I am not "OK" with the Lieberman decision

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on November 18, 2008 at 4:32pm

The Senate especially is a very collegial place. These guys are often friends. I have no problem here.

Permalink Reply by wonkguy on November 18, 2008 at 4:56pm

I wouldn't have a problem if all he did was vote his conscience on Iraq but he distorted the truth about how Obama and others voted on Iraq issues and he stood in the background nodding his head while McCain & Palin accused Obama of palling around with terrorists & of pretty much being a card carrying member of the American Communist party. I'm not ok with that. This had better be a real short leash Lieberman is on & he needs to apologize.

Permalink Reply by Carlin on November 18, 2008 at 9:18pm

I have a problem with this. Lieberman is a turn coat and a traitor. If he had been a Republican and moved to the Democrats, do you really think they would let him keep his commitee leadership position? No, they would not. I know that we are kissing up to this disloyal, whiney man because we don't have a fillibuster proof senate. I would still like to see this guy given an old fashioned "blanket party" (excuse the military speak).

Permalink Reply by Jerry B. on November 18, 2008 at 10:37pm

So your concept of change is that everyone who doesn't agree with you goes to the wall?

President-elect Obama seems to be trying to form an inclusive government (if perhaps a bit heavy on Clinton re-treads). Seems like a better idea than the usual 'Us and Them'. Maybe we should give it a chance.

Permalink Reply by Jeff on November 19, 2008 at 11:10am

I am disappointed in Lieberman, although I think the Dems need to move forward and not take revenge. Now the voters of Conn can make their own decision next time Lieberman is up for election.

Question for all: Even if Lieberman left the Dems and caucused with the Repubs, would that really effect the filibuster? My understanding is each Senator votes if they want to filibuster. So, even if he was with the Repubs he can still vote the way he wants.

Permalink Reply by wonkguy on November 19, 2008 at 12:12pm

Jerry B. said:

So your concept of change is that everyone who doesn't agree with you goes to the wall?

President-elect Obama seems to be trying to form an inclusive government (if perhaps a bit heavy on Clinton re-treads). Seems like a better idea than the usual 'Us and Them'. Maybe we should give it a chance.

Didn't say anything about putting him on the wall. The Dems in Connecticutt didn't want him. He ran anyway & said he would caucus with the Dems. He then went on the campaign trail and spoke horribly of the President Elect and told several outright lies. There are plenty of Dems who's politics I don't agree with but I'm not saying to throw them overboard. Lieberman should not be rewarded for his insolence.. Plain and simple.

Permalink Reply by Jeanne on November 19, 2008 at 8:13pm

I, too, am disappointed by Joe Lieberman's actions this past election, but I do think that thoughts of revenge are not constructive. I felt very early on that Hillary was missing the point in her campaign against Obama. The change that was being offerred and being gobbled up by so many new voters was not just them vs. us, it wasn't just 'get Bush out', I felt that it was fundamentally 'get the old politics' out. You know, the politics of point-counterpoint, keeping score, and letting even completely apolitical topics (like Roger Clemens vs. Brian McNamee) come down to partisanship.
So, in that vein, let Joe the Independent stay where he is most useful, (to the party, the President and the Country) until his constituents in Ct. decide he no longer represents them. Which I expect will be in 2010.

Permalink Reply by Caryl on November 20, 2008 at 11:15am

Perfectly stated, Econ622----they don't mind soliciting your vote or taking your money while promising Change, yet there was no swift action against Lieberman. He wasn't in the audience listening to an old friend, he was on the stage smiling--in every picture---there was a thumb on his nose--you could see it if you looked hard enough.

If there is one thing I can't stand it is a Republicrat. Former Governor Schaefer of Maryland is a Republicrat.
Worst are the people who get elected and then turn in their badge and go with the other party. Phil Gramm, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Richard Shelby took the party's money and support, and then jumped over the fence mid-term---it is despicable and should be illegal---wait for the election to change parties then if you must.

Reid and Polosi need to hear voters' anger over this. What hope is there for Change when they back down on so blatant a call for party loyalty, discipline, and common sense? He doesn't represent his party. I would doubt that people in CT support the war that McCain and Leiberman so badly want to carry on for another six years....Get this guy outta here......

Thanks, Econ622, for bringing this up, this topic needs discussion. Joe's Gotta Go.

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on November 20, 2008 at 11:31am

and what will you say when a lone Republican Senator changes parties to give the Dems a filibuster proof Senate?

Permalink Reply by Caryl on November 20, 2008 at 12:12pm

Precisely the same thing----you took the voters money and support, you purported to be a member of the party that I contribute to and you turncoated away.....that's what I'll say....

I don't care how a person votes. I pay you to represent me, but to vote your conscience. I do not pay you to sit on the dais doing a Smiling Jack behind the other party's guy. What else do you have in store?

and, as you intimate---it doesn't matter if Turncoat is my party or not---anyone who changes horses mid-stream like that should, if not be totally ousted, at least feel the full brunt of the party leaders.

The last congress with its do-nothing ways couldn't filibuster its way out of a wet paper bag, that is what made them so odious.....

If Reid and Pelosi can't bring Joe up short for his lack of decorum, it is no longer about Joe, it is about Reid and Pelosi.
The lack of any action means that Congress will go right back to what they had done before--they think they don't have to answer to anybody.




John Antonelli said:

and what will you say when a lone Republican Senator changes parties to give the Dems a filibuster proof Senate?

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on November 20, 2008 at 12:21pm

Makes sense to me Caryl.

Caryl said:

Precisely the same thing----you took the voters money and support, you purported to be a member of the party that I contribute to and you turncoated away.....that's what I'll say....

I don't care how a person votes. I pay you to represent me, but to vote your conscience. I do not pay you to sit on the dais doing a Smiling Jack behind the other party's guy. What else do you have in store?

and, as you intimate---it doesn't matter if Turncoat is my party or not---anyone who changes horses mid-stream like that should, if not be totally ousted, at least feel the full brunt of the party leaders.

The last congress with its do-nothing ways couldn't filibuster its way out of a wet paper bag, that is what made them so odious.....

If Reid and Pelosi can't bring Joe up short for his lack of decorum, it is no longer about Joe, it is about Reid and Pelosi.
The lack of any action means that Congress will go right back to what they had done before--they think they don't have to answer to anybody.




John Antonelli said:

and what will you say when a lone Republican Senator changes parties to give the Dems a filibuster proof Senate?

Permalink Reply by Carlin on November 20, 2008 at 2:54pm

Actions have consequences. I can remember Lieberman going on and on about Bill Clinton's mess ups. I think that there ought to be some sort of punishment for Lieberman. He not only supported McCain but trashed Obama. What kind of example is set by letting Lieberman get away with it?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page