What are your feelings on him? I personally want him thrown out of the democratic caucus. He's no more a democrat than I am Elvis reincarnated. If they think he's going to vote with them, it only shows that democratic majority feels insecure. He's the closest thing to a turncoat that we have today. I'd be happy to see the end of Mr. Smiley. But he'll retire with a cushy retirement plan and probably profittable speaking engagements with the republicans. I don't want him as chairman on Homeland Security. He killed the investigation on Katrina. Why? To protect his republican friends? http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/24/katrina.levees/index.html
Haha. Only this guy can get kicked out of a party called "Connecticut for Lieberman Party". The guy's a douche. He had Obama campaign for him to get elected back a few years, and then he openly campaigned against him and held hands with McCain to get people to vote McCain. Devil in a suit.
Being from Connecticut, I think it's easy to ignore the fact that aside from foreign policy and a few other things, Lieberman is a pretty liberal Democrat and votes with them 85% of the time. Though what he did was stupid he has a right to his own opinion. Also don't forget the fact when he lost the primary in 2006, all the Dems turned on him, even his friends in his home state and were like fuck you and went behind Lamont, and then Lieberman won pretty easily, I think he had a right to be pissed, and yet he still gave the Dems the tie breaking vote in the senate for the past 2 years
It seems I saw his face 90 percent of the time standing behind McCain/Palin. Lieberman only won because like in California the republicans put their money machine behind him. His vote didn't gain the dems anything, they had to pander to him whenever he chose to vote with them. The Dems never had a real majority with him tilting the balance, he made that quite clear during this election. The republicans love to say they had a majority, but we never have if we counted Lieberman.
Um, no, the Dems did have a majority with him and Lieberman voted with them most of the time. And no he wasn't brought and paid for, it's easy for people around the country to say that, but at least before he went campaigning for McCain, Lieberman won because aside from people who's anti war stance was their most important issue and young people, Lieberman was generally still very popular in Connecticut. Not to mention the fact Ned Lamont was an asshole, as the election got closer people that have met him or knew him kept saying what an asshole he really was in private life.
Don't quite know how too look at Sen. Lieberman.. even from the perspective of a Ct resident... I'm too aware that any opinions I may have are media created and nurtured. There's almost always more to the story than what's being fed to me.
Yeah, and you know, if it's hard to figure someone out who's in the public eye I think that's pretty telling that there is some cause for suspect. BTW, Nutmegs are my favourite Americans.
I think he's just one of those people who likes to be precious. To get attention. Sort of like "undecided voters." "Why won't I make up my mind? (batting eyelashes) ... Because you want me to."
I would listen to Senator Joe when he was a guest on Imus in the morning radio and remember when he was Democratic Vice Presedential nominee on Al Gore's ticket in 2000. He seems reasonable intelligent, personable. Lieberman had the courage to vote against his caucus on one issue, that one issue caused an emotional overload in the Democratic Party who then reacted strongly by nominating an unknown against a tenured Senator. The voters of Connecticut re-elected Joe by a wide margin, they know something about the man. Lieberman's crime is that he showed up Democrats as the knee jerk idealouges they are on Bush's War. Democrats are angry that they look bad while Lieberman looks independent. Should Democrats overact yet again they will look bad as Lieberman has national stature and friends in media. Lieberman is a reliable Democratic vote on every issue except national security. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122705482246939365.html
Thank you for saying what I wanted to, Lieberman is a hawk when it comes to foriegn policy, no doubt, but aside from that he's more Democrat then alot of the newer Democrats from Southern and western states are
I don't know if either of you have been hearing the news lately, but your characterization of the democrats is off the mark. Far from being knee-jerk ideologues, the Democratic Caucus has voted by a wide margin to let Lieberman hang on to his chairmanship, and to let him continue caucusing as a dem. Oh, and you left off a little bitty detail about Lieberman: he not only supported and campaigned for John McCain, he campaigned, supported, and raised money for down-ticket republicans. It's not about principles. It's about playing both sides against the middle for personal gain. Here is the deal: he made a political bet a few years ago supporting the invasion of Iraq "cakewalk" when it seemed the republicans might get a permanent majority. He was using his position as the 51st "dem" in the senate to maintain above all his own prominence. He lost his bet. Lucky for him he may just wind up being the 60th vote, which is even bigger. He also hedged by never leaving the dem caucus. Do I think dems should take him back? Yes. Do I think you can trust him as far as you can throw him? No.
Nor am I. I am actually writing a paper on that right now. Though I am not just against protected areas but all drilling. Move forward dangit. Stop applying bandaids to the energy crisis. As far as Lieberman goes though.....he has too many faces to know his true agenda.
This ties in to Mak's thread about GM going under. The new regime needs to let GM die and then wag a finger at Ford and Chrysler to retool using non-petroleum based fuels. Hydrogen, solar, kinetic, whatever. Maybe if they see one of their own go down in flames they'll evolve. But no bailouts. I haven't purchased a new car in 16 years. Why should I pay to fix their stupidity? Big business should take care of itself or die and let mom and pop provide. But the dependence on petroleum has to end. Lieberman knows this but he's catering.
I completely agree. I had to do my paper in two portions. The first was strickly opinion and the second is the opinion paper sprinkled with academic research. This has been a really difficult road because to find scientific factual information in regards to why drilling is not a good idea. It has to come from government or academic research. And there is not much out there. Now organizations that are environmentally based have a shit load....however they are biased and I cannot use them. *bangs head on computer* My teacher didn't agree with my paper though. ......lol! Then again, people who get their info from main stream society don't. She said "even Obama feels that some drilling is needed" I said I didn't care what he thought and that I feel its a moral issue that doesn't make sense. Why invest in oil when the reserve is only about 3 years worth and the money could be used for renewable sources. Its money vs moral choice for me....and fuck money. My car is 8 years old and I will drive it until it dies....I could care less about new stuff. Though its a Toyota and gets 38 miles per gallon on the highway....so she's a keeper anyway.
Well smirking Joe kept his chairmanship of Homeland security. Will the dems regret it, most probably.
LOL...way to bring this back around to the original post, sorry to take it off track. I say....we just wait and see instead of speculating what may/may not happen.
Well they did pull him from the Environment and Public Works Committee. And the dems are saying they can pull him from the Homeland Security Committee at will. Perhaps he'll prove he's part of the majority.
