Dramatic Dems Are Dramatic

5:48 pm EST November 18th, 2008 | Democrats | 11 Comments

“OMG Harry Reid and the Senate Dems didn’t listen to us on Lieberman. It’s OVER!!!!” I certainly don’t have the view that conservative Patrick Ruffini does of this issue as any sort of serious infighting, but I am bored with it already. The senate is dumb, you knew they were going to let Lieberman back in anyway. In a few months from now there’s an important agenda to pass, that’s far more important than a moron like Joe Lieberman having a chairmanship.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

11 Responses to “Dramatic Dems Are Dramatic”

  1. salvage says:
    November 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Jesus Oliver.

    There may be far more important issues but that doesn’t change the fact that Lieberman has behaved unconscionably vile on countless occasions with his last outrage joining in the smearing of Obama as a “Marxist” never mind what he did in his own state primary.

    Yes he’s a moron and he’s one of the morons that demonstrably helped bring about the situation in Iraq for his own gain. He will ALWAYS put his own self first and he’s not as stupid as the people who want this dangerous asshole around.

    He should be metaphorically tarred, feathered and run out on a rail.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    November 18, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    And he’s not going to be. I know that you know that. We move on, what’s the use of freaking out over it?

  3. Thad says:
    November 18, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    In addition to everything else that’s wrong with him, Lieberman has done absolutely nothing with the chairmanship. That alone should have been enough to lose it over.

    No, this isn’t really a surprise, and yes, there are a lot of important things coming down the pipe that we should focus on.

    But a lot of them are issues that the Dems are going to lie down on, for no damn reason, even after two consecutive elections where they’ve been given a clear mandate.

    Reid and all the others who keep capitulating and calling it “compromise” deserve to be criticized for it.

    Frankly I think Reid should lose his status as majority leader — no, that’s not going to happen either, but that’s not going to stop me from saying so.

  4. ed says:
    November 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Lieberman was a horrible chair. Horrible. Plus all the other stuff. Had he been so petty as to have quit the Dems if he had his chairs removed, then he’s too petty to caucus with the Dems. Why is this a difficult concept?

  5. Sean D. Martin says:
    November 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    OW: We move on, what’s the use of freaking out over it?

    Freaking? Well, no. That isn’t the right approach. But just resignedly forgetting about it and “moving on” is to assure that it will continue to happen.

    Lieberman has done nothing with his chairmanship and that alone is reason to have him removed. That message to The powers That Be should not just be shrugged off.

  6. profbacon says:
    November 18, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: “The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.”

    Any doubts this was Marshall Wittman?

  7. locus says:
    November 19, 2008 at 10:24 am

    It could have been Dangerstein.

  8. drinkof says:
    November 19, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Oliver, you’re kinda right, but a little too casual about all this.

    1 – on any important, close, vote, Lieberman will first insert himself as the tiebreaker, puff up his own role as ‘wise man’, then sell us out if it works for him.

    2 – no penalty for going THAT far against the party is just bad for any coherence. Why ever toe any line at all?

    3 – he’ll start using that Homeland committee gavel NOW, to show what an independent he is. no problem with examining Obama admin work, that’s what it’s for, but in context with having ignored the tatters Bush left it in? Bad, bad, bad.

    Not a good move, and it matters.

    2008 was time to get it back for the D’s and throw R’s out. 2010 is time to primary weak sister D’s.

  9. Amused Observer says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    LOL,
    Lieberman once represented the left side of the Democratic party. It is indicitive of where the party has moved that he is a pariah.

    While the majority of Democratic undercut our war efforts, giving comfort to our enemies, Joe Lieberman put country before politics and is paying the price for it.

    I disagree with most of Lieberman’s policies and views but I respect his integrity and the guts it took to do the right thing.

    As to his remarks about Obama, the truth stings sometimes. While I believe Obama was mostly pandering for votes he has advocated policies closely tied with socialism. An expansion of the welfare state as Obama advocates weakens the moral fiber of America. Americans should strive to look out for and take responsibilty for themselves not depend on government handouts as a way of getting by.

    But I disgress, Joe Lieberman stood on his convictions and loyalty to his country. That puts him far above the majority of Democrats in Congress.

  10. Duros62 says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Your mom’s indicative.

  11. daniel rotter says:
    November 20, 2008 at 12:31 am

    “…Joe Lieberman put country before politics…”

    Then why did/does he support an unprovoked and unnecessary war in Iraq?

    “I disagree with most of Lieberman’s policies and views,…”

    With that sentence, my distaste for Lieberman has decreased quite a bit.

    “..Lieberman stood on his convictions…”

    Which were wrong

    “…and loyalty to his country”.

    Again, then why did/does he support an unprovoked and unnecessary war in Iraq?