A Constructive “New Social Contract” with Joe Lieberman

-


Last night, I had a round with the smartest anchor on air, Rachel Maddow, about Joe Lieberman and what his future in the Senate could look like.
I have heard Joe Lieberman state on many occasions that “our children’s education is a national security issue.” I’ve heard him say the same about technology policy in which he has been an outstanding leader. Let him show that he cares about other arenas of national policy as much as he does about bombing Iran.
The problem the Democratic caucus has with Lieberman stems from his fear-mongering and his irresponsible posturing in matters of national security — and domestic security. He should not have a leadership role in those policy arenas.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

60 comments on “A Constructive “New Social Contract” with Joe Lieberman

  1. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    This from the CT. State Central Committee on their Motion to Censure Joe L.
    http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/11/15/connecticut/doc491dd1e2e5e46433753720.txt

    Reply

  2. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    David…found the Nichols piece…Joe’s political history goes back much further than his defeat of Weicker in 1988…he was Prosecuting Attorney for New Haven, State Senator, then AG before US. Senate. Before 9/11, he was a well respected Dem,…but then the whole country went war bonkers, Joe right in there. CT. like many other States, has more Independents than D’ and R’s..perhaps BO changed those numbers, but we also don’t have an open primary, so Independents weren’t able to participate in the “06 primary…I think the results were misleading because of this….

    Reply

  3. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    David…thanks…I’ll try to find it..as I’ve said in other comments on this, Joe has always been too hawkish all the way back to Vietnam when he supported LBJ, rather than Gene McCarthy or Bobby K. I got to know him rather well when I worked for Abe Ribicoff, then was one of three Executive Directors of the Caucus of CT. Democrats, working to change our election laws, and then Joe Duffey’s Senate run.
    The dilemna for everyone is that he is a very personable, likeable guy when you know him, but when he ever supported torture, that just fried my brain and I went looking for a challenger and hooked up with Lamont. I had just begun the process of trying to find vialbe other challengers again, besides CT AG Dick Blumenthal who I cannot abide, when the news came that Dem leaders, including BO, were coming to his aid…feels like an exercise in futility at this point. But, now that I’m a complete cynic, it’s way more fun to be wrong…We shall see.

    Reply

  4. David says:

    Kathleen,
    John Nichols at The Nation has an interesting take on this, including historical context. Don’t have the link, but easy to find (I think).

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But I am ok now, I FINALLY PULLED MY TONGUE OUT OF CHEEK!!!”
    Now, if you can just extricate your head out of your ass, you might just be getting somewhere.

    Reply

  6. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Senator Evan Bayh was saying last night that if Joe L. is stripped of his charimanship, he might resign and then Republican Governor Jodi Rell will appoint a Republican….something tells me that Dem “leaders” will only consider this aspect. Senator Chris Dodd is heading a Save Joe L. group…Accountability is so yesterday.

    Reply

  7. Tony Minchew says:

    I never dreamed or even imagined that the things I hear on my favorite conservative talk shows were really that bad.
    Now I see that they are worse than what the pundits are saying.
    We have got to stop the conservative movement at once. Anyone who even hints at values based on the Sermon on the Mount or speaks out against any and all sexual deviance needs to have their keyboard soaked in Muratic Acid while they are typing.
    We have to have freedom to bed anything or anyone we want. We have to have the freedom to use other peoples wealth without question. We have got to make a way for those who cross our borders illegally to take ownership of any home or ranch they choose.
    I…
    …wait…
    (choking sound)
    ….ouch!!
    Wow, I could not figure out what was wrong with me.
    But I am ok now, I FINALLY PULLED MY TONGUE OUT OF CHEEK!!!
    revtoeknee

    Reply

  8. David says:

    Ultimately Joe Lieberman has to be de-throned and de-legitimized, but it must be done with a hell of a lot of political smarts. This seems to me to be what Steve is calling for. What I would personally like to see happen to Benedict Arnold Lieberman might be neither advisable nor politically wise. And we do not yet know what Obama is thinking or where he is headed with this move, but based on his track record, it is not because he is either weak or lacking in political smarts. He just ran the strongest, smartest presidential primary and general election campaigns in recent memory. Neither of Bush’s comes close, and while Clinton’s was ept, and Clinton had a superb ability to connect with people, the Clintons were no match for Barack Obama. Do not sell President-elect Obama short.

    Reply

  9. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Last night MSNBC was reporting that Obama wants Joe Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship…that pretty much settles that…I doubt that the “leaders” will disregard the President-Elect.
    Before the election, the CT. State Central Committee was poised to consider a Motion to Censure Joe Lieberman but were prevailed upon by party “leaders” to wait until after the election….now that BO has pronounced himself in favor of Joe L. retaining his chairmanship, I wonder what will happen to that Motion to Censure him, next month.
    Meanwhile, back in the Constitution State activists are on the ball..Give them a hand..
    Join with CCAG, Brave New Films and countless others in calling on Senate Democratic leaders to strip Senator Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship.
    Read the message below from the Brave new Films team and then:
    Watch the video
    Make a Call
    Send the video to your friends
    Dear Friend,
    Joe Lieberman has launched consistent, deeply partisan attacks on President-elect Barack Obama, questioning his patriotism and fitness to lead. While Lieberman campaigned for John McCain and spoke on his behalf at the Republican National Convention, he spread some of the GOP’s nastiest smears. Think Progress has provided thorough evidence of Lieberman’s partisan politics. Lieberman should not be allowed to have subpoena power to investigate the Obama administration as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, he should not be allowed to remain chairman of this or any other committee.
    Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfJunZu22VU
    Lieberman has proven he cannot be trusted to hold a high rank within the Democratic caucus. That is why we launched Lieberman Must Go last summer, a campaign that caught Congress’ attention when we delivered a petition with over 43,000 signatures. Now, we ask you to help us escalate the pressure by contacting members of the Senate Democratic Steering Committee. Tell them to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship in the Democratic caucus.
    We have included a sample script and phone numbers below for you to use, and we ask that you be polite when you explain why Lieberman Must Go.
    Senator _________, my name is _________. I’m a registered Democrat and a Connecticut resident. I urge you to vote to strip Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship when the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee meets to discuss his future. A man who spent the entire election season demeaning Senator Obama’s patriotism and his qualifications for office cannot be trusted with oversight authority over the Obama administration. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, and he should not enjoy the privileges of being a member of the majority party. Will you vote to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship?
    Senator Debbie Stabenow, Michigan, Chair
    (202) 224-4822
    Senator Harry Reid, Nevada
    (202) 224-3542
    Senator John Kerry, Massachusetts
    (202) 224-2742
    Senator Daniel Inouye, West Virginia
    (202) 224-3934
    Senator Robert Byrd
    (202) 224-3954
    Senator Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts
    (202) 224-4543
    Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware
    (202) 224-5042
    Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont
    (202) 224-4242
    Senator Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
    (202) 224-2823
    Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa
    (202) 224-3254
    Senator Max Baucus, Montana
    (202) 224-2651
    Senator Richard Durbin, Illinois
    (202) 224-2152
    Senator Kent Conrad, North Dakota
    (202) 224-2043
    Senator Carl Levin, Michigan
    (202) 224-6221
    Senator Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin
    (202) 224-5653
    Senator Barbara Boxer, California
    (202) 224-3553
    Senator Hillary Clinton, New York
    (202) 224-4451
    Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
    (202) 224-5521
    Senator Mark Pryor, Arkansas
    (202) 224-2353
    Make the call today! Let Democratic leaders know Lieberman represents an impediment to real change in Washington, and that is why Lieberman Must Go!
    Yours
    Robert Greenwald, Leighton Woodhouse, ZP Heller and the Brave New Films team
    This email is sent from:
    30 Arbor Street Suite 6N Hartford, CT 06106

    Reply

  10. downtown says:

    Lieberman deserves no more of a “leadership” role in the Democratic Party than does Daniel Pipes.

    Reply

  11. Bil says:

    Great Job Steve,
    I think Rachael’s point about the possible wuss factor is solid.
    WHAT do you have to do to piss off Democrats?

    Reply

  12. SansS says:

    If Lieberman was to be investigated for treason, and I’m not saying that there is necessarily any possibility of him being treasonous (except his behavior) and even if it succeeds to exonerate him, it may be a splash of water on the face of a sleeping guard. And may move any encroaching types to think about a little retreat.
    Any hope of that? Is treason not something you find in a democracy anymore?
    POA, if you clean up your act here, please find another place not to and let us know, it does tickle and inform. But be loyal to Steve and WN too.

    Reply

  13. bob h says:

    The problem with Lieberman is that he will do whatever is needed to keep himself at the center of controversy and attention whatever you do to him. If he stays, he’s a thorn, and the same if he goes.
    But even if he does caucus with the Republicans, is he really going to filibuster judicial appointments, oppose new legislation on renewable energy, financial reform, global warming, etc.? The people of CT would have something to say about that.
    There has got to be accountability, so give him the boot.

    Reply

  14. David says:

    Mostly I’m appalled by Joe Lieberman at this point, but…Madison makes a good point, and I think it was LBJ who said Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Right now neither Obama nor the Democratic Party really needs a media-maw feeding confrontation with Joe Lieberman, and magnanimity is definitely a part of the persona voters endorsed in this election. But chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee is out of the question for me.
    I will hazard two guesses. One is that Rahm Emmanuel will be Obama’s shield when Obama moves toward a more just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian horror show, one in which the Palestinians are seen as equally human. The other is that the emerging Jewish voices for greater justice, not to mention the only route than can actually produce peace, will gain more prominence once Obama takes office.
    And before anyone pounces, I have not only been following the catastrophic consequences for Palestinians of the creation of the State of Israel for over 40 years, I see what has been done to the Palestinians as analogous to what was done to Native Americans, with Israel in many ways analogous to the European-Americans who took what is now our real estate from them. And I do not buy the nonsense that God sent Columbus to claim the New World for Christian Europe, nor do I buy the nonsense in the line from the song, “This land is ours, God gave this land to us.” Love Michelle Shocked’s “God is a real estate developer.”
    But I also realize that all we can do is try to move forward toward a more just, safer resolution to the current utterly unjust apartheid South Africa style treatment of Palestinians by the ruling forces in Israel and traumatization of victims of both Israeli attacks on Palestinians and militant Palestinian attacks on Israelis. Jimmy Carter correctly characterized the current situation, which I gather pissed most everybody off. Interesting how truthful commentary has a way of pissing off lots and lots of people. It can certainly be a death knell for a campaign if it is a truth that is not at that moment embraceable.

    Reply

  15. Mr.Murder says:

    You’re going to be in Schadenfreude overdose mode when Lieberman’s dutiful Senate understudy, President Obama, starts looking to consider the views of Colin Powell….

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “….their penchant for using terrorist proxies to preserve deniability…..”
    Gee, are they talking about Israel??

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Sorry, forgot to provide a link….
    http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives50.html

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Apparently the Israeli think tanks consider any approach short of bombing Iran unacceptable. They place the full weight of a “Israel friendly” Obama Administration on how Obama deals with the Iranian “nuclear threat” where, in their opinion, time is of the essence.
    I’m sorry, but I just can’t feel “Israel Friendly” when these are the sons of bitches that launched a clandestine nuclear program in underground bunkers, virtually GUARANTEEING that their neighbors would also seek nuclear weapons. Theres an old adage that says “Carry a knife to a fight, expect to get cut. Carry a gun to a fight, expect to get shot”. It seems Israel doesn’t subscribe to such timeless wisdom.
    If I was Iranian, and had observed what Israel did in Lebanon with cluster munitions, and what they’ve done in the West Bank, I would have to assume they are capable of using nukes against a defenseless civilian population. And you can rest assurred I would expect, and demand, that my leaders seek a technological deterrence; nukes.
    From “The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies”……
    President Obama and the Middle East Challenge
    by Jonathan Rynhold
    Executive Summary: Barack Obama’s general outlook on foreign policy is the opposite of George W. Bush’s approach. He has enunciated a clear program for Middle East policy based on multilateralism and negotiations to deal with Iran, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In reality he will have to make tough choices about what to prioritize and do when other countries reject the US approach. The most important challenge he faces concerns Iran, rather than the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    An excerpt….
    Facing Reality – Difficult Choices
    Reality has a way of forcing a president to make hard choices, by prioritizing some polices over others. Obama’s primary focus is bound to be on ensuring the recovery of the American economy. This might make him more circumspect about using force against Iran, fearing the economic fallout of a rise in oil prices. However, a focus on Iran is preferable, where time is of the essence.
    On paper it is possible to pursue a negotiated settlement vis-?-vis Iran, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict simultaneously. In practice, hard choices will have to be made about what is the true priority. Here, it is important for Obama to realize that while containing and managing the Arab-Israeli conflict is a vital US interest, resolution of the conflict is a secondary concern. The US will probably need to engage in peace process diplomacy for a variety of reasons, but the prospects for implementing a workable Israeli-Palestinian final settlement are poor indeed.
    Moreover, the central strategic challenge emanates from Tehran, not Jerusalem or Ramallah. This is a message he is bound to hear not only from Israel but also, privately, from America’s Arab allies. A nuclear Iran will trigger the nuclearization of the Middle East more broadly, which could allow radical actors access to these dangerous weapons. Given the past use of non-conventional weapons by Middle East actors and their penchant for using terrorist proxies to preserve deniability, there is no guarantee that deterrence will hold.

    Reply

  19. la.politique says:

    Joe Lieberman is not a democrat, is not an independent and wonder if he is a republican.. he is an opportunist and almost till the end, there was a possibility of his being the VP cadidate ( McCain’s first choice ). As someone suggested, he should be recalled by Conneticut citizens and sent home packing.

    Reply

  20. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Bill R…Keith Olberman just reported that Dick Durbin is coming around on Joe Lieberman…can Spring be far behind?
    Change you can screw yourself on.

    Reply

  21. Linda says:

    He’ll lose his chairmanship, stay in the Democratic caucus, be irrelevant for four more years, not accepted or trusted by either party, and won’t run again as an independent because he’d lose.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I think this Lieberman dust up might just turn into a litmus test to see how dedicated the powers in the Democratic Party actually are to real change as opposed to changing the chairs around on the listing deck of the great ship of state”
    When you’ve just been burnt by spilled acid, you hardly need litmus paper to determine what caused the injury.
    I think we’ve already seen enough to know that “change” is just another campaign buzzword. Palin ain’t the only one that got pranked.

    Reply

  23. Bill R. says:

    They vote on Lieberman next week. Schumer and Durbin want him removed from chairmanship. That’s the real question. The new social contract for Lieberman should be banishment to the back bench for the duration of his term and then a ticket to K Street until Washington is permanently sick of him. He is a disgrace.. period…

    Reply

  24. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    POA…Hmmmm, I’m intrigued…Steve,,,give us a clue on the Hillary post, please……..it was so fun to see you on Rachel Maddow…Good team work… I really like her… a New England girl…
    POA… don’t change a thing…if you do, we’ll all die of boredom…nothing is cleaner than the truth, so just keep telling it like it is….like you do. Rachel is sure to love you, too.
    Arthurdecco…we are a nation of insecure conformist enablers, incapable of thinking, in or out of the box.Welcome to the Pavlacracy…Drool baby, drool….
    Am I blue, blue?

    Reply

  25. arthurdecco says:

    “When one cuts through all the think tank over-complications, and the political double-speak, its just plain ludicrous to keep Lieberman onboard. Unless, of course, its someone, or something, OTHER than the Democratic party that you are loyal to.” POA
    You know it is! And you know who and what it is. Just like every other sentient American. The problem is: what can be done about it that doesn’t injure the innocent or reward the complicit?
    Lieberman, for the good of all, should be ridden from Washington on a figurative Democrat rail, tarred with his deeds and feathered with the country’s contempt for his blatant disregard for the vital interests of his constituents and his replacement of that responsibility and privilege with a naked ambition for all things right wing Israeli. As other posters have mentioned, he’s been largely ineffective in all the political roles and policies he’s assumed or promoted except for his work on behalf of Israel.
    But of course, Lieberman will never be ridden out of Washington by the current Democratic leadership. It simply won’t happen. (Who’s got the balls to buck the lobby?)
    But to have Lieberman serving as the head of a committee dealing with Homeland Security in the United States of America should be as repulsive and dangerous an idea to Americans as allowing Rahm Emanuel to be the gatekeeper of the President…
    Surely you see where all this is leading, don’t you? These clowns don’t care you know what they’re doing. They don’t care you’re upset with their grabs at fistfuls, hell(!), Armloads of power! They know there’s nothing you can do about it, and besides, they know there’s plenty of media foot soldiers prepared to loudly defend them and viciously attack the few who do squawk about it.
    Lieberman stays. The real bosses have said so and in your heart of hearts you already know it.
    PS: Great post, blue: Nov 11, 11:49AM

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, I suppose its a more flattering costume than the tinfoil hats they used to accuse us of wearing.

    Reply

  27. Dan Kervick says:

    Myself, I don’t wear pajamas.

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, unbelievable. This ignorant wench feeds us “Joe Sixpack” and “Joe the Plumber”, winking all the while, and bloggers are “kids in pajamas”???
    I guess when you’re reaching out to Joe Sixpack, ya better hope ‘ol Joe is getting all his info from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/palin-calls-bloggers-kids_b_142872.html
    Palin Calls Bloggers “Kids in Pajamas”
    Sarah Palin’s interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren this evening, she referred to bloggers as “kids in pajamas sitting in the basement of their parents’ homes” spewing out mean and inaccurate things about her.
    continues…..
    (Hey Steve, get dressed, will ya? Gads man, you can’t spend your whole life in your PJs.)

    Reply

  29. HAS says:

    Steve, I enjoyed your discussion with Rachel, who is a rising star. It is good to have the discussion about the future of Joe in the Democratic party. It is what our country and nation is all about. I will leave it to the Senators on the Deomocratic side of the aisle to decide on his future; as they know best what the real Joe is all about…the good, the bad and the ugly.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “As for fearmongering and Islamophobia, wasn’t it Obama who eliminated any Muslims from his photo-ops and cancelled an event with Congressman Keith Ellison because he is a Muslim? I give the whole goddmaned bunch of them a big flying F. Looking at the passle of tired re-treads Obama just picked, I’m not holdong my breath for any change any time soon. Scratch a pol and you get a pol..Surprised? You must be brain dead.”
    Kathleen, as usual, you get “it”. Bingo.
    And as far as Steve’s “Hillary Post” goes, I’m afraid I’m gonna keep Steve’s confidence on this one. The post appeared, and dissappeared, in the short amount of time it took me to compose a short comment. I must assume that Steve had good reason to remove it, and if there is a cat in that bag, we should probably let Steve make the decision about when he wants to let it out.
    In fact, with the exposure Steve’s getting, I’m even thinking about cleaning up my act. “Thinking” being the key word, no decision yet. But geez, this political crap can just get so tedious and boring. And seeing as how I can’t actually shove my boot up the asses of some of these posturing lyin’ sacks of shit, I can at least let them know I’d like to. But with Maddow beckoning the world to pay TWN a visit, maybe I better put on my civil costume. But I swear, I’m gonna explode if I hear one more jackass tell me that Palin is our future. I guess these people think Al Qaeda’s next terrorist act will be to administer lobotomies to the majority of the population.

    Reply

  31. rich says:

    I disagree, Kathleen, that Obama’s caution can be equated with Lieberman’s extensive and active McCarthyism using the race card. And it’s disappointing you’re so unresponsive to the point that you’d deflect attention on such specious grounds. Not happy about Obama’s decision, but get real: he wanted to win, and Lieberman was out there pretending he was a Muslim!
    But Joe Lieberman’s record isn’t just execrable–it’s endless.
    Lieberman conducted no oversight on Katrina. Or Iraq. I think people forget this was a big reason Harry Reid put Lieberman in charge of Homeland Security in the first place. Democrats didn’t WANT to enforce accountability. Lieberman gave them the cover they needed. So don’t expect him to lose anything.
    Lieberman also supported Alberto Gonzalez, lied about waterboarding not being torture (“the impact is psychological”), and advocated privatizing Social Security or investing it in the markets (“broadening its portfolio”).
    If anyone thinks this is all partisan hyperbolae, take a look at this short video from Brave New Films.
    Lieberman pushed a supposed Hamas endorsement of Obama, implied that Obama is a Muslim AND a Marxist, and insinuated that he wished Death to Americans.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/they-just-keep-on-rolling-by-digby.html
    This excellent list at Think Progress is just damning:
    http://thinkprogress.org/lieberman-not-progressive/
    Try telling us Lieberman votes with Democrats 90% of the time! The rest, he’s just dismantling every classic policy that’s made this country great.
    A classic is Joe Lieberman vote to allow hospitals to refuse rape victims the treatment of choice. It’s just “a short ride” to a different hospital. Who’s protecting our women and children, now, Joe? Putting religious codes and doctors’ freedom to choose above the moral obligation (religious and medical) to help a rape victim and her freedom to choose? Mmmm–good Samaritan. No, that’s New Testament (though the Old T does have clear antecedents).
    http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/10/the-case-against-lieberman/
    Or perhaps you prefer Lieberman’s stoking racial division?
    [Lieberman] blanketed cars in parking lots of African-American churches with flyers suggesting Lamont was racist. (Lamont had resigned from a country club, not because it practiced discrimination but because he felt it was not diverse enough.) Meanwhile, Lieberman stoked racial tensions by telling Jewish groups in Connecticut saying that Lamont had surrounded himself with people like Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton “who are either naïve or are isolationists or, frankly, some more explicitly against Israel.”
    “Lieberman subsequently told the New Haven Register that he opposed legislation that would have required all publicly funded hospitals to provide Plan B contraception to rape victims, saying “it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital” (for which he earned himself the sobriquet “Short Ride.”)”

    Reply

  32. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    POA…what Hillary post? I missed it. I’m curious…what was it about?I don’t mean to be snide, guys, but I just can’t help it. Does anyone seriously expect this pack of jello-critters we call Dem Leaders, who utterly refused to even consider punishing Dopey and Darth for lying the nation into an ujustifed war, causing the death and maiming of God knows how many people, to punish Joe Lieberman, who incidentally voted the same way they all did, because he supported John McCain and praised Sarah Palin and made some scurrilous remarks about Obama? It’s not going to happen, short of a group spinal transplant. Come to think of it, the Democraps will probably re-nominate Joe in 2012….that will make everything cozy and “normal” again.
    As for fearmongering and Islamophobia, wasn’t it Obama who eliminated any Muslims from his photo-ops and cancelled an event with Congressman Keith Ellison because he is a Muslim? I give the whole goddmaned bunch of them a big flying F. Looking at the passle of tired re-treads Obama just picked, I’m not holdong my breath for any change any time soon. Scratch a pol and you get a pol..Surprised? You must be brain dead.

    Reply

  33. Aravir says:

    Steve, I understand the logic behind your position. The problem is that I don’t see why I should trust Lieberman on any issue any longer. It has been clear to me for years that the only constituency Lieberman consistently cares about is himself. He can’t be trusted not to go off the reservation on any issue. Naturally, you want him out of the sphere of influence on the issues most important to you, and with which you are most conversant. I don’t blame you for that. Don’t blame the rest of us for wishing to keep him just as far away from influence on the issues most important to us.

    Reply

  34. rich says:

    Lieberman conducted NO oversight on Iraq OR Katrina. I think people forget this was a big reason Harry Reid put Lieberman in charge of Homeland Security in the first place. Democrats didn’t WANT to enforce accountability. Lieberman gave them the cover they needed. Don’t expect him to lose anything.
    Lieberman also supported Alberto Gonzalez, lied about waterboarding (“the impact is psychological”) not being torture, and advocated privatizing Social Security or investing it the markets (“broadening its portfolio”).
    If anyone thinks this is all partisan hyperbolae, take a look at this short video from Brave New Films.
    Lieberman’s pushes a supposed Hamas endorsement or Obama, implied that Obama is a Muslim AND a Marxist, and insinuated that he wished Death to America.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/they-just-keep-on-rolling-by-digby.html
    More at:
    http://thinkprogress.org/lieberman-not-progressive/
    http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/10/the-case-against-lieberman/
    [Lieberman] blanketed cars in parking lots of African-American churches with flyers suggesting Lamont was racist. (Lamont had resigned from a country club, not because it practiced discrimination but because he felt it was not diverse enough.) Meanwhile, Lieberman stoked racial tensions by telling Jewish groups in Connecticut saying that Lamont had surrounded himself with people like Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton “who are either naïve or are isolationists or, frankly, some more explicitly against Israel.”
    “Lieberman subsequently told the New Haven Register that he opposed legislation that would have required all publicly funded hospitals to provide Plan B contraception to rape victims, saying “it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital” (for which he earned himself the sobriquet “Short Ride.”)”

    Reply

  35. JohnH says:

    It’s time for Connecticut Democrats to stand tall and enact a law that will allow voters to recall Lieberman.
    In other news, some of Lieberman’s favorite merchants of death might be facing budget cuts: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/

    Reply

  36. daCascadian says:

    I think this Lieberman dust up might just turn into a litmus test to see how dedicated the powers in the Democratic Party actually are to real change as opposed to changing the chairs around on the listing deck of the great ship of state.
    We shall see if there comes Change We Can Believe In.
    “…It`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine…” – REM

    Reply

  37. mamased says:

    How do you excuse running against the Democratic Candidate for Senate from Connecticut.
    Sorry – but this is old-boy’s-club politics at its seemliest.
    Certainly there are better qualified candidates for all the committees being discussed. The only reason for Lieberman to be chair of a committee is giving-in to the belief that has an entitlement.
    He was defeated by a Democratic challenger in his race for the senate. He refused the will of the party, they owe him nothing.

    Reply

  38. alan says:

    Steve is too generous. None of the stuff being put out is surprising. The Senate has been home to some nasty specimens: racists, former Ku Klux Klan types, and now even a convicted felon (under appeal) who have managed to live off the taxpayer by delivering taxpayer funded goodies. The names are well known.
    If Lieberman retains his chairmanship we will be free to make the appropriate judgement about Democrats in the Senate. Nothing I have read and heard thus far has given me reason to be encouraged.

    Reply

  39. blue says:

    BREAKING NEWS:
    Democratic Party Destroyed From Within;
    Activists Hardly Can’t Be Bothered To Notice

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    Posted by SansS Nov 11, 10:24AM – Link
    “Maybe someone can comment on this: Is there a mechanism whereby people representing foreign governments and their intelligence organs have to register as foreign agents? If so, then does it appear that that mechanism that is being purposefully cloaked by foreign agents working the dog?”
    >>>>>>>>>
    Yep there is, it’s called the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Kennedy and his justice dept were after AIPAC and a few other attempts have been made but our Israeli occupied congress and other zionistas in gov agencies have worked hard to prevent it. To register AIPAC as foreign you will have to wipe out 90% of the US congress….hummmm….not a bad idea…people like Lieberman, Schumer, Engle, Pelosi, Harman, Ackerman, and a host of non jews in congress are all extentions of the Israeli Lobby.
    A little info..
    Last update: 9:29 a.m. EDT Sept. 5, 2008
    WASHINGTON, Sep 05, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden publicly chastised the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Wednesday. Accused of not backing AIPAC sponsored legislation, Biden told reporters, “They think they know the Senate better than I do. They don’t know the Senate better than I do…AIPAC does not speak for the State of Israel.”
    The outspoken Senator Biden, often compared to president John F. Kennedy, is wrong. Newly declassified documents reveal that before his death, JFK’s most pressing concerns were registering the Israel lobby as foreign government agents and inspections of the Israeli nuclear weapons program.
    Isaiah L. Kenen worked as the registered foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Affairs in New York until he established what would become AIPAC in 1951. In his words, Kenen left because “Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation…would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby for aid on Capitol Hill?”
    When Kenen told the Justice Department’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) office he was leaving to perform public relations for the Israeli Government, he was advised to re-register. Kenen never did, even as he founded and distributed the Near East Report lobbying newsletter with $38,000 in Israeli funds.
    Senator J.W. Fulbright and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy discovered the same Israeli organization funneled millions for stealth lobbying and public relations activities into the US. This lobbying for massive foreign aid to Israel succeeded despite lack of broad American taxpayer support. The US Attorney General ordered the Israel lobby to register as the agent of a foreign government in 1962.
    Observers of AIPAC can review select declassified documents from the new book, “America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government” .
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You can find it at amazon.
    Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal
    “In America’s Defense Line, Grant Smith has penetrated once again into the murky waters that underlie the observable control of US Middle East policy by Israel and its aggressive American support base that have undermined the efforts of successive US administrations, be they Democrat or Republican, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. In Foreign Agents and now in America’s Defense Line, using recently declassified documents, Smith exposes the charade that the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ is simply a well-organized, overly zealous group functioning within the spirit of traditional American political advocacy. What we see is something far more sinister. America’s Defense Line should be required reading for anyone concerned with preserving what is left of the US political process.” — Jeffrey Blankfort is the former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and hosts the international affairs program “Takes on the World” on KZYX Pacifica Radio in Mendocino, California.
    “The Israel lobby is one of the most influential interest groups in American history. Yet there is insufficient public knowledge about its origins and operations. Grant Smith’s new book is a major step forward in correcting that problem. He provides a fascinating–and disturbing–account of how I.L. Kenen laid the groundwork for AIPAC, the most powerful organization in the lobby.” — John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author with Stephen M. Walt of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (2007)
    “This is an excellent book that brings together declassified material showing how the Israel lobby managed to sow corruption at the highest levels of the US government and even break US law. Like other excellent books by the author (e.g. Deadly Dogma and Foreign Agents), America’s Defense Line breaks new ground in research into the destructive role of narrow special interests in US domestic and foreign affairs. This latest contribution is a tour de force and is a must read for anyone interested to understand why we are embroiled in the quagmire of the Middle East and how we might get out of it (thus saving our economy and our global reputation).” — Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Professor at Bethlehem University and author of “Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle”
    “This is vital reading for anyone interested in what really guides American attitudes towards Israel. Grant F. Smith reveals how the almost universal misunderstanding of the Israel-Palestine question in the United States, and the blind support for Israel in Government, the media and public opinion are not sentimental accident, but the result of assiduous plotting and planning by Israel, its agents, and friends to subvert the American system and freedom of speech over more than half a century.” — Tim Llewellyn, former BBC Middle East Correspondent
    Product Description
    An unforeseen effect of the Iraq war is allowing more Americans to speak freely about the role of the Israel lobby. When and how was it born? While it is generally understood that American interest groups played a crucial role in the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and supporting politicians who would stand up for Israel, other facts have remained elusive.
    Grant F. Smith reveals that many of the functions the Israel lobby smoothly and quietly executes in political life today were formed in the late 1950s and early 1960s: the crucial political contributions and unrelenting campaign to convince Americans that Israel and the United States share common interests and enemies, whether the old Communist bloc–or Islamic radicals in the 21st century. Smith documents the lobby’s awesome resistance to public accountability for its actions from Congress and the Justice Department. That fascinating history is the terrain of this book.
    Referencing over 1,000 previously classified documents released under a Freedom of Information Act filing, Smith follows Isaiah L. Kenen’s path from registered foreign agent for the Israeli government to founder of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Smith unearths a formerly secret non-prosecution agreement, the “subvention caveat” reached between the Israel lobby and the US Department of Justice. The agreement reveals a great deal about the operational latitude of the lobby and the US government’s institutional aversion to challenging it. America’s Defense Line may forever change the debate about US Middle East policy formulation.

    Reply

  41. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve,
    On another topic, your realist innards must have been warmed to some extent by this passage from today’s WaPo story about Obama on Afghanistan:
    “But conversations with several Obama advisers and a number of senior military strategists both before and since last Tuesday’s election reveal a shared sense that the Afghan effort under the Bush administration has been hampered by ideological and diplomatic constraints and an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a modern democracy — rather than a stable nation that rejects al-Qaeda and Islamist extremism and does not threaten U.S. interests.”

    Reply

  42. Dan Kervick says:

    Madison, I say “bah”. Obama just named Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. His Israel bona fides are now reasonably secure. Democrats can afford to dump Lieberman without a lot of fuss from Israel or “The Lobby”. Anyway, Chuck Schumer, who has as much Israel cred as anyone in the Senate, now wants Lieberman stripped of his chairmanship. It’s all over for Joe.
    Israelis understand a punishable act of political betrayal when they see one as well as anyone. My guess is that if Lieberman *isn’t* punished for something this brazen, they will lose a lot of respect for the Democrats.

    Reply

  43. Madison says:

    Completely ignoring one of the most influential foreign relationships with America for the sake of misguided “political correctness” simply does not make sense. What could possibly be spun to be construed as anti-semitic if our own government was to ensure Israel operated within the best interests of America, instead of the other way around? No other political power in the world, not even the U.N., works this way with America. Forgive my indiscretions and any perceived ignorance on my part for saying this, but it’s an extremely interesting topic that is simply never addressed.

    Reply

  44. rich says:

    Not to quibble, but why does Joe Lieberman get “a new social contract”?
    What was wrong with the old one? I know–it’s a figure of speech for a new arrangement.
    Still, I’m fond of the old social contract. And since it’s been ripped to shreds for the past 8-16 years by you-know-who, it seems unreasonable to be making accommodations for those who did the ripping.
    I still agree your path forward is a reasonable, face-saving compromise, and necesary. But continually allowing those who don’t act in good faith to go unpunished is just a recipe for losing everything that matters to the body politic. It’s not a compromise if only one side gives ground.
    Same with those who rip up the Constitution and act in bad faith towards their co-equal branches and limited Powers. To allow such damage to go un-repaired sets precedent and pushes us down a path that fritters away clear, defining principles. It’s not a law unless everyone follows it. It’s not a functional, justifiable process unless everyone’s accountable. Without that much, without real pushback and without authentic compromise from the other side, we will (& have) seen a continual degradation of the body politic and the foundation that justifies much of our self-regard.
    There’s just no way around the fact that administered policies no longer reflect basic, foundational law.

    Reply

  45. blue says:

    It’s time for Democrats, such as they are, to boot this man
    wholesale from what is left of that party. Speaking as a lifelong
    Democrat glued to politics for the last eight years especially, but
    who, to my great regret, the Democratic party lost as a voter due
    to ridiculous nature of the primary, I still advise them to boot
    Lieberman wholesale, at any cost.
    Not only has Lieberman been creeping about playing the
    ultimate Wormtongue to this Saruman or that Sauron, he also
    undermined Gore in public & private regarding the agreed-upon
    counting of military ballots THUS handing the White House
    directly to BUSH.
    In my opinion, Holy Joe was foisted on the 2000 ticket ostensibly
    in name of the morals police in the aftermath of the media
    fanned & flamed idiot Lewinsky scandal, but in truth had darker
    purposes. History will not look kindly upon this sinister little
    man OR HIS ENABLERS who has since not only cavorted
    delightedly with hawks of every sort while making faces, sticking
    out his tongue & generally deploying every little annoying
    brother trick known to mankind to goad the Dems into a
    spectacle of truly NA NA NA NA NA NA YOU CAN’T CATCH ME
    breathtaking proportions, yet still wields so much power &
    influence it is tolerated to seemingly no end, as if he were the
    President’s President.
    Send Holy Joe packing forthwith. He should be stripped of his
    citizenship let alone of some kind of weak party affiliation.
    His loyalties are certainly not to this country or his oath of office.
    The only realistic constructive social contract possible with Joe
    Lieberman would be booting him out of the country, as much for
    past sins (if his actions have not risen to actually persecutable
    crimes) as for future transgressions. And by crimes I mean
    stoking the fires for a war we in no way had to fight.

    Reply

  46. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And with American politics so closely linked to an unwavering support of Israel, removing Lieberman from the Democratic party and essentially setting the gears in motion to end his career is simply not an option.”
    Gee, ya think? Uh oh, better watch what you say, or some jackass will attack you for “overstating” Israel’s power over American politics, politicians, and policies. Keep it up, and you might even get inducted into the “anti-semite” category.

    Reply

  47. Madison says:

    I think Lieberman’s importance for relations with Israel are being severely underestimated by the media. The Democrats obviously know this, and by keeping him around under the clever guise of keeping another vote towards 60 around, they are dealing with an important policy issue. Lieberman has continually been referred to by multiple sources as Israel’s greatest ally in America. And with American politics so closely linked to an unwavering support of Israel, removing Lieberman from the Democratic party and essentially setting the gears in motion to end his career is simply not an option. Remove him from heading the security council, do not place him as the head of any important committee (his records in both education and technology do not bode well for him bettering either), yet do it in a way that does not humiliate the man. If he chooses to run to the Republican party, let him do so so that he sentences himself to career suicide. If he cannot adapt to the extremely generous situation that will be offered to him, only he will be to blame for his removal from Washington politics.

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Joe…
    You actually see a reason to trust Reid if you ignore his stance on Lieberman? What has this coward Reid done these last eight years? And don’t tell me about that horseshit stunt he pulled about Phase Two. It was ineffective grandstanding, and the net result was exactly nothing.
    Reid is no better than Lieberman, he has just managed to hide his betrayals more effectively. Obama natters on about change, but with this cowardly and abbetting crew of the likes of Reid and Pelosi, it is highly unlikely we will see actual substantive change.

    Reply

  49. joe the democrat says:

    Simply put – I don’t trust the man. And how can the Democratic
    base, that worked so hard for the past eight years to bring these
    victories about, continue to trust Harry Reid and the Dem party
    leadership, if they let this model of self serving hypocrisy keep his
    chairmanship?

    Reply

  50. rich says:

    I won’t cut down Lieberman’s work on Education.
    BUt JohnH is right.
    Joe Lieberman has demagogued in the Education arena the same way he has on foreign policy. His work with ACTA & Lynn Cheney to urge blacklisting professors for their academic viewpoints is indefensible. His attraction to McCarthyite methods is testament to where he wants to take this country—and to the gross over-reach that he apparently sees as standard behavior.
    Is “education” really his objective?
    Unless I’m missing something, Lieberman’s PR gambits & major press conferences don’t focus on upgrading education policy. More representative of Lieberman’s role is his denunciation of violence in video games. Lieberman exploited children and parental fears to score political points.
    I’m no fan of ultra-violent programming. But it’s absurd to think censorship will or can ‘protect the children’. Not when kids have been watching mayhem and murder on TV for decades. Not when they attend public schools and are far less naive and more experienced than Joe Lieberman will ever be.
    If Senator Lieberman were doing so much for education, which is in a sorry-ass state, we’d hear more about it. If he cared about the security of our children, some investment in cities, schools & neighborhoods would come first. That hasn’t happened. I don’t see any great impact from Joe Lieberman’s leadership.
    But here again, we see the connection between a failed foreign policy and a bankrupt domestic policy. You can’t build a better America when you spend all our blood and treasure destroying homes and villages and nations on the other side of the world. So I don’t think Mr. Lieberman’s focus has been on education or child safety.
    Think hard. With one hand, Joe Lieberman denounces pretend violence in video games and sex on TV; with the other, he enables the obscenity of a bloody fruitless war that’s delivered killings, bombings and torture more indiscriminately than not, to women and children and sunni and shia alike.
    Get it straight. Air strikes against Iraqi and Afghani wedding parties are not gonna win any hearts and minds. And another dog-&-pony show about how free expression, video games and TeeVee are coming to get our dear, sweet children just isn’t going to protect anybody.
    It made a fool outta Lieberman, not that he knows it, but it left us vulnerable at home and abroad. If supporting families and protecting children were truly on Lieberman’s agenda, a major push for living wage jobs that allow greater parental supervision and create safer neighborhoods would be high on his agenda and occupying more of his attention. That’s not happening. Instead, we get another patronizing morality play entirely at odds with core American values.
    And btw, the morale of the Senator’s staff is at rock-bottom because of it.

    Reply

  51. Dan Kervick says:

    Don’t we have an established system in this country for legislators to achieve leadership positions in the two houses of Congress? Those legislators belong to *parties* whose members work together to win elections, pass legislation in the teeth of opposition and implement governing agendas. In return for your service to the nation *and* your party, you are rewarded with more and more leadership responsibility in the legislature.
    When he last ran for re-election in Connecticut, Lieberman’s own party rejected him, decisively, and did not re-nominate him. He then bolted the party, ran for re-election as an independent, and defeated the Democratic Party’s own chosen candidate.
    Then to underline his rejection of the Democratic Party, as if such further underlining were needed, he rejected the Democratic Party’s own candidate for president, and actively campaigned against that candidate, and for the Republican candidate. And he did not do this in a spirit of respectful dissent, but abetted some of the lowest campaign techniques of the Republican opposition, helped spread lies and disinformation about Barack Obama, and unapologetically and enthusiastically endorsed a manifest incompetent from the Republican Party for the vice presidency.
    Why are Democrats even talking about granting him a leadership position. Those positions should be reserved for the people who *help their party*. That’s how our system works. Republicans understand this as well as Democrats, if not better.

    Reply

  52. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Has it occurred to anyone that Reid is being blackmailed to keep Lieberman around? Surely Reid has demonstrated no small subservience to the wishes of “the lobby”. And we definitely know how this cowardly crone “impeachment off the table” Pelosi stands as far as kowtowing to her masters, thanks to her stand on deleting the need for Congressional approval to attack Iran.
    Only the very uninformed believe that the neo-cons are alone in the fealty they pay to Israel. The democrats are obviously just as beholding.
    Perhaps Reid’s status as a neutered and mewling lackey of the status quo is imposed by powers he dare not challenge.
    When one cuts through all the think tank over-complications, and the political double-speak, its just plain ludicrous to keep Lieberman onboard. Unless, of course, its someone, or something, OTHER than the Democratic party that you are loyal to.

    Reply

  53. Eric Taylor says:

    I do believe he should not be allowed back into foreign policy committees. He’s a disaster!

    Reply

  54. SansS says:

    In assessing the situation, you have to be wondering why the tail is still wagging the dog? Has the dog lost its footing and is the tail controlling the slide?
    T.S. Eliot may have put it incorrectly.
    “This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.”
    Israel appears to have maneuvered a spectacular takeover without _even_ a whimper.
    Maybe someone can comment on this: Is there a mechanism whereby people representing foreign governments and their intelligence organs have to register as foreign agents? If so, then does it appear that that mechanism that is being purposefully cloaked by foreign agents working the dog?
    The ‘Manchurian Candidate’ was fiction wasn’t it?

    Reply

  55. Pete S says:

    I am inclined to think that Joe is bluffing. The voters of Connecticut can’t be all that pleased with him as it is. If he choses
    to go over to the republican side of the aisle it would be political
    suicide. I can’t stand him as a personality but I don’t see him
    changing his opinions on issues because he got his just comeuppance.

    Reply

  56. JohnH says:

    Lieberman for education? Get real! After he teamed with Lynne Cheney to blacklist professors who didn’t think right?
    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1213-05.htm
    In Lieberman’s world, education would create Stepford students, all smiling and nodding politely as they march in lock step to neo conmen propaganda.

    Reply

  57. rich says:

    Excellent discussion, Steve, especially Maddow’s intro. When Lieberman’s been pirouetting as fast as he can, no one needs to be “talked down.” Lip service to Party and even the McCain endorsement can be overlooked; the fearmongering cannot. You identify the necessary compromise.
    But do note Lieberman’s fearmongering extends to inciting the very Islamophobia you’ve 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. The 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

  58. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yes, lets put him in the educational arena. He can develop programs to teach our kids that Palestinians are sub-human, and that Israel has God’s nod to commit genocide.
    Steve, on the one hand you say you agree with me that our nation’s leaders should be held accountable for the crimes of the last eight years, yet on the other hand you are willing to endorse the continued employ of one of the most complicit and abetting criminals.
    (And…uh..ssssshhhhh, but are we gonna see the Hillary post again, or is it gone for good?)

    Reply

  59. Spunkmeyer says:

    Steve, you are far more charitable to Lieberman than me. Let him
    work on these other issues — but in no way, shape or form should
    it be in a leadership position. He should no more have a
    leadership position in the majority party than John McCain should
    after his pointed attacks on the Democratic Party nominee.

    Reply

Add your comment

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