I wondered how the Lamont nutsroots would be spinning this morning over the loss of “their boy”. They’re not taking it well…
Even if stripping Joe of his seniority and Committees causes him to bolt and turn the Senate the the repubs that will mean that the Dems have the strength to filibuster any more Alitos, if they have the spine.
If the Dems have it outright and Joe Lierman can be cast overboard, so much the better. He is genuinely a disgusting creature and the Dems ought to make plain they will not suck up to him.
And more just like it:
- “No worries. Let’s make Joe suffer when we take the fucking Senate.”
- “Nice try Ned. Lieberman will walk and quack like a lame duck for the rest of his political career thanks to you.”
- “Court Challenge! Nothing is over unless we say its over! we may lose but we have long memories”
The 2008 elections should be interesting — it’ll be interesting to see if/how the nutsroots remember the Dems who didn’t support “their boy”:
Hill, Bill, Schumer, Reid. I will NOT forget. You got that Hillary? The objectives are clear.
Is it the same objective as the one ya’ll had for Leiberman? Win the battle, lose the war?
If Sen. Lieberman does decide to caucus with the Republicans, could anybody really blame him?
Do you have similar disdain for conservatives who challenge incumbents? It’s called Democracy- why should Democrats be voicing support for the Connecticut for Lieberman party?
I listened to Liberman today say in order to keep his senority he will caucus with the democrats. Note his reason. It’s not his heartfelt support for the democrat party and those who cast him to the wolves.
He could switch his loyalities. More likely, he will use his skill to advance what he’s known for, independent thoughtful consideration of the issues and a bipartisan approach to solving problems. That, after all, is what most of the people in this country want.
Well, Dianne, Democrats would have been happy to have some bipartisanship in the last 6 years. As it stands I still think Republicans want to continue their strategy of divide the country, and stoke the base:
Norquist said the Republicans’ primary goal for the next two years should be making the case for GOP control — not bipartisanship.
…
Norquist predicted that Bush would now govern largely through executive orders rather than working with Congress on legislation. The president could, for example, use orders to lighten the load of capital gains taxes by changing how they are calculated, Norquist said. One other possible executive order, he said, could excite conservative voters in time for the 2008 election: putting the late President Reagan on the $50 or $100 bill.
Gimme a break Preston. You say that knowing your new fearless leader’s agenda? What a laugh. What’s happened here is a vote against the way the war in Iraq is being handled. That was the #1 issue at the polls. Screw this one up and you’re toast in 08. If you think the country is ready for bikes with dikes, you have a lot to learn.
or dikes with bikes..whatever..I’m tired.
I have to say- I have no idea what dykes with bikes are. But I totally agree that the war was the primary issue. Actually, it probably hurts the Democrats presidential aspirations because they will become tied to this war too unless some progressives with backbone stand up.
In any case, I’m not sure what you think the ‘radical’ agenda of the Democratic Party is. Granted, the following agenda is not detailed but it sure doesn’t mention dykes with bikes:
Honest Leadership & Open Government
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.
Real Security
We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.
Energy Independence
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.
Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.
A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.
Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.
Those all sound like good ideas, Preston. Personally, I don’t understand how anybody can legitimately oppose them.
Also, like you, I have no idea what Dianne means by dikes with bikes. Sounds fun, though.
If it means what it sounds like, when you consider what certain Republican Congressmen and Evangelical Christan leaders have been through over the last few weeks, it might even be something that might get that bi-partisan support we’ve all been longing for.
It’s a joke guys. She rode her bike in a parade with this group…but then what do you expect in SF.
With respect to the Democrat Agenda, it reminds me of some management courses I took in setting performance goals. Those goals lack definition and they lack timelines. How are they going to accomplish those goals? For example, how are they going to fix the prescription drug program? When are they going to do it? For that matter, what prescription drug program are they talking about?
I will be impressed when I see the how to’s and the timelines.
I think they are talking about Medicare negotiating drug prices for Seniors on the Medicare program. The problem with that is, the pharmaceuticals will probably pass the cost on to other patients that aren’t on Medicare. But I’m hoping they will take that into consideration when they start this policy, if they ever do.
The bike riding thing you should take in context of where she was elected from. If a politician from San Francisco were to ignore the gay population, that would be the equivalent of a Southern politician coming out in favor of a complete and total ban on all firearms. Or demanding the rights of homosexuals to be married.
I have my own reservations about Pelosi, but they have nothing to do with gays. I’m more concerned, as a Democrat, about her position on gun control, the death penalty, national defense, and immigration. If the Democrats were to adopt sane policies in just these four areas, they will remain the majority party from now on, and should.
If they don’t at least moderate their positions in these four areas, they neeed to go down to their usual crushing defeat in the next election.
Dianne- 6 years ago Democrats were criticized for their wonky support for Norwood- Dingell in contrast to Bush’s opposition to a patient’s bill of rights while governor of Texas. I would be thrilled if American campaigns were focused on the fine points of different policy options- but it’s pretty late the game to condemn the Democrats for playing by the rules that a negligent press and an incurious public have set up.
(If you’re curious about the press’s pathetic track record of ignoring attempts of politicians to talk about real issues this is a fun link.) Is it any wonder that Americans falsely believe that there were Iraqis on the planes that hit the WTC?