Remove Lieberman from ALL Domestic Security and National Security Roles

-

lieberman.jpg
Joe Lieberman wants to keep his status and committees and caucus with the Democrats. He has been a fear-monger and someone who has promoted a dangerous, reckless false choice between American relations with Israel and other parts of the Middle East. He is a devout neoconservative who has been a key enabler of many of the most nefarious groups that promoted the Iraq War and who want a series of new wars in the region.
But more than that, he strongly supported someone a heartbeat away from the presidency who knew virtually nothing about America’s place in the world, who knew nothing of American history and its leaders and conventions and founders.
Lieberman is dangerous on so many levels — and he has not apologized for any of his positions or offered any explanation that should make Americans feel comfortable with this Senator in the next four years as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
If Dems would like to keep Joe Lieberman in the caucus, give him responsibility for education policy, telecom policy, health care — but the price for the Dems keeping this fearmonger is that he be removed from any position with key responsibility for national security or domestic security matters.
It is useful to refresh the memory of what Joe Lieberman said about Sarah Palin, on stage with her, and what he remained on stage listening to as Sarah Palin talked about “Barack Obama’s terrorist friends. . .”
This from TNR‘s Michael Crowley:

It was jarring, however, to hear Lieberman’s full-throated endorsement of Sarah Palin, a woman with whom he has no prior relationship, and whose policy credentials you have to think the wonky 20-year Senator would find suspect in any other context.
“She’s so strong, she’s so capable, she’s so competent,” Lieberman told the cheering crowd. Emphasizing her “faith,” he added that she is someone who “with your help–and God’s help–will be the next vice president of the United States.” More big cheers.
The religiousity continued when Palin bounded onstage. She commented right away on the number of American flags in the crowd, declaring: “God bless America–you guys get it!”
And then it was on with the attacks on Obama: “There are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are some candidates, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change,” Palin said. She went on to reiterate charges that Obama is friendly with terrorists (Bill Ayers), wants America to lose in Iraq, and smears US troops in Afghanistan.

More later.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

76 comments on “Remove Lieberman from ALL Domestic Security and National Security Roles

  1. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    With the party bosses on Joe’s side, it will be very difficult to get another viable candidate to challenge him for the seat. Dodd and many others are Joe’s friends…he doesn;t have enemies in the party…that’s the problem, Only if Joe chooses not to run in 2012 will another Dem with a career in politics make the run. Ned Lamont is not a really viable candidate. If Joe keeps his chairmanship, he could even try to be nominated and the same lame excuses for keeping him will appply. My inside source in the DNC tells me that Joe is dead meat in 2012…we shall see.
    Thanks for calling Dodd, Kohl, Durbin…what is it that didn’t impress them??? Are they so determined to help Joe they don’t care what you think?
    Meanwhile, back in the Beltway, this from the Obama Trasition Team
    Press Release From President-elect Obama
    Obama-Biden Transition Team Announces Agency Review Team Leads for Departments of Treasury, State and Defense
    Obama-Biden Transition Team Announces Agency Review Team Leads for Departments of Treasury, State and Defense
    Obama Transition Press Office, 202-540-3483
    WASHINGTON – The Obama-Biden Transition Team today announced the Agency Review Team leads for the Department of Treasury, Department of State, and Department of Defense. The Obama-Biden Transition Team also announced the Agency Review Team co-chairs, who will oversee the entire review process, as well as the Agency Review Working Group, which will manage and review the Teams’ work and coordinate with other transition teams, including those handling personnel, policy and the budget.
    The Agency Review Teams will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government, as well as the White House, to provide the President-elect, Vice President-elect, and key advisers with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration. The Teams will begin their efforts by the end of the week, and will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in.
    Department of the Treasury Agency Review Team Leads
    Josh Gotbaum currently serves as an advisor to investment funds, with a special focus on restructurings and management turnaround. He was startup CEO of The September 11th Fund, a charity that serves people, businesses and non-profits. From 1994-2001, Josh held Senate-confirmed positions in Treasury, Defense, and OMB. From 1981-94, he was an investment banker, working on mergers and restructuring in North America and Europe. His clients included major corporations, unions, and government. He also has worked in the White House and at the Department of Energy.
    Michael Warren is the Chief Operating Officer of Stonebridge International LLC. He also is on the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Retirement Board, Catalist, the DC Minority Business Enterprise Center Advisory Board, Southeastern University’s Center for Entrepreneurship, Civitas, Riptopia, and the National Child Research Center. Mr. Warren previously worked at McKinsey & Company, both as a strategic consultant in the technology and financial institutions industries and as a fellow of the McKinsey Global Institute. Mr. Warren served within the White House as Executive Director of the President’s National Economic Council.
    Department of State Agency Review Team Leads
    Tom Donilon is a partner at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers and serves on the firm’s global governing committee. Tom served as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of State during the Clinton Administration. Since leaving the Department he has remained deeply involved in the national security arena. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Strategy Group, the National Security Advisory Group to the Congressional Leadership, the Brookings Institution Board of Trustees, the Miller Center of Public Affairs Governing Council, and the Trilateral Commission.
    Wendy R. Sherman is a Principal of The Albright Group LLC and of Albright Capital Management LLC. Ambassador Sherman served as Counselor and chief troubleshooter for the State Department, as well as Special Advisor to President Clinton and Policy Coordinator on North Korea. Sherman is a recognized expert on national security issues and serves as a frequent analyst in major news outlets. She was recently appointed by Congressional Leadership to serve on the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.
    Department of Defense Agency Review Team Leads
    John P. White is Robert and Renee Belfer Lecturer and Chair of the Kennedy School Middle East Initiative. He served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1995 to 1997, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1978 to 1981, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics from 1977 to 1978, and as a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps from 1959 to 1961. Prior to his most recent government service, White was the Director of the Center for Business and Government at Harvard University and the Chair of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces.
    Michhle A. Flournoy is President and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security. Previously, she was a senior adviser at CSIS and a distinguished research professor at NDU. In the Clinton administration, she was dual-hatted as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. She is on the board of the Institute for Defense Analyses, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Strategy Group, the Executive Board of Women in International Security, and a former member of the Defense Policy Board.
    Agency Review Co-Chairs
    Melody Barnes is Co-chair of the Agency Review Working Group for the Obama-Biden Transition Project. She most recently served as the Senior Domestic Policy Advisor to the Obama for America campaign. Prior to joining the campaign, Ms. Barnes served as the Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Chief Counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Principal at The Raben Group, LLC. Her experience also includes an appointment as Director of Legislative Affairs to the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Barnes began her career as an attorney with Shearman & Sterling.
    Lisa Brown is Co-chair of the Agency Review Working Group for the Obama-Biden Transition Project. She is on leave from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy where she is the Executive Director. Lisa served as Counsel to Vice President Gore, with a broad legal and policy portfolio that included serving on the Executive Board of the President’s Committee for Employment of People with Disabilities. Before that, she worked in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, was a Partner at the D.C. law firm of Shea & Gardner (now Goodwin Procter), and clerked on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable John C. Godbold.
    Don Gips is on the Advisory Board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project and is Co-chair of the Agency Review Working Group. He is on leave from his role as Group Vice President of Global Corporate Development at Level 3 Communications, where he leads merger and acquisition efforts and is the Chief Strategy Officer. Prior to joining Level 3, Mr. Gips served in the White House as Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to Vice President Gore. Previously, Mr. Gips was Chief of the International Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission where he was responsible for the WTO negotiations and all spectrum policy. Mr. Gips also helped launch the Americorps Program at the Corporation for National Service. Before entering government, he was an Executive Manager at McKinsey & Company.
    Working Group Members
    Seth Harris is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the labor, education, and transportation agencies. He is a Professor and the Director of Labor & Employment Law Programs at New York Law School. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Life Without Limits Project of the United Cerebral Palsy Association and a member of the National Advisory Commission on Workplace Flexibility. He served as the Chair of Obama for America’s Labor, Employment, and Workplace Policy Committee and a Co-Chair of its Disability Policy Committee. During the Clinton Administration, he served as Counselor to the Secretary of Labor and Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, among other policy-advising positions. Before joining the administration, he was a law clerk to Judge William Canby of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Gene Carter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Review of Law & Social Change at the New York University School of Law.
    David J. Hayes is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the energy and natural resources agencies. He is former Global Chair of the Environment, Land and Resources Department at Latham & Watkins, an international law firm. He is a Senior Fellow at the World Wildlife Fund, advising the President of WWF on climate change matters, and he is a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, specializing on energy matters. Mr. Hayes is the Vice-Chairman of the national conservation group, American Rivers, and he is the former Chairman of the Board of the Environmental Law Institute. Mr. Hayes was the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Clinton Administration. During the 2007-2008 academic year, Hayes was a Consulting Professor at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment.
    Reed Hundt, is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the international trade and economics agencies. He is a member of various boards of directors, a part-time senior adviser to McKinsey & Company, a strategic consulting firm, and an adviser to a number of firms. He served as the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1993 to 1997. Since that date, he has taught for a number of years at Yale College, Yale Law School, and the Yale School of Management, and Yale University Press has published two books written by him, You Say You Want A Revolution: A Story of Information Age Politics and In China’s Shadow: The Crisis of American Entrepreneurship.
    Sally Katzen is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the Executive Office of the President and government operations agencies. She is a Lecturer at Michigan Law School and teaches American Government at the Michigan in Washington Program. She has also taught at George Mason, Pennsylvania and Georgetown law schools as well as at Smith College and Johns Hopkins University. From 1993-2001, she served as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), then Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, and then OMB’s Deputy Director for Management.. She has served on National Academies of Science panels and is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. Before 1993, she was a partner at then Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. She clerked for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the District of Columbia Circuit.
    Tom Perez is as a member of the Obama Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the justice, health and human services, veterans affairs, and housing and urban development agencies. He is Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under Governor Martin O’Malley. He worked in a variety of civil rights positions at the Department of Justice, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He also served as Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Donna Shalala, and as Special Counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy. From 2001 until 2007, he was Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, and is an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington School of Public Health.
    Sarah Sewall is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the national security agencies. She is on part-time leave from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where she teaches and is Faculty Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Her research focuses on U.S. national security strategy, civil-military
    relations, counterinsurgency, terrorism and mass atrocity. Sewall served as the first U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance (1993-1996). She previously served for six years as Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Louisa Terrell Louisa Terrell is a Working Group member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Team. Louisa is on leave from her role as Senior Director at Yahoo!’s public policy office in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining Yahoo! Louisa was Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Joseph R.. Biden, Jr. Previously, Louisa was counsel for Senator Biden on his Senate Judiciary Committee staff where she handled criminal sentencing, juvenile justice, child protection, immigration policy and women’s issues, among other areas and before that worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. Ray Rivera is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group. He was most recently State Director for the Obama-Biden Campaign in Colorado. He was also the State Director for the Colorado Caucus and served as Northeast Field Desk out of Chicago headquarters early in the campaign. Prior to the Obama Campaign, Ray was a Political Director for AFSCME, public employee’s labor union and a union organizer. Ray was born in Albuquerque, NM and graduated with a BA from the University of New Mexico in 2001.
    Michael Warren is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group helping to oversee the international trade and economics agencies. He is on partial leave from his role as Chief Operating Officer of Stonebridge International LLC., where he is a member of the firm’s Management Committee. Prior to joining Stonebridge, Warren led corporate development at Horne Engineering Services and served as President of Appfluent Technologies. He also serves as Chairman of Ironbridge Systems. He is on the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Retirement Board, Catalist, the DC Minority Business Enterprise Center Advisory Board, Southeastern University’s Center for Entrepreneurship, Civitas, and the National Child Research Center. Warren previously worked at McKinsey & Company, both as a strategic consultant in the technology and financial institutions industries and as a fellow of the McKinsey Global Institute, advising corporate leaders in the U.S. and Asian semiconductor industries. He served within the White House as Executive Director of the President’s National Economic Council.
    Tom Wheeler is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group responsible for the science, technology, space and arts agencies. He has taken a leave of absence from Core Capital Partners, a venture capital firm working with early stage technology companies, where he is a Managing Director. For three decades, Wheeler has worked at the forefront of technology, both as an entrepreneur and as a policy specialist. He has been the CEO of the National Cable Television Association and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, as well as the founder or co-founder of multiple new technology companies. Wheeler is the author of two books: Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails and Leadership Lessons from the Civil War.
    Jon Wilkins is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Agency Review Working Group. He has taken a partial leave of absence from McKinsey & Company, where he is a partner in the Washington, DC office. Jon first joined McKinsey in 1996. He then worked at the Federal Communications Commission from 1998-1999 before re-joining McKinsey in 1999. He was Managing Editor of the Yale Law Journal.

    Reply

  2. rich says:

    Not surprised it’s difficult. Just don’t see your original point as helpful or explanatory.
    So I don’t see the connection between “why you say it won’t be easy to ditch Holy Joe” and the reasons it’s actually so hard.
    Lieberman’s kept the lid on Bush’s excesses; hasn’t investigated a thing—and let the Dems off the hook in the process.
    Key is the Carl Schmitt insight that politics is about being able to tell your friends from you enemies. To Dodd and Lieberman, they’re friends—and we’re enemies. Reason Repubs are so successful is they have a clearer conception of who’s an enemy, one congruent with Party and partisanship.
    Btw, called Dodd, Kohl, and Durbin today. Staff didn’t sound worried or impressed.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Everybody needs to get on the phone, ASAP to Chris Dodd because he is, as we speak, forming a Save Joe L group in the Senate….Rich…see why I say it won’t be easy to ditch Joe L.? This is going to be a tough nut to crack, and with Rahmbo at the helm, it’s looking dimmer and dimmer to me.
    Once upon a time I was so idealistic about our gov’t and electoral process, my husband used to call me Pollyanna…Now, especially since the recent Midterms and Impeachment off the Table, I am a complete cynic and I’m really quite broken hearted about it. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to believe in it again. All I can do is cry about it now. I’ve never been so thoroughly disillusioned.

    Reply

  4. James S. Stratford, Ct says:

    Lieberman allowed three Connecticut born babies to be held at gunpoint by Israeli terrorists.
    Lieberman is a danger to our American way of life. I will make sure my children never forget the way evil people operate in a good system. I saved the letter in which he did not want the American people to know that a 10 month old infant American born baby was threatened for days by guntoting Israeli radicals.
    I hope he is kicked out of all committees for his support of Mccain which shows what I am talking about. I plead with all good Americans to consider your backround and how you would feel if he abnadoned you in the desert of a country LIEBERMAN IS A CITIZEN OF!

    Reply

  5. James S. Stratford, Connecticut says:

    I am an Israeli Terror Occupation Survivor by James S. of Stratford, Ct.
    Joseph Lieberman is very very dangerous for the American people. In 2005 Joseph Lieberman allowed Israeli radical settlers to force 5 American citizens from Ct at gunpoint for three days for no reason other than racial profiling. I was born in Derby, Ct and lived all my life in Connecticut and to have my senator and congressman abandone 5 American citizens while held at gunpoint for days by Israeli Extremists threatening our lives with our own weapons.
    I got help from the YMCA to get my family home including my 10month old baby who was left for dead by Liebermans staff as well as Shays staffer.
    What was most astounding is that when I returned from our terroristic episode inflicted by Israeli militants for days, I wrote to Lieberman and asked why he did nothing to aid Americans being racially profiled by our so-called friends the Israelis and he sent a copy of a couple of paragraphs on how only 4 Americans were effected when 5 were under gunpoint by Israeli settler radicals. This proved to me beyond any doubt that Senator Lieberman did not want the media to pick up on a 10 month old American born baby at gunpoint by Israeli Gov sponsored settler militants.
    Joseph Lieberman is a grave danger to any good honest American who holds America first and no other country. He abandoned Americans until the YMCA got wind of 3 American Connecticut born boys held for days in hot sun by terror driven Israeli Guntower militants sponsored by the Israeli gov.
    I could not agree more with anyone who wants this maniac Lieberman out of our great American system of government. God bless America and remember Joseph Lieberman is wrong and guilty for using American goodwill to further assist in Israel’s brutal 60 year occupation, something that must be dealt with, WITHOUT THIS CORRUPT wacko who does nothing but call for wars and is always apposed to peace if it means removiong radicals Israeli Jewish Terrorist training camp Settlements located on land that every world leader including our as a homeland to 4 million indiginious refuggees.

    Reply

  6. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Arthurdecco…ooooh, smooching online…thanx…what I think should be done about Joe L. and what I think will be done are two different things…I’m simply trying to explain why it won’t be easy to ditch him, not that I think he shouldn’t be canned.
    Everyone in elective office, including the President-elect, is an opportunist and does what is expedient, with virtually no exceptions..there are a couple, but they are an endangered species.

    Reply

  7. arthurdecco says:

    Kathleen Grasso Andersen: Nov 11, 7:25PM
    U go Gurl!
    shmooch. (on the cheek, on the cheek!)

    Reply

  8. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Rich…Noooo, I did not imply “lay off anti-war talk” at all and have worked all my life to end war…that’s absurd…I’m so opposed to war, I’m furious at the lame Dems for refusing to impeach the sons of bitches who brought us this disgusting war. BO didn’t see anything that rose to an impeachable offense, so he gets a big fat F from me on accountability, along with Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, et al.and I refused to vote for anyone who didn’t support accountability, so don’t preach to me about that topic. You apparently gave Dems a pass on that. What have you done in your life to end war, anything besides express opinions?
    My point is that people fear unemployment, so for an anti war candidate to win, they need to address the issue, not not talk about it….nor do I want to give Joe Lieberman a pass,,,I just don’t see him as worse than other Dems…I didn’t vote for him and worked and contributed to Ned Lamont…that doesn’t change the fact that Lamont ran a lousy campaign, so don’t blame CT. voters..
    I’m not talking about people like you and me who oppose war… I’m talking about winning others over to our cause by alleviating their fears and developing programs to provide other employment…if you actually read my post, you would see that I did a position paper for the first anti-war candidate in CT. Joe Duffey in 1970 because I want to elect pro peace candidates and worked to change the election laws all over the country from, 1968-1972 to change to primaries instead of conventions so the people who oppose war could choose the candidates instead of the party pols….without primaries, do you think BI would have been the candidate?Again, what have you done to end war?
    My opinions aside, it is not going to be easy to ditch Joe Lieberman…that does not mean that I think he deserves a pass. Unless you live and vote in CT. it doesn’t matter what you think about how he served his consituents,,,what matters is how CT. voters think of him.. those Dems who particpated in the 2006 primary rejected Joe, but more of them voted for him in the general election, in part because Ned Lamont didn’t do a good job of dealing with the CT. economy issue. It’s not possible to bring about change unless you have a realistic picture of how things actually are, so you know what things have to be done.
    What does de-regulation have to do with this discussion? Yes, lots of financial wizzards live in CT and Republican Chris Shays represented them until Nov. 4th. Should we expell them to suit the anti-Lieberman folk? Reagan had a Dem Congress, so lots of Dems went right along with de-regulation, not just CT… Didn’t BO vote for the bailout? My CT.Congressman did not….how did yours vote, for or against?
    BO voted for everything that I oppose, FISA being the last straw. Hopefully I’ll be delightfully surprised instead of disappointed, as usual, when I take a candidate at his campaign word.
    In any case the Dem leadership doesn’t care what we think about Joe Lieberman…BO and Rahmbo want to keep him, so maybe you should talk to them instead of me. Good luck with that. Oh, and don’t mean to come down too hard on you either, but I’m not impressed with people who vote Dem just because and don’t hold them accountable for not holding themsleves accountable. I’m not excusing Joe Lieberman or any other Dem who didn’t support impeachment. People wh vote Dem no matter what enbale the Dems to remain lame wusses.
    Peace.

    Reply

  9. rich says:

    I’m sure it’s not what you meant, but it came off that way. It’s implied: lay off, we can’t talk anti-war or go after Joe on that issue b/c, right? And I think the attitude is no accident. Plus, CT Dems DID get rid of Lieberman based on his behavior and despite his loong tenure in office. Too bad the scales hadn’t fallen from the eyes of the mid-to-right electorate yet. Gotta work on that. Don’t know how the word didn’t get out.
    Everyone does it?? That’s your excuse for giving Joe Lieberman a pass on all his fearmongering? Disagree he’s served CT constituents well–doesn’t take a genius to bring home the bacon. I never gave Rahm a pass on that. But Rahm hasn’t openly pushed American discourse into radical, radical McCarthyite territory. He didn’t call Obama a Muslim and a Marxist or say Obama would cause al Qaeda to win or that he wanted dead Americans.
    As for foreclosures and layoffs, I’d think CT citizens might pay closer attention when deregulation of the financial sector is pushed so hard by DLC Dems. Hmm? I think there are more than a few financial sector gurus living in CT; little in-state work on the accountability thing would do wonders. Seriously.
    What’s more, I know of military contractors–shipbuilders–who are getting out of that sector because they know the game is rigged by insiders and east coasters. Their business is more stable in a competitive market. Even in peacetime, taxpayers aren’t getting a reasonable deal. There’s plenty to clean up.
    Don’t mean to come down on ya tooo hard; just am not impressed with the language of excusing and explaining.

    Reply

  10. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Rich.. Don’t put words in my mouth….I didn’t say that because CT has a defense dependent economy we should all put up with endless war…quite the contrary… and in fact, I was one of the first in CT. to work against this back in the 60’s and 70’s.
    What I said was that because of this, anti-war candidates have to find a way to address the fear of unemployment to win. Ned Lamont opposed the war, but had zero proposals on how to deal with it.
    I also said that because Joe Lieberman has had a very long political career in CT. and heretofore has served his consituents well, it is not going to be that easy to ditch him. This is a fact and the only way to change that reality is to get creative, not punitive. People facing forclosures and unmeployment don’t give a flying fuck about Lieberman praising Sarah Palin…unlike Dopey, she can at least speak in complete sentences and got elected as Governor of her State on her own, not her Daddy’s coattails, so incompetence is a relative thing.
    As for Islamophobia, after 9/11 all but a very few rare courageous Democrats, immediately donned their flag pins and jumped right on board with invading Iraq, voting for Kyl-Lieberman(Obama took the chciken’s way out by skipping that vote)…they all kow-tow to Israel and never say peep about Palestine anymore…Obama eliminated any Muslims from his photo-ops, which I find just as offensive in a sneaky-chickenshit kind of way. Why is it okay for Rahm Israel Emmanuel to have served in the Israeli Army? Joe l never did that. Is what Rahm did okay because he helped the great BO get elected? Where’s you moral compass on this? I think they all suck.

    Reply

  11. rich says:

    Further, Joe Lieberman is inciting the very Islamophobia Steve Clemons has denounced on this blog.
    Lieberman backs and appears in the sequel to “Obsession,” the election-eve videos sent out as inserts in newspapers last month. These videos are a blood-libel against Muslims, and Lieberman’s involvement is another measure of just how degraded his political methodology really is.
    Either he’s a responsible man, or he’s willing to slime a whole religion, perpetuate stereotypes, and incite the fears that’ve been used to justify torture and eviscerate our civil liberties. It can’t be both.
    “It is definitely here,” [Lieberman] says. “I don’t want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism. And the fact is that we have now had a series of cases that have thankfully been broken.”
    The TPM article:
    Lieberman Lends His Name To Fear-Mongering Documentary On American Muslims And Terrorism
    By Justin Elliott – November 10, 2008, 4:56PM
    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/lieberman.php
    Joe Lieberman, who is locked in a fight to hold onto his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, is lending his name to a lurid sequel of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West. That film, which was distributed through newspaper inserts and mass mailings to 28 million swing-state households during the campaign, was denounced by religious leaders for painting all Muslims with the same broad brush and for its cartoonish portrayal of Islamic terrorism.
    The new documentary, called The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision For America, focuses on the “hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted” being waged by radical Islamists trying to take down America from within. Among other things, the film warns of the “subtle dangers of non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America’s universities.”
    The Third Jihad’s backers plan to disseminate the film through TV licensing, free screenings, and DVD distribution, The Jewish Week of New York reported.
    After Obsession was sent out in the run-up to the election, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic described it as “the work of hysterics.” One rabbi quoted by The Jewish Week called Obsession “the protocols of the learned elders of Saudi Arabia.”
    While The Third Jihad focuses on the domestic threat of radical Islam, it uses the same tactics as Obsession, showing clips of burning churches and a beheading, alternately set to techno-rock and call-to-prayer-evoking tracks. It goes after groups like the Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Society Of North America — a large umbrella group of Muslim organizations around the U.S. And it plays up an FBI-uncovered “secret document … believed to be the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America” outlining plans to eliminate Western civilization from within.
    Senator Lieberman is pictured as a “Major Player” on the featured interviews page of The Third Jihad Web site, along with National Review writer Mark Steyn, Jim Woolsey, and Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Beginning at around the 9-minute mark in this preview of the film, Lieberman appears. “It is definitely here,” he says. “I don’t want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism. And the fact is that we have now had a series of cases that have thankfully been broken.”

    Reply

  12. rich says:

    Kathleen,
    I reject your formulation that because CT does not have a balanced productive economy and is job-dependent on the defense industry, we should put up with an endless bloody war, and Lieberman’s indefensible and untenable militarism. We don’t need endless war to maintain defense industry jobs, and justifying one with the other is just gutless. Asking us to overlook CT’s willingness to vote for war b/c it might cost jobs, well, that’s even worse. No sympathy where there’s no concern for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Lieberman happily pushes failed neocon positions, busily maintains long-shredded propaganda points, and actively engages in fearmongering. He doesn’t just endorse Repubs: he divisively claims Obama betrays our soldiers, will help al Qaeda win and isn’t ready to lead.
    These are Dick Cheney’s demagoguing tactics Lieberman’s using; he isn’t “personable,” he’s a McCarthyite who speaks in unctuous and patronizing tones.
    Everyone knows our tactics and Iraq Occupation creates more enemies than we had in the first place and damages our national security. If it’s ok for CT to back war on that basis, then no one’s gonna back CT.
    None of Joe Lieberman’s other votes can compensate us for the “hawkish”–militaristic–cheerleading that’s so damaged our economy and security. You’d trade a few jobs in CT for the whole damn schmear. Military spending just doesn’t build a productive economy or even infrastructure.
    Frankly, I’d rather have a Republican from CT than a Democrat who’s doing us damage from both ends. There’s nothing about being anti-war that precludes maintaining a strong defense. But the notion we should be led from one bloody quagmire to another simply to please a few short-sighted, self-interested defense industry workers–& uncompetitve, dependent companies–is just utter crap.
    Joe Lieberman has got to go. He’s done no oversight whatsoever. It’d be one thing to have an honest policy difference and maintain civil tones, but Lieberman’s done neither: the patronizing hypocrisy ladled onto damage the he’s wrought really precludes your/Reid’s ability to ask US to accommodate JOE. And his attitude cannot sustain Harry Reid’s continued indulgence.
    His aide’s comment yesterday was case in point:
    “Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus,” the aide said. “However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. … He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security.”
    Get that?
    It’s Joe Lieberman who’s been keeping us so safe for all these years. I say, anyone else can do it–and do it better. Second, note how retribution is suddenly the issue, rather than Joe Lieberman’s execrable behavior and amoral tactics & policy. It hardly needs to be retribution, though that’s well-earned. But the question is Mr. Lieberman’s behavior, and the onus is on him to get right with his colleagues. The notion we’re being unfair is laughable. (to joe or ct)
    As Greg Sargent puts it:
    “Can the Lieberman camp really be arguing that stripping Lieberman of his committee slot is tantamount to putting politics ahead of our safety, because we’re so defenseless without him there to protect us?”
    “Never mind that Lieberma’s performance as chair of the committee was just awful.
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/243586.php
    “Lieberman’s camp is now sounding a kind of hollow echo of the same silly scare-mongering tactics that he used against Obama on the GOP’s behalf during the campaign, only this time in service of holding onto whatever vestiges of influence he has left. It’s a coda to this whole affair that’s perfect in its desperation and unintentional self-parody.”

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    All you need to know about why Joe shouldn’t be anywhere near Homeland Security.
    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/lieberman.php
    Lieberman Lends His Name To Fear-Mongering Documentary On American Muslims And Terrorism
    By Justin Elliott – November 10, 2008, 4:56PM
    Joe Lieberman, who is locked in a fight to hold onto his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, is lending his name to a lurid sequel of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West. That film, which was distributed through newspaper inserts and mass mailings to 28 million swing-state households during the campaign, was denounced by religious leaders for painting all Muslims with the same broad brush and for its cartoonish portrayal of Islamic terrorism.
    The new documentary, called The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision For America, focuses on the “hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted” being waged by radical Islamists trying to take down America from within. Among other things, the film warns of the “subtle dangers of non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America’s universities.”
    The Third Jihad’s backers plan to disseminate the film through TV licensing, free screenings, and DVD distribution, The Jewish Week of New York reported.
    After Obsession was sent out in the run-up to the election, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic described it as “the work of hysterics.” One rabbi quoted by The Jewish Week called Obsession “the protocols of the learned elders of Saudi Arabia.”
    While The Third Jihad focuses on the domestic threat of radical Islam, it uses the same tactics as Obsession, showing clips of burning churches and a beheading, alternately set to techno-rock and call-to-prayer-evoking tracks. It goes after groups like the Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Society Of North America — a large umbrella group of Muslim organizations around the U.S. And it plays up an FBI-uncovered “secret document … believed to be the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America” outlining plans to eliminate Western civilization from within.
    Senator Lieberman is pictured as a “Major Player” on the featured interviews page of The Third Jihad Web site, along with National Review writer Mark Steyn, Jim Woolsey, and Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Beginning at around the 9-minute mark in this preview of the film, Lieberman appears. “It is definitely here,” he says. “I don’t want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism. And the fact is that we have now had a series of cases that have thankfully been broken.”
    All you need to know about Rham …
    http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2008/11/09/obama-mideast-watch-rahm-emanuel/
    Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 8:50 am
    Obama Mideast Watch: Rahm Emanuel
    Barack Obama chose Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff not for his Middle East policy expertise but his Beltway experience and savvy. Nicknamed Rahmbo, Emanuel was Bill Clinton’s scrappy White House political director–he taught that president the Hebrew word for balls, baytzim–and has served three terms in congress.
    Yet, news of Emanuel’s appointment is causing a stir in the Middle East. It’s being met with some elation in Israel, a country that has been notably uneasy about an Obama presidency, and some despair in the Arab world, which had largely embraced Obama. An Oxford-educated Arab friend called Thursday night to ask me in a tone of deep disappointment, “Did you notice how in the span of 24 hours Egyptians went from being ecstatic to being depressed about Obama?” The Arab News in Jeddah, whose editorials are a good reflection of the Arab mainstream, did an astounding somersault on Friday. Just the previous day, the paper hailed the “symbol of hope and change” in the U.S., saying Obama’s historic election “threatens the cosy Washington consensus. We are, therefore, embarking on exciting times.” After hearing of Emanuel’s appointment, the paper headlined its next editorial “Don’t pin much hope on Obama.” Arab expectations, the paper warned, “are likely to be dashed, generating a great deal of pain and resentment…The new team may turn out to be as pro-Israeli as the one it is replacing.”
    Arab disappointment aside, there’s enough in Emanuel’s background to raise a fair question of whether the key appointment of such a demonstratively pro-Israel figure is going to help or hurt the prospects for Obama’s avowed plans to play an effective role in brokering Middle East peace. Obama promised to be actively engaged as an Israeli-Arab conciliator from Day One, a far cry better than President Bush, who ignored mediation for six years because he believed that Islamic terrorism and lack of Arab democracy were more serious problems to tackle. But many will be looking to see if Obama will avoid the excessive pro-Israel bias and attendant strategic asymmetry that Arab officials–and also some former U.S. diplomats–cite as one of the factors in the tragic, bloody collapse of the peace process during the Clinton administration. It’s impossible and unfair to judge Obama’s future Middle East policies on the basis of one appointment, especially when the job in question is not directly responsible for the Middle East. Still, for the Arab world, it’s a dispiriting start to the Obama era in the region, anything but the hoped-for sign of greater American sensitivity and fairness toward the Arabs.
    Emanuel’s public views express backing for the peace process coupled with total support for Israel’s security and distrust of Palestinians as well as Washington’s traditional Arab allies. Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who says “I’ve known Rahm for a long time,” reports that “he is deeply and emotionally committed to Israel and its safety. We’ve talked about the issue a dozen times; it’s something he thinks about constantly…” In customary, boilerplate praise in 2006, Emanuel called Israel “a vital ally of the United States since the beginning of its existence, sharing democratic values, friendship, and respect and enjoying a strategic partnership. American and Israel shall remain close friends for years to come.” In a rare break with his famous partisanship, Emanuel lauded Bush’s State Department for supporting Arab pro-democracy activists, decrying past U.S. policy that allowed “repressive regimes…such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia [to] receive a pass.” In 2006, Emanuel was a vocal critic of Bush’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a Dubai government-owned company, to manage operations at six U.S. ports. Not only would that endanger U.S. “safety and security,” Emanuel said, but would enable the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. ally, to “promote terrorism and violence against Israel” through its support of the Hamas government elected in Palestine at that time. As a condition to doing business with the U.S., Emanuel said, the UAE should be required to renounce its anti-Israel boycott. Intense congressional pressure eventually forced Dubai Ports World to abandon its plans, causing wide bitterness in the Arab world, including among Westernized moderates.
    During the Clinton administration, Emanuel helped arrange the historic signing ceremony for the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the PLO at the White House in 1993. He accompanied Clinton to the Middle East for the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement signing and Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral. Recently, Emanuel personally escorted Obama last June when the Democratic candidate gave a strongly pro-Israel speech to the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby group in Washington and held a private meeting with AIPAC’s Executive Board. Emanuel’s father Benjamin was quoted in an article about Rahm headlined “Our Man in the White House” in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv last week, saying “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.” Last week, Ha’aretz quoted U.S. Jewish leaders praising Emanuel’s selection. William Daroff, director of the United Jewish Communities Washington office, said: “Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools.” But Ha’aretz also quoted an unnamed veteran Israeli diplomat saying Emanuel’s association with Israel “doesn’t necessarily bring him closer to us. One thing is certain–Israelis will not be able to pull the wool over his eyes.”
    What has most grabbed attention is Emanuel’s various deep personal connections to Israel. His father Benjamin was born in Jerusalem, fought to establish the state and was an Israeli citizen before emigrating to the U.S. where Rahm was born in 1959. As a kid, Rahm went to summer camps in Israel. His father is quoted as saying Rahm continues to spend his summer vacations in Tel Aviv and speaks Hebrew though not fluently. Emanuel abruptly left his post on a Richard Daley mayoral campaign in Chicago and volunteered for service in the Israel Defense Force during the 1991 Gulf War. A 1997 Jerusalem Post story reported that Emanuel did menial work at a supply base in northern Israel. The Post quoted him saying that the experience was not a sacrifice but “something I wanted to do.” The article also quoted fellow Daley campaign worker Peter Giangreco saying, “Here’s a guy who, during a very, very, very important campaign to him and the city, said there’s something bigger here. He takes loyalty and duty, and his beliefs, very seriously.” In his presidential memoirs, Bill Clinton twice mentions that his aide had “served in the Israeli army.”
    Benjamin Emanuel, now an Illinois resident, is reported to have been a member of a Jewish nationalist “terrorist” organization, Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL). According to a 1997 NY Times profile of Rahm and two equally successful brothers, the Emanuel family name was originally Auerbach, but it was changed in a tribute to an uncle Emanuel Auerbach who was killed in a “skirmish with Arabs” in Jerusalem around 1933. The Times article said only that Benjamin “passed secret codes” for the Irgun. Benjamin told Ha’aretz that his son was named after “Rahamim,” who the paper identified as a slain combatant belonging to Lohamei Herut Israel (LHI). Also known as the Stern Gang, LHI was an Irgun splinter group that carried out political assassinations in the name of Jewish nationalism, including those of the Swedish U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte and British diplomat Lord Moyne.
    For Palestinians and Arabs generally, the Irgun and Stern Gang are bitterly etched into their historical narrative as murderous terrorist organizations, not unlike the way that Israeli governments, most Israelis and much of the world have viewed the PLO and Hamas. Led by the future hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the group fought for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s. It’s extreme views and tactics led it into regular conflict with Haganah, the mainstream Jewish paramilitary group that formed the basis for the future IDF. The Irgun’s symbol was a hand grasping a gun over its map of Israel–the territory encompassing today’s Israel, the West Bank and Kingdom of Jordan. The Haganah initially formed to defend Jews from attacks by Arabs, who were in violent revolt against British Mandate and Zionist movement actions to establish a Jewish homeland. Believing the British were in fact betraying Jews, militants who differed with the Haganah’s policy of restraint broke away, formed the Irgun and launched spectacular terrorist attacks such as the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, then the British military HQ, which killed 92 people, as well as the kidnapping and murder of British soldiers. The group also played a violent role in terrorizing Arabs into fleeing cities and towns that the Zionist movement sought to include in a future Jewish state. The Irgun’s actions included placing bombs in crowded Arab markets, indiscriminately bombarding civilians in Jaffa, the major Arab town adjoining the Jewish city of Tel Aviv, and the notorious Deir Yassin massacre.
    Although accounts of what happened at Deir Yassin differ, there is general agreement that the Arab killings there in April 1948 significantly fueled the panic in which hundreds of thousands of Arabs left their homes and villages–whose “right of return” remains one of the bitterest points of dispute in more than 15 years of on-again, off-again Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. In his landmark work on the Palestinian refugee problem, Israeli historian Benny Morris described Deir Yassin this way: “After a prolonged firefight, in which Arab family after family were slaughtered, the dissidents rounded up many of the remaining villagers, who included militiamen and unarmed civilians of both sexes, and children, and murdered dozens of them. Altogether some 250 Arabs, mostly non-combatants, were murdered; there were also cases of mutilation and rape. The surviving inhabitants were expelled to Arab-held East Jerusalem. The weight of the evidence suggests that the dissident group did not go in with the intention of committing a massacre but lost their heads during the battle, which they had found unexpectedly tough-going. It is probable, however, the the IZL and LHI commanders from the first had intended to expel the village’s inhabitants.”
    –By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Good for Time Mag for calling a spade a spade on Rham and his father.
    Anyone who thinks a man can be deeply and totally Devoted to a foreign country and serve the US in our congress and or our country as gatekeeper to the US president is insane.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Keeping Lieberman is not worth the tradeoff.
    I fully expect the dems to destroy themselves just as the repubs did if they are as incompetent as they have been in the past.
    And for the epitome of incompetence look no further than the bailout bill.

    Reply

  15. DonsBlog says:

    Hi Steve,
    Great interview on MSNBC.
    I think the issue about Lieberman is less about hsi support of Obama and more about his dereliction of duty as chairman. He hasn’t lead a single hearing on any administration issue as chairman of governmental affairs.
    Even if we want a unified government, do we need this kind of incompetence in our government? I believe that is the one thing Barack Obama doesn’t put up with.

    Reply

  16. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Dan Kervick, WigWag…I’m sorry if I sound like I’m defending Joe Lieberman, I’m very disappointed in him myself. I’m really trying to explain that punishing Joe could very well have serious backlash in CT. because he is very personable, very well liked and has served his constituents very welll over the years.
    I think if he were assigned to a committee that did not invlove foreign affairs or national defense it would mitigate his potential harm in those areas. But to defeat Joe L., CT. Dems are going to have to find a much better candidate than Ned Lamont. Joe was so well liked, Dems couldn’t find anyone with a serious career in politics to run against him for the nomination. Ned Lamont was simply a novice, with no political career who was willing to challenge Joe L. and had a kajilion dollars of his own to spend.
    Next time round, the field is wide open to candidates with experience… Don’t be surprised if you then get current CT. AG Richard Blumenthal who might end up making Joe L. look good in retrospsect…I kid you not….Blumenthal made a habit of siding with our convict ex Governor, John Rowland against blacks in Hartford on school integration in Scheff vs. CT.and against CT. Indian Tribes in their efforts to be Federally recognized.. and I mean cheating and lying to defeat them….as an informed party to all of the CT. tribres’ petitions for acknowledgment, I have read all the primary documents and submitted opinions and comments in their acknolwedgement process and done battle with him, so I know how dirty he plays…I would actually prefer to stick with Joe L, if Blumenthal is going to be the candidate…and he wants the job and will defeat Ned if there’s a race….when I return to CT. in the summer, I am going to seriously start looking for another viable candidate because Blumenthal could win the nomination but lose the election because he is strongly disliked by blacks and Indians.
    With Republican Chris Shays losing his Congressional seat, he could go for the Senate nomination….soooo, if Dems want to retain subpoena power, Joe L. could seem like the way to go….No one can keep him from running as an Indpendent…it’s messy folks.

    Reply

  17. Judith says:

    Why on earth would the Democrats want to retain him? His blatant act of disloyalty should be an automatic expulsion from the Democratic caucus. With friends like that . . .

    Reply

  18. Charles says:

    Steve, even beyond disloyal and dishonest, Lieberman is *incompetent.*
    Putting him in charge of *any* committees sends a very clear signal… that the Democrats aren’t serious about cleaning up Washington.
    But, yeah, getting him off of anything to do with national security would mean limiting the number of lives he can endanger.
    BTW, first class presentation on Rachel.

    Reply

  19. WigWag says:

    Kathleen Grasso Andersen, it wasn’t just Lieberman’s support for McCain that was the problem; it was also his full-throated support for Sarah Palin.
    Whatever he may be, Lieberman is not stupid. While I disagree with him on alot of things, I acknowledge that he is well informed on foreign policy, intelligence and homeland security issues. His advocacy and endorsement of Palin, despite the fact that he must have known that she was dangerously ill-equipped for the job of either Vice President or President, was worse than a mistake, it was unpatriotic.

    Reply

  20. DonS says:

    What Dan Kervick said.
    And, as it is, Iraq is the signature issue, or was, of the Obama message for a long time. And, obversely, the signature issue of the cur Liberman. Now tell me there should be much reconciliation?
    _________________________________________
    OK, wigwag, I’ll take that at face value . . .

    Reply

  21. Dan Kervick says:

    Sorry Kathleen. This has little to do with Lieberman’s hawkishness. It isn’t even due to the fact that Lieberman supported the opposition candidate. He could have done that in a dignified and respectful way, the way Colin Powell did. It’s that Lieberman lent his voice to the most slimy and scurrilous attacks on Obama, including the suggestion that Obama was some sort of Manchurian Muslim hiding an undercover Islamic identity. What Lieberman did was not just reject his party’s candidate, but engage in ugly and vile betrayal. He is a selfish and odious prick, and needs to be made to pay a price, for the sake of Democratic self-respect and party discipline. If we don’t show we can stand up for ourselves, the Blue Dogs will walk all over us when Obama brings his agenda forward.

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    Sorry, DonS, but if you think I’m an ardent defender of neocon thinking you’re mistaken.
    But as long as you asked, I think Lieberman is terrible and I would love to see him exiled from the Democratic Party. It’s Obama and Emanuel who seem to want Lieberman to stick around not me.
    And by the way, I think many of Lieberman’s positions including his unflinching support for the Bush Iraq policy have been bad for Israel and bad for the United States. And I don’t like his position on Russia, Georgia, Kosovo or Pakistan (which is similar to Obama’s) much either.
    And as for your being caustic, I’ve never thought you were particularly caustic. And anyway, being caustic doesn’t make commentators sound any more convincing; it just makes them sound silly.

    Reply

  23. Kathleen says:

    How the hell did that happen? Sorry guys.

    Reply

  24. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    Get a grip guys…Joe Lieberman’s positions on the war in Iraq, the approach to the Middle East, Palestine/Israel and Iran and Bush’s assault on civil liberties is no different from all the other Dem Senators who tucked tail and spastically flag-waved. after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman has had a very long and honorable career in public office in CT and has been a champion of the envrinoment, education, labor, civil rights…He’s always been too hawkish for my taste, but then so has the whole damned Democrap party.
    It really irks me when people who are not from CT and don’t live there diss CT voters because we didn’t agree with you on who should represent us. CT has the highest per capita defense dollars of any state in the nation…given our small size, this means that defense spending is completely intertwined in the entire economic fabric of the state’s economy….this makes running as an anti-war candidate very tricky indeed because you are asking people to vote for their own unemployment….we had the same problem in 1968-70. When I worked for Senaotr Abe Ribicoff, I had access to the list of defense contracts in the state…it was jaw dropping…people think in terms of big ticket items like nuclear submarines, helicopters, jets, guns, but there are also a kajillion other tiny contracts…subcontractors around military bases, buttons, zippers, uniforms, canine corps, etc. it is truly astounding and presents a really daunting problem.
    In 1970, when I worked on Joe Duffey’s campaign for the US Senate, I did his position papers….one was on the conversion of a war time economy to a peace-time economy in a state with the highest per capita defense dollars…when William F. Buckley challenged Joe Duffey to a debate at Trinity College, where Duffey was a Professor of Divinity…Duffey used my position paper for the debate…Martha Lear, reporting for the New York Times said Joe Duffey won the debate and called him the new FDR. She also asked who did the research. Our position was that cutting defense spending need not cause unemployment…all you had to do was spend the same amount of dollars on other things in the region, like pollution clean-up and control, building new eco-friendly waste treatment facilities, building schools, hospitals, etc. not exactly rocket science, but it was considered revolutionary when pollution control was not even considered important.
    Discontinuing the manufacture of nuclear submarines in Groton/New London to punish Joe Lieberman is silly, at best. nuclear submarines are going to be with us as long as war is..plus it is extremely specialized technology…the facility in Groton is near the first and oldest submarine base in the world…Joe Lieberman has influence in this decision, but he is by no means the only one who makes this decision….and Dems punishing Liebeman by closing down General Dynamics in Groton would only elect a Republican Senator form CT….Joe Duffey won the debate, but lost the election to Republican Senator Lowell Weicker who called for the Watergate investigation. Given that fact alone, I’d rather have a Repiblican Lowell Weicker in the Senate today than most of theinvertibrate Dems currently squatting their haunches in the nation’s capitol.
    Steve just came on MSNBC…
    v
    v

    Reply

  25. Dan Kervick says:

    Obama has pointed the way to the approach here. He called for Lieberman to remain in the caucus but refrained from offering an opinion on the committee chairmanship. That in itself is a gracious gesture of reconciliation, and the natural step for Lieberman would be to back down and reciprocate this act of presidential forgiveness by agreeing to remain in the caucus, but to resign his chairmanship. If Lieberman now rejects that gesture because *he wants it all*, then he is clearly the one who is being a selfish, arrogant turd, and President-elect Obama can’t be blamed for any vindictiveness or lack of generousness.
    Nice move Barack!

    Reply

  26. DonS says:

    And you, wigwag, a most ardent defender of neocon thinking, what do you think equitable? Should a Rahm/Liberman axis be projected as the de facto face of American mideast policy?
    I could get real caustic about setting you up further, but I’ll just leave it at that?

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    It is now being widely reported that President-Elect Obama through Rahm Emanuel has informed Harry Reid that he wants Joe Lieberman to keep caucusing with the Democratic Party even if it means that Lieberman keeps his current chairmanship.
    The Huffington Post says:
    “President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
    Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped…
    If Lieberman were to continue caucusing with the Democrats without being punished for his campaign conduct — Democrats say he broke a promise not to campaign negatively against Obama — the progressive community will undoubtedly be up in arms. For Obama, however, the move may be a shrewd gesture towards reconciliation, in the process taking a potentially taxing political fight off the table…
    Fellow Connecticut Senate Chris Dodd, who has spoken out in favor of Lieberman remaining in the party, explained as much to reporters on Friday:
    What does Barack Obama want?… He’s talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together.”

    Reply

  28. pacos_gal says:

    The thing with Liberman is that it’s about long time associations and loyalty. He supports those whom he has known the longest and worked with the longest. There were a lot of long time Republicans who really believed that a new young man who hadn’t paid his dues would never rise to the presidency over someone who had been around a while. Liberman was one of those. He was never going to support the new guy.
    I don’t know if Liberman will keep his committee, I’d hope not, but Reid isn’t going to take it from him, that will be up to the caucus and they are already showing that the old loyalty issue is still in play. (Dodd)

    Reply

  29. Ajaz says:

    I think Juanita (above) has hit the nail on the head when says about Lieberman:
    “The big problem with Joe Lieberman is that he loves Israel more than he loves the United States of America. Therein lies the danger he poses”.

    Reply

  30. Linda says:

    Zatharas is correct about Reid. The only way that he could be replaced is if some other well-well known Senator like Clinton, Kerry, decided to challenge him. Actually I’d like to see Barbara Mikulski as Majority Leader!
    Also note that Waxman in the House wants to go back to his old chairmanship at Energy and Commerce where Dingell is. It will be interesting to see what happens there too.
    But then both houses of Congress have a lot of arcane internal rules and politics about seniority, etc.

    Reply

  31. jc says:

    Steve, I totally agree.
    We’ve learned a lot about leadership during this interminable and stranger-than-fiction campaign. There’s a lot more to it than experience, that is for sure.
    I wouldn’t have guessed that McCain would reveal himself to be incapable of presidential-level leadership, but that he did. His choice of Palin as his running mate was absolute proof that he cared more about winning than he did about the country.
    I can’t make sense of Lieberman’s behavior, any more than I could McCain’s. Did he simply hitch his star to the wrong campaign? Is he confused when it comes to balancing America’s interests with those of Israel? I don’t know.
    What I do know, is that he is not a leader, and can not be trusted to get things right.

    Reply

  32. Zathras says:

    I wouldn’t say that about the entire comment section here. At least part of it appears to be devoted to gratuitous personal abuse.
    What the Democrats do about Sen. Lieberman will depend on the internal dynamics of the Senate’s Democratic caucus. The most important factor will probably be Senators’ concern that any action stripping a senior Senator of a committee chairmanship not be a precedent for action that could be taken later at some point against them. A secondary though still important consideration may be that removing Sen. Lieberman from the chairmanship of Government Affairs would put the elderly Daniel Akaka (D-HI) in the chair of this important committee, something many Democratic Senators probably see as undesirable (if Akaka could be persuaded to remain as chairman of the Veterans Committee, Sen. Carper of Delaware would be next in line on Gov’t. Affairs). Finally, the resolution of the three outstanding Senate races may be influential, both because a large Democratic caucus is likely to feel it has more flexibility to retaliate against Lieberman and because new Senators who do not know him personally are apt to be hostile.
    A final consideration may or may not be important in this case. Sen. Reid’s performance as Majority Leader in the last Congress was questioned behind the scenes by some of his colleagues, some of whom are said to think he was regularly outmaneuvered on the floor by GOP Leader, Mitch McConnell. McConnell was reelected last week. On the other hand, it is unusual for a party that has made major gains in an election to replace its leader immediately afterward. The way Reid perceives support for his own position within the caucus could influence what he recommends with respect to Lieberman.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Interesting that this entire comment section is devoted to imploring one cowardly sack of shit to dump another cowardly sack of shit.
    Ain’t gonna happen. Reid is as bad as Lieberman is, as bad as Pelosi is, etc.
    You all need to remember if Reid had any balls left after Roberts got through with him, they would have shown themselves by now. They don’t exist. He stood meekly as the Bush Administration snipped them off. There’s no sewing them back on.

    Reply

  34. ej says:

    “Posted by questions
    ej,
    Lieberman was put over the top by Republicans, not by Dems.”
    Point taken, but if memory serves me correctly even with a Republican candidate (albeit a weak one) splitting the non-Democratic vote Leiberman still beat Lamont.
    Why? Maybe the Democratic vote was also split. Wasn’t there quite a few Democrats supporting Lieberman (the ol’ boys club at work) maybe causing some doubt and confusion among the Democratic electorate?
    The people of CT could have nipped all of this in the bud if they had stayed with the anti-war Democratic candidate that won the primary quite handily instead of being seduced by the nonsensical noise. Lieberman played everyone against everyone else with the Republicans help, but the people of CT didn’t have to play along.

    Reply

  35. Tomm says:

    I have spoken my mind to Harry Reid via e-mail on his web site. http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
    You can go there, too, I betcha *wink*
    I am not deluded that anyone will read my message, but once they get the gist, they can add it to the tally. What I said is this:
    It wd be sickening if Holy Joe gets to keep his committee assignment. Too bad if he votes with you– he just devoted his whole life, for months, to smearing Obama and backing Insane McCain and his scheming bimbo.
    Besides, 1. He’s incompetent at handling Homeland Security and has done nothing to deserve continuing even if he were not a traitor. 2. He did nothing to investigate the most evil, stupid, incompetent law-breaking unimpeached president in history. 3. Before the election started he was already the most hated man on Capitol Hill.
    You have spent years now letting Bush/Cheney get away with atrocities, including actual war crimes. Now you’re gonna let Lie-berman get away with his crimes?
    At some point, don’t you have to do something just because it is Right?
    Or are you really gonna let this turncoat spend his time investigating the Obama administration in ways we haven’t seen since the last Dumocrat was president?
    Stop pussyfooting around and looking like a wimp and DO THE RIGHT THING.
    If he wants to be forever known as the man who left his party after campaigning against the first African-American president because he would rather join the minority than work with the new administration, let him let History have its judgment.
    This tergiversation, this vascillating, is pathetic. Dump the bastard. It’s not only the right thing to do, it will be wildly popular. And, as lagniappe, as a bonus, it will make the heathen rage.

    Reply

  36. jonst says:

    I think this is one of your best posts Steve. Ever. Unfortunately, it seems to me the Dems are getting read to fold like the proverbial lawn chair. No great surprise….sadly.

    Reply

  37. questions says:

    ej,
    Lieberman was put over the top by Republicans, not by Dems.

    Reply

  38. ej says:

    CT is the problem! What in the hell were they thinking?
    We were so close to being rid of ol’ Joe and the good “Nutmegs” brought him back to life.
    I guess they thought we all needed more “agita” – as if Bush and his administration wasn’t enough.

    Reply

  39. rich says:

    questions,
    Joe Lieberman was one of the Gang of 14, formed (hypocritically) to break any Dem filibuster of Bush’s bills. He’s not going to help the Dems get 60 votes on the most crucial issues, no matter what.
    Reid will have better luck peeling off a Republican here and there. They need plums too.
    Lieberman votes Dem on many issues, so either he’ll continue to do so b/c he really believes in those policies, or he’ll seek to punish Dems on health care to get his way on Iraq, Iran, etc. But he has no leverage.
    If they take away his chairmanships, he’ll have to give up a lot on different pieces of legislation to get any influence at all. Leave him in charge of anything, he’ll do untold damage.

    Reply

  40. questions says:

    I have disliked Lieberman since I first heard his voice — his entire way of being in the world can be summed up by that VOICE — tone, intonation, words chosen; sanctimony, self-satisfaction, self-certainty. YUCK.
    That said, the way the Senate works may well require Lieberman’s vote. These 100 people need to function together as a deliberative body removed from much of the petty crap that the House engages in. They are interdependent, mutually supportive and often backstabbing all at the same time. Lieberman backstabbed, but the dems may need him. The Senate has to forgive, unfortunately. His vote MIGHT be needed if the dems hit 60 seats, and it might be needed anyway. Kind of sad, but institutionally correct.

    Reply

  41. Jerry Killian says:

    Steve,
    I am with you 100%.
    I’m surprsied you didn’t mention how Holy Joe has NEVER had an
    investigation of any kind in his position as chairman of the
    Homeland Security Committee.
    I suppose he thinks they did such a bang up job and never needed
    oversight.
    That alone should get him the boot.

    Reply

  42. marjorie Hamilton says:

    Steve- PLEASE do what you can to have Reid et all actaully DO SOMETHING about this jackass. He did NOTHING in terms of the job so he obviously doesn’t need to chair that committee-its done all that he wants….

    Reply

  43. tom.a says:

    I don’t think Leiberman should be awarded ANY chairmanship. He
    needs to earn that honor. Check back in 2010 or 2012 and if by
    the Leiberman has supported the Democratic caucus well enough
    then and only then should he be given a chairmanship.

    Reply

  44. rich says:

    “Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record,” Lieberman said at the Republican convention in early September.
    Lieberman charged that Obama had not reached across party lines to “get anything significant done” and said that the McCain-Palin ticket was “the real ticket for change.”

    Reply

  45. JohnH says:

    The best way to punish Joe Lieberman is to just say ‘No!” Stop producing nuclear submarines at Groton, CT. It will be a clear signal to Connecticut voters that Joe the Warmonger can no longer get the job done. Then, to add insult to injury, Congress should give Chris Dodd the opportunity to define what comes next at Groton/New London and what programs are offered to workers for retraining in green energy, energy-efficient transportation, healthcare, etc.
    Groton’s nuclear sub industry is a cold war relic that is emblematic of defense industry pork and waste. The sooner it gets closed–with Lieberman’s name attached–the better.

    Reply

  46. David says:

    I don’t see how Joe can be trusted with anything at this point, but if I had to give him something, I’d give him environment. He would wind up having to work with and I suspect de facto for Al Gore, because on this issue Al is the Big Dog.
    He had a right to support McCain if he was so inclined, just as he had the even more misguided right to support Reagan’s contra war. But those are defining decisions, and Joe, we now certainly do know ya’. Add in the recklessness of his effusive support for what’s-her-face and his vitriolic attempts to utterly delegitimize Barack Obama as a potential president, and he comes up a public service lost cause. Jettison the toxic cargo, Harry. Make it swift, make it clean, and move on.

    Reply

  47. DonS says:

    Incredible why the Dems continue to wring their hands over Leiberman.
    Just throwing him out of the caucus would send so many important messages.
    The Repubs have done so much with but the threat of filibuster, and the mewly acquiesence of the Dems that this represented power.
    Why does it only work one way? What is is still about the Dems that they have no gut? Maybe this will change.
    Liberman! I mean give me a break? Shuck him.

    Reply

  48. samuel burke says:

    let lieberman be israels ambassador to the united states…and name the right reverend and rabbi john haggee israels agent provocatour to the christian zionist community in ameriker.
    stay on target mr clemons ameriker needs a few good men.

    Reply

  49. Michael says:

    Why not appoint Joe as the head of the Department of Homeland Security, get him through the Senate and then fire him?
    Cynical? Priceless.

    Reply

  50. rapier says:

    It’s Reid who has to go. He too is from the Republican wing of the Democratic party. If one looks at his tenure one could conclude that he is in fact a plant. A member of the opposition planted into the leadership position. I don’t think this is actually true but it is functionally true.
    That said now that the Dems have the White House it doesn’t matter nearly as much and I assume Reid is safe. Why I don’t really understand.

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The following says far more about this cowardly mewling hunk of shit Reid than it does about Lieberman. Far too many times to count Reid has proven himself to be little more than milquetoast; wimpy, insipid, and ineffective. With his balls hanging in Roberts’ trophy case, Reid has done nothing but squeek like a mouse since his Phase 2 stunt. “Give ’em Hell Harry” is misnamed. He should be called “Give ’em Head Harry”, because he has spent the last eight years kneeling in front of the GOP. It appears he didn’t get enough, now he’s gonna give some to Lieberman.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/senate.lieberman/?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker
    Lieberman can still help Dems, Reid says Story
    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he’s still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman’s support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
    Harry Reid says it’s up to the Democratic caucus to make any decision about Joe Lieberman’s future.
    While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, “Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators,” Reid told CNN’s “Late Edition.”
    “Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase,” he said. “Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut.”
    continues….

    Reply

  52. bangzoom14 says:

    Good comments Steve. As for Joe the Turncoat, he has shown his true colors. He can’t be trusted on either side of the fence. As for Joe himself, he should note the trend of VP candidates on the losing side. Politically they go nowhere. So Joe, why don’t you just cut your losses, take an early retirement and go home to the beautiful state of Connecticut. It’s very nice there with so much greenery and rolling hills. Nice retirement country.

    Reply

  53. arthurdecco says:

    “Really represents American values in a way muzzle-loading rifle-bearing locals can understand.” Posted by rich Nov 09, 3:57PM
    Great prose! In a concise and thoughtful post.
    (I’m always better for having read your submissions, you know. [I might otherwise be insufferable.])
    insertPalinwinkhere.

    Reply

  54. rich says:

    From TPM, more weaselly spin:
    “Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus,” the aide said. “However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. … He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security.”
    Ahh. So it was Joseph Lieberman protecting the fatherland from harm all those years. Good to know.

    Reply

  55. erichwwk says:

    Re. to removing Lieberman, “roublen” at EzraKlein’s blog on the American Prospect
    [ http://tinyurl.com/6r774g ]
    suggests “the Senate Dems should watch this scene from Yes, Prime Minister first.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VOvhs6W7Fc&feature=related
    A bit of humor on a serious topic.
    Greg Sargent discusses this topic at TPM.
    Rich- nice summary of the case for removing JL!
    I would mainly add that there are only 17 chairmanships, hence 40 Senators are left w/o. Clearly Joe is not more deserving than the other, more reasonable independent, Bernie Sanders.
    He was not elected as a Democrat. Can somebody explain the mechanics of his entitlement? When a person switches entitlement, which party determines committee seniority?

    Reply

  56. Juanita says:

    The big problem with Joe Lieberman is that he loves Israel more than he loves the United States of America. Therein lies the danger he poses.

    Reply

  57. Spunkmeyer says:

    Lieberman gambled that McCain would win, spent a fair amount
    of time trashing Obama, and McCain lost. I fail to see how
    Lieberman should be considered from any leadership position
    with the Democratic majority. What he needs is a swift kick in the
    ass… in the direction of an exit door, preferably.
    Any consideration or ascension of Lieberman to a leadership role
    in the next Congress with the Majority is an out-an-out sign of a
    pathetic Senate Majority leadership group. If Reid thinks
    Lieberman should stay, than it is Reid who should go out with
    him. He has still failed to deliver on the 2006 election mandate.

    Reply

  58. Bigus says:

    On CNN today, Senator Harry Reid:
    “I know Joe Lieberman very well. He is a senior member of the Senate. He is on Armed Services; if something happens to the chairman he becomes chairman. If something happens to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he becomes chairman. So he is a senior member – person around here. And I want to remind all of the people that are watching this newscast or however this program is going to air that I would not be majority leader but for his vote.
    We could not have passed our budget – we passed a budget the Republicans couldn’t pass. They had 55 senators. We had 51. They couldn’t pass a budget, we did. Why? Joe Lieberman voted with us. So I recognize what he did was wrong and quite frankly, I don’t like what he did. I told him so all during the campaign … So we’ve had a number of conversations, we’re going to have more.
    But for those people beating up on Joe Lieberman, I’ve done my share. Recognize the glass being half full, not half empty. … I think a lot of this is very private stuff, but Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did.”

    Reply

  59. daCascadian says:

    No chairmanships for six year olds.
    Period.
    Go home Joe & keep your hands out of the cookie jar.
    “…For the love of money is the root of all evil…” – 1st Timothy 6:10

    Reply

  60. rich says:

    The Lieberman Problem has little to do with campagn trail lip service on Sarah Palin’s behalf. That’s no surprise given Joe’s record.
    It has everything to do with attacking Barack Obama in sharp, divisive, dishonest terms.
    Lieberman will do anything, and I mean anything, to defend and advance his pro-war neocon agenda—no matter how amoral or unprincipled or flip-floppery or self-abasing the act.
    Lieberman’s mode is actively Orwellian:
    “Lieberman said he had another mission: to explain how McCain brought people together. Then he proceeded to rip into Obama.”
    ” ‘When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the battlefield,” Lieberman said, “John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge (in Iraq), and because of that, today our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure but in honor.’ ”
    Further, Obama “has not reached across party lines to accomplish anything significant,” Lieberman added.
    And:
    “If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.”
    “On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question.” –McClatchy
    Get that? Lieberman didn’t just endorse: HE used Palin/McCain’s brand of divisive politics, attacking Obama for betraying our troops, retreating-n-defeating, for helping alQaeda win in Iraq, for playing political games. Note the way he flips the facts to attack Obama.
    Take complimenting Gov. Palin as your preferred metric, but Lieberman’s effrontery in promoting disastrous policy in the face of all evidence knows no bounds. McCain’s honor was badly soiled by the campaign he ran, and he can’t dump that off on Palin.
    Lieberman was just fine with McCain’s adherence to those tactics, to Bush’s economic and foreign policies. But Senator Joe didn’t stop there: he had to cut Obama down too.
    For me, though, Joe Lieberman’s amoral nature has been brutally obvious for year. Here’s a guy who gave a moralizing speech cutting Pres. Clinton down to size at a crucial moment in the rush to impeach for lying about sex (a private peccadillo), but refused to call George Bush for lying to into an obscene war and occupation (a public matter of state that comes closer to a high crime and misdemeanor than any other possible act).
    Just as Lieberman denounced video game violence, but actively pushed the unbridled, reckless killing in Iraq—the wrong country, without evidence or intel.
    Joe Lieberman doesn’t care about what’s best for America. I don’t care how he votes on any other issue. He’s not concerned with good jobs or energy independence or national security—all the human lives and high-minded principles Lieberman throws under the bus attest to one thing and one thing only—Holy Joe will do anything to keep America stuck in an overseas quagmire, keep us ripping up other countries, keep us killing other folks, keep us dropping bombs on wedding parties with Predator drones. And there’s a neato way to ‘win’ an unjust politcal cause! Unmanned drones. Very persuasive, rhetorically. Really represents American values in a way muzzle-loading rifle-bearing locals can understand.

    Reply

  61. Frank Wilhoit says:

    Senator Lieberman has been mishandled in the past but that does not mean that his mishandling must continue.
    It is very simple.
    HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT; he would be the first to tell you so.
    As such, he CANNOT merit any position of privilege that is within the gift of the Party.
    Bernie Sanders is a reliable ally, but he will never get a committee chairmanship.

    Reply

  62. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wow, Steve, you sure dissappeared your Hillary post fast. Who got to you?
    Well, anyway, heres the comment I typed out in regards to Hillary as Secretary of state….
    Oh goody. The dynasty lives on. The defense industry is elated, to be sure.
    I wonder how many people in the world community are living thier lives today, totally oblivious to the fact that they will soon die because of events unfolding in the United States? Over a million Iraqi non-combatants, murdered by the Bush Administration, with the complicity of many of the people Obama is now surrounding himself with. Can Obama match Bush’s numbers of dead and maimed? Stay tuned, he’s definitely putting together the right team.

    Reply

  63. judyo says:

    I’ve been reading your last couple of post with growing heartburn. I know you have opinions but, man … he’s just begun. Give him some space, willya?
    On Lieberman, I wholeheartedly agree with your overall premise but, please .. not telecom or heathcare or education for that matter. Give him something that he won’t adversely affect people’s lives. My own choice would be a boot back to CT. They voted for him over Lamont and they get what they get.
    Elections have consequences.

    Reply

  64. Ajaz says:

    Steve
    I agree with your views on Lieberman entirely. I would also like to share my views with your readers about Obama’s election.
    ONLY IN AMERICA
    With Barack Obama’s election as President, United States of America has once again taken a great leap forward and regenerated itself as a nation that changes with time and adapts to new conditions. A nation despite all its faults and checkered history is ready to stand up and correct itself again- a sign of a great nation.
    Another great moment in history was when Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. Despite all opposition, he abolished slavery through Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th constitutional amendment. This caused the pro slavery South to rebel, forming the ‘Confederate States of America’ which led to a bloody civil war. Ultimately, Lincoln and the American people succeeded and that was a historic time when America regenerated itself.
    November 4, 2008 was another historic day. Who could have imagined a mere sixty years ago that America where African Americans were not allowed to share the same bench, the same seat on a bus or a drink from the same fountain with their white country men and women, would elect an African American as their President.
    Only in America is it possible for any citizen to rise to such heights. Europe steeped in its history of class system and Asia with its dynastic history can only marvel and admire America for its leap forward. No wonder the whole world celebrates Barack Obama’s victory, which in fact is America’s victory. This is possible ONLY IN AMERICA.

    Reply

  65. Insane in the Membrane says:

    It is terrifying that in one of our highest offices resides a man (and several others for that matter) who clearly prioritizes the interests of a foreign country over ours.
    He has without either pretense or shame banged the drum of war on behalf of Israel against Iran–And he has done so as much if not more than the Bush administration.
    He has absolutley no reservations about sacrificing (again and again) young Americans for the benefit of Israel.
    Where is the outrage from the MSM???? Why is Steve the only one with the courage to stand up to these people?
    UNBELIEVABLE.
    On a related note, I had rather naively hoped that Obama would alter the trajectory of our Mid East policy. But with his pathetic pandering to AIPAC and his appointment of an Israeli as his COS I have resigned myself to business as usual. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised…..

    Reply

  66. Dan Kervick says:

    I think Lieberman should actually consider resigning his Senate seat. His political position in our national political life has become untenable. He has lost all trust among Democrats, and his support among Republicans is limited. He can no longer be an effective legislator, and I would guess that his re-election chances in Connecticut are now poor.
    Maybe Obama can help engineer a graceful exit. The one area in which Lieberman appears to have a fairly solidly progressive record is in the area of environment and climate issues. Maybe Obama could ask him to co-chair some sort of panel on climate and environment – as an “independent” voice along with some more progressive figures.

    Reply

  67. JohnH says:

    Also keep Lieberman away from anything having to do with Americans’ constitutional rights. You will recall that he partnered with Lynne Cheney to blacklist university professors who were critical of the Bush administration’s War on Dissent.
    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1213-05.htm
    Joe Lieberman is a self righteous twerp who would have felt comfortable with Joe McCarthy.

    Reply

  68. plschwartz says:

    Lieberman is de facto the Senator from Israel. More specifically is the right wing of Israeli politics and sadly the majority of American Jewry.
    To that end he will do anything support anyone who supports and will further this aim.
    Elsewise he is as Reid suggests well within the Liberal Eastern Democratic tradition.
    Unfortunately, from the experience we have gained these last two years he seems uninvolved with any other political areas. If I were he I would want to continue on Homeland Security because of its anti Muslim potential. Of course any assignment without any pro-Israel is of no interest.
    As his only hope of influencing pro-Israel positions is within the Democratic caucus, I suggest removing him from the Homeland chair and inviting him to remain within the caucus. Which I believe he will have to accept

    Reply

  69. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, as far as this bitch Palin goes, its interesting that such vicious goods come in such an enticing package.
    The Secret Service has revealed that as the Palin rhetoric got more hateful and inciteful, so too did the threats to Obama.
    And officer Wooten? He is now on desk duty, because of the amount of death threats he has recieved as a result of Palin’s accusations. Of course, when the jackass population repeats unfounded accusations pimped by these pieces of shit like Hannity, it brings the wackjobs out from under their rocks. Note Tahoe’s posting that Wooten was a “wife beater”, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to that effect.
    Locally, I talked to a RW talk radio disciple here in Tehachapi, who believes that Khalidy is a “Palestinian terrorist”, and that ACORN committed “massive voter fraud”. Why does this idiot subscribe to these notions? Because Senator Washburn, (R-CA), on his Saturday radio program, advances such horseshit. Couple that with the steady litany of pure unadulterated RW intellectual excrement streaming from the AM dial during the course of the week, and you have the formula for empowering every hate-filled red neck neanderthal lurking in thousands of living rooms nationwide. These people love Palin, for it gives them focus, and gets their minds off little cousin Flossie’s untouchable nubile fanny, and the fact that their favorite NASCAR driver is way behind in the points standings.
    Sound too harsh? Well, if you don’t believe the so called “right wing” has resorted to reaching out to the absolute dumbest in our population, than you simply aren’t paying attention. Ignorance is carefully nurtured by Washington, on BOTH sides of the fence. But the RW pukes have become EXPERTS at nurturing and cultivating stupidity. Look at the popularity of these scumbags like Levin, Hannity, Savage, etc. Listen to the callers. We are talking MAJOR stupidity, on a wide scale. And why not? How else can they expect to foist some ignorant bimbo like Palin off on the American people unless they pitch to the idiots?
    Lieberman? He’s just a bit more honest than Pelosi, Harman, and Reid. He’s a scumbag, and wears the mantle proudly, unlike the other three, living a lie. All four of these people share a fealty to the same master, and will never allow constructive “change” in our foreign policy as it applies to Israel and the Middle East. Theres no White Knight in an Obama Administration, riding to the aid of the Palestinians.
    Same o, same o. Guaranteed.

    Reply

  70. Jim Ramsey says:

    Why not appoint Lieberman Ambassador to Israel?
    I think he would have trouble refusing.
    It would get him out of the Senate.
    He would have to remember which country he was supposed to serve, though.

    Reply

  71. Linda says:

    Don’t expect any action on Lieberman for another month until after GA Senate runoff on 12/2, but I do predict a long, cold winter for Lieberman–as well as the next four years.
    If he runs for re-election in 2012, I doubt that the voters of CT would re-elect him.
    Lieberman did not put country or party first–only Joe the Senator.
    I regret that Chris Shays was not re-elected and hope that Obama administration can find an appointed position for him. We need moderate Republicans like Snowe, Collins, and Shays.
    It doesn’t matter which party allows him to caucus with them. I’d prefer they let him be truly independent and alone. He made himself irrelevant.

    Reply

  72. ... says:

    i think if you look at what lieberman accomplished at head of the committee(s) he was on, it will be obvious he needs to be removed.. no need to take a closer look at his overall behaviour which is quite deplorable.. thanks for coming out with this post steve.

    Reply

  73. Please...please says:

    please keep Lieberman away from education. I work in the schools
    and I’m hoping for improvements. Last summer Lieberman was
    prancing around CT blaming the problems in schools on the
    teachers’ union as if school administrations, the parents, state and
    federal politicians had no responsibilty at all.
    Just say “no” to Joe.
    BTW, it should be noted that Lieberman did a very bad job on the
    HomeLand Security committee. Also, Lieberman, who is not a
    Democrat, is stopping a team player from assuming an important
    position.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *