screw joe lieberman.

he could play hero from now to kingdom come and it wouldn't make up for his past failures.

Yet another in a series of arguments to get rid of the Senate. It is a relic.

Does this make Lieberman The Elephant Whisperer?

It's a higher-order version of the peculiar and irritating fact that elections are generally decided by people who can't make up their minds. Specter had already discounted all the arguments and facts-- If Lieberman's friendship was the last straw-- well, so be it.

You seem to forget that we are dealing with people, not machines. Obama's main strength is that he never forgets this simple little truth.

Lieberman can't be trusted. If he did something for Obama it must have been due his own agenda in some way. If you don't understand something follow the money.

Signs are that he will lose big time if he runs for his Senage seat in CT next time. I have a Jewish friend who is sure that if only Jews had voted in CT last time Lieberman would have lost badly. AS someone else said, "Strange club, the Senate".

The ... millions of lost jobs and years of recession wasn't enough t... But Joe Lieberman's kind smile and warm wit?

Isn't this precisely how the Beltway insiders see view the world? It reminds me of a great French movie, "Ridicule", in which a young count needs help from the king because his people are dying of malaria. When he gets to Versailles, he is told that he must use his wit to get into the king's inner circle, because humor is the only thing the king responds to. The context is that it immediately precedes the French Revolution. The Village might want to study this part of history.

Hey Benen how about try reading the articles you link to.

"He was important," said Sen. Specter, who, along with Collins and her fellow Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, broke ranks to join the Democrats. "But the critical talks occurred between Senator Reid, Senator Collins and, for awhile, Senator Voinovich. Those were the principal discussions."

I defy you or anybody else here to go through that article and speak on something LIEberman actually did to help the negotiations. You have one centrist Dem that says he was helpful because he and Spector are friends. But you have Sen Spector turn around and say he wasn't even as helpful as Voinovich. About the most remarkable thing they say Lieberman did in that article was to yell when he knew cameras around that they needed to get it doen. Maybe just maybe we should be wary of propaganda, even when its published in the huffington post.

How about factoring in these pertinent facts.

1. Lieberman campaigned for Collins, perhaps if he didn't we wouldn't have needed her vote.

2. Had President Obama smashed Lieberman like a bug perhaps the House Republicans wouldn't have been so eager to test him. As it was treating him with kid gloves made him look week to those craven a$$holes.

3. While I understand that the 60 votes were needed even though you won't publish the reason why it still remains that those centrists cut about 500,000 jobs out of the stimulus bill. Hardly something to cheer about.

4. The clown that LIEberman campaigned for as president John McCain, led the charge against the stimulus bill employing the same kind of dishonest and dishonorable tactics that he used on the campaign trail.

Joe LIEberman isn't anybody's hero and he did nothing to validate allowing him to keep his chairmanship. PERIOD.

Progressives need to get over Lieberman. You are just whiny fucking babies. How's Ned Lamont working out now bitches. That shit was SO cash.

screw joe lieberman? maybe if the republicans weren't increasingly the party of neanderthals. or if the senate reforms the filibuster.

if there is any one lesson that you can take away from lincoln, it's that you've got to put aside ego at times to get things done. lieberman's actions don't make him a hero; they make obama a smart politician.

This is a reminder that there is only so much you can "change" before you simply have to wait for the old generation to retire. Soon enough we'll be rid of Lieberman AND Spector, but it will take about a decade or so. Obama is contenting with a generation of people who grew up under the Nixon and Reagan rules of what they thought was true. They're not going to change their stripes until they're retired or dead. For now, we have to deal with them, even if they're out of step with the American people.

Meanwhile, we should be thankful for the jokers in the senate that we DID manage to get rid of.

Perhaps. But...

Wow. Incisive commentary on the actual topic.

Obama is contenting with a generation of people...
Posted by: Tyro

That sounds antigrammatical.

Tyro that's ageist. You should be ashamed of yourself. You progressives pretend to care about tolerance only as long as it helps your faggy bullshit.

I was amused to read in Nixonland the second part of RFK's famous remark that George McGovern was the most decent man in the senate: "..and the only one, too". I doubt that ratio has changed much over the years. As someone once said, there's only one way to look upon any politician, and that is down.

According to wiki, California has 70x as many people as Wyoming. Maybe the Senate shouldn't be directly proportional. Maybe the FFs had a point about the Senate being a necessary brake on the impulses of the masses, but this is obscene. In today's senatorial reality, a California voter can barely be considered a citizen with representation. The country is too much of a republic(non-democratic). The Senate needs to be fixed!

Relax, change in the Senate is coming fast even though the elephants and the elephant whisperer don't realize it yet. Just don't tip them off. Here's the historical record of the results of Senate elections in a comparable era:

71st Congress 1929- (result of the same 1928 election that elected Hoover-despite the economic difficulties in many parts of the country already)--
Comfortable R majority:
56R-39D-1Farmer-Labor

72nd Congress 1931 R majority of 1 (this the result of the 1930 election held over a year after the market crash):
48R-47D-1FL

73d Congress 1933
FDR elected strong D majority
59D-36R-1FL

But that was not the end of it of course, with the Republican party then behaving almost exactly as the Republicans are now responding, by denying reality and the will of the people. The American public clearly sees for itself what they are doing as they did in the 1930s. Look at the next 2 elections after FDR was elected.

74th Congress 1935
69D-25R-1FL-1Progressive

75th Congress 1937 (FDR's 1st reelection)
76D-17R-2FL-1 Progressive

17 Republican Senators out of 96 in just 8 years from a strong majority. I don't think the Republican leadership realizes how precarious their positions are in the country now that the country can see what real and effective leadership, provided by the President, actually looks like.

An extreme majority is what they are about to hand over to the Democratic party, no strings attached.

I would like to see a massive grassroots effort by Dems to remind the public of their own Republican Congress persons who voted against this bill.

I would like to see this in every city and in every state from now till the next election and beyond.

It could be in the form of letters to the editor, blogs, whine lines, etc.

h

Parliamentary government's advantages are once again illustrated.

That sounds antigrammatical. -red state mike

Aw, still sore from your temporary banning last week. Still shooting for that permaban, eh?

You know, red, if you close your eyes, and lean in real close to your speakers, you can hear the tiny violins we're all playing for you.

I'm consistently astonished by the power a single senator has over legislation that reaches far beyond their constituency. Seems patently undemocratic that a body that purposefully over represents small populations has, for various reasons, grown far more powerful than it's proportionally represented counterpart.

Still shooting for that permaban, eh?

Heh. Already there, and have been for many months.

Seems patently undemocratic that a body that purposefully over represents small populations has, for various reasons, grown far more powerful than it's proportionally represented counterpart.
Posted by: doubtful

Did someone amend the constitution recently?

Did someone amend the constitution recently? -red state mike

You're a lousy reader.

I said undemocratic. Not unconstitutional. They are, and always will be two completely different things.

Fuck, you have to reallytry to be this stupid, right? Don't you ever get tired of playing/being dumb?

You're a lousy reader.

But you also said...

has, for various reasons, grown far more powerful

Uh, their powers are strictly defined by the Constitution, which remains unchanged. And swing voters in *any* forum are critical.

You're just a bad student of history.

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

You're just a bad student of history. -red state mike

Are you seriously making an argument that the Senate's power, especially that of a single Senator, hasn't increased, especially over the past two decades, for various reasons, not the least of which is media attention.

That doesn't make me a bad student of history, that makes you a denier of history.

I know you have to initiate and maintain all conversation from a intellectually dishonest position lest we revoke your troll status, but honestly, you've strayed so far into the realm of the absurd. It's going to be a rough 8 years for you, isn't it?

As Davis Axelrod noted on Meet the Press 2.15.09, Lieberman was just along for the ride with the Republicans Specter, Snow and Collins.

Are you seriously making an argument that the Senate's power, especially that of a single Senator, hasn't increased...
Posted by: doubtful

Actually, you're trying to make the wholly unsubstantiated argument that it has, in spite of the fact that the Constitution, which dictates their power, remains unchanged. You offer nothing other than your own opinion to support your argument. Period.

RSM, I guess, is willing to be obtuse for the purpose of being argumentative. It is, sadly, a trait that the right-wing has encouraged over the past two decades, in which they have called upon their followers to harangue and harass all within earshot of their worthless, immoral opinions. He would be free to offer any coutner-evidence that this is just par-for-the-course when it comes to senate behavior, but he has not. He's just trying to annoy, and I'm sure his family, who hates him, is probably familiar with the behavior.

Reagan had a much more compliant congress at his disposal, in part because of a large number of dixiecrats still in Congress, but also because he had been shot, and lots of people felt guilty about openly opposing him in his first term. Eventually, however, I suspect that the dissenters in the senate will become much more accomodating to Obama's wishes, given that his popularity only increases as he visits voters with his policies and threatens the jobs of the recalcitrant legislators.

Nice of Lieberman to do something positive for a change. Even narcissists have their moments.

Actually, you're trying to make the wholly unsubstantiated argument that it has, in spite of the fact that the Constitution, which dictates their power, remains unchanged. You offer nothing other than your own opinion to support your argument. Period.
Posted by: red state mike

You seriously think the relative power of political institutions never changes except when the Constitution is amended? Or are you arguing that his post wasn't good enough because he didn't anticipate your needs in advance and post the data points you wanted before you even asked for them?

Or are you arguing that his post wasn't good enough because he didn't anticipate your needs in advance and post the data points you wanted before you even asked for them?
Posted by: Shalimar

The burden of proof rests on him. Obviously.

Gee, RSM, Doubtful's posts seemed pretty clear. However, obfuscation is a way of life for you folks, so I can see why clarity would confuse you.

Gee, RSM, Doubtful's posts seemed pretty clear.
Posted by: Andrew

Yes, it was a cystal clear statement of his unsubstantiated opinion.

But you are the only one who disagrees with him. Even if his opinion is "unsubstantiated" in this particular forum it doesn't mean its, you know, wrong. And to assume that the constitution and its original intent rules anything at this point you'd have to be completely ignorant of, say, the history of the war powers act and the last eight years of the unitary executive experiment under Bush. Plus, of course, all the various rules and regulations of the Senate and the House which have nothing to do with the constitution but which govern the internal balance of power between the parties--which, of course, also aren't in the constitution. You really are a moron, you know, RSM?

aimai

Even if his opinion is "unsubstantiated" in this particular forum it doesn't mean its, you know, wrong.
Posted by: aimai

I agree. It just means it is unsubstantiated. What he stated as fact is merely opinion.

But he is wrong.

While red state mice are always game for providing a little intermezzo to a topic at hand, do the rest of us really have to follow the scent every time he farts?

Obama didn't need to do anything about Lieberman because he knew...Joe is out come election time. Still, Reid should have pulled his chairmanship. Glad he might have helped but
Sorry...it won't save ya' Joe.

***Posted by: sgwhiteinfla on February 16, 2009 at 12:55 PM ***

Well Steve, how do you respond? Is there a big lesson to be learned here about validating sources, checking what they claim was said before posting it was said??

"What an odd club."

Steve, if you like that, you'll love the soap opera which gave the world WWI. I hardily recommend to one and all obert K. Massie's Dreadnought.

Heh. Already there, and have been for many months.

Pay attention. doubtful wasn't talking about your recent involuntary exit from the military. She was referring to your being banned here.

do the rest of us really have to follow the scent every time he farts?
Posted by: exlibra

Oh they do, exlibra. Like a dog chasing a bone. It's in their genes.

"LIEBERMAN SAVED THE STIMULUS?"
...and killed the economy?