Joe Lieberman as possible Homeland Security head:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Choice four added on edit.

[msgadget]

1. I can't answer

There's no, 'It makes no difference because the same agenda will be advanced irregardless the appointee.'

[billbuckhead]

2. Joe certainly deserves the position

}(

[IndianaGreen]

5. Which position is that, billbuckhead?

Prone or supine?

:P

[MADem]

31. Bent over....

...because when it comes to the weecowboy administration, here it comes again! Their motto should be BOHICA...!

[Sal Minella]

3. Pulling Lieberman out of the Senate

will allow the Republican Governor to appoint a Republican Senator. That's the point, I think.

Lieberman just strikes me as somebody who shouldn't be put in charge of anything more complicated than a bake sale.

[JohnKleeb]

4. I see what you mean

but its not like he was just reelected, his seat is actually up in '06, and I think thats one seat we can win if hes appointed to Homeland Security and the republican connecticut governor appoints someone in his place.

[NewJeffCT]

22. CT Republicans are generally more moderate than most

But, Chris Shays in 2006 after 2 years in the Senate would be very tough for any Democrat to beat. I would say that maybe 1st district Congressman John Larson had a chance, but really nobody else. Maybe Rosa DeLauro?

[imenja]

6. I can't see him being particularly good in the job

I don't think authoring the intelligence bill is enough experience. Jane Harman suggested a sheriff from California, someone who knows what first responders confront. It seems to me someone like that would be a better choice. Not that this administration actually cares about how well it's appointees perform.

[sam sarrha]

7. AssCroft sicked God on us..that fool will sick the Massad on us..!!

[bambo53]

8. Why not appoint him head of the DNC

That way we'll know where we really stand as a party and act accordingly.

[Finding Rawls]

9. Rove is good

No one can accuse Bush of being partisan when he picks a Democrat, one who wanted to run against Bush, to head a major governmental department.

If we only could kick Republicans out of the Democratic party we wouldn't have this problem.

[tedzbear]

10. Why not? He's a Repug in all but name.

eom

[Sandpiper]

11. Do we really want Likud in charge of U.S. Homeland Security?

n/t

[fnottr]

12. no no and again no

for a number of reasons:

1.) Conn has a repub governor, so we lose a seat in the senate. I don't care that it's only until '06, we don't need to hand the repubs another seat on a silver platter. Disagree with Lieberman's stances all you want, for the most part he still votes with the Dems

2.) Bush gets to pretend that he's bipartisan and 'working across the aisle' this will create the impression that the dems as a whole don't disagree with Bushco, that much. Since Lieberman was on a presidential ticket as a dem, we can't easily portray him as sell out a la Zell Miller.

3.) When the shit hits the fan, and it will, without a doubt. The administration has a democratic punching bag to blame things on. Lieberman's not exactly a forceful personality, so he probably won't be able to fight against the accusations that well.

4.) He'd be nothing but a publicity figure, the way Collin Powell was. Placed into that position to gain political favor, but not actually treated seriously.

[Catchawave]

20. I agree about the punching bag....

Can you imagine *anything* going wrong on Joe's watch, and it's all the DEMOCRATS fault. We're screwed in 2008.

Otherwise, I think he'd make a fine Secretary, but not during the Rovian years.

[fnottr]

24. that's the one thing I can't argue with,

his fitness for the job. But we all know that Bush has appointed figureheads in the past, so it doesn't really matter if he's comptetent, because he won't actually get to do much

[HeilChimp]

27. who cares?!

LIEberman is more right-wing than the Repug he replaced (don't take my word for it, look at their lifetime ratings from People for Democratic Action...previous Senator was Lowell Weicker) With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Since anyone chimp nominates will be a right-wing fascist, we might as well root for HolyJoe to get him out of the Senate. In two years we can get a REAL progressive in that seat like Chris Dodd. Conn. may vote for a couple of Repug governors to "keep an eye" on things, but it is a very progressive state.

The Dems had all the factors in their favor to win easily in 2000. Gore would have done so with a progressive arab-American on the ticket. Instead, we got stuck with HolyJoe and he hurt Gore so much that Chimp stole the presidency. I guess chimp is repaying the "favor".

[Voltaire]

29. I agree with all your points

The problem is that Senator Lieberman is an ABYSS of ambition and will probably come up with some tortured bullshit excuse about how the President called him to service and he could not turn him down. At the end of the day its all about HIM and his megalomania. Ambitious and fucking delusional is Senator Lieberman.

[Julien Sorel]

13. He isn't a Bush loyalist.

So far, that's all Bush has nominated. Why would he break such a streak?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Joe Payola is due to collect his reward from his daddy.

It'll make his other papa Sharon happy too.

[Doctor_J]

15. He'll be made the scapegoat when we're attacked again.

so hate radio can blame it on "The Democrats"

[yellowdawgdem]

16. Should've put "other" as a choice

imo, this is a bipartisan gesture which will most likely be turned down. Partly because of the repub gov who will appoint a repub as his replacement. But also because, looking at all the repub loyalists who jumped ship last term, and some even wrote books about it- I doubt Lieberman would want to be a step and fetchit for the Bushie's. To work for dubya, you have to be that. As mealy mouthed as Lieberman is, I don't hardly see him as that. If he decides to go for it, though, it will be greatly interesting to watch.

[bobweaver]

17. His head is too wobbly, in fact the Lieberman bobblehead doll doesn't move

[Zep]

18. He is the Yankee Zell Miller.

EOT

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Lieberman has a more liberal voting record than John Edwards

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

That must make Edwards another Jesse Helms, right?

[bunkerbuster1]

23. Bullshit.

Zell actively campaigned for the Chimp WHILE JOE WAS STILL IN THE RUNNING.

Goddamn it, let's stop being good pious little liberals and start thinking about how we can actually kick some reThug ass. Whining about how conservative Joe Lieberman can be isn't helping at all.

[Zep]

25. OK, Zell may be scummier, but ...

... Lieberman is the senator of the insurance companies, military helicopter interests, and "electric boat". Oh, and incidentally Connecticut. I choked when I voted for him for VP.

Not really relevant, but doesn't he look a lot like Chancellor Palpatine?

[bunkerbuster1]

34. Had to google that character, but yeah.

I can see the resemblance.

[DebJ]

19. My hubby says he likes the idea for pure entertainment value.

He says Joementum would make hysterically funny speeches as head of Homeland Security.

[goobergunch]

26. Bad. We don't need to lose another Senate seat. (n/t)

[tjdee]

28. NO experience, NO personality....perfect!

I think Bush is trying to outdo himself with dumb actions.

Lieberman is a senator for Connecticut. There are OH so many terrorist targets there, so he's had a LOT of experience with that sort of thing. :eyes:

Bush is using this position to jerk the media. He doesn't actually care about ABILITY. The next name to come up will be an Iraqi-American or something.

He is SUCH a jerk.

[KoKo]

30. If he takes this position he's a turn coat jerk and if Bush goes down

under the weight of his lies, fraud, corporate cronyism and every other Crime he's Committed on our Democracy then Lieberman goes down with him.

If Lieberman takes this position then I know he was a "FRAUD" because if you look back on how he helped stop the vote in Florida in 2000 agreeing with Bush about the "Military Ballots" then you know he's a "sell out" for ambition. He probably was the "Mole" in the Gore Campaign...

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. And if he turns it down does that make him a hero?

:shrug:

[MADem]

32. I'd be SHOCKED if it happened

Not saying it couldn't happen, but think about all the negatives. First, weecowboy already has his "token" Dem--Norm Mineta, who is staying on. Second, by putting an unusually devout Jew in charge of Homeland Security, a guy who does not turn on a light, use a car, use a phone, or do bupkis during the Sabbath, it's almost like begging for another attack, and oh, do it on the Sabbath!

Course, that could be their goal--another attack, another "rally round the flag" and another opportunity to convert a bunch of liberal Jews to the BushCo cause, which didn't go as well as they had hoped this past election.

Who knows what they are thinking, though, really. I thought Kerik was a lousy choice--a doom and gloom, sky-falling, I'm in charge, tough guy; just the sort of Al Haig type you'd want in charge of a crisis--NOT. Better to put a noodgy, smartass, nose to the grindstone wonk in the job, one who can corral all the assholes, knock their heads together, MAKE them do their job, and then do a full and accurate audit of all their activities. And, talk in a boring, wonky monotone, even when the shit is hitting the fan. Someone who inspires confidence by being BORING in a crisis.

Frankly, I HATE the word HOMELAND, I HATE the department, I think it is a window dressing bit of bullshit, and was established only because Miss Condi couldn't carry her load and no one trusted Asskroft. It's all nonsense, designed solely to make us feel better. All it does is add more salaries to the bloated federal budget, more contracts for corporate insiders, more bullshit sold to the masses in the name of protection. But any smart insurgent/'terrist' knows that the minute you harden a target, you reselect a softer one. The only way we can make the country "truly" safe is to develop STAR WARS, invade and conquer our neighbors to use them as buffers in the event of attack, place massive maritime forces off our coastlines, and make the entire nation into a prison.

Either that, or take over the world! Because obviously, cooperation with other nations and efforts to resolve conflicts are nowhere to be found in the BushCo game plan.

[Comicstripper]

33. My choice:

Good. Get him out so we can get a real Democrat to take his place.

[erpowers]

35. Good Choice- He Turned It Down

I think he would have been a good choice if another President wanted to appoint him. I think we all know why Bush picked Liberman. He (Bush) picked Liberman only because he (Liberman) came from a state with a Republican governor. Before I knew that Connecticut had a Republican governor I thought Liberman was a good idea for the post in that he worked to form the Department and pushed for it to be formed. I do not like all of Liberman's stances on the issues and I do think he is too far to the right. However, I think he would have been a good choice if he had been picked for the right reason. However, Liberman did turn down the oppurtunity to be the Homeland Security head which I think was the right choice.

[AntiCoup2K4]

37. Nobody who is part of/supports PNAC , gives a shit about Homeland Security

Well, not THIS "Homeland" anyway.