-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/this-is-about-telling-you-that-you-mean.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Anyone ready for a real Progressive Party like I am? Obviously, the Dems have only contempt for us. Let's not be naive about this, either.
I'm not surprised. Sooner or later they were going to show their true colors. Essentially, what the Democratic party did was give the American people the finger, the same as Bush and the Republicans has been doing all along. I am puzzled though that the finger was also aimed at Barack Obama.
On second thought, Homeland Security Department is more of Bush's crying "Wolf." I may be that Obama intends to cut the committee out from under Lieberman by eliminating this useless department that only served as a money dump for money that Bush could award to his crooked buddies in unbid contracts.
In the political sphere, punishing your enemies is for amateurs. You've been there. You should know.
Let's place our trust for the moment in Barack Obama, who seems to know.
DNC Chair Howard Dean welcomed the decision to keep Senator Joseph Lieberman as head of the Homeland Security Committee and, consequently, in the Democratic Caucus, saying the move was pragmatic, magnanimous and politically shrewd.
Speaking to the Huffington Post just moments after it was announced that Democrats in the Senate had voted to keep Lieberman as committee chair, Dean said the party had done the right thing by not giving into urges for retribution.
"You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well," he said. "And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies."
The Democratic Party chair, who will be leaving his post this January, went on to applaud Barack Obama for putting hurt feelings aside and welcoming the Connecticut Independent back into the party fray. He also predicted that the caucus would benefit from keeping Lieberman, who spent the past year campaigning alongside John McCain, often criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party.
"My point of view is that Barack won," Dean said. "He can afford to be magnanimous. And if we happen to win both recounts and Georgia, Joe is the 60th vote. And the truth is -- and I certainly don't have to defend Joe Lieberman because, you know, we have an interesting history -- but the fact is, he does vote 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. And no, he shouldn't have said all those things. But why not clean the slate? Why not start all over again? Why not allow him to vote with us on the 90 percent of the stuff? He will be a good vote on climate change -- and this matters. He may be a good vote on election reform, which I hope we will get to. So, you know, he may end up - though it is a little against the odds -- he may end up being the vote that allows us to conduct business when Mitch McConnell decides we shouldn't."
more crow is eaten through taking action rather than mouthing niceties.
David Kusin
Kusin & Company
www.kusin.com
214-752-1010 office
214-691-9100 cell
I view it all as a write off...being an expat is not such a bad thing.
To suggest that not punishing Joe Lieberman for his despicable behavior is an affront to all of us out here in netroots land is pretty self aggrandizing. You must think an awful lot of yourself to imagine that the Senate is deciding to insult you all by acting like adults and putting the past in the past. Obama led the move to forgive Slime Joe, I would suggest, again, that if you trust Obama enough to elect him President, then you might want to trust his judgement on this matter and put your need for retribution away.
It's about trust, something traitor Joe LIEberman has violated.
He just can't be trusted.
Plain and simple.
I seem to remember Obama's decision about FISA.
Why get personal, I don't matter, remember?
I voted for Ned Lamont in my home state.
We begged and pleaded for Senate dems helpto support the winner of the Democratic primary. All we got was the same secret Senate handshake bullshit. Today was the final act for me.
They are the ones retarding political growth in this country, not us. And I'm 67 yrs old, BTW, not someone wet behind the ears. I've seen it all, and this, by far, is the worst. Ordinary people are being sold out. We have no "real" money, therefore we have no influence...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html
And apologies to RitornaVincitor if I am putting words in your mouth.... you just happen to hit the one sore spot I have with Ablog, which is a good statistic considering I've been reading here for years.
I admire your optimism, but all I see coming down the pike is Clinton Administration 2.0.
Here you are ranting and raving, dare I say whining, about Joe Lieberman. Your brilliant insight into why he should go started almost the day after the election, with some of it coming even before. But take a step back and a deep breath. Barack Obama did something for the first time in our history and by all accounts performed as near to perfection as humanly possible. HE wants Lieberman to stay. As smart as all of you are, he is arguably pretty damn smart so why not just do the repug. thing (It's one thing they're real good at.) and get on board, trust your leader and think of ways to edify this decision. How bout some ideas why this might be brilliant? Is there really any reason to doubt Obama yet? Please refer to four sentences ago. I love all of your websights but just chill.
They can but they won't. Nobody is going to punish him by holding anything over his head. He will just go on as if the Bush administration and the elections never happened. Nobody is holding that jerk to account and nobody will, no matter what he does.
The Senate Dems WERE ready to kick him out of his commitees, but Obama persuaded them not to. Obama has plans for Lieberman. No one's asking us to fall in love with him or to even like him.
Joe's gonna be out on his ass in four years if he doesn't make Obama happy (because one word from Obama is going to make or break his senate run in 2012).The Dems LITERALLY have Lieberman's political future in their hands.
The beauty of it is that the Dems have become so weak and pathetic that any member of the caucus can now "go maverick" anytime they like without any fear of retribution.
Congrats Traitor Joe - you won.
Uh, no. You weren't feared OR envied.
You were used. And now you have nowhere else to go. And they know it.
Actually, you're just noise. Sound and fury, strutting across a little stage, unseen by the powers that be.
Welcome to reality.
Which is why the Prop 8 signs "No More Mr. Nice Gay" are especially meaningful.
My sentiment is just the opposite. I'd advocate across the board skepticism. I'm glad to have Obama as President Elect. Hell, what was the alternative. But do I trust him? Not necessarily. Do I trust Reid, Feinstein, Pelosi? No. And I don't think that Obama sweeping in as the savior from Chi-Town is going to be like a sprinkling of magic dust that is going to make everybody start acting like decent, honest and constituent respecting human beings.
I've got no choice right now but to stand back and watch and write my elected officials. But do I trust these people? No, I don't trust these people from top to bottom. I agree with Jane Hamsher completely that they are far more protective of their own perks, position and privilege than they are concerned about the well being of the average citizen and therefore the country they have been charged with governing.
The attitude of the blogosphere/netroots/progressive whatever should just be "prove it". All the time. Every day. They haven't earned anything better than that. So now it's up to the butt kissing/back slapping senators and Barack Obama and that grinning turd HoJo to prove that they did the right thing by keeping HoJo where he's at. It won't be hard to tell and shouldn't take that long to sort out whether or not they did something productive or dumb ass. And if HoJo doesn't change his stripes and that seems to be cool with all involved as time goes on, then maybe we didn't get what we hoped we got.
I hate Lieberman and think he is total slime but I think he has zero influence. He couldn't help McCain win Florida. Republicans and Democrats don't like him. I don't think it is likely that Lieberman will be launching any investigations into the Obama administration. It is in his best interest to make nice and capitalize on the successes of the Obama administration.
1 - he's not a Democrat
2 - this election was not just about Lieberman, but about trusting Democrats over Republicans (to over simplify), and said Democrats have chosen to keep him around. It *might* be a mistake but I'm going with them on this one. I certainly trust that they've thought it through.
3 - he'll probably lose big time the next election - they don't just put him in jail because our feelings are hurt
4 - he's more useful where the Dems have actual leverage over him (especially because he'll need to be on best behavior to survive said next election).
5 - i'm 100% sure Reid/Obama have put the screws to him on future behavior
The most frustrating thing about this conversation is that when I or someone with more "moderate" perspective (and no I don't mean "more the Right", if anything I mean more Liberal) says this stuff we get responses like we're the same as Lieberman, or hate Democracy, or pal around with Terrorists, or don't understand the 'will of the people'. This kind of language is WAY too familiar from the past many years to be getting it from 'our' side on this not-the-end-of-the-world issue.
Gee, maybe they were caught off guard again. Maybe it'll be the first time Bush doesn't fuck us and use the Dems to do it.
Time to go after individuals. The Blogosphere ruined Republicans for the next 600 years.
there is NO fundamental difference between Democrats
and Republicans, it's the WDC Old Boy's Club.
they are all cowards, crooks, and liars.
start with Pelosi and Reid - by all means - but every
sitting member of Congress needs to be G-O-N-E
before anything will EVER change.
I would prefer our members of Congress to have
absolutely 100% NO prior political experience at
this point.. it would be a positive boon for progress.
I'd rather fight the really tough battles like global warming, torture, Iraq, stimulus & health care with a 60 person democratic Senate. Obama is smarter than every single one of us on this board. Give him this one. He orchestrated it. Let's see how he handles it going forward. And I say this as someone who loathes Lieberman.
/snark off
I think what Lieberman did was reprehensible, but he is an opportunist and would rather be with the ruling party than the one out of favor. Regardless of how he's acted, he has indeed voted more often with the Democrats than not, and is probably more likely to in the future, since if we do pick up a few more senators, he knows he's dispensible.
Enough with the hand wringing. We have to pick our battles going forward, and this one is just not worth it.
Most of America can't or doesn't want to multi-task ... they want to elect people they think will just take care of them and, if the senator or rep acts in his/her own self-interest along the way, it's the cost of doing business. Otherwise, many Americans tend to be hands-off ... worrying about buying their kids a Wii for Christmas.
No more. The economy and the dialogue that this election has started gives us the opportunity to leverage the grass roots influence and be hands-on. LET"S DRIVE THIS B*TCH.
As Chairman of Homeland Security, why didn't Lieberman have Obama arrested as a terrorist? He didn't say anything about Obama that he wouldn't say about bin Laden.
Lieberman is going to split with the Dems over the Iraq withdrawal, he is going to make a stink because he wants attention, I think Lieberman's biggest fear is lack of media oxygen.
Anyone from the Rose Law Firm getting a job?
Lord knows Rahm is a fucking crook.
" They either don't think we have the power to hurt them, or they don't think we'll ever use it against them.
Guess what, I'm finished expecting them to have the cojones to do anything we want anymore. I will start looking into grass roots parties that may eventually push this bunch of spineless "representatives" and "senators" out of office. It they are so smug to rub our noses in their spineless decisions, then it's time to show them. Absolutely, no more money to any of their campaigns, removing myself from their lists. If this is what they want, they'll learn soon enough that their job is tentative. I won't get steamed about this stuff anymore. They're on their own. We'll see how many votes they get next time around. We just might see more third party percentages.
Joe Lieberman is a selfish, dishonest political hack, and just because his Senate colleagues made nice with him today doesn't mean that they can count him as a reliable vote on critical issues going forward. I wonder how long it will be before he screws us again on Iraq, or health care, or a judicial appointment vote in the Senate?
Truth be told, Joe Liberman has been little more than an annoyance to the Dems. He's said some nasty words and hung out with some of the Dems frenemies, but he hasn't done anything of consequence to risk the potential firestorm of kicking him out of his chairmanship. As is, only the extreme left give a rats butt about him keeping his job, the rest of the country is too busy worried about making ends meet. If Liberman was kicked out, however, you create weeks maybe months of justified "drama" about how vindictive the Democrats are being and how "dangerous" their emotional responses are. The Dems are playing this pitch perfect, let the whole drama die down and get back to work dealing with the actual problems. The Democrats are a loose coalition on a good day and the last thing you need is a civil war because of a lowlife like Joe Liberman and whatever friends in the Senate he may still have to rally to his defense.
Right now, it's eyes on the prize time and that means getting in bed with the devil. Obama knows this. I care about healthcare, I care about the economy, I care about Iraq. I don't give a FUCK about Joe Liberman, either way. Obama and the Dems, do what you gotta do to shove your agenda through the system, even if that means making some unpopular decisions.
eyes on the prize? what about mukasey instead of holder? ease the transition, you know.
If you want to see insulting, I think there are a lot of cry-baby drama addicts on today who forget that we live in the real world and not ideology 101.
Why shouldn't Obama keep a couple of Bush appointments around? If they happen to be the best in their fields, does serving under an idiot POTUS automatically mean they are soiled by the same filth? This is the problem that I have is that people see politics as a sport. To often, it's us versus them. The reality, IMHO, is that Obama is playing it smart, choosing the best people in their fields to take on a real tough job. Do I care if these people were Clintonites, Bushies, or some other "most-hated-frenemy" of the week? Not a lick! I want the best in their fields who ARE ready on day one, and that means in some cases career beaurocrats who may have worked for people I don't like. From everything I've seen, most people who work in politics are not idealogues, they just play them on TV. It seems to me that more than a couple are willing to put their personal beliefs aside and work for whoever is paying the bills, and I can deal with that.
"Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends."
"...Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."
"...The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come if they win the White House. And if we don't pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there's still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no one but ourselves to blame."
When euphoria wears off, reality floods back in and you realize once again, you've been had. Voters.
we need a third party. Obama is quickly becoming Bush 3
The election was 2 weeks ago. You need to get out a bit more.
It's 'suicide' to keep him around..
the Man has not even been inaugurated yet, and you are already abandoning him.
once again Jane overreacts, and so does John.
Obama wanted Lieberman. that was more important than anything else. might not be the smart move, but the idea after an election victory is to rally behind the victor, not pull the rug out from under him.
revenge may be fun for bitter queens, but it is not good politics.
Obama advisers: Harsh interrogators will walk
"Even as President-elect Obama vowed "to regain America's moral stature in the world" during Sunday's 60 Minutes appearance, two of his senior advisers confessed there is no intent to pursue those in the Bush administration who engaged in torture."
So, it appears the rug is not being pulled, but flung in our trusting faces...
i am just saying that to say the D Party has no time for us is to ignore Obama and his long-term concerns.
i want to give him a chance to make things happen.
not interested in spreading cynicism and hate.
All the more reason, in light of the past 8 years, to secure the trust of a tired and abused America by being transparent and up front; Not signaling, at the first few opportunities, that your word means nothing, as with telecom immunity, or that betrayal garners reward. That's not change in any respect. That's not respect in any change.
all the signatures, the calls, the emails, meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
this is a big middle finger to our entire community. The question now is, what are we gonna do about it?
While I don't like it, I certainly don't want to play chess with Obama, as he is looking about 15 moves ahead of me. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this. If we get to 60 votes, then I expect apologies all around as he will be able to do everything legislatively his heart desires.
Rant over.
Can we all please try to remember that Obama is not a traditional liberal. If you'd wanted that you should have voted for Clinton.
No, rather this is more the reaction of a child. Children who take the beatings and abuse, gaining a misplaced security in the idea that the daddy figure must know best and shan't be questioned. Those who would participate in their own governance demand answers..particularly from those who promise open government, then make policy by secret ballot.
It still stinks like the bloated corpse of politics-as-usual, and no cajoling will transform it into ambrosia.
I repeat, we just elected Obama 2 weeks ago today and he clearly orchestrated this (just look at Durbin's 180 on the matter). If this is what Obama wants, then I say let's give it to him. But he's no beaten child here. That analogy is just wrong in this case.
I absolutely loathe Lieberman and he will have to answer to the voters of CT in 4 years. I wish the punishment was harsher, but I do want his vote when we need it in the huge battles ahead, battles far more important than what to do with Holy Joe.
As for the secret ballot, I agree with everyone who says the secret ballot stinks, but I don't know how those kinds of votes are generally handled so I won't comment.
No, on both counts. You misunderstand the metaphor entirely. The 'beaten child' is the American public, lulled once again into trusting yet another figure whose first and ongoing acts are to betray his promises and have his apologists plaintively whine over 'giving him a chance.'
Yet, Obama has lied, -flip-flopped, about telecom immunity. FISA. Offshore drilling. War criminals prosecution (according to his advisors.) Now, he rubs betrayal in our faces. So far, he has alleged justice but provided none.
Based on what I've seen so far, this will only get uglier as bush's torture mavens walk. Where's the "change?" Where's the justice for torture victims? Where's the "transparency?" The stench is getting very noticeable...
As for the metaphor, I assume the betrayal is Lieberman's and not Obama (as he is the one currently in office) and he officially is betraying the voters of Connecticut, who have a date in 2012 with him. I intend to help defeat him then.
As for Obama betraying the voters, I will wait until after he is sworn in as 44 to make my judgement. As I recall, he too faces the voters again in 2012.
And yet, as I clearly stated, he has indicated his actions on a number of issues. Obama doesn't have to be sworn in first, he has already prefaced our disappointment in his duplicity.
"As for the metaphor, I assume the betrayal is Lieberman's and not Obama (as he is the one currently in office) and he officially is betraying the voters of Connecticut, who have a date in 2012 with him."
You are, again, misunderstanding the metaphor. Perhaps a less complicated discussion would suit you better; try one of the entertainment sites.
"As for Obama betraying the voters, I will wait until after he is sworn in as 44 to make my judgement."
He has made his intentions clear. He was a sworn senator when he championed the telecom immunity and retroactive FISA bill-(Obama was de facto head of the democratic party by this point: what he says goes.) Glen Greenwald explains why this is a travesty: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/...
"Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine. I wrote extensively about Obama's support for the FISA bill, and what it means, earlier today."
Apparently you haven't been following Obama's outrages to this point, preferring to pretend he's brand new, out of the box as of January 20th. Pity the delusion.
Did it occur to you that his pre-election positioning was just that? Uh, no. I'll reserve judgement on his FISA & torture positions until he becomes the President, not making my judgements 2 weeks after the fucking election. His very public position on Gitmo & torture are hugely important improvements.
There is no possible way I could agree with any person I voted for for ANY office in this land, Obama certainly included. I don't pretend anything about elected politicians, ever. But any fool can see what happened on the 4th is a huge improvement on the last 8 years. Is it perfection? NO. But then again what is, except in the fantasy land in your feeble brain. I never expect any politician to be my perfect political soulmate. Never have, never will. There has to be some compromise. I'll be watching Obama too see if those compromises are good enough for me in the next few years.
Your presumptions have consistently and wholly failed you. They are not your strong suit; however, unlike you, I did my homework on Obama.
"But any fool can see what happened on the 4th is a huge improvement on the last 8 years."
Telecom immunity is not an improvement. Obviously you did not take advantage of the Greenwald link, else you'd be smarter about your reply.
"Is it perfection? NO. But then again what is, except in the fantasy land in your feeble brain."
Trotting out the tired meme: "don't reject the good because it isn't perfect," doesn't go very far in Obama's excusing illegal wiretapping and FISA abuses that are direct and documented violations of the Constitution. Not to mention letting the bush administration off scot-free for those crimes, never to be punished. Again, pity your lack of comprehension for the implications that extend far beyond your inept attempt to frame it as something akin to a simple disagreement of policy. Pity also that not all voters think through their decisions of blind support.
"There has to be some compromise."
Tell that to the victims of US torture, the architects of which Obama's own advisers have admitted will probably walk and not be prosecuted. They were quoted by AP:
Obama advisers: Harsh interrogators will walk
"Even as President-elect Obama vowed "to regain America's moral stature in the world" during Sunday's 60 Minutes appearance, two of his senior advisers confessed there is no intent to pursue those in the Bush administration who engaged in torture.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press, the advisers said that the plan is to put a stop to current interrogation methods and to "look forward" as opposed to focusing on prior transgressions.
By all means, explain to the detained and severely abused victims that you regard them and the lack of pursuit for their justice as nothing more than a "compromise;" a bargaining chip to be discarded. I'm sure they'll understand.
next one
Even with the split-second access to the truth of my posts, some benighted souls will always deny and act out to avoid facing inconvenient realities. You prefer the hazy, insubstantial dreamworld of your desperate faith. A final pity.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/...
But Obama is still unfit for office I guess.
In the end, Lieberman doesn't matter. All his efforts for McCain FAILED.
Yeah, I'm pissed at him too. Yeah, I wanted to see him lose his chairmanship.
But it's worth thinking about, whoever it was that said that revenge is beneath us.
Revenge on Lieberman isn't going to rescue the economy, create jobs, or fix health care. Remember also that this is what Obama wanted. He's actually making good on a campaign promise -- bringing both sides together, looking forward instead of looking back. Do you think maybe you can at least try to trust the man you just voted into office? Maybe even wait until he's inaugurated before you start ranting and raving?
Give the man a chance.
Now, you KNOW that there was a phone call today that went something like this:
"Senator Lieberman's office."
"I have Barack Obama for Senator Lieberman ... please hold."
*transfer*
"Hello, Mr. President-Elect."
"..."
"Hello? Sir?"
"You owe me."
*click*
Well, it's fun to fantasize that it went like that, anyway. That said, I suspect Lieberman won't be any more trouble, and if he is, there are ways to rein him in.
Lieberman has caused severe damage in MN senate race. That would have been one more democrat senator.
With the choice of Lieberman (I) & Coleman (R) or Lieberman (I) and Franken (D), I would go with the latter.
We elected Obama to be our agent of change, to start putting an end to partisanship. By bashing Obama's decision, we are playing right into the hands of repub partisanship and undermining Obama in what may be his first effort at healing rifts and partisanship. I trust, for now anyway, that Obama has his reasons for wanting to keep Numbnuts in the Dem wing.
Perhaps Obama has his (Numbnuts') balls in his grip and will squeeze every single time Numbnuts doesn't behave. If we want Obama to be successful, we have to support him. Perhaps Obama will use Numbnuts as an example to recalcitrant repubs to lure them into Obama's circle of thought.
We all voted for Obama because we felt he had new ideas for restoring our country. We must give him lattitude to make changes. If we jump down his throat every time he tries something new.....he's going to stop trying to do new things.
This is not unlike letting our teenagers drive on their own for the first time -- we deeply inhale, hold our breath and hope they do the right thing.
I cannot stand Numbnuts as much as most everyone else here. But I also trust Obama. Let's go with that for now and everybody relax.
He's pathetic and treacherous.
And Reid and - yes, even President-elect Obama - need to say just WHY we shouldn't shun them for this act of betrayal.
Note, with Obama, this is one thing and he hasn't gotten started yet. I chalk one up in the "slapped me in the face column" and keep on keeping score.
With Reid, though... He's pretty much entered into permanent wimp territory now. And he's pretty much treated the Democratic base like an ATM. He's lost pretty much all support he ever had out here.
Oh, it's always possible he can suddenly prove himself. But you know what? He won't. He's shown his character. He may believe in basic Dem principles, but he's less effective than Daschle ever was.
Yes, that's an insult to him. He's insulted the Democratic party, so, why not?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/24490...
This is all we get from our f-ed up gov't. No public debate, no lengthy discussion, no answering of all the questions, secret ballot - this is it. sucks crap.
The ability for us to organize and get the word out and rally people to a cause was demonstrated by the protest against Prop 8 last weekend: Over 300 cities, all 50 states--and 8 countries as well! It's long past time they stopped taking our voices and support for granted.
If anything, after this past election (where we were effective and influential)--we should let them know that we intend to be every bit as scrutinizing of them as we were of the Bush/Cheney administration, and we will brook no more dismissals of the ideas and wants and expectations of the American people.
Places like AmericaBlog have kept us informed when the corporateM$M flagged in their responsibilities. This is the new 4th Estate. We can do what the Washington Post did back in the era of the Pentagon Papers. We can make a difference--and they really shouldn't piss John off in my opinion. (I sure as hell wouldn't want him angry at me!)
Look, I rarely post because I truly don't have the time. However, I read my blogs DAILY ... shoot multiple times daily. I gotta speak my peace.
It's starting to look like PUMA land around here all over again. I can't stand Joe Lieberman either and I will shake my tail feather if and when the people of Connecticut finally come to their senses and VOTE HIS AZZ OUT! But give me a doggone break. Obama ain't even had his inauguration and folks are already having fits.
What's with all the anger, all the hostility, about this latest party issue? It wasn't too long ago that we were all mad at Bill and Hillary. How did that saga play out, again? The only difference between what Lieberman did and what the Clinton's did is that he supported McCain. Big deal! None of them wanted Obama to win and all of them actively worked against him until it was in their best interest to come on home. Heck, if you want to get technical, Hillary bashed Obama just as long and probably more fierce than Lieberman did. Yet Hillary and Bill came around and now she's probably earned her place as SoS … and somehow the rest of us managed to move on. What a concept!
Don't get it twisted. This thing with Lieberman isn't based solely on his decision to campaign ... HARD ... for McCain. This goes back to our failed attempt to oust him 2 years ago. We wanted him gone but he gamed the system and beat us … and Ned. Whether folks want to admit it or not, this IS about revenge. We wanted a guaranteed method to get rid of him and he gave us what we thought was our fastest route. But y'all obviously didn't pay one bit of attention to any of Obama's campaign speeches. Based on the reaction around the blogosphere, there's no way you could have. If you ever listened to the man at the top you wouldn't be surprised or upset about this outcome.
Obama has been going around for well over 2 years saying he wants "to bring people together" and "we can disagree without being disagreeable." If anybody should be pissed and want Lieberman gone it's our President Elect but remember what he did last spring during one of his campaign stops (after being attacked by the Clinton's, right wing yackers and the media)? He simply brushed off his shoulders and moved on. Why can't we do the same? Why did we all work so hard to support the man's candidacy if we can so easily and so quickly ignore one of the biggest themes of his campaign?
Maybe Lieberman will thank Obama by holding hearings against him, you say? For what? If Obama doesn't do anything illegal, unethical or suspicious then what does he have to worry about? Seriously I think y'all need to do some Tina Turner Buddha chants and see where this thing goes before the knee-jerks lead you to the barn for pitch forks and torches. Can we at least let the man take his oath of office, get all the new senators and congress men/women in place, BEFORE we burn the whole joint down?
I swear y'all bout to give me a migrane! I need to go home and watch the rerun of “Chocolate News” … folks don’ got me all worked up over this shiggidy. And yes I did mean to say “folks don’ got …”
Let the man be the President for a while before we throw him overboard.
That is complete baloney. Hillary Clinton was RUNNING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. It is completely different.
And even though Obama is being touted as the negotiator of this all, I don't buy it. Obama wanted it over with and what else was he going to say? The people at fault here are the Democratic leaders in the Senate. Obama is now heading for the executive branch. This is a Senate matter.
The Dems raised how much money on the internet? Giving a bit back or siding with revenge?
Why dont they try supporting the great blogs/bloggers online? cheap fuc*ers.
Like getting campaign television time for free.
THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN'
COME SENATORS CONGRESSMEN PLEASE HEED THE CALL
DON'T STAND IN THE DOORWAY DON'T BLOCK UP THE HALL
FOR HE WHO GETS HURT WILL BE HE WHO HAS STALLED
THERE'S A BATTLE OUTSIDE AND IT'S RAGIN'
That's why I voted for and continue to support Barack Obama.
Try it - you might like it!
Then, if we pick up another senate seat or two in the future, we throw him overboard, just for the fun of it.
Make sense?
Yep. You are a wise man, Diogenes.
time for an americablog break before i go past annoyed.
And your solution is.............???
On first read, your comment pissed me off.
But after more thought I realize you are right that the Lieberman issue (and even if Hillary is chosen for SoS, which makes me grind my teeth) is very insignificant compared to the enormous work ahead for President Obama and what he thinks is necessary for him to accomplish goals.
So I'm going to sit back for awhile, withholding judgment, and try to be more supportive of Executive decisions that on the surface do not jibe with my Liberal idealogy.
And that's not the point either, because Lieberman votes so often with the Democrats anyway. It's not ideological conformity at all. It's the principle of taking people who have been stabbing the Democratic Party in the back since the 2000 election and chucking them overboard.
In this case the enemy has been inside the fort for the last two years, throwing grenades and shooting everyone in sight, spying and passing information to the enemy army outside and openly proclaiming his alliance with them. So the Dems renew his commission as a Colonel.
AIPAC money talks, and the puppet whores dance.
Fuck the Senate Dems. If they won't censure egregious betrayal then thay stand for nothing. Their policy positions apparently mean nothing more than a shallow advertising pitch for votes to be discarded the day after the election, the senate just their cozy insiders' club from which they laugh at the peasants. Fuck the Dems. No money, no support, and I'm staying home in November 2010. I'm done.
Let him keep his chair, with the understanding that the first time he fails to override a veto or help break a Repug filibuster, he's outta there before the next dawn. And if he fails to allow due diligence thru his committee, he's nuclear toast.
Nice storyline, but he's been pissing on the Dems for two years and getting rewarded for it -- what makes you think he has any fear of them now?
Will Lucy hold the football so Charlie Brown can kick a field goal?
The Senate Committee hearings aren't as important as the votes and the Dems know this. Instead of slapping him around and saying play or pay they are saying stay in line and you get this shiny thing to put on your resume. Different style. He knows he will be toast if doesn't. Besides what does the GOP really have to offer. I'm sure Obama will have ways to make Leiberman feel the pain.
Jim
That means the division of the chamber would be 10 to 6 in the Democratic Party's favor. It's going to be easy to cut the Republican seats here because John Warner is out, and so is Pete Domenici. Sununu went down. Norm Coleman and Ted Steven are out as well in this scenario, so the Republicans are only retaining Susan Collins and George Voinovich. Four of the incoming Republicans will be new to the committee.
On the other hand, 7 of the 8 Democratic members remain, only losing Barack to the White House. That means the Democratic Party has three slots of their own to fill.
For Lieberman to do anything, he will need two Democrats to go with him. Are there two Senators in this list that could conceivably go with Lieberman anytime he wants to flank Obama?
Carl Levin, Daniel K. Akaka, Thomas R. Carper, Mark L. Pryor, Mary L. Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester.
If the Democratic caucus is only 59, then Democrats will only appoint two more seats, and the Republicans have five to fill. That means Lieberman needs only one of these names to go along with him to have a majority with which to plague Obama.
From the way it looks, the Gang of Three could be Pryor, Lieberman, and Landrieu. Both Pryor and Landrieu just won their elections, though, so it's not like they don't have some breathing room before facing their constituency again. And that's before we know who the Democrats will appoint to the board.
How big a voting block? Didn't we give more money to Obama than any other group in history?
How many people use the internet everyday....
start a third party.....oh wait, that would help the republicans.....
move to mexico........oh wait, i'm afraid of the drug wars....
I am ever guarding myself from right wing talking points that are always trying to separate the progressive from believing in the fact they are winning. I do not see Lieberman's winning as a plus for him. He is now in a position, I'm sure he never expected to be in. His retaining his position is solely at the benefit of President Obama. Should we democrats win another 3 seats in the senate, then President Obama's policies will be sailing through the house. If we do not win the needed seats let's see how long Lieberman last. Right now CT is not interested in him going past 2012. Lieberman is walking a fine line to keep CT happy. I think at this point, if he does anything that the voters find offensive to our new President, some of us might be very upset and make him pay.
We need Obama's mandates to be able to sail smoothly through the senate. I do not see President Obama as weak and if he kept Lieberman in the fold then he has a use for him. I will allow him to achieve his goal without my grumbling (goodness knows I wanted blood from Lieberman). I will not let any one talk me into believing that President Obama is the same old same old. Until he takes office and proves otherwise, I will believe that he has a plan. Even if I do not like every aspect of that plan (you know, vengeance is not easy to let go.)
The Democrats have been telling me for years, that if I want to vote left of center, get the fuck out, go and FIND someone to vote for.
And when I did, they got pissed at me for stealing "Their " vote.
Just don't expect the change that you just voted for.
And since we can only talk about or deal with one issue at a time, would you please get some articles on the economy on this blog! Oh wait... I just read a bunch of them. I guess I'm the one bitching about nothing now.
Maybe it's frustrating at times because these things are all forms of "soft power" even our fund raising abilities, because we're are just huge communities of individuals, I think someone once described it as herding cats, but we are making a difference, obviously.
We all want to live in a world where this kind of battle would never even have existed. To quote Obama, we are the change we've been waiting for, and we have to continue to change the way America sees its self, to be more positive, inclusive, progressive, fair, and open. and maybe we can't get rid of Lieberman right now, but there's no doubt that if we stay on this we will get rid of him in 2 years. I really believe his time is over, he's a legacy of the old way that we're all sick of.
...Sorry if this is a long "rant"
Given that every big lefty blogger avoided talking about the influence group who most protected Lieberman, I too think you don't know a lick about politics.
CN Democrats and Independents - Hi Senator Obama! Here's my vote.
Obama - Hi CN Democrats and Independents! Here's my middle finger.