Yay for Joe Lieberman. You go, Joe!

[techs]

Way to go, Joe.
By being the deciding vote in the Senate on Iraq good old Joe is going to let Bush do what he wants. Hence, Bush, who is incapable of ever admitting he was wrong, and incapable of ever changing his course once he sets out, will keep the situation in Iraq going at its current state of debacle thru the '08 elections.
While this is terrible news for our troops and our country, the end result is fantastic for the Democrats.
Joe will make the war a central issue of the '08 campaign. And if America was fed up with the war in '06 they will be outraged in '08 after 2 years of Democratic light being shined on the Bushies war policies.
Joe-mentum never looked so good for the Democrats.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you are a real Democrat what is bad for the country and good for Democrats is not a possible condition. What is bad for the country is always bad for Democrats.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you are a real Democrat what is bad for the country and good for Democrats is not a possible condition. What is bad for the country is always bad for Democrats.

qft

 

[Stoneburner]

I think techs was being a little facetious moonbeam. The truth is, besides the hearings on the stupidity of the war, the senate and house can't do much to stop it besides pull funding which will not happen. Odds are that the war is going to get worse despite any margin the dems may have gained in the senate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I think techs was being a little facetious moonbeam. The truth is, besides the hearings on the stupidity of the war, the senate and house can't do much to stop it besides pull funding which will not happen. Odds are that the war is going to get worse despite any margin the dems may have gained in the senate.

Like that will stop Darth Cheney.


http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/061119034024.d010tlyg.html

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

 

[fornax]

While he may hold the deciding vote, he will not be on any committees, commisions, etc, where most of the decisions are really made. I wouldn't overestimate his position.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: fornax
While he may hold the deciding vote, he will not be on any committees, commisions, etc, where most of the decisions are really made. I wouldn't overestimate his position.

Lieberman's headed for the chairmanship of the homeland security committee, according to him.

As a citizen of CT who has observed Lieberman for a long time, he is extremely hard to predict. Roughly his priorities are:

1) Joe Lieberman-fame and honors
2) Joe Lieberman
3) Israel
4) Joe Lieberman
5) Lieberman's views of what is good for the US-a wierd amalgamation of his roots as a 60's freedom fiighter, TV and video game censor (he's the leading proponent, along with Hillary) and Terry Schiavo type fundamentalist
6) Joe Lieberman
7) In his odd moments, what is good for the state he allegedly represents. But then it better have a good dosage of pro-Lieberman publicity involved.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I think techs was being a little facetious moonbeam. The truth is, besides the hearings on the stupidity of the war, the senate and house can't do much to stop it besides pull funding which will not happen. Odds are that the war is going to get worse despite any margin the dems may have gained in the senate.

The Democrats don`t have a plan anyway for troop pullouts or for daling with the issue.
Which is why on 2008 we will again have a Republican President.
The Dem - hypocrats are 100% talk and no action!

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: fornax
While he may hold the deciding vote, he will not be on any committees, commisions, etc, where most of the decisions are really made. I wouldn't overestimate his position.

Lieberman's headed for the chairmanship of the homeland security committee, according to him.

As a citizen of CT who has observed Lieberman for a long time, he is extremely hard to predict. Roughly his priorities are:

1) Joe Lieberman-fame and honors
2) Joe Lieberman
3) Israel
4) Joe Lieberman
5) Lieberman's views of what is good for the US-a wierd amalgamation of his roots as a 60's freedom fiighter, TV and video game censor (he's the leading proponent, along with Hillary) and Terry Schiavo type fundamentalist
6) Joe Lieberman
7) In his odd moments, what is good for the state he allegedly represents. But then it better have a good dosage of pro-Lieberman publicity involved.

lol

I can't believe he won.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I think techs was being a little facetious moonbeam. The truth is, besides the hearings on the stupidity of the war, the senate and house can't do much to stop it besides pull funding which will not happen. Odds are that the war is going to get worse despite any margin the dems may have gained in the senate.

Like that will stop Darth Cheney.


http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/061119034024.d010tlyg.html

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

It's completely impossible to fight a war if Congress doesn't provide the funds to fight.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The Democrats don`t have a plan anyway for troop pullouts or for daling with the issue.
Which is why on 2008 we will again have a Republican President.
The Dem - hypocrats are 100% talk and no action!

Yep, and you were one of the main people here on P&N who said "the Dems will never take over the House". Hmm, which party owns Washington now*?:laugh:


edit: *As of January, of course.

 

[Todd33]

"The Dem - hypocrats are 100% talk and no action!"

You are right, why can't they use their time machine and go to Jan and get some work done?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I think techs was being a little facetious moonbeam. The truth is, besides the hearings on the stupidity of the war, the senate and house can't do much to stop it besides pull funding which will not happen. Odds are that the war is going to get worse despite any margin the dems may have gained in the senate.

The Democrats don`t have a plan anyway for troop pullouts or for daling with the issue.
Which is why on 2008 we will again have a Republican President.
The Dem - hypocrats are 100% talk and no action!

Um, the Democrats aren't in power yet, how can you say they are 100% talk and no action, when they don't even have the majority to carry out said actions

 

[andy9o]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: fornax
While he may hold the deciding vote, he will not be on any committees, commisions, etc, where most of the decisions are really made. I wouldn't overestimate his position.

Lieberman's headed for the chairmanship of the homeland security committee, according to him.

As a citizen of CT who has observed Lieberman for a long time, he is extremely hard to predict. Roughly his priorities are:

1) Joe Lieberman-fame and honors
2) Joe Lieberman
3) Israel
4) Joe Lieberman
5) Lieberman's views of what is good for the US-a wierd amalgamation of his roots as a 60's freedom fiighter, TV and video game censor (he's the leading proponent, along with Hillary) and Terry Schiavo type fundamentalist
6) Joe Lieberman
7) In his odd moments, what is good for the state he allegedly represents. But then it better have a good dosage of pro-Lieberman publicity involved.

Truth. Though, his willingness to vote with Bush may be tempered by his desire to sit/chair various committees, which won't happen if he sways too far to the right. Of course, he could flip his party to Republican, but that would effectively end his career after this term.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: andy9o
. . .
Truth. Though, his willingness to vote with Bush may be tempered by his desire to sit/chair various committees, which won't happen if he sways too far to the right. Of course, he could flip his party to Republican, but that would effectively end his career after this term.

Lieberman is 72 years old and just went through what he termed the fight of his career to retain his seat. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I don't expect him to run again-but that is not a decision he will announce until at least 5 1/2 years from now.

 

[andy9o]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: andy9o
. . .
Truth. Though, his willingness to vote with Bush may be tempered by his desire to sit/chair various committees, which won't happen if he sways too far to the right. Of course, he could flip his party to Republican, but that would effectively end his career after this term.

Lieberman is 72 years old and just went through what he termed the fight of his career to retain his seat. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I don't expect him to run again-but that is not a decision he will announce until at least 5 1/2 years from now.

Well, I would have liked to think that, given his age etc.., he would have chosen his loss in the primaries as his time to step down. He strikes me as the type that will keep running until he dies, or gets on a presidential ticket.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: andy9o

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: andy9o
. . .
Truth. Though, his willingness to vote with Bush may be tempered by his desire to sit/chair various committees, which won't happen if he sways too far to the right. Of course, he could flip his party to Republican, but that would effectively end his career after this term.

Lieberman is 72 years old and just went through what he termed the fight of his career to retain his seat. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I don't expect him to run again-but that is not a decision he will announce until at least 5 1/2 years from now.

Well, I would have liked to think that, given his age etc.., he would have chosen his loss in the primaries as his time to step down. He strikes me as the type that will keep running until he dies, or gets on a presidential ticket.

He lost the democratic primaries because democrats don't see him as a democrat. He still has the support of many Americans.