Letters to the Editor
-
Can we get rid of both these guys next go-around?
How soon before they're up for re-election again? How likely is it creditable primary challengers can be recruited?
-
Agreed...
I really don't understand how Harry Reid is a Democrat, or a liberal, or whatever he claims to be. I think somebody has dirt on him, or somebody paid him off somehow. Seriously. There is no other explanation for his positions.
Same with Dianne Feinstein. She's a Dem but she keeps voting like a right-winger. At least with Feinstein there's tangible evidence of her many conflicts of interest, in which her votes directly benefit the business interests of her husband.
What's Reid's excuse? Anybody have any idea?
Speaking of Reid's appearance on "The Daily Show," what was wrong with him? Was he on sedatives? He seemed bizarrely soft-spoken and yet defensive, like he was going to snap at any moment. Or maybe I read in too much. But about 95% of the interview consisted of Jon Stewart awkwardly asking questions just to get Reid to speak.
-
Xrandadu Hutman
Speaking of Reid's appearance on "The Daily Show," what was wrong with him? Was he on sedatives? He seemed bizarrely soft-spoken and yet defensive, like he was going to snap at any moment. Or maybe I read in too much. But about 95% of the interview consisted of Jon Stewart awkwardly asking questions just to get Reid to speak.
Reid's behavior was so bizarre. It actually made the whole thing really uncomfortable to watch. From the start, it was almost like he was in this catatonic state, almost unable to move or speak -- an excellent expression of Democratic Congressional leadership over the past 18 months. And he was there to promote his book: "The Good Fight."
-
Thank God!
Thank God the Democrats control Congress. Imagine all the terrible things that would be happening if they didn't!
-
One obvious point has to be raised here...
Reid is not stupid. This entire shenanigan may be what you claim, Glenn. That Reid is either "lying" or these things "...just don't exist" is a false dichotomy. The truth of the matter is, that without Lieberman caucusing with Dems, they're 1-seat majority in the Senate would be no longer. You would then have co-chairs of every committee, with Republicans arguing that since Cheyney is the tiebreaker, they should have the majority leader and all committee chairs. And telco amnesty would be a slam dunk under those circumstances.
I'm not a big fan of Reid, especially when it comes to Lieberman, Iraq, FISA, and the like. But I think you have to at least leave open the option that his public statements are nothing more than an attempt to placate Lieberman, until the Dems have a more solid majority in the upper chamber.
-
Hurricane Katrina Investigation
And then there was the investigation into the handling (or lack thereof) of Hurricane Katrina that Lieberman blocked.
I also was thrown by how painfully awkward Reid's appearance was.
-
bush is not a freak!
he represents america, more than half of whom would have been comfortable in nazi germany. dubya's grandfather, after all, was more than comfortable with the nazis, he went to jail for them.
that's why dubya was elected twice, you know: mainstream america backs the patriot act. so naturally, pollies who wish to prosper are unfazed by repressive laws. why do you complain about pollies earning their living?
if you were honest, you would castigate the people who vote for these pollies, but you and the pollies alike are pandering to the cattle. not a smidgen of difference, really, you both do it for the money.
-
Another Reason To Bounce Holy Joe
If you're from Connecticut, the most compelling reason for Lieberman's ouster from the party is his shameless deception during the 2006 campaign. Although "the surge" had not yet been proposed, Lieberman pre-emptively and expressly opposed it in the 10 Point Plan for Iraq he unveiled in late September 2006. It was only 5 days after the election when he appeared on Meet The Press and began musing about the necessity of sending more troops to Iraq. It was only 8 days when he urged Abizaid to seek authority to send more troops to Iraq, even though Abizaid was stubbornly insisting that the deployment of more troops to Iraq would be counterproductive. And it was less than one month after the election when Lieberman appeared on Face The Nation and definitively called for more troops in Iraq.
LIeberman's about face so quickly after the election left no doubt that he had knowingly deceived voters in Connecticut. This was the most important issue in the campaign and the most important issue of Lieberman's political career. And he lied.
-
Awklib
Reid is not stupid. This entire shenanigan may be what you claim, Glenn. That Reid is either "lying" or these things "...just don't exist" is a false dichotomy. The truth of the matter is, that without Lieberman caucusing with Dems, they're 1-seat majority in the Senate would be no longer.
Reid's statement is factually false. All you're doing is saying that he has a good reason for making it (that he wants to placate Lieberman). Making a knowingly false statement with a good motive is still lying. When someone makes a factually false statement, there are only 2 possibilities -- they mistaken (because they don't realize it's false) or they're lying (because they realize it's false and say it anyway)/
You would then have co-chairs of every committee, with Republicans arguing that since Cheyney is the tiebreaker, they should have the majority leader and all committee chairs. And telco amnesty would be a slam dunk under those circumstances.
Actually, telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping already passed the Senate by a wide margin with Harry Reid as the Majority Leader. The attempt to restore habeas corpus failed. Every attempt to limit the war has failed, too.
What would be different exactly under the scenario that you describe?
I'm not a big fan of Reid, especially when it comes to Lieberman, Iraq, FISA, and the like. But I think you have to at least leave open the option that his public statements are nothing more than an attempt to placate Lieberman, until the Dems have a more solid majority in the upper chamber.
I'm not expressing any opinion at all here on whether the Democrats should eject Lieberman from their caucus. I'm simply observing that Reid's statement that Lieberman votes with them on everything except the war is false. And I really don't think Reid is aware that this is false. I think he sees the non-war issues where Lieberman votes with the GOP as irrelevant.