Joe Lieberman was on Sean Hannity's radio show today and he said that he feels "free" now that he has been elected as an independent. Also, Sean brought up a long list of Democrats who turned their backs on Joe, and Joe said that he was "disappointed" in them doing so and that "he will continue to work with everyone but some relationships will not be the same."
We know that Joe has a rational view on Iraq and the WorldWide War on Terror. Is it possible that he will at least be the swing vote needed when it comes to National Security?
Also, anyone think that his feeling betrayed by the DNC could lead to a spot with the GOP somewhere down the line?
Post subject: Re: Will Joe Lieberman Save the Senate?
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:30 am
Spaceman
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
LeninFlux wrote:
Also, anyone think that his feeling betrayed by the DNC could lead to a spot with the GOP somewhere down the line?
i don't know that much about the guy but surely such thinking would be fanciful.
it's one thing to be disenchanted with the dems, it's another altogether to turn to the dark side
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
LeninFlux wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
I think this could well fit in the other Lieberman thread.
Sorry...I figured the "Lieberman/Lamont" thread was a discussion of the Senate race itself, not the aftermath.
I understand why you feel it merited a new thread, I'm all about board tidyness is all.
Perhaps its because I'm not too fond of the Dems, but I think it would be all kinds of weaksauce if he had any formal arrangement with them - or the Republicans for that matter. In a way, he's lucky that he has a big (I) next to his name, because how can anyone threaten him now? Its not like he's entitled to any party re-election funds anyhow.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Praise Jesus for Lieberman's rational views on the War on Terror.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Well, perhaps he will be able to influence the Democrats in their thinking in regards to Iraq. Lieberman is definitely not a cut and runner...hopefully he can pursuade his fellow Party Members.
Well, perhaps he will be able to influence the Democrats in their thinking in regards to Iraq. Lieberman is definitely not a cut and runner...hopefully he can pursuade his fellow Party Members.
If the Iraqi government would stand up and demand the occupying forces leave their country, then, all the militias can unify beIthind the government with that common goal, and a ceasefire can be negotiated. I believe this strategy would be beneficial for the new Iraqi government, because this strategy would enable the government to take on a leadership role in the population...plus, it'd give coalition forces an excuse to get out of there.
If the Iraqi government were to tell us to "get the fuck out," that'd be the closest we could come to winning the war. Then their government would actually fall into the hands of the people. Furthermore, certain philosophies on the U.S. government were settled in a war about 75 years after The United States gained independence. There's no such thing as this controlled democracy we tried to "give" to Iraq. Democracy is earned by the people in the country; it needs to be taken, and it can only be taken by people deserving of it. Democracy is a struggle, and as history has shown, it comes at the end of a lot of bloodshed. We should actually be more careful about our own democracy rather than try to impress it unto other countries.
_________________ ...and then they made me their chief.
Post subject: Re: Will Joe Lieberman Save the Senate?
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:38 am
Of Counsel
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
TomJoad187 wrote:
If the Iraqi government were to tell us to "get the fuck out," that'd be the closest we could come to winning the war. Then their government would actually fall into the hands of the people. Furthermore, certain philosophies on the U.S. government were settled in a war about 75 years after The United States gained independence. There's no such thing as this controlled democracy we tried to "give" to Iraq. Democracy is earned by the people in the country; it needs to be taken, and it can only be taken by people deserving of it. Democracy is a struggle, and as history has shown, it comes at the end of a lot of bloodshed. We should actually be more careful about our own democracy rather than try to impress it unto other countries.
A+
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Joe Lieberman has been hinting at defecting to caucus with the GOP, which would make the Senate a 50-50 tie, and giving VP Cheney the tie-breaking vote. Many think this would also swing Senate Committee chairs to the GOP as well, but guess what? It wouldn't.
February 22, 2007
Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate
With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.
If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.
What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
Someone ought to tell Harry Reid and the rest of the Dems in the Senate that they're free to tell Joe Liberman that he can go fuck himself, and if he won't that they'll do it for him.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
That and the fact that he is basically holding the entire Senate hostage over his threat to defect to the GOP. I'd rather he just do it and shut the fuck up.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
That and the fact that he is basically holding the entire Senate hostage over his threat to defect to the GOP. I'd rather he just do it and shut the fuck up.
Fair enough, but I think the concept of an independent who caucuses with one party or the other depending on the issue is a good thing. I would hope that Lieberman would go that route and not fall into the trap of having to pledge unbending loyalty to one party or the other. While I would like to see him "join up" with the GOP when it comes to the WorldWide War on Terror so that the issue is addressed correctly, I can see him taking sides with both parties when the issues warrant.
Personally, I think the hatred for Joe Lieberman that came from the Democratic Party after he lost the primary to Ned Lamont (how dare he run anyway and undermine Lamont!) was stupid and childish. They compromised their party principles even futher by leaving the door open for him after it was apparent that Lamont wasn't going to win. Either you stick with the guy or you toss him under the bus...the Democrats did both because of their concern for the balance of power in the Senate. The Democrats could take a stand and tell Liberman to take a walk to the other side of the aisle if they find him to be so disagreeable. I place the blame with the party more than Lieberman.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
