Who had the bright idea to keep Lieberman around anyway?

[asdjrocky]

Oh. Nevermind.

[Oregone]

1. Ouchy

:hide:

Its all about 5 dimensional chess

[asdjrocky]

2. Yeah I know.

I'm not nearly smart enough to guess the ways those great minds work. I'll just have faith.

[tinrobot]

18. Pretty simple, actually

You give him something he values (i.e. a chairmanship) that can also be taken away. That gives you some bargaining power.

I sure hope they call in their chips on this one.

[Pirate Smile]

3. The people of Connecticut. He's a Senator. He's a dick but it was the people of

Connecticut who put him there - it wasn't even the Democratic Party. The Connecticut Democratic Party primaried him out.

I'm not quite sure how people want to somehow make dealing with Lieberman someone else's fault. He's there and we have to deal with the asshole whether he caucuses with us or not.

[Rhiannon12866]

5. But it's not just the state of Connecticut. I voted for Lieberman,

and I'm betting that the majority of DU did, when he ran in 2000 with Al Gore... :-(

[Pirate Smile]

6. True but we all (on DU) had a very different opinion of Joe by his 2006 reelection.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Truthfully, I didn't consider Joe Lieberman at all in 2000.

But I became very aware of him well before the 2004 election because of his views on the war. My friend, who is in state politics, explained to me that certain other senators/prospective candidates may have voted for the war to support the president, but that Lieberman was actually in favor of the war... :-(

I remember the contentious 2004 primary season here on DU. When I saw a Lieberman avatar, it shocked me as much as if I saw one of George Bush* LOL. And I remember when Skinner said that the infighting had to stop when we finally had a candidate, that we had to get behind whomever that was. And one DUer asked if that was still true if it was Lieberman... :evilgrin:

My cousin lives in Connecticut. I'm sure that she's sick of hearing from me on the subject... ;)

typo :blush:

[Pirate Smile]

8. Right - 2000 was a feeling of blah toward Lieberman; 2006 was a feeling of loathing.

[HughMoran]

11. Obvious answer

Why do people think having 59 in the Dem caucus is better than 60?

[tblue]

13. A lot of good this mythical '60' has done us.

We have more like 56. And the minority party STILL rules.

[ampad]

15. As if Obama taking away

Any leadership positions from Libermann would keep the twerp from being an ass. It makes absolutely no sense at all to blame Obama for this. Just needless bitching. If the man is an ass while the president is behaving civilized towards him; what makes people think that would change if the president were an ass to him? As you stated, Dems did not put this ass in office. The repigs put him there which is why he is behaving as a repig. The little twerp is just too much of a wimp to switch to repig. Liberman ran, he won, we have to work around the ass. Just as we have to work around or with blue dog dems and Republicans.

[Pirate Smile]

17. It is bizarre to blame Obama for what Lieberman is doing. It is as bizarre as the Teabaggers

blaming Obama for all the sh#$ Bush did.

Give me a friggin break and learn to aim your anger at the actual responsible party.

[ProSense]

4. Dems can take a 50-50 shot with Lieberman and Specter deny the Republicans a clear filibuster

It's not like they were going to resign from Congress.

Funny how math and reality works.

Having said that, the Dems need to keep Lieberman in check.

[Skittles]

9. hideously bad decision

[vaberella]

21. It cuts both ways.

Because remember he's takng the lead next to my girl in NYC, in repealing DADT/DOMA.

[ind_thinker2]

10. Pres Obama, be vouched for him

[tblue]

12. Obama.

Fool me once....

I hope the President has learned, though I honestly believe he'd still keep Lieberman in the caucus and throw his supporters under the bus.

[Pirate Smile]

16. That's ridiculous. Lieberman was there whether he caucused with the Dems or not. People are acting

like keeping him caucusing with the Dems kept him in the Senate. He'd be there anyway.

It is idiotic to act like Lieberman being an asshole is Obama's fault or Obama throwing the base under the bus.

Obama wasn't sure Reid had 60 votes - that doesn't look like a foolish concern. We still need to get 60 votes. We will - eventually - and Lieberman will still be there being a dick until at least 2012 no matter who he caucuses with or what Obama does.

The only bad guy in the story is Lieberman. I'm not quite sure what is so hard to understand about that.

[ampad]

14. The people of Conneticut

Liberman would of been an ass no matter what Obama did. I am pretty sure you know that though. Any way to blame Obama for just about anything I guess. I'm looking forward to you going off on the people of Connecticut if they do not vote this ass out of office next go around. Make sure you get at the DU Connecticut folks for not "doing their job"

[DrToast]

19. Yeah, if only Obama pushed to kick him out of the caucus. Then we'd have his vote for sure!

:yoiks:

[vaberella]

20. He'd make numero 60 in the house. It's the idealized number. Plus he's helping on DADT/DOMA. n/t

[DrToast]

22. If anyone wants to explain how we pass ARRA without Lieberman

I'd like to hear that as well.