Is it time to forgive Joe and move forward??

[kentuck]

I have been as critical of Lieberman as anyone. However, we need to get this resolved and move forward or it will remain over our heads forever. Perhaps Joe has learned a lesson also? Perhaps he will actually be a more "moderate" Democrat, rather than a right-wing shill? Perhaps he will be a better Democrat for all this?

But, compromise is a two-way street. If Joe could switch his Party loyalties back to the Democratic Party, that would be a good first step. Then we could give him a second chance to prove himself worthy of our support. We will not ask for a litmus test or 100% votes for our side, but we would like to see him act like a Democrat. Is it time to put our differences aside and see what we can work out?

[madmusic]

1. It is time to trust our party up there.

They will know what to do on each vote.

[Greyhound]

36. Upon what do you base this assertion?

Certainly not from any recent historical events. Trusting the leaders of the Democratic Party has resulted in the mess we're in today.

[mmonk]

2. One can move forward without

forgetting what he has done in his support of the administration's policies.

[Rosemary2205]

3. I don't trust Lieberman at all.

He's proven himself to be more interested in his own personal interests than anything else on the planet. His word isn't worth anything anymore.

[Cosmocat]

22. It is in that ...

understanding that I believe he will NOT jump caucuses ...

It is downright scary to see a politician as self possessed as he is right now ... During his victory speech, I saw a clip where he looked upward ... It looked TOTALLY about himself, almost literally possessed ... You can see the vengefulness, and frankly, I can see that he WANTS to jump sides ...

However, in the end, it IS all about HIM ...

He has BOTH parties by the balls, but the democrats have more to give him ... The Rs can promise him some things, and even do SOME for him ... But ALL of these people have a fairly heavy dose of self interest, and there is NO WAY the likes of Lyndsey Graham, John Kyl, Ted Stevens, Trent Lott, John Ensign ... NO WAY, these people give up their seniority to give Lieberman the level of power he will get from the democrats ...

If it was a matter of just one or two people, I am sure they would find a way to satisfy them to let Joe jump over them ... But, he has almost two decades of seniority in the democratic caucus, and there is NOT A CHANCE enough republicans step aside to give him the same status, much less greater status, in the republican caucus ... Not to get the majority, much less just to make it break even ...

[kentuck]

24. I think they would give him the world to keep the majority in the Senate...

And they probably have already offered it...judging from the Cheshire cat grins of Mr Lieberman.

[coznfx]

35. Me neither. And odds are good

(or at least even?!) that we'll be able to coax a repub vote or two to swing our way for many if not most of our bills. So we need to make Joe PROVE he's on our side, and restoring the trust always takes longer than breaching it.

Also agree with posts 5 and 9 - who cares if he does go red ... makes good grounds for a recall!

[lumpy]

45. Yay verily

And that's the truth.

[xultar]

4. Yes. We must get beyond this.

[MADem]

5. I think we can, because he is STUCK. If he breaks his word and goes all GOP

on us, then he's a PRIME candidate for a recall. And I'm betting that the Lamont voters would happily sign a recall petition if he went too far afield and broke his promise to caucus with the Dems. I outlined my logic here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703171&mesg_id=2703313

[Dick Diver]

34. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but...

it's my understanding that U.S. Senators cannot be recalled. They can:

1. Die
2. Resign
3. Be expelled by the Senate

[MADem]

37. It depends on the STATE. Not all states have recall provisions

And a few do not allow the recall of Congresspersons or judges...but many do allow the recall of any elected official.

I know several years ago CT had legislation in the works, but it didn't get very far. They need to dust off that legislation, pass it, and then get to work. They could have a real Democrat representing them by 08 if they started this year--or, they could keep Joementum nicely boxed in and doing the bidding of the PEOPLE, as opposed to his GOP masters!

I'm figuring it will take a year to get the legislation passed, then there's the signature gathering...but hey, why not? It's a useful tool to keep the guy in line. I imagine those Lamont voters would gleefully sign the recall petition.

Background, here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm

[Dick Diver]

42. Is the CT State Legislature veto proof?

There is a Republican Governor in CT, after all.

[MADem]

49. I dunno, but there's always the override

I don't know the makeup of the CT legislature, if one party has a good chunk of the seats, or what.

In MA, if the Dems decided they wanted something passed, and they all agreed on it, it would be a done deal, Mitt the Shitt's veto pen notwithstanding.

And this sort of thing is really nonpartisan--it's a tool for both parties to use, from a long-term perspective. The successful campaign would frame it that way!

[saracat]

6. He has already announced that he was not taking party switching off the table

when previously he said he was still a Democrat.I do not think we should forgive him but be vigilant in watching him. He is not to be trusted. This is twice he has stated publicly he has no party loyalty.

[MADem]

9. See my comment above. The voters need to tell his ass that they will recall him.

If he jumps, they SHOULD recall him. Then, the GOP governor would appoint a GOP senator, but in 08 there would be a special election. Lamont would win handily, I would bet.

Hold that threat over Joe's head, and tell him "STFU and keep your campaign promise, or you'll never work in DC again."

[Ilsa]

7. I am ready to move on.

JL is a decent man, even though I don't agree with his view of the world. As long as he is in the senate and caucasing with the Dems, I think we'll be okay, and I think we need to move on.

[TayTay]

8. The scorpion and the frog

Aesop addressed this issue around 600 B.C. in the tale of the scorpion and the frog.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog is hesitant.

"How do I know you won’t sting me?" it asks.

The scorpion responds, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink it turns to the scorpion and asks, "Why?" The scorpion replies, "Because it is my nature."


http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02012006/editoria/85622.htm

I think it's Joe's nature and he won't change. I will never trust him on anything. Ever.

[MADem]

17. The Democrats in CT have the POWER to be the scorpion, though

All they need to do is dust off that RECALL legislation that they were running up the flagpole a few years back (did they ever pass that, or no?) and DEMAND that the state legislature pass it if they haven't already. Then, they can recall Joementum and replace him in 08 with a REAL Democrat. If I were on the Lamont team, I'd make that my political action goal--to ensure a recall mechanism is in place THIS YEAR to keep Joementum in check....

[TayTay]

23. I doubt that will pass

It's too threatening and it might be unconstitutional.

Point of that story anyway is that both frog and scorpion die.

[MADem]

39. Hell no, it's not unconstitutional--a ton of states have recall provisions

How do you think CA ended up with AHHHHHH-Nuld???

CT would have to pass recall legislation, and then gather signatures. They'd have to decide what constituted a "firing" offense, and how many signatures they would need to recall someone.

Here's some background info-- http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm

Overview

Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Historically, recall has been used most frequently at the local level. By some estimates, three-fourths of recall elections are at the city council or school board level. This brief, however, focuses only on the recall as it applies to state officials.

Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office - impeachment - in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the eighteen recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election.

Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin



The District of Columbia also provides for recalls. Virginia is not listed as a recall state because its process, while requiring citizen petitions, allows a recall trial rather than an election. In at least 29 states (some sources place this number at 36), recall elections may be held in local jurisdictions.

More here, on the Constitutional question:

The text of the United States Constitution is silent as to recall elections. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered but never adopted resolutions that would have established the right to recall Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Members of Congress. However, the Founding Fathers clearly understood the need for formal procedures to remove elected officials before the normal expiration of their terms. Article I of the Constitution allows the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials, who are then tried and removed by the Senate.

The Constitution leaves matters of state governance to the citizens of the various states. The recall is no exception to this rule; no specific provision governs the impeachment or recall of state officials. Article 4, Section 4 states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," but each state is left to define "Republican Form of Government" on its own terms in its own constitution (and the federal courts have ruled that this provision is not justiciable).

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to recall elected officials, and the procedures employed in such recalls, fall in this broad category. Citizens of at least fifteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted provisions for recall elections. Citizens of other states have decided that impeachment should be the sole means of removing elected officials from office. All states provide some method of removing elected officials from office before the expiration of their terms. The federal courts have consistently upheld the ability of the citizens of the various states to impeach and recall elected officeholders as an exercise of their constitutional rights.

The mere possibility of a recall helps to remind all elected officials that their power is not absolute. In America, power is derived from the consent of the people - and that consent can be withdrawn.


http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/Viewpoints/FramersontheCARecall.shtml

[Perky]

44. But Joe is a federal official and I am not sure state law applies

I am simply saying I have never heard of a Congressman or Senator ever being recalled.

[MADem]

47. You're right, it hasn't ever happened, but there's nothing in the laws of some states

that PROHIBIT it (some, if you see the link previously cited, actually DO prohibit judges or congresspersons from recall, but others put any and everyone who has been elected under the gun). Impeachment is a process, as is recall. Some states only have the one, federal process (impeachment) while others also have the recall option. And the latter does make sense--say you elect some bastard who promises to vote one way, and wins votes based on these promises, and then votes the complete opposite way. Or, someone who just doesn't show up to vote, and sits on his ass collecting his check.

Now, there's nothing legally wrong with that, there's no crime, but by lying to the voters, or by being a lazyass incompetent, he subverted their will and deserves to be tossed out on his ass. Recall enables people to get rid of bums who haven't technically committed a crime.

Now, granted, CT doesn't HAVE recall....YET. But they could!!!! And simply restarting a legislative initiative might make Joementum think carefully about going too far afield.

I think it's a good tool for CT to have in the toolbox, frankly.

[Perky]

50. I think there will need to be a federal statute

because federal law sets terms and qualifications. Fed law sets the election date and sets fundraising laws.

Having said that states apparently set term limits. So...maybe....

And any time an expulsion has it occured it had been at the instigation of the House in which the member serves.

The state should definitely have the right of recall, but I am guessing that there is a pretty strong equal protection argument that the rules for recall have to be uniform throughout the country and thus a federal staute is required.

[MADem]

55. Well, the feds are silent on the whole matter, but there's that bit that I cited above

The federal courts have consistently upheld the ability of the citizens of the various states to impeach and recall elected officeholders as an exercise of their constitutional rights.

The TERM would not change if Joementum were recalled. The governor would appoint someone to his seat (with the right qualifications, of course) and a special election would be set for 08. The winner of that contest would fill out the remaining four years of Joementum's six year term.

I think the equal protection aspect is trumped by the fact that this is the CHOICE of the electorate. There's nothing PREVENTING all states from passing recall legislation, it's just that fewer than twenty have decided that they need it...now. That could change. And you can't have the federal government ORDERING the states to pass legislation they don't feel they need. And you can't have the feds telling the states what mechanism they MUST use to get rid of anyone, either (especially those states that already have recall legislation on their books). I see the states in the catbird seat in this instance.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think this is do-able. I do remember that CT had recall legislation up for debate many years back, and maybe, just maybe, they should dust it off and try again. It can't hurt, and it just might keep Ole Joe in line!

[TayTay]

58. Suppose a Federal Law was instituted

would if affect current office-holders or just be for future ones. Would Lieberman, as a sitting member of the Senate, be exempt?

[MADem]

60. I think they would have a hard time instituting a federal law dealing with

recalls at the state level, because of the whole 'state's rights' aspect. The feds can't tell the states how to go about their business. It's tromping on their perogative, at least that's how I see it.

If it were possible for the feds to weigh in, and I don't think it is (except for the impeachment angle), I can't see it making a difference. If the voters want to toss the guy, it doesn't matter if he's held the seat for five minutes or five years.

[Perky]

61. DOn't forget the Larry Craig card

Craig apparently has luekemia and the newly elected Governor is a Dem. Not to sound ghoulish but that might well solve the problem.

[Shrek]

64. That won't work for Wyoming.

According to statute, the governor has to appoint a replacement who belongs to the same political party as Senator Craig.

[MADem]

73. On to a special election, then!

If the vacancy in the office of representative in congress occurs within six (6) months prior to the next general election, the vacancy shall be filled at the general election. Otherwise the special election shall occur not more than forty (40) days after the vacancy occurs. The governor shall declare the vacancy and issue the writ of election within five (5) days after the vacancy occurs.

[Shrek]

77. The special election provision doesn't apply to Senators.

The governor has to make the appointment from the list provided by the state party.

If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or in any state office other than the office of justice of the supreme court and the office of district court judge, the governor shall immediately notify in writing the chairman of the state central committee of the political party which the last incumbent represented at the time of his election under W.S. 22-6-120(a)(vii), or at the time of his appointment if not elected to office. The chairman shall call a meeting of the state central committee to be held not later than fifteen (15) days after he receives notice of the vacancy. At the meeting the state central committee shall select and transmit to the governor the names of three (3) persons qualified to fill the vacancy. Within five (5) days after receiving these three (3) names, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment of one (1) of the three (3) to hold the office. If the incumbent who has vacated office did not represent a political party at the time of his election, or at the time of his appointment if not elected to office, the governor shall notify in writing the chairman of all state central committees of parties registered with the secretary of state. The state central committees shall submit to the governor, within fifteen (15) days after notice of the vacancy, the name of one (1) person qualified to fill the vacancy. The governor shall also cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the state notice of the vacancy in office. Qualified persons who do not belong to a party may, within fifteen (15) days after publication of the vacancy in office, submit a petition signed by one hundred (100) registered voters, seeking consideration for appointment to the office. Within five (5) days after receiving the names of qualified persons, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment to the office, from the names submitted or from those petitioning for appointment

[MADem]

83. What am I missing?? The governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment ...

I understand that party thugs pick the guy, but it is TEMPORARY, pending the special election, yeah?

And it depends on when the vacancy occurs if one has to wait for a time or call one quickly?

I'm not seeing where the electoral procedures are trumped by the appointment.

In any event, Craig ain't from WY, so that's just as well....

[MADem]

74. There's TWO cards there, actually...and maybe one relates to the other somehow

Maybe he's had the leukemia for awhile, but is using it as an 'exit strategy' should this Mike Rogers 'outing' situation get any stickier for him:

http://www.blogactive.com/2006/11/fighting-fight-to-very-last-minute.html

...Late Monday afternoon, Craig put out a press release to "clarify" his support of HJR 2, which would ban domestic partnerships or civil unions. Craig's announcement came just weeks after Rogers reported on Craig's multiple sexual encounters with men in Idaho and Washington, D.C.

"It shouldn't fall to an out-of-state gay activist blogger to call on Larry Craig to tell the truth to his state's social conservative voters," said Rogers. "Those voters and I might disagree on HJR 2, but we can all agree that it's time for leaders like Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Rep. Mark Foley to be honest with the citizens about who they are. Tell the truth and let the political chips fall where they may."....In October, Rogers reported that three separate and corroborating male sources described having sex with Craig -- two in the Pacific Northwest and one who said he and Craig met in two different bathrooms of Washington, D.C.'s Union Station train depot. Rogers called on Craig to be proud of who he is and to level with "values voters" whose support he has taken for granted.

Rogers broke the news on the nationally syndicated Ed Schultz show, which broadcasts in the Spokane market. It was covered by the Spokane Spokesman-Review, Idaho State Journal, Idaho Falls Post-Register, Lewiston Tribune, CBSNews.com and USA Today.

Rogers called Craig's late support of HJR 2 "a cheap attempt to shore up the support of social conservatives." Rogers has contacted individual Idaho religious and values leaders to share what he knows about Craig.....

[Alexander]

84. His name is Craig Thomas. Larry Craig's the closet gay guy.

[tnlefty]

10. I think that I can try to move "forward" whatever that means, and despise

Joe. Do you mean try to move in a more positive direction for the country? Yep, I think that I can try to contribute to that effort and still despise LIEberman.

[kentuck]

11. Compromise is a two-way street..

If we're ready to work with Joe, then he will have to be ready to work with us, and vice-versa.

[tnlefty]

27. ? I'm not one of his colleagues, so I don't understand compromise with

Joe.

I intend to ignore him as much as I possibly can, until the next time that he undercuts the democrats, then there will be a fresh round of swearing flying from my mouth. And yes, I will continue to despise him.

If by compromise you mean 'don't say anything mean about Joe', then trust me I don't type one tenth of my disdain for him here.

[kentuck]

28. I'm sure the Senators are debating the same issue with themselves...

Some had endorsed Lamont. But they don't plan on groveling up to Joe.

[terrya]

12. Yes. It's time to move on.

As LynneSin mentioned in another post, I'd rather have Lieberman as a Democrat...and us having control of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Stopping Bush's extreme judicial appointments is critical in the next two years.

I think we can work with Lieberman. And I think he'll fully return his allegiances to the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

18. Do you think the Repub will not moderate their positions after this election?

Do you really think they will vote straight party line, even for radical judges, after the disaster they experienced last Tuesday?

[terrya]

26. I think they will.

I still think Specter and the rest of them will continue to vote the party line. Even after Tuesday.

[KharmaTrain]

13. All I Care Is He Votes For Harry Reid...He Can Pound Sand After That

The problem of being a party of one is it gets awfully lonely. Many here fret that Joementum will be a factor in this closely divided Senate. But that's without looking across the aisle and seeing the divdes that will rarely create a strict party line vote that would make Joe "the decider".

I now expect Specter to be the wild card in a reprise of his role as "Senator from Scotland"...no longer on the short leash of boooosh or party leadership as he was when he was repeately threatened with his chairmanship of the Judiciary. There's also several others like Collins, Snow, Hagel, Smith and others who will peal away from their side in support of Democratically introduced bills that could wedge them. For example, when the minimum wage bill is introduced without the poison pill that was in the last session. My bets are we'll see a bunch cross over at their electoral peril.

While some Repugnicans are stinging over the loss of an Allen, the moderates are looking at what happened to Chaffee and thinking this could be their fate as well if they stay too cozy with the right wing.

Cheers...

:hi:

[kentuck]

21. Right on!

All of them are thinking of self survival above all else.

[bullimiami]

14. if joe starts acting and voting like a democrat he can earn our forgiveness.

[novalib]

15. Do You Trust SNAKES??

Do you trust snakes to behave as anything other than SNAKES??

I don't.

Fool me once -- shame on you.

Fool me twice -- shame on ME!

Joe has fooled us once.

Why in the HELL would we let him shaft us AGAIN???!!!

[Coexist]

16. I'm in wait-and-see mode

personally.

[BlooInBloo]

19. My beef is more with the fucking jackasses who voted for him...

... I typically have relatively little animosity towards the politician. I allocate more responsibility to the people who PUT the politician in a position where she/he can harm others.

Fucking jackass CT voters.

[MADem]

48. You mean Republicans and right leaning independents? NT

[BlooInBloo]

62. (shrug) You can pretend a whole bunch of Democrats didn't vote for him...

... But everyone else knows that isn't the case.

[MADem]

75. A whole bunch? Twenty seven percent is not a small number, but

He did get FORTY percent of the vote, and it sure as heck
wasn't from Republicans.

I mean, come on....the breakdown, more or less, was fifty for
Joementum, forty for Ned, and ten for that other clown.  

Holy Joe got somewhere near seventy nine percent of the GOP
vote and fifty two percent of the independent vote.  According
to the Nov 6 polls, he was trending at twenty seven percent of
the Democratic voters.  It's not a small amount, but it's not
"a whole bunch" either.   Nineteen percent of
Republicans said they weren't voting for Joe, either, for that
matter.    

Lamont just wasn't able to punch through.  He sure tried,
though.  The name recognition will stand him in good stead if
he runs for another office, say, governor, or even another
Senate run in future.    

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:lU4U0TB5iZsJ:www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml%3FReleaseID%
3D980+November+1,+2006+-+Lieberman+Has+12-
Point+Lead+In+Connecticut,+Quinnipiac&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

                 LIKELY VOTERS...........................
                 Tot    Rep     Dem     Ind     Men  Wom
Lamont           38%      3%     66%     35%     36%  39%
Schlesinger       8      16       3       7       7    8
Lieberman        50      79      27      52      51   48
SMONE ELSE(VOL)  -       -       -       -       -    -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) -       -       -       -       -    -
DK/NA             5       2       4       6       6    4

[BlooInBloo]

78. 27% of Democrats voted for a non-Democrat, and that's not a whole bunch? Be serious.

If 27% of Democratic voters voted for gw for President (not a Democrat), would you also say that it wasn't a whole bunch?

Or maybe your "rationale" is as follows: 27% of Democrats voting for Lieberman isn't a whole bunch. But 27% of Democrats voting for *any other* non-Democrat is. Because Joe is *special*.

:rofl:

[MADem]

80. Well, I am serious. Little kicking ROFL guy and excessive snark notwithstanding.

27 percent did not carry Holy Joe. The preponderance of the GOP vote and more than half the independent vote did. You're acting like he WON by 27 percent. He didn't -- he won by ten.

And as for your "If twenty seven percent voted for W" argument to actually work, George would have to have been a Democrat who switched to a "Democratic-Independent" designation. And we KNOW that isn't the case, and never could be. So your argument there is apples and oranges, and total horseshit, failing the logic test. There's nothing that could induce 27 percent to vote for W--no legislative voting history on behalf of CT voters, no candidate loyalty, none of the touchstones that garnered Joementum that number of votes.

The party, like it or not, occupies a spectrum from left to right. Holy Joe kept the right end. Lamont didn't sway them with other issues, and failed to reach a critical mass of independents. He barely scratched the GOP voting base.

What's with all the drama queen (quote) rationale (unquote) and (quote) special (unquote) horseshit? Is your level of maturity really that low? Why are you taking it out on me because Joementum got the nod?

Why do you assume that since I argue a logical point and back it up with figures, that I must somehow support the winner of that contest? You might ASK before you make up your closed mind.

FWIW, and not that I care WTF you think, I don't care for Senator L. I think he's a self-serving ass.

Get over yourself. Sheesh. Try discussing an issue like an adult every now and again. Because you're no more "special" than you falsely believe I think Holy Joe is.

[BlooInBloo]

81. Nah - I'd "take it out" on anyone genius enough to think...

... that the Democratic Party losing 27% of Democrats didn't lose a whole bunch.

[MADem]

82. Whatever. NT

[bigtree]

20. let him prove himself a true Democrat first

he's got an uphill battle there.

[merbex]

25. It is time to ignore Joe and move forward

As a parent I have made it a point of trying to never reward negative behavior; The leadership must decide how they are going to handle this tiny little man with the outsize ego.

First thing would be that I wouldn't let Holy Joe appear on a Sunday Talk show if I could help it. The Democratic leadership better have a list 50 Senators long to call before they get to Lieberman's name. Unfortunately the producers of these shows know that Lieberman will always be good for a knife in the back against Dems and that it will probably increase their ratings.

CT Democrats have 6 years to come up with another challenger to Lieberman - they better start their search now.

[donsu]

29. NO!

nt

[donsu]

30. NO! - dupe, sorry

nt

[Jack Rabbit]

31. It's time to move forward

We don't need to extend Lieberman's 15 minutes, do we?

[kentuck]

32. Are you saying wew should ignore him and go about our business..

After all, he's going to do what he's going to do, anyway?

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Yes, in a nutshell

Lieberman can be part of our agenda or he can part's of Bush's.

[Catchawave]

38. Yes, we have too much work to do

in the Fighting 110th (Congress). We must focus on what's important!

[Armstead]

40. Nope -- He's a dickhead

LaMont would have probably won and Joe could have helped unify the Connecticut Democrats if he had accepted the verdict of the primaries.

Now he's strutting around basking in his new status as "the most important man in the Senate."

He was elected by republicans and he's going to be a big-time spoiler.

[jonnyblitz]

41. why do we have to do anything about him one way or the other

unless we are in the Senate with him or wield power in the party over him? :shrug: otherwise i don't see why we can't speak our mind about him here at DU. I think you , like MANY OTHERS, assign waaay too much importance to mere internet chatter. that's all we are doing here.

[kentuck]

43. We are not that different from the rest of the country ..

or the people in the Senate, for that matter. Some of them supported Lamont in the general and must now work with Joe. I'm sure htey have similar thought. We are not an island to ourselves.

[Tatiana]

46. I can forgive, but I won't forget.

I can look at the man objectively and see a 75-77% progressive voting record. That's much better than many conservative Dems. He supported, for instance, condom distribution without parental notification in schools. There is just one main issue the man is a lost cause on and it's the invasion (I'm sick of calling it a "war") of Iraq.

This Iraq mess really gets me about him; we have thousands of civilians and soldiers dying there and this guy would probably support sending thousands more troops over there to continue the bloodshed. I find it really hard to reconcile the Lieberman who kissed Bush's ass and supported this invasion with the progressive-voting Lieberman who supports a woman's right to choose.

I guess it all boils down to Lieberman being an opportunist. Lieberman likes his job - the power and prestige of being a Senator more than anything. You know, I have so much respect for Lincoln Chafee. He could have decided to switch parties or run as an independent. He would have been reelected handily. But he didn't. I've seen many people question why he didn't. Well, plain and simple, Chafee *does* identify with many Republican ideas and principles. Not the principles of the right-wing neocons, but the ideas of small government and states' rights, for example. He didn't want to leave the Republican party - he wanted to bring them back to being the party of Abe Lincoln. It seems like the Neocon Nightmare has caused us to forget that there were actually Republicans who took progressive stances on the issues (i.e. Nixon's work on school desegregation and his misguided cash-based Family Assistance Plan).

So to summarize, I can forgive Lieberman for being power-hungry if he continues to vote progressively and attempts to listen to reason regarding the Iraq invasion.

[ecstatic]

51. I bet he stays independent and runs for prez again

But we'll see...

[Beelzebud]

52. There is a native american parable about a woman who rescues a poisonous snake.

After feeding, and returning the snake to full health, the snake inflicts a fatal bite to the woman as she tries to feed it one day.

As she lays there dieing, she asks the snake: "Why did you do this to me? I saved you!"

To which the snake replied: "Look bitch, you knew I was a SNAKE."

[Hutzpa]

53. Perfect anecdote!! n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

54. No and yes.

I don't forgive him, but it's time to move forward and quit stressing about him.

[Kelly Rupert]

56. Sure. He's actually not a bad Democrat, except for the war.

http://ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

[everythingsxen]

69. Watch out Kelly

Next thing you know you will be dubbed a GOP apologist and/or Zionist collaborator like me. Whatever you do, don't point out that Joe's stance on the War is the same as plenty of Democrats!

[boolean]

57. HE IS A REPUBLICAN

What's the point of having a D next to his name when he votes with the pukes? I think he should make it official and switch to the republican side, already. That way all the DEMOCRATS that voted for him will finally wake the fuck up and see his true colors.

[robertpaulsen]

59. I don't extend forgiveness before an APOLOGY.

If LIEberman says he's sorry, then I'll consider forgiving him.

[robertpaulsen]

66. And it does not appear as though an apology is forthcoming.

Lieberman won't rule out GOP caucusing
Would make change if he felt uncomfortable

By Associated Press | November 13, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/13/lieberman_wont_rule_out_gop_caucusing/

[dkofos]

63. Hell no

It's obvious you haven't seen this
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/11/12/lieberman_refuses_to_close_door_on_switching_parties/

[otohara]

65. Haven't Forgive Bush For Stealing Election

why should I forgive Lieberman for going against the will of the dem voters after the primary and winning through GOP support?

I really detest Joe now, considering how proud I was for the first Jew to be nominated as VP.

Let's not forget, he also encouraged Gore to bow out!

[everythingsxen]

68. Some things you seem to be ignoring:

why should I forgive Lieberman for going against the will of the dem voters after the primary and winning through GOP support?

There are people in this nation who are not Democrats, you may or not be aware of this. There are also people who are not Republicans. There are a goodly amount of Independants though. Lieberman's job is to represent the people of his state, all the people. Not just Dems, not just Repubs. You need to cut out the rhetoric and focus on fixing things.

Let's not forget, he also encouraged Gore to bow out!
Right because encouraging someone to give up a hopeless fight is a bad idea. Let's face it, the 2000 election was rigged from day one. There was pretty much no way Gore was going to win because of the cheating. SO you think Joe is a bad-guy because he saw the writing on the wall and encouraged Gore to drop?

[Richard Steele]

85. Is there ANYTHING Joe could do that would stop you singing his praises?

[Ms. Clio]

88. I think that if Lieberman actually follows through on his threat to (officially) join the Repubs

certain parties will immediately spring to his defense by blaming all the bad, bad Dems who drove him to it.

[Richard Steele]

90. There's not a DOUBT in my mind that you are correct. nm

[LaPera]

67. Yes, let's show Lieberman we can really trust him with Democratic strategy and secret plans!!

Especially, Democratic plans and tactics for winning the presidency in 2008, and Dem plans & tactics for the hearings and investigations into republican lies, corruption and law-breaking the Dems will initiate!

Let's promise Joe he'll be first to know ALL inside information, maybe that will make Joe happy and he'll come back to the "Democrats"!

Fuck Lieberman - Why do you think Rove gave Lieberman all that republican money, of course, Lieberman first will go back to the Democrats and pretend he's on the Dems side...Get what he needs and then switch to the Republican party... and then he'll point his whore finger at the Democrats as being the unethical party. - Lieberman owes the republican party and it's voters big time!...Lieberman votes republican, because he is a republican.

Good riddance to Lieberman...he's as good as gone anyway...get used to it!

It'll be a 50-50 Senate - plus Republican Cheney as the tie breaker!

[JerseygirlCT]

70. Move forward, yes. Forgiveness usually requires some

sense of repentance, and we're sure not seeing that from Joe. He's not sorry in the least, feels he's never done a thing wrong, and is working on improving his already awesome powers of santimoniousness...

[MzNov]

71. My Prediction re: Lieberman

He's playing both sides, he's a freaking lying butt-head, and he will be RECALLED. Sometime next year. And no, here's one Republican we don't forgive. He's just getting started, furrchrisssakes.

:mad:

:dem:

[JetCityLiberal]

72. Not for me kentuck

He hurt the Democratic Party. It was and still is "All about Joe"...

Wanker, screw him.

[Ksec]

76. Joe who?

I pay no attention to attention whores. Joe fits that category quite nicely.

[grmamo]

79. NO, thank you. He was voted in by republicans, so where is his loyality? n/t

[KingFlorez]

86. Yes it is

The election is over and now is the time to move on to the issues. What's done is done.

[upi402]

87. reporting for duty

:patriot:

[Clarkie1]

89. It's not a question of forgiveness...Lieberman doesn't need our forgiveness.

But, we do need to work with Lieberman. That's politics.

[fujiyama]

91. The simple fact is

we need him at this time more than he needs us. At this time, he literally controls the balance of the senate.

He leaves - we lose chairmanships. It's that simple. And for now, I'd rather have Boxer chairing the environmental works committee, Levin - Armed Services, Leahy - Judicial, etc etc.

So, of course I don't think we can really trust him with strategic information. He has no sense of loyalty. But we need him to stay with us, so hopefully Reid can keep him content for two years until we can gain more seats and not worry about him as much.

[and-justice-for-all]

92. He is a tyrant and a Rethug lap dog...nt