Among Democrats’ Leadership Questions: What to Do With Lieberman?

I thought they wanted to unite and be bipartisan?

Quote:The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, met with Mr. Lieberman for a half-hour Thursday and issued a terse statement saying no decisions had been made. Aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Reid had suggested that Mr. Lieberman relinquish his chairmanship in exchange for a less prominent position.

Lieberman did kind of go out of his way in his support of McCain. Addressing the RNC convention????? He will lose his chairmanship.

Somehow I think they will allow him to remain. JL is very popular with independents. Throwing him under the bus really would serve no useful purpose other than for vindictive reasons. His voice and leadership could be very valuable to this administration...Of course...To the winner goes the spoils. They can do whatever they wish.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Democrats seek POUND OF FLESH

Boobies??

an idea of how Partisian Obama is...he wrote on the DailyBigot(dKos) in 2005 about the Dems wiping out all dissent within the ranks

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/1...wrote.html

Quote:I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it’s precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.

in 2006 the Koskids targeted Lieberman, picked Ned Lamont and beat Lieberman in the Democratic Primary. Joe got the last laugh though of course...but they followed the orders of The One and did their part.

the reality is George Bush was very Bi-Partsian, look what that got him.

Hmmm...

Let Obama drive out the Blue Dogs.
Then let the republicans tell the religious right to go along or get lost.
Suddenly you are left with a pretty good sized centrist movement.
I think Lieberman shows exactly what can happen if the dems go that route.
A few dark red states would probably stay with the religious conservatives.
Then a few purple states could elect some centrists.
We'd have three real parties, with the centrists quite likely holding the balance of power.
That would be the best case of all.

Too bad the governor of Connecticut is a Republican or else Obama could offer Lieberman a useless cabinet position, such as Secretary of Transportation, where he would be unable to cause any harm. A Democratic governor could then appoint Lamont to finish out his Senate term.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, it is probably more convenient for them to deal with Lieberman, rather than a total Republican, so they will just have to put up with him until 2012. Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006, by the way, only to end up stabbed in the back.

Here is some context to what Obama said.. he argues exactly against the highlighted segment you attempt to ascribe as his mantra.

Quote:.... I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone...index.html

The election's over... perhaps we can wait 3 years until we resume misrepresenting his positions?

Does anybody actually read the articles they link before posting them? Reb posted the exact same manipulated, out-of-context passage about a week ago.

The whole purpose of the entry is to outline Obama's opposition to that type of thinking.

i.e. - from the linked article

"I think this perspective misreads the American people."

"Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?"

His entire entry is an argument against what he calls, "the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists."

Lieberman is a loserman. Al Gore picked him as VP, and he mediocrely campaigned for him. He runs for president himself with "Joementum" and claims to have a 3 way tie for third place. He whines that his democratic friends won't support him over the democratic candidate for senate. Then he openly supports McCain? What's his next act join the Republican party then run for president? Who trusts Joe Lieberman?

firmbizzle Wrote:Who trusts Joe Lieberman?

Regardless of his politics JL has a reputation for being an honest and decent guy - something that can't be said about most politicans. Quite frankly, if he were to say something I'd tend to believe it - I may not agree with it, but I'd believe it. The only people who might not trust him are those with something to hide or a secret agenda.

Ok?

More likely its those who are bitter that he didn't fall in line behind their candidate.

dwr0109 Wrote:Ok?

More likely its those who are bitter that he didn't fall in line behind their candidate.

That has nothing to do with trust, it's all about politics.

dwr0109 Wrote:Does anybody actually read the articles they link before posting them? Reb posted the exact same manipulated, out-of-context passage about a week ago.

What fun would that be?

firmbizzle Wrote:Lieberman is a loserman. Al Gore picked him as VP, and he mediocrely campaigned for him. He runs for president himself with "Joementum" and claims to have a 3 way tie for third place. He whines that his democratic friends won't support him over the democratic candidate for senate. Then he openly supports McCain? What's his next act join the Republican party then run for president? Who trusts Joe Lieberman?

Well, if Bill Clinton had been able to stay far away from fat, slutty, young interns, then Al Gore would have chosen John Kerry or Bob Graham as his running mate instead. The selection of Joe Lieberman was based on his public condemnation of the Clinton affair and a wish to dismantle prejudice against Jewish candidates in national elections.

Lieberman was indeed an uninspiring, sucky, and inept campaigner. His debating skills were awful as well. Kerry or Graham would have been a much better choice. As for the 2006 election, well, Barack Obama went against the Democratic Party and campaigned for "Jomentum" in Connecticut. Obama also did that without attacking Ned Lamont.

Well, more like an ounce of flesh. Joe will keep his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, but lose a subcommittee chair on the Environment and Public Works panel.

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.

The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.

Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel but lose a subcommittee chair on the Environment and Public Works panel.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."

Added Reid: "Is this a time when we walk out of here and say, 'Boy, did we get even?'" said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...AD94HFF3O1

I'd be curious to see which senators voted against Joe.

I'd also be curious to see how the Republicans would have reacted if a situation like this had occurred under their leadership. It seems some of the nutjobs on here who are so vehemently anti-Obama were wrong on him this time. I wonder if they'll admit they were wrong?

That one is easy................NO!

Kos is moving in for the kill on Reid now, hahaha

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...261/662825

Quote:Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."
I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.

No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.

There's that. But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

Obama keeps flip flopping(i.e. he lied throughout the campaign) on many of these National Security related issues now that he has to actually Govern. starting to look like Obama, now faced with reality, is a "3rd bush term" and "more of the same". except this time there won't be constant idiotic MSM reporting to program people's minds against the party in power.

.

I have been pondering the meaning of this Topic for a long while now and have been agonizing over the Exact Context Within Which "A Pound of Flesh" could honestly benefit the Lib's/Dem's

AND I HAVE DISCOVERED IT !!!!!!!

They are going to use the "Pound of Flesh" to MAKE A BRAIN THAT THEY ALL CAN SHARE !!!!! so we will stop saying that "the Lib's/Dem's don't have One Brain Among Them".

Well I thought it was cute !!!!!

.