I Don't Trust Him

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Principessa, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Lieberman's Affiliation With Democrats Is in Question

    By CHRISTOPHER COOPER


    WASHINGTON --The day of reckoning may have arrived for Sen. Joe Lieberman.

    The Connecticut Independent, a onetime Democratic nominee for vice president, began talks Thursday with Senate leaders about his future role in the Democratic Party after he infuriated colleagues with his vocal advocacy of Sen. John McCain's bid for the presidency.

    In the balance are Sen. Lieberman's chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security committee and his position as a member of the Democratic caucus. The Connecticut senator has voted with Democrats ever since running as an independent in 2006.

    The talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concluded without resolution. In a written statement, Sen. Reid said he will hold several meetings with Sen. Lieberman before deciding what, if anything, he might do.

    "While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus," Sen. Reid said.

    Sen. Reid, of Nevada, is walking a tightrope. The party needs every vote it can get to ward off Republican filibusters. Democratic leaders have talked repeatedly about the need for bipartisanship. At the same time, many Democrats want to punish Sen. Lieberman.

    Some Democrats say he should be thrown out of the party caucus altogether, primarily for the criticism he heaped on President-elect Barack Obama during the campaign. But such a move would carry the risk that he bolt the party altogether.

    Some Democrats were especially angered when Mr. Lieberman addressed the Republican National Convention and rapped Mr. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war. "Sen. Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," Mr. Lieberman said. "But my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times for America."

    "His speech during the convention went a little too far," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Reid. Mr. Lieberman's advocacy of Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin "was the icing on the cake," he said.
    On Wednesday, Mr. Lieberman issued a statement congratulating Mr. Obama and urging fellow politicians "to put partisan considerations aside and come together." Mr. Lieberman also pledged to work with Mr. Obama and his administration.

    Mr. Lieberman's office didn't respond to a request for comment regarding Thursday's meeting with Sen. Reid.

    People familiar with Sen. Reid's thinking said the decision on whether to strip Mr. Lieberman of his leadership role is a difficult one for the majority leader, who considers Mr. Lieberman a friend. In public, Sen. Reid has noted that Mr. Lieberman, the party's vice presidential pick in 2000, has offered a steady Democratic vote on issues not related to national security or the Pentagon, on which he has been more likely to side with Republicans.

    Mr. Lieberman also has funneled about $100,000 in donations to Democratic candidates for Senate this year.

    People close to the leadership said it's unlikely Mr. Lieberman will retain his chairmanship when the new Congress convenes early next year. An alternative could be to offer Mr. Lieberman a sub-committee post.

    In Connecticut's 2006 primary, Mr. Lieberman was defeated as a Democrat by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. The incumbent senator ran as an independent in the general election and was backed by several Democratic colleagues, including Mr. Obama.

    After his win, Mr. Lieberman's decision to caucus with the Democrats, along with fellow independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont, threw the chamber to Democratic control.

     
  2. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    why?

    he speaks his mind and votes his conscience.

    He may not be right all the time, but frankly, i wish more politicians thought a bit more independently and were more willing to cross the aisle.

    He votes with the democrats a ton, but when he has serious policy differences on defense, he is suddenly not trustworthy, or correct? Many democrats supported the war, Hillary Clinton among them.

    Why should he be penalized for supporting his friend, John McCain, if he felt he was the best choice? He didn't dump on Obama, he simply voiced his concerns about the lack of experience. He ran against Bush and Cheney in 2000.

    frankly, for all the talk of cooperation, people don't seem to think much of it when someone actually does it...especially if it is against their views.

    I think Lieberman is a good man and someone who has shown that no matter the cost to him, he will vote or support his conscience how he sees fit. I wish we had more politicians willing to do that, be they republicans or democrats.
     
  3. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    I agree... he can't be trusted.

    "Fool Me Once... You Can't Get Fooled Again." George W. Bush
     
  4. silvertriumph2

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,507
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2,093
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastcoast USA (NYC-Manhattan)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I don't trust him either....not as far as I could throw Stone Mountain!

    However, the Dems just may have to if the magic number of 60 is not
    reached and they can't find like minded Repub on the other side.
    He has voted with the Dems a majority of the time but things have
    changed drastically since he jumped to the Repub side and recently
    said the things that he did including the night before the election.

    Even though he NOW says he "wants to put partisan considerations
    aside and come together"....if the Dems take away his chairmanship,
    and demote him to a sub-committee position, he just may not be so
    helpful in the future. Personally I hope they can come very close to
    the 60 mark and work across the aisles for extra votes when they are needed. I believe Obama is going to be a very persuasive president!

    Time will tell.

    In the meantime, Lieberman is no longer someone that I admire, as
    I once did.
     
  5. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Oh, please, nj, and why should you? My mother (who just moved back to Marblehead from Avon, CT after 20 years) LOVES him...and he's a Democrat. It's a little bit of a reflection of the fact that he's a liberal Jew, which she kinda has an affinity for, but please. I'm sorry, did I forget to put a question mark/exclamation point and a "rolls eyes" at the end of that second sentence? My bad.
     
  6. silvertriumph2

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,507
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2,093
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastcoast USA (NYC-Manhattan)
    Verified:
    Photo
    He is not a Democrat.....he switched to Independent some time ago.
     
  7. davis67

    davis67 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    67
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    He's a politician, you're not supposed to trust him.
     
  8. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Sooooo, in the spirit of neverending hypocricy from the left:

    1. Lieberman is untrustworthy because he supported McCain. (Republican)


    simultaneously


    2. Colin Powell is an independent thinker and knows what's best for the U.S. because he supports Obama.


    :wtf1:
     
  9. VanillaTwist

    VanillaTwist New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's not hypocrisy. If Colin Powell had sided with the Democrats, but then went out of his way to support McCain, and then the Dems said "He's trustworthy but Lieberman isn't trustworthy" then that's hypocrisy.

    But none of that matters because as Obama has (paraphrasing) basically said it's time to put the past behind us and come together to solve our problems. This "left hypocrisy" or "right debauchery" finger pointing has got to stop.
     
  10. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female


    I can explain this. None of us (black people) ever really believed Colin Powell was a Republican. Plus since Bush basically screwed him over you haven't heard him say much on behalf of the Republicans in a few years. Until he came out in support of Obama he had been kinda like Switzerland.

    Joe Lieberman on the other hand has claimed fealty to 3 different parties in 4 years. This doesn't say loyalty, this says schizophrenia.
     
  11. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    Joe Lieberman was a republican sleeper agent. He was programmed to go off after Gore lost his Supreme court case. Lieberman has been working for the Republicans in secret the entire time... once an agent... always an agent.

    He better have fucking came hat in hand.
     
  12. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    I am not a Joe admirer. However, let us look at the facts.

    1. Joe was the VP nominee, a nationally recognized Democrat leader.

    2. Joe had to run for reelection. The DEMOCRATS in his state voted against him. They turned on him. He didn't turn them. True it was a close vote.

    3. Joe took advantage of a law that allowed him to quickly get on the ballot to run as an Independent.

    4. With three candidates in the race. Democrat, Republican and Independent, Joe came out on top.

    5. Joe came back to the Sennate and voted to side with the Democrats. Its kinda hard to say you are a Democrat when your state Democratic party voted you out.

    6. Joe continues to this day to be a registered Democrat.

    7. I don't agree with a lot of things about Joe, but when the Democrats needed him the last two years to keep control of the Senate, Joe played the part perfectly keeping the Republicans from control.

    8. Joe voted his conscience in this election. Keep in mind that McCain and he have been great personal friends.

    9. Keep in mind that McCain is a maverick Republican. Had McCain stayed true to the McCain that has been in the Senate for decades he might have won. Berfore McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination, I had always said that McCain was the only Republican I would consider voting for.


    10. McCain bowed to the powers that be in the Republican party and signed away any chance of victory. He moved to the right being told he had to keep that religous right happy.

    11. McCain really wanted either Joe or the former mayer from New York Guilianni as his running mate. The Republicans vetoed that becauise both of them are pro choice which didn't bother McCain at all.

    12. Liebverman was there when the Democrats HAD to have him. It was his staet Democrats that turned on him. Not the other way around.

    13. Joe needs a good tongue lashing from the Democratic leadership in the privacy of the Democratic leadership quarters. Joe needs to be privately put on probation menaing the Democrats will be watching his future actions.

    14. Most importantly Joe needs to keep his chairmanship. Every vote is a vote in the Senate. The Democrats may desparately need Joe's vote to approve a Supreme Court nominee. Things could change in two years and the Democrats may need Joe's vote to keep the majority.

    15. Joe has not committed the unpardonable sin in politics. NJ was right. If it is OK for Colin Powell to endorse Obama, it is alright for Joe to endorse McCain.


    Freddie's editorial:

    Of course each party has to have some discipline in place to keep the party's agenda moving forward. But it shouldn't reach the point that one or two Democrats and one or two Republicans call every shot and the rest of the senators are robots completely and totally controlled by the party leadership.

    It is enough to give Joe a curt speech and a probationary status that says "Yeah, you can do this, but it also means we will watch you and remove you if it gets out of hand."

    One of the beautities of American politics is that inviduals can go agaisnt the party line. I do not want to see this end. Letting less than five senatorsr from both parties completely call all shots is a recipe for corruption beyond imagination. In some Parliamentary systems, the mps must vote the party line. To vote agaisnt the party is the same as voting a non confidnece vote which can bring the government down. The Parliamentary system works great in the UK, Canada, Germany and a few other nations. It has been very unstable in many other nations.


    I know some will think I am speaikng out of both sides of my mouth about Joe. I am not. Sure, the Democratic leadership can tell Joe that:

    "Hey we are pissed about what you did in supporting McCain. We will be watching you carefully. Your chairmanship isn't a guarantee. It is something that you can lose. But it is yours for now as a Democrat. We consider you to be a Democrat.Our next Democratic caucus meeting is '____________' We hope, want and expect you to be there."

    OR


    The above statement is a far cry from:

    "Joe, you supported McCain. For this you will have your chairmanship taken away and you are not welcome to meet with the Democrats in caucus anymore. We do not consider you a Democrat. You are on your own." You may wish to be an independent caucusing with neither party. We understand that the Republicans have invited you. Joe, most of the Democratic Senators are hopiong that you will start caucusing with the Repubicans. You have been a traitor to the Democratic Party and apparentlyo that is where you belong with those other Republcans."



    The second line of reasoning is asinine. Does anyone think for a moment that there won't be times the Democratic leadership won't need Joe's vote and Joe's vote desparately? The Democrats don't have that magic number of 60 to shut of a filiabuster by the Republicans. The Democrats will need Joe's vote and a liberal Republican or two to pull that off.

    Politcs is politics. Good politicians do not "shit in a nest" where they know that they might have to spend the night later. It may be a great move on high moral ground, but politically it is down right stupid.
     
  13. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    perfectly stated freddie.
     
  14. D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

    D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, as ugly as partisanship can be, the Democrats control the Senate. Joe L. worked against the interests of the Democrats. Sure, it was OK for him to cross party lines and endorse McCain; but there are consequences to every choice.

    The consequences to THIS choice? He picked the losing side; the winning side is stronger than ever; the winning side has an interest in having their team members chair committees and subcommittees. Joe Lieberman will go on being a principled senator, he'll just have less power doing so.
     
  15. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respect politicians who do what they believe is right, or their constituents, rather than blindly towing the party line. Liberman and Paul are the only ones I know of who stand up to their parties. If only there were more Ron Pauls in the Republican party our economy wouldn't be in the toilet and we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

    Trash Lieberman all you want. Even though I disagree with his politics, the fact that he stands up to the Democratic establishment has earned him much respect from me.

    njqt is an hypocritical, excuse making fool.
     
  16. D_Marazion Analdouche

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think if you sat down with Colin Powell you would find he's more of a moderate independent than he is either a Republican or Democrat.

    I have to laugh at any notion that suggests having your own views versus having those of "your party" is a bad thing. That's the problem with our government, not enough independent and moderate thinkers.
     
  17. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    What the hell? Are you blowing him Freddie? What's with the rosy apologetic stance on Loserman? He turned on the Democratic party before they ran Ned Lamont... were you in Europe or something? He is a fucking Independent too... technically an Independent Democrat... whatever the hell that means.

    Let me refresh y'alls memory...

    The Bureaucratic insanity that is The Department of Homeland Security was his idea.

    He fucking sponsored the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (S.J. Res.46)

    When the democrats were about to set out to wage a campaign to end the war in Iraq...

    In 2004, he stated his support for the famous Alberto Gonzales memo stating that the Geneva Convention was "quaint". He supports torture.


    On December 7, 2005, Lieberman said, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

    The then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressed disappointment with Lieberman, saying, "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people." Nancy Pelosi added, "I completely disagree with Lieberman. I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable."

    On June 22, 2006, Lieberman voted against two Democratic amendments to the annual defense appropriations bill, including S. 2766, which called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. S.2766 did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2006.

    After the War in Iraq started, Lieberman became the kind of Democrat that we don't need in our party... so we decided to get rid of him. It's too bad it didn't work.
     
  18. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Mistrust of Lieberman ? Then it needs to be applied even to Biden. Both individual's comments were essentially the same. Biden said his peace during the Democratic primary and he eventually was named VP running mate.

    Unfortunately what is sandbagging Obama is the economy itself. GM & ford posted huge quarterly losses. The stock market continues to drop and wavering under the economic uncertainty. Unemployment rate just went up. Obama may have won the Presidency, but he surely didn't win a prize in the state of things as they are. It's just a mess and if Bush's last few 2 1/2 months can absorb the brunt of it, at least that won't be on Obama, but the real issue, doesn't matter who gets credit for the collapse, it's still a collapse and has to be fixed.

    Obama stated we may not get there in a year or in a 1st term. I don't think we'll ever get there personally. Simply because if incomes go up, so does inflation, if they remain stagnant, inflation happens until we get into a recession and then the bailouts happen for the wealthiest. Just me but everything across the board needs to bottom out and the bailouts are holding that up. The wealthiest think all the money is theirs and when things have stagnated and they've had to drop prices to meet the real level of price and profit that today's income levels can buy, they feel they are giving it away. So it's all in the perspective. the poorer think they are finally paying a more reasonable price.
     
  19. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Funny how people on the right are calling the left hypocrites because they dislike Liberman, when they were calling Powell "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" when he sided with Obama a few weeks ago. Either way you look at it. It's hypocrisy. I don't personally care for Liberman to be honest with you. But call this what it is on BOTH ends and stop trying to look all high and mighty.
     
  20. Notaguru2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    We don't need that Shylock fuck... let the GOP have him. Fucking Judas...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted