Skip to main content

View Diary: Will calling your Dem Senator help boot Lieberman? (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More than that. (0+ / 0-)

    I described some of what else is at stake earlier today. But the gist of it is that with all the things we "had to" give in on over the past two years (supposedly) in order to preserve our chance at winning the White House -- FISA, war funding, subpoenas, drilling, etc. -- would all have been for naught if Joe had gotten his way. He put two years of sacrifice and grinning through chewing glass at risk with his freelancing, and it's time for the consequences to be visited on him.

    The rest of the Democratic caucus pulled their weight, made the tough votes and got behind the team. Why should he be a chairman and not them?

    Visceral thrills? Or basic fairness?

    You do the work, you get the big job. You slash the tires, you're fired.

    •  I didn't know we gave in on those issues (0+ / 0-)

      I thought it was Dems being capitulators and by being capitulators they put the chances of winning the white house at great risk.  When did that narrative change?

      But really.  I stand by my comments.  I'll put it like this.  If 50 calls came into Boxer's office right now urging her to "fire" lieberman and she had them all on hold while she and her staff were working on getting health care for a family who had been denied health care, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

      If you can fire Lieberman too, great.

      how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

      by Edgar08 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The narrative changes with the narrator. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bonsai superstar

        Your brush couldn't be any broader, could it?

        You stand by your comments. Terrific. Me too.

        You show me what urgent issue the rest of the Congress will be on the verge of passing into law (with George W. Bush's signature on it, mind you) exactly 11 days from now, and we'll talk about putting this vote aside in exchange for that one.

        Exactly what universal health care fix do you think is going to be on the Senate floor on November 18th, 2008, Edgar? What is this miracle cure we'll have to forgo in exchange for this one internal caucus housekeeping vote? Please let us in on it. It sounds important.

        •  There are ways for Senators (0+ / 0-)

          To get things done at the local level.

          If a family is being jerked around by an insurance company and a call from a Senator to the insurance company helps resolve that situation, then that's more important in my view.

          And it happens more often than people think.

          And I guess I don't know where I got the impression that people believed capitulating on things like war funding hurt (not helped) getting the white house, my apologies.

          It certainly must have only been coming from a fringe group of wierdos.  You are right to chastise me for over-generalizing.

          how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

          by Edgar08 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:53:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's what caseworkers are for. (0+ / 0-)

            And Senators have several of them. I'm pretty sure she can manage to cast a vote in a caucus meeting and still find the time to... well, to continue to employ the casework staff she already employed before the vote, and will continue to employ after.

            And the "people" you're thinking of who believed capitulating on things like teh war funding helped get the White House are called "Senators."

            The plain fact is that no matter what legislation is being considered or which families are or aren't being jerked around on November 18th, there's going to be a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting, and Barbara Boxer's going to be at it. And in the space of about thirty seconds, she will cast a vote. If she has more time, she can stay and debate it. But if not, I'm pretty sure she'll be able to get back to work afterwards.

            Since there's going to be a lame duck session, and they're going to consider legislation at that session, they're going to have a caucus meeting whether they talk about Lieberman or not.

            Are you going to call Senator Boxer and tell her to skip the meeting and sit by the phone in case someone's insurance company jerks them around? Seems to me you almost have to, now.

            She's really gonna appreciate that call!

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              I've stated a set of priorities I'm comfortable with and I've also stated if you can do both, wonderful.

              how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

              by Edgar08 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I'm saying there's literally no doubt... (0+ / 0-)

                They can do both. There was never a question. You were making it up, and it was based on less than nothing.

                That's what I'm saying.

                •  Right-ee-oh spagettios (0+ / 0-)

                  There are better things to bother Boxer about.

                  In my view.

                  Carry on.

                  how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

                  by Edgar08 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

                    But I'll bet you can fit both into a single call or letter without costing anyone their health care.

                    There's always something else that's also important. But your argument was the time and energy. Considering what you just wasted on this exchange, I have my doubts about your sincerity, even on that score.

                    But that's one of the curious features of the blogs. They encourage people to spend an hour debating the fine points of why they don't feel the current debate is worth having.

                    •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                      Considering the time and energy you're spending on Lieberman I doubt your sincerity on Health Care.

                      Neener neener neener.  Ok.  No.  Really.

                      You know I had this same discussion with Meteor Blades the other night about spending time prosecuting people from the Bush admin.

                      So I think my positions here are clear and there's no need for anyone to mis-interpret them.

                      how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

                      by Edgar08 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't need to misinterpet them. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Meteor Blades, Nightprowlkitty

                        I just want you to know that they're not as all-consuming for everyone as you think they are.

                        Working in the government is all about multitasking. Get used to it.

                        You don't have to doubt my sincerity on health care. It's not one of my top issues. Any conflict you think you've discovered is all in your imagination.

                        The time and energy I'm spending on Lieberman is organizing people to try to get something done that I think will be important to Democratic Caucus integrity going forward. The time and energy you're now spending on his is to try to tell everyone about the awesome importance of the fact that Edgar08 doesn't particularly want to do anything about it.


                        The bottom line is that your argument was that this was going to be some kind of huge time waster and/or distraction from every other issue in the world, and that argument's stupid and baseless.

                        The end. You should stop defending it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site