Well, it worked out just the way Joe wanted it to. He is now the man in the middle who can be for sale to the highest bidder. I have lost track of who he's "gonna remember" for not supporting him in the way he wanted, with whom he will caucus and who he's forgiven. I suppose we don't have to try and keep track because what matters is how he votes on a given day, not promises or any statements ahead of time. Joe is now in the best barganing position he will ever be in. In order for Dems to keep the majority, he has to vote for the D majority leader (we know Sanders-I will vote with the Dems) But, if he gets a better deal from the other side, and votes for an R as majority leader, then the Rs stay in charge because Cheney will break the tie. So, who is going to come up with the best deal? I don't think it would be hard for the Rs to put the pressure on Collins to give Joe the chair of the Homeland Security committee to entice him their way. Or, do the Rs want the Ds in charge of both chambers so it's all the better to run against the Ds in 2008? It seems to me that is the strategy, otherwise, Allen wouldn't have conceded today. (That, and Warner is retiring in 08, so Allen can run for that seat since his presidental prospects seem to be somewhere near the toilet right now.)
That's why holding Joe accountable is such a problem -- if Ds play hardball with him, he'll take his mitt and his ball and go across the aisle. And I, for one, think that every single vote that is divided by party in the Senate will leave Joe in the "what's my vote worth to you" seat. I'm not talking about cash for votes, (Heavens no!) but other perks.
I like the idea of making Hillary majority leader if Joe will vote for her. I would much rather have her in the bully pulpit (imagine women leading both chambers) and not running for president in 08. We need someone who's not a Bush or a Clinton -- give another family a chance.
What I do not like is Joe's paternalistic attitude that he, and he alone knows what is best for Connecticut:
"I don't feel that I owe anybody anything but a hearing and then the confidence that I will make the judgment of what I think is right and what I think is best for the people of Connecticut. Watch me," Lieberman said." from the NH Register today (h/t gary in the comments)Oh, yeah, Joe? How many people in CT loved that Cheney energy plan you voted for that can put a gas platform in Long Island Sound? How many people in CT support torture, Joe?
Joe, here's another idea -- how about LISTENING to your constituents -- for whom you work? How about asking the PEOPLE of Connecticut what they think is best? I know that's hard to wrap your head around, but give it a try -- you might learn something! An election does not mean we trust you to treat us like children who need a daddy to tell us what is good for us. You keep that up Joe, and you're going to have a miserable six years because we won't sit back and take it like we have in the past.
Joe -- the choice is yours. Make the change and be responsive to the people of the great state of Connecticut, or live in your own little beltway world of money and power. You have a chance now to make amends for your arrogance of the past.
Proverbs 10:17 People who listen when they are corrected will live, but those who will not admit that they are wrong are in danger.Readers: what do you think?
Proverbs 29:23 Arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.
Proverbs 19:25 Arrogance should be punished, so that people who don't know any better can learn a lesson. If you are wise, you will learn when you are corrected.
38 comments:
He is now the man in the middle who can be for sale to the highest bidder You make him sound like a little 'ho'. Those ladies WORK HARD for a living, it's an insult to the oldest profession!
it's gonna be a LOOONG six years.
Connecticut WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ?
:(
I agree with Gary, not only did a lot of the Joe voters have short memories, a lot had no memory of anything, accept for the information Joe wanted them to hear. It's amazing that almost every state voted for change except us? Why, because Joe was able to persuade a lot of low informational Democrats/Unaffiliated that he was the guy that was taking care of them, while Ned was the Democrat running on that single issue called “Iraq war" from which he wanted to "cut and run"! Holding Joe accountable is going to be a problem because most people are not paying attention. It's the political junkies like us who actually care about these things, so I guess it's going to be us who will be the ones holding Joe accountable. That means watching every vote that comes up and making those phone calls into Joe's office before he votes so he is aware that he's being watched! And, writing letters to the editors at the time he votes against a crucial bill so people have some idea of what Joe is doing! Just what I wanted to do, see more of Joe, yuk…
On the other hand, if it’s a bill that the Democratic Party really wants, Joe may just go along with them because he knows they backed him up by not going after him in order to support Ned Lamont and they may not be so kind the next time around. I guess the bottom line is, he’s a slime ball that no one can trust so who knows?
oh yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of Hillary being the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee only because I'm so tired of all the polarization that has gone on over the last 8 years between the Bush and Clinton years, do we really want more of it? However, as Senate majority leader – hmmm that might work out – yeah two women running both houses. Why not, it's something that comes natural, right? hahaha --- sorry, I couldn’t resist!!!!
What do I think? I think the campaign is over. I think you should deal with it. We've got work to do, and you're not helping, Kirby.
Kirby, there is one vote that will be coming up which will be interesting on what Joe does and that's the re-nomination of John Bolton, US Ambassador to the United Nations. Previously he said he would vote for Bolton, but I know the Democratic Party is really against him. Actually, it was posted on the DailyKOS that Lincoln Chafee was able to squash Bush from sending up the nomination today by stating, "The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," and this was the man who was thrown out of office by the RI voters? On this point, he makes a much better Senator than Lieberman!
A little off topic, but there is a rumor going around that Susan Bysiewicz is going to push a "sore loser" bill here in CT. Does anyone have more information on this?
Didn't you have an opportunity to read today's papers before posting?
Sen. Lieberman was emphatic in his news conference yesterday about staying with the Democrats, no matter what the Republicans offer him. He has been consistent on this issue.
Joe Lieberman got re-elected.
Accept that and move on.
There are better ways for a Democrat to spend his energy than bashing Lieberman.
Bob -- I think Lieberman is "liberated," not from his party, but from the state and voters who elected him. He's unlikely to run again, so now he can just follow the money and not worry about being accountable. I don't fear him switching to Republicans -- why should he? He's already like a corporate Republican, but he gets all the benefits of being part of the Dem majority. What I fear is that he's now for sale by contributors who financed his campaign and who will add to his funds as legislation comes before his committee(s). They bought him; they own him, and the voters and State of Connecticut should expect nothing. He had no loyalty to the party he was part of for 30 years; he'll have no loyalty to the voters now.
btw, you folks were terrific throughout the campaigns. You just kept getting better and better. Connecticut is a better state because of what you did. Well done.
The Republicans used him, as he used them, so they will never really accept him. As for the Dems, if he strays too far, he'll give up being the beloved by both parties. No, Joe is not quite as free as he thought he would be. Even he has to know that Bush's party is in its death throes, he's better off being on the side of the winners. He might even redeem himself, we can hope.
@Jay Lapidus
"Joe Lieberman got re-elected. Accept that and move on."
This isn't like a football game, where you just look at the final score, grab your football and go home. The voters elected Joe, fair enough. That was the majority's will.
The point of continuing the conversation is to encourage good representation and good government, which should not end after an election. I do not think anyone (here) is disputing the outcome of the election.
However, in the wake of the election there are plenty of issues to discuss about the campaigns and the election process(petty cash, web site "hack", voting machines, netroots, the role of a CFL party member in the Democratic controlled legislature, etc).
Of course, Lieberman could always be continuously dogged over his FEC violations, and hounded about the bribes he and his Frankenstein's Bride wife took from the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists when Lieberman sold out his vote.
I'm sure there will be endless opportunities to highlight what a sleazebag he's become. Maybe he'll go to jail!
At least, make sure the history books show what a disgrace he's become. Ugh! I fell dirty just thinking about him.
Yes, Joe, we'll be watching. And we'll hold you accountable, publically, for everything you do and don't do.
Bayer announced today it will be leaving CT, and we will lose another 1,000 jobs. '
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/1857
Joe Lieberman is now a weakened Senator not a Strengthned Senator.
He was elected by members of the minority party (Rs) in both houses and rejected by the majority party(Ds) in his own state twice.
The real beauty of tis entire election season was that it exposed those in the Democratic Party who only wear the D after their name for their own good.
We need a Smaller tent party in Ct.
I would rather have 55% majorities in the statehouse and party disipline than the 20% of our party today who are really Republicans in their views.
Just wanted to say thanks so much for the great dialog here -- we welcome people who disagree -- that's what keeps the discussion going -- just not the trolls with the ad hominem personal attacks.
Great job, folks!
Carter wrote:
"The point of continuing the conversation is to encourage good representation and good government, which should not end after an election. I do not think anyone (here) is disputing the outcome of the election."
Yes, with an emphasis on your word, converstion. That means an end to vitriol.
There was no excuse for Kirby's casting aspersions on Sen. Lieberman's pledge to caucus with the Democrats. He knew, or should have known about Lieberman's post-election news conference, in which the senator was unequivocal in his rejection of any thought of organizing with the Republicans.
Those disappointed by Ned Lamont's loss have a choice:
They can be vitriolic and remain ignored by the majority of voters, or they can have a civil converstion with the rest of us to promote what is best for Connecticut and the country.
"He knew, or should have known about Lieberman's post-election news conference, in which the senator was unequivocal in his rejection of any thought of organizing with the Republicans."
Kirby is a lady, Mr. Lapsus. And pls point out where and when Joerruption said something like: 'I will never caucus with Republicans under any circumstances'. I read lots of Joevasion's weasely statements, but I must have missed the one time he was talking straight.
Wow, you're bitter.
i have a question for lamont supporters. would you vote lamont for president if he ran? tell me why or why not.
All principle aside (given that 18 years ago he promised to only serve three terms and in July he promised to respect the primary process and not run as a petitioning candidate, his statment about remaining with Democrats, besides hinting that seniority was his only reason for doing so, is hard to take at face value), Lieberman will be staying with the Dems because there is no upside to crossing aisles.
Because the Democrats now control the Senate, there is nothing that can be offered that Harry Reid couldn't match.
Add to that the fact that Republicans have to defend something in the neighborhood of 46 seats out of 67 over the next four years (and 24ish out of 33 in two years), and there is a real likelyhood that Lieberman, if he crossed over, would only be in the majority for a short time. It wouldn't be worth it for him to switch.
It probably will be worth it to be a large thorn in the Democrats' side when the bankruptcy bill is reevaluated and when judicial nominees or warrantless wiretapping comes up.
And Anon 11:49, I was trying to think of an answer to your question until the irrelevency of it overwhelmed me. He isn't running for president.
Can we focus on what we can do now like getting rid of Jim Amann. We need a new speaker. If your mad about Joe the best way to vent is to go after his biggest fan and fraud Jim Amann
@gabe, great answer to Anon 11:49!
Also, I watched a whole panel discussion on C-span last night talking about what it now means for the Democrats to control both Houses. Joe Lieberman was a source of topic and the feeling is that he waited until he received a guarantee from Harry Reid that he would not lose his "sonority" and Chairmanship position to declare his color "blue". However, they were quick to point out that Reid will still have a difficult time with Joe because he can be a crucial vote that Reid won't necessarily be able to count on in the final moment.
oops, I mean "seniority"
Lets focus on Republicans on a local level, lets write and lobby our Democratic legislators to elect a progressive speaker of the House and dump Jim Amann. I won't comment again onthis it just seems that people cant move on. While your sitting here upset at Lieberman ( rightfully so) the Republicans are planning new assaults on your civil liberties. WAKE UP!!!!
anonymous, you're right, Jim Amann MUST GO and that should be our focus right now!!!!!
I did answer you Harriet regarding the truce YESTERDAY. It is good to see you and do and can agree. Do not get blindsided by Joe. In 1992 Lynn Taborsak a Progressive ran as an independent and put Gary Franks back into office. Being a turn coat knows no wing of the party. We seem to be LOADED WITH THEM.
As Gabe said, based on the numbers alone, it's almost inevitable that the Democrats will add to their total in the Senate in 2008. Undoubtedly, this realization has put a bit of a damper on Joe's inclination toward blackmail and delusional self-aggrandizement. Besides, I'm sure Joe knows he's going to need every remaining friendship when more people begin to sniff around in his slush fund payments. For these reasons, I'm somewhat optimistic that Joe will give up his self-appointed role as the Great Bipartisan Uniter and Bush's Best Pal.
The chances of slush fund is zero. If you want to discuss corrupt assholes in the party lets start.
1 Ed Marcus
2. John Drony
3. Jim Amann
4. Susan Bysiwicz
5. Nancy Dinardo
Fine Joe sucks agreed. But lets purge all of the assholes. Lets all run for office, lets run for state central committee seats and elect Bob state chair. Now that is an idea. If you agree I can help you get it done.
oh that's you...happy to be friends with you!
Trust me Harriet I am a Democrat who got the shaft before Ned so I know a little bit about what happened, who did it and why. I am not surprised. I will offer this if Ned wants to remain involved why not take over the party. 72 State Central Committee seats thats it. Hell Howard Dean took over the DNC. With all of the Dems on this site and we can easily muster 72 to take out those bastards. Lets go....
anonymous: you know a lot more about these people than I do and I'm truly sorry that you had to suffer as well from people who don't seem to really want good government returned to the people!
Sen. Lieberman's words against joining with the Republicans:
EXCERPT:
"There is a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it's too serious. The answer is no," he said. "When I give my word I stick with it, and I am definitely going to organize with the Senate Democrats."
He said he delivered that message Wednesday in a phone conversation with the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
-----------
End of excerpt.
Jay @ The Radical Middle
Harriet, I am young and fit and my time will come. First rule of politics, never piss off a young person, you may live to regret it. And they will but good government will be delivered, at least that is my goal
anonymous, it would be cool if you'd create a handle for yourself, so we can differentiate you from the other anonymouses here. Thanks.
Thanks Bob, it is getting very confusing to differentitate one anonymous from another! I;m getting to feel a litte uncomfortable lately for being under attack and don't know why?
Or is that the multiple anonymi?
Harriet -- we got your back.
It is true that Joe "Benedict Arnold" LIEberman is in a powerful position. However, things will play out differently now that the Democrats have taken the house and the senate. Republicans bought him the senate seat but lost the majority.
The Democrtatic party is now charged, by the American people, to clean up the mess of the war and the corruption that is the product of 12 years of a Republican rule.
Republicans will be very busy trying to distance themselves from investigations and prosecutions. Like rats in a sinking ship ~ every man for himself. Republicans will be scrambling to be the biggest and best Democratic ass kissers. And, this does not take in to consideration the possibility that the Senate may have a few Republicans who may be forced to step down when the Bush administration's profiteering and corruption charges come closer to prosecution.
Joe "Benedict Arnold" LIEberman can't be trusted by either side as he too will have to distance himself from his fellow rats in the sinking ship.
This begs the Question.... why and when would we really need Joe "Benedict Arnold" LIEberman's supposed swing vote?
Just a thought.
"Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who won reelection as an independent, will serve in the next Congress as a Democrat, not an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, his spokesman said Thursday.
With the Democratic takeover of the Senate, Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001526.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Post a Comment