We Must Be Kind to Senator Lieberman

[iamjoy]

Now many of you may think I'm crazy, or deserved to get flamed. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm trying to be practical.

I have seen such vitriol directed toward Joe Lieberman in these forums. I admit, he pisses off me too.

But strangely, politics seems to be a game where your opponent one day is your ally the next. So he lost the nomination and ran as an Independent. Big hairy deal. If he's willing to "forgive" the Democrats who opposed his election, we should be willing to overlook his running after losing the party's nomination.

Iraq. I know many Democrats are angry at Lieberman for his continued support of the Bush administration's war. Whatever. When we call for Lieberman's ouster, we are only further isolating him. Symbolically, we are choosing "force" over "diplomacy" - and look where such a choice has gotten us in other disputes.

Senator Lieberman's single vote on this issue or that issue is largely insignificant. Consider that Senator Lieberman is the difference between a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled one. Forget about Iraq for just a moment. A Democratic controlled Judiciary is the only hope of stopping Dubya from appointing radical right-wing activist judges. Admittedly, it is a slender one, but without the Democratic controlling that committee, there is no hope. Senator Lieberman is the difference between James Inhofe (Global Climate Change naysayer) or Barbara Boxer chairing the Senate Committee on Environment and Energy. With Senator Lieberman on our side, Ted Kennedy is chair of the committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, rather than some corporate shill.

Senator Lieberman is with us on Choice. He is with us on the Environment. He is with us on Labor Issues. On almost all issues, he is with us. We would do better to remind Lieberman of that and to focus on the issues that unite us rather than trying to use Iraq as a wedge to drive him away and risk sacrificing progress on these other vital issues.

[acmavm]

1. So, your justification is that Lieberman is with us on 'most' issues. Problem

is, the biggest issue facing our country is the one that he's blackmailing us over, the one where he supports the bush** administration, the neocon stand, and Isreal over our good and the good of the world.

Screw that crazy old man. Revenge is a bitch, but paybacks are a mother f**ker and they will be our in the 2008 election.

[marmar]

2. I guess I can see your point, but honestly, I don't think it matters with Krazy Uncle Joe....

It seems to me now that's he's carrying out his vendetta from the primaries, when many of his colleagues rightfully vowed to support the primary winner.
And if his ego is THAT fragile and he needs to constantly be petted like an annoying, whiny dog, then, quite frankly, he can go to hell. Dems should have seen this coming when he browbeat Al Gore to not challenge the 2000 election count in court.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. I respectfully disagree.

What you call no "big hairy deal" and "insignificant" are neither to me.

[iamjoy]

5. I Said Insignificant

because some have expressed the attitude "who cares if Lieberman defects, he's only one vote anyway"

That's where I say the importance is not solely in how he votes on one issue or another, because he is indeed, one vote. And he will vote the way he wants to vote regardless of party affiliation.

As for the big hairy deal, yeah, it annoys me, but that seems to be the way the political game is played. That's just the reality. We can continue to hold on to our (justified) anger at it or move on and look to the future.

Are we willing to sacrifice every other issue important to Democrats (besides the war in Iraq) because we can't forgive Senator Lieberman running as an Independent? Are we saying satisfying a grudge is more important than anything else?

[MethuenProgressive]

7. You say "grudge"?

"Are we saying satisfying a grudge is more important than anything else?"

Isn't that why Lieberman ran after being defeated in the primary?
He should've excepted the choice of the voters and endorsed the victor.
But instead he sought the support of Republicans to defeat the Democrat.
Sour grapes/grudge whatever you want to call it - he's not a Democrat anymore.

[iamjoy]

24. Lieberman Didn't Run For a "Grudge"

Most elected Democrats, at least on the national stage, supported him in the primary. But grassroots won, and Lamont was our nominee. Hooray!

Lieberman should have accepted the results of the primary and endorsed Lamont. I completely agree. But, I don't think he didn't do that because of a grudge. Lieberman just couldn't accept losing, he didn't want to quit the Senate. That's why he ran as an Independent. I wish he'd shown the same perserverance in fighting the outcome of the 2000 election.

[LeftishBrit]

27. I agree on this

Few ambitious politicians will accept a defeat that is likely to mean the end of their career, if an alternative is available. The Republicans made the alternative available, by abandoning their own candidate. I don't think either Lieberman or the Republicans did this out of a 'grudge' - they did it out of political ambition: Lieberman to stay in the senate; the Republicans to cut their losses, and prevent a more liberal candidate from winning.

It's hardly the first time that someone has saved his political skin by switching parties or standing as an independent after falling out with their party. In fact, one of my early political memories is of just such a situation. Reg Prentice, the Labour Minister of Education who replaced Tory Minister of Education Maggie Thatcher(!), fell out with his party and ended up being deselected (our equivalent of losing a primary) in favour of someone more left-wing. He promptly switched to the Tories, was elected for another constituency, and became a junior minister under Maggie when she became Prime Minister. This is perhaps the closest analogy that I remember here; but we had a number of other politicians who switched parties, either for ideological reasons or to keep their power (or both). Perhaps it is observing so many politicians who *did* switch parties here that makes me think that Lieberman probably won't do so at this stage. Mostly, ours did so at an earlier stage in their party rows. If he'd had to become a Republican to get re-elected, he might well have done so, but I don't see that it would be a massive advantage to him to do so now. I hope not, anyway - the world is safer without Devil Incarnate Cheney running the senate.

[Bucky]

4. I agree the villification of Lieberman gets pretty silly around here.

His positions on Iraq, Iran, and the Patriot Act are appalling, but the level of damage he does to the republic is certainly less than what any given Republican does just by giving full time support to the Bush crew. People who get all snarly and rant about how they hate Lieberman and he's the son of Satan and how he's constantly plotting to destoy the Constitution are a little out of perspective. He's an inconvenience--one of many--that we have to deal with in trying to salvage the country from Bush's vandalism. He's a speed bump. I don't like the speed bumps on my street, but I do know enough about them to see the best way to deal with them is to roll over them slowly so they don't damage my car.

[mac56]

6. I disagree.

He's a petulant adolescent: pouting, clenching his fists, stomping his feet, and saying, "If I don't get my way I'm gonna run away and live with the neighbors."

I don't believe in reinforcing the wrong behavior. I don't believe in coddling a petulant adolescent.

[EST]

8. He pissed in my beer and I don't like him.

Actually, Lieberman does not mean the difference between democratic and republican control of the senate.
If Lieberman defects, the republicans would have forty nine pukes and one independent; the democrats would have forty nine dems and one independent. The difference is that, on january twelfth, the senate passed an organizing resolution which defined who had which seats on committees. The result of this organizing resolution is that, for most intents and purposes, the democrats will still control the senate.

Although there is much to be said about Lieberman's neither progressive nor liberal stance on vital issues facing the country, his use of the cudgel of threatening to defect, in order to exercise greater control than his position should allow, is the biggest source of the current outrage.

What is is what is and such pressure should be rewarded by immediately stripping him of all committee position and seniority, putting him where he belongs, a freshman senator, serving his first term.

Sometimes, hardball tactics need to be responded to with hardball tactics. At this time, we need leadership in a proper direction - strong leadership, not kowtowing to pissant manipulators.

[donco6]

9. I agree.

Under the current situation, Lieberman exercises far more power than he has the right to exert. He misrepresents Democratic stands on talk shows, only because he's still getting invited to speak as "the Democratic voice".

I've already said we should call his bluff. I honestly don't think he'll switch to the Repug side - it would cost him far too much.

[EST]

15. You are, of course, quite correct.

If blowhard Joe should switch parties, he will automatically be ineligible to chair anything. His apparent influence will be diminished although his bullshit would, no doubt, continue unabated. I, too, suspect his megalomania would not allow any such thing, although it would further cement his ambition to serve as running dog-oops!-I mean, running mate, on a McCain for president ticket.

I still have enough confidence in the American voter to be fairly sure that McCain will never become president, but I have been wrong before-to my eternal sorrow and chagrin.

[mac56]

21. Not to mention the Zell Miller Effect.

Right now he's an outlier, an outspoken maverick, a circus geek. Come see the Democrat who talks like a Republican! Hurry hurry hurry!

If he switches sides, he's ignored.

[greenbriar]

10. fuck lieberman

may he suffer anal cysts like his idol

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I don't think anything said on these forums makes a damn bit of difference

to Holy Joe. He's gotten nothing but obsequious deference from the only Democrats whose opinion of him matters to him, the Democratic party leadership.

I plan to keep saying nasty things about him here, and don't expect him to either know or care.

[mac56]

12. I agree.

We certainly have no effect on Joe here. He neither knows, or cares, what we have to say.

We may well have to placate him to keep the Senate. I'm not entirely convinced that's true. But one thing's for sure: he and his followers can damn well bet I'm gonna shout, holler, and yell every time he does something stupid and traitorous.

[TayTay]

13. No one but Lieberman is using Iraq as a wedge

Other Senators are voting and acting on their consciences on Iraq and starting to do what they think is right on this issue. The question is: should the antics of Sen. Lieberman prevent other freely elected officials from carrying out the ideas and platforms that they ran on before an electorate and promised to implement if elected?

Should fear of disruption cause a Jim Webb, a Clair McCaskill or a Bob Casey to repudiate what they stood before the voters in their home states and proclaimed as their agendas in Congress? Please tell me why fear of Lieberman should cause a Jim Webb to change a position, soften a stance or pretend that he didn't say what he did say on the campaign trail? Why should Lieberman count more than these people and why should his agenda count more than that of other Senators who have also faced the voters and won elective office based on their ideas, principles and beliefs?

Ah, no. Holy Joe should never have the power to negate what other Senators say. And he sure as hell should not have the power to break the promise other Senators made to their own electorates. That is not an elected official in a democracy, that is a petty little tyrant and a two-year who never grew up throwing a temper tantrum to get his way. Shame on him. And to hell with him as well.

[iamjoy]

23. I Never Suggested Changing Our Views

on Iraq, merely changing our tone. Lets respectfully disagree.
They should never let Lieberman "threaten" them with fear of defection into changing their principles. However, I would hope that the Democratic leadership and our good Democratic Senators do not treat Lieberman the way many DUers seem to feel about him. Let us hope they spend time reminding him of what unites Democrats rather than letting the Iraq issue be divisive one, or the deciding factor.

[Ethelk2044]

14. We Need to tell Him to go Ahead and Leave

Why let him hold it over our heads. This is crazy. If he wants to go over to the GOP let him. People were a fool to vote for him. Either they were crazy or just plain stupid to think he would stop assisting the GOP. They will know the next time.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Yes, we must be kind to Holy Joe. We must use Vaseline when we fuck his sorry ass!

Lieberman is opposed to a US withdrawal from Iraq and he is a strong advocate of war on Iran. Congressional Democratic patience with Holy Joe will be tested in Iran. Democrats will have two choices: go along with Holy Joe on a US/Israel attack on Iran, or oppose Joe. I'll bet my money that Democrats in Congress will not go along with Joe.

[EST]

18. Vaseline!

Maybe that's what I got wrong. I had thought, all along, that it was supposed to be "Icy Hot!"

[Eurobabe]

17. I can't stand Lieberman's attitude of self-importance

like a little pissant threatening the Democratic Party, 'wah-waaaaa I will switch sides!

Let him go, there are a few moderate Republicans that routinely step up to the plate and vote similarly on the sames issues. We might have an easier time flipping them than worrying about turncoat Joe.

[madfloridian]

19. Here are some other views.....it might not hurt us as badly as we think.

to just let him go.

http://www2.boomantribune.com/story/2007/2/23/103929/414

"If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution."

And this:

Let Lieberman switch and let the Republicans get the blame...

From David Sirota, if Joe switched:

"The politics of the situation would be terrific for Democrats (even though you can bet that many Senate Democrats will do whatever they can to keep their majority perks, even if it means selling the entire progressive agenda and the 2006 election mandate down the river - what’s personally awesome for individual Democratic senators and their egos’ desire to be called “chairman” isn’t necessarily good for the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party as a whole). They could pass their entire agenda through the House and then blame the Republican Party in the Senate and White House for stopping it (remember how the GOP used Jeffords’ switch to rev up its steamroller with the viciously effective attacks of “obstructionism” in 2002?) This is especially advantageous because the 2008 Senate races look quite favorable to Democrats, meaning they have a good shot of taking back the upper chamber by way more than the one vote Lieberman represents."

I am mixed, but he seems to hindering us more than anything else.

[mac56]

20. these are great

Reaffirms for me that the fallout from losing his sorry ass may not be as bad as sitting here, waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[AX10]

22. As someone who lives in Connecticut, I must differ.

He has pissed on we anti-Iraq war people 24/7. He has accused us of being anti-Defense, anti-American, "Treasonous", and a host of other things that are slanderous.
I voted for Ned Lamont.

[ripple]

25. "Kind" is the wrong word

Tolerant, perhaps, but KIND?

I don't think so.

[election_2004]

26. I agree

The Democratic U.S. Senators and party leaders must use diplomacy and logic when dealing with Lieberman.

I, personally, cannot stand the cretin, and will continue to loudly and proudly point out whenever he is wrong.

[otohara]

28. Now That He's Threatening to go GOP

I say go be with those you admire more and don't let the door hit you in the ass. I can't believe how excited I was when Gore picked him to be the first Jewish Veep. I loath him now.