Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Hey Ladies! Previous entry: Well, then, maybe it isn’t so cute

Joe Lieberman: Full-blown wingnut

Not only is Joe Lieberman intending to help Republicans filibuster a public option, he’s employing pure wingnut-ese to justify his spitting on his fellow citizens who need health care.

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”

It’s got all the hallmarks of wingnut speak.  First, there’s the lying.  Lieberman is painting the public option as if it’s a new Medicare, but of course it’s closer to the post office, a government-owned business that sustains itself on what customers pay, and can provide a service cheaply because there’s less overhead and no need for profits.  They can also be more comprehensive, because of the no need for profits, which is why the post office can deliver a letter to even the most remote corners of the country. 

What’s interesting is that if the public option was what Lieberman described, then the most clear term would be “Medicare available to whoever wants it”, but obviously, he wants to avoid saying that, because Medicare is a wildly popular program, and expanding it to everyone would be wildly popular.  So he has to lie, but in very strange terms, because using terms that more accurately convey the lie he’s telling would make people get all excited about this potential new program that would save them so much money. 

Instead, he used the phrase “entitlement program” and the word “taxpayers”.  This is wingnut code for: “Non-white, poor people are going to take your money and throw parties with it that will wake you up at night with their weird music that scares you.”  The word “entitled” tends to denote someone who gets something that other people pay for.  That’s why feminists, for instance, talk about male entitlements—-basically to women’s submission and labor, to keep it simple—-but in the topsy-turvy wingnut world, the working poor who keep our economy running and are the most likely people not to be insured don’t contribute anything.  And retirees that show up at teabagger rallies to wave Confederate flags should be commended for having “jobs”.  Not that I don’t think people should be able to retire—-my generation would sincerely like to do so one day, though sometimes I fear that’s not going to happen——but the irony overwhelms me at times.

The point is that Lieberman is a full-blown wingnut, blowing racist dog whistles and lying his head off, with absolutely zero respect for the truth.  The dirty hippie crowd on the blogs has felt this way about him for a long time, but it’s always nice to see one’s predictions confirmed so nicely.  Except for the part where he’s screwing over the country.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:13 AM • (92) Comments

Sometimes I wonder if this is all because he didn’t get the automatic nomination in 2004, like he felt entitled and has decided to take out all his petulance on the party ever since then. He’s a freaking child.

Comment #1: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  10/28  at  10:43 AM

Except for the part where he’s screwing over the country.

Wonder if the Democrats* in Connecticut who voted for him still feel about good ol’ Holy Joe now.  Jerks.

* Yes, I know Republicans put him over the top mostly by ignoring their own candidate.

Comment #2: Richard Goblin  on  10/28  at  10:52 AM

Can we get rid of him now?  And where do we start?

Comment #3: litbrit  on  10/28  at  10:53 AM

How much better off we’d all be right now if the Democrats had supported the Democratic candidate.

How much easier we’d all breathe if Lamont were standing where Ol’ Pukeface is now.

Comment #4: Dan  on  10/28  at  11:06 AM

but in the topsy-turvy wingnut world, the working poor who keep our economy running and are the most likely people not to be insured don’t contribute anything

Well, they don’t contribute to Lieberman’s campaign fund, since they spend their money on frivolities like food, rent, etc..  And campaign contributions are what Holy Joe cares about.

Geeze.  I can’t believe I voted for him as VP in 2000.

Comment #5: Blue Jean  on  10/28  at  11:07 AM

Connecticut has a huge part of it’s economy paid for by insurance companies.  I daresay Aetna and the Hartford, etc,  are good friends with Lieberman and counting on his support.  He’s working for those who pay him.  And all the people still working for the insurance companies in CT are probably completely behind him.  Along with those who retired and are still collecting from them.

Comment #6: drachonfire  on  10/28  at  11:09 AM

This is why we need to get rid of the DSCC—Ned Lamont was the Democratic Primary winner in the largest primary turnout in CT history.  Over 60% turned out, so this was no “fringe” movement: the Democrats of CT said they did not want Lieberman.

The Democratic PARTY, however, was far too chummy with their pal Joey, and not only didn’t give Ned the support he had EARNED, but promised Joey he could keep his seniority by ‘caucusing’ with them.

Joey named his party CT for Lieberman, not Lieberman for CT, b/c he’s all about ego.

Joe pulled for McCain.

Joe’s wife has made a fortune from Big Pharma/insurance.

It’s all bullshit.  Harry Reid needs to call Joe into his office and make it clear that if he dares to filibuster he will lose his chairmanship and all seniority.  If he wants Democratic perks, he needs to act like a Democrat.

Of course, Reid will never do that, b/c it would require a spine and would require that he talk rudely to his pal Joey, who has been in the Senate for decades.  Being an incumbent and a member of the club is FAR more important than screwing over your party and your constituency.

We need to keep primary-ing these spineless, worthless people.  We do NOT have 60 seats, although the country has voted for a progressive agenda.  We have blue dogs and bullshit, and we have to fight to clean house to get what we deserve.

Comment #7: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/28  at  11:09 AM

Well guess what, I’m tired of being the victim. I’m pissed that my family and friends and I all rallied big time over the past two years to get a Democrat back into the White House. I was thrilled when Obama won. But now I feel like an idiot. I feel like all of a sudden those of us who really believed that there might be some tangible progress made in the Congress under new leadership were played for fools.

And now old Lieberman is showing himself again, a liar and an attention whore, and we are all standing here with our thumbs up our asses. I’m sick and tired of being hamstrung on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.


Okay. Calming breaths. Jeezus.

Comment #8: DonnaH  on  10/28  at  11:42 AM

Letter sent.

Comment #9: bomberE  on  10/28  at  11:43 AM

The point is that Lieberman is a full-blown wingnut, blowing racist dog whistles and lying his head off, with absolutely zero respect for the truth.  The dirty hippie crowd on the blogs has felt this way about him for a long time, but it’s always nice to see one’s predictions confirmed so nicely.  Except for the part where he’s screwing over the country.

Remember that time in 2006 when Barack Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman against net roots liberal Democrat Ned Lamont?  Man, I bet he feels pretty freak’n dumb right now, eh?

I just don’t get what Lieberman is even getting out of this, to be honest.  It’s not like Conneticut was trending red the last four years.  But Droopy has just been getting more and more wingnutty.  What the hell is his motivation?

Comment #10: Zifnab  on  10/28  at  11:52 AM

If anybody needed concrete examples of why so many Americans are disgusted by and withdrawn from politics in America, the whole Healthcare “Reform” effort this year provides all the examples anybody could want.

There is no doubt Lieberman is one of the most traitorous and weaselly characters in politics in a generation.  His shenanigans should have earned him a quick trip out of the Senate in 2006, and failing that, at least a total loss of his undeserved seniority perks like committee chairmanships and all the rest.  But let’s be honest here.  If it wasn’t for Reid, Baucus, Emmanuel, too many other “Democrats”, and the Republican Party in general, Holy Joe the Asshole wouldn’t have a chance to pull this shit.

This is where hardassed leadership would step up and hand out the whoop-ass so desperately needed.  But Obama doesn’t seem to be the whoop-ass type, at least not so far.

This is what is being neglected in the parade of egos that have so far dominated this process.  And the results may not be as singularly dramatic as the drowning of New Orleans by deliberate government neglect, but the human toll is staggering...

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  10/28  at  12:00 PM

WTF is it with this guy? Can’t those damn Connecticut yankees get rid of this fucker already?

Comment #12: Mark  on  10/28  at  12:03 PM

MikeEss,

The problem isn’t necessarily that Obama isn’t the whoop-ass type; it’s that he, and the Democratic party on average, are just lukewarm about these issues.  Sure, there are some very liberal Democrats, but there are also some fairly conservative ones, but it averages out to perfectly centrist.  We just don’t have a real progressive or liberal party, so we end up with “compromises” between center and far-right, rather than between left and right.

Comment #13: bananacat  on  10/28  at  12:09 PM

“but of course it’s closer to the post office, a government-owned business that sustains itself on what customers pay, and can provide a service cheaply because there’s less overhead and no need for profits. “

Uh huh:

  http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/welcome.htm (check out the press release about the 3rd-quarter loss dated Aug 5th)

Comment #14: anoNY  on  10/28  at  12:14 PM

Enough is enough.

Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the reality that Joe Lieberman will be a United States Senator until at least 2012, and there’s nothing we can do about that.

But Harry Reid could find a spine and do what he’s been unwilling to do forever - lay down the law.  Lieberman needs to be brought into a meeting with top Democratic Senators and given the ultimatum.  They need to say, “Joe, there’s going to be a public option whether you like it or not.  If you attempt to stop this from happening by becoming the one vote in our caucus to vote againt cloture, consider yourself gone.  No committee chairs, no more membership in our caucus.  You can go it alone from here on out.”  And then when Lieberman goes crawling to President Obama to save his ass again like he did this past January, Obama needs to tell him to fuck off.

Unfortunately, I don’t foresee any of that happening.  According to Reid yesterday, Lieberman is still an excellent legislator, and the least of Harry’s problems.

Whatever.  We don’t have 60 votes, and we never did.  That’s been a flipping myth since day one.

The Democrats need to figure out how to get things done with only 59 votes (max) from here on out.  And if the Republicans were able to get things like the Patriot Act passed with a 1 or 2 vote majority, the Democrats have got to be able to figure out how to get our legislation passed with a 9 vote majority.

And if they can’t do that, maybe it would be a good thing to lose Harry Reid’s seat next year to a wingnut, if it means we can get a real leader in his place.  I’ll take 58 or 59 votes with a Majority Leader who knows how to whip votes anyday over this spineless tool who can’t get shit done with (supposedly) 60 votes.

Jesus Christ.  Arlen fucking Specter is now a more progressive senator than the guy who was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee just 9 years ago.  Specter’s actually going on TV saying there has to be a PO in the bill.  Granted, I think he’s playing to the cameras for next year’s election, and don’t trust him at all beyond January 2011 (and hope he gets primaried out), but at least he’s on our side for the present moment.

Comment #15: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  12:20 PM

anoNY, if the USPS is so bad, go ahead and see if FedEx or UPS will deliver your letter (let’s say it’s your mortgage payment, electric bill, gas bill, credit card payment, etc.) for $0.44…

I’ll be here waiting for the laughter…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  10/28  at  12:21 PM

But Droopy has just been getting more and more wingnutty.  What the hell is his motivation?

The Republicans pretend to like him* and the Democrats openly hate him.  That’s all he needs.  It’s amazing that such a crybaby has made it so far in politics.


*Because he’s a useful fool, obviously.

Comment #17: keshmeshi  on  10/28  at  12:26 PM

Sometimes I wonder if this is all because he didn’t get the automatic nomination in 2004, like he felt entitled and has decided to take out all his petulance on the party ever since then. He’s a freaking child.

His history of backstabbing his own party goes back before 2004.  In 2000, in the middle of the recount that would determine whether or not he would be the country’s next vice president, he fucked over his own running mate on Meet The Press in December 2000.  Here’s what transpired, as retold in the HBO movie Recount:

Lieberman: “My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally,” Mr. Lieberman said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Of the local canvassing boards, he said, “If they have the capacity, I’d urge them to go back and take another look, because again, Al Gore and I don’t want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad.”

The conciliatory words came a day after Gov. George W. Bush’s campaign and its surrogates accused the Democrats of a systematic campaign to have military votes, which are presumed to strongly favor Mr. Bush, thrown out, while some service members voiced anger at that possibility.

“We’re getting kicked around for saying illegal votes are illegal votes,” said a Democratic congressman from Florida. “The Republicans got a lot of illegal votes counted on Friday that never would have been let in before, and now we’re the ones retreating? Incredible.”

Telephone: Gore is going ballistic, what the hell just happened?

Klain: I think Joe Lieberman just entered the 2004 primaries.

I have a feeling that Al Gore absolutely despises Joe Lieberman, with damn good reason - Lieberman may have singlehandedly prevented Gore from becoming the country’s 43rd president.

Comment #18: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  12:29 PM

“anoNY, if the USPS is so bad, go ahead and see if FedEx or UPS will deliver your letter (let’s say it’s your mortgage payment, electric bill, gas bill, credit card payment, etc.) for $0.44…”

Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress’s consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Competitors


However, this is a digression from the argument in the post above, which was that the USPS was self-sustaining and ran on what users paid into it…

Comment #19: anoNY  on  10/28  at  12:31 PM

Well, at least we’re only stuck with him for another… oh, *crap*.

Okay, any Dems who didn’t vote for Lamont, I hope you’re *happy*.

Comment #20: LongHairedWeirdo  on  10/28  at  12:33 PM

Never understood the weird hostility to the Post Office. They’re cheaper on most packages, at least as fast as the others, less likely to demolish your package, and they don’t dump your package on the front porch where anyone can steal it. And they do letters cheaply and all over the country, which FedEx and UPS don’t do at all.

Comment #21: Scott  on  10/28  at  12:37 PM

But Droopy has just been getting more and more wingnutty.  What the hell is his motivation?

They pay him and his wife a ton of money.  That’s all the motivation he needs.

anoNY, FedEx and UPS don’t even deliver “extremely urgent letters” everywhere.  There are plenty of remote locations where FedEx or UPS will simply deliver to a regional post office at best or refuse to take at all.  44 cents will get it delivered by USPS no matter where and no matter whether or not it’s “profitable” to deliver to rural areas.

Comment #22: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/28  at  12:38 PM

Dems voted for Lamont.  REPUBLICANS voted for Lieberman.  The GOP put up a patsy b/c they were sure incumbent Joe owned the seat.  When he lost the primary, they still didn’t put money into their patsy, but sat back and encouraged votes for Lieberman.

He’s worthless and should lose his chairs and all seniority.

As for not having 60 votes…they are NOT needed.  They just insure there cannot be a filibuster.  Since they don’t have 60, MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER.  MAKE LIEBERMAN GET UP THERE AND READ THE PHONE BOOK.  MAKE THE GOP FILIBUSTER.

Honest to god, it’s not that fucking hard.  The GOP will look the fool for blocking and continuing to be the party of obstructionism.  Eventually they will tire and the bill will move to the floor.

JUST FORCE THEM TO DO A FILIBUSTER.

Comment #23: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/28  at  12:41 PM

Maybe Obama should give Lieberman an ambassadorship. He can’t be recalled and he’s unlikely to resign. If anyone leans on him too hard, he’ll jump ship to the Repubs without much hesitation.

Heck, give him an abassadorship to some big, prominent country, to make sure he thinks it’s prestigious. Seems like the only way to get him to leave the Senate.

Comment #24: Scott  on  10/28  at  12:42 PM

“anoNY, FedEx and UPS don’t even deliver “extremely urgent letters” everywhere.  There are plenty of remote locations where FedEx or UPS will simply deliver to a regional post office at best or refuse to take at all.  44 cents will get it delivered by USPS no matter where and no matter whether or not it’s “profitable” to deliver to rural areas.”

Once again, this is not what Amanda was arguing.  I use the USPS just like the next guy, but that doesn’t keep me from realizing that it is heavily subsidized and protected like most government operations.  It is pretty dishonest to argue that it sustains itself on what customers pay, and that makes the arguments for universal healthcare look bad.  I guess the best way to put it is that I am not hostile to the USPS, but rather I am hostile to arguments that use the USPS as an example of government efficiency.

Comment #25: anoNY  on  10/28  at  12:43 PM

How much better off we’d all be right now if the Democrats had supported the Democratic candidate.

For the most part, they did.  The reason Lieberman is listed as an Independent is because he lost the 2006 Democratic Primary in Connecticut, and ran in the “Lieberman for Connecticut” Party.  I imagine Ned Lamont got the vast majority of the Democratic vote in the 2006 election:

2006 U.S. Senate Election - Connecticut

Joe Lieberman (I) - 49.71%
Ned Lamont (D) - 39.73%
Alan Schlesinger (R) - 9.62%

Admittedly, Connecticut is a pretty strong Democratic state, but back in 2006, I have a hard time believing only 9.62% of CT residents were Republicans - that’s a tiny minority even for a state as blue as CT.  I know Republican Party ID has plummetted nationally to 21% as of last week, but it wasn’t that low three years ago.  Most of the CT Republicans voted for Lieberman and a huge majority of independents voted for him as well.  Elections aren’t won by the party loyalists alone, they are won by independents and crossovers.  Obama got 53% of the vote last year - that doesn’t mean 53% of the country considers themselves Democrats.  He won because he got the vast majority of independent voters, and even a decent number of Republican crossover voters (they called them “Obamacans”).

Comment #26: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  12:44 PM

Geeze.  I can’t believe I voted for him as VP in 2000.

You didn’t.  You voted for Gore for President.  The running mate comes with the package.  And believe me, as much as I despise Joe Lieberman, I would much prefer that he had been our last vice president than the outcome we actually got.

Comment #27: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  12:47 PM

Yeah, the Post Office thing is weird.  I’ve found their service to be far superior to UPS and FedEx.  They’re often cheaper, especially for things like books, and they deliver more frequently.  Most importantly, they will pick up my package and deliver it.  UPS or FedEx only do that for business or people who ship high volumes.  As for USPS losing money during a recent quarter, so what?  How is that different than hundreds of other companies?  Did you happen to notice the recession that we’re in?

I’ve also been baffled by people complaining that the government can’t do anything because the DMV has long lines.  Have these people never been to Wal-mart?  The lines there are always much longer, at least in my area.

Comment #28: bananacat  on  10/28  at  12:48 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I loath Joe as much as the next guy.  But, I think Joe’s move is more of a play for attention and relevance, a la Olympia Snow, than it is a betrayal of the caucus.  I expect quite the Hamlet routine over the next few weeks from Joe. 

Ultimately, Joe is a weasel, but he’s still a rational weasel.  He has to know that his chances of re-election are near zero.  This is his last term, and if he ends up the deciding vote the wrong way, he will be striped of everything and won’t be able to do anything but mark time for the last four years.  Republicans main gain seats, but it is highly unlikely they will regain Senate control before he is gone.

Normally, I’m also not much of a Harry Reid fan, but the past few days, he’s really trying to win me over.  I think his dismissive, “least of my problems” response was exactly right.

Comment #29: jleaux  on  10/28  at  12:48 PM

The problem isn’t necessarily that Obama isn’t the whoop-ass type; it’s that he, and the Democratic party on average, are just lukewarm about these issues. 

This is the impression I get as well. Obama didn’t enter the race for the presidency with a driving ambition to reform the health care system in the USA. He isn’t against it, and he knows it’s an important Issue for the party, but it’s not his issue.

Comment #30: Tyro  on  10/28  at  01:07 PM

He has to know that his chances of re-election are near zero.  This is his last term, and if he ends up the deciding vote the wrong way, he will be striped of everything and won’t be able to do anything but mark time for the last four years.  Republicans main gain seats, but it is highly unlikely they will regain Senate control before he is gone.

I’d agree that Droopy understands his re-election chances, and is looking forward to the next stage of his life as a speaker on the wingnut-welfare lecture and cable news panel circuit, and as a board member of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Given that, what happens in his final term in the Senate is beside the point. The time for the Dems to strip him of his chairs and seniority and privileges is already long past—as always Harry Reid is a day late and a dollar short.

Comment #31: Gracchus.  on  10/28  at  01:09 PM

As for not having 60 votes…they are NOT needed.  They just insure there cannot be a filibuster.  Since they don’t have 60, MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER.  MAKE LIEBERMAN GET UP THERE AND READ THE PHONE BOOK.  MAKE THE GOP FILIBUSTER.

The problem is, according to the official filibuster rules of the U.S. Senate that were enacted in the 1970s, that’s not an option.

A filibuster no longer requires a literal phonebook-reading type of filibuster.  All that is needed to force a filibuster is to prevent 60 votes for cloture.  It’s called a “procedural filibuster”, and it’s defined in Senate Rule XXII.

What needs to happen is another rule change that eliminates the procedural filibsuter and requires the endless floor speeches again - force them to do a Strom Thurmond 24 hours without eating, pissing, or shitting act if they want to act like petulant shitstains.  It doesn’t require any sort of public vote or constitutional amendment - all it needs is a vote from the Senate.

The disgustingly ironic problem is this - if the Democratic caucus were to try to push through an amendment to the filibuster rule right now, that amendment would almost certainly get killed by the very filibuster rule that they would be trying to change.  The Republicans and Conservadems would literally filibuster any effort to amend the filibuster.

Comment #32: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  01:10 PM

I’ve long been suspicious that Lieberman has some sort of deep, dark secret on Harry Reid and Obama both and is blackmailing them.

Comment #33: Rachel,II  on  10/28  at  01:10 PM

<blockquote>If anyone leans on him too hard, he’ll jump ship to the Repubs without much hesitation.<.blockquote>

At this point, that would be a good thing.  I seriously doubt he wins re-election in 2012 in blue Connecticut in such a scenario.

Comment #34: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  01:12 PM

Drachonfire, in #6 makes a very good point.

Don’t underestimate the economic effects that health care reform will have. Bringing the health care system to be efficient again will result in the loss of lots of jobs. Especially in a state like Connecticut. Of course, Lieberman isn’t making that argument. Because he likes the wingnut, and making the argument actually gives ammo to those DFH’s on the far left.

Health care reform NEEDS to be done. However, the next step will be dealing with the loss of jobs.

Comment #35: Karmakin  on  10/28  at  01:17 PM

“He isn’t against it, and he knows it’s an important Issue for the party, but it’s not his issue.”

...then what is his issue? 

Other than being Not-Bush, there must be something important he wants to accomplish, and it’s pretty hard at this point to see more important issues than fixing the Economy and fixing America’s broken healthcare system and the nexus between those two.

Ending all America’s pointless wars?  Killing off the Military-Industrial Complex?  Closing Gitmo and restoring Constitutional protections?  Prosecuting Bush/Cheney Administration figures for war crimes and Crimes Against Humanity?  Making America Green?

What. Is. It?...

Comment #36: MikeEss  on  10/28  at  01:26 PM

I’m pissed that my family and friends and I all rallied big time over the past two years to get a Democrat back into the White House. I was thrilled when Obama won. But now I feel like an idiot. I feel like all of a sudden those of us who really believed that there might be some tangible progress made in the Congress under new leadership were played for fools.

Don’t be pissed. Your efforts were well worth while, but you have to be realistic about the political process. A Democratic president in the White House is great, but just winning the White House is never going to be enough to get real, lasting change in this country. It’s a big step, but it’s never going to be enough on it’s own.

I don’t know if you’ve ever checked out Daily Kos but one of the themes over there is “More and better Democrats”. We need more and better Democrats at every level; in school boards, city councils, mayor’s offices, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc. No one, not even the President, can change direction on his/her own. We need progressive politicians at every level if we want to see real change.

Comment #37: TomWinter  on  10/28  at  01:28 PM

Didn’t Lieberman also fuck the Dems during the Clinton impeachment brouhaha?

I guess a more pertinent question has to be “When has Lieberman not fucked the Dems at a critical moment?”

Comment #38: Gozer  on  10/28  at  01:32 PM

“Harry Reid needs to call Joe into his office and make it clear that if he dares to filibuster he will lose his chairmanship and all seniority”

no, pull his chairmanship and senority now, b4 he votes with the R’s
this is for 2 reasons, 1-he has been given way too much slack in the past for him to believe threats now, 2-it keeps the other bluedogs from joining him

the last thing we need is to weaken the PO to please him, then it will be some other blue dogs turn to threaten to join the R’s unless we trim it more

Comment #39: jefft452  on  10/28  at  01:33 PM

Drachonfire, in #6 makes a very good point.

Don’t underestimate the economic effects that health care reform will have. Bringing the health care system to be efficient again will result in the loss of lots of jobs. Especially in a state like Connecticut. Of course, Lieberman isn’t making that argument. Because he likes the wingnut, and making the argument actually gives ammo to those DFH’s on the far left.

Health care reform NEEDS to be done. However, the next step will be dealing with the loss of jobs.

Yes, it’s true that the insurance lobby in Connecticut is a huge factor in all of this, as evidenced by the $1,033,402 in campaign contributions they have given to Lieberman.  However, that doesn’t seem to be adversely impacting overall public sentiment in the state on the issue of the healthcare reform: job losses or not, 64% of CT residents WANT a public option in the bill.

The potential job losses aren’t enough of a concern for CT voters to oppose the public option.

He’s not pandering to constituents, he’s pandering to the insurance lobbyists who have been paying for his campaigns.

Comment #40: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  01:34 PM

From:  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

“Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years.”

Comment #41: Jake Squid  on  10/28  at  01:38 PM

“Can’t those damn Connecticut yankees get rid of this fucker already?”

Sorry about that, we tried

Comment #42: jefft452  on  10/28  at  01:42 PM

“no, pull his chairmanship and senority now, b4 he votes with the R’s
this is for 2 reasons, 1-he has been given way too much slack in the past for him to believe threats now, 2-it keeps the other bluedogs from joining him”

I like this.  It’s something like what Machiavelli would suggest:  Publicly hang your closest rival in the village square and send a clear message to all the other potential rivals about how they will be treated.

(...for those who are metaphorically challenged, I obviously do not advocate violence against even somebody as weaselly as Holy Joe Lieberman.  I am no eliminationist…)

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  10/28  at  01:43 PM

Well, my “tainted” Senator, Roland Burris, just got his ass called in front of Obama b/c he’s promising not to vote for a compromise.  Public option or nothing.

He has no chance at reelection, so he’s got nothing to lose.  I already wrote him a glowing email telling him I don’t care how tainted his appointment was, he’s doing the right thing here.

Sad, isn’t it?  A Democrat standing up for what his constituents are asking for gets called onthe carpet of the Oval Office while Lieberman, who represents only himself, gets catered to.  Snowe and Baucus.  Nonsense clubbiness from the Beltway is just accepted, but standing up for your constituency means the White House will yell at you.

Seriously.  I’m sad.  Obama actually needs MORE like Burris.  I even told Durbin he was being shown up by our junior senator.

Comment #44: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/28  at  01:43 PM

“He’s not pandering to constituents, he’s pandering to the insurance lobbyists who have been paying for his campaigns.”

and his wife’s salary

Comment #45: jefft452  on  10/28  at  01:44 PM

He isn’t against it, and he knows it’s an important Issue for the party, but it’s not his issue.

Eh, semi-true.  Not getting a healthcare reform bill passed at this point will be absolutely devastating to him, far worse than it was for Bill Clinton - mainly because conditions are now worse, and because the debate has gotten much further along legislatively this time than it did back in 1993.

No turning back now.

I think it’s more accurate tosay that the public option in particular isn’t his issue.  HCR in general is very much his issue; it might not have been quite so much during the campaign, but it is now.  Obama knows that the shit is gonna completely hit the fan for him if the whole thing dies without any bill getting passed.

I think the reason he’s not being completely demanding on the public option is because he thinks it’s too risky a move.  If he’s completely demanding about it but it still doesn’t make its way into the final bill, it will be treated as a huge failure for him.  If he only gives it verbal support without a firm line in the sand, and it doesn’t happen, but some bill still gets passed, he’ll still be able to claim a “victory” of sorts (though his progressive base will be infuriated), because a bill got passed.  If the bill includes the public option, it makes him look even better.

Not that I agree with that strategy (if it is in fact his strategy), I just think that’s what’s taking place.  He supports the public option, but doesn’t view it as a make or break issue.  It’s more important to him to get a bill on his desk, even a thoroughly milquetoast one, than it is to demand a bill with a public option in it.  He’s basically saying, “a good bill would be nice, but I’ll settle for a mediocre one, just get me something.”

Comment #46: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  01:52 PM

Didn’t Lieberman also fuck the Dems during the Clinton impeachment brouhaha?

He wound voting with the Dems against removing Clinton from office, but he made sure to give a nice sanctimonious dickheaded rant about Clinton’s “disgraceful behavior” from the Senate floor during the hearings first.

Comment #47: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  01:58 PM

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/welcome.htm (check out the press release about the 3rd-quarter loss dated Aug 5th)

Because no REAL business ever posts LOSSES during the biggest recession since the 1940s.

Comment #48: Dan  on  10/28  at  02:01 PM

”It’s something like what Machiavelli would suggest:  Publicly hang your closest rival in the village square and send a clear message to all the other potential rivals about how they will be treated”

Then after we pull his chair what stops him from voting with the R’s?
This:
Senator: No problem, Mr. Lobbyist, I always have time for my friends
Lobbyist: Thank you Senator, this issue is important to us
Senator: Er…Hadassa Lieberman dosent work for you does she?
Lobbyist: Why, yes she does
Senator: Oh, my, look at the time, sorry Mr Lobbyist I have to run

Comment #49: jefft452  on  10/28  at  02:03 PM

I mean our entire financial sector, the very nerve center of capitalism itself, can ride three decades of deregulation into an economic catastrophe that leaves millions jobless and impoverished and they themselves coming hat in hand to the government for trillions of dollars in aid.

But the USPS was down two entire billion dollars one quarter, so THE GUBMINT CANT DOO NOFFIN RITE.

Comment #50: Dan  on  10/28  at  02:05 PM

“Harry Reid needs to call Joe into his office and make it clear that if he dares to filibuster he will lose his chairmanship and all seniority”

no, pull his chairmanship and senority now, b4 he votes with the R’s
this is for 2 reasons, 1-he has been given way too much slack in the past for him to believe threats now, 2-it keeps the other bluedogs from joining him

The problem with that strategy is that you will then GUARANTEE that he joins the Republican filibuster, which could wind up killing the public option altogether.  Olympia Snowe was our only hope for a crossover vote, and she’s made it extremely clear that she will not, under any circumstances, support a public option.  She’s also indicated that she’s likely to join the filibuster if the PO stays in.

The best strategy is this - tell Joe that he will vote for cloture, or he will immediately forfeit his chairmanship and membership in the caucus.  Period.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  If he still won’t back down, give him the boot.

If you just give him the boot right now, he has no incentive whatsoever to change his mind, and he absolutely will make good on the promise to join the GOP filibuster.

He’s giving the threat of filibuster right now and waving his flaccid penis in the wind to get attention, but there may be some things going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.  Some of the punditry is predicting that in end, Lieberman will change his mind and get on board at the last second, that he’s putting on a show to try to convince himself he’s still relevant.

Here would be a better strategy… get him on board by threatening to take away his toys, and then once the bill is a done deal and on Obama’s desk, give him the boot.  When he feels backstabbed, tell him, “Karma’s a bitch, buddy.  Maybe if you hadn’t been a backstabbing asshole for the last 10 years of your career, this wouldn’t have happened.  Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.”

Comment #51: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  02:12 PM

Always keep in mind that Joe Lieberman is the leader of the Likud Party in the US Senate.

His standing up and saying he’s going to filibuster is an initial position in a negotiation: he wants to compel the US to veto the Goldstone Report, which pretty convincingly accuses the Israelis of committing a series of deliberate war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the battles fought last New Year’s, conveniently just before Bush left office.

He’s going to dig his feet in and act like a toddler with all his friends on the TV until Obama sends somebody to the UN to bribe all the other countries not to squawk too badly when the US vetoes the report in the Security Council. Or until someone kicks him in the balls and tells him the next time will be in front of his TV friends.

I think it’s a toss-up. On the one hand, you’ve got Obama, who obviously was born under a lucky star: on the other, you’ve got Lieberman, the slipperiest weasel of all. I’ll put my money on Obama, though, because Lieberman’s been doing it for so long that he’s made more enemies and become kind of predictable.

Comment #52: felagund  on  10/28  at  02:13 PM

The only good thing about Gore losing is that now we did’t have this assclown as the nominee in 2008.

Comment #53: Ben D.  on  10/28  at  02:17 PM

Of course, Reid will never do that, b/c it would require a spine and would require that he talk rudely to his pal Joey, who has been in the Senate for decades.  Being an incumbent and a member of the club is FAR more important than screwing over your party and your constituency.

Caren, I’m VERY close to sending money to Reid’s GOP opponent just because he’s such a spineless majority leader I want him GONE. Schumer for MJ, please! Or Feingold. Or even Durbin. ANYONE but Reid!

Comment #54: Ben D.  on  10/28  at  02:19 PM

”The problem with that strategy is that you will then GUARANTEE that he joins the Republican filibuster, which could wind up killing the public option altogether … He’s giving the threat of filibuster right now and waving his flaccid penis in the wind to get attention, but there may be some things going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.  Some of the punditry is predicting that in end, Lieberman will change his mind and get on board at the last second, that he’s putting on a show to try to convince himself he’s still relevant.”

You’re probably right about most of what you said, and screwing Lieberman after the fact would serve the “pour encourager les autres” issue

But while the “mad man” theory in international relations is a proven failure, it works great in enforcing party discipline
That why I don’t even think that the wingnuts are being stupid in NY-23, their candidate will come in 3rd (no, I don’t believe the club for growth poll) and the seat will go D for the first time since the civil war
But they have made it clear that they are willing to punish you even if it hurts them

And as far as the PO goes, if we have to rely of Liebermans, and Lincons, and Landreu’s good will, then its already lost, might as well try fear instead

Comment #55: jefft452  on  10/28  at  02:48 PM

Since they don’t have 60, MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER.  MAKE LIEBERMAN GET UP THERE AND READ THE PHONE BOOK.  MAKE THE GOP FILIBUSTER.

Caren, yes.  This is what needs to happen.  Call their goddamned bluff and make them get up there and take ownership of their opposition to healthcare reform, right in front of their constituents.  Let them explain to their supporters, the majority of whom want a public option, why they saw fit to fuck it all up, deliberately.

I heartily second this: MAKE THEM FILLIBUSTER.

And in the meantime, run ads in every applicable state that disclose exactly how much money every would-be-fillibusterizer (or his or her spouse) has received from the insurance industry and Big Pharma.  Joe Lieberman, it’s time for your close-up.

Comment #56: litbrit  on  10/28  at  03:02 PM

Since they don’t have 60, MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER.  MAKE LIEBERMAN GET UP THERE AND READ THE PHONE BOOK.  MAKE THE GOP FILIBUSTER.

Caren, yes.  This is what needs to happen.  Call their goddamned bluff and make them get up there and take ownership of their opposition to healthcare reform, right in front of their constituents.  Let them explain to their supporters, the majority of whom want a public option, why they saw fit to fuck it all up, deliberately.

I heartily second this: MAKE THEM FILLIBUSTER.

Oh how I wish it were so simple.  It isn’t.  The current rules of the Senate are set up such that a party who wants to filibuster doesn’t need to actually get on the floor and read from the phonebook endlessly, they just need to prevent 60 Senators from voting for cloture.

The only way around it is to change the current rules of the Senate to reintroduce the filibuster rules that were in place prior to the rule change in the 1970s.

And if they attempted to push such a revision like that right now, the sick irony is that it would most definitely be filibustered, using the current allowed method of filibustering.  It’s like handing your enemy the knife that he’s gonna use to shank you.

Comment #57: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  03:10 PM

For fuck’s sake, fine, anon.  A MOSTLY self-sustaining operation. 

They do better than the goddamn “private” auto industry, don’t they?

Comment #58: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/28  at  03:12 PM

Let’s not forget something, shall we? 

Lieberman acting this way is, for centrist and corporate Dems (which is most of the Senate, a significant minority of the House and the sitting President) not a problem, it’s a solution.  They don’t want a genuine health care bill enacted, they don’t want a public option and they certainly don’t want elected Dems drifting left on policy closer to where the electorate and their members are*.  They DO want an excuse, a believable excuse, for why a popularly-sought policy didn’t get done.  Lieberman, a requirement of bipartisanship, 60 votes, whaaaaaatever, these are all merely window-dressing for the fact that most elected Dems are corporate whores, but only to a slightly smaller degree than their GOP counterparts.  They’re not representing you they’re representing their owners.

* - Let me pose this question.  If the American electorate voted tomorrow on whether or not to have Canadian style health care, a straight yes/no option, and assuming that each and every American voter voted, would it win?

Comment #59: seeker6079  on  10/28  at  03:19 PM

* - Let me pose this question.  If the American electorate voted tomorrow on whether or not to have Canadian style health care, a straight yes/no option, and assuming that each and every American voter voted, would it win?

As long as a decent number of registered voters bothered to show up at the polls.  Electoral success for Republicans and conservative initiatives occur when more people feel too apathetic to bother voting.

A big part of what allowed Bush to become president and then retain the job four years later was a Democratic base that wasn’t very enthusiastic about their own available candidates.  I love Al Gore today, and I voted for him in 2000… but he ran a pretty mediocre campaign, and he made too many assumptions about what he thought was going to be his inevitable election.  Had he just shown a little more Howard Dean/Barack Obama style enthusiasm, he would have taken Florida without a recount and become president.  97,000 presumably progressive Floridians chose Ralph Nader over Al Gore, and if even 10% of them had voted differently, Gore wins on November 7, 2000, and no recount is even necessary.

Comment #60: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  03:51 PM

If the American electorate voted tomorrow on whether or not to have Canadian style health care, a straight yes/no option, and assuming that each and every American voter voted, would it win?

Yes.

This is the reason why we need campaign finance reform yesterday.

Without it, our legislators vote the way corporate lobbyists pay them to vote, rather than their votes being a reflection of the actual constituents of their congressional districts. 

And before anyone points out that corporations are “constituents” under the law, I’ll pre-emptively (Bush Doctrine Style) counter that the Founders and the drafters of the Constitution did not write it thusly. 

Subsequent legislation identifying a corporation as a “person” runs contrary to the spirit of the legislative processes as the Founders envisioned it, and should therefore be disregarded when analyzing campaign finance issues.

Comment #61: Mezosub  on  10/28  at  04:03 PM

I love Al Gore today, and I voted for him in 2000… but he ran a pretty mediocre campaign,

DTG, I like you but that’s one of the most egregious examples of praising through faint damning that I’ve ever seen.  Even leaving aside the almost hysterical deceit of the MSM it was a TERRIBLE campaign, a classic in bad planning, bad response, bad thinking, bad staff and no guts.  People should study it for decades on How Not To Do It.

Comment #62: seeker6079  on  10/28  at  04:08 PM

Mezosub:
I note that Scalia et al, who are fervent originalists, shy away like mad from the self-evident fact if the Founders wanted corporations to be considered people with rights then they would have put it in the Constitution.  It’s pretty much one of the best proofs out there that the so called original-intent crowd are the biggest liars, hypocrites and cherry pickers out there.

Comment #63: seeker6079  on  10/28  at  04:17 PM

And before anyone points out that corporations are “constituents” under the law, I’ll pre-emptively (Bush Doctrine Style) counter that the Founders and the drafters of the Constitution did not write it thusly.

I agree in general with your premise, that corporate lobbying influence needs to be neutralized in their ability to buy legislators through campaign contributions, but…

Corporations aren’t really constituents, but certain industries can be, at least somewhat.  For example, when legislation is written that can adversely affect GM, Ford, and Chrysler, it isn’t always just the corporate executives and shareholders who suffer as a result, it’s also millions of working class assembly plant workers in these industries.

That isn’t to say that I think corporations should be given a free pass to spend whatever amount of money they want to on buying votes, but that it is fair to expect legislators to consider the ramifications for everyone in a particular industry when making decisions, not just the people in the boardroom.

I hate coal as much as anyone, but in states where coal mining is a huge industry, legislators aren’t just kissing the ass of the coal lobbyists, they’re also considering the thousands of coal miners in their districts whose means of survival might be jeopardized if the legislation doesn’t provide some sort of safety net to protect them from household financial catastrophe.

Comment #64: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  04:20 PM

“A big part of what allowed Bush to become president and then retain the job four years later was a Democratic base that wasn’t very enthusiastic about their own available candidates.”

yes,
yes, yes,
and oh, by the way, yes

Comment #65: jefft452  on  10/28  at  04:25 PM

Oh, great
Now Dodd is standing by his good bud Holy Joe
Screw You Chris Dodd
and I say that as somebody who has pulled the lever for Dodd since his 1st Senate run and who was still an avid supporter – until today, nope wont be voting for him
yeah that means Simmons gets in, so what?, no issues that matter to me will move forward either way

Comment #66: jefft452  on  10/28  at  04:45 PM

jefft452:
Shorter Dodd: “We’re in the club.  You’re not.  Fuck you and everything that I promised to do for you.”

Comment #67: seeker6079  on  10/28  at  04:48 PM

Well, to be fair (and usually Im not)
Dodd never really promised me anything, its just that the rest were so much worse

Comment #68: jefft452  on  10/28  at  04:51 PM

Oh, great
Now Dodd is standing by his good bud Holy Joe
Screw You Chris Dodd
and I say that as somebody who has pulled the lever for Dodd since his 1st Senate run and who was still an avid supporter – until today, nope wont be voting for him
yeah that means Simmons gets in, so what?, no issues that matter to me will move forward either way

Yeah, even though you’re a blue state that has two senators who caucus with the Democrats, I’d say you aren’t being represented very well.  I don’t envy that, and I live in Missouri, home of Republican Senator Kit “I’m one of the 30 assholes who voted to protect KBR rapists” Bond and Democratic Senator Claire “I won’t take a formal stand on the public option” McCaskill.

Comment #69: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  04:54 PM

”I live in Missouri, home of Republican Senator Kit “I’m one of the 30 assholes who voted to protect KBR rapists” Bond and Democratic Senator Claire “I won’t take a formal stand on the public option” McCaskill.”

My sympathies (I mean it, not trying to be snarky)

Loosing because I’m in the minority in my state, while it would suck, is at least tolerable to me
But loosing despite the fact that most of my fellow CT voters agree with me is just too much

Comment #70: jefft452  on  10/28  at  05:04 PM

I’m amazed by the lack of primary challenge for Dodd.  The Dems are just giving that seat to the Repubs.

Anyways, if the White House doesn’t have warrantless wiretaps on Lieberman, they aren’t doing their jobs.  Welcome to the new USA.

Comment #71: Punditus Maximus  on  10/28  at  05:48 PM

”I’m amazed by the lack of primary challenge for Dodd.”

Well, he’s been hemming and hauling on weather he will even run again (I always assumed he would) but until he makes it official everybody wants to keep options open and bridges unburned

And until this, I always thought his re-election chances were far better then the current polls would indicate

Simmons had to go far, far, to the right to get the R nomination and the R’s have been trying to run campaigns designed to win in the south up here in the north east for a while now, with the result that the north east republican is an endangered species

Comment #72: jefft452  on  10/28  at  06:08 PM

That isn’t to say that I think corporations should be given a free pass to spend whatever amount of money they want to on buying votes, but that it is fair to expect legislators to consider the ramifications for everyone in a particular industry when making decisions, not just the people in the boardroom.

I agree in principle, DTG, but show me one example of a piece of legislation that required active Congresscritter involvement in order to balance the needs of the workers over the needs of the shareholders/managers in any industry.

I doubt we’ll find one, because a very small percentage of workers are represented by labor unions, and the shareholders’ campaign contributions are tax deductible. 

Again, it goes back to changing the way campaigns are funded.  Until we as taxpayers get total transparency and can see an untainted trail of money from individuals or small groups of constituents, the process will continue to be poisoned by unwholesome corporate influences. 

And by “unwholesome” I mean legislation that requires everyone to purchase private health insurance, whether they can afford it or not, and other such corporate nonsense designed to rip off consumers and otherwise turn the entire market into a “Company Store.”

Comment #73: Mezosub  on  10/28  at  06:08 PM

hemming and HAWING

damn spellcheck, grumble, grumble

Comment #74: jefft452  on  10/28  at  06:10 PM

I heartily second this: MAKE THEM FILLIBUSTER.

I agree.

God knows the GOP has nothing for an alternative health reform bill. Their only intention is to sink the current measures to embarrass Obama, despite the fact that a majority of Americans want reform and a public option. In other words, the GOP (and a handful of Democrats in the Senate) are putting petty politics over the welfare of their constituents.

Color me shocked. Assholes…

Comment #75: CHV  on  10/28  at  06:52 PM

It’s got all of the hallmarks of wingnut speak

Huh?

I find it amusing how you must first tell us what the code language is in order to make your point. Heck, without your guiding hand we’d have thought he said what he meant.

Ya’ know, like the part about the taxpayers being on the hook if things don’t go well like the post office is doing now. And…and…and the part about this being not an entitlement would have just whizzed past us ‘little people’ without your calm and certain guidence.

Of course, you’ve ranted about how everyone *IS* entitlted to healthcare for all your life.

Good to know, that wasn’t what he meant.

Comment #76: Not Your Stereotypical Nigger  on  10/28  at  07:21 PM

I’m completely ripping this off from Markos, but this is fantastic…

The New Republic, January 19, 2004:

“It may take years, or even decades, for Democrats to relearn the lessons we thought, naively, they had learned for good under Clinton. But one day, Joe Lieberman’s warnings in this campaign will look prophetic. And the principles he has espoused will once again guide the Democratic Party. It will be the work of this magazine, to whatever small degree possible, to hasten that day.”

That was published four days after the 2004 Iowa caucus, when staunch anti-war candidate Howard Dean was defeated by John Kerry.  A year earlier, Joe Lieberman had announced his presidential candidacy, running on a neocon warhawk platform, warning that his fellow Democrats were quickly turning into a bunch of surrendercat wussies.  Lieberman would withdraw from the race less than two weeks after TNR published that moronic twattle, failing to win even 10% of the vote in all but one of the primaries he participated in.

And this is supposed to be a magazine that advocates for Democrats?

Comment #77: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  07:52 PM

Can somebody please ban the shitstain troll with the extremely offensive moniker, umm… now?  Like this minute?

Comment #78: DTG in STL  on  10/28  at  07:54 PM

Didn’t “Not Your Stereotypical N*” get banned earlier for just the name alone?

Comment #79: seeker6079  on  10/28  at  07:56 PM

“I find it amusing how you must first tell us what the code language is in order to make your point. Heck, without your guiding hand we’d have thought he said what he meant.”

...no, you would have thought he said what he meant.  The rest of us know he’s a lying sack of crap, just like the rest of Wingnuttia…

Comment #80: MikeEss  on  10/28  at  08:02 PM

It’s not as if Lieberman just showed his true colors.  He’s been a thorn in the side of the progressive movement for years.  It isn’t surprising that he has aligned himself with corporate interests and against the interest of the American people, Joe has never let a good idea stand in the way of corporate profits and campaign contributions.  The Democratic party needs to strip him of his committee chairmanship and let him go.  He is not an asset.

Also I am personally offended by the chosen screen name of writer of comment 76, who is your stereotypical right wing loon.

Comment #81: G Porgey  on  10/28  at  08:09 PM

I don’t think Lieberman is a wingnut. He’s worse than a wingnut; he’s just using wingnut talking points in his bid for attention.

So much for all the ballyhoo about his religious faith, because he’s breaking a bunch of commandments.

Comment #82: paul  on  10/28  at  09:05 PM

Remember that time in 2006 when Barack Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman against net roots liberal Democrat Ned Lamont?  Man, I bet he feels pretty freak’n dumb right now, eh?

FWIW, he only did that in the primary. As soon as Lamont won the primary as the Democratic candidate, he supported Lamont.

You know, it’s one thing for Bayh or Nelson to be wishy-washy—they’re from states that are more conservative than the country as a whole—but Lieberman is from a solid bluer than blue New England state. He’s just an asswipe and spitting in face of his constituents.

Comment #83: Ben D.  on  10/28  at  10:45 PM

From Canadian Cynic’s Fly On The Wall series, The Joe Lieberman Chronicles, Wednesday November 16th 2008:

“So here’s how it’s going to work, Joe. Even after you bad-mouthed Barack and campaigned openly for his opponent and, well, pretty much lied and were a total fucking asswipe, we’re going to keep you in the Democratic caucus and even let you stay on as chairman on your committee.”

“Really? Seriously? Wow, that’s ... that’s ... generous. I don’t know what to say.”

“There will be a couple conditions, of course. First, you won’t be allowed to go on any political talk shows. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. We’ll decide what you say and when you get to say it. Is that clear?”

“Um ... that’s kind of harsh, I don’t know if that’s fa ...”

“And, secondly, if you get uppity and do anything to obstruct us or annoy us, we’ll have you taken out and killed.”

“I’m sorry ... what?”

“You heard us—we will have you killed. Dead. Stone fucking cold dead. Face down in a gutter somewhere. Seriously, Joe, you have no idea how many favours we called in to keep you here, but the price is that you behave. Utterly. Totally. Without a single goddamned complaint. And the instant you get out of line, you’re a dead man. And, no, we’re not talking politically or metaphorically. I mean fucking snuffed, bullet to the brain dead. The only value you have for us is a Senate vote, and if you can’t deliver that every fucking time, we’ll kill you and worry about replacing you later. Do we understand each other?”

“Well, I ...”

“We’ll take that as a ‘yes.’ Now fuck off. And we’ll be watching you. Thanks for coming.”

Comment #84: Smartpatrol  on  10/28  at  11:15 PM

“FWIW, he only did that in the primary. As soon as Lamont won the primary as the Democratic candidate, he supported Lamont.”

yep, same with Clinton

Comment #85: jefft452  on  10/29  at  12:05 AM

if sen. lieberman, who wears his jewishness on his shirtsleeve, was really a good jew, he’d do the country a huge mitzvah, and go find a cave in the deep woods, bereft of communication with the outside world, and stay there the rest of his natural life. his wife can send him home cooked food, but that’s all.

barring that, he could just resign from the senate.

Comment #86: cpinva  on  10/29  at  03:11 AM

Ha.  US will veto Goldstone because of its own worries about creating a precedent for the prosecution of 1st world military and civilian leaders for war crimes, while those are now the domain of 2nd world (ex-Socialist Bloc) leaders like Milosevic, Karadicz, and Oric.  Also, I fail to see how a senator, or any group of senators, could swing the US President’s opinion on the matter of his instructions to the US ambassador to the UN.  Unless you believe in the Elders, of course.

Comment #87: Eurosabra  on  10/29  at  01:22 PM

My guess is this:
He’s “blowing his wad” now because he’s not running in 2012 & he and Hadassah are going to retire to Isreal shortly thereafter.
Because everyone hates him and we’re so ungreatful to him.
Waah wahh waah.

Comment #88: Danica Lefse Queen  on  10/29  at  09:31 PM

You didn’t.  You voted for Gore for President.

Thanks, DTG. That makes me feel better. grin

Comment #89: Blue Jean  on  10/30  at  02:30 PM

If there were a fraction of justice in this world, my doormat would be the tanned hide of ol joe lieberman.

Comment #90: less is more  on  10/30  at  06:59 PM

Color me SHOCKED:

After joining with Republicans this week in a promise to filibuster health reform if a public option is included, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) tells ABC News that he plans on campaigning for some GOP candidates in the 2010 elections.

What a fucking douchestick.

Just go be a Republican already you shitstain, you pretty much already are one.  The only thing left to do is officially change the letter after your name and keep acting like the asswipe you are.

And please, Senator Reid and President Obama, for the love of God, quit kissing this man’s ass and telling us that he’s with us on “everything but the war”.

Comment #91: DTG in STL  on  10/30  at  07:36 PM

“Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) tells ABC News that he plans on campaigning for some GOP candidates in the 2010 elections”

Hope he does it here in CT, that would actually help Democrats

Comment #92: jefft452  on  10/30  at  10:44 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.