Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Newsweek's Howard Fineman on Keith Olbermann:
[Obama's] going to leave it up to a vote I think. What my sources tell me is that there's likely to be a vote next Tuesday. The Senate Democrats will caucus when they come back for the lame duck session. They'll all go into a room, Joe Lieberman will make his case for maintaining his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, then there will be a secret ballot vote.
Obama's opinion is sort of on record via Harry Reid, and we'll see how it goes.
Interestingly, people like Dick Durbin who is the first Democrat in the Senate -- the first Senator, and from Illinois, to support Barack Obama -- is really loaded for bear about Lieberman, he wants to kick Lieberman off that Chairmanship. Chuck Schumer, the head of the Campaign Committee likewise.
So it could be a very close vote, and it'll be left to the secret ballot of the Senators. You've got Evan Bayh and you've got Chris Dodd who are supporting Lieberman, but there are a lot of other people who are still angry at him for the very comments you were talking about just a little while ago.
One point I think needs to be made. This isn't about Joe Lieberman maintaining membership in a country club as a matter of feel-good "bipartisanship." There's actually a job that needs doing here, and when Chris Dodd and Evan Bayh say that they want Lieberman to retain his chairmanship, they are saying that the extraordinary waste, graft, greed and cronyism that have built the Department of Homeland Security to a bloated, ineffectual taxpayer-funded behemoth under Joe Lieberman is just fine.
Here's Naomi Klein from The Shock Doctrine:
In just a few years, the homeland security industry, which barely existed before 9/11, has exploded to a size that is now significantly larger than either Hollywood or the music business. Yet what is most striking is how little the security boom is analysed and discussed as an economy, as an unprecedented convergence of unchecked police powers and unchecked capitalism, a merger of the shopping mall and the secret prison.
No-bid contracts kept from public scrutiny in the name of "national security" have built a department of unprecedented waste and theft, all rubber stamped and protected from Senate investigation by Joe Lieberman's chairmanship. And what has it gotten us? Nothing. Basically, the Department of Homeland Security became just another front for the military industrial complex to feed off American taxpayers while neocons like Lieberman screamed "terror terror terror, just trust us."
The FY 2009 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security is $50.5 billion, a 6.8% increase over 2008.
What Bayh and Dodd are saying is that they like Joe so much that this is a small price to pay, that the status quo is just fine and that there is no real need for change.
I wonder if taxpayers agree that $50.5 billion is chump change so long everyone can still sing kumbaya on the Senate floor?
Good for Schumer and Durbin for putting public stewardship over old-boy clubbiness and saying "no."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Two factors weighing into it...
1. Lieberman still a solid vote on most Democratic issues.
2. Reid needs him for any filibuster-busting.
AND given Lieberman knows now that he's in his last term (CT isn't going to give it to him again in 2012 after supporting McCain and the war)....he's got nothing to lose by becoming a "full-fledged" Independent and voting with the Repubs, even on issues he doesn't agree with.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:03pm
"Good for Schumer and Durbin for putting public stewardship over old-boy clubbiness and saying "no."
Right on! And let us hope that the weasels in Congress do the right thing and give this SOB the heaveho.
Good read Ms. Hamsher!
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 1:05pm
AND given Lieberman knows now that he's in his last term (CT isn't going to give it to him again in 2012 after supporting McCain and the war)....he's got nothing to lose by becoming a "full-fledged" Independent and voting with the Repubs, even on issues he doesn't agree with.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Wait a second....you sure that issue wasn't before the voters in CT in 2006? I am not clear how it is different now?
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 1:11pm
Nice article. You're framing what reflects the "rub" of the future.
High-minded, friends close, enemies closer (so Lieberman falls between these), vs.
Mandate, change, momentum, will of the voters.
More and more of the articles since the election take this form. Is Obama selling out, moving centrist, or high-mindedly working within to change the system. Blah blah.
For my $, we're heading for the falls. This election = the best hope yet for survival. We're reconciling very old forces, imperialism and especially corporatism.
This corporatization of government, which merged into ginormous bail-out orgy is the wildest thing this country ever experienced. I don't think we can afford to wet our pants over things less than avoiding a protracted depression and 10% unemployment in 2010, successfully exiting Iraq in 24-36 months, forming Afghanistan into a coherent, international hemorrhage for starters, say within 36 months.
Posted by winyahn at 11/11/2008 @ 1:13pm
Strip him and dress him up in Sarah Palins cast offs.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2008 @ 1:14pm
As a supporter of Senator Lieberman I am offended by the threats from Senator Harry Reid and many of his Democratic colleagues to strip Senator Lieberman of his Chairmanships simply because he chose his friendship with John McCain over party politics. In repose to these threats, I have set up the a blog, Let Joe Stay (http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/) with the hope of mobilizing like minded people to contact their Senators as well as Senator Reid and inform them not to put their pettiness ahead of what's right. Senator Lieberman is the best man for these Chairmanships and to remove him would be foolish. If this is truly the time for hope and change, then Sen. Reid should forgive and forget and allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship.
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 1:11pm
Not as much. He had still plenty of "ol' Joe" good will left in CT and hadn't endorsed the GOP nominee for President....AT the GOP Convention!
Lieberman's tenure is over after this term...he knows it.
The CT Repubs will be looking for a pick-up, not some lame candidate to "help Lieberman"...
and hopefully the CT Dems can come up with somebody a bit more polished than Ned the Head.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:19pm
Not as much. He had still plenty of "ol' Joe" good will left in CT and hadn't endorsed the GOP nominee for President....AT the GOP Convention!
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah.....more coffin nails with his turncoat performance post 2006. Good point!
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
"No-bid contracts kept from public scrutiny in the name of "national security" have built a department of unprecedented waste and theft, all rubber stamped and protected from Senate investigation by Joe Lieberman's chairmanship"
How abot we at least get somebody who actually does his job?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/11/2008 @ 1:39pm
*about
Posted by Malcontent at 11/11/2008 @ 1:40pm
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
You're forgiven. Now consider yourself forgotten.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/11/2008 @ 1:40pm
I don't understand the politics of this. why does Leiberman get to remain a Democrat? What plausible argument can there be? If the chairmanship is a political appointment aren't there more deserving members on the committee? If it is a magnanimous appointment, give it back to Susan Collins. Lieberman is not a Democrat, let him vote with the opposition.
Posted by lachatte at 11/11/2008 @ 1:53pm
Senator Lieberman is the best man for these Chairmanships and to remove him would be foolish. If this is truly the time for hope and change, then Sen. Reid should forgive and forget and allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship.
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Forgive and Forget.' Kind of like we are supposed to forgive and forget the last 8 years HeStays? Guaranteed such an attitude will assure the continuation of the ruinous status quo. Americans don't want that, but perhaps you aren't an American?
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
(heheh)
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:03pm
"AND given Lieberman knows now that he's in his last term (CT isn't going to give it to him again in 2012 after supporting McCain and the war)....he's got nothing to lose by becoming a "full-fledged" Independent and voting with the Repubs, even on issues he doesn't agree with."
What about his conscience and his sense of decency?
LOL. just kidding!!
But seriously we have a big problem if people like Lieberman, who are elected to office in the US, but openly represent the interests of other nations can not only get elected to low level positions, but a high ranking position in the senate and almost the VP of the country.
That scares me much more than nut-job Palin!
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 3:09pm
Whats better? Give up one vote or give up integrity!
Posted by Truthman at 11/11/2008 @ 3:16pm
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 3:09pm
Interesting proof of the pudding, huh?
Repubs LOVED Lieberman as "The Democrat with principles"....so...
if bounced from Homeland Security and he gets in a snit and starts voting against the Dems on domestic issues (in opposition to his declared principles)...
would the Repubs say "For shame!" or welcome it?
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 3:18pm
I go along with Truthman. I'm sure Lieberman would be petty and partisan enough to try to penalize the Dems for ousting him from his chair. But what's worse, losing a DINO (Lieberman) vote or sacrificing integrity and needed resources?
Posted by annakis at 11/11/2008 @ 3:26pm
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 3:18pm
Do you really think that one vote is worth losing any chance of real change? Do the Dems even have the 59 they need to be filibuster proof with Lieberman?
Honestly I think it is easier to get some reasonable Repubs on board than Lieberman who on things like torture, war, human rights, etc is on the far right end of even the Republicans.
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 3:31pm
A gamble Reid should and probably IS considering....
lose Lieberman, but maybe win over Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe?
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 3:32pm
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 3:32pm
Or just play it by ear. If the Republicans filibuster on too many issues they will really deligitimize themselves which will likely lead to an even bigger mandate in the next election.
This is the way the Conservatives have been ruling Canada with a minority government for the last 2 years.
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 3:39pm
How many Homeland Security meetings, with supoenas to the White House, did Lieberman call after Katrina hit?
Answer: None!
And this clown wants to remain the chairman of Homeland Security?
Forget it Joe. They should make you the official "Joe The Plumber" for the Senate Restrooms, as far as I'm concerned!
Posted by lapdogs at 11/11/2008 @ 3:56pm
Boot Lieberman. Either he has intergity and votes with the Dems or he lacks it and votes with the Reps. If he lacks it, he won't get reelected in 2012.
Posted by rbayer at 11/11/2008 @ 3:56pm
They should really just dump the Department of Homeland Security which does the job the Department of Defense should do anyways.
It is completely unnecessary.
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by lapdogs at 11/11/2008 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I remember the pasty faced Lieberman was sooooo outraged that there could be corruption going on. Incredulous that government could actually be compromised. Did he ever do anything? Out NOW!
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 4:04pm
They should really just dump the Department of Homeland Security which does the job the Department of Defense should do anyways.
It is completely unnecessary.
Posted by Poyani at 11/11/2008 @ 4:00pm
I totally agree.
Posted by Truthman at 11/11/2008 @ 4:10pm
Lieberman is a very dangerous man. Having him in a power position one step away from annihilating the planet for Israel's glorification is a terrifying proposition, indeed.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/11/2008 @ 4:42pm
Lieberman has no morals, conscience or integrity. When he was in danger of losing re-election, he called Obama...who immediately dropped what he was doing and came to campaign for him. It made a big difference and helped him to win re-election. In return for this huge favor, Lieberman endorsed McCain, but worse yet...he actually spoke badly of Obama.
The Dems will sway enough Republicans across the aisle. They don't need Lieberman. Vote that mutha out!
Posted by rockcat at 11/11/2008 @ 4:55pm
In her article, Jane Hamsher declares that:
"....Department of Homeland Security to a bloated, ineffectual taxpayer-funded behemoth"
But that is what all government is!
And most of you on the left support government intervention in our lives, and want more and more of it.
So a lib commenting that a government agency is a bloated behemoth is not quite consistent with traditional lib belief.
The difference here is that the purpose of the article and the blogs is to crucify Joe Lieberman. So, an agency he has oversight responsibility for is declared to be no good.
How to fix it? The Democrats will replace him with another Democrat, one who is not viewed as an outcast.
Then, since Barack Obama will be president and Dems will be in charge of congress, this agency will be OK after that. Even if nothing changes, it will be declared to be OK once Dems are in charge.
Kind of like how Social Security was said to be in trouble when Bill Clinton was president, but then once George W. Bush was president and tried to fix it, all of a sudden it was not in trouble anymore. Just like that, it is amazing how situations "change", on the fly, when the party in power changes, even if nothing has changed.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2008 @ 5:03pm
Traitor Joe needs to go!
Posted by shag11 at 11/11/2008 @ 5:16pm
When I read "forgive and forget" I am reminded of the old Phil Silvers show. One of his scams was a "forgive and forget" dance on Benedict Arnold's birthday. "He stays" sort of sounds like Colonel Hall.
In all seriousness, I do not see how the Democrats can reward Lieberman not only for supporting McCain at the convention--in the worthy tradition of Zell Miller--but also campaigning with Palin and supporting downticket Republicans! If he feels more comfortable with Republicans, let him go. He danced with the Devil, now he must pay.
Posted by Fgg at 11/11/2008 @ 5:22pm
Homey Security was a 'no buck stops here' cover, still birth for the hsuB admin criminal ineptitude a la 9/11 fat clenched butts firmly on soulless greedy hands: "On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real.", "received the briefing, entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States", on 6 August 2001."
After all, isn't that the only thing that new con repubs are good for-- shell gaming our public coffers.
And what better a shell than that of a Lie berman.
I say bury the nut and say you want to see if it actual grows anything. All the time knowing that an old nut especially needs a good seed. (The proof is there's none actually there.)
Good odds it will only make a little fodder-- but that's much much better than relying on a big big plotter.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2008 @ 5:53pm
If an election were held today in Connecticut disloyal Joe Lieberman would be defeated handily. JOE MUST GO! He has no real friends because he possesses no real ethics. Remember that after losing the democratic primary to Ned Lamont he ran a sleezy campaign as an independent with the help of that evil personified Dick Cheney and his morally challenged twin Karl Rove in a Faustian bargain that has corrupted him for life. Not to mention all the nasty things he said about Obama. This man's loyalty is for sale. Let Joe go now!
Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/11/2008 @ 5:53pm
sjchermak... Who the hell are you kidding..?? Tell us "leftys" how you guys would be so gracious if we lived in bissaro land and the elections had gone 180 deg the other way.... Tell us the "rightys" would allow a Republican senator who spoke at THE Democratic convention, trashing the republican nominee, the right to retain a post of such power.. Tell us that. Bool-Shite.
Before you write any BS argument, you should consider if the opposite could be possible... AND in this case, not only possible, but absolute.
Tar and feather that Son Of a Bitch Droopy-Dog Look alike MF'er..
Dont feel bad for ol' Joe... He'll walk off the senate floor and right on to the set of Hannity + Combs... With the other douchebag regulars like Dick "loves it in the seat" Morris and Ann "C**t" Coulter.. heroes of the right.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 11/11/2008 @ 6:21pm
If pragmatism should support the idea of keeping Lieberman on board, it should iqually support the idea of booting him out. The domoctrats having a significant majority, they should expect some repubs to fall in line when needed for they too, at some point, will need back up from some members of the party that can do and undo; unless it's a matter of old buddies of course.
Posted by demesvarc at 11/11/2008 @ 6:41pm
Joe needs to go...at least from the Chairmanship of Homeland Security...for the reasons stated in the above article.
The Dept of Homeland Security needs a real revamping from the top to the bottom to rid it of the abuses that run ramped through it due to the corrupt administration of the criminals Bush & Chaney... that won't happen if Joe stays as its Chairman.
He's still a solid dem vote on most issues and needed for the filibuster issue. They need to try to pull him back into the "fold".
His was an act of treachery. He needs to do quite a bit of penance if he expects re-election by his constituency on any ticket -Democratic, Republican or Independent.
Remember that after the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold was recalled to England where he was unsuccessful at finding desirable military command, was regarded with distrust and died in debt. His wife lived out her years in England as an outcast.
That will be Joe's epitaph if he doesn't mend his ways and "extract-crania-rectum".
MSD_SJMA1971
Posted by MSD at 11/11/2008 @ 7:04pm
Joe has been a disaster. This is no issue of bipartisanship, it is an issue of qualification. Get Joe out!
Posted by marcs1one at 11/11/2008 @ 7:19pm
Vvf1969,
What do you mean "if" you lived in bizzaro land. You DO live in bizzaro land. The Nation website is bizzaro land to be sure!
You know the opposite situation exists. Why did Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama? I don't know, but it disappointed me.
Ever hear of Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, or Sen. Olympia Snowe? Or soon to be former Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut?
I did not imply that these people deserve any power in the GOP.
I know the reality is that you on the left and the Democrats in congress will "punish" Joe Lieberman for his "behavior".
What goes unnoticed on this website, however, is that on the issue at hand that percipitated this (fighting terrorism), Joe Lieberman is right and those who oppose Joe Lieberman are wrong.
My main comment, though, was that the author of the article contends that Homeland Security is a mess, but if and when Sen. Lieberman is removed and a "loyal" Democrat put in, then all of a sudden homeland security won't be a mess anymore. Because Democrats are in charge Democrats will declare it is OK
This is also like how President Bush has been crucified for deficits, but I thought I heard on the news yesterday some Obama economic advisor saying deficits will be OK for now. (this was the mainstream news, not talk radio).
So, POOF!, by magic, deficits are now OK! They weren't before, but are now!! Amazing!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2008 @ 7:38pm
Well sjchermak, Your boy Cheney has never had a problem with deficits, neither did depend poster boy Reagan.. So poof, where do you stand..?? Besides, "some economic advisor" sounds a whole lot like the FOX news tactic of saying "Some people Say"... So poof... I could say for instance, "I heard a Bush economic advisor say "x" "y" Or "z"..."
So yes, BUSH AND CO. should by all republican standards (small govt, etc bs, bs) be CRUCIFIED... @ endless wars and the most BLOATED GOVT in History... Im sure this bothers you, after all you are Republican right ..??
Fighting terrorism..?? GWOT ?? What a joke. Look under your bed, there might be a terrorist...
Im in the Military, in support of the GWOT... Right now as I write this Im on a ship harrasing merchant shipping on an hourly basis... Dont go the fighting terror route on me... SMOKE AND MIRRORS... How else could you bloat the DOD budget to such immense proportions w/o a boogey man... WAKE UP.
You want bissaro land, go watch FOX and turn up your am radio.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 11/11/2008 @ 7:56pm
Joe's gotta go. Turncoat. Let the Republicans scream all they want about bipartisanship, it's not their show any more. From what I just read Joe appeared to be ineffectual in his role, so why keep him. Change that we can believe in. Find someone else who is more in line with what President Elect Obama wants to implement.
Posted by boing007 at 11/11/2008 @ 7:58pm
How can the Lieberman reconcile his advertised concern for Homeland Security with his endorsement of clinically demonstrable dolt Sarah Palin? She who cannot pass a fifth grade geography course? She who is so dense she makes Dumbya look like Gore Vidal? This is his recipe for security?
And how, by the way, can McCain claim to be against torture while repeatedly encouraging Droopy Dog Lieberman to whimper in public, a sound which is to ears what waterboarding is to lungs?
We are grateful for the incompetent McCain campaign and hope that the dullard Lieberman is among the first casualties. "Blessed are the sleepy, for they shall soon nod off." -Nietzsche
Posted by jokingjesus at 11/11/2008 @ 8:38pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2008 @ 5:03pm
HAhahahahahahahahahahah. YOU arguing that it's libs who want the government intervention in our lives? You a Republican who believes the government should dictate what is allowed in the bedroom, what women should do with their bodies. You want the government spying on you 24/7. Give me a break.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2008 @ 8:42pm
Hey, SJCHER...
Speaking of "sudden changes once the other guy's in power"...how about a "sudden change BEFORE the other guy's in power"?
I heard today that Rush Limbaugh has started calling this the "Obama recession" (70 days before Obama gets sworn in)....
and that he expects guys like you to BELIEVE that?
Do you?
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 8:49pm
Hug Sen. L. tight. Let him breathe only enough to keep voting Obama one hundred percent and his mouth shut. Snug as a bug. Friends close, fiends closer.
Posted by JFHill at 11/11/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by JFHill at 11/11/2008 @ 8:58pm
Actually, you're closer to the mark.
Keep Lieberman there...with a gun to his head, aka "Want that earmark for Connecticutt, Joe? ...You play it our way!"
If that's what he wants, let him have it...with a lot of strings.
But let him know where he stands.
Dat's the Chicago way!
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 9:02pm
Keep Lieberman there...with a gun to his head, aka "Want that earmark for Connecticutt, Joe? ...You play it our way!"
If that's what he wants, let him have it...with a lot of strings.
But let him know where he stands.
Dat's the Chicago way!
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A little "process" heavy.
So if Lieberman doesn't stand a chance to keep his senate seat as you asserted earlier today, what makes you think he is going to care about earmarks going back home?
You think McConnell's offer is take it or leave it right now? There will be open arms for him in Repub camp. You don't give old Joe much credit. Dems found out differently in 2006.
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 9:40pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 9:40pm
He wants a legacy and will try to pay off his constituents to salvage it.
Some senior centers, parks, tax breaks for local businesses....all so when he retires in 2012, he's un-popular, but not hated.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 10:21pm
Lieberman's committee is Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Take a look at the committee's responsibilities, especially regarding oversight of the executive branch, at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Jurisdiction . Lieberman has done nothing with regard to the excesses of the Bush Administration. Do we want a closet Republican like Joe Lieberman overseeing Obama's activities as president? I don't.
Posted by MujerAlta at 11/11/2008 @ 10:28pm
I personally think the caucus threat is just that: a threat. If Joe wants to be known as the ultimate obstructionist just to keep the Dems from passing anything let him. Personally, if he's as "progressive" as he says, he stays with the Democratic caucus. But his horrific performance as the head of his committee more than justifies his removal even without his activities during the presidential campaign.
Posted by yutsano at 11/11/2008 @ 11:03pm
It's good to remember the unmitigated disaster that was Janet Reno, an AG who spent more time investigating her colleagues than she did the lawbreakers on the right or anywhere else for that matter. Lieberman, an utter moron on "terrorism" and security matters, is likely interested in obstructing the Obama administration after 2 years of letting his GOP pals off without a look. The indisputable facts are that the man has lied time and again and is not to be trusted. Let him caucus with whom he chooses, but pull his chairmanships.
Posted by jmusolino at 11/12/2008 @ 12:20am
Senator Lieberman is the best man for these Chairmanships and to remove him would be foolish. If this is truly the time for hope and change, then Sen. Reid should forgive and forget and allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship.
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
The fact that you think Lieberman is such a great man proves you are an idiot. Lieberman is a self serving jackass. His only loyalties are to himself and AIPAC.
He could give a shit less about anything else and his backing McCain and voting with Bush proves he certainly is no democrat. They should throw him out on his ass. He's going to do what he wants anyway, so strip the two faced jackass of his stewardship of the homeland security joke.
They should just dump the whole homeland security department and gut just about everything W and his crooked crony business buddies did while in office.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 03:52am
Senator Lieberman is the best man for these Chairmanships and to remove him would be foolish. If this is truly the time for hope and change, then Sen. Reid should forgive and forget and allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship.
Posted by HeStays at 11/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
I"ll go one further for you just to prove what an asshole Lieberman really is. Look at the situation in the senate over the last two years. The dems held a small majority, and Lieberman, claiming to be an independent, tried to position himself to have more clout than your average senator by being a turncoat to both parties.
Neither side could trust the piece of shit, so both sides were sucking up to him. Once again, the guy is a self serving SOB. Neither side should give him the time of day. The sooner they run his ass out of D.C. the better. Guys like him are the problems, not the solutions.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 03:59am
The Democrats need to eject him out of that chair so fast his jowls ripple in the wind resistance.
He threw in with McCain. That's it. Game over. The Democrats are in power now and need to start acting like it.
Would the Bush / Cheney junta regime even consider keeping him around if he defected from their unholy fold?
When the Democrats really needed him, to support Obama, he wasn't there. So, let him suck around the other side of the aisle for allies.
Posted by koroviev at 11/12/2008 @ 05:30am
The good senator is an opportunist of the worst kind. The numerious posts support this reality. The new message is "CHANGE." That means a new form of political methodology; Honesty, integrity, responsibility and trust. The good senator is willfully lacking in these qualities. Forget the old game playing of the past. Lets have some real change based on strength and intelligence.
Posted by Truthman at 11/12/2008 @ 07:33am
What Wolfgang1 doesn't see is that Joe Lieberman, on domestic issues, seems to be a committed Democrat or liberal, but he is strong on national defense and fighting terror, whereas the modern Democrat party and liberals are not.
So Wolfgang1 says he is a turncoat to both parties, and is a self serving SOB.
What appears to be the case is that Joe Liberman stands up for what he believes in. This is supposedly what people want in a politician, but in reality they do not want that. What most people seem to want is a politician that is totally consistent with their political ideology, as shown by Wolfgang1.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 07:56am
What appears to be the case is that Joe Liberman stands up for what he believes in. This is supposedly what people want in a politician, but in reality they do not want that. What most people seem to want is a politician that is totally consistent with their political ideology, as shown by Wolfgang1.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 07:56am
SJ, You have to be kidding right? Lieberman has shown that he isn't even loyal to the state which he represents. He barely scraped by in the last election.
What is it with you guys and this tough on defense crap? Lieberman is a candy ass who is in the hip pocket of AIPAC and he's a war hawk. How blind are you?! How much more does the military industrial complex have to rape and pillage our national coffers before you guys pull your heads out of your asses and realize that guys like Lieberman, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. are all guilty of graft....taking kick backs from their masters in the form of stock options, properties, and the least of all campaign donations. If that makes me an idealogue, I guess you are right. I don't want corrupt assholes running the country I happen to live in.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 08:05am
Dat's the Chicago way!
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
Obama received widespread attention for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still a state senator.
Posted by OneVote at 11/12/2008 @ 09:19am
(continued)
Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.
Despite the camaraderie between the two, the crowd was clearly more receptive to Obama's remarks than Lieberman's speech about party unity and the potential for Democratic victories at the ballot box this fall.
In fact, scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points........."
Political payback and patronage is the Chicago Way.....much more plausible than "keep your enemies close."
Posted by OneVote at 11/12/2008 @ 09:21am
Like anything...figure out what Lieberman wants?
and use that against him!
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 09:39am
Like anything...figure out what Lieberman wants?
and use that against him!
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 09:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
A better idea....just dump him and let him become a progressive Republican.
Posted by OneVote at 11/12/2008 @ 10:27am
Posted by OneVote at 11/12/2008 @ 10:27am
Interesting idea...
call Lieberman's bluff and see if he gets sooooooo pissed, he starts voting against what he ran on in 2006 (domestic policy of course).
If he does, he loses the last of his credibility.
If he doesn't, he's a "good" vote.
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:57am
"Progressive Republican." That's kind of like "Compassionate Conservative," isn't it?
Time to shut down the "all-you-can-eat homeland security salad bar." Start with Joe and get rid of the rest of the veggies, too.
Posted by javaman222 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:08am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:33am
LVLIB, I know you don't want to get caught in the trap of saying "If it overwhelmingly passed the US Senate...it's a good thing"....
do you?
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 11:56am
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/homeland.security/
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:23am
Liver, The whole Homeland security situations was supposed to be an office that would oversee the nations security and tie all of the information from the various intelligence groups into one area.
Now, what Homeland Security has become is quite a different beast. It's become a government outsourcing agency to the highest private bidder to do what government agnecies used to do. That is why we have people who used to work at McDonalds flipping burgers now doing security searches at airports. Yes, highly qualified agents.
Everything W has touched has been to privatize, privatize and privatize. Homeland security was just another way to move what the government handled to his outside buddies licking their fat chops at making money on the fears of the American people. This country is no safer than it was before, and the bozo clowns in charge of our security are a bunch of used car salesmen posing as CIA and FBI field agents. Kind of like Tom Delay (the bug exterminator) posing as a congressman.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 12:21pm
Durbin caved. No surprise there. Business as usual. Same old, same old. Google it.
Posted by Lil at 11/12/2008 @ 12:27pm
Wolfgang1,
You say Joe Lieberman is a war hawk and I am blind (to that, apparently).
?????
How am I blind? I KNOW HE IS A "WAR HAWK"!
Good Lord, when we have terrorists who have killed us and who seek to kill more of us, Islamic radicals who try and force their way of life on other people and who throw a fit and kill people because of cartoons in a Danish newspaper they do not like, and when you have the president of Iran developing a nuclear bomb he would like to use to destroy Israel.............
Why would you want anything OTHER than a "war hawk" running this country? We need more war hawks, not less!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:40pm
Wolfgang1,
You talk about all the "graft" and "corruption" by President Bush, et. al....... (no proof supplied by you, of course, that this is taking place)
Then elighten me if you think the following was OK:
During the 90's, Loral Space wanted to sell missle technolgy to Communist China. This type of technology was forbidden to sell to Communist China.
A presidential waiver was granted, and then the sale was possible and was made.
By the way:
1. Chinese missiles can now reach the U.S. West Coast, they could not before.
2. Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral, is a friend of Slick Willie's and a campaign contributor to Democrats and was to Slick Willie also.
3. Thus a friend and contributor to Slick Willie was allowed to sell missile technology to China that can be used against us.
Also..... don't bother telling me that Mr. Schwartz being a friend of Slick Willie's is just "right-wing" propaganda. (Maskdelta, don't bother either). I worked for Loral earlier and the relationship between Mr. Schwartz and Slick Willie was mentioned to Loral employees during regular company publicity to it's employees. In other words, it is true.
WAS THAT TRANSACTION OK? What say you about that?
If you say that was wrong also, then I will admit that you are consistent with your philosophy, even if you are wrong about President Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:40pm
Again, what percentage of Muslims are those radicals, SJ?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:50pm
Was Al Gore a chief executive of Loral, SJ?
What company was Dick Cheney a chief executive of?
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 12:58pm
Mask,
You miss the point. We have a lib (Wolfgang1) throwing the tirade about all the "corruption", etc. and I was pointing out Democrat corruption that has hurt our country. (Made us vulnerable to Chinese attack or at the least, if the Chinese "liberate" Tiawan we can do nothing).
It is the lib Wolfgang1 who was having the tirade, and I provided a counter point. Wolfgang1 started down this path, why is it not appropriate for me to respond?
Why are you asking me about Dick Cheney? I already know, over and over again, what you libs think about him. There is no point in arguing that back and forth. It is the lib Wolfgang1 who was screaming about Republican "corruption" - I suppose the Democrats are pure as the driven snow! But they of course are not.
What does your question about Algore have to do with this? Slick Willie was friends with Bernard Schwartz. Algore wasn't involved. How does that lessen the damage of this transaction?
How would Algore be able to be a chief executive of anything? Most companies would not want a village Idiot to be a chief executive.
I am sorry, I apologize to all the Village Idiots out there.
As far as the percentage, you must be a math teacher or are a math student. You are fixated on percentages. Here is one for you:
Percentage of people named Mask or Maskdelta who continue to be fixated on their talking points over and over again - 100%
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 1:12pm
sjchermak-Cheney's approval rating is around 19%.What that means is that it isn't just "libs" that don't like him.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/12/2008 @ 1:24pm
Can you actually cite any evidence of this?
Liver, Ever heard of Blackwater? They are doing what the U.S. Army used to do...providing security in the Green Zone, diplomat security etc. Rumsfeld undermanned Iraq in order to privatize the war over there.
How about the lucrative contracts being doled out to Bechtel, Halliburton, and various other neocon run businesses with some of their shareholders sitting in public office. That would be Rumsfeld and Cheney for starters.
You don't need to have a top secret clearance to read about these events. It's public record. The fact that Baker, Kissinger and others advising and working on the 9/11 panel had serious conflicts of interests should be enough for them to not even be considered for reliable information that wouldn't be used for their benefit, but not with this administration. Business is more important than the country. Bechtel, Halliburton, Exxon, the Carslyle Group, Blackwater and on and on's profits were more important than our national security, the well being of our soldiers, and the physical secuirty of the United States. Not everything can be done at a profit.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 1:42pm
Why would you want anything OTHER than a "war hawk" running this country? We need more war hawks, not less!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:40pm
Boo!! You neocons are the biggest cowards on the face of the earth.
Do you know how many people we've killed in Iraq? Compare that number with how many we lost on 9/11? Then, when you are done comparing the numbers, step back and realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Tough talking blowhards don't make this country any safer. It's the politics of fear that control fools to buy into this endless pit of doomsday scenarios.
A little bulletin for you. If someone really wants to kill you, they can do it and there isn't anything that is going to protect you from an unknown enemy or boogie man.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 1:48pm
WAS THAT TRANSACTION OK? What say you about that?
SJ, I wouldn't agree with selling any classified technology to friend or foe. Bill Clinton was part of the neocon fiasco. The only thing he managed to do was pass NAFTA which has screwed U.S. workers over. He looked the other way while the neocons ran Russia into the ground with their bullshit advice...we could have had an ally, but instead, due to assholes like Milton Freidman,we had to destroy anything that wasn't run by pure free market governments.
Tom Harkin would have been a much better president than Bill Clinton, but wasn't the politician Bill Clinton was. The rest is history.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 1:56pm
(Made us vulnerable to Chinese attack or at the least, if the Chinese "liberate" Tiawan we can do nothing).
SJ, What the hell do you care about Tiawan? If China took Tiawan out tomorrow, please tell me exactly how that would affect you? Now, people who've invested in businesses in Tiawan are sure to be nervous about their investments. But here's the thing, why should our Navy protect their overseas business interests?
If international businessmen want to roll the dice to make large profits off cheap foreign labor, then they should also be prepared to pay for the risks involved with investing in a potentially unstable market...free market thinking here, none of this socialistic govenment protection business.
See, you neocons spin shit all the way around to protect your money and your business interests. You could give a shit less about the U.S. as long as you are profitting, things are just grand. If by chance a country like China decides to change the rules in their own back yard, you think our government should steam our Navy over to protect your cheesy business overseas.
I am fully aware that there are corrupt democrats in D.C...take Joe Lieberman for case in point. But, the democratic philosophy is more slanted to the majority of Americans while your views only protect the wealthy. So, either you are very wealthy or very stupid. So far, you've proven you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 1:12pm
No, you brought up Loral as Clinton corruption....and I brought up Halliburton as Bush corruption.
BTW, the dangers posed by China are....they own our debt and have destroyed our industries.
All without firing a shot...all with help from both Dems and Repubs (Did Bush turn anti-China trade sometime recently?)
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 2:24pm
The fact is that they did not come into being in a vacuum.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 12:06pm
Exactly. This is why the democrats who obviously suck, need to be removed.
While these bills may have passed by pussy-ass, scared dimwits, real progressives have been screaming since day one.
This is why we are trying to eliminate these folks. Their vote is irrelevant to the issue.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 3:15pm
That is why we have people who used to work at McDonalds flipping burgers now doing security searches at airports. Yes, highly qualified agents.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 12:21pm
I live in a little town and travel almost every week. Our airport has one gate. The TSA people know me on sight and greet me by name.
I was at our Safeway one day and saw one of the TSA people at a cash register. She quit TSA, even though she loved the job, because they paid only 5 cents more than minimum wage. I was shocked, and said "Hell, you could make more working at McDonalds!".
She nodded and said "Yeah, but I hate flippin' burgers."
Posted by Balrog at 11/12/2008 @ 3:28pm
Whats better? Give up one vote or give up integrity! Posted by Truthman at 11/11/2008 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's called POLITICS.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 3:51pm
Whats better? Give up one vote or give up integrity! Posted by Truthman at 11/11/2008 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's called POLITICS.Posted by DejaVu at 11/11/2008 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
whattaloadofcrap. the ravings of a lunatic.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 3:54pm
Lieberman is a very dangerous man. Having him in a power position one step away from annihilating the planet for Israel's glorification is a terrifying proposition, indeed.
whattaloadofcrap. the ravings of a lunatic. Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 3:56pm
Re:Your last three posts...
Huh?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 4:05pm
We need more war hawks, not less! Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
grr, kill, kill.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 4:06pm
Huh? Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are correct, things got a bit garbled in the middle post. sorry
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 4:07pm
Wolfgang1,
Classic hard leftist stuff out of you.
1. Saddam would have been remaking WMD again if not stopped. He would have sold/given it to terrorists. They would have used it against us, and perhaps millions would have died. Going into Iraq prevented that. I am sure that has been explained to you over and over again, and you just do not get it. How is stopping a mad dictator who would have made WMD that would have killed people acting like or being a coward? You, and others such as Brunowe, just throw those terms around so freely and easily.
2. You say that if someone wants to kill you they can do it. So, from your various posts, it seems that people are obligated to lay down like sheep and die if their enemies want them dead, and that is not being a coward, being a coward is fighting back. Your thinking is convoluted beyond belief.
3. You ask what I care about Tiawan. Tiawan is a free country, and if the communists "liberate" Tiawan that would be wrong. And it is wrong that thanks to Bill Clinton, we have lost some leverage to be able to stop it.
4. You say NAFTA has screwed U.S. workers over. Wrong. High taxation and high unionization has screwed U.S. workers over. You libs blame NAFTA, because you like high taxation and high unionization, and don't want that to go away, no matter how much it hurts the American worker. No problem for you, you just blame Republicans and corporate America instead.
I am not wealthy and I am not stupid. As for you, regurgitating boilerplate leftist B.S. does not make you a sharp knife in the drawer.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 4:18pm
1. Saddam would have been remaking WMD again if not stopped. He would have sold/given it to terrorists. They would have used it against us, and perhaps millions would have died. Going into Iraq prevented that. I am sure that has been explained to you over and over again, and you just do not get it. How is stopping a mad dictator who would have made WMD that would have killed people acting like or being a coward? You, and others such as Brunowe, just throw those terms around so freely and easily.
woulda, woulda, woulda.
Bush did not say woulda, he said Saddam had the weapons.
your understanding of Taiwan is far too simplistic. Taiwan was and always will be a part of China. what else would it be?
maybe you're not stupid as you claim, but you haven't convinced me.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 5:41pm
emile duBois,
JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, AND SADDAM'S OWN GENERALS THOUGHT HE HAD THE WEAPONS, you blithering idiot!
Has it escaped your attention that to this day we do not know what happened to those weapons? I know you on the left do not care, you are just grateful that when we got to Iraq they were gone, so you could start your full-throttle crucification of President Bush and your continual morality play.
The point I am making when I say Saddam would have been remaking WMD again is that the whole question of whether there were WMD or not or when they were gone is rendered totally MOOT by that fact.
It is fortuate we did go into Iraq, and that perhaps it is a stroke of good luck that we did not determine he had little or no WMD anymore....Because then we would not have been able to go into Iraq and Saddam would have been off of the hook and back making WMD again... and probably at some point there would have been a catastrophe that would have made 9/11 look like child's play.
The possiblity that this could have happened, in conjuction with the fact that nothing would have prevented it once Saddam was off of the hook and free of the world's attention....totally justifies what we did in Iraq and validates that it was the right thing to do and confirms that YOU LIBS ARE TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT THIS.
Obviously no amount of anything I have said has convinced you, nor has any amount of logic or facts or common sense convinced you, because as a lib your mind appears to be closed like a steel trap.
Taiwan has NEVER been a part of COMMUNIST China. It is part of what used to be China, but never has been part of COMMUNIST China. What part of that do you not understand?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 7:15pm
"Taiwan has NEVER been a part of COMMUNIST China. It is part of what used to be China, but never has been part of COMMUNIST China. What part of that do you not understand?"
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 7:15pm
So Russia can come take Alaska back, now that America's socialist and all?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 7:29pm
SJ, You might as well do the world a favor and stop breathing in air....your brain is obviously dead.
I don't repeat anything I don't read for myself. I don't listen to right wing talking points, Rush Limbaugh and the fake news channel.
You, on the other hand, can't reason past a third grade level. You argue on the behalf of people who would take everything you have and put you out on the street if they could do it....believe me, they've done it in other countries. Go talk your stupidity to someone in Argentina, Sri Lanka, Chile, Russia, Poland, Mexico and so on and see what they think of how noble the U.S. is and how moralistic we are.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/12/2008 @ 7:31pm
Wolfgang1,
You have completely invalidated yourself. You have admitted you do not listen to "right wing talking points", etc.
But people with open minds, of many beliefs, do read or analzye what others, including people they disagree with, say or write.
You, of course, the enlightened lib, "knows better" and you know you do not have to consult those you disagree with, you know it all and your view is totally correct, as you see it and believe it.
If you only read the lib viewpoint you can not be considered credible when you offer up your opinions. You are just a mouthpiece for the left, who believes in all the leftist hysteria.
But of course that does not stop you from declaring those who do not agree with you as stupid. You are enlightened, and it is a burden upon you that you have to deal with ignorant people who do not have the wisdom that comes with being a lib.
Now, you advise me to "talk my stupidity" in other places, including Poland. I certainly would not advise you to do the same. If you were to go to Poland, you would find a place that is not as anti-U.S. as you believe it to be. (You on the left think the whole world hates us, which will be remedied by the coronation of Obama). The people of Poland lived under communist oppression for years, and they have a different take on things then even their central European neighbors such as France and Germany do.
If you were to talk to people in Warsaw, or in Krakow, I would imagine they would erupt in gales of laughter at your B.S., and wonder why you were discharged from a mental hospital when you should not have been.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 7:54pm
I'm just mad at the DHS clown that confiscated my miniature leatherman at the airport. So I recluse myself from further comment.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/12/2008 @ 8:17pm
Er, recuse.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/12/2008 @ 8:19pm
I just came across an excellent article on the Internet that adds on to some of the points I was trying to make with Wolfgang1.
It discusses the nature of the discourse in this country during the last 8 years, and contasts the transition to the Bush presidency 8 years ago with the transition to the Obama presidency now.
It is written by a conservative, but I do not see how any of you on the left can refute it. I can only hope you will at least try to read it with an open mind and maybe think about what it says and what it describes about much of your own behavior.
I can only hope.
November 12, 2008 It's How You Play The Game By Sally Zelikovsky
http://www.americanthinker.com /2008/11/ its_how_you_play_the_game.html
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:23pm
So good you have spam it on every thread???
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:17pm
So Russia can come take Alaska back, now that America's socialist and all? Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 7:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
c'mon now, Alaska was bought and paid for. we have the receipts.
Sj is just serving up the dregs of the rationalizations for that god forsaken Iraq war. whattajerk.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:23pm
So good you have spam it on every thread???
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:17pm
" 'often' unsubstantiated claims about Bush and his policies..."
Good?!? Are you kidding? It's truthiness with wiggle words!
It's positively chermak-y!
Kinda SJish...as in Sorta Journaistic...as in I guess you could call it that guy's journal...sorta...
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 11:15pm
"c'mon now, Alaska was bought and paid for"
Alright already. Lay of the poor republican campaign.
Poor, sad GOP operatives....
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 7:54pm
SJ, I don't have to tune into the conservative talk shows, or watch Faux news to know the conservatives agenda. It's been forced down my throat for years. Our country has been engulfed by it like cancer.
You are the one not listening. Our economy is in the toilet due to noecon policies. Our standing with other nations is in the toilet due to W's international policies.
This administration wrote the book on exactly how not to run a country. Unfortunately, we are the ones who will have to pick up the pieces and live with W's stupidity for years to come.
If you can't tell the difference between now and the 90's you are either not old enough to remember, or dumb as a fence post. I'm not a big Clinton fan, but this country was in much better shape when he left office than it was before he took office. You sure as hell can't say that about W now can you. History is the ultimate judge and W effed things up to the nth degree. If he hasn't, McCain would have won the election, but instead lost by a landslide.
Tell me again who's the delusional one?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 04:47am
Sj is just serving up the dregs of the rationalizations for that god forsaken Iraq war. whattajerk.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 10:19pm
You siad it brother!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 04:50am
siad....whoops, should be said. My morning Java hasn't kicked in yet.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 04:51am
Wolfgang1 - well spoken. Pretty much the way Mrs. Javaman & I have felt the last eight years.
As Voltaire said, "Ecrasez l'infame."
Posted by javaman222 at 11/13/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 11:15pm
No doubt in SJCHER's mind...
Karl Rove was a kindly, stick-to-the-issues, no need for any funny business campaign strategist....and Dubya has been a "uniter not a divider" since he got carte blanche in late 2001.
Again...in SJCHER's mind.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 12:23pm
Again...in SJCHER's mind.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 12:23pm
MASK, You are too kind.....saying SJ has a mind. Well, he may have a mind I suppose, he just refuses to use it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 2:10pm
Wolfgang1,
You asked " Tell me again who's the delusional one? "
Answer: You.
The country was not in better shape when Clinton left office. The wall had been put in place by Jamie Goerelick (Clinton Justice Department) inhibiting agencies from sharing intelligence information.
April 15, 2004, 4:34 p.m. Millennial Mistake Jamie Gorelick's dangerous "wall of separation."
http://www.nationalreview.com/ levin/ levin200404151634.asp
There was some office space that was in no worse or better shape, I guess, the DAY that Clinton left office.
234 days later, at 8:46 am and 9:03 am, that office space was certainly not in good shape anymore. Then, at 9:59 am and again at 10:29 am, that office space did not exist anymore.
2,752 people were in less good shape at that point, with regard to that office space, and there were others in other locations in the same shape (not good either). Actually they were not in any shape anymore.
George W. Bush, of course, is blamed for this. (he is blamed for everything) - but he also has been crucified for actions taken by him afterwards that had that stuff been in place prior would maybe have prevented the deteriation of the above mentioned office space. The classic dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.
Regardless of what shape we may have thought Bill Clinton left the country in, 234 days after Bill Clinton left we found out the shape he left things in was lousy.
(Hi Brunowe, you will be posting in with some snide remark about now - if you don't like my comments go dodge traffic on the San Diego Freeway)
Wolfgang1, you talk about our standing with other nations, did it ever occur to you that the other nations are wrong?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 5:37pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2008 @ 9:44pm
[he's got nothing to lose by becoming a "full-fledged" Independent and voting with the Repubs, even on issues he doesn't agree with.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 1:03pm]
Gee...I was hoping self-respect would kick in, but that seems in short supply for Sen. Lieberman as well.
Posted by Egalitare at 11/13/2008 @ 10:01pm
Wolfgang1, you talk about our standing with other nations, did it ever occur to you that the other nations are wrong?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 5:37pm
SJ, You go beyond stupidity directly to insanity. So, all of the other nations in the world are bad and we are the only good guys? Keep on telling yourself this, it's far better to believe than the truth.
Now, read what really did happen jackass.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
This will be my last response to you. You are a waste of flesh.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/14/2008 @ 07:30am
Wolfgang1,
It has to be frustrating for you having to deal with people like me, who are so far beneath you from a wisdom and intelligence standpoint. It is not good that you enlighted and intelligent and smart people have to cross paths with those who do not have the mental horsepower and wisdom you do.
It is a cross you have to bear every day, I know.
On the other hand, though, you have posted an article that continues to validate my argument. Read through it again, or for the first time if you haven't read it -- it shows the Bush administration did not drop any ball or that the Clinton administration had any grand, agressive plan to take out al-Qaida, and what I mentioned before, the justice department wall the Clinton administration set up, is a whole separate issue from this.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 08:41am
Wolfgang1,
Here is some more... an opinion written about the Clarke memo and Dr. Rice.... takes away any credibility you have if you are trying to show that the Clinton administration had a lot of meaningful activity and plans they turned over to the Bush administration only for those to be ignored.
Your view, if that is what it is, and which appears to be shared by other leftists as well, is just in your imagination.
Friday, February 11, 2005 Products Of A Vivid Imagination
http://iconicmidwest. blogspot.com/2005/02 /products-of-vivid- imagination.html
................So, the point was that during the Clinton administration there was no systematic "plan" implemented to deal with Al Qaeda, although they might react on an ad hoc or "tit-for-tat" basis. I don't see how this has been contradicted in the slightest detail. In fact, if you read Clarke's memo above he seems to agree that there was no existing plan, but a series of regional policies and uncoordinated activities. As far as I can see that backs up Dr. Rice. It certainly doesn't contradict her.
When I began to read the Daily Kos piece I thought that it seemed a "bit of a stretch." After finishing it I had to conclude it was more than a "stretch," it was a sham.
Actually there is a lie here. Unfortunately for Daily Kos it belongs to them and not to Rice, when they erroneously quote her as saying, "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration." when she actually wrote "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." Since their whole complaint is basically one of semantics anyway, the fact that they cannot even get that right is pretty damning..................
Sorry to have to prove you wrong... Sorry.
Uh, what about Jamie Goerlick's wall?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 09:02am
"Uh, what about Jamie Goerlick's wall?"
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 09:02am
Have you even read this thing?
"This AUSA will also serve to ensure, in conjunction with the FBI and OIPR, that information which reasonably indicates that a significant federal crime has been, is being, or may be committed is appropriately disseminated to criminal investigative personnel, the USAO and the Criminal division pursuant to the procedures set forth above. That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
Yea, following the law to prevent violations of American's civil liberties is BAD!
At least according to freerepublic.com and blogsforbush.com, the only two sites that came up when I googled "Jamie Goerlick's wall".
Whew! It must be hard to maintain your viewpoint.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/14/2008 @ 5:35pm
Malcontent,
You said it must me difficult for me to maintain my viewpoint.
Not difficult at all, Malcontent, more like an easy walk in the park.
April 15, 2004, 4:34 p.m. Millennial Mistake Jamie Gorelick's dangerous "wall of separation."
http://www.nationalreview.com/ levin/levin200404151634.asp
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 8:14pm
Malcontent,
Before you post in and say the link doesn't work, I noticed a space above between .com/ and levin, as I look at my post above.
It seems when I paste these links in and then my postings are uploaded into The Nation, spaces seem to appear in the links.
Just take the space out and try again.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 8:18pm