Skip to main content

View Diary: I have an idea! (386 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can we move on? (0+ / 0-)

    Aren't there enough real problems to worry about without bringing up some fantasy about Inhofe?  And as far as Lieberman is concerned, I suspect he was kept in the caucus not plain old partisan reasons, not collegiality or "post-partisanship".

    The site is starting to remind me of the Daily Show piece about the Obama supporters who can't get themselves out of election mode.   We should start thinking forward to the 2010 election.   That means thinking about the 2009 agenda: economic reforms, health care, Iraq, Iran... the things we cared about going into the 2008 election season before the contest had us hypnotized.

    I've lost my faith in nihilism

    by grumpynerd on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM PST

    •  Amen (am I allowed to say that?) n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  WTF?! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      our f'ed up homeland security and complete failure of executive branch oversight isn't a "real problem."  Are you mad?  Honestly, I just don't get it.  What does matter then?  On exactly what foreign policy or homeland security talking points do Lieberman's views mirror those of the admin we just voted in?  Who gives a fuck about the 2010 election if winning elections doesn't change the agenda.  This is short-sighted, stupid, and wrong.  Maybe in 2010 we can vote in even more dems and nothing can change, cuz, you know, this is a center right country.  Well sure it is, because BOTH parties demonize the left.  Funny thing is, when you get past sloganeering, the majority favor the left's policies.  But, whatever, let's just move on.  Cuz elections, apparently, do not have consequences.  Except when the Republicans win.  Then they can fuck up the country both at home and abroad, and partake in the biggest money-grab of all time, both at home and abroad.  But, hey, we can always vote for more dems in 2010 so we can continue the imposition of a police state here and neocon foreign policy abroad.

      WTF?  What am I missing?  Seriously?

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        I am not mad. That's just the point. This has nothing to do with homeland security.   Furthermore, homeland security doesn't have have oversight over foreign policy.  This is all about Joe the Senator, and nothing to do about homeland security policy.

        What you're missing is that he's just not that important.  Since we don't have divided government, it's not like Homeland Security has to be a policy counterweight to the President or anything like that.  In fact, I'd bet that the chairman of that committee with a Democratic Senate under and Obama administration doesn't have a lot of leeway for putting his stamp on homeland security policy.   It's just a position to showboat from.

        I've lost my faith in nihilism

        by grumpynerd on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:07:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why give him the platform? (0+ / 0-)

          If the committee chair position is unimportant, how come it was a complete non-starter for Joe to give it up?  I understand that homeland security and foreign policy are not the same; however, I think that many people that are wrong-headed on one, are likely wrong-headed on both.  Lieberman fits in this category.  How many hawkish warmongers oppose the imposition of the police state, suspension of habeas, torture, etc.  

          I just think your thinking is exactly wrong.  Why not put someone in that position that shares the views of the admin?  If that person is Joe Lieberman, then I think we've been duped.  And, to avoid the whole "ideological purity test" bs, how about putting someone in that position that has not completely abdicated his responsibilities in that position for the last several years?  There's two problems with allowing him to keep the chairmanship.  First, his views are not in accordance with the administration's.  Second, he was terrible in the position.  Even if he backed Obama, he's still wrong on the merits.

          I mean, c'mon, if Obama is going to staff the gov't with people whose views are not shared by those that voted Obama into office, then what's the point of elections?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site