Joementum appreciation thread

[mdmc]

cause it is noble to come back from the slaughterhouse a vegetarian.

Welcome Home Joementum. I hope we all learned something.

[xultar]

1. No shit. Joe made me angry. But he is a Democrat. I may not like him

but he votes Democrat. He was involved in the Civil Rights movement and he voted with the caucus on 23 out of 25 issues.

Joe. I hope you learned your lesson and realise that being owned by the opposition is not where you want to be. I know you are playing with us right now but walk into the light away from the right.

[mdmc]

2. ...his wife was in the camps

he knows...

:hi:btw

[atreides1]

4. Actually it was his inlaws who were survivors

Seeing as how his wife was born 3 years after the war was over!

Hadassah Lieberman (born Hadassah Freilich in the refugee camp of Prague, Czechoslovakia in Mar. 28, 1948)

[atreides1]

3. True

Everything you state was in the past, and that's the point it's in the past, he has not said that he will not change sides!

So how far can he be trusted now?

[xultar]

5. Tons of Rethugs ran as Democrats. Apparently you trust them more than

Joe and Joe has never been a Rethug on paper.

So basically you trust no one. Just about anyone can switch parties whenever they fuckin choose.

We never made anyone promise before why should we now?

[Zodiak]

22. Please list those issues

I track Senate votes, important ones, and I have Joe voting on these issues with the Dems about 35% of the time....not 90%.

Condi confirmation (against; liar)
Gonzales confirmation (against; torturer)
Class action lawsuit reform (against; loss of right to court trial)
Bankruptcy bill (against; bad for middle class and poor)
Negroponte confirmation (against; death squads)
Cheney energy bill (against; oil comany profits)
CAFTA (against; bad for workers)
CAFTA (2nd vote; against; bad for workers)
Ohio vote certification (against; stolen election)
Firearm manufacturer immunity (against; big business protection)
Confirmation of radical judges (against; compromise filibuster away)
Tax Relief act of 2005 (against; tax cuts for rich)
Deficit reconciliation act (against; spending cuts for poor)
Alito cloture (against; by DUer's request at the time..normally I do not score cloture)
Alito nomination (against; asshole Bushbot)
Tax cut protection (against; favors the rich...do these people ever stop?)
Extend Patriot Act (against; anti-civil liberties)
Raise limit on public debt (against; bad for our future)
Flag burning Amendment (against; not necessary and against 1st Amendment)
US-Oman FTA (against; ANOTHER "free trade" agreement?)
Roberts Confirmation (against; those blue eyes aren't fooling anyone)


Here is a graphical representation.



Joe is NOT some loyal Democrat with a one-issue problem. He is a 60-70% turncoat on the most important issues to face this last Congress.

[Ms. Clio]

23. great work--I am especially tired of hearing how he is "liberal" on social issues

I am saving your post for future reference.

[Zodiak]

24. a much more detailed post here in my journal

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/4

I still need to update the last three months into it, though. I figured if I did it and posted the results before the election, I would be accused of encouraging dissent.

[Ms. Clio]

26. Not to worry, you will still be accused of that!

But I have always been very interested in your posts on the "stats."

[everythingsxen]

44. Why do you hate the Democratic Party so much?

I mean obviously, you hate all Democrats who vote the same way Joe did, since Joe was "breaking ranks" to vote one way or t'other. So let's looks at who you hate:

Condi confirmation: In addition to Joe, the following DEMOCRATS voted the same as JOE: Blanche Lincoln, Marc Pryor, Dianne Feinstein, Ken Salazar, Chris Dodd, Thom Carper, Joe Biden, Bill Nelson, Dan Inouye, Barack Obama, Mary Landrieu, Sarbanes, Milkuski, Stabenow, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Bingaman, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Wyden, Johnson, Leahy, Murray, Cantwell, Feingold, sheesh, this is exhausting! Maybe I should have listed the 11 Democrats who voted against her, in the "true" spirit of the party that you seem to feel Joe went against.

Gonzales confirmation: This one I guess you have a case for, sort of, seeing as how only 4 other Democrats voted with Joe. Will you attack them with equal vigor?

Class action lawsuit reform: This looks like a pretty even split to me; 25 Against, 18 For (+Joe is 19). Go get those 18 other "traitors" to the Democratic party!

Bankruptcy bill: Hrrm, well the sites I am looking at show Joe as voting against the Bill along with almost every other Democrat. So either you are just making shit up because you hate Joe or he has "mysterious connections" that allow him to control "the media". ;-)

Negroponte confirmation: This is one of the funnier ones, you say the Democrats "opposed" Negroponte, but only two Democrats voted against him in the otherwise unanimous vote. I guess the whole Democratic Party is your enemy, since they don't vote how you think they should vote huh?

Cheney energy bill: Once again, 19 Dems against... almost as many Republicans against as well.. hrrm... But Joe voted with the majority of Dems.... I guess you are wrong, again.

CAFTA: Once again, a bunch of Dems against, along with a bunch of Republicans. But Joe voted for it along with a bunch of Dems.

Ohio vote certification: What bill are you referring to here?

Firearm manufacturer immunity: He voted against it, with the Democrats. So I guess you must hate the Democratic Party, and love gun manufacturers?

Confirmation of radical judges: Why not just say "I Hate Lieberman for a bunch of reasons, none of which has to do with his voting record."

I'm like halfway through utterly disproving pretty much everything you posted. I quickly skimmed the remaining issues and Joe voted with the Dems on most of it. If you don't have any actual evidence to back up your assertions that Joe votes against the party, then you are obviously making this shit up just because you hate Lieberman for some other reason. Too big a nose maybe? ;-)

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

[mdmc]

49. ha ha

they all suck!
(you don't see my boys Kerry and Kennedy on any of those lists...)

God Bless our Dems and all of America!:kick:

[everythingsxen]

51. Uh actually...

You should really see what Kerry voted for. Same with Kennedy. A lot of those votes, Kennedy and Kerry were right there with Joe.

[mdmc]

53. mercy

:cry:

[Zodiak]

70. I have a list of saints, too

Here they are.

Harkin (Iowa).................. 90
Boxer (California)............. 86
Lautenberg (New Jersey)........ 86
Durbin (Illinois).............. 81
Feingold (Wisconsin)........... 81
Kennedy (Massachusetts)........ 81
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov... 77
Kerry (Massachusetts).......... 76 *
Akaka (Hawaii)................. 76
Levin (Michigan)............... 76
Mikulski (Maryland)............ 76


These Democrats can be commended for standing up to the Bush agenda. And yes, Kerry is DLC...the best one we have.

[Zodiak]

69. You misread my post

All I did was list the issues by which I scored the system. Simply that, and the position that I considered to be "progressive" (as determined by the DUers who are kind enough to give me suggestions when I post these numbers). They are a list of issues, and nothing more. Not Joe's votes.

If you want to know where Joe falls on these issues, I commend you in researching them. That was the whole point of my exercise if you had bothered to read my journal entry....to generate interest in actualy looking at the issues because there is to much BS flying around these days.

So here is where Joe falls on the issues:

He voted to confirm Condi
He voted to limit class action lawsuits
He voted for Gonzales
He voted to confirm Negroponte
He voted for th Cheney Energy Bill
He voted for CAFTA, then abstained on CAFTA
Of course he, like many others, refused to even give a speech for Ohio voters in 2004
He was a member of the gang of 14 that gave us three radical RW judges
He voted for cloture on Alito and then voted against the nomination
He voted to extend the Patriot Act
He voted for the US Oman Free Trade Agreement
He voted to confirm Roberts as Chief Justics of the Supreme Court

That is my record on him as far as bad votes are concerned...he scored 43%. If you support any of the above, that is fine. That is why everyone should score senators according to their own conception of what a "progressive" is.

Now as far as your issues about other Democrats joining with Leiberman in voting for Bush policy, then I agree with you completely. In fact, I have a list of senators that are worse than Leiberman. I personally cannot stand them and would rather work without them. However, they have not lost their primary and decided to run as an independent, and they do not constantly badmouth the position of the party on the Iraq war. You are right...I think Leiberman is a worm; sue me, it is the popular opinion around hese parts.

Do not presume that I hate the Democratic party just for trying to find out how senators score and sharing it on DU. This is my honest work. I wish for the party to be better by being more palatable to Americans. I believe that acting like a strong opposition party contributes to that end.

And if you ever accuse me of antisemitism in an off-handed way again, I will report you and put you on ignore. Got it? That was uncalled for.

[everythingsxen]

80. Response

Now as far as your issues about other Democrats joining with Leiberman in voting for Bush policy, then I agree with you completely. In fact, I have a list of senators that are worse than Leiberman. I personally cannot stand them and would rather work without them. However, they have not lost their primary and decided to run as an independent, and they do not constantly badmouth the position of the party on the Iraq war. You are right...I think Leiberman is a worm; sue me, it is the popular opinion around hese parts.

Well, I think it's unfair and smells to high heaven that Lieberman and virtually without exception, only Lieberman is constantly attacked on these boards for adopting the same position as a whole lot of other Dems. As far as him running as an I after the Primary, blame CT law. It was legal and there were no dirty tricks involved. In fact I think he said before the Primary that if he lost he would run as an I.

Do not presume that I hate the Democratic party just for trying to find out how senators score and sharing it on DU. This is my honest work. I wish for the party to be better by being more palatable to Americans. I believe that acting like a strong opposition party contributes to that end.

Well since your post said that Lieberman votes with the Dems 35% of the time, which is clearly much lower than it actually is, you seem to have a different opinion about what the Democratic party is than what every other source defines it as.

And if you ever accuse me of antisemitism in an off-handed way again, I will report you and put you on ignore. Got it? That was uncalled for.

Sorry I lose track of who is who in the "Lieberman is evil because I say so" clique. I will grant you that you didn't mention AIPAC or Israel and how they control the government as many of your peers do.

And for the record I didn't accuse you of anti-Semitism. Accusing you of anti-Semitism would have looked remarkably different.

Also for the record, threatening someone by saying that you will alert on them is, in and of itself, an alertable action. Not that I am alerting on you, just pointing it out.

[Zodiak]

94. I see you whistled past the graveyard...

that you had ignored the content of my post before. You have proven nothing save that you engage in brinksmanship and make false assumptions about the motives of other DUers, not to mention only the most dense person would miss your antisemitism reference, despite your assurances otherwise.

I'm done with you.

[Zodiak]

105. Here is a point by point

Condi confirmation: In addition to Joe, the following DEMOCRATS voted the same as JOE: Blanche Lincoln, Marc Pryor, Dianne Feinstein, Ken Salazar, Chris Dodd, Thom Carper, Joe Biden, Bill Nelson, Dan Inouye, Barack Obama, Mary Landrieu, Sarbanes, Milkuski, Stabenow, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Bingaman, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Wyden, Johnson, Leahy, Murray, Cantwell, Feingold, sheesh, this is exhausting! Maybe I should have listed the 11 Democrats who voted against her, in the "true" spirit of the party that you seem to feel Joe went against.

Condi's confirmation pushed the Bush agenda through and earned us the worst Secretary of State in history. This is after she had lied to the 911 Commission about th memo. It was not a progressive vote nor a vote for the Democratic party.

Gonzales confirmation: This one I guess you have a case for, sort of, seeing as how only 4 other Democrats voted with Joe. Will you attack them with equal vigor?

ummm....actually, I do. But that is not what is at issue.

Class action lawsuit reform: This looks like a pretty even split to me; 25 Against, 18 For (+Joe is 19). Go get those 18 other "traitors" to the Democratic party!

here he voted against the party along with the DLC wing (19-22 other Senators). You have refuted nothing. How is it a good Democratic party principle to stick a shiv in the middle classs?

Bankruptcy bill: Hrrm, well the sites I am looking at show Joe as voting against the Bill along with almost every other Democrat. So either you are just making shit up because you hate Joe or he has "mysterious connections" that allow him to control "the media". ;-)

I have him voting against the bill, too. So I am making nothing up...you are responding to the list of issues that were scored, and not Joe's votes themselves. Those are posted downthread.

Negroponte confirmation: This is one of the funnier ones, you say the Democrats "opposed" Negroponte, but only two Democrats voted against him in the otherwise unanimous vote. I guess the whole Democratic Party is your enemy, since they don't vote how you think they should vote huh?

Negroponte is a known war criminal. The Dems voting for his nomination betrayed human rights and Democratic party principles....when I say "oppose", I mean that opposition adheres to progressive principles. Hardly a shining progressive moment that our party wouldn;t deal with Negroponte's criminal past. The good thing is: every other Senator was scored on the same system, so most of them got black marks on my system for those votes. And they aren't my enemy for this one vote...that is your erroneous assumption.

Cheney energy bill: Once again, 19 Dems against... almost as many Republicans against as well.. hrrm... But Joe voted with the majority of Dems.... I guess you are wrong, again.

and voting for the Cheney Energy Bill is progressive how? Would people on this site approve of it? do you approve of it?

CAFTA: Once again, a bunch of Dems against, al1ong with a bunch of Republicans. But Joe voted for it along with a bunch of Dems.

CAFTA would have been stopped if the Dems had come together and joined in opposition. This is a classic case of Joe spoiling the party and selling out middle class Americans. And do not worry...the Senators that joined Joe in this odious vote were scored the same as him

Ohio vote certification: What bill are you referring to here?

This was not a bill, but an action to not certify the Ohio vote as requested by the CBC. When it came to stand up for the Ohio vote, Boxer voted to not certify and a number of of the Senators at least gave a speech to stand up for voting rights (Obama, Clinton IIRC). Dems that did not join in the fight for basic voting rights were negatively scored (actually they got 0). This issue is there because a number of DUers thought it should be there, along with status in the "gang of 14" and voting for cloture on Alito.

Firearm manufacturer immunity: He voted against it, with the Democrats. So I guess you must hate the Democratic Party, and love gun manufacturers?

once again, this is because you are responding to the list of issues and not Joe's votes, which I did not list until downthread. I know Joe voted with progressives on this issue, and he has been given credit accordingly. I didn't say he scored zero. That distinction belongs to Ben Nelson (actually 5%)

Confirmation of radical judges: Why not just say "I Hate Lieberman for a bunch of reasons, none of which has to do with his voting record."

confirmation of judges are part of one's voting record. Surely you do not approve of Janice Rogers Brown or the other two. That move effctively stripped the Democratic party of the filibuster..a backstab of the highest order.

[The Gunslinger]

52. Thank you for this list..

Ive been looking for a list like this ever since I heard the right wing 90% talking point that gets said by republics and Right wing Dems here on this board.

Joe is a piece of crap that cares for himself ony and no election is going to change that. Him and the rest of the right wing Dems (well Joe cant be considered a Dem anymore) are the reason I switched to Independent no too long ago.

I hope this New Democratic Congress does something, but from the way they are talking so for all I see is budding up tho the rightists, sending more troops to Iraq and no accountibility for the criminals in this administration.

I know they dont start until January, and it's better than if the Republic Party remained in control, but I just see more of the same in the next two years. I really hope I am wrong

[everythingsxen]

54. Why are you thanking him?

That list he gave has no basis in the real world. At all. If you hate Joe, you hate the Democratic party.

Lieberman's record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103

Kerry's record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Hillary: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[Ms. Clio]

59. Terry Schiavo, emergency contraception, ACTA, the Committee on Present Danger

It's not one issue, or even a few, it's a laundry list.

Where were Kerry and Hillary on those?

Where is Dennis Kucinich?

Hating Joe Lieberman is not hating the Democratic Party, anymore than voting for Democrats is supporting the terrorists -- but hey, great stuff, using a smear truly worthy of a Republican.

[everythingsxen]

75. Ok, let's do this,

On Terry Schiavo, there is no voting record of who voted for what. So unless you were actually watching it, there is pretty much no record. I have no idea how Clinton, Kerry or Kucinich voted, because there is no record. What I do know is that 47 Democrats voted in favor of it, with 100+ not being there to vote.

The important question is "What did Joe's constituents want him to do?" apparently what he did, otherwise they wouldn't have re-elected him.

Emergency contraception: Well, do you have a voting record to back it up? Or is it all just politicking?

ACTA, I am not sure what you are actually talking about. Please provide links and or full bill name.

CPD: What exactly is your point?

That's hardly a laundry list.

[Zodiak]

77. Some points.

1. Shaivo was not scored, but yes, his position on Shaivo was sad to observe. I also do not believe that Leiberman was voted back in the Senate solely on his Shiavo vote as you imply. Your numbers are weird...do you mean house and senate dems together, because there are only 44 Dems in the Senate.

2. Emergency contraception. Could have been politicking (sic), but there are a lot of people quite angry about giving lip service to making a raped woman shop for health services.

And I have posted the laundry list of bills and nominations alone. All the evidence presented in this thread should be enough for the average DU reader to make up his/her mind on their own. If they want to forgive all that has transpired with Leiberman (as you seem to), that is fine, but it will be an informed choice.

It will not be because someone comes on this thread and says "he votes with the party 95% of the time" or "he is only against the Iraq war" and the reader goes away with those unsubstantiated memes for other threads. Such statements without any evidence at all are misleading and do not allow people to make informed decisions.

[everythingsxen]

82. Except of course..

You are the one making unsubstansiated claims.

It will not be because someone comes on this thread and says "he votes with the party 95% of the time" or "he is only against the Iraq war" and the reader goes away with those unsubstantiated memes for other threads. Such statements without any evidence at all are misleading and do not allow people to make informed decisions.

And the "laundry list" of "evidence" taken from your "scorecard" is shaky at best and very misleading at worst.

You said he votes with Dems 35% of the time. How can his record reflect voting with the party at least 50% of the time? Because *your* scorecard system says he does?

[Zodiak]

96. You have refuted a false assumption

Also known as a strawman argument.

But you still conveniently ignore that.

Attack the issue, not the messenger.

[everythingsxen]

98. I will attack the messenger when he is writing the message as he goes....

You have nothing to base your assertions on other than your own opinion.

I have attacked the false facts you have presented and shown them to be false and all you can do is cry strawman? Wow.

[Zodiak]

104. Because, you didnt; attack anything but a list of issues

This is the FOURTH time I have had to tell you that. You treated that list of issues like a list of Joe's votes.

Here is the list once again of Joe's bad votes:

He voted to confirm Condi
He voted to limit class action lawsuits
He voted for Gonzales
He voted to confirm Negroponte
He voted for the Cheney Energy Bill
He voted for CAFTA, then abstained on CAFTA
Of course he, like many others, refused to even give a speech for Ohio voters in 2004
He was a member of the gang of 14 that gave us three radical RW judges
He voted for cloture on Alito and then voted against the nomination
He voted to extend the Patriot Act
He voted for the US Oman Free Trade Agreement
He voted to confirm Roberts as Chief Justics of the Supreme Court


To that add the war, the emergency contraception, the violation of campaign finance law, the independent run for election, the criticizing of other Democrats for their position on the war, the stabbing of Clinton in the back, the mindless approval of Michael Brown, and the shameless attempts to blackmail the party and you have one heck of a laundry list.

Please tell me how Joe was being "progressive" or a good Democrat in any of these votes, because these are the ones in contention.

This is what you meant to refute....as it stands now, you attacked a strawman and are strutting around this subthread as if you had accomplished something meaningful.

[Ms. Clio]

79. yes indeed

1. As for Schiavo, I'm not talking about votes, I'm talking about inserting himself into that situation and and supporting the rightwing position on Schiavo. I don't recall Kerry or Clinton doing that, but perhaps you have some evidence that they did?

Here's his own words on YouTube. Piously intoning on "the law" and "life" -- the comments are particularly perceptive on that hypocrisy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IqoanJnk9Y

Here is Michael Schiavo's response.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/politics/main1843144.shtml

2. Emergency contraception: Politics is more than voting, or are you trying to say that his comments and opinions outside the Senate have no political import? He clearly stated his opposition to a law that mandated that all CT hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims, with the oh-so-sensitive remark: "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

3. ACTA: He was a cofounder of this org, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. From RightWeb:

Lieberman also teamed up with Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, in 1995 to set up the private American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), which in 2000 gave $3.4 million to colleges and universities. While its various boards and advisory committees include elites from a diverse array of backgrounds, it is populated with a number of the usual neoconservative-aligned suspects, like Irving Kristol, Martin Peretz (New Republic magazine), Philip Merrill (who passed away in early 2006), William Bennett, Donald Kagan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Hillel Fradkin, and Leon Kass.

(snip)

Some have questioned the group's support for “the free exchange of ideas.” In October 2001, for example, ACTA issued a report assailing the response of U.S. universities to the 9/11 attacks, which reportedly attacked dozens of college professors and students for their supposedly less-than-patriotic reactions to the terrorist attacks. Several months later in February 2002, ACTA issued a “revised and expanded” edition, which included “a sampler of the many responses” to the original report. The revised edition, authored by ACTA staff, claims in its “Acknowledgements” that “no public official—including Lynne Cheney and Sen. Joe Lieberman—has endorsed or been asked to endorse this report.”

The revised report is in essence a compendium of some 100 statements recorded by ACTA that reveal what it calls “moral equivocation” and outright hostility toward the United States among academic elites. Such statements include: “Just because a grotesque act was committed against this country, does not mean any response is justified; it does not grant this country special license to use the sword;” “ bring ourselves and our country to justice, not just the perpetrators;” and, “War created people like Osama bin Laden, and more war will create more people like him.” While the original version cited the names of particular professors, leading to charges that the report resembled a blacklist, the revised edition suppressed the names “to focus discussion on the content of the views expressed, rather than the individuals who expressed them.” Also excised in the new edition were a number of scathing judgments from the original that were cited in press reports, such as the charge that “colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response” to the attacks, and “when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.” (See, for example, Roberto Gonzalez, “Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts out a Blacklist,” San Jose Mercury News, December 13, 2001.)

4. The Committee on Present Danger: This is Cold War revival, "which Lieberman co-chairs with Woolsey, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and George Shultz. Among the familiar names on the CPD's list of members are Gaffney, Cohen, Forbes, Gingrich, Kemp, and Kirkpatrick. Reflecting the trend of similar neoconservative-aligned initiatives, the CPD also enlisted a number of well-known liberal figures, including Vaclav Havel and Elie Wiesel, giving the CPD a patina of nonpartisanship. At the June 2004 press conference announcing the rebirth of the CPD, Lieberman claimed the aim of the group was “to form a bipartisan citizens' army, which is ready to fight a war of ideas against our Islamist terrorist enemies, and to send a clear signal that their strategy to deceive, demoralize, and divide America will not succeed.” (For more on the CPD, see: “They're Back,” by Jim Lobe, Foreign Policy In Focus, July 21, 2004, and Tom Barry, “The ‘Present Danger' War Parties,” IRC, June 16, 2006).


Again, I don't see Kerry, Clinton, etc.'s name in connection with these neocon organizations, do you?


5. December 2005, Lieberman chastised Democrats for pushing for withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that “we undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril.” The comments drew public praise from both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Said Cheney: “On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission” (New York Times, December 10, 2005).


Add these issues to those already identified by Zodiak Ironfist, plus the war, plus the infamous kiss, plus his refusal to accept the results of the Democratic primary, and I believe they do add up to a laundry list that is virtually unique among Democratic leaders. But then, he's not a Democrat anymore, he's an Independent. And yes, he was elected. By Republicans. Republicans keep voting for my asshole Senators, too.

[everythingsxen]

85. As I said earlier..

there is pretty much no record of the Schiavo rulings, so I couldn't say if Kerry and Clinton voted for it or not. It really didn't matter if he voted for it or not, since it was guaranteed to pass. However, as I said above, his loyalty is to his people, not to a party. What do the people of CT say?

EC: What does CT say?

So the ACTA is an organization he co-founded 11 years ago, that makes reports without his endorsement. It apparently gives a bunch of right-wing reports, but apparently Joe has nothing to do with it's day to day operations. Again, what is the point exactly?

As for the CPD, he has never really changed his position on the Iraq War (nor have plenty of other Dems) and is generally opposed to terrorism. Wow. What an asshole. So your accusation is that he supported the War on Terror and still does. Once again, what do the voters of CT think?

So your only argument against Joe is that he supports the War. An admirable position, however it is in fact not your like or dislike that matters unless you are a voter in CT.

And now the funniest part!

Add these issues to those already identified by Zodiak Ironfist, plus the war, plus the infamous kiss, plus his refusal to accept the results of the Democratic primary, and I believe they do add up to a laundry list that is virtually unique among Democratic leaders. But then, he's not a Democrat anymore, he's an Independent. And yes, he was elected. By Republicans. Republicans keep voting for my asshole Senators, too.

Plus the War!!! 2/5 of your above points were the war, now you add it again. I know it's an important issue, but it does not help your case that Joe is guilty of a "laundry list" of sins when most of your list is the same item.

The infamous kiss. Y'know, all the video footage of "the kiss" I cannot find you in the video. You know, you would have to be one of the people ringing Joe and * to say for certain that it was "a kiss"; Lieberman says he whispered in his ear and I think * is homophobic enough to not be willing to kiss another man.

Refusing the Primary. Well, he said before the primary that he was going to run as an Independent, then he lost the Primary, used an existing law to run, ran and won. Sounds like your problem is with CT law, not Joe.

[Ms. Clio]

86. you are being deliberately disingenuous, but at least it's quite obvious

As for Schiavo, I said I wasn't talking about votes. What part of that did you fail to understand? He supported the rabid rightwing positon on that, vocally and in public. Period, end of story.

As to emergency contraception, again, I don't care what CT says -- I care what Lieberman says. His words reflect his beliefs, do they not?

As for ACTA, he has never renounced their activities, nor severed his connection with them. The revised report only tried to distance him from the neocon position after the uproar.

As for the CPD, again, it's a neocon organization, not some noble terrorism-fighting endeavor. Again, where are the progressive Dems in there working with the likes of Woolsey and Gingrich, if it's such a great thing?

My point 5 was the despicable attempt to label those who disagreed with Bush as traitors who were undermining the nation.

"The kiss" is a generic term, as you well know, for his literal and constant embrace of administration policies. Why you feel it is necessary to inject some weird remark about homophobia is beyond me.

I like the way you ducked the fact that it was, I repeat, REPUBLICANS who voted for Lieberman, not Democrats.

[everythingsxen]

89. Oh I apologize Ms. Clio...

I like the way you ducked the fact that it was, I repeat, REPUBLICANS who voted for Lieberman, not Democrats.

I was talking on the phone and got distracted, I had meant to add to the bottom of the post:

34% Democratic
23% Republican
43% unaffiliated

That's the voter breakdown of Connecticut. So You are so right! That 23% of Republicans must have voted Joe in!! Oh, but wait... 10% voted for the Republican... hrrm... so that's 13%.. he got 50% of the vote... somehow the 43% Independent must play into these numbers somehow....

So, I think that makes your statement factually untrue at best, slanderous at worst.

Now, back to your post...

As for Schiavo, I said I wasn't talking about votes. What part of that did you fail to understand? He supported the rabid rightwing positon on that, vocally and in public. Period, end of story.

I will try to make this as clear as possible: WHAT DO THE VOTERS OF CONNECTICUT THINK?

I am sure you think it's a grave injustice that Joe Lieberman doesn't have to answer personally to you. Do you actually live in Connecticut? You still haven't answered that...

As to emergency contraception, again, I don't care what CT says -- I care what Lieberman says. His words reflect his beliefs, do they not?

This is the most telling statement you have made all night. In one simple statement, you have declared that The People (you know, those people mentioned at the beginning on the Constitution, something about "We the...") and their wishes are irrelevant and that Joe Lieberman is accountable only to you and your vision of what you think the Democratic party represents.

As for ACTA, he has never renounced their activities, nor severed his connection with them. The revised report only tried to distance him from the neocon position after the uproar.

I am dying to see your information about how involved Joe is with their actions....

As for the CPD, again, it's a neocon organization, not some noble terrorism-fighting endeavor. Again, where are the progressive Dems in there working with the likes of Woolsey and Gingrich, if it's such a great thing?

Please show me your proof that the CPD is the Machiavellian neo-con agenda machine you claim it is. While I do not necessarily believe that it is all fun and games, there is no proof whatsoever that Joe is there for some nefarious reason other than his stated motives. (Which are, for the record, defending people from terrorism)

Your point 5 is opinion. Your point 5, while it has a certain validity to it, is cast in the most disparaging light possible, because you have made it abundantly clear that you have an axe to grind with Joe. Is it because he supports gay rights when the official Dem platform doesn't?

"The kiss" is a generic term, as you well know, for his literal and constant embrace of administration policies. Why you feel it is necessary to inject some weird remark about homophobia is beyond me.

His literal and constant embrace that is shared by many other Dems, yet I do not see you attacking them...

As for the "some weird remark.." which you feel is unnecessary, I see "the kiss" used far too frequently and the general theme you are trying to imply is that Bush kissed Lieberman. I was simply pointing out that 1. You were not in the room and 2. Bush is such a homophobe that he would never kiss another man. Unless you are arguing that you were in the room and that Bush is not a homophobe. That should be a fun read...

[Ms. Clio]

92. You really have nothing but slander and personal attacks

First that I have "some axe to grind" and then "Is it because he supports gay rights when the official Dem platform doesn't?"

Where the fuck you come up with that from anything I have ever posted is simply beyond me. Clearly just to deflect from his shitty stance on the issue of emergency contraception. But it's quite telling that you just can't believe that there are good and principled reasons for opposing Lieberman. What's really ironic is that I have only rarely posted about him in the past, and only as the past couple of years have really revealed him as a warmongering neoliberal turncoat.

As for your vote breakdown, again, it's so disingenuous. The point is that the majority of Republicans in the state of Connecticut did not vote for the Repub candidate, who got only 10% of the vote, they voted for Lieberman. Without those votes from Republicans, he would not have been elected.

You keep blathering on and on about what CT says, as if the guy is going to be in the state legislature, and not deciding issues of national importance. Like inserting himself into a question that involved citizens of Florida, not CT. Gosh, what did FL say???

As for other Dems, again, I doubt you have read any of my criticisms of them, particularly Hillary, so your statement that you don't see me attacking them is laughable. I'm sure there are many things you don't see, and many more things you don't know.

I'm done with you now. Go play your despicable homophobia card somewhere else. You really have no idea how absurd your statement actually is, since you know absolutely nothing about my personal life.

[Zodiak]

93. I agree

At least he backpedaled on the antisemitism thing.

But he still has no idea he misread my post in the first place.

Tiresome and pointless.

[Ms. Clio]

99. Maybe not misread, but just an MO

Attack, lie, slander. Repeat as necessary.

Tiresome and pointless and an excellent reason to use the ignore feature.

[everythingsxen]

100. Please explain my "misunderstanding"

Your post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2712104&mesg_id=2712753

I track Senate votes, important ones, and I have Joe voting on these issues with the Dems about 35% of the time....not 90%.

Condi confirmation (against; liar)
Gonzales confirmation (against; torturer)
Class action lawsuit reform (against; loss of right to court trial)
Bankruptcy bill (against; bad for middle class and poor)
Negroponte confirmation (against; death squads)
Cheney energy bill (against; oil comany profits)
CAFTA (against; bad for workers)
CAFTA (2nd vote; against; bad for workers)
Ohio vote certification (against; stolen election)
Firearm manufacturer immunity (against; big business protection)
Confirmation of radical judges (against; compromise filibuster away)
Tax Relief act of 2005 (against; tax cuts for rich)
Deficit reconciliation act (against; spending cuts for poor)
Alito cloture (against; by DUer's request at the time..normally I do not score cloture)
Alito nomination (against; asshole Bushbot)
Tax cut protection (against; favors the rich...do these people ever stop?)
Extend Patriot Act (against; anti-civil liberties)
Raise limit on public debt (against; bad for our future)
Flag burning Amendment (against; not necessary and against 1st Amendment)
US-Oman FTA (against; ANOTHER "free trade" agreement?)
Roberts Confirmation (against; those blue eyes aren't fooling anyone)

Joe is NOT some loyal Democrat with a one-issue problem. He is a 60-70% turncoat on the most important issues to face this last Congress.

Right here, you have said that on these issues Joe voted against the party. He only votes with the party 35% of the time on these issues. He is a 60 - 70% turncoat. Your words bub.

You say I misunderstand because I do not understand how your system works, that's all well and good except your system is contrary to what the voting record is.

Your first backpedal:

You misread my post
All I did was list the issues by which I scored the system. Simply that, and the position that I considered to be "progressive" (as determined by the DUers who are kind enough to give me suggestions when I post these numbers). They are a list of issues, and nothing more. Not Joe's votes.

I misread your post where you said Joe voted against the Democrats. Sure. Now you say that you never said that.

So what you are trying desperately to say is that you hate Joe Lieberman for voting with Democrats most of the time and so you as a good Democrat need to do the opposite of what your party is doing and not support Lieberman.

[Zodiak]

103. You responded to the list of issues, not Joe's votes.

And Joe still votes progressively only 43% of the time (the 35% number was from memory, so I was 7% off from my latest numbers....he was 35% for 6 months before that....check my previous entries in my journal). That's where I get 60-70%.

And you're right....my measure is actually how often he votes progressive, not with Democrats (semantic argument). However, that distinction is about 3 issues (Ohio vote and a couple of confirmations) difference.

Now show me where he voted 23 of 25 times with Democrats on important issues...because that was the assertion I originally challenged.

And I am not desperately trying to say anything. You are once again raising a strawman. I simply am showing how he scored on the important issues in the last Congress; issues that I and a number of other DUers think are important. Do I hate him? No. I think he is a worm....big difference.

[everythingsxen]

97. Your posts are hilarious to read

You really have nothing but slander and personal attacks

I could say the same about your attacks on Joe. So far all you have proven is that Joe votes with the Dems on most issues and that you oppose him for some unlisted reason other than he kisses Bush.

First that I have "some axe to grind" and then "Is it because he supports gay rights when the official Dem platform doesn't?"

Part 1 is a logical observation based upon your attacks on him. Part 2 is just a guess as to why you dislike him so much. It is in point of true true, btw. He has worked for gay rights while the official line from the Dems is that gay rights are off the table. (at least in terms of gay marriage)

Where the fuck you come up with that from anything I have ever posted is simply beyond me. Clearly just to deflect from his shitty stance on the issue of emergency contraception. But it's quite telling that you just can't believe that there are good and principled reasons for opposing Lieberman. What's really ironic is that I have only rarely posted about him in the past, and only as the past couple of years have really revealed him as a warmongering neoliberal turncoat.

If you could list those principled reasons for opposing Lieberman, it would be quite helpful. Hopefully it's a little longer than your "laundry list" of a couple of items that you dislike him for.

As for your vote breakdown, again, it's so disingenuous. The point is that the majority of Republicans in the state of Connecticut did not vote for the Repub candidate, who got only 10% of the vote, they voted for Lieberman. Without those votes from Republicans, he would not have been elected.

As for your observations, not only are they disingenuous, they are utterly intellectually dishonest. How can ~50% of the people in the state be Independent ~30%Dem and ~20%Repub and somehow Joe with his almighty powers of control won via the Republicans. Yes, SOME Repubs voted for him. So did Democrats. So did Independents. The Indies won him the state. The state of Connecticut is moderate. They will vote moderate be they R, D, or I.

Also, there is really no way of knowing how the votes would have turned out had Lieberman not been in the race. I know early polling showed a landslide Lamont win, but without Joe in the race... who knows what would have happened.

You keep blathering on and on about what CT says, as if the guy is going to be in the state legislature, and not deciding issues of national importance. Like inserting himself into a question that involved citizens of Florida, not CT. Gosh, what did FL say???

And you keep displaying your willful ignorance of the Constitution. Lieberman does not represent you, apparently since you are unwilling to say yea or nay if you live in CT, to say that what the people of Connecticut want is irrelevant is one of the most anti-Democratic statements you could utter. Apparently only you Ms. Cleo have the right to decide how senators in states that you don't live in should vote? Puh-fucking-lease. His job is to represent the citizens of his state's interest. End of fucking story. He doesn't owe you any explanations.

As for other Dems, again, I doubt you have read any of my criticisms of them, particularly Hillary, so your statement that you don't see me attacking them is laughable. I'm sure there are many things you don't see, and many more things you don't know.

No quite honestly I haven't. Please, if you would be so kind, point out your attacks on every senator who has voted the same with Lieberman. Honestly, based upon your posts in this thread, I can only imagine what you posted in others...

I'm done with you now. Go play your despicable homophobia card somewhere else. You really have no idea how absurd your statement actually is, since you know absolutely nothing about my personal life.

Ouch. The "I'm taking my ball and going home" attack. Good luck with that.

[Zodiak]

76. Dang....and I didn't even post new numbers on its own thread.

As you can see, Clio, simply trying to find answers for oneself is enough to get you accused of hating the party. The accusation of antisemitism is just icing.

Joe is not a Democrat; he is a free agent.

Kerry, by the way, is about 75% and Hillary is about 60% using the same issues.

[Ms. Clio]

81. Hey, I predicted it, didn't I??? ;)

Thanks for the info, I especially like your "list of saints."

[PassingFair]

61. "you hate the Democratic party."

Nope.

Just the ones with DLC on their IRS returns.

[Zodiak]

73. why? perhaps because of reading comprehension

Your diatribe was based on misreading my post.

But project vote-smart is a great place to see another scoring system and how interest groups score Senators. Another is ADA and progressive punch, although I do not use those systems. I am interested only in important bill passages and niminations. To me, that is where the rubber hits the road.

You should read my journal entry and the responses to my original post. They would help you understand my system much better.

I will even send you my excel file, if you so choose.

[Pushed To The Left]

58. Joe Lieberman "On The Issues"

They have him as a moderate liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

[Ms. Clio]

60. maybe you should notice none of that has been updated in several years

[Zodiak]

74. Interesting system. Are these quotes?

That takes a long time to track. The main reason I won;t do the House. I am just a dude in my living room, after all.

[txindy]

84. That sums it up very well. That and ignoring the will of the voters in the primary.

That pretty much sealed the deal.

[everythingsxen]

90. The will of which voters, exactly?

The 36% Democrats? The 23% Republicans? Or the remainder which are Independents?

Connecticut is a very centrist place. They vote for moderates of either party.

[txindy]

106. As I said, the voters in the Democratic primary. They rejected him.

If candidates do not follow the will of the voters in primaries, then why are they held? Publicity? Fund-raising? Ego-stroking?

[fujiyama]

101. I admire his past

but in the last few years, he has become full of himself. It's not so much his votes that bother me (though those have become worse as well), but his tone in public and his undercutting the party's message, and lending of credibility to Bush's policies.

I hope he stays with us for now, because we absolutely need him, but he serves only himself, and he's made it clear if he feels "uncomfortable", he could bolt.

As I said, he holds the balance to the senate so we need to keep him happy for at least the next two years.

[mmonk]

6. My trust has to be earned.

Pardon me if I wait and see.

[xultar]

7. I don't disagree. But just remember tons of Rethugs ran as Dems.

ARe we forcing them to take loyalty oaths or just Joe.

Why aren't people here dogging the Rs that ran as Ds and forcing their hands? At least Joe was a Dem all his years.

[mmonk]

8. The loyalty oath meme doesn't go that far with me.

I examine what they do and if I oppose them, support is difficult for me. As far as republicans go, I don't vote for them so I'm not concerned with them except as an adversary.

[xultar]

10. Even the ones with a D.

[mmonk]

11. For me, his worth is only in numbers.

I have difficulty with contributors to this republican agenda that has produced our national nightmare. I don't hate him, he gets many of the smaller issues right. But we'll agree to disagree.

[xultar]

12. I don't disagree with you at all. I just think our stance @ a hole here @ DU

is sorta hypocritical. That is where I'm struggling.

[mmonk]

27. It's just a tough position for everybody, I think (long memories).

I find the thread ironic. I worked hard for the Clark campaign in 2004 before his withdrawal and the man that kept saying in the debates that Clark being a democrat was questionable was Joe. Now he has people questioning him whether he is a democrat or not.

[xultar]

31. I'm a Clark fan as well. I didn't like it when people did it to Clark and I

can't say I like it when people do it to Joe or any Dem (maybe except for Zell who actually campaigns for Rethugs).

I think we spend way to much time accusing our canidates and each other of not being Dem enough. I'd rather we focus on the issues and debate them.

[mmonk]

32. I get rather tired of it as well.

[Ms. Clio]

36. so you just ignore the actual facts about his voting record?

those are not accusations, they are statistics.

[PassingFair]

62. "ARe we forcing them to take loyalty oaths or just Joe. "

Are the rest of them INDEPENDENTS
who ran against DEMOCRATS?

Are you being DELIBERATELY obtuse?

[DemonFighterLives]

9. I'm not happy with the way he dissed the party or his kissing of dubby's ass

Now to have to walk on egg shells to get him to vote with the dems.
I can only hope that Joe takes a clue from the election of democrats to find his way out of dubby's pocket.
Please Joe- do the right thing!
:hurts:

[boolean]

13. For Christ's sake...

He's a corrupt, selfish asshole. He was elected by Republicans for the most part. He's still deluded as fuck regarding Iraq.

I don't care who here says "power is more important". That's true, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this asshat is somehow deserving of any recognition or forgiveness. We gotta kiss his ass for now, that's all. It doesn't make HIM noble.

[Lurking Dem]

14. I'll copy this here

I wish people would stop looking at this as a bad thing.

There was, in all actuality, very little hope of us regaining the Senate. It wasn't really THAT huge a deal because for the next two years of lame duckedness the House was going to set the agenda. And we had every reasonable expectation of winning the House.

The fact of the matter is, we are getting the last laugh from those right wingers who voted for Joe. His ONLY right wing issue was the war in Iraq. His agreeing to caucus with the Dems gives us more then we could have hoped for.

At some point, one needs to recognize the politics of necessity. None of you are going to get everything you want/desire from a Dem majority Congress. ALL of us are going to get some of what we want.

It doesn't matter whether you like Joe or think he's the frickin' anti-Christ. He is who the voters (and, yes, Independents and Republicans DO actually have a right to pick who they want too) chose. One can argue 'til the cows come home whether Joe running as an Independent was right or wrong. The fact is he did. And he won. And he is who we have to deal with.

[boolean]

15. Agree

Doesn't mean I have to like him, though. He's the one who COST the Democrats the Senate.

[ChiciB1]

18. Correction... He Stated He Would Run As An Independent DEMOCRAT!

I think that meant something other than "I might switch parties now!" IMO, if he does switch then I feel he mislead many Democrats, and was thinking only about his OWN political future!

If I were a voter in his state and voted for him thinking that we WOULD CAUCUS with the Democrats, I would now be feeling very betrayed! What he did was extremely self-serving and I don't feel I trust him all that much.

But to those of you who feel this is fine, well so be it.... but I'm really sorry you feel that way! And I know, we DIDN'T expect to win the Senate.... BUT WE DID! Now, he comes along and kinda, sorta wants to play funny games! It's no game to me!!

[mdmc]

50. agreed

:kick:

[Elidor]

63. Indeed

And people are now coming around saying, "Gee, Joe's butt sure tastes good!" 18 years is more than enough for this privileged asshole.

[Hugin]

16. He was defeated in a primary and ran against a Democrat in a general election...

PERIOD!

He should go quietly to the other side of the aisle.

[zanne]

28. I second that!

No love for traitors. There is NO "Joementum". Let's not coddle this butthole.

[Dora]

17. None from me today.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'll appreciate the pious warmongering bush kisser when he resigns.

[Jacobin]

37. What he said

[Phillycat]

39. Couldn't have said it better myself.

:thumbsup:

[Marr]

20. Didn't he say just yesterday that he "won't rule out switching to Republican"?

I don't see why Lieberman is deserving of any appreciation whatsoever. He's a self-serving, corrupt politician.

[Coexist]

21. yes. Wolf Blitzer showed pre-election vid of him saying

quite clearly, "I will caucus with the Democrats." then post election vid of him saying, "I have not ruled anything out."


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

[grizmaster]

25. Until or unless he becomes a Democrat

I wouldn't give traitor joe the time of day

[jonnyblitz]

29. LMFAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

PLEASE tell me you forgot to include the sarcasm (:sarcasm:) thingy!!

accepting the result is one thing, but APPRECIATION? HOLY CRAP!! :rofl: :rofl:

[mdmc]

43. I've always liked him

Once, on cspan's road to the white house, they covered joementum at a boat show. Everyone was coming up to Joe and going, "All the other guys suck. You are the only one I would support." Joe would ask them for their vote in the primary, and they would reply that they are Republicans. The only folks that would talk to Joe were pukes. At one point, Joe turns to the camera and says, "This just can't get much worse."
I laugh out loud when I think about it.

peace.

[Beelzebud]

30. Joe can eat shit and die for all I care...

[Skip Intro]

46. I'll second that. n/t

[mmonk]

55. lol. Don't hold back your feelings.

[RiverStone]

33. Quit threading, talking, ruminating about Joe already!!! We have better things to focus on eh?

[mmonk]

34. I've learned that I shouldn't post in Joe appreciation threads

anymore. I have no desire to dis him right now, but no desire to praise him since I don't believe he did us any favors over the past few years.

[Arugula Latte]

35. Are you kidding with this thread?

Please tell me this is a joke...

[Hutzpa]

40. Thats exactly whats comes to mind...

this must be some kind of a joke.

Makes me sick!!!


:puke:

[mdmc]

41. hang tight

I am working on my joementum...

[Arugula Latte]

42. Okay. I feel better.

You're joking. *whew*

[Larkspur]

38. Here's how I'll express my appreciation for Lieberman (CFL-CT)...

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

I'd tell him to sacrifice his kids to that hell hole he helped create in Iraq.

[LSK]

45. uhhh, hes just another #

Whatever.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I am grateful to have a Dem majority in the Senate.

The race in Connecticut was the Bermuda Triangle of politics, and I'm hoping wellbeing will be restored and we can move on from here.

[JamesJoyce]

48. Need more Dems like Joe.

nt

[stepnw1f]

57. How about Tom Delay? (nt)

[mdmc]

72. welcome to du

need more dems period.

[Alexander]

83. Enjoy your stay...

I have a hunch it won't be a long one.

[Richard Steele]

91. The only one who "needs more Dems like Joe" is George B*sh.

[stepnw1f]

56. I Will Never Grovel for Power

disgusting...

[blogslut]

64. Oh, I learned something

n/t

[bridgit]

65. Leiberman feels imo that he was the teacher, but i think he ran on...

a fair dose of surprise & re-constituted conceit, so much so that he nuanced a system he understands very well while accepting support from less than traditional dem sources; the lesson seems that entrenched incumbency will not go away lightly however earnest it may be suggested by a given constituency...who knew :shrug:

[Raine]

66. I'm glad he has a "D" after his name

that's all I'll say.

[PassingFair]

67. He DOESN'T have a "D" after his name. He has an "I" after his name.

I think it stands for "Idiot"

[Raine]

102. I agree

the "I" stands for IDIOT! :mad:

[Lilith Velkor]

68. This thread is fucking hilarious

Well done. :yourock:

[Tatiana]

71. The Prodigal Son returneth.

I'm not ready to make nice yet. But I'm glad we have party leaders who are bigger than I am.

[Pastiche423]

78. Fuck him

That's the best I can say about him.

[leesa]

87. You mean for the A**hole who's manipulating everyone with threats now?

Appreciation for the GOP Drama Queen? Not likely.

[donco6]

88. I'll allow Joe to carry water for now.

But appreciation? Not in this lifetime.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Joe's an ass, why should he be treated otherwise?

He's taking advantage of his position as an "Independent" to force Reid to give him things for the caucus. I'm fine with Reid giving it to him to keep our 51 seats but in the process Joe can take all of the absuse that he gets from the left as far as I'm concerned.

[Buzz Clik]

107. "Welcome Home Joementum. I hope we all learned something." I like that!

:thumbsup: