›

Does anybody ride for Joe Lieberman?

FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
edited November 2008 in Strut Central
Seriously. Should they strip his Chairmanships?b, 21b, 21
«1

  Comments

  • VitaminVitamin 631 Posts
    I do. And no they should not.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21I do. And no they should not. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21Republicans ride for him, that should be enough to say, strip the motherfucker.b, 21b, 21Seriously, F*ck that guy. I think I would rather see an honest GOP shill in his seat than have his backstabbing ass allegedly being a Dem-leaning independent. He showed his true colors when he dicked over the wishes of his own State's party and ran against the guy he LOST to. The backing of McCain should forever mark him as a complete traitor and total loser.b, 21b, 21Can't say it enough, let Lieberman GO.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21/font1Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21I do. And no they should not. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21Republicans ride for him, that should be enough to say, strip the motherfucker.b, 21b, 21Seriously, F*ck that guy. I think I would rather see an honest GOP shill in his seat than have his backstabbing ass allegedly being a Dem-leaning independent. He showed his true colors when he dicked over the wishes of his own State's party and ran against the guy he LOST to. The backing of McCain should forever mark him as a complete traitor and total loser.b, 21b, 21Can't say it enough, let Lieberman GO. b, 21b, 21h, 21b, 21b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cos3ve.gif" alt="" 21 X 1,000
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21I do. And no they should not. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21Eli, wouldn't you rather have him officially as a Republican? BTW--Who are some other Democratic Senators you like?
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    He says some things here that are beyond unacceptable:b, 21b, 21/object1
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21He says some things here that are beyond unacceptable:b, 21b, 21/object1 b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21If he had just endorsed McCain and left it at that, that was bad enough to deserve some political recrimination, but to stroll onstage at their CONVENTION? If he maintains his shit within the party something is seriously messed up, or the Dems in charge will think (mistakenly) that they have him on a short leash and that he owes them. They cannot trust this moron.
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    The only really unacceptable thing here is that (@ 4:25), he indirectly insinuates that Barack Obama (being the only other option to John McCain) is not an American (and I suppose that it could be argued that he insinuates this throughout). But even that's debatable. This speech is really more about John McCain and less about Obama. Just because he props up McCain's service to country doesn't necessarily mean that he's decrying Obama along the same lines.b, 21b, 21But Joe Lieberman has done some weaselly things, and he deserves to lose his chair for absolutely turning his back on his party. The actual words of this speech are not the lynchpin as much as the fact that a former Dem VP option is speaking to the same GOP he decried on the campaign trail only 8 years ago (when it mattered more, as we found out).
  • VitaminVitamin 631 Posts
    A few things. First of all, the nursery school wing of the Democratic party made a run at him in his 2006 primary and supported a dilletante multi-millionaire, Ned Lamont, largely because Lieberman continued to support the war. Mind you, most of the support for Lamont came from far left carpet-baggers, out of state. These people did not support primary opponents for other Democrats who voted for the Iraq war but then later changed their view on things. Only Lieberman. Why? Because Lieberman refused to take the coward's way out of his vote and say he voted for the war because he was tricked by the intelligence. Lieberman had too much integrity to pander to fake ass progressive narratives, particularly because he remembered the intelligence presented during the clinton administration and because he knows the US government does not operate like a John Grisham novel despite the howls and whimpers of the netleft. b, 21b, 21So Lieberman owed the Democrats nothing in 2006, but he nonetheless decided to caucus with them and make Harry Reid the Senate Majority leader, tipping control of the Senate to his party. He could have said, hey you f%$k with me, I F$*k with you. But he didn't. Nonetheless he stood on principle and the better part of prudence in opposing his own party that demanded Iraq be left to the mercies of al Qaeda, Iran and the Ba'ath party. Good for him. Thanks Joe Lieberman. Good thing we didn't stop the surge the way Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi wanted. Now there is a chance for a decent outcome in that country, we can really leave Iraq better than it was under Saddam. b, 21b, 21Given the fact that Lieberman fought this lonely battle to avoid a moral and strategic disaster against his party and that the nominee for the GOP was his best friend and ally in the fight to prevent the disaster, John McCain, he endorsed the Republican. He's still a near socialist on the environment and the economy. He just opposed retreating from Iraq when the country was in the middle of a civil war. It's amazing that the people who advocated the now discredited surrender option would be trusted with the custody of our military and intelligence agencies, but hey, Yes we can. (And yes I celebrate the fact that an African American is president). My point here is that Lieberman split with his party on an issue in which he is now demonstrably correct and his party (Obama excepted, he was in the Illinois legislature) is worse than wrong, but craven. Most dems supported the Iraq war and then abandoned it for fake reasons, but really because it was unpopular. A far worse position than having supported the war and also supported the strategy that turned it around. Yet John Kerry might be secretary of state. Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is talked about for Defense. And Joe Lieberman who has spine and smarts is being driven out of the party by the choose your own reality based community.
  • GaryGary 3,982 Posts
    Yawn.b, 21b, 21b, 21You guys can have him.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Yawn.b, 21b, 21b, 21You guys can have him. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21I think the long and short of what Vitamin is trying to say is, they don't want him either!
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21 the nursery school wing of the Democratic party b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21lol. seems to me, your party needs to reevaluate their platform back at that level and go forward from there...
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,473 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21 Lieberman had too much integrity b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21I believe this is the first time Lieberman has ever been accused of having too much integrity.
  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21the choose your own reality based community.b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21why u had to put the Bush administration on blast like that?b, 21b, 21I have a sneaking suspicion that good old Joe will always support attacking Muslims wherever they might be, not exactly a noble standb, 21b, 21[/canofworms]
  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    Liberman's a hump.
  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21A few things. First of all, the nursery school wing of the Democratic party made a run at him in his 2006 primary and supported a dilletante multi-millionaire, Ned Lamont, largely because Lieberman continued to support the war. Mind you, most of the support for Lamont came from far left carpet-baggers, out of state. These people did not support primary opponents for other Democrats who voted for the Iraq war but then later changed their view on things. Only Lieberman. Why? Because Lieberman refused to take the coward's way out of his vote and say he voted for the war because he was tricked by the intelligence. Lieberman had too much integrity to pander to fake ass progressive narratives, particularly because he remembered the intelligence presented during the clinton administration and because he knows the US government does not operate like a John Grisham novel despite the howls and whimpers of the netleft. b, 21b, 21So Lieberman owed the Democrats nothing in 2006, but he nonetheless decided to caucus with them and make Harry Reid the Senate Majority leader, tipping control of the Senate to his party. He could have said, hey you f%$k with me, I F$*k with you. But he didn't. Nonetheless he stood on principle and the better part of prudence in opposing his own party that demanded Iraq be left to the mercies of al Qaeda, Iran and the Ba'ath party. Good for him. Thanks Joe Lieberman. Good thing we didn't stop the surge the way Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi wanted. Now there is a chance for a decent outcome in that country, we can really leave Iraq better than it was under Saddam. b, 21b, 21Given the fact that Lieberman fought this lonely battle to avoid a moral and strategic disaster against his party and that the nominee for the GOP was his best friend and ally in the fight to prevent the disaster, John McCain, he endorsed the Republican. He's still a near socialist on the environment and the economy. He just opposed retreating from Iraq when the country was in the middle of a civil war. It's amazing that the people who advocated the now discredited surrender option would be trusted with the custody of our military and intelligence agencies, but hey, Yes we can. (And yes I celebrate the fact that an African American is president). My point here is that Lieberman split with his party on an issue in which he is now demonstrably correct and his party (Obama excepted, he was in the Illinois legislature) is worse than wrong, but craven. Most dems supported the Iraq war and then abandoned it for fake reasons, but really because it was unpopular. A far worse position than having supported the war and also supported the strategy that turned it around. Yet John Kerry might be secretary of state. Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is talked about for Defense. And Joe Lieberman who has spine and smarts is being driven out of the party by the choose your own reality based community. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21dude, you are the Nadia Comaneci of mental gymnastics. Your attributions are completely speculative or in some cases just plain wrong. Many Democrats have admitted they voted for the bill because of politics and/or being lied to. Which of course, we now know happened. In any case, changing your mind, like Senator Fulbright and others did during Vietnam, is the prudent and moral thing to do at this juncture. I don't think that it's a coincidence that McCain spent his post-POW years studying how we could have won the Vietnam war. Talk about a giant waste of time. b, 21b, 21Obama began pressing for a withdrawal from Iraq and, lo and behold, as he became more of a likely winner in this race, Bush began to look for an exit strategy on his terms. Of course, he couldn't get the Iraqis to trust him about our long-term goals (permanent bases) so they wouldn't sign on the dotted line. Now that they have a more reliable partner on the way, they are quickly moving to seal the deal.b, 21b, 21Your never ending paranoia about Israel and wrong headed belief that Iraq would become a den of terrorist inequity has blinded you to the facts on the ground. b, 21b, 21Obama, if he is going to make good on his "Change Washington" promise, should leave Lieberman in his chair. He is no threat to the party and generally votes with the liberals on most other things beyond foreign policy. Like Eli he has a misguided view of the war that has clouded his judgment. Now that we have the votes it's just not that important.
  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Your never ending paranoia about Israel and wrong headed belief that Iraq would become a den of terrorist inequity has blinded you to the facts on the ground.b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21are you talking about Vitamin or Lieberman?b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" 21
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Lieberman cast his lot with the Republicans. b, 21Doesn't mean he is a bad person. b, 21Just means that he is a Republican. b, 21Now he can go sit with them.b, 21b, 21He will be far from the most liberal Republican. b, 21b, 21In fact if they want to send Olympia Snow over to the adult wing of the Senate we would welcome her.
  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21most of the support for Lamont came from far left carpet-baggers[/b], out of state. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21Have you been talking to Harvey lately?
  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21/font1Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Your never ending paranoia about Israel and wrong headed belief that Iraq would become a den of terrorist inequity has blinded you to the facts on the ground.b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21are you talking about Vitamin or Lieberman?b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" 21 b, 21b, 21h, 21b, 21b, 21I suspect that Lieberman's hawkishness about the Middle East is correlated with his views on Israel but I don't know that for sure.
  • dayday 9,611 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21The backing of McCain should forever mark him as a complete traitor and total loser.b, 21b, 21 b, 21b, 21h, 21
  • The_NonThe_Non 5,691 Posts
    Lieberman should be allowed to support who he wants to support, just as the Dems should be allowed to revoke support to his person. His lies to the voters in his state of CT to get elected is much more egregious IMO and the true reason why Lieberman is a douche.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Seems like dude has always wanted to be more than just a CT Senator (i.e., Gore's VP, 2004 Presidential Candidate and Jocking for high positions in a potential McCain administration). He has said and done almost anything to get there. Sure, he always votes yes on liberal stuff like Head Start funding. But, seriously, one wonders what this guy will do next? Whatever it is, Joe the Slummer better do it before his term. Because CT people will not send him back whether he has a D or an I or a R behind his name.
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21 He's still a near socialist on the environment and the economy. He just opposed retreating from Iraq when the country was in the middle of a civil war. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21at the end of the day this is what it's all about.b, 21b, 21people that hate Lieberman and want him ousted from the Dem party are basically reacting to his disloyalty, circling the wagons, etc. I understand it.b, 21b, 21but people should ask themselves why our paries line up the way they do: why does the Dem platform rest on protectionist trade principles and (allegedly) more dovish foreign policy? is there a principled reason for this coupling?b, 21b, 21Lieberman's just a dude that feels very strongly about Dem domestic policy but sides more with the GOP on foreign policy. there's no perfect party for a dude like that, so he's sorta stuck.b, 21b, 21and while he's become the Dem rank-and-file's and Dem pundits' favorite whipping boy, its my understanding that the elected Dems in the Senate still have love for him (mostly), despite that he endangered Obama by endorsing McCain. and it's my understanding that he has the strong support of a majority of his constituents on the issues that matter most to them.b, 21b, 21just to be clear: I was totaly AGAINST his McCain endorsement. but people talmbout stripping him of his chair and ousting him from the party reinforce the unsettling notion that there is no room for idependent thought (on substantive issues) within our two party system. that's sad.
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21/font1Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21/font1Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Your never ending paranoia about Israel and wrong headed belief that Iraq would become a den of terrorist inequity has blinded you to the facts on the ground.b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21are you talking about Vitamin or Lieberman?b, 21b, 21 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" 21 b, 21b, 21h, 21b, 21b, 21I suspect that Lieberman's hawkishness about the Middle East is correlated with his views on Israel but I don't know that for sure. b, 21b, 21h, 21b, 21b, 21cite your source b/w the Iraq war has been a disaster for Israel.
  • selperfugeselperfuge 1,165 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21I think the long and short of what Vitamin is trying to say is, they don't want him either! b, 21b, 21h, 21
    img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sscg.gif" alt="" 21
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Seems like dude has always wanted to be more than just a CT Senator (i.e., Gore's VP, 2004 Presidential Candidate and Jocking for high positions in a potential McCain administration). He has said and done almost anything to get there. Sure, he always votes yes on liberal stuff like Head Start funding. But, seriously, one wonders what this guy will do next? Whatever it is, Joe the Slummer better do it before his term. Because CT people will not send him back whether he has a D or an I or a R behind his name. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21unless you can back this up, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. what you detect as some sort of posturing in his liberal voting record is, for most people...just a liberal voting record. I mean, why does a liberal Senator vote liberal? you can argue it's for some hidden, nefarious reason, or you can accept that it's how dude actually feels on the issues. as for his "wanting to be more"...again, what Senator would turn down a chair or VP spot? they are all gunning for these spots. Senators use the party; the party uses the Senators. you truly think we should be mad at Lieberman for trying to gain influence in the Senate or within his party? GTFOHWTBS.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    If you're not with us 100% you're against us.
  • selperfugeselperfuge 1,165 Posts
    Lieberman's Overlords Most Displeasedb, 21October 26, 2008 | Issue 44???44b, 21b, 21EIGHT MILES BENEATH THE EARTH???S SURFACE???According to reports from deep within the secret underground lair of the Tributon IV Project, the nine executive overlords of Sen. Joseph Lieberman are most displeased with the Connecticut lawmaker's repeated insolence. ???We asked the earthling Lieberman to secure the American vice presidency, and yet again he has failed us,??? Overlord Xinos IV said in a statement issued telepathically from his prefrontal cortex. ???Rest assured, this lowly worm shall pay dearly for his incompetence. That is all.??? While the Elders of the High Council of Minerva have not yet settled on an appropriate punishment, they are reportedly considering some combination of spine extraction, laser eye-immolation, and a highly complicated process whereby the four-term senator???s pathetic earth body would be condensed into a small pellet and shot at high speeds into the planet???s molten core. Despite these reports, representatives for Sen. Lieberman said he is still scheduled to attend Saturday???s Nook Farm Harvest Festival in Hartford.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21/font1Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21Seems like dude has always wanted to be more than just a CT Senator (i.e., Gore's VP, 2004 Presidential Candidate and Jocking for high positions in a potential McCain administration). He has said and done almost anything to get there. Sure, he always votes yes on liberal stuff like Head Start funding. But, seriously, one wonders what this guy will do next? Whatever it is, Joe the Slummer better do it before his term. Because CT people will not send him back whether he has a D or an I or a R behind his name. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21unless you can back this up, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. what you detect as some sort of posturing in his liberal voting record is, for most people...just a liberal voting record. I mean, why does a liberal Senator vote liberal? you can argue it's for some hidden, nefarious reason, or you can accept that it's how dude actually feels on the issues. as for his "wanting to be more"...again, what Senator would turn down a chair or VP spot? they are all gunning for these spots. Senators use the party; the party uses the Senators. you truly think we should be mad at Lieberman for trying to gain influence in the Senate or within his party? GTFOHWTBS. b, 21b, 21h, 21b, 21b, 21My poorly articluated point was that he is even more disenguous that your average politician. b, 21b, 21His colleagues will caucus and hold a confidential vote. Senators speaking about this publicly are indicating it could go either way. If they strip him, he will holler at McConnell (and CT could recall him). If they let him keep the Chairs CT will not likely send him back for another term. I think the Shays race was a bellwether for that. Lamont was a weak candidate, but his succes in the primary tapped into the energy that was manifest in the 06 midterms and last week's results. Remmber Lincoln Chafee also got lost in that shitstorm. Lamont should have wiped the floor with Lieberman. Anyways, it will be interesting how Claire Mccaskill handles this from the DNC if she takes that Chair.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    /font1
    Quote:/font1h, 21b, 21If you're not with us 100% you're against us. b, 21b, 21h, 21
    b, 21b, 21Oh boy. Is that your only card?
Sign In or Register to comment.