Skip to main content

View Diary: Welcome Lieberman Back to the Fold (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You kind of have it backwards (22+ / 0-)

    Joe had no even won this last election before he was talking about "revenge" to those colleagues who he felt slighted him or betrayed him. See, to Joe, helping the people of Connecticut or the country is passee - it is about the revenge, it is about squeezing out that last drop of blood over a vote.

    Lieberman is a stubborn, arrogant man. This whole Lamont thing would have been avoided if he had just LISTENED to the people in the party here. Joe would have none of it. That was a big part of the problem - Joe feels like he is acting alone, not representing his state.

    What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly -Laozi

    by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:52:18 PM PST

    •  The Connecticut voters disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enough, da5idfox

      They obviously felt he did help them. Isn't that what matters?

      •  The Connecticut _Republican voters disagree. n/t (7+ / 0-)
        •  One can say the same about La., Col., and Neb. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rupert, deep6, enough

          Those 3 senators win because Republicans cross over to them. In some states you can't win without that.

          •  In some states (9+ / 0-)

            it's illegal to stay in the race after losing your party's primary.

            It's dishonorable in all of them.

            I agree with you, by the bye, that for viciously pragmatic reasons Senate dems are going to have deal with Lieberman. But I'll be damned if that means the rest of us have to change how we feel about him, or forget all the dishonest things he's done. Your diary confuses bitter necessity with a kind of 'is he really that bad?' attitude, and strongly disagree with that.

            •  don't agree, but you have a right to keep ... (0+ / 0-)

              your opinions about him, no question.

              •  Well, that's more than Joe conceded to those (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slatsg, Nina, trashablanca, isis2

                who thought that the war was going badly. Guess we can agree on the first amendment, anyway.

              •  you should think about the concepts (5+ / 0-)

                behind scardanelli's very apt point:

                It's dishonorable in all of them.

                Sure, that's an opinion, but it's also more than an opinion. It's a statement that represents an idea of unity and solidarity behind a broad platform of common values, one of which for Dems even happens to be the right to dissent, but not the right to betray and then expect no consequences; and that concept for Joe is something he just doesn't really understand--despite all of his posturing.

                What I think is important here is that maybe you, heineken, should think about this particular opinion that scardanelli voiced, and how it sums up exactly what it is that pisses so many of us very reasonable people off about Joe Lieberman.

                I appreciate your concern and even for stating your opinion in that it provides the impetus for this discussion. However, the party has the momentum again, see how Joe turns into the wind? He's looking out for himself and himself alone. He should caucus with the Dems, it's smart for him on so many levels, but this doesn't mean we have anything to gain by letting him off easy for his dishonorable behavior, because it's just Joe-ism masquerading under a debased notion of "centrism."

                -8.38, -8.00 Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. --Thomas Paine

                by hyperstation on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:53:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Hopefully for only 2 years. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If 9 a big if) we pick up more Senate seats in 2008 then Lieberman becomes less important.

              the overwhelming lust of the Republicans to keep control of Capitol Hill no matter what it costs the United States of America in blood and treasure...

              by Osiris on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:46:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me, (0+ / 0-)

            are you saying that Colorado, Louisiana and Nebraska won't vote for a Democrat unless they act like a Republican?

            They must be confused.

            Life is what you focus on. I'm focusing on Karma and Hell. If there were no such things as Karma and Hell, we would want to invent them. Life is beautiful.

            by relentless on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:40:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  unfortunately... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rupert, heineken1717

          ...or rather not unfortunately, Connecticut republicans do count.  They like joe and they got joe.  

          But will joe return the favor is what we need to wait and see Iguess.

          If a democrat demands accountability in the Capital and no one covers it, does he make a sound?

          by DawnG on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:33:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Most voters are not educated on the facts (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rupert, steelman, MTgirl, Nina, grayslady, enough, isis2

        Joe lied about every aspect of his record and fulled a majority of the people. I consider him more dangerous as a mole inside the party than many Republican senators. At leat you know where they stand.

        What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly -Laozi

        by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:03:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We're not going to be held hostage by Joe (11+ / 0-)

      If Joe threatens to quit the caucus unless we do A, B, and C, we can't appease him. If we do, he'll just demand more. We won't have a majority, really; we'll have a maJoerity. And what's the point of that???

      I am resigned to the fact that Joe may go his own way, that the Senate might end up 50-49-1. For all I know, he'll go caucus with the Republicans.

      So be it. I don't see how that's worse than elevating Joe Lieberman to de facto Senate Majority Leader and Dem Basher in Chief.

      •  in your scenario (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, Rupert, enough

        i agree you can't let him of all people be the arbiter of anything. let him fly. but i'm really not convinced it's gonna play out that way, so i think we can better spend our time engineering a scenario where we play nice, get our majority, and solve some problems.

        planning for failure tends to encourage it.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:26:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correct -- the Dems must have a true majority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Icarus Ascending

        If Lieberman's conditions for caucusing with the Democrats effectively deprive the Democrats of majority power, than there is no downside to turning him down.

        If he wants Democratic-controlled senate committees to not investigate the Bush administration, or not investigate the FUBAR'd war -- no sale.

        If he wants a Democratic Senate majority to cooperate with Bush's misguided war effort -- no sale.

        If he wants to be a cooperative team member of the Democratic caucus, working with the leadership and not standing in the way of this being a truly Democratic Senate majority, then he is welcome and can keep his seniority and committee chair.

        So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause.

        by MJB on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:15:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rupert, enough, heineken1717

      And recommended.

      But I also agree with the intent of the original diary, which is to say that functionally he is the same as the other DINO's. WIth a 51-49 majority and the VP with the tiebreacker, any one of them has the power to undercut a party line vote. And so I way that it would be best to treat him as if he were a just another conservative Democrat, unless and until he starts to act like a double agent again. I guess the House will be the factory of change, and the Senate will be the place where that change is moderated. And I assume the veto pen will come out enough that the R's won't be able to charge the Dems with obstruction in two years.

      Has anyone figured out if Joe retains seniority and committee assignments?

      Finally, galdkov, that's not in the Laozi. Where does it come from?

      •  That is actually a famous quote (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, Rupert, enough

        and have heard it attributed to Laotse many times, here's the German version: Was für die Raupe das Ende der Welt, ist für den Rest der Welt ein Schmetterling. I've seen it many places

        What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly -Laozi

        by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:20:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fascinating (0+ / 0-)

          I've taught the Laozi every year for a decade or so, and swear it doesn't contain this quotation. Yet Google tells me there are hundreds of places on the web where this phrase is attributed to Laozi!

          I saw that in a smaller number of places it is attributed to Richard Bach, the best-selling author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. More searching led me to think it is from his 1977 book Illusions. This is where I think the false attribution might have started, a confusion with the famous butterfly story from the other major early Daoist classic, the Zhuangzi:

          "Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things." (Burton Watson, translator. Basic Writings of Chuang Tzu, p.45).

          But I don't really think they're saying the same thing. Oh, and here's a quote that I came across, too:

          "A caterpillar who wanted to know itself well would never become a butterfly." - Andre Gide (1876 to 1951)

      •  well said n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, enough

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site