Big Winner In The Lieberman Charade: Me and Holy Joe
>
As you know, I rarely venture Inside the Beltway. I'm always worried that my wish for that area could be fulfilled while I'm there. But last year I was visiting a friend in Virginia and she invited a houseful of Inside the Beltwayites over. One, who works for a Senate leader assured 3 or 4 of us, privately and in confidence, that Lieberman would be dealt with appropriately after the election. I was wondering if he was just lying to us or was far more naive than I ever imagined. It certainly didn't prevent me from taking 7 one hundred dollar bets this week that Lieberman would get to retain his gavel at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. And I certainly hope that the staffer's boss was one of the 13 Democrats worthy of the "D" next to their names. I guess we'll never know; it was a secret vote. But I made $700-- well, $600 and a $100 meal on the fortuitous bets against what I was hoping for but knew was never to be.
Instead Chris Dodd and Ken Salazar offered an insulting-- not insulting to Lieberman, insulting to progressives-- proposal that Lieberman be relieved of the chairmanship of a global warming subcomittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a joke and a deliberate rebuke to the party's base. Not even the apology reactionary Lieberman apologist Evan Bayh "demanded." Good luck on Jim Martin, assholes!
I was wrong. They didn't spontaneously burst out into a chorus of "For He's The Jolly Good Fellow." But maybe they are going to go on Fox News and do it there later. At least they didn't elect him Majority Leader. Listening to NPR a few minutes ago I heard some really slimy scumbag-- I'll find out his name later-- defending Lieberman and attacking progressives claiming, in fact, that Bernie Sanders, who voted to take away Lieberman's gavel, isn't a Democrat; he's a socialist. Yeah? And Lieberman? He's not a Democrat either; he's a Republican viper in their midst. But let no one ever say they don't deserve him.
Labels: Lieberman, Senate Democratic Caucus
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 10:30 AM
13 comments
|
Reddit
13 Comments:
Lieberman had warm words for Chambliss when he visited Atlanta with McCain a few months back.
I wonder if there is some way to guesstimate how much Lieberman cost the Dems $$-wise- as in the extra campaign funds that had to be spent to counteract the Lieberman effect? Senate, House, Presidential campaigns?
Howie, I so much agreed with your earlier post about "let em work for it re: the Martin campaign in GA, and hope you will hammer on that again in further posts.
Valley Girl
No surprises here. I hate the Democrats even more than I hate the Republicans. At least the Republicans never claimed to be my friends.
Change? The more things "change", the more they remain the same.
Oh, come on, Me. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans, as should be clear by the modus operandi of this site: it's about progressives who favor clean, transparent government with plenty of open access versus backroom deals, dirty money, and a pseudo-aristocracy.
...and no one has yet explained to me why Connecticut voters have avoided using the recall on Holy Joe. Come on, now: if he's so unpopular--and I fully believe he is--why hasn't a program to oust the bloated tick ever appeared?
Oye, presidente, prestame algo de "change" pa' la compra de una Dr Pepper de la maquina, oiste?
With all the usual provisos about the POTUS election being a good one, why is anyone surprised about any of this Lieberman jazz?
In 2006, for whom did Obama campaign for JR US Senator in CT, Ned Lamont (anti-war DEMOCRAT) or Lieberman (pro-war INDEP-UBLICAN)?
In the CT campaign who were progressives whose religious practice was PRIVATE? NED LAMONT and JIM DEAN. Who are Jewish and Christian Fundamentalists, respectively? JOE LIEBERMAN, BARACK OBAMA.
It was important that Obama be elected because he's not insane, not because of any false promises of change.
The attitude of the Dems reminds me of an post I read in the NY Times by Ron Klain; 'Speaking Truth Without Power'- February 1, 2008.
These clowns just want to use bloggers. Forget about listening to them. Their loyalty is to each other and the system, not the people who they are elected to serve.
Here's an idea; next time try reverse psychology.
Don't forget the $100 we each save on donations to Jim Martin's campaign, Howie!
Senate Democrats don't know how to reward loyalty or punish treachery, so why should 60 votes matter to them? They've created a bunch of little Liebermans today with this decision.
They can all contribute to Martin's victory fund - I certainly won't.
...and no one has yet explained to me why Connecticut voters have avoided using the recall on Holy Joe. Come on, now: if he's so unpopular--and I fully believe he is--why hasn't a program to oust the bloated tick ever appeared?
I didn't respond to your comment earlier, because I was hoping you'd do some research. Although, many people seem to have the idea that Senators can be "recalled". NOT.
Senators cannot be recalled. I wish it were otherwise.
"didn't respond to your comment earlier, because I was hoping you'd do some research...Senators cannot be recalled. I wish it were otherwise."
Actually, you're right and wrong. I could have researched; you could have been polite, instead of an ass; and you could have researched this yourself, and gotten your information correct. You would have discovered (as I just did) that 18 states have US Senate recalls in place. Too bad Connecticut isn't one of 'em.
Balakirev-
My apologies. Obviously I didn't do my research fully.
It's just that this question about CT recall of Lieberman has been asked SO many times on various blogs.
My understanding previously was that no states allow for recall of a US Senator. Obviously, *I* too need to do more research.
No problems. The thing is, I tend to avoid commenting or reading comments in most other blogs, where people jostle to post inane comments first, or the flames are endless. I'd not gotten an answer to this question and remembered--obviously, incorrectly--that all states had Congressional recall measures in place. It still boggles what remains of my mind to observe that most states don't. Presumably, the only legal remedy is the rending of sackcloth.
Holy Joe is one of the most sanctimonious, hypocritical, self-righteous, wrong-headed, proud bigots to reside in a body that is not exactly noted for the opposites of these qualities. When I read about him I'm reminded of a comment John Randolph made about Henry Clay: "Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks." Except that in Clay's case, it was his abilities that shone; Lieberman shines by his lies and xenophobia. I hope someday the citizens of Connecticut wake up and pass such a recall bill, and name it after him. It will be the only honor of which he is truly worthy.
Only someone completely heartless could not be happy for Obama's win.
But I notice that I am the only ocmmenter to write those five letters. Richard Stanczak is right.
I was just glad to be inelgible to contribute being a foreign national and resident. So, the President-elect never did get my hard-earned money.
Connecticut 2006 was a power game. It was inmportant to Obama and the Clintons to keep Lieberman in and it was important to Howard Dean to get Lamont in. Obama and Lieberman have always been tight and Obama has always been more comfortable in the Senate among REpublicans. Those are the facts of life.
We do some good as bloggers when we write with honesty, although it's kind of irrelevant to me because Martin Torrjios and not Barack Obama is my president.
"Obama and Lieberman have always been tight..."
Evidence?
"...and Obama has always been more comfortable in the Senate among REpublicans."
The votes just don't bear you out.
I can't wait for the DSCC to send me their next donation request, which they do every few weeks. They are not getting a dime from me because they supported that snake, Liarman.
Post a Comment
<< Home