Lieberman and Collins put political pork ahead of national security!

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/opinionspecial/14thu1.html?ei=5088&en=91765903cf21b8f1&ex=1278993600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Security Loses; Pork Wins

This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.

The 9/11 commission, after an extensive study of the best ways to defend America, urged that antiterrorism funds be divided "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." Mr. Chertoff, in a strongly written letter, urged the senators to enact a formula that would distribute money "based on risk and need," not one that is "static" and "inflexible."

<>Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse. The original homeland security budget would have allocated 70 percent of the money according to relative risks. Senators from the highest-risk states, led by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, introduced an amendment to raise that number to 87 percent. Ms. Collins, supported by Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced an amendment to lower to 60 percent the amount given out according to risk.

<>The whole Senate let the country down this week, but Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman deserve particular blame. As the chairwoman and the ranking Democrat, respectively, on the Senate's domestic security committee, they have a duty to put the national interest ahead of parochial interests. Their performance looks all the worse compared with Mr. Chertoff's forthright stand. If Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman are not committed to doing everything possible to avert another attack - which includes directing every dollar of antiterrorism money to where it is needed most - they should yield their positions to people who are.

[NewJeffCT]

1. I wish Lieberman had a serious challenger in my state

Sadly, it's not going to happen.

[Nightjock]

11. Please tell me you are being overly negative?

Many people would contribute to the campaign of a dem challenger.

I can't stand that slimeball!

[NewJeffCT]

12. a college professor is going to challenge him

But, even the professor admits to it being a real uphill battle. Lieberman has like 75% approval ratings from state Republicans and 65% from Democrats & independents. While Connecticut is a solidly blue state, there are a lot of light blue types.

As a lifelong CT resident, Lieberman in the Senate is the lesser of evils. His name alone keeps popular moderate Republican congressman Chris Shays or fairly popular conservative Republican congresswoman Nancy "Gingrich" Johnson from running. If Lieberman lost in primary, one of these two would pounce and would likely defeat whoever defeated Lieberman. I call Johnson "Gingrich" as she was one of the deciding votes for Newt when the House tried to reprimand him over something...

If you were to give money to a Connecticut politician in the next 16 months, I would prefer you give to either Diane Farrell (who almost beat Shays last year & is running again) or whoever is running against Rob Simmons.

[habitual]

2. I hate Lieberman

He is slime.

[justinsb]

3. His is on the list of names I don't even want to hear mentioned

in connection with 08 - along with Gore, Kerry and Clinton

[SteppingRazor]

4. So a couple of Republicans put cash ahead of safety and security...

What's the news? (And yes, I diid mean to say a couple of Republicans. What would you call Lieberman?)

[Mass]

6. Quite a few Dems voted like that and a few Reps voted correctly

for once.

It was a surprising vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00175

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---71
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---26
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 3
Lott (R-MS)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Thune (R-SD)

[flpoljunkie]

8. Shame on the lot of them who put pork above security!

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I wish we could booted her out and replaced her with Chellie Pingree. I

really do. *siiigh*

[Totally Committed]

7. Lieberman Must Go!!!!

He is a disgrace.

TC

[bluedog]

9. also a DODD amendment:.........voted down...............

DODD amendment yesterday in senate

it was for 15 billion to protect and check port cargo......chemical plants and for 1st responders....

it would have been FUNDED by limiting "certain tax breaks for the higher incomes"..........guess what...it failed.......

this is how the CONS protect this country.........To hell with what might happen.don't check port cargo or secure the chemical plants......but keep the TAX Breaks for the RICH......

when we get attacked again.not if......thank the GOP controlled congress for the deaths.......money for the "rich"....billions for IRAQ.a war based on fu*k faces LIES.....but home?.....

[flpoljunkie]

10. Don't expect the media to say zilch until there is an attack. Why is

it that we can spend $1billion a week in Iraq, but Homeland Security and every other domestic priority gets short shrift.

We must hold accountable the party in control of Congress who is setting this incredibly short sighted agenda-- making tax cuts permanent for the top 2% at the expense of our security here at home.