out! You're competing with Rachel Maddow, the TV blogger.
... although I try to make room for both of you! Seems you two agree a lot, as fate would have it.
FWIW and back on topic, I get a sinking feeling when I see how much effort is being extended towards keeping Lieberman in the caucus. I'm trying not to be too wide-eyed and naive, but I just keep thinkingslashhoping: Obama took what was supposed to be a slam dunk presidential nomination away from Hillary Clinton. He was a black man running for the highest office in the land against a media darling who was also supposedly a political "maverick" and who had 5 and half years as a POW to fall back on whenever confronted with negative criticism (and he did, often). He had a lot going for him this cycle, but he had a whooooole lot against him as well. And he was running in the midst of a potential party breakdown (PUMAs may have been a fallacy, but there were still bruised egos and trustless souls), not to mention old-school Democrats giving him advice based on old strategies that had a long illustrious history of not workign (if anyone had the election wrong, it was those dillholes, not blogs like this one). When Lieberman was running his mouth off earlier in the campaign, Obama had no problem taking him by the arm on the floor of the Senate and give him a dressing-down. He ran what many consider to be a near-flawless campaign, and he's not about to f*** it up now JUST to get old Joe to stop hanging out with the bad kids after school.
For the time being, I gotta give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
i think Lieberman should punished for the crap he pulled for Susan Collins. I think Al Franken is a gadfly lightweight, but I would support him over Norm Coleman, but Tom Allen was a pretty good candidate for Senate, and he got creamed...
If Franken wasn't the Democratic/FL party, I think the election would had been a blowout for the Democrats, however I still hope Franken wins...
I wish they could be proved totally wrong, but the way the dems are responding to traitor joe, tells me otherwise...
Second this is her third Senate election, her most vulnerable time was in 2002, and she also creamed Cheliee Pingree, party brand labels sort of melt away for the senator after awhile, and they are looked upon as their own independent brand label. Much like Mary Landrieu will have an easier time in Louisiana, compare to two very close elections for her in 1996 and 2002..
Which is why it is so difficult to defeat a sitting senator, unless they are mired in a corruption scandal. Even then like Ted Stevens, they still have a fighting chance... or Someone like Strom Thurmond who was elected in 1996, when he had his chairmanship stripped away from him because of senility.
Susan Collins may work with Dems on certain health care issues, home heating oil, and couple other issues, but for budget issues, tax policy, gun control, defense spending, she will be as rabid as any hard core conservative Republican... How she ran the Gov't affairs/DHS committee was pretty inept.
Let's spend our energies helping Obama pass major pieces of legislation and let him worry about how he will cobble together the majorities he needs to pass them. The more potential votes he has, the more Electeds will fear him and not want to monkey around with the particulars.
Even though I think Lieberman sohuld be kicked to the curb, Obama has earned my trust until he proves otherwise. I don't like this at all, but if that's what he wants, I trust Obama's judgment.
Would you trust him to honor such a promise when he has already dishonored his loyalty to his party by supporting the opposition candidates (yes, plural). Liebermann is without character, principles or honor. If he swore on his mother, he would laugh and say his mother is dead. Liebermann is looking for the opportunity to hurt the Democrats seriously. If a cloture vote doesn't present itself, he will find another way.
Obama is an outstanding human being and one to be respected. But even the best men are still human, subject to mistakes and to betrayal. Jesus was betrayed. No, Obama isn't Jesus or anything like that, just that Liebermann looks for the opportunity to do the maximum damage he can to the Democrats. No question about it, he will betray them.
Having said that, at this stage of the game, will trust his judgment. But I am right there with everyone who wants to throw Lieberman under the bus. I'd gladly volunteer for that duty.
Thanks Rush.
So if Joe wants to leave the caucus, fine.
Liebershit should be drop kicked out of the caucus LAST YEAR
If Obama/Reid retains Liebershit as a gavel on HSC, Obama will be a one term preznit.
HAHA thanks for the votes, SUCKERS!
I think TJ's only chance for re-elect (if he even cares) is to go pro-obama. But, I believe he will do whatever he thinks will damage the dems the most over the long run.
the man must have zero self-respect.
I, for one, will enjoy not having to see his smirking face on TV anymore thumbing his nose at his old party when that happens.
I wouldn't be so sure. The democrats didn't vote for him last time, it was the republicans who did and they consider him on their side and love a controversy as long as it messes with the democrats. Traitor Joe is their foil and loves being able to thumb his nose at the democrats because there is nothing they can do about it. They will continue electing him over the democrats hand wringing about it being unfair..
The repugs were bitch-slapped in this last election. And what good did Lieberman do them? None, he was a joke. He stood there behind McCain like some dutiful wife, knowing the girlfriend is waiting in the room. He's got nothing. They owe Lieberman nothing because he brought nothing. And if they are stupid enough to think he can help them, and they do take him, then certain senators are gonna find out why Obama made Rahm Emanuel his first. Even Lindsay Graham has seen that writing on the wall. Obama is not going to go down in history as a divider, and he's setting things up, out front and in the back rooms and corners of Washington so it's not going to happen. And certainly, no punk like Lieberman is going to get in the way.
Actually, Lieberman's past history of chairman, has been "much ado about nothing." He has obstructed any investigations (e.g. Katrina, for one) being held regarding this administration and its debacles with homeland security problems. I would rather have someone else chairing that committee that will actually do something. John Aravosis has even said that if we want constant investigations into our own party and administration, Joe will be the man. I would prefer for us to take our chances by removing him from his committee chairmanship and leave it up to him whether he bolts to the republican party or not.
In my view, Lieberman is a despicable piece of work whose only concern is the welfare of Joseph Lieberman.
My take on it is this.The one thing LIE-berman craves is being relevant,so he might play nice knowing that at anytime if he steps out of line the hammer will fall.President Obama has that hammer. Remember when the Rev. Wright fiasco got started President Obama stood and defended him.It was only after Rev.Wright got out of line President Obama drove the bus over him.LIE-berman is in the same position,President Obama will forgive and even let you remain somewhat relevant but eff-up one time,your anus will be discarded to the dust bin of history.
Let it go John. Its not worth it. The Dems won't go against Obama right now as you fear. They owe him big time. They either got or kept their jobs because of his presence on the ticket.
We don't have to like them.
Throughout the last year I've suffered through endless "analysis" of how Obama has made this error or that and it will be a catastrophe for him long term. You know what, the guy has proven his detractors wrong at every turn. I'm willing to at least cut him a little slack and see how he plays this game out a couple of times before we start burning him in effagy.
As far as the "party discipline" meme goes and the assertion that Democrats wont fall in line because of lack of discipline, bull. Senators will do what's in their best interest. If on paper we have a bulletproof majority, and one of the members of the caucus goes off the reservation on a big vote, like healthcare reform, I'm thinking the fear of negative exposure will be more than enough to keep them nice and in line. Right now, a lot of the DINO Democrats can vote against party because the GOP influence is strong enough to cover them, but when it is a known fact that the GOP doesn't have the votes by themselves to stop legislation, Democratic Senators will have to think real hard about going against the party.
Heck, even the Democratic Senators from red states must be a little afraid of the results of the last election. Obama has shown he can take the fight into the heart of red country, I don't think he needs to beat people up to get them to stay in line, I think those who are most likely to go rouge are already keenly aware that their life as a Senator is in no way a given when they try to go all DINO.
Black and White Thinking leads to the kind of purist branding the Rethugs have imposed on their Electeds for years and which has brought about their ruination.
Just from a simple strategic view, you do NOT keep someone in a post where they can hurt you, especially when that same slug didn't do a damn thing to hold the current Administration accountable in any way, shape or form for its numerous shortcomings, lawbreaking, or spectacular incompetence.
Also, can Lieberman be stripped of any chairmanship once the committee assignments are made for the next Congress, or would the only way jackoff Joe could be punished would be through actual physical expulsion from the Senate itself?
It's crap like this, rewarding pricks while punishing the good guys, which keeps me from actually joining the Democratic party, and as a liberal, there aren't many other logical places to go, not when it comes to being able to instantly counter the Republicans financially and media wise.
It's a true conundrum for liberals like myself, the Dems give few reasons to vote for them, the GOP gives every reason to vote against it.
Us partisans on the outside see this as a personal war, they see this as just another day at the office. Once people realize this, and stop interjecting passion into it so much, I think things will be seen very differently.
I'm kind of disappointed at how knee-jerk the reactions have been to this.
http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abr...
And it may work. He's got more faith in humanity than I do. Weasel is the very nicest thing I could call HoJo. But maybe if he saves HoJo's ass they'll be BFF's. Barack's the man of the moment. A saint even if he redeems HoJo's sorry ass. We shall see.
I don't agree that doing so signals that any Dem senator can be as traitorous as they want and they will not be held accountable. This is a unique situation, where losing one Dem in the Senate (e.g. Lieberman) could prevent the Dem caucus from achieving a 60 seat majority. If the Dems had a greater cushion, I expect they would deal differently with Lieberman, and any other Dem senator knows that.
Also, I don't think the Dems need to worry about whether or not Lieberman will fall in line should he retain his chairmanships and leadership positions. Keep in mind that the Dem caucus can remove any member, strip them of their leadership roles, or otherwise discipline any member that does not go with the program. And Lieberman knows that. So I think it highly unlikely Lieberman will function as a rogue Democrat in regards to his role in the Senate. And if he does, the Dem caucus can and should take the appropriate disciplinary action.
So, when you look at the bigger picture, the potential benefits of maintaining Lieberman in a leadership role with the Dem caucus appear to be many, and the potential liabilities appear few. I agree it is galling that Lieberman would get a pass on his behavior during the presidential campaign, but good politics is often based on what is expedient, not what is just.
makes me wonder what Obama said to droopy dog when he cornered him in the Senate last summer........nothing Obama does is without reason, methinks.
So lets allow Obama to put the change into effect; I could care less about the discipline of the party - I want people who are going to make the drastic and sometimes difficult changes that we need to make. And the last thing I want is another 4-8 yrs of someone who surrounds himself with "yes" men. To me this just reaffirms why I voted for Obama.
I will ask the same question everyone else is rightly asking....What makes ANYONE think that Joe will vote with the Democrats? Joe votes FOR JOE! Period. Lieberman has demonstrated his disdain for Anything and ANYONE Democrat! With all due respect, President Elect Obama won the hearts and minds of America with the power of his persuasion and the sound judgment of his plans to heal this country. Why must we then live in FEAR of Joe Lieberman? Why instead can't we believe that rational Republicans in the Senate will see the light and vote the way millions of former Republicans did in the voting booth? For Obama and his vision of America. I say again, the Republican brand is damaged almost beyond repair. They live in the smoke and ashes of Mr. 22% Please. Take the gavel from Lieberman. Let him do what he has always done, take care of Joe. Democrats need to show strength and spine on this NOW for the next two years or the mid-terms, which should be a slam dunk for another 3 seat pick up will be hell. Don't give Lieberman the chance to derail Obama's agenda of wise governance, healing and hope.
We don't need intraparty sniping and blaming.
We don't need retribution.
We don't need to look like a bunch of petty sore winners.
Obama understands this. He knows that one more vote in the senate is infinitely more important than putting Lieberman out.
I for one don't want to sacrifice our potential democratic 60+ supermajority by this petty bickering. WE NEED A BIG TENT TO KEEP WINNING.
See the big picture. Your disgust for lieberman is keeping you from acknowledging the true value of his willingness to keep caucusing with us.
Ask yourself this: Do you REALLY think you know better than Obama?
No member of the Senate has stated, or even leaked what Sen. Obama's position is. So either every one of those Senators (and their aides) who knows what Sen. Obama's position is has been sworn to super, double-secret silence (and is keeping it!) or the people Sen. Obama has spoken with don't know either. I go with the latter.
Almost every statement issued or interview given is by someone who supports Lieberman; it's almost as if someone was trying to get a ground swell of support started against a pushy new President-elect who was trying to tell the Senate what to do...
Not working, though, is it?
This amounts to the Dems selling their political soul.
It's impractical as well. If they go thru with their plan, they will live to regret it.