Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Kicking Lieberman out may feel good, but keeping him in ensures one more vote on important issues. His humiliation will be private, not public, but he is now in a very different situation than a few months ago.-- azathoth
Right. That how we, as a society, should deal with murderers and rapists and thieves and liars. We should just humiliate them in private but allow them to continue murdering and raping and thieving and telling lies in public for the sake of 'keeping the peace'. No sense in doing something like removing the cancer just so we can "feel good". WTF are you talking about?
From what I understand Obama merely said that he wanted Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats. He never expressed his opinion on whether or not he should keep his chairmanship. And you have to think of the alternative - could Lieberman do more or less good on the other side of the aisle? Which would be the worst scenario for the Democrats? If the worst scenario is having him bolt, then they would probably want to look out for their own self-interest, which, yes, appears wimpish, but is likely better than the alternative.
Also, I read yesterday that Lieberman has a disapproval rating of over 60% in his home state of Connecticut. If this man gets re-elected once again, then I think the problem lies with his constituents, not in the Senate!
one of them is not to see this line again:
"meet the new boss; same as the old boss" and all its variations.
How many times did Barack Obama utter the word "Change" during the campaign? "Change is coming to Washington" he boomed from every podium and microphone put before him. "We have to fundamentally change the way Washington works" came the salivating-inducing words to the ears of those sick of the same old BS.
So what is Obama doing so far?
1) Hiring the same old crew of beltway insiders (including some lobbyists!) who represent every last fiber of "status quo" in terms of the same hands and influences on the levers of power.
2) On the verge of appointing one of the ultimate insiders Secretary of State who, along with her husband, have numerous financial and insider-influence conflicts of interest.
3) Refusing to support the removal of one of the biggest traitors in Democratic caucus history who actively campaigned for the other guy non-stop during the campaign.
4) Absolutely no inclination (at least publicly or otherwise) to hold war criminals and felony-committing officials accountable for the despicable things they've done to this country and its reputation.
These pale in comparison, of course, to his utter betrayal of his base and his Constitutional background with regard to the FISA amendments.
So far, I have seen absolutely nothing which gives me any confidence that Obama is going to be anything remotely close to "The Change We Can Believe In." All I see is the calculating, triangulating politician that's been whispered in our tightly covered ears all along.
Awesome. Yea. Woo hoo.
Perhaps "The Change We Can Believe In" that Obama endlessly repeated like an endless VCR tape was really referring to a new series of coins from the US Mint. I just wish he'd held up a few of the prototypes during his speeches so we knew what he was really talking about.
I provided numerous examples in what I just wrote of how flagrantly untrue this claim is. I documented the extreme, virtually complete, agreement among the parties over the last eight years on most of the most consequential matters.
What you described is not bi-partisanship, as I understand that idea. Yes, the Congressional Democrats have been spineless, roundheeled appeasers of the Bush Administration. But, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that was NOT because that because they truly wanted to work together and seek common ground with Republicans. It was because the Democrats calculated -- correctly, as it turns out -- that refusing to confront Bush was the best way to achieve political market dominance. In fact, the nastiness and bickering and backstabbing proceeded apace through the Bush years. The Democrats were simply cowed because they were absolutely terrified of getting blamed for another terrorist attack (or the loss of the Iraq War; ironic, since it was lost before it began).
The truth is: Having people fight with each other is good entertainment. And where there is good entertainment, there is a lot of money to be made. Political partisanship is a big business. That doesn't make it a good thing for democracy.
(I hope these comments meet your exacting standards.)
I can't find one example of Republicans compromising to give Dems what they want.
Yet Dems are all too willing to sell out their constituents.
Say what you will about the Republicans.....at least they deliver to their base.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
And at sig.
I posted this earlier in the year during the primary season (was that even this year? Shit!). If you want to see the reality behind the change motto, this will do it. Its a great article written last year about Obama's evolution from a Palestinian supporting progressive local politician, to the calculating machine you see today.
whether it was facing them down over the federal budget or refusing to discriminate against gays.
And you see how the Democratic Party repaid him.
The Dems have been running scared since Reagan, long before 911.
Wouldn't "bipartisanship" mean that at least sometimes, the Democrats get what they want and the Republicans help them get it? Can you point me to even a single instance of that actually happening?
I think that if Democrats support X enough times, then the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that they support X because that is what they want.
I used to subscribe to the idea that Democratic Congressional leaders wished that they could oppose Bush policies but didn't out of fear. By and large -- with some exceptions -- I don't think that's true. I think they failed to oppose Bush policies because they support those policies.
Either way, when the two parties support the same positions and act in harmony, that is the very definition of "bipartisanship," regardless of what is motivating it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
