Welcome Deacon Blues.
At first, I was all for the initial retribution of Loserman. If he fucks up and doesn't play nice, cut him loose. He should in no way be able to strut around like he controls the Democratic caucus. Keep him marginilized.
One more thing Obama is correct on... after having time to pause and look at it more objectively.
There are plenty of repuke Senate seats up in 2010. They pretty much know the American people will be looking at accomplishments. Republi-con Obstruction will not go unnoticed by the press this time around.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 12, 2008 10:50 PMLets be serious. The sixty vote target will be a huge struggle for any legislation that is slightly left of center. Lieberman's vote is essentially meaningless. If Lieberman wants to run and win in 2012, he must vote very closely to his constituents' views. How do you think a conservative/Republican voting record will play in Connecticut?
I would be more worried about Joe doing everything he could to sabotage Obama and the Dems just so he could say that he was right in 2008 to oppose them.
Welcome, Deacon Blues! Can I call you DB?
I saw the exchange w/Bayh and he just kept repeating "we can pull his chair any time he doesn't play ball." Maddow was obviously skeptical, and so am I. Holy Joe can't be trusted. We'll just have to hope Obama knows what he's doing, I suppose. He's earned the benefit of the doubt for now.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 05:26 AMI agree.
Obama has NOTHING to gain from pushing Lieberman away from the Democratic caucus.
Destestable little man that he his, he's got no hand to play.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. -Sun Tzu
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 05:30 AMWelcome, Deacon Blues, from Canada.
If your assessment of Obama's strategy regarding Leiberman is accurate, Americans can be even more thankful they elected a smart president and not a petty, angry, alternative. I hope you are right.
Just when it looked like things couldn't get any worse, news breaks this morning of the bailout being a total mess. I don't get it, honestly, a man in Texas, who has HIV, this summer got life in prison for spitting in a police officer's face (no mention of whether the office was infected), and yet this gang has destroyed, between the illegal war in Iraq and the environment and their economic policies, hundreds of thousands of lives maybe millions, but all they get punished with are golden bonus packages and retreats at luxury spas. It truly is mind boggling.
Posted by ggb at November 13, 2008 06:41 AM'Bring Your Enemies Closer' That cute and in the sense of keeping an eye on them even makes sense. But in the sense of managing important Senate committees is irresponsible.
As far as Obama was concerned he didn't even have to get involved in this. He shouldn't have involved himself in my opinion. The Senate should be responsible Senator behavior and the Democrats in the Senate should have responsibly dealt with Lieberman's lack of support for the Democratic Party.
Obama appears to have meddled where he didn't belong, probably to Reid's gratification so that Reid can avoid taking responsibility for dealing with Lieberman.
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 07:14 AMWelcome Deacon. Smart, pragmatic post.
I agree that every single fucking thing that we can do to marginalize the neo-conservative, rabid, dominionist, far-right, Republican hacks must be done.
I listened very intently to Bayh last night and my first reaction is to make the bastard walk the plank...but that does not make sense practically. It might make me feel good in the short term, but it does not serve us well to have a [n even more] resentful Lieberman fucking us on a regular basis.
Personally I think that Lieberman sold his soul way back in 2000 when he went on MTP and went against the recount team...but that is just my own consiracy theory. I think that he has been working against Dems ever since then.
Remember. If Republicans had not voted for him in 2006 he would not be in office.
Has anyone checked the recall laws in CT? That would be something better. Allow the people of CT to recall the smarmy little prick. (But see, that is just my resentment talking...not the pragmatism the DB speaks of.)
He will serve us better being kept on and owing us bigtime than if we kick him to the curb. I am sure that you have all dealt with someone like this in your own lives and in business, which this is, it is easier to tolerate a turncoat when it benefits us than it is to do so in our personal lives.
I think that we are all taking this personally.
Posted by Anjha at November 13, 2008 07:52 AMAs far as Obama was concerned he didn't even have to get involved in this.
He's the leader of the party. Why should he not be involved?
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 07:53 AMI think that we are all taking this personally.
We are, and for good reason. Which is why we're lucky to have someone soon-to-be-in-charge that can look past these things and see the big picture.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 08:12 AMSnark:
"He's the leader of the party. Why should he not be involved?"
Obviously he can involve himself if he chooses. But why would he choose to do so. Why not let Reid handle it since it actually was Reid's job.
As it is, President-elect Obama has associated himself with whatever happens regards Lieberman. Why put himself into such a mess, when I assume he didn't need to.
Unless, of course, he thinks the only people who matter are the Washington insiders, since that appears to be the direction this is going in; and those who were looking for a sign of responsible behavior for a change, are no longer important to him. (Change we can believe in? Snark!)
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 08:28 AMWe are, and for good reason. Which is why we're lucky to have someone soon-to-be-in-charge that can look past these things and see the big picture.
Ya. Cause that sure isn't me today. I can barely type and want bigtime revenge. I want every one of those Republican crooks and Lieberman frog marched out of the WH, the Senate and the House and made to stand trial in the public square. I want the trial televised on every single channel...in full, no pre-emption for anything else. I want the entire country and world to see the crimes of the Bush Admin and their enablers. But, that's just me.
It will probably work better getting things done with Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus trying to kiss Obama's ass for forgiveness.
See how different things are when I do not take it personally?
Posted by Anjha at November 13, 2008 08:30 AMUnless, of course, he thinks the only people who matter are the Washington insiders, since that appears to be the direction this is going in; and those who were looking for a sign of responsible behavior for a change, are no longer important to him.
Who's calling for Lieberman's head? The blogosphere? Are you so delusional that you think what the blogosphere wants is what Obama is gonna do? Is that the only legitimate course of action? It's the responsible thing to do because the blogosphere says so? Talk about puffed up triumphalism. Such wankery is laughable. Maybe you can find a poll that shows the American public wants to see Obama clean house as opposed to focus on getting things done. You pay lip service to "change" yet you're advocating that Reid engage in politics as usual.
There is no benefit to the Democrats in removing Lieberman at this point. Only negatives.
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 08:39 AMAs it is, President-elect Obama has associated himself with whatever happens regards Lieberman.
When reporters asked him what he thought, should he have said "no comment?" No matter what blogs like TPM, who misrepresented what his team said both times, trumpet over and over, Obama only said, "I'm not interested in holding grudges; I'd like him to stay in the caucus." He also said it's the caucus who should make the decision, which is what they're in the process of doing.
Frankly, I think it's way more important for Obama to do what he's reportedly doing now, going over Bush's signing statements one by one, to see which ones he can use to get his way and which ones to be challenged. Sounds to me like he's got a plan, and at this point, I have no choice but to trust that he's got the future of the country in mind.
Anjha, I like the idea of Honest Joe on a short, humiliating leash for the rest of his term. Better even than a one day thrill to see him kicked to the curb.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 09:02 AM"Are you so delusional that ..."
Well, that finishes our dialogue. Too bad.
I was speaking for myself but I do think there are not a few who have similar opinions. I am not, and do not represent, the blogosphere. I am a citizen and a voter and have an interest in what is or is not done in this country.
I do hope that your are correct about Lieberman because that appears to be the direction the politicos are going in.
That I believe it is wrong does not make me delusional. That you believe it correct does not mean it will work out well though I hope it does.
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 09:29 AMI was speaking for myself but I do think there are not a few who have similar opinions. I am not, and do not represent, the blogosphere.
And I do not represent the "Washington insiders".
Well, that finishes our dialogue. Too bad.
Yup, too bad.
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 09:36 AMOne perspective to consider regarding Lieberman: there are three senate races that aren't over. One of them looks real good, and maybe even a sure thing. One of them looks promising. One of them looks like a struggle, but a possibility.
Patience is a virtue.
Posted by Danton at November 13, 2008 09:39 AM