Daily Kos

Lieberman, disloyal Dem

by kos

Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:25:18 PM PDT

As we need more examples...

Remember on Tuesday, how Reid stood with 37 Democratic Senators on the steps of the Capitol to warn Republicans not to employ the "nuclear option" and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees?

Well, guess who wasn't there?

Conspicuous by their absence from Reid's Capitol steps event were two Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who has voted against all but one of the Democratic filibusters since 2003, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Both men are up for re-election next year, and Nelson is running in a state Bush won with 66 percent of the vote.
Nelson has a good excuse. What was Lieberman's?
  • ::

Tags: Vichy Democrats, Joe Lieberman (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 275 comments

  •  perhaps it was (3.87 / 8)

    explosive diarrhea

    I got nuthin (-6.88, -6.15)

    by guyermo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:26:45 PM PDT

    •  Reverse (3.60 / 5)

      explosive diarrhea. After all, crap is all that ever comes out of his mouth.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Help or work to get a loyal Dem in 06 (4.00 / 4)

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:35:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OUR WORK (none / 1)

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/
         This is also ours
        http://dumpjoe.com/
          Thank god I'm not the editor of either.lol

        http://dumpjoe.com/

        by ctkeith on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:39:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, CT, Have You Sent Kos an Email (none / 0)

          He might pick this up from your comment, but if you haven't sent him a 'Contact Us' message please do.

          Armando made a personal pledge in a response to one of my comments, but Kos himself decides on fundraising efforts, which is fair enough.

          As direct as this Kos post was, he might be interested!

          Anyway, another item. I went to the website and the editor/sysop said that they are getting some slamming from freepers, but that they are averaging about $2500 per day in pledges.

          That shows there is some real interest in the 'DumpJoe' movement.

          LL

          "No AMERICAN requires authorization to do the right thing."

          by LeftyLimblog on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:50:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •   We have the ability and the PAC ready to raise (none / 1)

            money.We are hoping a very strong candidate emerges soon and that instead of sending money to this effort that money could go directly to the candidate.We have also ordered some gear on our own dime and are building our support.
              The best way to help this effort is to join the yahoo group here;(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/)
               You can set the settings to special notices only which we promise to be no more than 2 per month.Thanks
                 

            http://dumpjoe.com/

            by ctkeith on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Take the pledge people, (4.00 / 3)

          Here.

          You don't have to contribute now.  Just pledge how much you'll contribute to a candidate running against him in the primaries.

          The bigger the number we put up, the easier will be to entice a worthy candidate.

          One more thing.  It should be clear that this has zero to do with Joe's being Jewish.  And actually, I think the guy is earnest and principled.  And he is a conservative Dem, which is fine too (though CT should have someone more reflective of her politics).

          The problem is that Joe puts himself above the party every time.  That, and the fact that he has terrible political insticts (which explains how poorly he did in 2004).

          He's done too much damage to the party, and it's time for him to go.  

          So go ahead and pledge.

          by aleand on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:15:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lower priority (4.00 / 3)

            Sure, I'd love to dump Lieberman.  But money is a limited resource.  If you could only beat one, would you rather beat Lieberman or Santorum?  If only two, which two- Lieberman, Santorum, or Frist's empty seat?  If only three out of four, which three- Lieberman, Santorum, Frist's empty seat, Nelson v. Jeb Bush in Florida?  How about four out of five . . . .

            My point is simple- Lieberman's a damnable traitor at times, but that (D) at the end of his name gets counted when they decide who has the majority, who has the minority, who gets committee chairmanships, who has committe majorities, etc.  Until we have securely gained a majority, preferably a filibuster-proof minority, I'm more concerned about (D)s and (R)s than individuals.

            Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

            by dhonig on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except Joe is hurting the very effort you speak of (none / 1)

              The CT Dem primary(of which there will be one) will determine who represents CT in the Senate after 06.The Repulican party is stil reeling from the Rowland scandal and has no stars to run for Senate.The best chance to beat Simmons,Shays and Johnson is certainly not with Lieberman as the Senate candidate because all he does is give those Republicans cover.How can Dem candidates run against Republicans when Joe says things like,"Some of my best freinds are Neocons" as he did in the most recent NEW Yorker article.

              http://dumpjoe.com/

              by ctkeith on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:43:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If that is so, and (none / 0)

                IF Lieberman can be beat with money that wouldn't otherwise cost us elsewhere, I'm all for it.  I just don't want to focus, at the expense of other races, on a (D).

                Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                by dhonig on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:45:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  couldn't agree more. (none / 0)

                  we should focus our online fundraising efforts for whoever the pary nominates against santorum, chafee and maybe burns in montana.

                  we also can't forget that we have a few vulnerable senators of our up who will need financial lovin'.

                  Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                  by tmendoza on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:56:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Primary (none / 0)

                  More important than money is time. There aren't that many other priorities for volunteering during the primaries, so many democrats are relatively free to campaign for Lieberman's opponent (even if it is just on the internet). During the general election all of us will be busy regaining a congressional majority.

                  by srbaxley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:25:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree totally (4.00 / 9)

              Joe in our ranks is a much more insidious and destructive force than two Santorums on the other side.

              I am NOT looking for ideological purity.  I am willing to accept (like anybody cares what I am willing to accept) pro-lifers and other conservatives in our ranks.

              But Joe is absolutely undermining our efforts to become a plausible opposition party.  

              I say he is a high priority. And I say he must go.

              Let it be done.

              Shoot, that didn't work.  Well, maybe the pledge will work.

              by aleand on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:51:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Joe is worse than Santorum... (4.00 / 3)

              Okay... on votes and issues, Santorum is clearly worse, but the problem is that Santorum has an R after his name. When he steps up and says we need to privatize social security, Fox News can say nothing when we say, "This is a Republican lead effort to dismantle social security."

              But when Lieberman steps up and says that we should consider privatizing social security, all of sudden Fox New can say "Democrats are blocking a bi-partisan effort to save social security.

              As long as Lieberman is jockying for a judicial nom (which he is), he will continue to offer neocons the bi-partisan cover they so desperately need to persuade the public to back controversial measures.

              I personally would rather Lieberman get sent to a court bench and have our Republican governor appoint someone than have him continue to offer this support to the neocons.

              by TKD27 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:36:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We should knock Joe.. (none / 0)

                out of the box.. he would be a MUCH better judge for our side than legislator (he pretty progressive where it counts for a judge - his hawkish foreign policy BS would be minimized)... and W would owe him so he would get the appointment.

                Best reason I have seen yet for dumping NoMoJoe.

                "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" Justice Louis Brandeis

                by mlangner on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:42:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let's also remember... (4.00 / 2)

                  ...that he's very conservative on social issues. He's so out there that he's a member of the neoconservative group the Parent's Television Council. This is the group that tried boycotting such awful shows as Will and Grace (which promotes homosexuality) and Friends (which promote contraception).

                  Lieberman may not be as out there as that (he is pro-choice), but he thinks highly enough of the group to be a member and support them. That's scary.

                  by TKD27 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:51:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Joementum on the supreme court? (none / 0)

                  Scary thought, but if Stevens dies in the next 3 years (a distinct possibility) I could see G.W. nominating him.  He's going to want a winger for Renquist's or O'Connor's seat, but trying to put a winger in Stevens seat would cause the mother of all battles.  Leiberman would be a nomination that no one in in the Senate could refuse, and he would make plenty of right-wing decisions on worker's rights and the sort.  

                  by telephasic on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:28:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  wrong... (4.00 / 2)

            QUOTE:"The problem is that Joe puts himself above the party every time".  

             No he puts his principals above the party.you do not have to agree with those principals but I respect that and so should anyone who respects tolerance.

             The Conservative dems bring a POV that can help center the party.

             I am sure the neocons are praying the DNC tries to purge the likes of Leiberman and his slightly conservative cohorts by working against their reelection.It says if you are not left there is no place for you,whether or not it is meant to.

             Most non liberals see Leiberman as a left leaning moderate.The DNC might get someone to the left of these men into the senate in 06.It will most likely loose the moderate vote and thus  the white house in 08.  

             

            by CrazyModerate on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  First of all, (none / 0)

              its principles, not principals.

              Second, I conceded (out of the goodness of my heart) that Joe's motives are principles, and not his huge ego.  

              However, it's really more about him than principles, honestly.  He likes to call that "principles" and I don't feel like arguing that.

              BUT, he voted for Gonzales, and against cloture in the debate on bankruptcy.  Where are his principles there?  Give me a break.

              And then, there's the quotes.  All those quotes that only undermine democratic positions, and help republicans.  

              How about the principle of standing up for your friends?  Or the principle of not being a traitor to your own cause?

              Please.

              by aleand on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:20:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, (none / 1)

            great idea. I pledged the 250$, what the hell, we have to get rid of this "Judas". To me, the "kiss" by Bush the "Judas kiss" in reverse, helping identify our Judas. I am not into giving two years in advance, but I cannot imagine another campaign I would rather fund than any decent opponent to Leperman in '06.

            Like many have pointed out, it has nothing to do with ideology per say. I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundemental to woman's rights, but I love Reid because he is willing to fight for what he believes in. He is "pro-life" but will fight to the death on SS? Fine with me, as long as he is not a calculating finger in the wind Pol. Besides, I doubt that he would screw the base top outlaw abortion, if he would why would he threaten to shut down the Senate if the fillibuster is eliminated? Apparently he believes in Democracy, just like the good Dr.

            by PLS on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:53:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Cross Posted from Open Thread... (4.00 / 2)

        A Fairfield University politics professor who ran unsuccessfully for congress in 1984, said Wednesday he is exploring a challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2006.

        John Orman, of Trumbull, said he is creating an advisory committee to evaluate a run for the Democratic nomination.

        "There is a great national debate going on for the heart and soul of the Democratic party," said Orman, 56. "Let the battle begin here and now in Connecticut."

        Full Story Here.

        There was another story about this in today's Connecticut Post (www.ctpost.com), but I can't find the article online.

        I don't have the paper in front of me, but I remember it said his run for congress in the 80s was against a popular incumbent whom no one would challenge. Seems Orman doesn't believe in an uncontested race.

        I don't think he has a PAC set up for donations yet, but when he does, we should make a big netroots push to help this guy out. If he is serious, I think he would stand a chance, but only with enough support.

        by TKD27 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:40:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From Feb. '04 (none / 0)

          Here's an old CBC News interview with Orman on the relationship between celebrity and politics. He co-authored a book on the subject.

          by Ascendent on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Heres Dr Ormans press release in full (none / 0)

          PRESS RELEASE March 16, 2005

          Citizen activist and political analyst, Dr. JOHN
          ORMAN, Politics Professor at Fairfield University,
          announced today his intention to create an advisory
          committee to evaluate his candidacy to challenge Joe
          Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for U.S.
          Senate in the 2006 primary. Orman said, "There is a
          great national debate going on for the heart and soul
          of the Democratic party. Let the battle begin here and
          now in Connecticut."

          Orman said, "What sealed my discontent with Lieberman
          was the famous kiss that President Bush planted on him
          after this year's State of the Union Address."

          "Our party's Senator is no longer a Democrat. He has
          joined the Republicrat Party. After 17 years as a safe
          seat Senator, Joe has lost touch with his party and
          with his state." Orman declared," Just as Lieberman
          indicated in 1988 that Lowell Weicker was a sleeping
          bear in the woods who was an arrogant incumbent,
          Lieberman has crossed over into that same forest. Joe
          is a minority member of the national minority party
          who has a worse attending record in the Senate than
          Lowell Weicker ever did."

          Orman noted, "Lieberman was wrong on his support of
          Bush's claim that the Social Security System is in
          crisis. He was wrong to support Bush's war on terror
          diversion into Iraq. He was wrong to support Attorney
          General Gonzalez for confirmation. Lieberman should
          just join the Republican Party."

          Orman observed, "Lieberman has ignored his Connecticut
          Democratic base of seniors, working women and men,
          students, teachers, liberal Democrats, progressives
          and others. Regardless of whether I decide to run for
          the U.S. Senate nomination against Joe Lieberman, the
          Senator has been put on notice that he will be
          challenged."

          Orman was the Democratic candidate for U.S. House of
          Representatives in 1984 in the 4th Congressional
          District who ran against Stewart McKinney. In 2000
          Orman was the Connecticut citizen who stepped forward
          to challenge Joe Lieberman for running for two
          different national offices at the same time. When
          Orman started to file official complaints in
          September, 2000 he made it a national issue. By
          October 2000 the issue had become a state issue and
          the Quinnipiac Poll reported that 45% agreed with
          Lieberman and 46% disagreed with him running for two
          offices at the same time.

          Orman is the author of five books including
          PRESIDENTIAL SECRECY AND DECEPTION; COMPARING
          PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR; PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY;
          THE POLITICS OF ROCK MUSIC; and his most recent book
          CELEBRITY POLITICS (co-author Darrell West). Orman has
          appeared on CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, BBC and
          other networks talking about politics in America.

          He is frequently quoted on American politics in
          national newspapers and publications.

          CONTACT: Dr. John Orman (203) 254-4000 ext 2864; mail
          to: JOrman@mail.fairfield.edu

          http://dumpjoe.com/

          by ctkeith on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  From my hometown! (none / 0)

          Interesting.  

          by telephasic on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:29:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps (4.00 / 2)

      For years, he sounded like he's constipated.

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:37:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or perhaps... (none / 0)

      Santorum?  Ewwwwww.

      by djay on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Has anybody else noticed (none / 1)

        that he sounds just like the father on "ALF?"

        "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America." -Jimmy Carter

        by Bulldawg on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:47:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heehee..Yes (none / 0)

          Come to think of it, he does sound just like the actor who portrayed Alf's father...hehehee.
          Lieberman does sound and look constipated.
          Perhaps we should be sending him some laxatives.

          He might have been missing from the photos because he was at Fox News kissing up to Sean Hannity or in the broom closet of the Capitol making out with Santorum or Frist. He then went over to the White HOuse to apologize to Shrub for cheating on him.

          Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

          by wishingwell on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:57:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maron and Riley beat you to this one (none / 0)

          with their "Lieberman or Alf's Dad" contest a couple months ago.

          It is funny, though, isn't it.

          Check out Morning Sedition (Air America morning show, 6AM - 9AM EST) if you haven't already. I'm absolutely addicted to it - funniest & smartest show on radio, IMHO.

          by OuijaBoy on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:04:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Haha that was great! (none / 0)

            I was just about to post this when I saw your comment.  That was very funny -- and I got it wrong.  All of them were Alf's dad, as I recall .. but man they sounded like Holy Joe.

            by cedubose on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:26:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  (LOL) I think the second one was Joe (none / 0)

              if memory serves me right. But it was extremely hard to tell!

              No one really knows how Alfs reproduce, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to postulate a genetic connection between Joe and both Alf and Alf's adopted father...

              Seems obvious, doesn't it?

              by OuijaBoy on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:09:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  kos makes the Moose very very angry (none / 0)

      The Moose is angry with kos.

      The Moose doesn't like it when kos says bad things about Joe Lieberman, upstanding American (tm).

      The Moose might have to leave some more Moose droppings(tm) tomorrow.

      Our current healthcare system is simple. Don't get sick.

      by tiggers thotful spot on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:51:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lieberman should listen to George (none / 0)

      Conservative Democrats like Sen. Lieberman should consider what George Will had to say about filibusters months ago.  In this rare instance, Mr. Will stated a truth I hold to be self-evident:

      The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority.

      by tompaine2004 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:54:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps Lieberman Was............ (none / 0)

      In Lindsey Graham's office......................

      headhunter

      by morris1030 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:19:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I believe he was too busy... (4.00 / 3)

    Getting huges and kisses from Bush and other republicians.  I am worried about him and I hope that he changes his ways, but I wonder what the motivation behind his actions are.....what back room deals have been struck?

    www.DowningStreetMemo.com

    by Mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:00 PM PDT

    •  Lieberman stays Democratic (4.00 / 6)

      because he can cause more harm to the party as a Democrat then the could as a Republican.  Zell made the same decision, it is just that simple.

      He likes the flavor of the neocon Kool-Aid, he can further their cause more by damaging the Democrats by calling himself one, then by acting honestly.

      "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

      by Thistime on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:47:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  guess that Kool-Aid is Kosher n/t (1.63 / 19)

        McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

        by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:52:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  umm (4.00 / 4)

          is this actually offensive? Or is it just a relatively harmless joke based on Lieberman's well-documented orthodox faith? (Not that being relatively harmless makes it funny, but still, is it hidden-worthy?)

          Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

          by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:54:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fastest way to ignite a flame war (none / 0)

            in these Lieberman threads is to make any reference to his faith.  I don't think it ought to be over troll rated since it could be perfectly innocent, but its inappropriate in light of the sensitivities of some Kosaks.

            "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

            by Thistime on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:02:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree (none / 1)

              The comment was worthy of troll-ratings because it was a slur against Lieberman's religion. It would be just as worthy of troll-ratings if someone made fun of Barney Frank for being gay, or Kweise Mfume for being black, or Hillary Clinton for being female.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:14:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or Reid as a morman? (none / 0)

                Or Bush as a fundamentalist?

                "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

                by Thistime on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:28:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  please (none / 1)

                give me a break

                American dream is a myth!

                by brown american on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:59:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  my first troll rating. (4.00 / 4)

                no offense was meant.  it was a stupid joke.  I live in a predominately Orthodox Jewish community.  I apologize.  No offense was meant.

                McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

                by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:47:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Too Sensitive. (none / 1)

                  I think people are being too sensitive.

                  How was your line offensive?  You didn't infer Kosher was bad.  You just made a literal interpretation of a metaphor (Kool-Aid) and juxtaposed that with the Kosher traditions of the Jewish people.

                  Kosher is not a stereotype.  You didn't denigrate his beliefs.

                  I have driven Honda's all of my life.  Every car I own has been a Honda.

                  If you knew that about me, and I told you that I had purchased a bicycle and you made a joke "I didn't know Honda made Bicycles?"

                  As per my "Joke" example, it was not intended to slur my affection for Honda's.

                  Chill out people.

                  by JoelNH on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:22:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  my first troll rating... (4.00 / 5)

                and it feels really bad.  No offense was meant.  I apologize.  I live in a community with a heavy Orthodox Jewish population.  My son grew up wishing he was Jewish so he could drink the "special juice"  and wear a hat like his friend. It was a stupid joke.  I feel really bad.  Anyone who knows me, knows I am not like this.  I don't think I will post again for a while.  

                McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

                by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:56:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Accepted (4.00 / 2)

                  I appreciate your saying so. It's easy to misunderstand people here, where everyone can be so anonymous.  Lieberman gets a lot of abuse, most of it deserved, but occasionally someone refers to him as a "Likudnik" or "Senator from Tel Aviv."  And those people think that they are using some kind of clever code that can be interpreted either way.

                  Please chalk this up to a misunderstanding, and don't withdraw from the community. As far as I'm concerned, this is behind us and you are welcome.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:50:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Senator from Tel Aviv" (none / 0)

                    I could understand someone regarding this comment as unfair, but I don't see why it would be offensive.  The fact remains that Senator Lieberman consistently vouches for the point of view of the Israeli government whenever the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict come up.  As I interpret it, the "Senator from Tel Aviv" remark derives from that lack of balance in his views on the matter, as though he really is acting as an envoy from the corridors of Israeli power, rather than as a nominally independent legislator representing a province of a foreign nation.  He is hardly alone in this, but as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with Lieberman being Jewish.

                    It is frustrating that so much as broaching the issue of the relationship between the United States and Israel is often likely to get you labeled anti-semitic.  A lot of people (myself included) think that the United States gives a lot of undeserved support to a myriad of bad policies formulated by the Israeli government, and gets very little for it in return.  This issue has everything to do with geopolitics and nothing to do with Judaism, and yet...

                    "How good bad reasons and bad music sound when we march against an enemy." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by sumitsu on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:47:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, no (4.00 / 2)

                      I doubt that the person who referred to Lieberman as the "Senator from Tel Aviv" would refer to Bill Frist that way, or Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, or Barbara Boxer.  So Lieberman's being Jewish certainly played a part in it.  And in the specific instance in which I saw the term used, the person was alleging that Lieberman was disloyal to his country and was acting as an agent of Israel.  So no, it wasn't an innocuous comment. It was anti-Semitic, and the attempt to say "this is just about Israeli policies" is a weak smokescreen.

                      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 10:23:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I feel terrible (4.00 / 6)

              I lost trusted user status over one comment after about a year of only fours.  I meant no offense.  I feel collectively spat upon.  I am not a bigot.  I have never been a bigot.  I apologize if anyone was offended.  I don't want to post anymore.  I'm sorry.    I'm not that kind of person.  

              McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

              by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:11:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I felt it was (none / 0)

            hidden worthy as opposed to troll worthy. There is no hide button, only a troll rating that does the same thing. I've posted things that, on second thought, I'd wished I hadn't. I know that marjo isn't a troll. Tough call really.

            McCain '08 - Hope Less!

            by kitebro on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:26:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's it! (none / 0)

              There are comments that we all want to take back, but we can't.

              The only choice is troll rating even when it was a thoughtless mistake, there should be a less pejorative alternative.

              "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

              by Thistime on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:00:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, I know (none / 0)

              but the point is, was it really so bad that it needed to be hidden? Heck, I thought it was kind of amusing. However, I don't really know if there truly was bad intent behind it.

              Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

              by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:36:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My first troll rating... (4.00 / 3)

                feels really bad.  No offense was meant.  I apologize.  I live in a community with a heavy Orthodox Jewish population.  My son grew up wishing he was Jewish so he could drink the "special juice."    It was a stupid joke.  I feel really bad.  Anyone who knows me, knows I am not like this.

                McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

                by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:51:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I've lost trusted user status on one comment (4.00 / 2)

              after a lengthy time with only fours.

              I don't want to post any more.  I feel terrible.

              McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

              by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:07:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  yes (none / 0)

            hidden worthy. Personal foul.

            by annalivia on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:51:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is my first troll rating (4.00 / 2)

              and it feels really bad.  No offense was meant.  I apologize.  I live in a community with a heavy Orthodox Jewish population.  My son grew up wishing he was Jewish so he could drink the "special juice"  and wear a hat like his friend. It was a stupid joke.  I feel really bad.  Anyone who knows me, knows I am not like this.  I don't think I will post again for a while.  

              McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

              by marjo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:53:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Show Lieberman the door (none / 1)

        Let him be the Republican senator from CT. He already votes with them, so what's the difference.

        Harry should take Joe aside and give him some of that good old-fashioned Western rhetoric, complete with a punch in the nose (old boxer that he is).

        We don't need him in our party anymore.

        by OuijaBoy on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:59:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (none / 0)

      We need to talk to Hadassah to find out if he is starved for affection or what the hell his problem is. He just loves hugs and kisses from Republicans but during the final months of the Kerry campaign, he seemed to run from a John Kerry hug. Ummm!
      He does not find the Democrats macho enough for him  or attractive anymore for hugging and kissing.

      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

      by wishingwell on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:59:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what? missed this (none / 0)

        I understand that candidates market their families. But why go after Hadassah in this way? If you disagree with her views as she has expressed them in public, fine. Perhaps I'm misreading you - but it sounds like you are saying we should should ask his wife if she is starving him of 'affection.' Out of line imho.

        by annalivia on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:13:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was a joke! (none / 0)

          I was just making a joke about Joe Lieberman. I apologize if you misinterpreted my comment. For the record, I have always liked Hadassah and Joe's family a lot.

          Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

          by wishingwell on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:35:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks for your reply (none / 0)

            but like or dislike doesn't bother me. The whole thread was turning into a personal piling on and I noticed you mentioned his wife, that's all.
            Policy differences are fair game. And the not so nuanced validation of, and flirt with, the right on TV is fair game. But the thread in toto was so personal I thought I'd entered lefty freeperville.
            People are clearly steamed, and venting that steam.     Maybe setting boundaries to discourse is gone and the horse is out of the barn.    
            Anyhow thanks for answering.  

            by annalivia on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:13:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  well, that's the good news with Joe... (none / 0)

      You'll know about all his backroom deals because he'll be the first one to self-promote them.

      Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:04:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm guessing... (4.00 / 4)

    ..that he was probably busy taping a show of Hannity & Colmes.

    Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!

    by existenz on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:28 PM PDT

  •  Also (none / 0)

    what were the excuses of the other 5 or so Senator who weren't there. Just other commitments or something?

    Vote for Michelle Obama!

    by jj32 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:46 PM PDT

  •  Unfair (4.00 / 19)

    Nelson has a good excuse. What was Lieberman's?

    There was a scheduling conflict, the RNC fundraiser was booked well in advance.

    Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

    by Stevo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:47 PM PDT

  •  Other missing ones? (none / 0)

    Who are the other 4 (or 5, if Reid not included in count of 37) missing ones?

    -6.63 -5.64

    I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

    by xysrl on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:29:58 PM PDT

  •  um, he and Bush were probably (4.00 / 2)

    making out some more.

    Vote for Michelle Obama!

    by jj32 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:30:02 PM PDT

  •  excuse possibility (4.00 / 4)

    Maybe he had his nose surgically lodged in Karl Rove's ass.

    Maybe he was getting Botox in the Hannity & Colmes green room.

    Maybe he was getting his daily shock therapy to subdue the weakening part of his brain that screams constantly inside his head, "No! No! Why are you doing this! Bush is EEEEVIIILLLLL...."

    Find out the latest in the global warming fight at Wonk Room!

    by The Cunctator on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:30:20 PM PDT

  •  Excuse (4.00 / 5)

    He was taking Sean Hannity's and Brit Hume's hair to the dry cleaners.

    A proud member of the "far left."

    by Paleo on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:32:00 PM PDT

  •  A scheduling conflict (none / 1)

    with his Guckert appointment...

    Grandpa Simpson is a cartoon character...John McCain is an actual person...

    by wry twinger on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:32:06 PM PDT

  •  You Have to Remember (none / 0)

    that Lieberman is the consummate opportunist, and the opportunist must suck up to power.

    by BobNJ on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:32:54 PM PDT

  •  Maybe he was having gay sex with Gannon. (none / 0)

    hehe

    by ksecus on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:33:32 PM PDT

  •  His excuse (none / 0)

    He's a weasel.

    As for Nelson, well, although he'll tell you he's a Democrat, and has been all his life, he'll never actually volunteer this information.  Even though NE Democrats and NE Republicans are basically different sides of the same coin, it's still better to be GOP than not.

    veritas vos liberabit

    by WWGray on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:35:04 PM PDT

    •  It's NEVER better (none / 0)

      to be GOP.  It may be a stomach turning necessity, but it is NEVER a better thing...

      It's still upsetting for some people to know that the hippies were the ones telling the truth about Vietnam and trying to help America. - Anonymous

      by eunichorn on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:40:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "It may be a stomach turning necessity," (none / 0)

        Necessity?  Isn't that like being Satan's Bitch?  Why is is necessary?

        "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America." -Jimmy Carter

        by Bulldawg on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:54:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  because there are (none / 0)

          a LOT of different opinions out there and some of them happen to be in very conservative areas.  A true liberal couldn't get elected in those places but a moderate GOP candidate can.  There's the "necessity".  We need all the help we can get and if it takes having an "R" after your name to get elected so you can implement progressive policies, then so be it.  But it's never better to be GOP....

          It's still upsetting for some people to know that the hippies were the ones telling the truth about Vietnam and trying to help America. - Anonymous

          by eunichorn on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 03:52:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dorgan Amendment down (none / 1)

       "I think it is nuts to allow the U.S. tax code to subsidize companies that fire their U.S. workers and move American jobs to other countries," Dorgan said. "At a time when we're losing jobs and when budget deficits are climbing higher by the hour, we need to close this loophole right now."

      The tax break Dorgan is attempting to close allows companies to shut down their American manufacturing facilities, fire their American workers, import those now-foreign made products back into the U.S. for sale and then not pay taxes on the income from those sales. Taxes are "deferred" until the income is brought back into the United States, but many corporations simply keep those profits in their foreign subsidiaries and never pay U.S. taxes on income from those U.S. sales.

      Dorgan said the loophole costs U.S. taxpayers about $6.5 billion over ten years, and thousands of jobs annually.

      So, who disagrees on closing this loophole?  Republicans and:

      Nelson (D-NE)
      Pryor (D-AR)

      by debraz on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:01:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  out fundraising (none / 0)

    he's gotta keep up with primary challenger Joe Orman.

    by thirdparty on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:35:14 PM PDT

  •  He has a great excuse (4.00 / 12)

    they asked for Democrats to stand in the photo. That's an exclusion of Joementum, per se.

    The "D" after Joe Lieberman's name stands for Douchebag.

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:37:07 PM PDT

  •  I disagree (none / 1)

    that Nelson has "a good excuse."  Up for re-election in a red state is not an excuse.  Is he a Democrat or not? If so, act like one.  If not, switch parties.  It's simple, really.

    How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

    by furryjester on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:37:34 PM PDT

    •  representing the type of democrats nebraska has (none / 1)

      he's a democrat in nebraska.  we don't have enough of the type of democrats you're talking about here to get anyone elected.

      by hornrimsylvia on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:45:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  on pragmatism (4.00 / 2)

        Believe me, I understand about red states! I've gone to bat for Stephanie Herseth on this site, defending her position on FMA on pragmatic grounds, because I believe - based on personal experience on the ground in South Dakota - that she wouldn't have been elected without taking that position.

        But she has taken positions on other issues that are Democratic positions, ones that I believe in.  Otherwise? I'd withdraw that support in a heartbeat.

        There's a big difference between voting against your party on Issue X, and standing by while your minority caucus gets ALL their remaining power stripped away.

        See what I'm saying?

        How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

        by furryjester on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:58:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excuses (none / 1)

      At least Nelson said he would vote against Frist's bill. He's on the right side, just avoiding photo ops that can be used against him. I don't like it either but I won't hold it against him because I don't want him to switch parties. We need everyone (other than Lieberman).

      by srbaxley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:46:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know how many times I can say this (3.81 / 11)

      Nelson is a brilliant politician, and one thing he doesn't want to be seen as by his constituents is a knee-jerk Democrat. I'm sick of having to defend Nelson. I shouldn't have to.

      He voted for Salazar? Yeah. Well Salazar was going to be confirmed anyway, and it's not like he's the reason Abu Ghraib happened. It's the same mistake we made with Ashcroft. It's not the cabinet officials you should be worried about. I know a lot of us have this notion that Dubya doesn't have a clue what he's doing... But even scarier is this: He knows exactly what he's doing. It wouldn't matter if his attorney general was Ashcroft, Salazar, or anyone. As long as the choice is up to Bush, and the Senate is on his side, it doesn't matter WHO the deputy is. You can  disagree with the vote, I do. But you can't argue that Nelson was somehow enabling torture. It's Bush and the Republicans who are doing so.

      He voted for the bankruptcy bill? So did half of the Democrats. Plenty of blame to go around, there.

      He hasn't publicly denounced Bush's SS plan? I don't really have to explain this one again, do I? Armando wrote a great diary a couple weeks back that pretty much detailed exactly why Nelson's on our side with regards to SS. Nelson's a deficit hawk, and he knows that this SS plan isn't going to be solvent. So he gives himself political cover by repeating the solvency issue while saying that he is keeping an open mind. Anyone who can read between the lines knows that he's already on our side.

      Ben Nelson voted against ANWR drilling yesterday. He's on our side with Social Security. The contention that he's no better than a Republican is SERIOUSLY flawed.

      He's going to switch parties? Based on what? Nelson had his best chance to do so shortly after his election. He didn't. He's a Democrat. Live with it. Deal with it. If you can't, then don't preach Dean's 50 state strategy out one side of your mouth while saying with the other side that we need to purge the conservatives out of our party.

      Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

      by ptmflbcs on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:58:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I meant Gonzales, of course (none / 0)

        Not Salazar...

        Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

        by ptmflbcs on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:01:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Keep talking (none / 1)

             There's nothing wrong with having to repeat yourself whenever someone suggests something dumb. You undoubtedly reach at least some new people each time you write.
             I don't think Nelson is even close to perfect but I live in Alabama and he would be a huge improvement over Shelby or Sessions (though Jeff Sessions is a 2nd cousin by marriage and generally a good person so we won't mention to him how much I dislike his politics). In general, people shouldn't criticize before they have fully evaluated the alternatives.

        by srbaxley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:20:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I never said we should purge anyone. (none / 1)

        And I don't believe we should.  If I believed in purges I wouldn't have defended Stephanie Herseth.

        I also haven't contended that Nelson is no better than a Republican.  Almost all Democrats are better than Republicans - even if some are only marginally better.  They're still better.  You're not going to catch me yelling for primary challenges.

        But if Nelson doesn't stand up against efforts to emasculate his caucus, that is a big problem.  Democrats have disagreements on policy sometimes, and sometimes individual Democrats make the compromises they have to, to get elected and stay there.  But if you're going to be in the party, you owe it to the party to at least hold together on procedural stuff like stopping the nuclear option.

        That said.  Skipping a photo op, and casting a vote, are two different things.  Still.  Nelson damn well better vote the right way on this one.  There is no excuse for not doing so.  I stand by that statement.

        How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

        by furryjester on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:20:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right (none / 0)

          though you did urge him to switch parties, which wouldn't be good for the goal of regaining a majority (we aren't going to field a viable candidate against him in Nebraska, at least one any different from Nelson). I do understand your frustration though. This is a huge vote and I'm glad he said he would vote against it (which you may have missed in the article). Hopefully all democrats will vote likewise, along with a few smart republicans (they will be out of power someday).

          by srbaxley on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:24:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  bravo (none / 0)

        I don't agree with some of Nelson's positions, but he represents the people of Nebraska, not me. And I understand that Nebraska is a red state and that sometimes Democrats in such places can't afford to be overly idealistic. So I'm hard-pressed to criticize him in that regard.

        by pine on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:02:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  nelson (none / 0)

        he is either a Dem or Repub.  When he votes mostly with the Repubs, then he should change parties.

        It seems the only criteria you are using is not doing what is right, but what will get you elected.
        Yes, and he is my so-called senator.

        by xerico on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:04:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're wrong (none / 0)

          I'm sorry, but Nelson's the best we can do in Nebraska right now. There are no other viable candidates in the state. Any Democrat worth a salt should be focused on the Governor's race, anyway.

          So, you either believe that there are viable progressive candidates in the state of Nebraska, or you believe that there are no Democratic candidates worth your breath in the entire state.

          In either case, your attitude isn't helping. I think most people understand that Nelson has to be responsible for Nebraska's wishes, too. I'm not talking about getting elected, although that is part of it. Nelson's got to be in touch with Nebraskans.

          You can't govern if you don't win. And you can't win if you stop looking out for what the majority of people in your state care about. This is reality. Get used to it. We can't build any sort of a party in the state of Nebraska unless we face what we have NOW, and build from it instead of tearing it down.

          Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

          by ptmflbcs on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:28:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with all you've said . . . (none / 0)

        Well, except for the Salazar instead of Gonzales part, and your use of the word "purge." Is it really purging an elected official to say you'd like to replace him with someone more reflective of your interests, and then work to achieve that at the polls?

        As far as Nebraska goes, I think Nelson is as good as the Dems can do and win. But in Connecticut, where it's possible Dem voters would support a squeaky-clean progressive candidate, I'd like to see a viable challenger to Joe. But it won't be easy. Lieberman has a lot of special interest support plus the name recognition and national stature we often take comfort in, especially during troubled times.

        As an Ohioan, one of my main concerns is that the potential for vote fraud can render the whole question moot. Having worked on the recount here there isn't a doubt in my mind that large-scale fraud occurred. I worry that Bush's embrace of Lieberman signals his re-election is in the bag.

        I shall not grow conservative with age -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

        by ponderer on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:41:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Viable challenger (none / 0)

          Here's the thing... I don't know if there is going to be a viable challenger to Lieberman. I certainly support a primary challenge of Lieberman for basically the reasons you said... and of course, the most obvious reason: Lieberman attacks Democrats more than he attacks Republicans. Even Nelson knows that he's a Democrat... Lieberman, I'm not too sure.

          Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

          by ptmflbcs on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  They don't have the votes (none / 0)

    I've heard several Republicans publicly voice opposition to the "nuclear option," no doubt because they realize that it's possible they'll be the minority in the Senate one day, and they wouldn't want to live without the fillibuster's protection.

    Johnny Isaakson was one of the Senators who stated his opposition, on the floor of the Senate IIRC, so these aren't all moderates either.

    Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

    by ptmflbcs on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

  •  Did anyone see the New Yorker article (none / 0)

    In which Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman decide that they need to bash Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic party in order to prove their National Security Cred?

    by abbyv on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:40:05 PM PDT

  •  Souless Joe (none / 1)

    Is ghost righting Jeff Gannons book:

    "The Essence of Prostitution, it's all about Position, Position, Position."

    by notcho on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:44:57 PM PDT

  •  we need religion (3.50 / 8)

    I watched Lieberman speak in favor of the Cantwell ANWR amendment yesterday. He spoke fairly passionately about environmental protection as a religious duty, quoting scripture about God instructing Adam and Eve to protect the garden of Eden and calling ANWR a "little Eden" under our protection. This isn't the argument I would have made, but the democratic party needs somebody whose