defend the indefensible: JOE LIEBERMAN

better liberal rating than Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ken Salazar, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, John Murtha, Stephanie Herseth and Artur Davis

not an anti-semite like Zell Miller

And he speaks with proper syntax and can answer an extemporaneous question and make some semblance of sense (unlike other politicians I might mention).

And... his wife seems nicer than Lynne Cheney.

so you think Gore would have won Florida without him, huh?

the answer is yes

Alleged voter fraud aside, it isn't like Gore won Florida with him!

Shit, that ain't the half of it.

hardly. yes, his centrism is generally in the ballpark of what i (and maybe half of democrats) regard as 'electable', but persona-wise, he's probably more of a special teams guy (which is why the vp pick was generally well-received, but there was no Joementum).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207783,00.html

Also: " Lieberman, of course, also has powerful backers. Reid, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have all spoken or written letters encouraging Democrats to back him."

When is Barack Obama going to do something deserving of his rep as the "great black hope" of the Party? I can't think of a single thing he's done that I approve of, apart from delivering an okay speech at the convention. Mostly all I hear about him is his shilling for old party stalwarts.

i concur on obama. i've heard nothing about him but "when will he run for prez?" since he was elected. of course, i'm also in canada, but i pay a fair amount of attention (i can tell you all about the minnesota senate race!). that's obv. not to say that he isn't doing anything but it is regrettable that he is still only gaining major headlines for his electoral success/prospects.

barbara boxer's awesome.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/baja1000class11/sign.jpg

vid of Joe's announcement

"faithful"

Schumer and Hillary have both pledged to support whoever wins the primary.

i still find the Joe animus a little disturbing, sorry. the only people who really pay attention to his purported rhetorical friendly fire are firmly on one side or the other. as for his war vote, i don't see us trying to bring down Kerry, Hillary, etc. he's not my favorite guy in the world (and apparently not many of his colleagues' favorite either), and I could care less if he goes down provided we still have a Dem in his place, all the better if it's a more "progressive" one. whether we win with an unknown quantity doesn't worry me all that much given the current climate, but maybe it should more - what are Lamont's skills really and which big name/issue could the GOP pull in/out if he gets the nod?

nor does the indy bid or its supporters bother me terribly. they're convinced that lieberman's the guy who can win when more than tiny numbers are involved, and i'm not certain they're wrong. nor am i convinced he wouldn't pull GOP votes from whoever their candidate is. i'll bet a lot of people who would call this treason would have supported a Weicker independent run against Lieberman. if you're that worried about the Dems losing a safe seat, sorry you shouldn't be backing a challenge to an incumbent. of course DSCC should be for the primary winner all the way (which it has essentially leaked it would be, after Schumer basically hung Joe out to dry on MtP), but that's not the same issue.

if I were a CT resident, I'd certainly consider rolling the dice and voting for Lamont, but not before finding out a little more about the guy. and i'm not sure i've seen good enough reasons to do so.

Au contraire...

seeing as this is the first post i have ever read from you, i will take you at your word. from a political junkie like gabb, on the other hand, i find that his belief that the "Joe animus [is] a little disturbing" is (at best) disingenuous. i mean, how obsessive or disturbing is it really when the targets of lieberman's rhetoric (basically, Democrats to his left on whatever issue he has chosen to pontificate about on a given day) take some glee in his being challenged? i could be here all night just typing out all of the issues where lieberman has set himself against the Democratic rank-and-file -- e.g., his support of the Iraq war; his bobbing back-and-forth on the issue of Social Security privitization; his cutesy-poo sleight-of-hand regarding the bankruptcy bill and the Alito nomination (i.e., using parliamentary tactics such as voting FOR cloture on the foregoing matters and then trying to make hay out of voting "against" said matters [even though voting AGAINST cloture would have killed the matters altogether and would be altogether more effective single that he really opposed them than a largely cosmetic "nay" vote]). and if all of that wasn't bad enough, then there's lieberman's inimitable way of communicating his views in a manner that is guaranteed to piss off his opposition as much as possible (e.g., at least hillary hasn't written an article printed in the Wall Street Journal's wacko editorial pages to show his support for the iraq war, hasn't used mccarthyite rhetoric to smear the war's opponents, and hasn't made kissy-face with the likes of sean hannity or bill bennett). frankly, why should those Democrats who lieberman has gone out of his way to anger NOT feel some happiness that he is FINALLY being challenged -- in a Democratic primary?

which, in turn brings us to the matter of this "petitioning Democrat" nonsense:

and i wonder how much the reaction to the announcement has to do with the fact that this dude who's supposed to be the ultimate capitulationist Dem is willing to play hardball with his fearless challengers

well, isn't it funny that lieberman finally finds his balls when he knows that he could LOSE. (what the fuck did he care about dick cheney in that 2000 debate -- he was still gonna have his Senate seat, he had nothing to lose by playing nice w/ Darth Vader.) and why should anyone who considers themselves to be a REAL Democrat -- whether he is a liberal, moderate, or conservative Democrat -- be willing to change the rules (i.e., the loser in an interparty primary challenge has LOST and GOES HOME, he doesn't run off in a snit and call himself a "petitioning Democrat")? especially for someone who has made it his hallmark to bash Democrats in every public forum that (gladly) makes itself available to him to do so? how can this do anything but erode party discipline?

and i wouldn't be so sure about having a choice of "two Democrats" should lieberman lose and run as an independent "petitioning Democrat." what the hell is stopping him in that instance from caucusing with the Republicans? what kind of (quite likely impalatable) concessions will have to be made by Reid et. al. to keep lieberman in the fold? why should Schumer and Reid even have to worry about this AT ALL?!? frankly, why trust lieberman at all ever again?

"It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years.We undermine the President’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

yup, that's what joementum thinks of us "disturbed" Democrats.

what happens if Lamont wins, Lieberman goes indie, and Jodi Rell throws her hat in the ring?

though not, however, his stumping for him, i would think

why would that be the case?

CT-Sen: Lieberman mulls running as a Republican

Body armor or body ODOR? Something's funky

Marc Crispin Miller: "Pre-empting November Surprise"

Bush Insults all women

Snarkbill 1: Marsbase Alpha (Embryos)

Bush Is Gonna Kill Us All

Second Aikido diary

Animal Lovers HELP! Trained German Shepard Shot

and my hands-down favorite...

testing

It's not just that Lieberman himself appeals to moderate swing voters - it's that a party willing to go to the trouble of kicking out Lieberman looks awfully unappealing to moderate swing voters at a time when, you know, it'd be nice to get back some of those votes.

We undermine the President’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

downright Nixonian, worthy of Senator Bob Dole in his watergate role as the trickster's hatchetman.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

ie Howard Dean? hah! funny that

sorry but this is Nixonian too, not to mention delusional. as if the "support" of the opposing party and the American public could turn things around in Iraq...a PR scam like Peace With Honor (TM)

Tragically I don't think "greater Democratic involvement and support in the war" at this point could possibly stop Iraq from becoming a theocracy and potentially a rogue state (the minute we leave) but it would certainly save Senator Lieberman's ass.

Depressing, in a word.

I think it's not getting the press because.. well, bloggers aren't freaking out about it, and there are about 10 Republicans in the entire state of Rhode Island. but actually the RI primary is a month after CT, so I bet the media will pay more attention later on.

Nice to see that some people are still carrying Bill Clinton's lack of self-discipline for him.

Other than that, Alter thinks it's a "potential disaster" to cuddle with the anti-war nuts? How the fuck else does he explain 2002 and 2004? Wow, there sure seems to be a surge in "how the Democrats can win back Congress" articles. Looking forward to all the advice that Alter et al have for the Republicans.

Is it worth mentioning that Alter drastically needs a new headshot for that page?

a cannibalistic distraction from what should be the top priority of Democrats, namely booting Republicans

I keep telling people this on dKos, most of them don't listen

Anyhoo, I guess this primary thing is tuesday of next week. Lamont will be on Stephen Colbert tonight.

and yes, Alter needs a new headshot.

OK, what percentage of Iraq war critics does this actually apply to?

who doesn't want a war to end? the question is when and on what terms. show me a poll (of registered voters, not "adults") that says americans favor pulling out now. a week-old poll of adults only finds 20% who want immediate withdrawal (bumped up to just above 50% for withdrawal by 8/07), while a month-old poll of registered voters says we shouldn't set a deadline for withdrawal, 51-47. a 7-week-old poll (not clear if adults or RVs) favored "stay as long as it takes" over "leave ASAP" 48-46.

WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN - WE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE, THEY JUST WANT TO CUT AND RUN

which is why the phrase "antiwar left" is still easily played by a Newsweek guy.

OK, so between 46% and 50% of registered voters are the anti-war left?

Gabbneb: Alter's headshot has way too much combover. He needs Photoshop very badly if he wants me to believe in his hair.

http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/images/i-walnuts-shell.jpg

The people backing Lamont are nothing if not sincere. But their breed of Democrats -- many of them wealthy, educated, extremely liberal -- often pick candidates who are rejected by the broader public. Many of the older Lamont supporters went straight from Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern in the 1960s and '70s to Howard Dean in 2004. They helped Joe Duffey challenge Sen. Tom Dodd in Connecticut for the 1970 Democratic nomination on the Vietnam War issue, only to lose to Republican Lowell Weicker in November. Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, is also director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group, a populist organization founded in the 1970s by Toby Moffett, a Ralph Nader protege and anti-Vietnam activist who was one of the "Watergate babies" elected to the House in 1974. Moffett's political career also was ended by a loss to Weicker, who stayed in the Senate until Lieberman finally beat him in 1988.
Democrats everywhere are looking to Connecticut for clues about the party's direction. The primary will probably point them leftward, toward a stronger antiwar stand. But often in the past, the early successes of these elitist insurgents have been followed by decisive defeats when a broader public weighs in. That is why this contest is so consequential for the Democratic Party.

Elitist insurgents! The Sixties never ended! Them longhairs gon' take over the party! Apparently none of them voted for Bill Clinton or Mike Dukakis!

Tho where the fact that Joe Lieb ran RFK's '68 CT operation fits in is beyond me

xpost

yes, he also leads the incumbent in most polls, only by a margin of 70 bazillion to 10.5, +/- 5%

Well, RFK usta work for Joe McCarthy, and triangulatin' Billy Blythe Clinton ran McGovern's show in Arkansas, no? Politicians change, usually for the worse (RFK being an exception, if you believe what he said in spring '68).

i do wonder how much of this is the Boomer effect, where shit that happened 40 years ago was the defining moment for EVERYbody, mannn, and shit MEANT something back then, so everything since then has to be seen thru the lens of what happened when some youngish folks decided to get caught up in a Grand Political Struggle...

I only just heard about this dude's first name myself.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10963174/lieberman_bushs_favorite_democrat

Well, one is cured of that illusion by reading HST's Campaign Trail '72 -- or not, I guess, since he refers to how much worse everything's gotten in the 4 years since '68.

"you guys would probably hate it"

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/PaulRosenberg/GSS/Political%20Identity/GSS--PoliticalIdentity--Nationwide.jpg

also don who you voting for in the primary?

and why is it that SOME folks are letting lieberman totally off the hook here?!? frankly, he is much more to blame for his current predicament than any angry blogger.

* haven't read an issue of the new republic in 10 yrs probably. a piece on lieberman in the new republic total diving right back in the deep end.

xpost!

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004_small.gihttp://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004_small.giff

Also, note that montana now has a democrat-run house & senate, too. We don't even have that in Oregon(yet).

xpost

blount really needs a new diaper

i tend to agree with blount's analyses.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004_small.gif

I read Kos these days and it makes me feel like a College Republican, which is to say, I don't think about ideology, I think whatever some of these people are for, I'm against it, because they're obnoxious and think they know it all. I go on there and I'm like uh, strategically this isn't helping our party, why are you all so rude, how about you not threaten people, and they're like what is with your DLC "mind set".

Entering The Corner these days reminds me Dante stepping into the Inferno for the first time and hearing the shouts of myriad damned.

I take it you've never heard of, just for instance, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Harry Reid, Louise Slaughter, John Conyers, Russell Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner or Ned Lamont.

yeah sorta, except 1) they are organized and 2) they played along with the GOP moderates and came out and voted, whereas on the left they are 1) not organized and 2) take their toys and go home or vote Green instead of supporting less ideologically pure candidates

blount otm

1) sounding like you believe what you're saying
2) waiting a beat before responding

he's nowhere near the steve forbes level, but the other stuff, not so much.

"I was hoping that God would send me a poor challenger. I am being tested with a rich challenger."

how dare someone who can actually put up a fight challenge him!

"I was hoping that God would send me a poor challenger. I am being tested with a rich challenger."

It's a joke! good lord

vid and transcript of Lamont on the Colbert Report

Colbert trying to bribe Joe with lovely gifts to come on the show

I actually think John Edwards will be the candidate most helped by a netroots/blogosphere, but not by the exisiting one - it'll be the one he's currently building on his PAC's site & the forums & web apps & technology. very smart.

sorry I made a joke about gabbneb's adoration of Warner. heaven forfend.

(altho I don't really like him)

http://dragonballyee.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/barack.jpg

yeah, I'm starting to envision things coming down to Warner and Edwards with the latter winning more of the blogosphere vote

but surely this is because the Dems don't know how to properly pay lip service to their far left constituents the way right-wingers do. (clumsy refs to hanging out with Dr. King don't cut it - as is mentioned in that RS article linked above).

xp: kaus is becoming a real tool

Defend Kaus? I'd rather defend him than, say, Josh Marshall. But whatever.

dunno whom I'm voting for Blount. In all honesty, I don't give a fuck. I mean, I'll get around to it. But still...

As for Taibbi sucking, well, it's his writing that sucks. At first, I thought he had a sense of humor AND a sense of curiousity. Turns out, all that he has is an agenda and an attitude. BFD.

Also Darla, don't lose sleep over agreeing with me from time to time. You can always change your mind.

I am so going to work for John Edwards' campaign, I thought he was a little cheesy last time around but please, give us someone who's not negative and cynical. (and that's why I hesitate on HRC - she's very sharp and could get things done, but people think her primary motivation is that she's calculating ie cynical - even the people who support her - another two years of W and the whole country will be so starved for some optimism, Edwards will look like a real winner.) and the liberal blogosphere will eat itself

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/fabooj/dancing-spider-man.gif

bloggers are mean, and leave mean comments! lamont is mean, too!

Marty Perentz's "Lieberman: The 'peace' Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove."

At the risk of creating a Dewey-Defeats-Truman moment, let us say that today is the day we find out by what margin Joe Lieberman loses to upstart Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. For if the opinions of TNR readers reflect those of voters in Lieberman's home state(which, admittedly, they may not, since there's a local component to being a senator, but, still, work with us here) then Lieberman will lose--and by a wide margin indeed. When we asked readers to weigh in on Lieberman versus Lamont, only about a third of respondents registered support for Lieberman. The remaining voices were forceful in their opinion: Joe must go....

the rest of it is behind a reg/paywall, so we'll wait for blount to dig it out for us, should he so choose

“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”

OUCH! couldn't have said it better myself.

lieberman is an ass, but he's solid on a lot of issues.

lamont seems like a cold fish--and does he have any real ideas?

this seemed like a choice between two mediocrities honestly.

Mr. Lieberman, perhaps liberated in the final hours, seemed not to mind a last round of indignities. Never mind that almost all the celebrity surrogates were gone: a rumor that former President Bill Clinton might return to Connecticut swept through political circles before being put to rest, leaving Mr. Lieberman to campaign virtually alone. (He was later joined on the road by his fellow senator, Christopher J. Dodd.) Never mind that dozens of reporters from across the country — sent on a death watch as the former vice-presidential nominee struggled to defend his seat against a once-obscure multimillionaire cable executive from Greenwich — far outnumbered actual voters almost every place Mr. Lieberman went.

“Are there any real people here?� Mr. Lieberman asked cheerfully as he squeezed through the narrow corridor of the diner in North Hartford, shaking hands with members of his own campaign team.

Almost everywhere he went, the answer was: no.

Earlier in the day, at a Stop and Shop in Meriden, just north of New Haven, volunteers and two union workers awaited the Lieberman bus on its swing through town. But the supermarket was almost empty, leaving Mr. Lieberman to wander the aisles, startling the few shoppers. One woman, seemingly anxious to end the encounter as quickly as possible, assured Mr. Lieberman she would vote for him. After he left, she said she was an independent with no intention of changing her registration in order to participate in Tuesday’s primary.

dude, if it meant not ever having to hear lieberman talk again, i would vote for YOU!

we should all be so lucky. b/c my prediction is, that if this "petitioning Democrat "independent" thing lieberman is trying to run goes nowhere then he'll be a constant presence on the TV gasbag circuit.

Even Cokie Roberts said this will be "a disaster"! It means we must continually reference George McGovern and Scoop Jackson for the remainder of the newscycle, even if we have absolutely no fucking idea what their significance was or the context they existed in!

also, dude is a cable exec. millionaire. how does this fit the extremist-hippie-loonie frame? if anything, this helps the anti-war side, i.e. this guy is totally part of the system, and even HE'S against the war!

and don't forget David Broder's wisdom for a coupla weeks ago, mentioned upthread.

i'm hoping that something good comes of this and everyone who turned out yesterday sustains their excitement to show up in November and help get rid of the GOP at the House level, but the cynic in me doesn't expect it

his guy is totally part of the system

ha. what is "the system"?

expect more H&C accolades and airtime for him

H&C?

it's postscript now, but this is by far the best thing i've read recently on the race

actually, Indie Joe will probably bring Lamont dudes back to the polls in the Fall.

OUCH! couldn't have said it better myself

LOL, especially when paired with Lieberman's "I understand that many Democrats in Connecticut disagree with me and are angry about the war. For some of them, I don't think there is anything I can say to change your mind about whether we should have gone to war or when we should bring the troops home, and to a certain extent and to a real extent, at this point I'm not going to insult you by trying."

runners-up in the kos funny contest don't make it because they're more funny-disturbing. like the revival of Rove's "Sore Loserman" line. or this from kos himself: You know why I liked Lamont, what sold me on him? He had hints of insecurity.

but political landscapes really do go through upheaval from time to time -- and [mark s conventional wisdom alert] a major agent of landscape change is war, at home or abroad

(on a non-gloomy note: since we're lolling, DEM right-centrist insta-hindsight = m.peretz saying "Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline")

Some of the editorials are so off-base from what I've actually heard people say that they're ridiculous. Lieberman gets points and Gore gets jeers because one of them held to the original stance on war with Iraq? What a load. The entire point is that the general populace has always thought it was a decent idea since the conflict of the early 90s never really ended. The no-fly zone hijinks that escalated every couple years were getting ridiculous.

The message isn't that Gore wouldn't have been in Iraq at all (he would, and people are deluding themselves if they think otherwise), it's that the approach to the conflict and methodology once there was so viciously bad that you'd have to be an idiot to claim it's something you'd attach your political career to. And Lieberman thinks it's a great point of solidarity, which is utter shit.

It's like going out to the bar with a friend, and your friend thinks a great way to get in is by punching the bouncer in the face and running in and then making a drunken asshole of himself. Lieberman's the jerk's friend who is standing around saying "Hey, at least we're in the bar like we wanted, right guys?"

but that wasn't manifestly absurd. dissatisfaction with Lieberman is relatively longstanding in the feiler faster world, and hardly limited to the kos world. i've objected to lots of stuff he's said/done over the last few years, but like Bush '04, I think the majority misunderstood (that word again) him.

you may be right about the i'm right until i'm wrong thing, but until i see polls showing me something other than that 2/3 of Dems are mod-con, and independents no better, i'm not moving. 26% of Dems in the country's 6th or 7th most liberal state picking an upstanding representative of its wealth(iest) establishment does little to convince me otherwise.

one thing the primary did show was that whatever you think of the political saleability of his principles/style, Lieberman doesn't know from campaigning (well, ok, we knew that from Joementum). and Lamont sounded pretty good in his victory speech.

also, here's the TNR Marty response, which can be distilled down to "It's Bill Clinton's fault."

But for many, in the party and out, the Clintons are a nightmare. A nightmare, as James Joyce said, from which we are trying to awake.

My sister and bro-in-law are registered independents in CT, so didn't vote -- but she was unthrilled with Lamont's win, cuz 1) "scary robot" on his TV ads and 2) she credits Joementum with keeping the Groton subamarine base open, i.e. hubby's place of employment. So All Politics Is Local, as in Jesse Helms Keeps Our Tobacco Subsidies Safe and Vegas Was Great When the Mob Ran It.

Who's the likely GOP nominee in November? all I heard on NPR was "token opposition."

If JL can get a Repub elected in Nov, his legacy (haha) may be tarnished worse than Jake Javits', whose indie run after losing 1980 primary got Fonzie D'Amato elected. (JJ was the last liberal Republican)

until i see polls showing me something other than that 2/3 of Dems are mod-con

gabb, I take it that the studies that people DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE PHILOSOPHICALLY -- that the majority agree with lib positions when they are not labeled -- do not convince you? cuz these scorecards you trot out don't seem credible to us Naderite wingnuts.

Also, if 2/3 of Dems really are mod-con, let's make Mr Veedle's One Party With Two Right Wings a de facto reality.

(and obviously a large percentage of the time it is entirely valid to do so, since seachanges by defn don't happen every week)

maybe [who campaigned unexpectedly well]/[who campaigned unexpectedly badly]* is better evidence of such shifts than polling can be? (on a practical level, this is why parties carry on staging internal contests, even tho they always provide ammunition for the oppo)

*on a micro level i mean -- at a countrywide level this is just a truism

i think this is hegel 101 but i really liked this formulation

which was how lots of bloggers pushed Lamont - "the question is who's the best for Connecticut" - in a relatively Roveian weakness-as-strength move. i gotta give it to the people on his team and their loudspeakers, they played the game very well. i just found it distasteful to do it within the party. i guess the other side has done so too.

cuz these scorecards you trot out don't seem credible to us Naderite wingnuts

maybe cuz most people you know, like most people i know, are 'Naderite wingnut's, and therefore you're hard-pressed to believe that there are actually Dems who aren't, and when you encounter well-meaning types who don't fit the mold (like your sis and bro in law) you come up with a non-ideological out ("all politics is local")?

JJ was the last liberal Republican

you forgot Bill Green (except maybe his last term)

though this also played as a '92-style (that evil Clinton again!) anti-Washington thing which also has a fair amount of purchase this year.

(He supports Lamont, FWIW.)

The Democrats have turned against one of their few nationally prominent politicians with a proven willingness to use force. All I can say is, for the sake of the Capital Police, I'm relieved.

I don't know the actual labor statistics, so I'm not sure if you're wrong per se. But I think it's misleading to characterize the whole state in such a way. There seems to be some illusion that Connecticut is full of Manhattan commuters who summer in Newport -- which tends to help conceal that there's a huge population of working poor, not to mention some pretty hard-ass ghettoes (both in CT *and* in Newport, fwiw).

*ie the 90s

xpost: I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are sufficient to counter Dem machine politics.

hah. I had a soy latte today. it was delicious. isn't the audience of Matthews and Barnicle and Imus et al a bunch of wealthy white middle class guys who make a fetish of the working classes, because they want to think they're not really like themselves, driving nice cars and playing golf at the country club, even though they are

who was it, either here or elsewhere, who talked about how the conservatives have wholeheartedly adopted identity politics after decrying them for decades?

Also, how will it take coffee-based attacks on others to fizzle out, when america is now a country where you can get mochas & cappuchinos at every friggin' truck stop and wal-mart thru-out the land?

oh please GOD let it be Alan Keyes

for the 3rd time, I think the black community gives more of a damn about them than precinct-walkers

and I only failed to mention that the Jackson-is-corny (Sharpton somewhat less so) meme is primarily a young phenomenon because i'm trying not to patronize shakey too much

also, y'all don't live in NY tri-state or Chicago

well, HILLPAC already cut him a check for five grand, so that's a start or something. they can now buy nachos for all the campaign volunteers.

haha, except from rightwingers, tom delay, drudge, etc

Dude, have you seen this imbecile on talk shows recently? He made Bill O'Reilly sound like Cicero. That's what I was trying to say: the black middle-class dismisses him and Uncle jesse as oleaginous hacks.

connecticut is either first or second in per capita income in the country. i think new jersey might actually be first. don't quote me on that!

my name is mark s and i'm a electionoholic :\

oh they seriously need to get him & alan keyes together in a primary election and debate

I don't think it'll work, he wouldn't have all the Dems lined up in support were that the case. Ned Lamont comes off as about as angry and polarizing as Ned Flanders

Simon Rosenberg on the virtues of partisanship, among other lessons. This is Tom DeLay's argument, of course, but he may be right, as a matter of politics, for the out-party (though he fails to mention our relatively rare current climate - chicken or egg?). Lieberman, however, again, prized policymaking over politics. And he was brought down in part because enough Dems regarded that as a sin given our present state of affairs.

ha

KOS, CAN-DO PROGRESSIVE REALIST!

http://www.nydailynews.com/images/columnists/goodwin_m.gif Win for the wackadoo wing

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.

The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.

Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America. God help us if the Republicans also get the wobblies. Let's hope the Connecticut Condition isn't contagious. And let's hope last night's decision is overturned.

Lieberman's decision to stay in the race as an independent is the right one. Given the close margin, all the state's voters deserve a chance to have their say. Perhaps they will fix what the Democrats broke.

That many Americans are disgusted with events in Iraq is understandable. Nothing has gone as planned or promised, a point Lieberman made with some regularity. But wars never go easily, and thus are always unpopular at some point.

Even "good" wars have their bad moments, causing otherwise sensible people to look for the exits.

That is happening across our nation with Iraq, which, given the lousy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, never was a "good" war. Yet Iraq, in all its hellishness, is important, even vital to regional stability and American security. Unplug America's commitment there, which is what the Lamont crowd is about, and how exactly does that help us? Will the terrorists suddenly stop attacking us and our allies?

And does the price of peace also require us to abandon Israel and the moderate Arab governments who are our allies in fighting the terrorists? Indeed, there was a surreal quality to the television news last night: Stations cutting away from the Israeli-Hezbollah war to update the election results, and vice versa. Too bad no one thought to link them as two parts of one story, which is what they are.

Congressional Democratic leaders recently demanded that Bush begin withdrawing our troops this year, regardless of events in Iraq. They called it a "redeployment." When I said that redeployment was another word for retreat, a top party operative disagreed. He said, earnestly, that Dems favored keeping about 35,000 troops "in the region" as something like a police force. "We could go back into Iraq if we had to," he said.

This is fantasy. And that's what Lamont's victory is based on. That somehow we can pull out of Iraq, tell the terrorists they win - and we and our allies will not suffer any consequences. And if those Islamists misbehave, well, we'll just scoot back over there with our police force and arrest those naughty fellows.

I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg.

(yesterday)
"...You know, for Republicans, a Lieberman loss fits right into their election-year playbook, that the Democratic Party is weak on defense and defeatist and that GOP sources tell us that they are already preparing talking points, saying that Democrats are abandoning the party of JFK and Harry Truman, in favor of Michael Moore and anti-war activists. That's what Republicans are planning. On the flip side, Democrats are working feverishly to cast Connecticut as proof of powerful anti-Bush sentiment in the electorate..."

(today)
...And Republicans, I can tell you, they're already licking their chops. They are sending around this talking points memo to their supporters, to talk radio hosts. We're going to hear from the Republican National Committee chairman later on. Essentially the headline of this is: "Defining the defeat-ocrats." They think this plays right into their storyline this election year, that Democrats are being taken over by the left wing of their party. And from their perspective, that's not good for the country...

But, if Lamont is trying to put himself forward as a new face in the Democratic Party, the two men who planted themselves right in back of him on the stage at the victory party gave it all away. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hustlers, and racist hustlers at that. They have accomplished nothing for African-Americans, nothing. Jackson keeps himself alive by conning big corporations out of bags of cash. He is a one-man reparations racket. Sharpton is the reverend with the big silver jewelry, and it isn't a cross.

and guess what Jacob Weissburg's screed at Slate today is about, a. Here's a hint:

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2090808/2134126/2146889/060809_BI_LamontVictoryTN.jpg

Millionaire businessman hippies will ruin us all. RUIN US, i tells ya!

In turning viciously on stalwarts of the Cold War era like Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson, anti-war insurgents called into question the Democratic Party's underlying commitment to challenging Communist expansion. . . . It was not George McGovern's opposition to Vietnam but his larger tendency toward isolationism and his ambivalence about the use of American power in general that helped him lose 49 states to Richard Nixon.

The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

To prepare for his indie CT SEN run, Joe Lieberman asked for, and received, resignations from his entire primary campaign team (staff and consultants). In addition, Lieberman announced that his longtime state director and political aide, Sherry Brown, would takeover as campaign manager, and his former senate communications dir., Dan Gerstein, would serve in a similar role for the campaign.

The release specifically notes the campaign will be searching for a new pollster and media consultant to replace Stan Greenberg and Carter Eskew, respectively. Greenberg's partner, Al Quinlan, actually served as the principal strategist for Lieberman during the primary. As we previously reported, there has been a quiet search for a new consulting team going on for at least a week. The primary requirement: Democratic ties. The Lieberman camp does not want overt GOP ties on the vendor front.

Lieberman, from the release: “I do not blame my staff for my loss on Tuesday, I bear that responsibility. But now that we are entering a new and very different phase of the campaign, I wanted to bring in a new team. And in Sherry and Dan, I am fortunate to have two people in leadership positions that not only know me well but know Connecticut.”

Tremendoid is right. Draft Piscopo!

it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President,

that tic is one of the dumbest in the lieberman-rhetoric talking points. "he was YOUR vice-presidential candidate! you LOVED him!" as if many democrats were ever excited about lieberman. the whole reason he got the vp nod was gore's people thought his clinton-bashing and religious moralizing would appeal to NON-DEMOCRATS. how actual democrats felt about him was, i would have thought, made abundantly clear in the '04 primaries -- "who just two years ago was in a statistical three-way tie for third in new hampshire!"

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

al qaeda plot #317a, page 27: "...and so, with all of these pieces in place, insh'allah, we should be able to squeak out a 3- or 4-point win in the democratic senatorial primary in connecticut. then truly will the satanic imperialist zionist machine be brought to its knees, and the sorrow of lieberman shall be the sorrow of a nation. god is great."

Well, whiny, foolish prez hopefuls gotta form a minyan.

oops on the Kos mis-ID above.

No. He's more like Nader.

(No, I'm not talking policy. I'm talking about the roll he'll be playing in the upcoming election. Naders to the left of me, Naders to the right, here I am...)

poppyseed? last time I checked Nader wasn't an incumbent (nor had he ever held elective office), and had no reasonable belief that he would draw a majority of votes.

He wasn't a Democrat either, which means that he had much less reason to be concerned about the Democratic endorsement than Joe does.

there is no reasonable belief that lieberman will draw a majority of votes. he'll withdraw in a month or two.

Joe will get votes, and I suspect the Republican place-holder will get far fewer votes than there are registered Republicans in CT.

xpost aha

"don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War”

And for announcing that...

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont [and a majority of Democrats] wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England...It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

A few other bonus lines:

“We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it’s why we have to stay strong and vigilant,” he added.

“I’m not saying we shouldn’t have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it’s just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American,” he said.

“How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don’t distinguish based on our party affiliation?” Mr. Lieberman said. “They want to kill any and all of us.”

no, the republican challenger is apparently highly disliked by his own party and was in some kind of gambling scandal recently. I don't think anyone realistically expects him to win.

Of course, the one guy who could truly bring the proper perspective to all of this vs. 1972 shot himself in the head last year before having his ashes blasted out of a cannon. Oh well.

In lieu of that, you have some pretty decent information being offered up about what the fuck was actually happening in 1972. i.e. Nixon was running not on a campaign to "stay the course," but to end the war, as well as going full bore with their Southern Strategy, etc.

But as with everything else, none of it ever matters. Lazy media types and rightwing fucks have their bullshit narrative, and they's gunna run with it.

Me too.

Lieberman already is. Read the quotes above and try to pretend he's talking about Dick Cheney or the Republicans or voters in general. You can't because he isn't.

The Krugster: Nonsense and Sensibility

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-krugman-75.jpg After Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries describing Joe Lieberman not just as a “centristµ — a word that has come to mean “someone who makes excuses for the Bush administrationµ — but as “sensible.µ But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible?

Take a look at Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco,µ the best account yet of how the U.S. occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr. Lieberman’s May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, “Let Us Have Faith,µ in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his removal “would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.µ

And that’s just one example of Mr. Lieberman’s bad judgment. He has been wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire — all the while accusing anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered “sensibleµ? But I know the answer: on Planet Beltway.

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping.

So what’s really behind claims that Mr. Lieberman is sensible — and that those who voted against him aren’t? It’s the fact that many Washington insiders suffer from the same character flaw that caused Mr. Lieberman to lose Tuesday’s primary: an inability to admit mistakes.

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on — and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.

They say: Pay no attention to the fact that I was wrong and the critics have been completely vindicated by events — I’m “sensible,µ while those people are crazy extremists. And besides, criticizing any aspect of the war encourages the terrorists.

That’s what Joe Lieberman said, and it’s what his defenders are saying now.

Now, it takes a really vivid imagination to see Mr. Lieberman’s rejection as the work of extremists. I know that some commentators believe that anyone who thinks the Iraq war was a mistake is a flag-burning hippie who hates America. But if that’s true, about 60 percent of Americans hate America. The reality is that Ned Lamont and those who voted for him are, as The New York Times editorial page put it, “irate moderates,µ whose views are in accord with those of most Americans and the vast majority of Democrats.

But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as representative of a political tendency in which “every disagreement is considered disloyalµ — a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously warned Democrats that “we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.µ

The question now is how deep into the gutter Mr. Lieberman’s ego will drag him.

There’s an overwhelming consensus among national security experts that the war in Iraq has undermined, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism. Yet yesterday Mr. Lieberman, sounding just like Dick Cheney — and acting as a propaganda tool for Republicans trying to Swift-boat the party of which he still claims to be a member — suggested that the changes in Iraq policy that Mr. Lamont wants would be “taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.µ

In other words, not only isn’t Mr. Lieberman sensible, he may be beyond redemption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Trap

they held congressional hearings on the shit, for God's sake. i think they were as amusing as the ones on GTA, but probably not as many congressfolk making more-or-less racist statements about who would be affected by the game's violence.

First question: Did Democratic candidates “find themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level?µ Allen paints a pleasing picture of one party up and the other gang down. But why doe Allen work so ferociously to paint this picture of party advantage? There is nothing in his report—nothing at all—to support his basic claim, the claim that the Democrats are “on the defensiveµ...

When Al Franken questioned Eli Pariser, one of the head MoveOn guys, on the air today over whether they were anti-semitic, Eli's response was "uhm, no."

yep. but sadly...

Stupid-ass article.

broad base = GOP

and if that doesn't work, try here

           Tot     Rep     Dem     Ind     Men     Wom     Likely
Approve         55%     75%     38%     58%     56%     54%     56%
Disapprove      40      20      57      35      41      39      40 
DK/NA           6       5       5       7       4       8       4 

Joe Lieberman, the next Independant Democratic senator to be elected by Republicans, who like him better than do independants, who people regularily conflate with the ever elusive chewy nugat center of the political bon-bon.

Run on, sentance! Run free!

(...ence ...ou)

but in fact, you didn't establish anything. i mean, should we conclude based on voter preference that Russ Feingold is further right than John Kerry because he won more Wisconsin Bush voters than Kerry did in 2004?

"I think he's been a good negotiator and a good spokesman. He deserves to have a vote. I think he deserves to be confirmed."

'tis one thing to pander for GOP votes, but does one need to be so craven in doing so?

An Asshole in Iraq

so I was just thinking about Joe Lieberman and really, I mean, WTF? Is Lieberman a case of extreme sour grapes at his VP loss? Has he really undergone such a radical change of political philosophy that he now aligns himself completely with the Republican Party (he is a likely speaker at the convention and has endorsed McCain for president)? Or were these tendencies always there? And if so, how did he get vetted as a VP candidate to begin with?

I would understand it imore if he were just a senator who'd drifted to the right ala Zell Miller, but he was the party's choice for second in command, for fuck's sake.

it really hasn't been a "radical change." He believes the same shit he did when he ran with Gore. Just got new friends.

so this was, in retrospect, just the party's mistake

srsly fuck this guy

npr short spot this morning was egregious. will the senate exact "partisan retribution" or be "forgiving"?

they'll forgive him - they need the votes. Dems will basically eat shit from him until they manage to unseat him.

Right. We're entering a new Bipartisan Era of Good Feeling.

he's been shitty at his job as chairman of HS. statements from his office have been hilarious, "unseat joe and we'll be unsafe!!" who does he have in his corner, the new republic? fuck those guys in the ear, too. what's he gonna do if he loses the chairmanship, with which he has done nothing? go off and be a republican in every other way? start telling chappaquiddick jokes and pal around with jon kyl? let him go.

He should star in a redux of Alf, since he sounds just like Willie.

John McCain could be Alf.

Lindsay Graham could be Lucky the cat.

in pog form

NO COMEUPPANCE

well, that's that then.

noblesse oblige indeed. i wonder what this means for the future.

No, srsly fuck this guy

lol

No, srsly fuck this guy

No thanks.

what a fucking loser

srsly fuck this guy

god he's a terrible person.

NUKE LIEBERMAN

srsly 60 votes how does that make any sense - lets move onto a post apocalyptic wonderland

I'm getting tired of this "60 votes" nonsense. The Dems only need fifty, and Biden can break the tie.

how satisfying would it be to lead lieberman by the hand over to mitch mcconnell all like did u lose this lil guy

SEE U L8R JOE LOVE TO HADASSAH

He makes me feel kind of homicidal, which is not good. I wish he would go away.

I'm sure the Daily Show will be wall to wall Droopy tonight.

The dems need to srsly double-dare the repubs to fillibuster.

bcuz then the repubs either need to do it or take the physical challenge

He makes me feel kind of homicidal, which is not good. I wish he would go away.

this

he's become a sad little man.

I'm getting tired of this "60 votes" nonsense. The Dems only need fifty, and Biden can break the tie.

um waht I know you know this is not true

The dems need to srsly double-dare the repubs to fillibuster.

I think you underestimate the Republican capacity for bloviation

Is reconciliation still an available option in the HCR process?

I think it is, but no one's talking about it lately - also, I don't think they'd be able to reconcile the entirety of each bill, would be limited to the funding aspects. iirc reconciliation is specifically for budgetary emergencies, so that might limit the scope of any final legislation. would get around the filibuster though.

or they could just like you know do away w/the filibuster

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/with-health-care-reform-tied-up-in-the-senate-harkin-revisits-call-to-end-filibuster.php

that's never gonna happen

alright just dont come around all celebrating on the rip filibuster thread when it does

should be noted that it v nearly did happen 5 years ago

its just that the Senate is by definition a hidebound institution that loves its rules and its history and in addition to that the minority party (no matter who it is) is never going to give up their most powerful weapon

um waht I know you know this is not true

You need sixty votes for cloture, right? Can this thing pass with fifty votes?

if you can't get to cloture what good is the fifty.

yeah if you can't close debate, you can't get a vote on it.

its just that the Senate is by definition a hidebound institution that loves its rules and its history and in addition to that the minority party (no matter who it is) is never going to give up their most powerful weapon

― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, December 14, 2009 1:04 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the minority has no say in it - the democrats could kill the filibuster themselves no problem

the fact that the weapon is used against the majority foretells its doom - its worth noting that were really in a new era of filibustering now where its assumed that any bill needs 60 votes to get out of the senate - up until v recently it wasnt that way - the filibuster was used only occasionally

i cant see majorities putting up w/this situation for v long as it renders them impotent and therefor vulnerable electoral defeat - if the democrats dont end or weaken the filibuster i have no doubt the next republican majority will

the minority has no say in it - the democrats could kill the filibuster themselves no problem

this is assuming all 58 Democrats and the 2 independents wanted it and I don't think they do - cognizant as they are that they are not going to be the majority party forever

we're really in a new era of filibustering now where its assumed that any bill needs 60 votes to get out of the senate

also this is only true because the Republicans are an unusually united and committed minority. unlike the Democrats, who were a bunch of pussies afraid to filibuster anything.

u dont need 60 to go nuclear is the thing - if you did itd be a lol catch 22 - theres a lot of question marks as to how itd actually go down but its imo doable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

just catching up on my weekend rss backlog, and, let me say, fuck joe lieberman

what is he thinking? really, what could it possibly be.

he's thinking "fuck you, Democrats"

would happily run him over with a tractor

@SenJohnMcCain: Joe Lieberman – standing up for his principles on health care is being viciously attacked by the liberal left...what a disgrace!

@SenJohnMcCain: lol joe hacked into my blackberry when he was at my apt, but 4 real it rly sux!

john mccain is one of the least principled politicians america has to offer

sounds like an endorsement!

would happily run him over with a tractor

seeing berlusconi bloodied and beaten was kind of gruesome and not at all satisfying in a way you don't imagine when having politician justice fantasies, but the lieberman thing does make me concentrate on what kind of possible mcnulty-does-harbour-patrol punishment he can possibly be meted if he fucks up health reform.

jodi rell, gov. of CT, republican. there go my little fantasies.

eeing berlusconi bloodied and beaten was kind of gruesome and not at all satisfying in a way you don't imagine when having politician justice fantasies,

I found it pretty satisfying. would have also accepted him getting a pie in the face tho.

love joe lieb <3

who is he anyway

^^^ SB

(...even in jest)

solid majority of CT supports the public option too. way to represent your constituents Joe!

lieberman is like the democrats' own gollum.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_42hHtR_kBMc/SSMXw83ZeKI/AAAAAAAAAJI/kLU-87RfYLI/s400/lieberman-tutu.jpg

I found it pretty satisfying. would have also accepted him getting a pie in the face tho.

did you see it though? it was a seventy year old guy getting hit in the teeth.

by a mentally-ill dude, no less

not very much lolsy or satisfying about that imo

is there footage of the actual punching? I've only seen the "after" photos

didn't hear the mentally ill angle either - that does take some of the schaudenfreude out of it

seeing berlusconi bloodied and beaten was kind of gruesome and not at all satisfying in a way you don't imagine when having politician justice fantasies, but the lieberman thing does make me concentrate on what kind of possible mcnulty-does-harbour-patrol punishment he can possibly be meted if he fucks up health reform.

well, Reid and/or President Obama could grow a pair of balls and end this "caucuses w/ the Democrats" horseshit once and for all -- e.g., strip Joe of party chairmanships, etc. i mean, the whole point of that arrangement was to get to the 60-vote sweet spot. and if Lieberman is going to just fuck w/ the Democratic Party over everything (which was always a danger in this arrangement, esp. now since Lieberman has become so petty and peevish), then it seems to me that the logic of letting him "caucus" goes out the window altogether.

i mean, an LBJ or even a Tip O'Neill or Dennis Hastert (different chamber than the Senate, yes i know, but still) wouldn't put up with this kind of shit for a second.

so OTM - they shoulda stripped him of his priveleges when he got re-elected

fuck this guy btw

Lieberman in Perspective [Rich Lowry]

One thing to remember about Lieberman is that he supports the core elements of the bill. The obvious play for Reid would be to give Lieberman what he wants (stripping out the public option and the Medicare buy-in) and to give Ben Nelson what he wants on abortion, and get their votes. The Left is very likely to accept what is a less-than-perfect deal from its perspective, despite all the angry denunciations. The problem for Reid is that there are probably other shaky votes out there—Webb?—who aren't willing to be as public as Lieberman and Nelson. But if they see that Lieberman and Nelson get results by complaining, they'll complain too and features more central to the bill—the tax hikes and Medicare cuts—could come under threat. The upshot is that the bill is not necessarily doomed, but it's still in a very fragile state. We'll know more after the Senate Democrats meet at 5:30 p.m. If they come out saying they're still talking, we know they're not there yet. If Reid comes out saying he's going to file cloture, that's another matter

?? Nelson's abortion amendment was already voted down?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/medicare_buy-in_dead.php?ref=fpblg

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) just told reporters as he entered a special meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus that a Medicare buy-in provision is probably gone and tellingly praised the merits of the bill even with that provision stripped out, Evan McMorris-Santoro reports.

(er, that's not a question, I know it was voted down - which makes the Nelson ref perplexing)

x-post

so the Senate liberals get NOTHING? fuck this

We were curious whether Joe Lieberman would be attending this evening's Senate Democratic caucus meeting. Our Evan McMorris-Santoro reports in that Lieberman just walked into the meeting, moving briskly past reporters and taking no questions.

har

ugh, this is going to be the most toothless useless bill in the world. thanks a lot, joe, you did your part -- I hope you drown in raw sewage someday.

What was the last bill passed by Congress that wasn't toothless?

what I don't get is that Reid must know by this point that they have nothing to gain by kowtowing to Lieberman. He never delivers to them on anything of substance. They should say "fuck you" and go the reconciliation route imho

What was the last bill passed by Congress that wasn't toothless?

Pelosi's bill is great!

well, if for some reason the Dems lose the Senate next year, watch Lieberman get thrown on the rack.

fat lot of good it will do the Dems then

ive not quite given up on the fantasy of reid saying to lieberman "how am i funny? like a clown funny?" in that meeting.

ok now i have

December 14, 2009
White House, Senate Dems divided over reconciliation
Posted: December 14th, 2009 05:16 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – As the White House rushes to the finish on health care reform, fissures on the best way to get there are developing between the White House and Senate Democrats.

Two sources have told CNN that White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the budget process known as reconciliation to push through health reform – and that Reid has rejected that request.

The procedure, which can only be used on budget measures, would allow Senate Democrats to bypass the 60-vote threshold required to end debate on the current bill, and pass the proposal by a simple majority – but would require major changes to the legislation.

Reid’s resistance, said the sources, stemmed from concern that adoption of the strategy would spark major political pushback from Democrats facing re-election next year.

The source said the administration has also been pressing Reid to assuage concerns from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman – the potentially crucial 60th Senate vote - by dropping a compromise plan that would have allowed individuals to buy in to Medicare at age 55. Lieberman said Sunday that he would not support any bill that included that measure. He has also stressed that he will not support any kind of public health care option, or a trigger that could result in additional public health care options in the future if certain coverage goals are not met.

It’s a dilemma for Senate vote-counters. Liberal senators have been “very flexible,” according to a Democratic source - but it’s unclear if dropping the option from the bill might cost the party their support. One option being considered by the White House has been to return to the trigger idea supported by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. Gaining her vote, and securing the support of conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, might enable the party to work around Lieberman.

Senate Democrats are slated to meet again at 5:30 this afternoon

CAN I JUST ASK WHY LIEBERMAN HAS A PROBLEM WITH MEDICARE BUY-INS GOD HE SUCKS

ive not quite given up on the fantasy of reid saying to lieberman "how am i funny? like a clown funny?" in that meeting.

Untouchables baseball team analogy would also be acceptable

Kinda disappointing but I always thought this bill was going to be like a bigger more retarded version of the prescription drug benefit that Bush did - a fucking huge kickback for the insurance companies with not much else for regular folks

How popular would Joe be in '12 (assuming he runs for re-election) if he had lost his Chairmanships and seniority? Apparently some 30% of those who voted for him in '06 say that they wouldn't do so again.

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005996

yeah okay

Meanwhile, Hadassah Lieberman is a consultant to the Susan Komen Foundation - a breast cancer pressure group beloved of liberals, who are now agitating to get her bounced from working for them.

she has her own record in healthcare, right?

Yes, without being specific it is SHILL.

Despite liberal blogger Jane Hamsher's call for the Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation to sever its relationship with Joseph Lieberman's wife Hadassah, the group is standing by the senator's wife.

"Hadassah Lieberman is an important and valued Global Ambassador for Susan G. Komen for the Cure,'' the group said in an email this morning from spokeswoman Pam Stevens. "As a Global Ambassador, Ms. Lieberman is focused on helping us reach out and educate women outside our borders about breast cancer, sharing our knowledge and experience in a culturally sensitive way that is making a real impact on the lives of women across the globe. We have every intention of continuing our relationship with Ms. Lieberman in our mutual pursuit of a world without breast cancer."

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/12/komen-stands-by-hadassah-liebe.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIb13mYoy0Q

Caption for the above: Here's a clip from an interview Joe Lieberman (I-CT) did with "The Connecticut Post" newspaper in September of 2009. He flat out says that he supports a Medicare buy-in for those in their 50's and strengthening public options that already work. Now, Lieberman is 100% against the Medicare buy-in for those 55 and older.

is the bill still awesome and vital? lemme know everybody

are you now praying on the downfall of a health care bill so u can gloat about how obama is a failure on ilx

no, I'm anticipating you telling me that if the bill becomes an actively malevolent thing you'll still tell me it's awesome because it's important that our team wins

this thread is all the win i need

I mean fucking newsflash for the uninformed, this guy is not on your fucking team even remotely, and all the "he votes w/the Democratic caucus x % of the time" stats in the world don't make up for the times he screws everybody, he ought to have been 100% ostracized no fewer than 4 years back but the collective lack of anything resembling a spine in the Democratic party means he will enjoy many more tongue baths not in exchange for votes but for a maybe vote he'll later withhold

what a sad-ass party to support

"but he stood firm with us on the important question of approving national hot dog day"

"oh ok"

^ this man hates hot dogs, this man is not your friend nor a patriot

no, I'm anticipating you telling me that if the bill becomes an actively malevolent thing you'll still tell me it's awesome because it's important that our team wins

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:06 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude are you even paying attention?? what on earth about the senate bill is "actively malevolent"??

can someone link me please to a liberal-minded and accurate overview of what has happened here kthx

j0hn--dude--healthcare is an issue as important to some of us as torture is to you. and this bill is the single biggest step toward universal coverage in decades. and its important those people that this bill get passed, even if its not perfect. this is how we got social security. this is how we will get health care.

no, I'm anticipating you telling me that if the bill becomes an actively malevolent thing you'll still tell me it's awesome because it's important that our team wins

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:06 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why would you be anticipating that, do you think the people posting here are stupid?

max, serious question: as long as some form of the bill goes through, does the content of the bill even matter to you at all? at what point would the negatives begin to outweigh the positives for you?

(goole "you" refers specifically to deej who will love this bill no matter what's in it, period)

yes: the content of the bill matters insofar as it will insure more people. do i want a public option? yes. do i want a medicare buy in? yes. have i called and written my duly elected representatives? yes, several times. i am not happy that i am not getting everything i want in this bill. but i dont for one second believe that the bill is anywhere near the "negatives outweighing the positives." fewer people will die because of this bill. it is not something i feel comfortable demanding perfection from.

like, i genuinely wonder what coverage youre reading of the bill where you think its negatives might outweigh its positives, that its near being "actively malevolent." the only thing i can think of is a stupak-style abortion restriction--but thats not in the senate bill! it was voted down!

max bear in mind that pretty much the entirety of my pre-entertainment-biz life I devoted to healthcare. 1987-1999 roughly with a little blip from '95-97. working at the ground level as a nurse. I know first hand about how shitty the system is, I have been the guy opening the door for people to head right back out to the street. this is partly why the giant french kiss to the insurance companies that this bill represents is fucking offensive to me. I suspect there are ins & outs of how screwed everybody will be even further that most of you who're focused on a win for the admin at any cost haven't even contemplated momentarily. you continue to conflate "something worth supporting" with "perfection." NOBODY INCLUDING ME IS ASKING FOR PERFECTION, and to suggest even momentarily that that's my complaint - that the bill isn't "perfect" - beats me for disingenuousness 7 days out of 7.

but youre not even addressing me! i never said that this bill wasnt over-friendly to insurance companies! your bizzarro "suspicion" that this bill will somehow hurt people is "fucking offensive to me"--that is tea party-level shit, dude!

(goole "you" refers specifically to deej who will love this bill no matter what's in it, period)

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 7:46 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

are you serious

well max otm

i mean if youve got specific policy provisions that you think are like, trojan horses for the insurance companies, or whatever, lets talk! but if youre riding on, i dunno, the bad feeling in your trick knee, or whatever, i have no clue how to talk to you.

and let me reiterate: i am not particularly pleased with this bill, or how the senate has handled it, or how the white house has handled it. i am supporting this bill and its passage nonetheless.

i think its somehow related to summers being friendly with wall st -- ergo the health bill is probably bad

well, there's a fucking ton of stuff, not that I have any reason to suspect deej or max won't be ready with "it's better than nothing" ripostes

notorious asking-for-perfection commies the American Cancer Society are concerned about caps:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/11/health.care.benefit.caps/index.html

about which you might highlight:

After discussions with senior White House and congressional staff this afternoon, we are confident that our concerns will be resolved and the bill strengthened."

but from which I would argue the more salient extract is:

No one is saying who put the loophole in the bill. The provision was added behind closed doors in Reid's office when he and a small group of Democrats -- along with White House officials -- merged two Senate committee bills into the one that's now on the floor.

which I mean obv. you guys will be all "tinfoil hat black helicopters lol" but whatever, this is one of dozens of dodgy fucking propositions that boil down to "you'll get a health care bill, and then we can say we got a health care bill" which is not even close to reason enough to support a bill. my question is: is there any version of this bill you guys wouldn't support?

I mean if pressed, sure, why not, if I were in the Senate I'd vote "yea," but to be a dude out in the public saying "i support the bill" instead of "this blows and is a pathetic excuse for healthcare reform" is just deeply confusing to me

sure, one that doesnt work. but all of us are simply throwing out guesses & hypotheticals in that case

(goole "you" refers specifically to deej who will love this bill no matter what's in it, period)

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 7:46 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

are you serious

― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:55 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and yeah dude I mean don't take me amiss I dig you & all & am not tryin to be a dick to youjust arguin about stuff but you will stan for pretty much anything the admin brings to the table imo

& frankly, one that is full of loopholes & obnoxious shit BUT covers tons of ppl for super cheap is something im willing to put up with? basically the line in the sand is "does the bill insure most people for less, is the program working, is the u.s. insurance program improved, are we better off"?

and yeah dude I mean don't take me amiss I dig you & all & am not tryin to be a dick to youjust arguin about stuff but you will stan for pretty much anything the admin brings to the table imo

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:10 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is straight up not true

what is most objectionable of obama's recent positions

dude you started that thread and within 4 posts had morphed into defender of Obama's noble intentions

on one particular issue, & it turned out i was right?

the very first post in the thread i said fisa position was bullshit & at no time argued otherwise

What's depressing about rereading that thread (which I'd forgotten about) is how all of us are in there, arguing generally about the same shit.

(xp i was right or at the very least the issue was more complex & intricate than "that obama, what an asshole")

deej if you won't own up to membership in the fan club I don't know what to say, you're as likely to say "let me see how he is right" as I am to say "let me see how he's wrong" - I have given dude props multiple times and they count about as much for you as your calling him out on an issue that's transparently obvious does to me

im only 'defending' him in response to yr flagrant chicken little routine. i hardly think hes perfect or that he's made all the right moves. but on the other hand i dont know what the right moves would be. how the hell do u get a health care bill around lieberman? is it possible that revealing these pictures would prove catastrophic to our troops abroad (i lean towards 'no,' but i dont know, and neither do you)

This bill has become perfect cannon fodder for the GOP in 2010. Once upon a time it wasn't.

deej on that thread you linked you're trying to flesh out the more high-minded parts of his ethanol position

c'mon, now

even ethan, a fellow and equally well-liked-by-me obama stan, tells you to quit defending positions that suck on that thread

This bill has become perfect cannon fodder for the GOP in 2010. Once upon a time it wasn't.

― Sock Puppet Pizza Delivers To The Forest (Sock Puppet Queso Con Concentrate), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:24 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i mean these kinds of statements too -- you might be right, i dunno -- im just asking for some further argument here bcuz im not sure i blindly accept that this is true. isnt the goal of this bill to make something that will be very popular & difficult for the GOP to gain popular support for its appeal? what factors that have been stripped from the bill make this no longer the case? Was the medicare part one of them?

deej on that thread you linked you're trying to flesh out the more high-minded parts of his ethanol position

c'mon, now

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah and look at all that pro-ethanol legislation hes pushed through since! what a fool ive been

oh give it time, gotta get this health care bill thru first

these argument (re)started because you were pushing guilt-by-association wall street arguments that i havent even said anything about disagreeing with -- i just asked for more evidence, which you havent provided. instead youve tried to poke holes in a bunch of stances you're assuming i have & trying to paint me as obama stan #1

I mean you're zagging here. the issue on the floor is "will deej stan for obama rain or shine." on the thread you link, you're scrambling for excuses to explain away a position he took during the election. this is stannery most foul you gotta admit.

xpot because you are stan #1! that's cool 'n' all it just bears mentioning y'know

the issue on the floor is actually hatred of joe lieberman, near unanimity of

in fairness, a thread with this title should have zero responses

Posted this in the OTHER Obama thread, but it's needed here for "context":

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leaders said Monday that they were prepared to drop a proposed expansion of Medicare and make other changes in sweeping health legislation as they tried to rally their caucus in hopes of passing the bill before Christmas.

After a tense 90-minute meeting on Monday evening, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked if Democrats were likely to jettison the Medicare proposal.

“It’s looking like that’s the case,” Mr. Baucus said, indicating that the provision might be scrapped as a way of “getting support from 60 senators.”

Under the proposal, uninsured people ages 55 to 64 could purchase Medicare coverage. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, floated the idea about 10 days ago as a way to break an intraparty impasse over his earlier proposal to create a government-run health insurance plan.

The signal from the party leadership came after the closed-door session to gauge sentiment for moving ahead with a pared-back measure that would not contain elements that liberal lawmakers had sought, particularly a public health insurance option.

Lawmakers and top aides said that the overriding view at the session held just off the Senate floor was that they had come too far in the health care debate to give up and that they should forge ahead with some legislation even if it was not all that they wanted.

After the meeting, lawmakers said they believed that chances were increased for completing a health care bill and that a final product would be a substantial improvement over the current system.

“If you compared it to the alternative, it looks good,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, about the prospect of moving ahead with a measure that does not have a public health insurance option. “If you compare it to the possibilities, it looks pretty sad.”

oh give it time, gotta get this health care bill thru first

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:30 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

my argument was that he was paying lip service to ethanol bcuz they were a huge funding base for him, being from the midwest -- so far i havent seen evidence to the contrary. was there some big part of the stimulus going to subsidies of the ethanol industry that i missed?

http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=11861

US stimulus package provides large boost for biomass energy but little for biofuels

18 February, 2009

I mean you're zagging here. the issue on the floor is "will deej stan for obama rain or shine." on the thread you link, you're scrambling for excuses to explain away a position he took during the election. this is stannery most foul you gotta admit.

xpot because you are stan #1! that's cool 'n' all it just bears mentioning y'know

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 8:32 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

um, the first post in the thread is me saying fisa is shitty -- does that not come under 'rain or shine'? -- followed by my ... not contradicting that position in the entire thread

expecting the president to reflect your exact values is foolish, is my position, not 'the presidents values area always correct' which seems to be what yr implying

uh-huh

EPA not Obama, hands ties, nothing he can do, I know

how the hell do u get a health care bill around lieberman?

Yes, what to do, except strip the dumbass of his committees, etc etc

now now Mr. Que

i will be really angry (like j0hn d level angry) with the democrats if they don't make this fucker pay

back on ethanol:
The struggling ethanol industry did not receive much support from the stimulus package because it already receives tax breaks, said Douglas Durante, executive director of the Clean Fuels Development (CFD) Coalition in Bethesda, Maryland. “There wasn’t a lot for biofuels,” he said. “We really weren’t expecting a lot.”

The CFD had called in vain for a revolving loan fund that would have provided zero- or low-interest loans to troubled ethanol producers.

& more on ethanol:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/obama-ethanol-high-five-slap-in-the-face.php
Just as the Obama administration is launching an interagency task force to boost the biofuel industry amidst an industry-wide slump, it is also preparing to rigorously measure the carbon footprint of biofuels, making them look even more controversial and environmentally risky.

Wait until the climate/energy bill becomes the center of attention next year - then you'll find out Obama's position on biofuels. I'm not optimistic, given his language during the campaign. There will be an idiotic argument that shouldn't even be necessary "corn-based ethanol is driving up fuel prices, actually CONTRIBUTING to climate change (due to land use change both domestic and international (others need to grow more soy because our corn addiction = cut down rainforests, eventually), and contributing to the increase in food prices/riots VS "HAY it's from the ground isn't that what you envirofascists want/protect our farmers you god damn fascists). Sadly, I can see Obama supporting the corn-based ethanol loonies, while throwing a bone to environmentalists in the form of increased funding for second-generation biofuels (switchgrass, algae) that don't compete with food production.

that is the going line on his positions - that he'll try to split the difference, essentially pissing everybody off except those permanently in his corner. which to be fair has been Democratic strategy pretty much as long as I've been alive.

Yep. And, perhaps even more sadly, I can envision my reaction when Obama throws 80% of his support behind corn-based ethanol and 20% behind cellulosic (and about 0.0005% behind conservation of energy) in a few months...

"well...he did what he could...he needs to win votes in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, big corn states...it's not easy being him, what he's doing is a hell of a lot better than what Bush would've done..."

BLECH, fuck this century so far

Yes, but, J0hn, Obama's taking The Long View.

"well...he did what he could...he needs to win votes in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, big corn states...it's not easy being him, what he's doing is a hell of a lot better than what Bush would've done..."

man when I say shit like this they come down on me like a bag of hammers

If you learn how to animate a bag of hammers falling on your naysayers, life becomes a little easier imo

anyway back on topic i hate joe lieberman so very much

Supposing all the teeth get pulled out of this bill, and everything Joe wants to happen happens - does anyone think he won't just vote against it anyway?

I don't understand how he was reelected. Hopefully he'll be defeated in 2012 as the rest of the world blow up - while I will blame on him btw

aye connecticutim

Supposing all the teeth get pulled out of this bill, and everything Joe wants to happen happens - does anyone think he won't just vote against it anyway?

then he will be elected king of the haters tho which has been his goal all along

the only chance is to xmas out and give olympia snow

or saganaki. greeks love that shit, the stereotypes are true

/cankle_stanton

I don't understand how he was reelected. Hopefully he'll be defeated in 2012 as the rest of the world blow up - while I will blame on him btw

I think Joe knows he's in his last term in public "service" and is blowing up as much shit as possible before he goes.

“If you compared it to the alternative, it looks good,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, about the prospect of moving ahead with a measure that does not have a public health insurance option. “If you compare it to the possibilities, it looks pretty sad.”

this guy OTM, my feelings exactly. y'all are welcome to join me on the Joe Lieberman RIP thread!

does anyone think he won't just vote against it anyway?

I totally expect that he's going to vote for cloture and then vote against the bill itself.

oops, posted this to the wrong thread, meant for it to go here: if the bill still prohibits private insurers from denying based on pre-existing conditions, jacking up rates on people because of those conditions, dropping people because of those conditions, and gets rid of lifetime and annual caps (apparently it didn't do the latter but they were working on fixing that), then I think it is still a vital and awesome bill even without the rest of this. do I want a public option? absolutely yes. do I care if that public option is only available to people 55 years old? no, because selfishly, neither I nor anyone in my family falls into that category right now. But we are potentially fucked by the pre-existing stuff and any laws that go into place that will keep me from going into bankruptcy because my wife has cancer are good by me. but still, fuck a lieberman.

looks like im late to the party but j0hn thank you for posting that link in response to my question!

i think you can probably guess what my response back is, though: yes, that sucks; the cap is a bad thing; i dont trust the senate; this bill is too friendly to insurers.

but: i cant say that i am, in particular, disheartened by an article that indicates the loophole will be patched up!

and, more importantly: were still not close to a situation where the "bad outweighs the good." more people will be insured with this bill. not as many as i want. not as many as should be. but im not going to turn my back on it!

and bro--i say this as a bro--there is a thing, here, where every time this happens it turns from an argument about the merits of obamas presidency into an argument about whether or not deej would support anything obama proposes. thats... dumb. and in bad faith.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/Syc81xcp_4I/AAAAAAAADRs/8TXu1nI2OTA/s1600-h/hcbill.png

blargh.

in case anyone is wondering why joe is allowed to continue to be such an ignorant pathetic waste of useful organs and not get stripped of his seniority:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/lieberman-riling-dems-on-health-care-but-is-major-player-on-climate-same-sex-benefits.php?ref=fpb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVRp52op918

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_on_ask_lieberman_answers_the_call.html

yeah he could have done this a long time ago I suppose.