Well, does this surprise anyone after all the controversy over Lieberman's independent run last year? On one hand, this might be the best thing politically to happen for the Democrats since there is no lock that some Republicans might join the then "minority" Democrats to try and stop Bush's plans in Iraq. What we're about to witness is the fracturing of the Republican Party over Bush's colossal strategic blunders in Iraq. With public sentiment on the side of the Democrats and those wanting a quick resolution to US involvement in Iraq, a strong stand by Republicans might cement any hopes of a Congressional rebound after the 2006 elections to be as unlikely as the Decider deciding to change his mind.

What really pisses me off is that Democrat and Republicans both pull this shit...

If the electorate votes you into office as a Dem or a Repub you should be required to wait until the next election and you should have to announce your change at least 90 days prior to the election date....


I don't care who does it...it's disinfranchising the voters by switching parties during their terms...

Lieberman is threatening to jump to the Republican side of the aisle, effectively turning control of the Senate over to the GOP.

Would that mean all the chairmanships return to the GOP?

Would that mean all the chairmanships return to the GOP?

Absolutely, if his was the only move made.

Would that mean all the chairmanships return to the GOP?

Posted by Bowa

Indeed

Lieberman future would be brightly lit by the burning bridges behind him.

Absolutely, if his was the only move made.

That would be quite major then. I doubt if there would be any other moves made. Switching parties is very rare. But Lieberman is an independent who was abandoned by his party so this wouldn't even come as much of a surprise if it happened.

Bowa...

As mentioned above, it would be highly likely that at minimally Susan Collins might switch as well. She's up for re-election in 2008, and Maine is strongly against this war.

The bottom line is this, and its something I said after the Connecticut primary as well:

Lieberman is a selfish, egomaniacal opportunist. The people of Connecticut had the opportunity to vote for a Republican candidate for Senate, yet he only received 10% of the vote. Joe is fully capable of overturning the expressed will of the American electorate because the majority doesn't agree with his neo-con stance on Iraq. Frankly, I'd rather see the Democrats try and persuade Collins to move over and to jetison Lieberman once and for all from the Party he's willing to stab in the back yet again. The Republicans can have his sorry ass as far as I'm concerned. Better now than later to find out his allegiance is to himself, and not to his constituency.

Let's get it correct He abandoned His Party His Party didn't abandon Him. Nice try yet again.

Larry

As mentioned above, it would be highly likely that at minimally Susan Collins might switch as well. She's up for re-election in 2008, and Maine is strongly against this war.

I wouldn't say "highly likely". But it could be a possibility. Has she ever mentioned she might switch parties?

Has she ever mentioned she might switch parties?

I don't think so, but don't you think she realizes that she's one of the ONLY Republican Congressmembers left from the Northeast? Her constituency is anti-war, and she has been a vocal critic of Bush's leadership on the issue as well. If Lieberman does switch, there would be pressure on her to do the same by her own constituency and to insure her re-election next year.

CNN 8/7/20
Words like morality and integrity, decency, are being used to describe Senator Lieberman today.

In addition to working closely with centrist Democrats, he's a man known reaching across partisan lines and working with Republicans.


WASHINGTON 8/20/2000 Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., issued the following statement today:

"Joe Lieberman is a great choice and will make a great Vice President. Senator Lieberman is well respected by members of both parties because he is an independent thinker and someone who builds bridges across the partisan divide in Washington. His selection makes it more likely the campaign will focus on issues because any attempt to link the Democratic ticket to the President's personal failings just won't fly."


So the Democratic vice presidential candidate on 2000, might actually switch party's. Ha. But we all know he is a corrupt, selfish, egomaniacal opportunist who changes his stance on issues based on the party line.

Often this blog you can see references to the willingness of the demorats to be 'independent thinkers' and 'not be suppressed by the party line'. Only party hacks would attempt to defend the democrats abandoning Lieberman. Now they will regret that decision. Harry, remember, what goes around, comes around... Haha!


Gosh if he just had the convictions of Hillary or Kerry, we might actually know where he stands on issues. He just doesn't lie well enough or have the nuance(e.g. BS) factor.

Just remember, he was a Democrat before he was an Independent.

Hey Dems. you're sounding more and more like brown shirt fascists - Joe Lieberman votes 99% with you but how dare he think otherwise when it comes to Iraq ... and so you run a candidate against him in the primaries and then when Lieberman beats you in the general you now think he owes you something ? WOW .. all that goose stepping must be causing brain damage.

You're just lucky he didn't bolt after some of the disgusting behavior from some of you that I posted from daily.kos.com I think its remarkable that you can treat someone like dirt and then be surprised when he doesn't feel welcome anymore. And I think its remarkable that you cannot accept any departure in position, even when apparently thats what Lieberman's consituency was OK with which is why they voted for him in the first place.

And Lerry FYI, the party abandoned him given his record. So convince yourself otherwise, but you're in denial.

Frankly, I doubt he'll do it, but he doesn't owe the Dem Party anything and lets just be clear-my former home, the great State of Connecticut voted for Joe ... Don't like it Dems? Well, I suppose that would be that new fascist streak you all seem to think is normal. Guess what? Your guy Lamont lost ... and that's just too bad. Suck it up and deal with it.

Hey Dems. you're sounding more and more like brown shirt fascists - Joe Lieberman votes 99% with you but how dare he think otherwise when it comes to Iraq


Funny the title of this thread is:

"Lieberman Threatens Switch Over Iraq"

GZ you suck up and deal with the fact your beloved Israel is a major problem child. I simply cannot understand why you haven't moved to Israel if you love it so much. Lieberman has sold out America for the Israeli interests. Hopefully the Connecticut voters run an electable candidate next time so Joe can get out of the senate and into a retirement home where he belongs. Your blind hatred of all things that does not benefit Israel oozes out of every post you make. You are a broken record with your posts of hate.

What's funny is if Lieberman switches after the war the rethugs will disown him and the Dems will hate him too. He won't get anything done with no allies.

Jesus, no one wants to discuss the morality of switching parties in the middle of one's term...

Joe's got his marching orders from AIPAC. The Dems aren't willing to send Americans to die in Iran for Israel's benefit, but the GOP would love to.
Ergo, Joementum says Israel first.
Of course, ther'll be no little Liebermans charging to the front.

GZ you suck up and deal with the fact your beloved Israel is a major problem child. I simply cannot understand why you haven't moved to Israel if you love it so much. Lieberman has sold out America for the Israeli interests. Hopefully the Connecticut voters run an electable candidate next time so Joe can get out of the senate and into a retirement home where he belongs. Your blind hatred of all things that does not benefit Israel oozes out of every post you make. You are a broken record with your posts of hate.

Posted by byrdman

he is the israeli version of al qaeda.

It should be illegal to switch parties between election cycles. if you want to switch, fine; then campaign for the other side in the re-election bid.

Unfortunately, CT voters will have to wait five more years to boot his sorry ass out of office.

"Lieberman is a selfish, egomaniacal opportunist."

Riiiiight. The voters of Connecticut had a choice between Lieberman and the top democrat in the state. They chose Lieberman. I'm so tired of seeing democrats whine, complain, and rip Lieberman just because their guy didn't win. That doesn't make Lieberman a bad guy, it makes him the guy that Connecticut citizens wanted. I'm sorry you hate democracy.

"I'm so tired of seeing democrats whine, complain, and rip Lieberman just because their guy didn't win."

Dems were ripping Lieberman way before "their guy didn't win." Try again.

Why doesn't Joe join the party he really wants to belong to:

The National Religious Party, once the voice of mainstream religious Zionism, has recently become the Orthodox Jewish mirror of the National Union among settlers.

If Lieberman goes to the republicans---GOOD. Give them control of the senate, and all responsibility for the war. They won't see a majority for another 40 years, and Lieberman will be a has-been and unemployed in 2012.

Joe...

Did Lieberman run as a Republican? Then what is he if he changes parties? The voters of Connecticut didn't elect a Republican representative, they elected an Independent who promised them that he'd caucus with the Democrats. No one forced Joe to make the statements that he did, so I refuse to apologize if he decides not to live up to his word.

If people changed parties over single issues like Lieberman is threatening to do, Congress couldn't operate as its supposed to. But its easier for you to bash those who disagree with Joe than to criticise his lack of character and honesty, isn't it?

SamBarber is right along with Sam Johnson and Howard Johnson....

DUH..

I can't make up my mind whether to change my screen name to Lili Von Shtupp or William J Le Petomane

"If people changed parties over single issues like Lieberman is threatening to do, Congress couldn't operate as its supposed to."

Why not?

I'm not saying that what Joe's threatening to do is proper, and I don't think he's going to do it. I find it ridiculous that many still complain about his re-election, but if that's not what you were doing, then my bad.

It should be a crime for a U.S. Senator to place the welfare of a foreign state about the interests of the United States of America. Joe obviously represents the interests of Israel before the interests of the US. I don't care if you are right or left, to me that is unAmerican.
I hope the morons in Connecticut who voted for him are proud.
I used to feel ashamed to be from Florida because of the 2000 election fiasco but now I think it would be worse to be from Connecticut.

DANNI

You're right....

Lieberman puts Israel's interests above those of the U.S.

does this suprise anyone -the dems tried to stick it to ol joe cause he wouldn't toe the party line-now joe has leverage how many things can he extort from dems-rep will reward him and get payback for jeffords
jasman

If people changed parties over single issues like Lieberman is threatening to do, Congress couldn't operate as its supposed to.

----

I disagree to a certain extent. It's the whole party affiliation that is the root problem. Each party expects its members to be lock step behind the party. Dissent is negatively looked upon and can have ramifications. Keep in mind that Lieberman was pretty much abandoned by his party over the war.

Politics now is all about serving the party instead of the people.

Joe...

The people of Connecticut spoke and I respect their decision. What I don't agree with is Joe running in the Democratic primary, losing, then undercutting his own constituent's candidate due to a loophole in Connecticut election law. The obvious correlation is that any losing primary candidate able to throw their hat into the general election ring can impact the outcome against their own party's interest in favor of their personal goals and agendas.

In my opinion, Joe was an opportunist, not a true Democrat who either wins or loses based upon his party's voters. While he has every right to do this, isn't it obvious why no other candidate chooses to undercut their party like he did the Democrats in Connecticut?

I don't think old Joe is going to get much from the Democrats because the stakes are too high. He can join the Republicans, he can help continue the war for profit, he can work for the Israeli lobby, but the Dems know that 2008 is coming and old Joe will be part of the eternal minority. The voters aren't going to forget the Iraq fiasco any time soon. It will become the badge of shame for all who continue to support the Lunatic in Chief.

Joe showed his true stripes when he held onto his Senate seat while running for VP, thereby risking having a Republican replacement had he won. He cares about Joe Lieberman, Israel, Connecticut, America....in that order.

Fuck Lieberman. If the Dems pick up some additional seats in the Senate in 08 they should dump him.

Of course, the ironic thing is that if Gore won, Lieberman may still be the Democratic VP of the US and might run for President in 08.

Instead, the almost Democratic VP is threatening to become a Republican.

While no party's leadership appreciates when members stray with their votes, it is not the same as changing the majority/minority status of the Senate over a single issue, no matter how important. Joe is free to vote his belief and conscious to his heart's content, but when he deviates from his promise to his constituency, then it goes beyond the pale, imo.

He is tacitly stating that his personal viewpoint is more important, enough so that he'll renege on his promises for the sake of trying to stop the wishes of the majority. This is a man who places his own importance above that of the body itself, and all the citizens each member represents. The Senatorial elections can be overturned by a single man with his own personal agenda. I don't believe anyone in America voted to give this much power to Joe Lieberman, and I doubt whether he would have been re-elected if he ran saying that this was his intent if he didn't get his way.

He is tacitly stating that his personal viewpoint is more important

----

I don't know about that. He was elected based on being pro-war so I would not think it's just his personal viewpoint. Now he ran as a Independent Democratic (meaning Independent but agreeing with most of the Democratic stances) and then switches to a Republican and then votes as a Republican on most issues, then that's wrong.

Personally, I think every politician has there own personal agenda as well.

Tony-

"undercutting his own constituent's candidate"

This is the type of criticism I think is stupid. He didn't "undercut his constituent's candidate." That candidate was still allowed to run. If the "constituents" wanted that candidate to win, they would have voted for him.

There are young women wearing tight short shorts and fake fur jackets, standing on street corners of SE Washington D.C. that have better morals than Joe Loserman.

Pirate...

While I understand what you are saying, I must take issue with some of the terminology. Iraq supporters/detractors have to be defined by more than just anti-war/pro-war monikers. Hopefully, none of us is "pro-war," at least in reference to war being a last resort and not a first option.

Secondly, opposition to continuing this war transcends just being against war itself. Most people are against continuing the same failed policies which are draining our coffers and killing and wounding our citizens because we now realize that centuries of ethnic distrust and hatred cannot be quelled by the US military unless we choose to stay and occupy Iraq for untold years, if not decades.

We are choosing sides in a sectarian war, and our interests will most certainly lose regardless which bad option we pick next. This war was lost years ago due to the incompetence and corruption of the post-war process and occupation. These mistakes are incorrectable in the present, as most now see.

Lieberman was a supporter of Bush, but during his campaign, he criticized Bush's actions regarding the policies in Iraq. Now, when Bush is continuing to do the very same things, he no longer understands this nation's discontent? I say that Joe merely stated what he knew the people wanted to hear, precisely because he lost the Democratic primary almost exclusively on the war issue.

I do not think its a stretch to say the majority of Connecticut voters are not happy with Bush's direction on Iraq. If Joe decides to turn his back on this constituency, then what else is he doing but putting his own beliefs over those of the voters?

Joe...

I wouldn't call it "stupid," it happens to be the law in every other state. Why have primary elections if everyone is still going to run in the general election as well?

While the argument could be made that open general elections could negate the influence of parties, can't you see all the money spend by the primary candidate, and all efforts of commitment to Lamont was simply wasted if his opponent refuses to join in backing him for the general election? The primary is to CHOOSE the party candidate for the general election. If you seek the party nomination, then you should abide by the will of the primary voters, not ignore them for one's own personal gains against the very apparatus that provided him the same courtesy for multiple Senate terms without anyone doing it to him when they lost.

Joe, I think you are right he won't do it because he likes the position he is in now. Why play the trump card now? He is just going to keep on saying this stuff in an attempt to keep the dems from bringing forth any kind of legislation that would hamper our invasion in Iraq.

Joe showed his true stripes when he held onto his Senate seat while running for VP, thereby risking having a Republican replacement had he won.
Yeah, he should have done like Gore, Kerry and Edwards and resign from the Senate! Oh, my mistake, they didn't resign did they.

Danni be sure and never let the facts get in the way of your hate!

"can't you see all the money spend by the primary candidate, and all efforts of commitment to Lamont was simply wasted"

I won't be losing sleep over that. I'm not really in a position where I can relate to the multi-millionaires who "waste" money on political campaigns.

"If you seek the party nomination, then you should abide by the will of the primary voters"

He did abide by their will. He ceased running as a Democrat as he was not chosen by Democrats to represent Connecticut. He was then chosen by a majority of Connecticut citizens to represent them as an independent. Maybe all the independents in CT showed up to vote. Why do you care?

Well it's not like we all didn't see this coming. I don't know why the people of Connecticut didn't though. Well they voted for him, so now they're stuck with a Republican senator for the next 5 years.

This will make for two years of solid gridlock in Congress. The House isn't going to pass much that a GOP senate will vote for. I'm not that oppsed to it though. Anything that makes it through should be relatively earmark free.

But the GOP had better figure out how to end the war. Cause if it's still going in '08, ten GOP senators are getting pink slips.

then what else is he doing but putting his own beliefs over those of the voters?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-02-23 01:43 PM

Tony,
As opposed to sticking his political finger in the wind? Was he elected to vote based on polls? Are you denying the fact Senators represent the entire Country? Not just the State they represent?

Slickster...

Edwards DID choose to resign and not re-seek his Senate seat. Don't let facts get in the way of your insolence and partisan vitriole!

Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is an Independent. He does not have to switch parties, he just has to stop supporting Harry Reid as Majority Leader.

all efforts of commitment to Lamont was simply wasted

Yes, and only a few were smart enough to predict that would happen. Unfortunatly for the Bush haters, it wasn't the demorats!

If you seek the party nomination, then you should abide by the will of the primary voters, not ignore them for one's own personal gains against the very apparatus that provided him the same courtesy for multiple Senate terms without anyone doing it to him when they lost.
He simply ran on another ticket. No one was required to vote for him. The primary's to select a party's candidate. After he was rejected by extremist in the party, the polls clearly indicated his opponent had no chance of winning, so he made a smart political move. Mr Lamount was made the fool, like the democratic organization in CT, and the rest is history.

Sort of reminds you of what Pero did to Bush in 1992 doesn't it.

Are you denying the fact Senators represent the entire Country? Not just the State they represent?

They represent the constituency that elects them. They create legislation which impacts the entire country, but they do it one vote at a time, majority wins. While they most certainly should put the nation's interests ahead of parochial issues, does this ever happen 100% of the time? Of course not.

Have you ever heard the term "all politics is local"?

Anything that makes it through should be relatively earmark free.


Posted by Norm_ at 2007-02-23 02:02 PM

Based on what? They have already fooled you by backtracking on the current earmarks saying "No new earmarks" "But the ones in place well....."

They have not had control since the early 90's and you think they are going to throw away an opportunity to put an aquarium in the middle of Iowa?

Edwards was a trial lawyer before entering politics. He defeated incumbent Republican Lauch Faircloth in North Carolina's 1998 Senate election and during his six-year term sought the Democratic nomination in the 2004 presidential election

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American politician, teacher, businessman, and environmentalist who was the 45th Vice President of the United States in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001. Previously, he had served in the United States House of Representatives (1977-85) and the United States Senate (1985-93) for Tennessee.

Yeah, he should have done like Gore, Kerry and Edwards and resign from the Senate! Oh, my mistake, they didn't resign did they.

Danni be sure and never let the facts get in the way of your hate!

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-02-23 01:54 PM

1 out of 3 isn't bad.

Hey Dems. you're sounding more and more like brown shirt fascists - Joe Lieberman votes 99% with you but how dare he think otherwise when it comes to Iraq ... and so you run a candidate against him in the primaries and then when Lieberman beats you in the general you now think he owes you something ? WOW .. all that goose stepping must be causing brain damage.

Posted by GZlives at 2007-02-23 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

But when the Repubs call one of thier own a 'RINO', it's ok, right?

BTW, where do you get 'fascism' out of this story?

Do you know what the term even means? Look it up, becuse your delusions are painting you as a simpleton.

Have you ever heard the term "all politics is local"?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-02-23 02:07 PM

You must mean when they build a bridge to nowhere? How do you consider that local Tony?????

The voters of Connecticut had a choice between Lieberman and the top democrat in the state. They chose Lieberman. I'm so tired of seeing democrats whine, complain, and rip Lieberman just because their guy didn't win. That doesn't make Lieberman a bad guy, it makes him the guy that Connecticut citizens wanted. I'm sorry you hate democracy.

Posted by JOE at 2007-02-23 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Joe,

How does not liking an elected official equate to 'hating democracy'??

I haven't seen anyone say that he should have to leave or resign. People are just saying they don't like him.

If that's the game you want to play, then you have no basis to attack Pelosi. Afterall, she was democratically elected. You see my point?

Democracy is about that very idea. The ability to voice discontent is at the very heart of it all.

"The Merchant of Venice" keeps on running throughy my mind. In his attempt to collect his "pound of flesh" Joe has become overzealous and it could end up backfiring for him. Could you imagine if he switches to the reps. and then one of the senators from Maine switched to an independant or dem...oh the irony.

You must mean when they build a bridge to nowhere? How do you consider that local Tony?????

Oh, you're referring to the Republican member that earmarked the bridge for Alaska? If that isn't local, I don't know what is!

Crispee, the term means that representatives will always look out for their own backyard first, regardless of party. Its about bringing home the bacon....

Oh, you're referring to the Republican member that earmarked the bridge for Alaska? If that isn't local, I don't know what is!


I thought the "Big Dig" was in Boston?
14.6 billion. Makes the Alaska project look like an exit ramp!

"How does not liking an elected official equate to 'hating democracy'??"

Well there's a mischaracterization of my position. What I argued is that people who call Lieberman "selfish" and claim that he "overrode the will of CT voters" completely miss the point that the voters selected him. The only people trying to override the will of the voters are those that think Lieberman shouldn't have won.

"If that's the game you want to play, then you have no basis to attack Pelosi."

I've never attacked Nancy Pelosi. What a stupid post you've offered. Nothing but a bunch of strawmen and nonsense.


TONYROMA,

No response to my 2:01?

tonyroma
apparently the people in ol joes state vote for the man not the party they had 3 choices and choose him-now some say he has betrayed the dems -why cause he would not stay buried in the grave they dug for him -they say we don't want you but stay loyal to us-he someone who stays true to what he believes of course we can't have politicians who do that
jasman

YEAH! Heard old senator Deputy Dog yesterday on my commute home ---- the guy's voice is like a tranquilizer! I felt like I needed a cup of coffee after listening to him leak air for just a few minutes!

I thought the "Big Dig" was in Boston?

Oh, you mean the state that Mitt Romney used to be governor of, that Boston?

The only people trying to override the will of the voters are those that think Lieberman shouldn't have won.
No response to my 2:01?

No one is trying to override the will of the voters. I just find it extremely selfish for Joe Lieberman not to extend the same allegiance to the Democratic Party's nomminee for the Senate from Connecticut that his past opponents did for him when they didn't run as independents in the general election when he won 6 times.

That takes care of both questions.

Oh, you're referring to the Republican member that earmarked the bridge for Alaska? If that isn't local, I don't know what is!

Crispee, the term means that representatives will always look out for their own backyard first, regardless of party. Its about bringing home the bacon....

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-02-23 02:18 PM

I was speaking of the fact when the Senate votes on a bill, it has national implications. So if a Senator decides to vote against the majority of his States will because he or she feels it is in the national interest, that somehow they are now considered traitors? Or deserve to be crtiicized?

Way to slip in another Republican dig. As though you really believe the Dems have never done the same. I was well aware of what party proposed the bridge. Just as I am aware the otherside negotiated a similar bill when they voted yes.
But just because there is an 'R' you voice your discontent.

Rednectville,
YEAH! Heard old senator Deputy Dog yesterday on my commute home ---- the guy's voice is like a tranquilizer! I felt like I needed a cup of coffee after listening to him leak air for just a few minutes!
He is a graduate of the Kerry/Gore school of dynamic speaking.

I was speaking of the fact when the Senate votes on a bill, it has national implications. So if a Senator decides to vote against the majority of his States will because he or she feels it is in the national interest, that somehow they are now considered traitors? Or deserve to be crtiicized?

Some bills have national implications and others don't. I have not called anyone a traitor, and if you go back and read, my opposition is to Lieberman threatening to change parties, not on voting to continue the war. Big difference in my book.

Of course, pork barrell politics is universal. But which party has controlled Congress for the last decade and which was the minority? Do you really think the Republican majority would have allowed the "bridge" expenditure if the bridge was in Watts, and not Alaska?

Do you really think the Republican majority would have allowed the "bridge" expenditure if the bridge was in Watts, and not Alaska?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-02-23 02:43 PM

If they were assured a similar "bridge" for them if they voted yes. No doubt in my mind they would. Which is what my point has been. It doesn't matter what comes after their name. I,R,D... You on the other hand tend to post with a slant against anything from the right.

He is a graduate of the Kerry/Gore school of dynamic speaking.
Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-02-23 02:36 PM

YEAH! I was referring to his tenor, but since you brought up "dynamic speaking" skillz!.

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
"And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table." --George W. Bush, interview on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Jan. 16, 2007
"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." --George W. Bush, Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007
"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006 (Watch video clip)

"It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" --George W. Bush, after being asked by a reporter whether he's in denial about Iraq, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006
"And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it, and our guest read it." --George W. Bush, on the Baker-Hamilton Report, appearing with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

Do you really think the Republican majority would have allowed the "bridge" expenditure if the bridge was in Watts, and not Alaska?

See my previous reference to the $14.6 billion dollar "Big Dig" in Boston.

YEAH! I was referring to his tenor, but since you brought up "dynamic speaking" skillz!.

haha!

I think Bush attended the Teddy Kennedy school of public speaking. Take a couple of drinks and start rambling. Bush hasn't learned how to turn his face red and spit was well as Teddy.

Which is what my point has been. It doesn't matter what comes after their name. I,R,D...
Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-02-23 02:50 PM
YEAH!

Was that a pre November or post November "point"?

I seem to remember that before November, anything not with an R flowing it was an invitation to instant invasion and certain death by beheading!

Enough already. I hope he switches soon so I no longer have to read his egomaniacal quotes about his "conscience" and "integrity."

A Lieberman switch would not necessarily be bad news long term for Democrats.

In the short run, the Senate is delivered into the hands of Mitch McConnell. All things Iraq will be bottled up and the pro-Bush lock-step will be restored.

But there are a number of incumbent GOP Senators vulnerable in 2008. What better way to stir up enthusiasm for ousting them than to have the Senate under a narrow GOP-control based on support of current Bush-Cheney Iraq policy?

"A Lieberman switch would not necessarily be bad news long term for Democrats."

True. Then drudge lefties could continue to blame every corporate failure on the "Republican-controlled Congress."

I think Bush attended the Teddy Kennedy school of public speaking. Take a couple of drinks and start rambling. Bush hasn't learned how to turn his face red and spit was well as Teddy.
Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-02-23 02:55 PM


YEAH! I agree, Bush still hasn't figured out how not too swallows his own vomit!

Did Lieberman run as a Republican? Then what is he if he changes parties? The voters of Connecticut didn't elect a Republican representative, they elected an Independent who promised them that he'd caucus with the Democrats.- Tonyroma

Promises, promises.

If more "anti war" Senators like Hillary had worked to get Lamont elected....

Joe probably wants McCain to pick him as his running mate.

"True. Then drudge lefties could continue to blame every corporate failure on the "Republican-controlled Congress." Posted by Joe

No - just Iraq.

All things Iraq will be bottled up and the pro-Bush lock-step will be restored.

Ah the Nazi referece to "lock-step".

So, Lieberman, doesn't follow the party line and his 'friends' in the Demorat party turn on him. So FDR, which party is demanding the "lock-step"?

You idiot!

So, Lieberman, doesn't follow the party line and his 'friends' in the Demorat party turn on him.

Can you read the title of this thread?

Lieberman Threatens Party Switch

Where is the party "turning" on Joe? Joe is turning on the Democratic Party AGAIN, as he did after his loss in the primary, which is precisely no surprise whatsoever!

Where is the party "turning" on Joe? Joe is turning on the Democratic Party AGAIN, as he did after his loss in the primary, which is precisely no surprise whatsoever!
They turned on him during the 2006 elections when he refused to walk "lock step" with the anti war movement. Its that simple Tony.

Where is the party "turning" on Joe? Joe is turning on the Democratic Party AGAIN, as he did after his loss in the primary, which is precisely no surprise whatsoever!

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-02-23 03:16 PM |

How did he turn on his party? Because of one single issue? He is not allowed to have a different view? I for one respect someone like Joe who right or wrong stuck by his Iraq vote. As opposed to his chickenshit party who are one by one running away from their yes vote and blaming everyone and everything for their choice 4 years later.

"I for one respect someone like Joe who right or wrong stuck by his Iraq vote"

Good old right wing mentality, so what if I am wrong as long as I kill everyone in the process.

Oh-c.....you are pathetic, regardless if it makes sense or not, so long as you stick to your guns, that's what really matters? Not truth, integrity, or morality? Way to continue to promote the Right wing religous idealogy.

Bye.
Are you STILL here?
Bye.

This would be SO FUNNY.

Not truth, integrity, or morality? Way to continue to promote the Right wing religous idealogy.
A liberal_mongrel I know believes: Its only truth when he agrees with it. The only inegrity is that which benefits confirms/supports his truth. The only morality is 'what feels good at the moment' and supports his truth. Otherwise he labels thought as right wing religous ideaology.

Not truth, integrity, or morality?

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2007-02-23 03:33 PM

Three areas you and the left no nothing about. The fact Joe is sticking to his vote shows truth, integrity and morality. I can see how you are confused. What is the saying? "Liberalism is a mental disease." Must suck to be ugly and mental. Hence the name Liberal Mongrel.

He's been avocal critic of Bush when he was campaigning last fall.
Which gives him more integrity. He believes in the mission, but does not walk lock step in the prosecution of the war. Nice post Tony!

The Senatorial elections can be overturned by a single man with his own personal agenda.
Tony see Nancy Pelosi. Who voted her "Queen". Why does she set the agenda? This is the way it works. There has to be some order.

But...One more reason why the general election of Senators was a bad idea! The constitution calls for Senators to represent the States and not be subject to the popular trends. But the politicans recognized how easily they could control the population via 'transfers of wealth' and so they granted themselves the power to bribe the people with 'ear marks'.

I don't see how anyone who is not a socialist could be in the so-called democratic party. It sure as hell is not my daddy's party any longer.
Maybe Joe sees this as an independent and can get to message to the former dems that their party has been hijacked by socialists.
Who do you think voted for him?

Tony how does your post from Andy Sullivan(btw is he an American) differ from what happens every day to the police officers in this country?

Time to pull out of the inner city quagmires?

The Disillusioned DEMOCRATS put Joe in office, not the INDEPENDENTS. I really respect him and the people who voted for him. They stood on their beliefs. I can't
respect those who change with the political wind. He would not compromise has core values for the rotten Clintonistas.

Lieberman, what a shifty guy.

The Disillusioned DEMOCRATS put Joe in office, not the INDEPENDENTS

Bullshit!!! Republicans and Independants elected Joe. Lamont carried the majority of Democrats with ease. The Republican candidate only received 10% of the vote, so even a pinhead can figure out the rest!

it's really true that if you held an election tomorrow and you asked every single Iraqi, are you -- would you do it again? Would you have the U.S. do it again? You'd have close to 80 percent of the population, which is the Shiites and the Kurds, saying yes, they should."

What a completely worthless factoid!!! Of course Iraqis wouldn't want Saddam back. The Shiites were oppressed, along with the Kurds. They both have power and autonomy, so why would they want a Sunni strongman back in power? That still doesn't mean that what's left is better for the interests of America and others in the ME, does it?

"Three areas you and the left no nothing about. The fact Joe is sticking to his vote shows truth, integrity and morality. I can see how you are confused. What is the saying? "Liberalism is a mental disease." Must suck to be ugly and mental. Hence the name Liberal Mongrel"

Who lied about teh war, the left or right?

Who doesn't care if innocent people are killed as long as they stick to their guns??

I do remeber teh quote on liberalism, it goes like this

Aristotle "Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."

Crawl back into your darkhole crispee critter, your Lies don't work out here.

I said it right after the election and will say it again:

Joe Lieberman is the most powerful man in the Senate since he has the ability to switch parties and thereby shift control of the majority. He won't do it (because then he loses his power), but the mere threat of it will put fear and loathing into the Democrats. The power to destroy something gives a huge amount of control, and Joe is loving every second of it.

The Dems created this situation by backing Lamont, but the people of Connecticut saw right through it and re-elected him anyway.

"A liberal_mongrel I know believes: Its only truth when he agrees with it. The only inegrity is that which benefits confirms/supports his truth. The only morality is 'what feels good at the moment' and supports his truth. Otherwise he labels thought as right wing religous ideaology"

When soemone says it dosn't matter about right or wrong, how can you question truth, oh yes I have seen your posts, LittleWilly, teh Rush puppetboy.

Truth is truth, no matter who it benefits. Morality is not found in ONE book, Integrity is something that is earned not given.

LittleWilly I am sorry you support a failure and can't admit teh lies your party promotes, but stick to the truth not your assumptions of someone you DON'T know.

Kennedy...but before his murder he was planning for a way to get out of Vietnam.

Even though there is no evidence, other than claims/writings by anti war activist after his death!

Kennedy's quotes:
1961 as vietnam was heating up!

"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "


"To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right."

Who lied about teh war, the left or right?

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2007-02-23 04:24 PM

Okay, tell me if these were lies:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Slickster...

While Kennedy certainly was behind the people longing to remain free, he likely wouldn't have sacrificed American lives for the corrupt government of South Vietnam beyond a limited point. One can have deep-seated principles while still recognizing the ineptitude of others that will derail your plans in the longrun. This type of vision is sorely lacking from our current President and in those he listened to as he continually digs a deeper and deeper hole trying to reach the sky.

Righto...

Give it a rest. Aren't you over reposting the same misinformation time and time again? We can't go back, but we must move forward. None of those words mean a tinker's damn on what is happening now and on what will happen tomorrow. Move on....

Tony-

Lib is asking who lied, which is a really difficult question given the history of statements from both sides of the aisle. I personally have never posted these quotes, but it seemed particularly appropriate given the question posited.

Who lied about teh war, the left or right?
What is the current "war" lie of the week? Or are we still on the one that says: "Bush is a idiot. But he was able to trick all of the Senators and house respresentatives into voting for a war that created to help his rich friend get richer"


Who doesn't care if innocent people are killed as long as they stick to their guns?

Those that target the innocent with car bombs and those that fly airplanes into buildings!

I do remeber teh quote on liberalism, it goes like this

Aristotle "Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."

I remember a quote on liberalism, it goes like this

Churchill(not Ward) "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

"The voicemail for Sen. Lieberman is full!"

Imaging THAT.