Skip to main content

View Diary: It's official: Lieberman and Co. lied about "hacking" (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh come on - - (9+ / 0-)

    Have we learned nothin from 6 years of Bush excuses for doing nothing to hold them accountable??

    You have to hit them back every frigging time it is proven they lied - they cheated - they stole

    Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

    by sara seattle on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:10:27 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  save your ammo, bleeding heart (0+ / 0-)

      I live in his friggin state, and the cw is he's a joke and history. There comes a point when the hyper attacks start to sound like sour grapes. GET OVER IT. Don't forget for better/worse we need this guy. Why hit back when he's on our side? Hit back over his votes on the senate floor over the next two years, not a six-months old primary.

      •  Knife Him Before He Hits the Floor (7+ / 0-)

        I live in CT too and, lets face it, Lieberman is already lying about his policies.  The time to start punching him is now, before he does more than disappoint.  Without a doubt he's hoping that his term of office won't be subject to examination, because that is was drove him batshit crazy in the most recent election.  He doesn't want to answer to anyone.  After all, he's Joe Lieberman, United States Senator -- not Joe Lieberman, employee of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.  

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:30:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  let's hope we don't need him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sara seattle

        uh, you sound a little confused when you say on the one hand Why hit back when he's on our side and follow that with Hit back over his votes on the senate floor which tells me you already know that he won't be voting with us.

        the only reason he's saying he's on our side is to sidle up a little closer in order to drive that dagger between our shoulderblades.

        i just hope the senate dems have at least enough survival instincts to know not to count on joe lie-erman when it comes to important votes.  if he's the one vote that makes the difference, you're just asking him to vote the other way and screw us; and he's shown that he will do it gleefully, if for no other reason than to get on the sunday morning pundit shows.

        l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

        by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:38:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  hope (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not confused. I'm just not gonna get caught up in the past. I prefer to confront him has a teammate regarding his present performance, not some spit ball he threw last season.
          Just makes sense. The future is what matters; carping on the past only accerbates things and produces nothing.

          •  he's not on our team (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JillR, sara seattle, s marie

            see, that's exactly the problem.

            when you have a guy who keeps kicking the ball into our goal, and passing to the other team, you have to adjust your expectations of that person accordingly.  you have to go by behavior, not by what color jersey he's wearing.  if you're from CT, you know that the opposing team specifically sent him back into our line-up because of the way he keeps screwing us up.

            so we must be realistic about how he's going to behave.  and that includes his responsiveness to his own constituents.  a big fat middle finger, by all accounts.

            none of this is carping on the past, but learning from past experience is a useful trait, i hear.  we simply can't count joe as a friend or teammate, and if we do, we're just asking to get sucker-punched again.

            l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

            by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:56:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the last time I checked (0+ / 0-)

              he was caucusing with the dems. Like it or not he's on our team. I agree he can't be trusted, but castigating his every move only exacerbates the problem. Yes, we tried to bench him but got overruled by the bleacher bums.

              Joe responds to honey, not vinegar. So let's coat him with it for now and turn the ants loose later.

              •  joe responds? (0+ / 0-)

                can you give me an example of joe responding to honey?  from our side, that is.  he responds amply to the wrong wing, and to the RWCM, so that doesn't count.

                l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

                by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:30:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  from our side (0+ / 0-)

                  yes, the vp nod in 2000. But not much since then, certainly not since the warmongering started, so it's hard to know what effect honey from the left would have on him.

                  I think it's worth a try because the only thing Joe likes more than Joe Lieberman is being on  the side that's winning. I think (hope, really) that our majority is going to slowly pull him over, and the only thing that will prevent it is him continuing to beieve that the other side has more to offer. That and too much invective from our side, and I don't want to give him the pleasure of turning on me just for spite.

                  •  VP nod (0+ / 0-)

                    OK, so that was the honey we offered.

                    and he responded by... parroting all the GOP talking points during the recount fight.  

                    you're not making your point.  joe's already turned on you, and i'm just trying to get you to face up to this fact instead of giving this abusive relationship one more chance.

                    l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

                    by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 05:59:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  touche (0+ / 0-)

                      I can't defend the guy, but my point is we're gonna need him somewhere down the road.

                      With a two vote majority, and with his record on environmental/labor/womens rights/judicial issues pretty solid, I would even say reliable. I'm not going to throw out those babies with the war bathwater. Not yet. Not with John Paul Stevens pushing 87 and the pressure on domestic oil reserves ratcheting up everyday (no thanks to Joe's war, of course).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site