Skip to content
Categories:

Lieberman drops the pretense, attacks Obama’s patriotism

Post date:
Author:

It wasn’t too long ago when Charlie Black, a top McCain campaign strategist, told reporters, “[W]e don’t want to talk about [Barack Obama’s] patriotism and character. We concede that he’s a patriot and person of good character.”

Like most of the McCain campaign’s commitments, this didn’t last long.

One of the McCain campaign’s new themes, that Senator John McCain has always put his country first, has been seen by some analysts as a subtle suggestion that his opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has not.

But as he introduced Mr. McCain at a campaign event here on Tuesday, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut made the attack a lot more explicit, calling the election a choice “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.”

In case there were any doubts about whether Lieberman went off-script and said something McCain disapproved of, note that the McCain campaign emailed Lieberman’s attack to its full press list. In the process, Greg Sargent noted, the McCain gang put its “official stamp of approval on Lieberman’s assertion.”

As this relates to McCain, it suggests attacks on Obama’s patriotism are very much on the table. As for Lieberman, just last week, the former Democrat contributed $100

,000 to the DSCC. A Lieberman-friendly Democrat told Roll Call why Lieberman made the donation: “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him. Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

At this point, Dems everywhere are going to hate him and he’s going to lose his committee.

Looking at the big picture, this is, quite obviously, the end of Lieberman’s relationship with the Democratic Party.

Back in June, Josh Marshall makes a compelling case that Lieberman has burned a bridge that won’t be rebuilt, and the argument continues to ring true.

What does seem clear to me is that Lieberman’s days in the Democratic caucus, or more specifically, his days with a committee chairmanship courtesy of the Democratic caucus are numbered in months.

My assumption is that after the November election, regardless of the outcome of the presidential campaign, Joe will be stripped of his chairmanship. (This seems even more certain to me if Obama wins the general, but I suspect it will happen regardless.) Whether he’ll actually be expelled from the caucus I don’t know and probably doesn’t really matter. Once he’s stripped of the benefits he gains from it, presumably he’ll leave himself and become an actual non-caucusing independent or, more likely, start caucusing with the Republicans.

What that tells me is that Lieberman has no incentive not to make the maximum amount of trouble over the next five months both for his senate colleagues and for Sen. Obama.

Josh raised a couple of points here, both of which are important. Lieberman might as well kiss his committee gavel goodbye, and once that happens, he’ll have no incentive to caucus with the party. Lieberman probably realizes this, which will make him an unrestrained Republican attack-dog throughout the campaign cycle.

I still wonder, though, if Lieberman has considered the implications for his reputation — not with the party, and not with his constituents, but with the media establishment he loves (and which loves him right back). Lieberman’s interesting to pundits and talking heads because he’s unusual. The media can’t get enough of unusual. Lieberman was on the Democratic ticket eight years ago, he had Obama campaigning for him two years ago, and now he’s McCain’s Mini-Me. The media can’t get enough.

But come January, if he’s just another Republican hack, he’s not quite as fascinating anymore.

Interestingly enough, Lieberman doesn’t seem to care.

Comments

  • Onus

    says:

    Lieberman will be left with nothing after this cycle. He will have no clout with either side. The last person anyone wants for a friend is someone with a reputation for stabbing their friends in the back, and he will realize this only after both parties kick him to the curb after the election.

  • Charliet

    says:

    Let me see here! Lieberman’s constituency is primarily Israel and therefore Obama is not patriotic. WTF! The only way that could be true is if Israel and US interests were one and the same. Show me that and we’ll talk. But I don’t think so. The Neocon spin just says our interests are the same but provides no evidence whatsoever. Let’s see. We were hailed as liberators and showered with flowers. Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the occupation and rebuilding. Yup! Wolfawitz is batting around Bob Eucher numbers. All the others aren’t even batting. Just spinning, lying and whining. This is all so transparent I am dumbfounded that it isn’t the only story and that American’s haven’t been able to think critically enough to know the truth when the examine it. Oh yeah! Americans don’t think critically or examine things.;Sheesh!

  • Oppressmenot

    says:

    …John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.” – Joe Lie-berman
    *****************************************

    Then why, oh Holy Joe, did John ‘100 years’ McCentury, say that we could check his “record” because he has voted right down the line w/ the PARTY (and it’s little Napoleon and Vader) over 90% of the time?? Because he has worked across party lines so much? Joe, you suck.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    If anything goes a little way towards making up for the 2000 fiasco, it’s the fact we never had to hear the words Vice President Joseph Lieberman.

    I’m glad that back-stabbing SOB is stumping for the ReThugs. If McCainiac has picked one of the most unpopular people in politics to champion his cause, it shows the Str8talkxpress is riding on its rims. Any minute now the sparks will ignite the gas tank.

    And I wonder how LIEberman will explain giving the Dems $200,000 to his Republipals?

  • Capt Kirk

    says:

    Any person who voted for war with Iraq or supported it in any way did not put this country first. Two senators mentioned in this article fall into that category and neither is Barack Obama.

  • Maria

    says:

    Looking at the big picture, this is, quite obviously, the end of Lieberman’s relationship with the Democratic Party.

    Everyone keeps saying this, and yet it never quite seems to pan out, what with Harry’s circumspection and all. Look, if we don’t have 60 without Joey Leebs in January–and it certainly looks like we won’t quite make it–this man’s sorry butt will continue to be kissed, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. He’ll get to keep his committee to prevent him from caucusing with the GOP, because he’s an unguided missile with the emotional makeup of a 13-year-old girl who runs around having temper tantrums and getting rewarded for it.

    God, that burns me up.

  • Lance

    says:

    Joe LIEberman has conflated two points here, one claiming that JSMcC*nt puts his country first, and the other that JSMcC*nt works across party lines. Then Joe LIEberman says that Obama doesn’t. What he means of course is one time Obama stopped working on a bi-partisan ethics bill with JSMcC*nt and decided to support the Majority Leader’s partisan ethics bill (which I think actually passed without the need for JSMcC*nt’s support). Because of this ONE occurance, Joe LIEberman is claiming that Obama doesn’t work across party lines.

    Of course, he doesn’t mean to suggest that Obama is a traitor who doesn’t put country first, he is just conflating two points at the same time.

    If you don’t unpack his statement and force him to defend each part, he gets away with his attack.

    Which is a joke of course, considering that the only country Joe LIEberman puts first is Israel, even to the point of getting America involved in another war with Iran at the potential loss of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of Americans, not to mention $10 a gallon gasoline.

    Sorry, but what is good for Israel is not necessarily good for America.

  • Martin

    says:

    Gee, and just this morning on NPR McCain was saying his campaign hasn’t gone negative and will NOT go negative. I guess the mighty maverick will be kicking Joe to the curb any second now;>

  • SteveT

    says:

    Lieberman might as well kiss his committee gavel goodbye, and once that happens, he’ll have no incentive to caucus with the party.

    You have a lot more faith than I do that Harry Reid will grow a backbone during the next few months. The Democratic Congressional “leadership’s” first, second and third priorities are maintaining their own personal power. If Lieberman promises to support Reid as majority leader, Reid would be very likely to let him keep his committee.

  • chrisbo

    says:

    Maria @ 6 raises an interesting point.

    What if the purpose of this is to not only hurt Obama, but hurt the ability of Democrats to ride Obama’s coattails into Congress? If the Dems can’t get sufficient numbers in the Senate, Liberman may actually remain important to the Dems (as odious as he is).

  • muffler

    says:

    In Roman times Lieberman would probably have been exiled or worse. He has changed sides so many times. I still think he is was a plant by the GOP years ago and gave inside information to them during the 2000 election. He lower than slime

  • Charliet

    says:

    RE: #8
    RIght! McTwit has never gone negative. It’s always been straight talk. He doesn’t take contributions (read bribes) expecting a quid pro quo from industry. He has voted consistently with the positions he started out saying he supported. This man is integrity personified. And I am the queen of Romania.

  • Diogenes

    says:

    I think that Lieberman will probably be kept in the caucus, if at all possible, if McCain wins the general, especially if the dems don’t win enough seats to beat a veto. However, if Obama wins, Lieberman is out on his ear. That’s why he’s pimping for John McCain. He knows that his best hope is a divided legislative and executive. All his talk about how he’s just following his heart, and how he really thinks that McCain needs to be the next president, and how he’s not worried about the aftermath for him is a load of crap. He’s done the math, he knows what will happen to him if Obama wins, and so he’s praying for a McCain victory.

  • John

    says:

    Gee, as the “freecredit report.com” song goes… “I (Conneticut Democrats) should have seen this coming at me like an atom bomb.” I could not believe they bought his crap in 2006. Thanks a lot Conneticut Democrats.

  • Kevin

    says:

    Actually, Lieberman does seem to care. He cares to the tune of $100,000. I guess he’s hoping the bribe will make Dems shut their ears while he stoops to the lowest of the low against their candidate.

    I’d love someone on TV (because you know Holy Joe will make more appearances attacking Obama there) to ask him what he means by that statement. When exactly did Obama not put the country first?

    Basically, you have McCain calling him treasonous and Lieberman calling him unpatriotic. Classy campaign.

  • Kevin

    says:

    Actually, Lieberman does seem to care. He cares to the tune of $100,000. I guess he’s hoping the bribe will make Dems shut their ears while he stoops to the lowest of the low against their candidate.

    I’d love someone on TV (because you know Holy Joe will make more appearances attacking Obama there) to ask him what he means by that statement. When exactly did Obama not put the country first?

    Basically, you have McCain calling him treasonous and Lieberman calling him unpatriotic. Classy campaign.

  • jerry mander

    says:

    All I want to know is how you can claim lieberman is calling Obama a non patriot by questioning his voting record. Your all a bunch of loons

  • Shalimar

    says:

    still wonder, though, if Lieberman has considered the implications for his reputation

    I seriously doubt it. Lieberman shows every sign of being a narcissist, and narcissists are unable to empathize with others. They generally fail to see beyond the immediate ramifications of their manipulations because of that inability to put themselves in other people’s shoes.

  • Chris

    says:

    I’m not clear on how allowing Lieberman to keep his chairmanship would help us if we grow our Senate majority (even if we don’t get to 60). Lieberman has demonstrated that he’s going to do what he’s going to do, irregardless.

    I’m with CB…come January, Senate Dems should drop the guy.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    18.On August 13th, 2008 at 9:05 am, jerry mander said:
    All I want to know is how you can claim lieberman is calling Obama a non patriot by questioning his voting record. Your all a bunch of loons

    And you’re too stupid to vote if you believe all Lieberman was doing was questioning Obama’s voting record. His sentence was carefully crafted to give the impression that McCain puts his country first and Obama doesn’t. Sounds like questioning his patriotism to me.

  • Gregory

    says:

    But come January, if he’s just another Republican hack, he’s not quite as fascinating anymore.

    Word. Does Zell Miller get on TV anymore?

  • Wally

    says:

    I wish reporters would get a little harsher with McCain or with Lieberman about this patriotism nonsense. Yes, Lieberman muddied the water with that across-the-aisle phrase, but both have suggested (without being courageous enough to say it outright) that he isn’t patriotic, doesn’t care about his country, etc. That’s a really serious charge. That isn’t just “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” or “he isn’t strong enough to be president.”

    And it’s so nationalist and xenophobic because it implies that you can only go to certain schools, go to certain countries, have certain priorities, and vote in certain ways in order to be truly American. That’s a truly scary attitude, and totally against what America stands for. So why aren’t reporters asking them why they keep saying it without ever giving an example of how Obama has harmed America? Why do they let them get away with this kind of loose talk? It’s the kind of thing that would get you shot in the old West, and now nobody turns a hair. Sickening.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    As for Lieberman’s chairmanship, that committee is way too important to leave Lieberman in charge of it regardless of what happens. Just because he has been unwilling to investigate the Bush administration on any subject doesn’t mean he would show any restraint against an Obama administration. It could very well turn into the 90s all over again, with every little Rush-pushed “scandal” leading to weeks of investigation and headlines. And if McCain manages to win: more of the same nothing from the Senate’s oversight committee. Lieberman has to go if the country is ever going to recover from Bush.

  • JAson

    says:

    @jerry mander. We’ll wait while you look up the word “conflate”

    Educate yourself before calling out others, idiot.

  • William

    says:

    What Chris said and tar and feather him too. LIEberman is a power-c*nting little tick on the Senate floor that needs to be burned off post haste. This guy is like Bush, the second I see him either the volume is muted or the channel is changed.

  • Chris

    says:

    If this were only an attack on his patriotism that would be one thing. Accusing Obama of that level of cynicism, ambition, and opportunism is a direct attack on the man’s integrity and honor.

    When this election is over I really hope that Lieberman and McCain are ostracized from national politics entirely. Both of them have conducted themselves dishonestly and dishonorably during this campaign. Both should be deeply ashamed of themselves for some of the statements they’ve made in recent months.

  • Gregory

    says:

    All I want to know is how you can claim lieberman is calling Obama a non patriot by questioning his voting record.

    Simple; we aren’t. We’re pointing out the fact that Lieberman is calling Obama a non patriot when he calls the race — and I quote — “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.”

    Which right wing blog is trying to spin that Lieberman’s very clear quote is a criticism of Obama’s voting record? Haven’t you learned by now not to believe the bullshit they’re peddling?

    Jackass.

  • Georgette Orwell

    says:

    Martin @ 8, I heard that nauseating, infuriating audio clip, too. I wish just one media person would ask him how he defines “negative” and make him answer.
    McCain and his campaign (and most of this administration) act as though because they say something, it’s true. Too bad so many voters uncritically also take it as the truth.

  • JC

    says:

    Call his bluff. Ask Joe, “When has Obama not put the country first? On what grounds do you make such a heinous accusation?” I predict that his only answer will be that Obama doesn’t support the never ending occupation of Iraq by the US military. That’s our Obama, taking the ethical, logical and populist position on warfare, and for it, essentially being called a traitor by Joe.

    Next thing Joe will be calling Obama a supporter of terrorism. The president has already done the same thing with the Democratic Party, and by doing so has placed himself in the historical category of scum of the earth.

  • SickofBushMcCainLiebermann

    says:

    Howard Dean needs to have a vote of No Confidence for Lie-berman… Lieberman/McCain- the Statler and Wladorf of politics. Grumpy old men.

    Lieberman is good at one thing- burning bridges, maybe he should go to Alaska and burn Steven’s bridge to nowhere.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Maria (#6) said: Look, if we don’t have 60 without Joey Leebs in January–and it certainly looks like we won’t quite make it…

    Nope. Don’t declare defeat until November 5. Dems are ahead in the Senate rces in New Hampshire, Virginia, Mississippi, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska. We’re in “shouting distance” in Texas, Kentucky, and North Carolina, and Franken is moving up in Minnesota. That’s 11 right there, and all the 24 Republicans up for re-election to the Senate are running scared, regardless.

    Don’t selll things short. If the kind of state-by-state organization I have been raising money for is used right, there will be “coat tails” even where Obama doesn’t win the statewide vote.

    Holy Joe is on the way out.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    You have a lot more faith than I do that Harry Reid will grow a backbone during the next few months.

    I for one would like to see any one of you “political geniuses” here do anywhere close to as well as Reid has done with only 49 mostly-dependable (sometimes not) votes in a body of 100 voters. Come this time a year from now, I think more than a few here are going to be dining on “crow.” BTW, there’s a much tastier vegan alternative to the real thing.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    A couple of points about the Connecticut Mugwump — who has his mug on one side of the aisle and his wump on the other. Yes we did need to ‘make nice’ to him this last Congress — because we had a one-vote majority. There was an agreement that this would not change if someone ‘crossed party lines’ but if the Mugwump had done it and called for a new vote on reorganization of Congress, and had argued that the agreement was ‘procedurally invalid’ the deciding vote would have been cast by Dick Cheney — and I think I can guess which way he would have gone.

    But the ’60 vote’ argument makes no sense at all, because, other than in ‘organizing the Senate’ there is no such thing as ‘party-line voting.’ (The other day someone made a list of which Senators have voted with their party the most, but nobody on either side of the aisle got 100%. Not even Jim DeMint.)

    The only argument for allowing the Mugwump to caucus with us — and worse, to keep his chairmanship — is that he is an evil nasty little man who will vote Republican more often if we get him mad. This is obviously true. But we wouldn’t be able to ensure he wouldn’t still misuse the Chairmanship if he kept it, or be able to count on his vote at any time.

    Besides, we’ll top 60 votes easy after the election — and at least a few of the remaining Republicans who either have some sense or see the election results this time and hear the clock ticking on their own careers will be crossing the aisle more regularly.

    (Ironically, while I have consistently said that impeaching Bush and Cheney would have been a mistake this Congress — again, not because they weren’t guilty but because the ‘jury pool’ wouln’t convict them — the Belknap case shows that it IS possible to impeach someone after they leave office. We could ‘retroactively’ impeach Bush and Cheney after the new Congress is sworn in — and the argument that ‘impeaching Bush would give us Preident Cheney; impeaching Cheney wouyld give us VP or President McCain’ would no longer be valid. Whether it would make sense to do so or not may be arguable, but y’know, it might be fun to try.)

    But the argument that ‘if we don’t have 60 Democratic Senators, we’re stuck with Joe’ makes no sense at all.

  • Denny Crane

    says:

    McCain knows better than to turn his back on Liebermann. “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” That two-faced little sh!t would sell his mother to the Arabs to further his career.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    TomC: thank you thank you thank you. It’s comments like this that make me accept your occasional attacks of Tourette’s — and you’ve been having them so much less frequently now that you see we are really going to win.

    (In fact, — admittedly it is morning and the caffeine is just starting to hit — I’ve been imagining one time when Steve would run a thread in your honor, which woukd be labeled as ‘not workplace safe, not suitable for anyone under 18’ when we could all ‘let it out’ and describe what we really think of those *ahem — wait for the thread* ‘gentlemen in the Administration.)

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Martin @ 8, I heard that nauseating, infuriating audio clip, too. I wish just one media person would ask him how he defines “negative” and make him answer.

    Nitwit
    Putz
    Republican

    Try Daniel Schorr the other day repeating the neocon’s b.s. about “Russia resurgent” like he was broadcasting from the roof of the Hotel Metropole as the Wehrmacht enters Paris. Try the long interview with Kagan, identified only as “a scholar who studies great power politics” who goes on to repeat all his points from his Corner piece that day without any questioning of what he said, nothing but softball questions, and nothing in the rest of the broadcast to balance the necon propaganda.

  • Polaris

    says:

    Way to go Connecticut for dumping this horrible little man on us. I will very happy when this guy gets turfed

  • Maria

    says:

    Nope. Don’t declare defeat until November 5.

    When I actually “declare defeat,” rather than (correctly) observing that an objective review of polls has us running a little short (between 54-56), you’ll have a point. It should go without saying that I will be absolutely delighted if projections change significantly in our favor between now and November.

    Shalimar has it right @ 19 and 24. Not only is Lieberman a narcissist, he’s a bitter grudge-holder with anger issues, as evidenced by his remarks about everyone who failed to show him fealty in 2006. (Remember all that totally inappropriate and crazily unprofessional hostility?) He’s going to make trouble no matter what because he is powered by petty ego, and I think that on the whole we’re better off jettisoning him–in a twist on Lyndon Johnson, it’s safer having him pissing into the tent than out of it. However, I’m not convinced that Reid has figured this out yet.

  • JS

    says:

    Lieberman is the lowest of the low, even though he is a jew, he probably would have sucked up to Adolph Hitler to save his skin had he been around in WW2.

  • jhm

    says:

    I just don’t see Hon. Sen. Lieberman leaving the caucus unless the Dems have 60 votes (minimum) without him. What committee will the GOP give him? with what seniority? Like it or not, aside from his nutcase foreign policy, he could be a valuable 60th vote on many issues, and being the chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is important to him personally, Hon. Rep. Waxman is doing yeoman’s work, and the Senate side isn’t mission critical.

  • doubtful

    says:

    As long as he keeps funneling cash to the DNC, it’s unlikely the Democrats will sever their relationship with him. I think we’ll have to rely on the Connecticut voters to correct their mistake, if he even runs again.

  • Chad

    says:

    Throw Liebby under the bus. How dare he question the patriotism of a man who thinks this country is in the crapper.

  • Michael7843853

    says:

    How long before Lieberman resorts to the brain tumor defense? Now HE is a maverick. Of course mavericks, by definition, are good for nothing.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    This country is in the crapper. Since when does patriotism require someone to be delusional? Our country has alot of problems, and you have to recognize them before they can be fixed.

  • Oppressmenot

    says:

    Chad said:

    Throw Liebby under the bus. How dare he question the patriotism of a man who thinks this country is in the crapper.
    ****************************************

    Actually, the economy, (the housing market, the mortgage crisis, food prices, energy prices, the stock market, etc), unemployment, the horrendous explosion of the national debt and the budget deficit, the soaring costs of healthcare and education are a real bummer to the poor and middle-class, schmuck. And of course, we have those lovely Neocon LEED-urs who can’t reconcile the fact that their highschool playground bully mentality is a main factor in pissing off other nations towards the US, and actually puts us more at risk. Country “in the crapper”, no. Repigs like you crapping on the country, the Constitution, and the rights of Americans as well as others around the globe? Definitely Yes. Now please, go pull your head out of your ass.

  • Steve

    says:

    It’s getting scarier and scarier in these parts; chaddie actually said something I agree with.

    America “is” in the crapper, thanks to the Bushylvanians, and due in no minuscule part to the profane audacity of Benedict Joe. as much as I’d like to see a 60+ Dem majority in the Senate, I don’t think it’s going to happen—and folks need to start plotting a formidable “Plan B” to deal with a continuation of the GOP’s “prevent defense.”

    Suppose, for some reason that we do not yet foresee, Republicans in the Senate decide that they want to stage “walkouts” as their counterparts in the House have done. Now imagine, for a moment or three, that Dems have a backlog of legislation all set up and ready to go. While the GOPers are doing their silly-dance on the Capitol steps, Dems start running bills through in a production-line fashion. No 60 votes required to bring it to an up-or-down vote—just introduce, vote, and pass to the next item. By the time “the Party of Whiners” realizes what’s happening, we could ram through three or four bills—maybe even five, if we’re lucky.

    Another option would be a hit-n-run insurgency tactic. Run the day’s session, and then adjourn for just a few hours, and then re-convene. It’s a known fact that the GOPer needs his socializing time—hobnobbing with lobbyists, caterwauling with special interests, and rubbing elbows with their wealthy patrons. It’s how he earns his keep. Hit-n-run sessions deny them that access, and they become susceptible to primary challenges, reduced campaign pledges, and diminished importance over on K Street. A few months of that, and they’d be about as useful to their real overlords—the lobbyists, special interests, and wealthy patrons—as Dick Cheney is to the Endangered Species Act.

  • joey

    says:

    Maria…you don’t need a veto proof majority in the senate with a dem president. We don’t need sixty in the senate…just a majority with Obama being president and the only way he won’t be president is if repubs steal it which they are busy trying to set up to do.

    Lieberman is going all out with all his eggs in one basket because he knows he’s finished if McCain loses…and he thinks McCain can steal it so he’s safe but he also knows that the senate will still get a majority of dems.

    I want a commission of experts led by Spoonamoore to verify election results and where discrepancies are found, investigate immediately allowing them access to proprietary codes on voting machines without a paper trail. WILL ANYONE ALERT THE FEC ?

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    JohnR: If it is being PC to condemn death wishes against anyone, then I am guilty as charged and not in the slightest repentant. As far as I know, this is one of the most consistent rules on any liberal blog. Leave that to the idiots on the PUMA and RightWing sites — not, to be honest, that I’ve ever seen one from a PUMA.

    In fact, I AM going to write Steve about the comment. I wouldn’t have, but should’ve.

  • John R

    says:

    @Prup- There are rules on blogs? Where does one find such rules? Is there a EULA I should sign? Like I said lighten up
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/smite I never said anything about dispatching ol’ Joe. If it will make you feel better I will pray for it to start raining and for him to get a flat tire in his driveway as he leaves for work.

  • Hannah

    says:

    Holy Joe: “One candidate… John McCain… worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.”

    I just talked to someone at LIEberman’s office. I said I had supported Gore-Lieberman in 2000, but if Sen. Lieberman wants to support McCain, so be it. But I told the guy nicely but emphatically that Obama had worked on important legislation with Republicans Lugar, Hagel, Coburn, Brownback, McCain, and Smith*, and that Sen. Lieberman should quit LYING about Sen. Obama.

    Anyway, give his office a call. I feel better for having done so, though I doubt it will make any difference. (202) 224-4041

    Aside: were I an employee in Holy Joe’s office, I would have quit a long time ago.

    *Gordon Smith (one of my senators) is partly running his re-election campaign by tying himself with Obama. Pretty funny when you consider he’s a Repub and mostly votes with Bush.

  • libra

    says:

    Maria, @6,

    We only need 60+ to overcome a presidential veto. With Obama as president, that won’t be an issue. For deciding who the chairmen of various committees are (and who senior ranking members — of the minority party) all we need is 51 and we’ll have it, easy. So there’s absolutely no *political* reason to keep making pretty with the stinking carrion. Of course, there are also those peculiar *personal* friendships some of the long-term Senators have developed over the years but, with LIEberman’s recent “performance”, those friendships may become “ancient history”, like McCain’s “maverick, working across the aisle” reputation. Dems can (and should) love the sin (LIEberman’s recently donated cash) but purge the sinner, without any fear.

  • Maria

    says:

    Hey, libra,

    I was referring not to a presidential veto-proof majority but to the 60 votes needed for cloture–not an insignificant concern given this Congress.

  • Steve

    says:

    I’m imagining it’s a typo, but “paying to god” to smite ol’ Joe looks like someone’s trying to buy a hit on the guy—and Benedict Joe is one politician that I don’t want to see “die clean and quick.”

    Personally, I want him to die ugly. I want to see his name—and his fame—go down in political flames, earning a position of being rejected by both sides of the political spectrum. I want to see him write a half-dozen or so book justifying his turn to the dark side—and then get rejection slips from every publishing concern on the planet—including that evil tavern-wench (Matelin) over at Simon and Schuster.

    I want to see FOX refuse to interview him—or maybe just humiliate him on national TV.

    I want to see lots of people in the Connecticut delegation at this month’s Dem convention holding up pictures of his face—upside down, red horns and a pitchfork, maybe with the words “Joe Bush” under his ugly mug—anything to declare the man as totally discredited.

    I want to see a life-sized bust of Benedict Joe on Baghdad TV, with lots of Iraqis beating on it with their shoes (If you’ve ever been in that part of the world, then you’ll know it’s the ultimate insult).

    I want to see ads of Benedict Joe’s face superimposed over the images of flag-draped coffins—or maybe coffins draped with great big banners of his face.

    But giving money to god to whack Benedict Joe? Hell, I’d rather fork the extra cash over to Obama—because an Obama presidency, coupled with a Dem Congress (both Houses) will whack him slow and cold….

  • Lance

    says:

    Racer X said: “What Lance said. Every word of it.”

    Thanks for the appreciation.

    And yes, LIEberman should be shown the door if Mark Warner and all the rest great candidates get us to 60.

    We need to take America back for the Middle Class…
    … by electing liberal Millionaires 😉

  • Chad

    says:

    Opressmenot wrote:

    Actually, the economy, (the housing market, the mortgage crisis, food prices, energy prices, the stock market, etc), unemployment, the horrendous explosion of the national debt and the budget deficit, the soaring costs of healthcare and education are a real bummer to the poor and middle-class,

    I own a house and I’m not having a problem making my payments. The mortgage crisis is from too many unqualified people getting loans for houses they cannot afford, they make bad decisions, they lose the house, simple as that. Food prices are going up because of the cost to transport them, plus ethanol is driving up the price of corn, which is used in all kinds of food production. Unemployment is pretty much the same as it was when Clinton was President, so what’s your point there?
    I have a full time job and my healthcare is included in that package, then there’s medicare and state sponsored health care for those that can’t afford it. Don’t get me going on education. Year after year, they get more and more money and the teachers are not being held accountable for declining education. They like little kids saying “Gimme more, gimme more.”

    The government is not the answer to all life’s problems. People need to learn to deal with them themselves and not go crying for a lousy handout every time they fail.

  • abigbman

    says:

    Chad

    You sound like the typical Repuglicans hack. You got yours so screw everybody else. I guess you were against the bailouts of the Banks by the Fed. I guess you were against helping Fannie and Freddie. I guess you were against the bailouts of the Oil companies with subsidies for drilling. I guess you want the oil companies with 11 thousand million dollar profits for a quarter to pay no taxes. Yeah everything is great if your a repugilcan. But if you are a little guy sold a bill of goods, so sorry chump. We (Repuglicans) will help the bank and investment company that screwed you, but you sap, phuck you. Bootstraps for thee, but not for we (Repuglicans).

  • Denny Crane

    says:

    Hey Chad – what would happen to your cosy little existence if you lost your job tomorrow? If the only job you could find was 300 miles away and you had to move? If your employer suddenly made you pay 50% of your health care costs? If oil went to $300 / bbl? Still confident in “things are OK” everywhere?

    Come to the midwest and talk about low unemployment. Talk about “I’ve got mine”. We’re listening…

  • Shalimar

    says:

    And Chad demonstrates the complete lack of empathy for other human beings that Republicans are famous for. Very appropriate in a Lieberman thread too.