Joe Lieberman has flatly refused the president's request to be

[whistle]

...the head of Homeland Security. So Lieberman walks away from the chance to protect our interest and opens the door for another rePuke extreme right appointee.

Exactly what does Lieberman do besides schmooze his way around Washington DC kissing powerful republican butts, talking a moderate conservative line and sticking with the democratic party only so he can win the vote in his democratic state. Everything I see of him demonstrates that he is a do nothing politician. Do we really need people like this in the democratic party?

[pacifictiger]

1. can't say that I blame him for not wanting to be

Bushie's fall guy

[MissBrooks]

35. I didn't hear that!

had to work today - didn't hear a thing about this.

Darn... it would have been nice to have one of us in there to see what's going on.

I guess it's good for Joe.

[yardwork]

2. I respectfully disagree with you

I am glad that Lieberman turned it down. One, we can't lose another Democrat in the Senate right now. The governor of CT is Republican and would have replaced L. with a Republican.

Two, Lieberman would have gotten zero support from the bush administration in the thankless job of trying to herd the thousands of cats who make up Homeland Security, a hodgepodge of bureaucracies thrown together after 9/11, at a time when CIA and FBI veterans are retiring in droves. Nobody would support him, and he's be the convenient Democratic scapegoat if another attack occurred.

And I don't put it past bushco to let another attack happen just so they could blame it on the Democrat.

Lieberman did the wise thing.

[whistle]

8. Then Lieberman needs to come back to the people who need

...his support to fight the republican neo-con menace that is rising in the capital and stop sitting on the political fence. America is in very big trouble, our party is in big trouble for having laid down and not tried to fight back. For American voters who have seen election fraud and deception snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it would be a demonstration of good faith if Senator Joseph Lieberman would come out in public with passion and energy and begin fighting back, by telling us exactly why he would not accept this office from an illegitimate pretender to the presidency.

[EC]

9. And three

everything Bush does is disastrous, why would anyone want to ruin his career being involved with him? A Democrat on the Cabinet would be a sure patsy...

[thinkingwoman]

47. It's the first thing Lieberman has done

in a long time that I agree with!

Your post sums it up perfectly...no losing a seat...no providing the repukes with a scapegoat.

They bought this government. I say we make them own it.

[Killarney]

48. I agree 100% with this.

We need the seat, whether he's a conservative Dem or not, we need the count and I think him taking the homeland security job would make him a convenient Democratic patsy for the next attack.

[Placebo]

66. I agree with everything you said.

[greenohio]

72. What no Dem bashing? What kind of DUer are you anyway?

Joe is DLC. We bash DLC. Our blogs tell us to. If Joe took it...we would bash him. If he turned it down... we should bash him. Stop thinking... just read your blog.

[sendero]

73. This time around..

.... Lieberman did the right thing. Absolutely no good could have come from him accepting, he saw through the charade.

[Julien Sorel]

3. Yeah, he should have taken the position

(if it was even offered), and let the Republican governor of Connecticut appoint a Republican to take his senate seat, the no good bastard.

[MaineDem]

4. He did this FOR the Democratic Party

He could have taken the job and had a Cabinet post. Not a bad deal. But he refused for the sake of the party. Good for him!

[Chandler Stork]

6. He refused for his own sake.

Joe Lieberman does NOTHING for the Democratic party except betray its principles and suck up to the right. He refused the job so he wouldn't be the token "liberal" fall guy who could be used to further discredit the left when he failed to be effective as a scarecrow.

[ohioan]

25. So, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't

If Lieberman had taken the position, you probably would have been all over him. He does the right thing, and you STILL are all over him.

Why not give the guy credit for doing the right thing instead of assuming the absolute worst about him? Everything and everybody is not so black and white.

[Chandler Stork]

33. The right thing?

What right thing has he done in recent memeory? He's no better than Zell. If refusing to take a job contrived so that NOBODY can succeed at it is "doing the right thing," it's an awfully low-grade "right thing" to do, and he's getting a pretty darn late start at this "right thing" thing.

[ohioan]

36. So it wouldn't have bothered you if he had taken the job and allowed

a Republican to take his place in the Senate?

As I said - he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Because the "right thing" to do is not "right enough" for you, it just doesn't count.

Sounds like you just want to bitch and it really doesn't matter WHAT he does - you're going to bitch about it anyway.

Carry on.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. For once I have to defend Lieberman

and state that I very much think he made the right choice on this. It's pretty obvious that Bush only wanted him so that the Rethugs could get yet another Senate seat.

There is nothing that Lieberman could have done to protect our security in that role. Bush and his cronies are responsible for all the policy decisions. The most that Lieberman could have done in that role was to create a veneer of bipartisanship that isn't really there, increasing the appearance of legitimacy for the Bush administration. The other thing he could have done was to set the Democrats up to take the fall the next time there's a terrorist attack.

I'm very glad that he stood up and resisted this brazen move on Bush's part.

[coloradodem2005]

7. Working for the Bush administration is like selling your soul.

You either become a yes-man or you become the guy that nobody listens to. While you lament Lieberman for not joining the Bush administration, I would lament him for joining it if he did.

[GRLMGC]

12. Either way

He'd get crap.

[whistle]

15. I guess you all have convinced me that Lieberman has taken...

...the path of caution, for himself, the party and democrats everywhere.

I'm reminded of an Apache tale about the water snake and the chipmunk. A chipmunk is stranded on a small piece of sand bar in the middle of the river that is swiftly rising. Because the chipmunk is a land dweller, it can not swim very well and would surely be sweep away by the threatening flood waters and drown.

Along comes a large black water snake which sees the poor chipmunk. The snake comes to the side of the sandbar and the chipmunk is fearful than he will be eaten by the snake, but has no where to run or hide.

Snake draws close and says, "Chipmunk, hop on my back and I will take you across the river to the high shore where you will be safe".

Chipmunk says, "If I hop on your back, you will eat me Snake."

Snake says, "Don't be afraid Chipmunk, I only want to save you."

So chipmunk hops on snakes back and out they swim to the middle of the river where the current becomes very swift and chipmunk becomes fearful of falling off snake's back. Snake says, "Chipmunk, move up onto my head which is well above the water. You will be safe there."

So chipmunk climbs up on top of snake's head and as he does, snake quickly snaps his head back catching chipmunk in his mouth. As chipmunk slides down snake's throat he pleads, "Snake, why did you say I would be safe on your head and then eat me?"

Snake replies with a confident sly grin, "Because, it is my nature."

I thank the late Joseph Campbell for that morality tale. I hope I did it justice.

[coloradodem2005]

59. Pretty good.

I actually heard a variation on this tale where a fox took a scorpion across the river and the scorpion bit the fox and the fox said, "Why did you do it? Now you'll drown too." The scorpion said "I can't help it. It's my nature."

[robbedvoter]

10. Can't fault him on this one. In fact it's a bit hypocritical to suggest

it's a treacherous thing - after all the threads accusing him of leaving the senate to take care of #1.
Funny, mcCain kisses W's a* 24/7 - and when once in a blue moon says something sane everyone is amazed about his integrity.
Lieberman, another a*kisser, to be sure, does the right thing for once in his life and is accused? :shrug:

[Kimber Scott]

11. We need every Senate seat we can get. Now is not the time to be giving

them up in order to kiss presidential butt.

[JoAnnSimon]

13. Leiberman refuses Homeland Security Seat

What Leiberman is doing is saving his Democratic seat in the Senate--far more important to us than having him take over a Homeland Security seat under this administration, where he'd only be a puppet, and none of his advice would be listened to. Wise choice, Joe.

[Warpy]

14. Lieberman would have been a token

and trying to run an agency of right wingers who would have been openly hostile to him simply because he's a Democrat. Plus, he knows that there is another attack coming, and that if he'd taken the job, it would be blamed on Democrats in general.

I don't like much of Lieberman's politics, but he aint dumb.

[propagandafreegal]

22. Even Tom Ridge was a token in that position. They just want a placeholder

nm

[Tamyrlin79]

16. Lieberman may not have much, but...

This proves that he does have a shred of credibility. Working for Bush is a faustian bargain, and a democrat working for Bush only makes you a fall guy who will let the Repubs blame the democrats for any security lapse or failure.

I still support a primary challenge to lieberman when his term is up, but I'd like to keep him in the Senate until then.

[Piperay]

17. Thank God for a change

Lieberman has that much smarts. Taking a position as Homeland head would be the worst mistake a Democrat could make, just wait till there is an attack (and eventually there will be) and the Democrats would be blamed and abused as never before. Cheers to Lieberman whether he turned it down for his sake or the party's sake he did the wise thing. :thumbsup:

[Inland]

18. Oh, bull. The president didn't ask Lieberman

The WH pretended he was on the list to flatter him and those who think it isn't a party over nation group of people, and he flatters himself by pretending there was something out there.

Bush would never hand a huge budget and department without civil service rules to anybody but a crony. Kerik was nominated because he was a creature of patronage, and the next nominee will be a loyal party man. You wait.

[Forkboy]

19. Joey did the right thing

[RafterMan]

20. Good job, Joe

Even if it was only out of self-preservation, this was the best move for himself, the party and the country.

Let the Bushies take responsibility for their own failures from here on out.

[autorank]

21. Now that's what I call JoeMentum...Thanks Joe!!!

[JohnKleeb]

23. Actually he did the right thing

The republican governor of Connecticut could have appointed a republican like Chris Shays there who would be hard to beat in 2006. I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman but he made the right call here.

[Cleita]

24. Also, who would want to be part of the BFEE.

Joe is a Republican Lite, but he's not a member of that fascist cabal known as the PNAC.

[JohnKleeb]

27. right

I am no fan of the man or his run for president this past year but he did try to run against them.

[wyldwolf]

26. Amazing!

had he accepted, people on DU would have hated him for it.

Now someone hates him for NOT accepting it.

[ohioan]

29. 'tis, ain't it? n/t

[Disturbed]

31. Verification?

Can anyone confirm that he was actually offered the job?

[ohioan]

37. That's not how it works . . .

The White House never offers a job unless they know it will be accepted. Instead, they send up trial balloons and, in some instances, send an emissary to talk to the person to feel them out. In this instance, apparently someone connected to the White House spoke to Lieberman and he told them he wasn't interested, so it will go no further.

[Chimpanzee]

28. Who in their right mind would want to prop up this administration?

[WI_DEM]

30. Lieberman can't win on DU

if he had taken the job he would be called a turncoat and when he turns it down he is attacked for that too!! I'm not a Joe fan, but this is silly.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Actually, every single person on this thread

has come out in support of Lieberman on this issue, with the exception of the OP and one newbie with under 30 posts.

By and large, DUers don't like Lieberman, and I'm no exception, but we are willing to give him credit when he does the right thing. I think this thread has demonstrated how fair minded most of us are.

[WI_DEM]

54. well I was giving my gut reaction to the poster

without reading the responses up to this point. But I'm glad to see how many fair minded people there are.

[Leilani]

70. I'm not the biggest Joe fan,

but I think he did the right thing.

Everytime I've criticized, it's been a particular issue.

I don't like useless attacks on anyone. (Except maybe Zell)

[Geek_Girl]

32. Lieberman did the Right Thing

We need him in the Senate. I'm glad he told Bushco NO! Good for Him.

[zulchzulu]

34. Would you like the Democrats to lose another senator instead?

Lieberman for the most part is a moderate...a little hawkish...but we need all the possible votes as Democrats as we can...

The Homeland Security Department is a stupid idea anyway..another big government boondoggle. Get the intelligence agencies that it's supposed to oversee just do their job.

[ohioan]

38. He's hawkish, but he's there on the important ones

On judicial filibusters, for example - he's been true blue.

He also voted against Ashcroft, by the way...

[JohnKleeb]

40. and Norton

one of only a select few to vote against both. Another one who did this was Kerry.

[Bouncy Ball]

39. that was pretty smart of him actually

ANYTHING that happened to the US while he was head of Homeland Security would be gleefully blamed on him and thus the Dems.

It was a trap. In 2008, the repukes could just point out all his "failings" and say "See? The Dems can't protect you! We even put one in as Homeland Security chief and look what it got us!"

Seriously.

[whistle]

41. Alright, I've conceded that this was the right move ...

...on Lieberman's part and for the democratic party. What about America? What is needed now to make us, the people who live and work in this country to make us safer. HLS Department as superficial as that agency has been is receiving money and lots of republican political capital, but also democratic support in the House and the Senate. It has been a joke, but it is not going away.

What are we going to tell our leaders to propose about securing America the correct way? How do we see to it that we have our goals accomplished? Yellow, amber and red alerts are not the answer. So what is? And how do we democrats communicate to the rest of our friends and neighbors and communities what the correct path and actions are to take? And then how do we see that our desires are implemented?

[Crunchy Frog]

44. You're putting all of that on Joe's shoulders?

Look, I'm as big a Lieberman basher as anyone else on here, but for God's sake, give the guy a little credit on the rare occasion when he actually does the right thing.

The rest of your question is the big question for the Democratic party and is what most of the discussion on this board consists of. It's hardly fair to be dumping it on Joe, who is not generally regarded as representative of the Dems as a whole.

[whistle]

46. HLS was Lieberman's issue after 9-11 according to CBS News

...back in March 2003:

<snip>

Homeland security was once Lieberman's issue. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Lieberman, then chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, pushed hard for consolidating disparate agencies into a single homeland security department. The administration resisted for months until last spring when it proposed a major reorganization.

Although Lieberman worked on the Senate floor to see the proposal become law, Democrats slowed the effort, trying to undo the president's plan to impose personnel rules they believed would undermine the right of labor unions. The fight dragged on through the November elections, and Bush assailed the Democrats for delaying creation of the homeland security department. Democratic defeats in the Georgia and Missouri Senate races were blamed, in part, on the homeland security issue.

<link and more> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/18/politics/main544499.shtml

<also snip>
From NPR on 2004 Democratic Candidates during primaries

Lieberman's credentials going into the race include his authorship of the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security. As chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, he led the investigation into the Enron collapse. He is a strong critic of the Bush economic platform and of the president's "right-wing agenda."

<link> http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/lieberman.html

<My last comment>

If Joe Lieberman really did have the directorship of HLS offered to him and he turned it down twice, don't we as democrats and supporters deserve to hear directly from Lieberman his reason(s) for not accepting the offer? That's all I ask, that Sen. Lieberman give a public explanation for turning down this proposed appointment from the White House. He was shown on the news yesterday shaking a lot of hands, smiling and waving, but not a word was mentioned about the HLS position being offered and why he turned it down.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. I don't believe that it's common practice

for people to give public explanations for turning down proposed WH appointments. If you can give me some examples to the contrary, I'd love to see them.

Again, I don't know why you're dumping on Joe, first, for doing the right thing, then for playing the game by the accepted rules.

He might make a very good director of HLS in a Democratic administration. We just have to get one elected first. He would just be getting set up as a patsy in a Rethug administration.

[whistle]

42. What does this icon on the left of the lead thread post mean...

...when there is the animation that has a stick and what looks like a flame burst next to it?

[Senator Lamb]

43. ok....

one thread accuses Lieberman of selling his soul if he took the position, this thread criticisms for not taking it. it really makes no sense. oh and hes not a do nothing senator.

[robbedvoter]

53. It means you accomplished the impossible: Get DU to defend Joementum

Congratulations! It's a first!

[Crunchy Frog]

57. It just means that the thread has

above a certain number of posts in it. I don't remember for sure what the number is, maybe 40.

[BlueManDude]

49. Get a grip, Whistle

I'm no great fan of Holy Joe but his record in the senate is good and he will be a reliable vote against whatever domestic financial shenanigans (SS "reform" tax cuts for the rich etc) Bush will try to foist on us.

The Homeland Sec job is a joke and even Joe knows it. The prospect of losing that senate seat for possibly years is too much of a risk to take.

[clutchcargo]

50. JOE LIEBERMAN IS EXACTLY WHAT A SENATOR

SHOULD BE. WHY DO WE HAVE TO DISPARAGE OUR OWN.

[greenohio]

62. Welcome to DU.

Wow someone who defends Democrats on DU. I didn't know anyone did that here.

[Walt Starr]

51. Actually, this move by Lieberman makes me respect him

I disagree with him in a lot of areas, but in this move, Senator Lieberman has put the needs of the party above his own personal ambitions.

As a person who has dissed him on many occasions, I'm forced to say, "Good on Joe!"

[DemonFighterLives]

52. I heard he refused

And that was a good thing for Ole Joe to do. Was there ever a big press release or just a simple "no" to a staffer. I would like for him to tell them to "Go Fish", I wouldn't be a part of your criminal organization if you paid me.
Take it to em Joe.

[itzamirakul]

55. Lieberman is a Republican plant in

the Democratic Party. I have NO respect for him. He will vote against Democratic principles no matter WHAT position or office he holds. He is disgusting.

[leyton]

58. Did you honestly expect him to serve a President he ran against - twice?

People are quick to bash Lieberman around here. I wonder if they'd prefer a Republican who votes for Bush's nominees and for Frist? Because, really, the only thing better to having 44 seats in the Senate would be 43.

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

60. we can't afford to lose another senate seat. be glad.

[marieaey]

65. Absolutely! He must remain a Senator!

If he leaves to head up Homeland Security another will be apointed to finish his Senate term and the choice will be made by a Republican.

I personally would prefer Lieberman but we have too much at stake. We are very close to loosing control of the Senate. In order for a bill to pass it requires 60 votes. We can still block some of Bush's way out proposals.

[17yroldtwins]

61. My take on the issue is that Lieberman didn't want his

Senate seat handed to a REPUBLICAN because of the REPUBLICAN governor who would appoint a new Senator.

I can't blame him on that point.

Attie

[CityDem]

63. Now he can take a position in the Sharon government

Joe has always wanted to run for the Knesset, now is his chance.

[SmokingJacket]

64. Actually it was the smartest thing he ever did.

It was a big fat SETUP.

Plus a way to sneak another Rep into congress, on their way to wheeling and dealing their way into the coveted 60%.

[BernieBear]

67. If Lieberman had taken the position, the Republican Governor

of his state could have appointed a Republican Senator to take his place which would have been bad for us. BB

[whistle]

68. Thanks everyone, I'm calm once again and I can see why. . .

. . .this decision was wise all around. It's best to let the story die and find other ways to fight our battles. There are going to be some very big fights in the next session and I think we democrats may actually get the lady senator from Maine over on our side of the up coming issues.

[SharonAnn]

69. He saved us from having another Republican senator appointed

to replace him.

Besides, the way * has set up Homeland Security, the head of it can't really do anything that matters. Can't do the things that need to be done.

* set it up just to get rid of unions for all the workers who are now under Homeland Security.

[bklyncowgirl]

71. Good for him.

I don't often agree with Lieberman but I'll praise anyone when they do the right thing.