Reid on Lieberman’s future: ‘Let’s talk about this year’

In April, Joe Lieberman explained that he’s open to delivering the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in September. “If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman told The Hill. (The remarks came just days after Lieberman praised Rush Limbaugh for his “love for our country and support for our troops,” adding, “Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.”)

At the time, the Democratic Senate leadership didn’t seem prepared to do anything about Lieberman’s antics. Asked whether Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk in the next Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid said succinctly, “No.”

Since then, Lieberman has not only pushed the envelope of propriety, he’s effectively become a Republican attack dog. So it’s worth noting that Reid’s perspective seems to have changed a bit.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday did not rule out removing Sen. Joe Lieberman from his coveted chairmanship in 2009, but he pleaded for critics to leave the Connecticut Independent alone.

Asked whether he plans to retaliate against Lieberman next year by stripping him of his chairmanship on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Reid said, “Let’s talk about this year” and stressed Lieberman’s importance to the Democrats in the 110th Congress.

Reid noted that there was a key vote on Medicare on Wednesday afternoon, and Lieberman voted with the Dems, as expected. Of course, there was also a series of key votes on FISA that afternoon, and Lieberman voted with Republicans on the overall bill and each of the amendments.

Pressed on whether he’d give Lieberman’s gavel to a Democrat if the party expanded its majority next year, Reid said, “Next year will be next year when we get there.”

This is very much in line with what I want to hear. It’s also the exact opposite of what Lieberman wants to hear.

There’s been an evolution to Reid’s thinking, and that’s understandable. For one thing, Reid doesn’t want to show his cards, sparking speculation over a hypothetical expanded majority when there’s ample legislating to be done. For another, Lieberman keeps getting worse, causing his standing with his Democratic colleagues to deteriorate further all the time.

So, in April, Lieberman’s chairmanship was not at risk, at least publicly. In May, Lieberman’s chairmanship was up for discussion. In July, the Majority Leader would prefer to just not talk about it at all.

A Lieberman aide told The Hill in May, “Sen. Reid has made it clear that the chairmanship is absolutely not in jeopardy.” In the spring, that sounded about right. But as Lieberman’s Republican antics have become more offensive, he had to realize the caucus would notice.

Lieberman has to see the writing on the wall, but he apparently doesn’t care. He has about six months before the next Congress convenes, at which point Lieberman will have lost just about everything — his role in the party, his committee chairmanship, the respect of his constituents, and his ability to be a key player on the Hill.

I wonder if he’ll think it was worth it.

It will all be worth it once he is offered the VP spot on the ticket to help bring in the Jewish vote and ultimately the state of Florida. Nonetheless, Zeb LIEberman will be the ultimate downfall for McAce’s ticket as his only platform is Israel’s defense and that is too closely tied into a war mongering stance and fear mongering hate of Iran. He’s also tied deeply to the failed Iraq project which won’t help with Independent’s either. Good riddance to the hack job Senator from Conn. What a dupa.

  • Yeah, but if Reid, Clinton, and the rest of Lieberman’s enablers hadn’t offered, at best, lukewarm support to Lamont, and at worst outright support of Lieberman, then he wouldn’t be in this position to begin with. Sorry, but Harry Reid is the most spineless example of a majority leader that I can remember, and a further example of how Senators would rather stick with their old pal, even if he is a backstabbing, mealy-mouthed moron who would sell out our interests to protect Israel at the drop of a yarmulke, rather than support the will of his party’s rank and file members when it’s expressed in a primary.

  • I think you are reading too much into this. Many Dems voted for the FISA bill, so that doesn’t make Lieberman different. I think Reid is waiting to see what happens with the Republican VP nomination or whether Lieberman is given a cabinet post in McCain’s administration. A lot can happen between now and the next Senate term and Reid is simply acknowledging that, not signaling greater disgust with Lieberman. If Lieberman hasn’t already done enough to warrant losing his chair, Reid isn’t going to change his mind just because of the FISA vote.

  • “He has about six months before the next Congress convenes, at which point Lieberman will have lost just about everything — his role in the party, his committee chairmanship, the respect of his constituents, and his ability to be a key player on the Hill.”

    I’m not sure his future is that bleak. Once Reid strips him of power he’ll become a high-profile member of the Republican minority, lauded by the right for standing up to his former party on the war and for his support of McCain. He still has 4 more years before he’s up for re-election and, as the 2006 election showed, Lieberman has a pretty strong base of support in Connecticut so I wouldn’t assume that his fall to the dark side will necessarily cost him his seat in the next election.

    Lieberman’s going over to the Republicans at this moment in history might not be all that bad for Democrats, either. For all the well-deserved criticism you’ve made of him over the last couple of years, it bears remembering that outside of war-related issues, Lieberman is still well to the left of the average Republican; at a time when much of the party seems to be tired of Bush/Rove style hyper-partisanship and the grip of the religious right over the GOP is weakening, a high-profile more-liberal-than-usual former Dem like Lieberman ascending to a leadership position in the Republican Party just might have the effect of moving the party to the left on domestic issues. Assuming, of course, that this is all handled in a way that doesn’t create a level of animosity between Lieberman and the Democrats that makes subsequent cooperation impossible.

  • … a high-profile more-liberal-than-usual former Dem like Lieberman ascending to a leadership position in the Republican Party..

    Is. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    If Lieberman switches to the Republicans his usefulness to them is at an end. He’s useful as the “Democrat who disagrees with his party” as someone that can be counted on for “bi-partisanship” on certain issues. If he switches fully to the Republican side, he becomes “just another RINO”.

    It’s far more likely that Lieberman sticks out his tenure in the Senate as an “Independent Democrat”, using his martyr status to continually complain about how the Dems have “moved to the left and left him behind” until the end of his term. And then he goes on to a highly-paid media pundit position criticizing Dems as “Former Democratic Senator and former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman”. That’s his future. The only bright side is if we’re really, really lucky he’ll decide to resign when his positions get stripped from him and go to the punditry immediately, allowing Connecticut to have another election instead of leaving him in there for another 4 years.

  • Once Reid strips him of power he’ll become a high-profile member of the Republican minority, lauded by the right for standing up to his former party on the war and for his support of McCain.

    I think not. Lieberman’s value to Republicans is as a dissenting Democrat who enables the GOP. “See, even this ‘liberal’ Democrat agrees!” is worth something; “Another Republican marching in lockstep with the Bush/McCain war machine!” isn’t. Lieberman knows that, which is why he didn’t switch parties several years ago.

    as the 2006 election showed, Lieberman has a pretty strong base of support in Connecticut so I wouldn’t assume that his fall to the dark side will necessarily cost him his seat in the next election.

    The 2006 election showed he had a pretty strong base of out-of-state Republicans, who pumped millions into his reelection. But a poll conducted earlier this year discovered that Connecticut has serious buyer’s remorse and would elect Lamont if they had a do-over. This is Lieberman’s last Senate term, but I expect a lucrative career in insurance or defense contractor lobbying is in his future.

  • Nony, hadn’t seen your post when I wrote mine, but may I compliment you on your perspicacity?

  • [Lieberman is] useful as the “Democrat who disagrees with his party” as someone that can be counted on for “bi-partisanship” on certain issues. If he switches fully to the Republican side, he becomes “just another RINO”.

    That sounds about right. Not only will he be a RINO, he’ll be a freshman RINO who will watch his Senate career peter out over the next four years, and then he’ll share bunks with Zell Miller, the other Dem found the spotlight to be more important than principle.

  • You are LYING – lieberman voted with the DEMS on FISA too!

    It was a DEM that brought it to the house & senate floors, despite the fact that there was no need to – certainly there was no reason to “compromise” (re: CAPITULATE) to the demands of the most unpopular president in modern US history (and probably all-time).

    The DEM presumptive presidential nominee voted FOR telecom immunity/FISA

    They sold us out too – I also believe JOE MUST GO, but he is only one of our problems.

    You are misrepresenting this – shame on you. There are plenty of real facts you could site, yet instead, you choose to “catapult the propaganda”.

  • Nony & Maria–

    You may both be right, but it still seems at least plausible to me that Lieberman’s value as “Former Democratic Senator and former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman” is just as great as a Republican (or Republican-caucusing independent) senator as it is as a pundit. Lieberman clearly craves authority in the Senate, and while a minority GOP can’t offer him a chairmanship, they can offer him some degree of respect and authority within the party in exchange for his “bipartisan” credibility in criticizing Democrats. Maybe that’s a best-case scenario– of course it is– but I don’t think it’s wholly implausible, either.

  • “He still has 4 more years before he’s up for re-election and, as the 2006 election showed, Lieberman has a pretty strong base of support in Connecticut…”

    His current approval ratings are in the toilet, for whatever reason. More people would rather have Lamont as their senator than Lieberman. His current actions seem to have made him even more despised by the base of the party than I thought was possible, and if I had to bet, I’d say he’s only going to get worse as election day approaches. Mark my words. If he runs for reelection in 2012, his opponent will be the most well-funded challenger you could imagine, and Lieberman will go down faster than a virgin on prom night.

  • I’ll put this in terms that Mr. Lieberman himself can understand:

    January 2009 is going to be Lieberman’s “Masada” moment.

    He will no longer have any control as a member of the Democratic caucus. He will no longer chair any committees. His “Democratic seniority” will not translate into “Republican seniority;” he’s an Indie, after all—and the junior Indie at that.

    The vast majority of his constituents will no longer support him, politically, financially, or “any-other-ly.” People will actively begin to wipe his name from the political record. Long-time supporters will not call him; they’ll not return his calls; they’ll block him on their email and report him as “spam”—which is a truly low blow for someone whose diet isn’t supposed to include pork.

    To Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, I say this: The correct “Masada” act is to sever both carotid arteries—left, and right. They are located “just below and behind” your ears. Use a sharp knife, cut swiftly and deeply, and make peace with whatever filthy Republican idol god you’ve embraced these past several years—because the God of Abraham thinks you irrevocably unworthy of everything except eternal damnation and the total annihilation of your completely-damned-able soul.

  • I dont see why they keep Lieberman around. Sure, sending him to the GOP caucus would be giving them control of the Senate, but what are the Dems doing with control of the Senate? Nothing. At least this way they could partially saddle the GOP with the dismal approval ratings of Congress.

    Lieberman’s a war-mongerer who doesnt seem to have the US’s best interests at heart. However, he’s not the reason the Reid-led Senate has been dithering and withering on every issue.

  • Maria’s right – the guy finished after this term. He starts a lobbying career as soon as rules allow.

  • There probably won’t be a thread about this by CB, but I think it is relevant to the campaign that Obama is having trouble raising money. From TPM:

    “Several of Obama’s top fundraisers said yesterday that they don’t think trend lines showing three straight months of declining donations to the candidate are cause for concern. ”

    TPM also points out that Obama’s campaigning with Clinton and his request of his own donors to help Clinton retire her debt is aimed at getting Clinton’s bundlers to in turn help out Obama. This is framed as a nice thing he is doing to help retire Clinton’s debt, but the simple fact is that Obama needs the reciprocal Clinton donations himself because his small donors are either tapped out or uninterested. He especially needs the Clinton large donors, since the small ones are no longer there. That’s why the revolt among Hillraisers is newsworthy.

    There is no acknowledgement whatsoever by Obama’s spokespeople of the potential impact of Obama’s recent statements and decisions on his fundraising ability. They instead refer to donors taking a breather before the Fall election and hope to see donations increase after the convention — which will now need more money due to Obama’s grandstanding.

    As for Obama’s recent remarks about reforming the bankruptcy bill, he has had plenty of time since 2005 to introduce legislation to do that, but has done nothing about it. Nor is he the first person to call for this — Clinton promised the same thing. Of course, McCain has not, but his excuse is that he is a Republican. What is Obama’s excuse for DOING nothing about this?

  • You will get flak for that one Mary. You do seem to hate the guy and make strenuous efforts to twist everything he says and does.

  • TG Chicago –

    I dont see why they keep Lieberman around. Sure, sending him to the GOP caucus would be giving them control of the Senate, but what are the Dems doing with control of the Senate? Nothing.

    Um, no. The health care bill that they just passed this week happened because of procedural maneuvering that wouldn’t have been possible if they didn’t have control of the Senate. It probably wouldn’t have even reached the floor if the Republicans were still in charge. I agree they haven’t been great at exercising that power but when they actually care about something as a group they can actually do good things.

    JRD –

    You may both be right, but it still seems at least plausible to me that Lieberman’s value as “Former Democratic Senator and former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman” is just as great as a Republican (or Republican-caucusing independent) senator as it is as a pundit.

    Oh, I agree with this. But they wouldn’t put him in a leadership position in the GOP. They’d let him be an attack dog, but he couldn’t be allowed to set policy. Having him in leadership is too risky for the GOP.

    Meanwhile Lieberman wouldn’t stand for anything less. He’s not going to be a meek freshman Senator who sticks to what his leadership tells him to. Heck, he’d probably start doing the same thing to Republicans on domestic issues that he’s been doing to the Dems on foreign policy for the last decade. And so he’d start pissing off Republicans and his utility would come to an end fairly quickly.

    So while I could see the scenario you lay out kinda sorta happening, in a highly theoretical sort of way, practically speaking it just isn’t going to work out that way. Unless the Republican party gets so beaten – and their losses in the Senate and House are so extreme – that they have to completely rebuild their party from the ground up and they decide that they need to “move to the center” to regain power. Then Lieberman might be a pick-up for them. But I don’t think their losses are going to be that bad, and I think even if they were their reaction would first be a decade of “we haven’t move far enough to the right” politics before they started to make a move for the center anyway.

  • after the convention — which will now need more money due to Obama’s grandstanding

    You just can’t resist outparodying IFP, can you? Tell us the truth–you’re the same person, right? Do you flip coins with yourself to see which of you says the dumbest thing first and which of you has to echo it?

    As for Obama’s recent remarks about reforming the bankruptcy bill, he has had plenty of time since 2005 to introduce legislation to do that, but has done nothing about it. Nor is he the first person to call for this — Clinton promised the same thing….

    …and has done nothing about it. See, Mare, the reason we compare you to Republicans is that you share their abject inability to look six seconds down the road. That’s why you’re always falling over cliffs. You know the definition of crazy, Mary. Why not try something different the 1,001st time?

  • Meanwhile Lieberman wouldn’t stand for anything less. He’s not going to be a meek freshman Senator who sticks to what his leadership tells him to.

    Precisely. In fact, to tie two lines of thought together, Lieberman exhibits exactly the same control-freak traits I recently described Mary as having: Outsized ego not based on innate talent or achievement; grandiose sense of self-importance; inappropriate rage when advice or opinion is ignored; desire to punish or extract revenge against those who disagree with him/her (which behavior, curiously, is also common to abusers); stubborn refusal to change behavior or opinions based on new evidence because he/she views this as a sign of weakness, and similar refusal to apologize when proven wrong; wild contortions of facts and events in attempt to twist situation to blame others.

    The guy will be a lobbyist, and probably a media pundit as well. Then we can enjoy watching him make big bucks from Big Pharma and insurance companies while loudly whining on the talky-talk shows about the terrible victimization he’s suffered. He’ll simultaneously get in a few licks for his corporate masters and no MSM reporter will ever point out the conflict of interest.

  • To Mr. Leiberman it will be worth it if Iran bimbs Israel or if Israel bombs Iran before the Bush /Cheney reign is over.Leiberman will be richer man for doing the bidding of the NEOCONS.

  • Hey Lance, here’s the vote for FISA
    Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
    Who’s the liar?

  • that’s funny Mary, the report I read on the exact same issue blamed fatigue among Obama’s donors from being asked ot fund two campaigns – his and Clintons. That is, his money slowed down the most when he stated asking people to bail out Hillary. Of course, that doesn’t quite fit the needs of your narrative. . .

  • What a big mistake the Democratic establishment made in ’06. For not decisively backing Lamont, the party rewarded bad behavior from an opportunist such as Lieberman. Not surprisingly, he is still a bad man, and the party must now intervene.

    Come December 2009 when the Democratic party and Berney Sanders have 56 seats in the chamber we will see a major smackdown of Mr. Lieberman, and quite frankly, I’m gonna be in the front row to see such payback! -Kevo

  • Of all the ridiculously-Republican-troll-for-hire things to say:

    Post 15, in its pathetic entirety.

    Mary, you are—and I say this with absolute conviction—a complete, utterly-irreversible, megalo-manic, psychotic IDIOT.

    The vast majority of Obama’s funding base consists of small donors. They cannot afford to throw the maximum-allowable-by-law donation to their candidate. They’ve sent what they can, and they’ll hold any additional amounts until after the general campaign starts—which, for Obama, is legally restricted to AFTER he is officially elected as the Dem nominee. THAT happens at the Convention; not when you unilaterally decide. So can the crap, or else know that you are a pathetic, sore-loser-esque trollop. Crawl back to your ignorant masters under the Rock of Hate-Embellished Deceit from whence you came!

    The bigger donors have tapped out for the primary season—which is another Truth that you fear. Ask me if I care that I’ve exposed this Truth, and you don’t like it.

    The “in-betweens” don’t see any need to throw money into a primary season that is effectively, for-all-intents-and-purposes, decided. This is a pragmatic decision; a concept of cognition and intellect of which you are clearly unfamiliar.

    You “claim” to be a teacher. As a professional educator, I can say this with absolute, crystal-clear conviction: If you are, indeed, a teacher, then you are a fraud, and an irreversible insult to the field of teaching. You are an abuse of the highest order to every student that has ever been exposed to your demented thought processes. You are a disgrace to every classroom on the planet.

    You are, to put it succinctly, the most unworthy from among all the unworthy who (1) ever lived in the past, who (2) now live in the present, and (3) will ever live in the future.

  • Asked whether Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk in the next Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid said succinctly, “No.”

    Doesn’t “at risk” imply some uncertainty? I don’t see how anyone could consider his status next year to be anything but a lead pipe cinch.

  • hey, mary. you want to try to stay on-topic here? you’re off-topic posts (except for the end of the day thread of course) are stupid and annoying.

    (oh, well, duh!)

  • I fear that they’re all in bed together. The only way were going to clean up the federal government is by replacing the current one nearly entirely. Joe is the perfect fascist!

  • I’ve looked into my crystal ball and see that Lieberman will indeed become a lobbyist, most likely for John Haggie’s CitizensUnitedForIsrael (an evangelical neocon outfit). I predict that he will make vast sums of money. He will also shill for FOX news and be a regular on Rush’s show.

  • I wouldn’t trust Reid any further than I could throw him but he knows pretty definitely that Obama and the dems will win in a landslide. He just doesn’t want to antagonize Lieberman or make matters worse than they are. Right now he can still get dem votes out of Lieberman and trades that for his republican cheering and protecting Bush’s butt with his committee.

    Obama also supported Lieberman but Lieberman lied with empty campaign promises and will most likely not get reelected so he knows this is his last go at national politics and is going all out to get a good position before his senate career ends. Lieberman knows that would not happen with Obama but it would with McCain so he put all his eggs in that basket. He will lose but he would have lost his senate seat anyway so you might say “he’s all in”. Jerusalem Joe has got to go and he will.

  • “I fear that they’re all in bed together. The only way were going to clean up the federal government is by replacing the current one nearly entirely. Joe is the perfect fascist!”

    Every time I hear people play the anarchist card and call for “kicking the bums out” all I think one thing: Screw you, I’ll keep Feingold thank you very much.

    You don’t like who represents you? Fine, elect someone better. Propose something that might actually happen. Otherwise you’re just a heckler, throwing popcorn from the stands while not offering up anything of substance or improvement.

  • Rick said: “Hey Lance, here’s the vote for FISA
    Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
    Who’s the liar?”

    That’s Larry Rick, not Lance. I think Larry is saying that the Democratic leadership brought the FISA bill to the floor, and LIEberman voted with them. Dodd is not the leadership (is he anything but a chairman?).

    This time I hope NonyNony and Maria are right. It would be so sweet (said that once before today) if LIEberman was out in the cold after November (or January). Reminds me of the little creep Senator in “Advise and Consent”. Ignore the jerk right out of the Senate. Don’t give him earmarks, gavels or a nice office. Let Connecticut know just how much of a mistake it was to vote for him.

  • Re #26.

    Rick, Thanks for catching that, obviously between my pulling up the page and posting.

  • if Reid, Clinton, and the rest of Lieberman’s enablers hadn’t offered, at best, lukewarm support to Lamont, and at worst outright support of Lieberman, then he wouldn’t be in this position to begin with.

    I disagree. Joe Lieberman didn’t retain his Senate seat because of what the Dems did or did not do, it was because Connecticut Republican voters turned out in droves and voted for him. Reid, Clinton and “the rest” offering or withholding that support are (and were) irrelevant to that crowd.

  • I want to comment on the notion, suggested in the first comment above, that McCain might pick Lieberman as his vice presidential candidate.

    I hate to tell you this, guy, but the only strategy the Republicans have this year is “run against the black man”. Pick a Jew and they will lose a lot of their base on that issue. Nope, their VP will be lily white and all man.

  • Just for grins can we remind ourselves that beacon of Hope and Change Obama also supported Lieberman in Conn.

    Also on the topic of donations to Obama. He was touted as the quintessential net-rooty-tooty candidate, raising all of his funds from small donors via the interwebs, and therefore shiny and pure, not beholden to traditional big money donors. He embodied a, wait for it…NEW PARADIGM. Oh noes, it’s another flip-flop. The netroot paradigm is being replaced by the same old fat-cats.

  • Lieberman’s job is to get Obama to flip flop. Some how Lieberman was worth every penny to the Republuicans now, Obama fliped on FISA. For some stupid reason what ever the inner circle thinking was Obama has no clue about the preservational shield the Constitution offers to the citizen.

    Here, just take a absolute value to defend the Constitution and knowing Obama taught the Constitutional theory for eight years at the University Of Chicago astounds me even to consider any proposititon to comprimise with any violation of “oath” and “Affirmation” were the citizen does not know why we are spyed on. Especially in the electromagnetic public domain, my God help us. Yikes, every
    jew should face towards the whaling wall to mutter ” Oi Vai this is nuts, no its nazi”.

  • Liberman is nothing but a Repuke shill and should be treated as such. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two of the biggest disappointments since the 2006 election. Damn, I had such promise for both.

    Lieberman on the other hand has not disappointed at all… he behaves and votes like the REPUKE he is.

    And speaking of major letdowns, Obama’s FISA vote prevents me from donating to him and his reluctance to mix it up with Gramps makes me wonder how good a candidate he’s going to be. Hell, he’s gone well over 24 hours without using the Phil Gramm comments to his real advantage. He ought to be pounding that every opportunity to truly frame the economic differences between himself and “let them eat cake” McCain camp.

  • Diogenes … lets have a little honesty here. After Lamont won the primary, Clinton was a Lamont supporter. Her PAC contributed to his campaign and she offered to do whatever his campaign needed. So, quit labeling her as a Lieberman enabler.

  • I am a liberal, I’m in Pelosi’s district and she pisses me off far too often.

  • Holy Joe has made the last stand of his miserable, worthless life and decided that if Democrats won’t be his bestest pals anymore then maybe he’ll just take his Old Testament Bible to that 10,000 member evangelical, screamin’ Jesus church over on yonder hill.

    See, Joe’s feelins done been hurt and, by golly, he wouldn’t be a Jew worth his skinless, circumcised dick if he didn’t get all upset and whine like a newborn baby.

  • Hey, can I throw a few cents in here?

    Sidestepping the issue of what happens to Lieberman if the Dems significantly increase their Senate majority in November, I’m just itching at the idea of Joltin’ Joe stepping up on stage in Minnesota and trying to be the second coming of Zell Miller.

    First, as he proceeds to the dais, the commentary from the networks will go something like this:

    “It’s ironic — had Bush V. Gore gone the other way, Senatore Lieberman would have probably been standing in the Pepsi Center a week ago, accepting the Democratic nomination for President, after eight years in the Gore Administration…”

    After that would follow all sorts of speculation of where we’d be now — balanced budgets, bin Laden dead or brought to justice — not for 9/11 but for the attack on the USS Cole, since Gore wouldn’t have ignored the security briefing that said bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S., etc. etc. etc.

    Yes, yes!!! Let’s feature a speaker at the Republican Convention who will remind everybody how close we came to avoiding this whole mess!! After all, what better way to forget about the whole Bush fiasco than to give a prime-time speaking spot to they guy he beat!!

    Then, after a yawner of a speech (he’s only an exciting speaker compared to McSame), the thunder would rain down from every evangelical pulpit the following Sunday:

    “First, McCain called good Christian leaders ‘agents of intolerance.’ They he betrayed Brothers Hagee and Parsley when their teachings about the failures of Jews and Muslims to follow God’s call to turn to Jesus Christ make him a little uncomfortable…

    “But then he has the temerity to go to the Republican Convention and force these God-fearing Americans to listen to the rantings of a abortion-loving, homosexual-agenda-promoting, liberal JEW!!”

    Who do I have to talk to to make sure this happens?

  • …Reid said, “Next year will be next year when we get there.”

    Oh come on. It’s nice to be positive and all, but this is exactly the kind of newspeaky double-talk Rein constantly engages in. Lieberman’s seat is in no jeopardy from the current crop of pseudo-Democrats that pollute the leadership of congress.

  • LIEberman talked and talked about ending the Iraq war when his job was on the line. Then instantly became a Republicon in all but name. He should take his well deserved place as a minority, last term senator in 2009.

  • Of course he’ll think it’s worth it. He’s still a US Senator and as such will continue to receive sweetheart deals and paychecks from people and institutions that give sweetheart deals and paychecks to US Senators. His golden parachute is safe and awaits him. Mission accomplished.

    These people, all of them, are NOT legislators. They don’t write the laws, their unelected, unaccountable wealthy institutional sponsors do. They don’t even read the laws once they’ve been written and handed to them. All they do is rubber stamp the agenda that’s given to them and tell you it’s an expressin of your will. As such, they are nothing more than salesmen chasing commissions. Hucksters. Used car salesmen.

    Lieberman’s check is in the mail. His cushy “retirement” awaits. He couldn’t be happier. Screw the rest of us.

    -ep

  • You said it, Joe Neri…we sure could have used another LBJ-type majority leader for these last couple of years. Someone that would twist your arm out of your shoulder if you stepped out.

  • upchuckie_cheezits@36 said:

    “Just for grins can we remind ourselves that beacon of Hope and Change Obama also supported Lieberman in Conn.”

    He supported him until he lost the primary and turned his coat. Obama supported Lamont in the general.

  • Comments are closed.