Vengeful Democrats Out To Get Lieberman

[Sanslines]

Lieberman risks payback from Democrats

Could lose Senate chairmanship for calling Obama 'untested' before GOP

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif
updated 5:33 p.m. ET, Thurs., Sept. 4, 2008

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats hinted at payback Thursday for Sen. Joe Lieberman, who called Barack Obama an untested candidate beholden to Democratic interest groups in a prime-time Republican National Convention address.

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent and a close friend of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, still caucuses with Democrats, which allows them to control the Senate with a 51-49 majority . A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated Thursday that Lieberman may no longer be welcome.

"Lieberman went too far when he distorted Sen. Obama's record," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "From Reid's perspective, (Lieberman) has every right to give a partisan speech to whomever he wants. But he doesn't have the right to distort Sen. Obama's record like that. Sen. Reid was very disappointed in Lieberman's speech."

Added Manley: "The Democratic caucus will likely revisit Lieberman's situation after the November elections."

Asked if Reid was putting Lieberman on notice, Manley replied: "Without overplaying it, the answer is, yes."

Manley refused to discuss what options Democrats might consider in dealing with Lieberman.

"There is no plan," Manley said. "I assume this is something the Democratic caucus will discuss after the elections in November."

There's speculation that if Democrats bolster their Senate majority this fall, as many predict, they could seek retribution by ousting Lieberman from his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship, a coveted post.

Lieberman said he's not surprised that Democrats may seek to punish him. He said electing the right person to the White House is more important to him than partisan considerations.

"I am going to try to do the best I can to get the best person elected, which is McCain, and let the politics take care of itself afterward," Lieberman said in a telephone conference call with reporters Thursday. "I understand my Democratic colleagues are not happy because I am doing something unconventional. But that, to me, just seems to be what my priorities should be right now."

[Naturist Mark]

LOL!

Long overdue.

[Qikdraw]

Leiberman just needs to switch to the republican party where he belongs. He only has his Senate seat still because of republican voters who voted for him instead of the token republican running for that senate seat.

Hell even republicans and pundits are saying he should just switch over. Its pretty bloody obvious.

[usmc1]

Vengeful? Hmmm, for an "independent" that's a pretty harsh description of Democrats exercising a bit of long-overdue party discipline.

Personally, I think Lieberman should be serving in the Knesset rather than the United States Senate, since virtually all of his foreign policy votes and influence hinges on the welfare of Israel.

[Sanslines]

Leiberman just needs to switch to the republican party where he belongs. He only has his Senate seat still because of republican voters who voted for him instead of the token republican running for that senate seat.

Hell even republicans and pundits are saying he should just switch over. Its pretty bloody obvious.

When Arnie was asked why he does not switch over to the Democratic Party, he answered by saying something to the effect that ...."Democrats.........Republicans..........these are just words...........call me whatever you wish but I am here to represent the people of the State of California.........."

Where is the allegation that Lieberman is some sort of 'spy' that was planted by the Republicans to keep an inside eye on the Democrats?

[Dolby]

As someone from Connecticut, I agree that the Democrats should do something about Lieberman. Partisan politics aside, he has betrayed his party and those who voted for him. Frankly I agree that he's more interested in supporting Israel than his state. I suppose he has every right to support whomever he wants for president, but to be an active participant for someone who's platform goes against many of the things Lieberman supposedly stands for is hypocritical.

I had voted for Lieberman the first few terms, but I think enough is enough. If he runs for another term, I will vote for his opponent. It will be interesting to see if a majority in this state feels the same sense of betrayal that I do.

[usmc1]

When Arnie was asked why he does not switch over to the Democratic Party, he answered by saying something to the effect that ...."Democrats.........Republicans..........these are just words...........call me whatever you wish but I am here to represent the people of the State of California.........."

Where is the allegation that Lieberman is some sort of 'spy' that was planted by the Republicans to keep an inside eye on the Democrats?

Good question where is the allegation? Since it doesn't exist, why enter it into the discussion?

[Qikdraw]

When Arnie was asked why he does not switch over to the Democratic Party, he answered by saying something to the effect that ...."Democrats.........Republicans..........these are just words...........call me whatever you wish but I am here to represent the people of the State of California.........."

I have two minds about Arnie... He's very good on environmental issues, is pro choice and pro stem cell, howver his handout to the insurance companies on workers comp pissed me off, and his cancelling the lawsuit against Enron for the 9 billion they stole from california just boggles me.

Where is the allegation that Lieberman is some sort of 'spy' that was planted by the Republicans to keep an inside eye on the Democrats?

As usmc1 said: 'Since it doesn't exist, why enter it into the discussion? '.

[Sanslines]

I have two minds about Arnie... He's very good on environmental issues, is pro choice and pro stem cell, howver his handout to the insurance companies on workers comp pissed me off, and his cancelling the lawsuit against Enron for the 9 billion they stole from california just boggles me.

It seems like you have a personal grudge against Worker's Comp In California. What exactly is it that they have not done for you?



As usmc1 said: 'Since it doesn't exist, why enter it into the discussion? '.

No doubt it will become part of the national discussion soon enough. Desperate people do desperate things and there is no doubt that as we creep closer and closer to the election, anyone even remotely associated with (in this particular case since we are talking about Lieberman) the Republican party will be ridiculed and attacked.

[Qikdraw]

It seems like you have a personal grudge against Worker's Comp In California. What exactly is it that they have not done for you?

We've discussed this already. I have no desire for your cut and paste insurance company propoganda again. But thanks for asking.

No doubt it will become part of the national discussion soon enough. Desperate people do desperate things and there is no doubt that as we creep closer and closer to the election, anyone even remotely associated with (in this particular case since we are talking about Lieberman) the Republican party will be ridiculed and attacked.

Desperate people put issues into arguements that are not there. WHich is exactly what you are doing. Can I play that game too? Where is the allegations that Obama raped a girl when he was younger? Where are the allegations that John McCain has a 19 year old mistress and a child with her? Where are the allegations that Palin has been sleeping with her Luitenant Governor? Where are the allegations that Biden has an overbite?

I can make up an arguement too. Isn't this fun?

[Sanslines]

We've discussed this already. I have no desire for your cut and paste insurance company propoganda again. But thanks for asking.

No, we actually have never discussed your personal reasons as to why you are so angry at California State Worker's Comp. What do you want from California State Worker's Comp that you are not getting? Tis a puzzlement.


Desperate people put issues into arguements that are not there. WHich is exactly what you are doing. Can I play that game too? Where is the allegations that Obama raped a girl when he was younger? Where are the allegations that John McCain has a 19 year old mistress and a child with her? Where are the allegations that Palin has been sleeping with her Luitenant Governor? Where are the allegations that Biden has an overbite?

I can make up an arguement too. Isn't this fun?

Yeah, but I am not desperate. You are avoiding the issue by attempting to 'spin' the issue. Nice try! No doubt there will be those who will indeed accuse Lieberman of all sort of nasty things pertaining to his 'sellout'. This is factual and has absolutely nothing to do with your above silliness which has absolutely no justification.

[usmc1]

No doubt it will become part of the national discussion soon enough. Desperate people do desperate things and there is no doubt that as we creep closer and closer to the election, anyone even remotely associated with (in this particular case since we are talking about Lieberman) the Republican party will be ridiculed and attacked.

But until it does, let's just erect ourselves a straw man and batter the hell out of it shall we?

[Qikdraw]

No, we actually have never discussed your personal reasons as to why you are so angry at California State Worker's Comp. What do you want from California State Worker's Comp that you are not getting? Tis a puzzlement.

Actually yes we did, and not too long ago either. I suggest looking back over your posts.

Yeah, but I am not desperate. You are avoiding the issue by attempting to 'spin' the issue. Nice try! No doubt there will be those who will indeed accuse Lieberman of all sort of nasty things pertaining to his 'sellout'. This is factual and has absolutely nothing to do with your above silliness which has absolutely no justification.

I'm sorry, what was the issue again? Oh yes you creating a story about democrats calling Leiberman a 'spy'... When did this happen exactly? About the same time my silliness came out eh? So the only spin I see is yours by creating a story out of thin air.

[usmc1]

Actually yes we did, and not too long ago either. I suggest looking back over your posts.



I'm sorry, what was the issue again? Oh yes you creating a story about democrats calling Leiberman a 'spy'... When did this happen exactly? About the same time my silliness came out eh? So the only spin I see is yours by creating a story out of thin air.

Could you help me out here? I've had a question, or two, on the floor since before you did, so take a number. No neve rmind, that's ok, I'll just sit back and watch and drink a cool one and eat me some popcorn

What I'm trying to find out, sort of like you're trying to find out about your spy-thing, is where are the lynch mobs and hate-mongers?

I'm starting to think it might somehow be connected to flap-doodle and yammer-yammer of the right wing sort.

We'll see when you get your answer.

[Sanslines]

I'm sorry, what was the issue again? Oh yes you creating a story about democrats calling Leiberman a 'spy'... When did this happen exactly? About the same time my silliness came out eh? So the only spin I see is yours by creating a story out of thin air.

Now you are really being silly. I said this: "Where is the allegation that Lieberman is some sort of 'spy' that was planted by the Republicans to keep an inside eye on the Democrats?"

How can it possible be construed that this sentence even remotely implies that I 'created' a story about democrats calling Lieberman a spy? A one sentence question is hardly a 'story' even by the wildest stretch of one's wild imagination.

Now don't you really feel silly for making up your own 'story'? You silly man, you! Twisting and distorting to avoid real discussion! Must be bored!

[Sanslines]

Now that the silliness has been settled, back to the important issues of the day:

Lieberman’s Revenge

If the Connecticut hawk can’t convert the Democrats, he’ll take them down.</I>

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

Joseph Lieberman was once at home in the Democratic Party. He won his Connecticut state senate seat in 1970 as a Democrat, rising to majority leader. Then he won the attorney generalship in 1982, where he stayed until his U.S. Senate victory. His friends still argue that he was robbed of the vice presidency in 2000.
Even after losing the 2006 Senate Democratic primary to the antiwar Ned Lamont, Lieberman promised to remain faithful to his party. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats and stand with them on procedural votes if elected, though he owed his seat to the GOP: 70 percent of Connecticut Republicans cast their ballots for Lieberman, compared to only 33 percent of Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed him to keep his seniority and his committee positions. And Lieberman told colleagues that he wished to see a Democrat elected president in 2008.




<CENTER>http://www.amconmag.com/largecover.php?Id=AmConservative-2008jun16</CENTER>


That doesn’t mean Lieberman hasn’t been trying to renovate his old home. His plan: “to keep alive the principled, internationalist, and muscular foreign policy tradition that once lay at the heart of the Democratic Party.” This translated into reflexive approval for the 1991 Gulf War “because our president has asked us to vote to support him” and early advocacy of intervention in Kosovo because “fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” From 1995-2001, he chaired the Democratic Leadership Council, a hub for liberal hawks, and in 2002, he joined the Project for a New American Century’s Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Lieberman argues that his is not only a principled position but a politically advantageous one. He told a group at Johns Hopkins University last year that by the time he reached office, liberal internationalism “had been out of fashion in Democratic circles for 20 years. But then, Democrats had also been out of power for most of those 20 years—something that struck me and many others as more than coincidental. Simply put, the American people didn’t trust Democrats to keep them safe, and the McGovernite legacy was a big reason why.”

With the nomination of Barack Obama, Lieberman sees the McGovernite faction ascendant. So he has reneged on his promise and endorsed Republican John McCain, renewing his ideological assault on his old party. “Dean Acheson once warned, ‘no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies,’” he recently wrote. “This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.”

But Joe Lieberman has changed his teaching tactics. For this self-styled “Independent Democrat,” being loyal to his former party now means inflicting defeat upon it. If he becomes a major figure in the McCain administration along the way, so much the better.

Writing in the New York Post, Lieberman explained why he crossed party lines: “[T]he dangers we face as a nation are too profound, and the challenges we face too real, for us to let partisan politics decide who we will support.” He campaigns regularly with the Arizona senator and co-authors editorials with him. “I am spending all the time I can outside the Senate to help him become our next president,” he recently told the press.

Acting as a gunslinger for McCain means firing direct shots at the presumptive Democratic nominee: “My Senate colleague Barack Obama … has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left-wing on a single significant issue in this campaign, nor for that matter has he worked with Republicans in the Senate during his three and a half years there to forge the tough, bipartisan compromises that produce results for the American people.” By contrast, Lieberman claims that McCain “has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right—regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it … to reach across party lines to get things done for our country.”

His primary line of attack against Obama has been the Illinois senator’s vision of diplomacy. He criticizes Obama’s willingness to meet with the president of Iran, whom Lieberman calls “the terrorist leader of a terrorist regime.” Meanwhile, Lieberman says Obama and the Democrats “have simultaneously pledged to abandon the democratically-elected government in Baghdad.” He hurls similar charges at Obama for agreeing to meet with Kim Jong Il while he “turns his back on South Korea with his opposition to a trade agreement with Seoul.”

Lieberman doesn’t just criticize Obama’s policies, he regularly strikes at his former party’s ideology. In May, he delivered the keynote speech at a fundraising dinner for the influential journal Commentary in which he lambasted Democrats for giving in to defeatism: “At critical moments and on critical issues of foreign policy and homeland security, they have resurrected the profoundly wrong and persistently unsuccessful McGovern-Carter worldview...” He longed for “the Democratic Party that I grew up in—a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders, a party that grasped the link between the survival of freedom at home and the survival of freedom abroad.” Invoking Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, Lieberman urged his former comrades to be once again, “a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters around the world against the forces of totalitarianism, or we would fall divided.”

But Lieberman’s boyhood Democratic Party is not one his former friends and colleagues recognize. “Lieberman badly misrepresents history,” says George Jepsen. “Let him not forget Jack Kennedy learned the hard way from the Bay of Pigs to be skeptical of military-only solutions.” Jepsen recently served as chairman of the Connecticut Democratic Party and later chaired Ned Lamont’s campaign. In contrast to Lieberman’s deference to Gen. David Petraeus, Jepsen recalls that Kennedy rejected the advice of the officer class during the Cuban missile crisis, averting war.

Lieberman’s crusade raises an obvious question. “I am sometimes asked why… I do not simply become a Republican,” he said recently. “I continue to be a Democrat because I believe there is a critical need for two great American political parties with strong national security wings. We need a Democratic Party whose national security strategy isn’t subject to editorial review by Moveon.org and Daily Kos.” And, of course, Lieberman remains a liberal at heart. He favors universal health care and has been a reliable supporter of abortion rights throughout his career. He supports gun-control legislation and fiercely opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He has joined McCain in supporting campaign-finance reform, cap-and-trade schemes for carbon reduction, and “comprehensive immigration reform.” None of these are conservative positions, but since Lieberman has rallied to the defense of President Bush’s policies in Iraq, the conservative movement has rallied to him.

Eight years ago, the Right mocked Lieberman’s half of the 2000 Democratic ticket as “Loserman.” But instead of viewing his 2006 campaign with detachment, leading conservatives rushed to his aid. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and National Review ignored the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, and endorsed Loserman. NRO editorialized that a win by the antiwar Lamont would mean “the Daily Kos crowd will have succeeded in remaking the Democratic party while reducing the party’s national influence.” They conceded, “Life is full of trade-offs.” Of course, the editorial proved precisely wrong. In the midterms, “the Daily Kos crowd” connected with a public tired of war, and Democrats saw their national influence rise.

But movement conservatives are not dissuaded. Ever supportive of Bush’s war policies, they continue to abandon their own intellectual forebears even as they sign on to Lieberman’s campaign to revive Truman and Kennedy. Larry Kudlow, who in 2000 derided Lieberman as “a typical Northeastern Democratic liberal,” has done a perfect 180, recently describing Lieberman’s remarks to Commentary, as “a tour-de-force speech that impressed me once again with the brilliance of Joe Lieberman. Frankly, he would make a good president. Undoubtedly, he will have a major cabinet post if John McCain wins.”

But however disloyal these political maneuverings might seem to Democrats, they can’t claim that Lieberman is motivated by personal animus. Bob Hanfling, an old hand in Connecticut Democratic politics going back to the ’70s, says, “Whether you agree with him or not, it is unthinkable that he would take positions on such serious matters out of spite.” It would be “inconsistent with his integrity. He deep down believes that it is good for the U.S. and good for Israel, good for the Middle East.” Lieberman’s own words demonstrate that his political commitments are rooted in ideology. He gave his audience at Commentary a pitch-perfect neoconservative view of patriotism, rejecting the conservative attachment to mere hearth and home and liberal skepticism about America’s capabilities and intentions. His love of country is “rooted not in arbitrary attachment to our country’s land or its borders, but in a recognition that the values that were present at the creation of America and animate it still—the values of freedom and justice and opportunity—are not just our own national values; they are universal and eternal values, which are right and true not only for us in our own time, but for all people in every time.”
While Lieberman may not be acting out of pique, that doesn’t mean his politics are untainted by ambition. One former Connecticut colleague attests that Lieberman has long felt touched by destiny: “He always had this vision he would be the first Jewish president, and things were just going to work out.” Until Florida, they did. McCain’s improbable nomination gives Lieberman another chance. Jepsen states bluntly, “He has to rise with McCain. … McCain likes him and no one is more indebted to him … it’s his ticket to the next step up.”

Lieberman rebuffs speculation about his position in a McCain administration, but he does drop hints. In his speech at the Paul H. Nitze School at Johns Hopkins University, Lieberman identified himself with Nitze, a hawkish Democrat who served in the Truman and Kennedy administrations. To combat anti-interventionists in both parties, Nitze helped to reconstitute the Committee on the Present Danger, which lobbied against détente and the SALT II agreement. While remaining a Democrat, Nitze later served as Reagan’s chief negotiator in arms reduction treaties and as a special adviser to the president and his secretary of state. Lieberman seems eager to follow in Nitze’s footsteps.
In reality, Lieberman’s wish to see two American political parties with “strong national security wings” is a desire to see dissent from anti-interventionism forever discredited. McCain’s primary victory has temporarily secured hawks’ supremacy in the GOP. And while Lieberman may never again influence his party in a direct manner, a McCain victory in November, aided by Lieberman, could be used to frighten Democrats into accepting the neoconservative view of history: that doves will always lose, that America is fundamentally an activist nation. It’s up to Democrats to prove him wrong.

[Sanslines]

Lieberman Sounds Like He will Speak at Republican Convention

Lieberman, now an independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats, has been a vocal supporter of McCain for president and he may speak on his behalf at the Republican convention in Minneapolis later this summer.
"That decision hasn't been made," Lieberman said on NBC's "Meet the Press". "If John McCain feels that I can help his candidacy, which I think it's so important to elect him our next president, I will do it."
Lieberman's comments echo what he has said recently about the convention, but the senator then strongly implied that he will appear at the GOP gathering.
"I'm not going to go to that convention, the Republican convention, and spend my time attacking Barack Obama. I'm going to go there really talking about why I support John McCain and why I hope a lot of other independents and Democrats will do that and frankly, I'm going to go to a partisan convention and tell them, if I go, why it's so important that we start to act like Americans and not as partisan mud-slingers."
"Sounds like you're going to go," replied host Tom Brokaw.
"Sounds like that to me too," agreed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as all three men laughed.
There is speculation that Lieberman might even appear at the convention as McCain's vice-presidential nominee, but Lieberman has said he is not interested in the position, adding that McCain could find someone better.
Lieberman was Al Gore's vice-presidential running mate on the Democrats' unsuccessful 2000 ticket. "Been there, done that," the Connecticut senator has said in the past when asked about the possibility of holding that position with McCain.
"It's not happening," Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittmann told ABC News this week.
Republican party rules (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5390306&page=1) would also seem to make it difficult for Lieberman to share the ticket with McCain. And as ABC News' Jan Crawford Greenburg and Howard Rosenberg reported (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obamas-vp-short.html) last month, Lieberman's appearance could loose him both his Senate committee and his ability to caucus with Democrats.

And a reply to this article:

dems get him out hes a republican spy out to destroy the democrats!!!

http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/corner-bot_left.gif http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/corner-bot_right.gif <!--!-->

<!--!-->
Posted by: angie | Aug 3, 2008 4:04:20 PM

[usmc1]

dems get him out hes a republican spy out to destroy the democrats!!!

http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/corner-bot_left.gif http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/corner-bot_right.gif <!--!-->

<!--!-->
Posted by: angie | Aug 3, 2008 4:04:20 PM
Oh well hell yeah, that proves it. Angie said it! Is she the hate-mongering lynch mob, part of it, or just its leader?

I had a neighbor once in San Antonio named Angie. She loved to go square dancing. I wonder it it's the same one?

Angie said it! That's a real debate stopper. Angie said it!

Whoa Nellie! I'm going to start channeling Angie the way you conservatives channel the founders, and we'll just see.

[Sanslines]

Vengeance Unlimited:

Vengeance Unlimited is a TV series broadcast during 1998-1999 on ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company) which lasted for just one season of sixteen episodes. The show starred Michael Madsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Madsen) as Mr. Chapel, a mysterious and pragmatic character keen on serving justice to those who have been ignored by the law (similar to The Equalizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equalizer)). Many blame the demise of the show on its timeslot, which placed it opposite the wildly popular Friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_(TV_series)).

Premise

When Mr. Chapel takes a case, his demand is simple. Either pay a very high fee, $1 million, or promise to do him a favor at some time in the future -- whatever, whenever and wherever he needs you -- then your debt will be paid in full. In the series pilot, it becomes clear that Mr. Chapel has been doing this for quite some time, as he calls in more than one such favor to help his clients. A running joke throughout the series came whenever one of Mr. Chapel's former clients paid their debt. Mr. Chapel would say, "We're even. I'm out of your life. Forever." The client would invariably respond, "Thank God!"
Chapel makes few promises. Those that he does make, he will fulfill (or die trying). On one occasion, he handcuffs one man in a car, with a dump truck hurtling toward it; when the man gives in, Chapel dives into the car to unlock the cuffs and pull the man to safety at the last instant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We all need a Mr Chapel to save us from the 'lynch mob and radical hate mongers'.

[usmc1]

Vengeance Unlimited:

Vengeance Unlimited is a TV series broadcast during 1998-1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We all need a Mr Chapel to save us from the 'lynch mob and radical hate mongers'.

Oh, I see. Lynch mobs and hate mongers refer to a bit of TV fiction from a decade ago. And, there is some sort of relevance?