Sorry, I'm not gonna apologise for being overtly happy that the 8 year Bush nightmare presidency is almost over.
Let me ask you paradox, how exactly does it benefit the Democrats and Obama to throw the critics a bit of red meat to chew on by "punishing" Joe Lieberman?
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 05:53 AMAnd you write this;
Right now the people of the United States cannot afford to have its ruling party wandering around in delusional grandiosity.
But what would punishing Joe Lieberman be other than a stupid act of triumphal grandiosity?
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 06:41 AMWell, at least you aren't being negative.
I think what some of us are celebrating is that we have gone in the right direction. No one in their right mind would say we have gone far enough. This is going to be a long struggle.
Posted by marc sobel at November 13, 2008 06:53 AMsnark,
I'm not sure what "not gonna apologise for being overtly happy that the 8 year Bush nightmare presidency is almost over" has to do with paradox's post.
I don't recal that paradox has suggest such a thing. As far as I can see there is only a small minority of the US that isn't grateful that Bush is almost gone and wishing that it were already so.
Lieberman is not a responsible member of the party and should not be rewarded for his lack of support, and outright betrayal, of his party. Lieberman has every right to his views and his votes and his decisions. He just does not have the right to expect to remain in a position of authority within the party.
The Senate, through this embarrassing Lieberman playacting, is demonstrating how lacking in stature and willingness to accept and carryout their responsibilities they are. It's creepy, embarrassing and disappointing, but perhaps not surprising.
Democrats will soon loose the Senate again if they keep up this behavior.
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 06:55 AMI'd pay real money to see a loose Senate.
Of course, if they got loose, the Democrats would probably lose seats.
:)
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 13, 2008 07:00 AMLet loose the hounds!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 07:18 AMI would have preferred responses to the issues but appreciate comments on my typing skills as well.
Cheers.
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 07:41 AMYou're not interested in democracy. Joe Lieberman votes with you on every single issue except the war on terror. He's been very forthcoming that the war on terror is his #1 issue. So you vilify the guy on the one issue you disagree on.
Democracy? You're not interested. It's your way or the highway. The opposite of democracy.
Yes, maybe the Democratic Party is using you, your money, and your drumbeat of talking points during the election years. You seem to enjoy that sense of self importance. But the one guy who is the most honest with you about his positions is Joe Lieberman. You turned on him.
Posted by Bob at November 13, 2008 07:42 AMGail,
I'm not sure what "not gonna apologise for being overtly happy that the 8 year Bush nightmare presidency is almost over" has to do with paradox's post.
It has to do with this;
Because the puffy pride of the Democratic base to last week’s triumph—outside the political and racial mechanics of Obama’s win--is laughably absurd...
And this;
Any rational observer to a base of followers to such politicians that was constantly in a rah rah rah we’re winners! mentality would be that they were to be deluded, possibly pathetic, and certainly succumbed to that human condition of lost in life, it happens.
Did you read the post? The election was a fucking week ago. Can the Democratic base have a few days to be happy that the country will at least be removed from the grips of the Republican death vice that it's been in for 8 years? And which members of the party have been running around shouting "rah rah we're winners" exactly? I've seen a lot of the Democrats wanting to focus on getting thinks done. As opposed to settling political scores as you and paradox seem to prefer.
Lieberman is not a responsible member of the party and should not be rewarded for his lack of support, and outright betrayal, of his party. Lieberman has every right to his views and his votes and his decisions. He just does not have the right to expect to remain in a position of authority within the party.
The Senate, through this embarrassing Lieberman playacting, is demonstrating how lacking in stature and willingness to accept and carryout their responsibilities they are. It's creepy, embarrassing and disappointing, but perhaps not surprising.
It should be noted that you failed to identify a single positive benefit for the Democrats, or the country as a whole, that would come from banishing Joe Lieberman. And no, showing the base that they take their responsibilities seriously doesn't cut it. Pushing Lieberman aside will accomplish NOTHING positive. It will only provide fooder for those seeking to take control back from the Democrats and to sabotage the Obama presidency.
Please Gail, tell me how pushing Joe Lieberman further into the arms of the Republicans helps the Democrats, or the country.
Life is tough, Gail. Up yours, otherwise.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 13, 2008 07:56 AMSo you vilify the guy on the one issue you disagree on.
Perhaps you missed the campaign these last couple months, Boob. Honest Joe stood next to Obama's opponent and vilified a member of his own caucus, in the hopes of getting money, power, and maybe a cabinet post. He made a pretty stupid gamble and lost. He showed that he doesn't deserve respect, nor can he be trusted. Frankly, he doesn't deserve the appointments he has now, but you know, I'm warming to the idea of him being a lapdog on a short leash beholden to Obama, rather than a noisy martyr and Repub rallying tool.
Last night, Bayh kept saying "if he apologizes." Wouldn't it be fun to watch Honest Joe groveling at Obama and Reid's feet, rather than yukking it up with the 'pukes? If Honest Joe wants to keep his gavel, looks like he'll have to do a public apology. That oughta be a hoot!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 08:02 AMSnark,
Thanks for seriously responding to my comment. I did read the post.
I think Democrats have a right to and should feel good about kicking Bush out of the WH. Obama did an excellent job campaigning.
In my work life I was a manager (of technically oriented groups), not a politician. I see things just the reverse of how you seem to from my understanding of your comment. Perhaps my work background has some part in that different perspective. I see no good in keeping Lieberman and I see poorly or maliciously run committees, important committees if he stays. I see him on Fox News representing all Democrats. I see that when he next does something that is detrimental to Democrats and/or Obama, the Senate Dems will again say they can't do anything about it because it will again be the wrong time and will give the wrong people something to hold over our heads. But to me this seems to be part of the game. Lieberman is being held over our heads. The Republicans, the media are playing it and Lieberman is loving it and the Dems just roll over each time and look very foolish and weak. And continue to think they are doing the 'smart' thing.
I don't think we are going to agree about this but I appreciate having a better understanding of why you think as you do.
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 08:09 AMI think Democrats have a right to and should feel good about kicking Bush out of the WH.
Apparently, paradox does not.
I see no good in keeping Lieberman and I see poorly or maliciously run committees, important committees if he stays.
But as a manager you know that there are times when changing personnel is counterproductive, no?
I see him on Fox News representing all Democrats.
Well, if he's on Fox representing democrats it will probably give the average knuckledragging Fox viewer a better opinion of Democrats since they generally don't think much of the likes of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
I see that when he next does something that is detrimental to Democrats and/or Obama, the Senate Dems will again say they can't do anything about it because it will again be the wrong time and will give the wrong people something to hold over our heads.
See but there will be a genuine difference then. Booting Lieberman now is an act of political vengence that flies in the face of everything that Obama campaigned about. Booting Lieberman over his refusal to aid the administration and the party over a specific policy objective will not.
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 08:21 AMWhen Loserman got re-elected in 2006 he owed Rove and the repukes. That debt has been paid. He now owes Obama for his political life. Look for a new Democratic Loserman to emerge. If not, I'm sure they will be willing to kick him to curb at anytime.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 13, 2008 08:26 AMMaybe Obama plans to just get rid of the HS office altogether. It was nothing more than a boondoggle to get more cronies government contracts in the first place.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 08:34 AMMaybe Obama plans to just get rid of the HS office altogether. It was nothing more than a boondoggle to get more cronies government contracts in the first place.
True.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 13, 2008 08:37 AMThe Democrats will certainly lose control of Congress if they act as if payback and governance are one and the same. We have been short of both for a long while; however, the people should go before the party.
Posted by jackalope at November 13, 2008 08:55 AMOkay Snark, you have converted me from someone who wanted to see Lieberloser's blood on the Senate floor, to a more rationale stance. Thanks.
Posted by Judith at November 13, 2008 09:04 AMJudith, yeah, it's tough isn't it, after all Honest Joe's done to the dems? I want revenge, but not as much as I want the country back on the right track, and job security and health care and the DOJ back in line.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 09:13 AMMy comment preceded by dashes (---).
From Snark's comments:
I think Democrats have a right to and should feel good about kicking Bush out of the WH. - Apparently, paradox does not.
--- Of course, paradox can respond for him/her self but that is not the way I read paradox's many posts. Parodax cares a lot, is very invested and is a lot less cynical about the Democratic Party than I am. ---
I see no good in keeping Lieberman and I see poorly or maliciously run committees, important committees if he stays. - But as a manager you know that there are times when changing personnel is counterproductive, no?
--- Now there's the real issue. There are many ways to address a problem and the earlier the better. To me, based on what I see, hear, read and the way these same Dems have been behaving for years, I do not see any chance of Lieberman's performance as a member of the Dem caucus and the chair of important committees being addressed. To me that IS counterproductive, but only, of course, if the objective were to expect Dems to respect other Dems and to perform in their committee assignments. If that's not the case then there is nothing to address. Which is the impression many Democrats are giving. ---
I see him on Fox News representing all Democrats. - Well, if he's on Fox representing democrats it will probably give the average knuckledragging Fox viewer a better opinion of Democrats since they generally don't think much of the likes of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
--- not sure if you even mean what you're saying here ---
I see that when he next does something that is detrimental to Democrats and/or Obama, the Senate Dems will again say they can't do anything about it because it will again be the wrong time and will give the wrong people something to hold over our heads. - See but there will be a genuine difference then. Booting Lieberman now is an act of political vengence that flies in the face of everything that Obama campaigned about. Booting Lieberman over his refusal to aid the administration and the party over a specific policy objective will not.
--- hope you are right and I am wrong, truly do ---
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 09:20 AM--- not sure if you even mean what you're saying here ---
I typically mean what I say.
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 09:31 AMIt may all be moot if Joementum refuses to apologize, which Evan Bayh said last night, over and over, was the condition they were placing on him.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 09:32 AMI typically mean what I say.
I'll vouch for that one. Whether you understand snark's meaning, however is up to the reader...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 09:36 AMI typically mean what I say.
Even if it comes off as a bit "dickish". *ducks*
Posted by Seven of Six at November 13, 2008 10:17 AMSee what you've done coyote!
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 10:38 AM"It should be noted that you failed to identify a single positive benefit"
...if Joe were not on TV, less people would puke watching political shows.
"I typically mean what I say."
...Like Stephen Colbert?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 13, 2008 11:43 AM
...if Joe were not on TV, less people would puke watching political shows.
Just thinking about him makes me wanna hurl!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 11:57 AMfrom http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/joe-not-us-much-more-just-war
"But the ultimate reason to remove Lieberman as chair of Homeland Security is that his record as chair of that committee has been abjectly conservative, partisan, and in the end a menace to Americans' civil rights: In other words, Lieberman is antithetical to the progressive mandate Democrats have just been handed."
Posted by gail at November 13, 2008 12:19 PMGail,
That's all well and fine. And the first time he fails to support the progressive mandate that the people just supported he should be removed. Removing him now will not play well for the Democrats. It will look like, and be spun by the Republicans as, a political vendetta.
Posted by snark at November 13, 2008 01:00 PMAnd the first time he fails to support the progressive mandate that the people just supported he should be removed.
Which is exactly what Bayh said on Maddow's show.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 13, 2008 01:32 PMWell, yes, paradox.
GE owns NBC, MSNBC, Newsweek, all of whom were not just FOR Obama, but literally in the tank.
But of course there will be paybacks. That's how politics works.
GE will have their loans insured by the FDIC, at your expense, to shore up their operations/jobs overseas. (wink, wink)
And James Clyburn will head up the Housing and Urban Development Dept to be sure and "payback" significant support received from the Congressional Black Caucus. Whole lotta "minority set-asides" coming down the road in government contracts, but THIS time, the Hispanic Caucus (heavy Obama support) looks to demand more of their own share of same.
It has always been so, and always will be.
But you can bet your bottom dollar General Electric/NBC/MSNBC will be "taken care of."
Welcome to reality.
Posted by Mary at November 14, 2008 07:55 AM"...Evan Bayh argued that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanships, suggesting that the posts could be taken away at a later date if he misbehaves. But a Senate rules expert who spoke to the Huffington Post said this could prove more difficult than is presently assumed."
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/bayhs-defense-of-lieberma_n_143863.html
Posted by gail at November 14, 2008 01:38 PM