Rachel Maddow is making HELLA SENSE about Lieberman

[dascientist]

She says dump him, because, he would only be a democrat in "name only" and would still derail efforts by Obama and the Democrats.

[David Dunham]

1. Bad advice. O needs his vote

[ibegurpard]

6. If he starts voting against us

because he no longer caucuses with us then that says a lot about his philosophy and whether he belongs with us in the first place.

[IsItJustMe]

8. Like a whole in the head.

[Atman]

13. The entire head, or just a part of it?

A hole can be a pretty big thing.

.

[Atman]

10. So, uh...what part of the op did you not understand?

If he's a DINO and will derail Obama's policies, what votes of Lieberman's does Obama need? He won't be voting with Obama anyway...he'll be voting with the Republicans.

.

[thunder rising]

46. Agreed! Lieberman loves McCain and will be helping vindicate the loss. Lieberaman has to go.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

he's a Benedict Arnold

and worthless, because he is wrong on the main issues and favors the GOPS/

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

73. he's a Benedict Arnold

and worthless, because he is wrong on the main issues and favors the GOPS/

[onenote]

76. except that his actual voting record suggests he would be voting with the Democrats more often than

not.

Lieberman voted with the Democratic party position 86.9 percent, which is better than Landrieu or Ben Nelson, among others. He abandoned the party on some significant votes, no question. But he voted with the party on a number of other issues, including SCHIP, stem cell research, cloture on immigration reform, flag burning legislation, gay marriage amendment, extension of bush tax cuts, cloture on the bolton nomination, bankruptcy legislation, etc.

To clarify - I think lieberman should be offered a lesser chairmanship, not the HSC chair.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. No actually he doesn't.

But I'll play along. We let the lying traitorous bastard keep his chair. For the last two years that did not result in his voting with us on many important issues. Why would it now result in his voting with us?

[TankLV]

50. NO. He DOESN'T.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. Lieberman opposed Dems having fillibuster proof majority

Didn't you pay attention when Lieberman was campaigning for the republican and
was on the Faux Noise and other right wing shows like Glenn Beck?

[Hieronymus]

2. She sure did lay it out there. Great points.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. I disagree. Remove him from the caucus when there is proof that he is attempting to

Sabatage.

Then...

If we get fillibustered on a judicial pick..

"Nuclear Option"

Fuck em.

[ecstatic]

15. The only problem is.. it looks funny when it's done amidst

accusations. I think Rachel's point is to avoid being in that situation to begin with.

I agree with both sides, but it would be more surprising if Lieberman did do right by us. All the evidence points to him betraying us once again.

[Political Tiger]

21. The Republicans would seize on that

and say LIEberman is only being removed because Obama has something to hide, or some nonsense like that.

[PBS Poll-435]

39. I can see that point, but...

He has a voting record that is very consistent with most progressive politicians.

The only anomaly is the "War"/Terra.

[Political Tiger]

47. That's true too.

But can LIEberman be trusted anymore on anything? I'm not so sure.

[Maraya1969]

52. Link to Obma's contact please>

I would normally do this myself but I an having a heard times just writing this post.

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Huh?

Need more detail.

[Maraya1969]

75. LOL I think I actually was asleep when I posted that one! PWS - posting while sleeeping

[tishaLA]

28. I hate the idea of him being in the weekly strategy sessions

He seems like just the kind of creep who'd run to his boyfriends Lindsay and Johnny and tell the all the strategies.

[IsItJustMe]

42. Tell me that after he starts an investigation going after Obama. Then they will not be able to take

him off the comittee because it will look like the Dems are trying to cover up for Obama. Lieberman is the Democrats worst nightmare. Wait and see.

[PBS Poll-435]

57. That would be unprecedented and absurd.

Try again?

[TankLV]

53. I guess CAMPAIGNING FOR THE OTHER GUY, CALLING OBAMA A TERRORIST AND TRAITOR

isn't good enough for ya?

[PBS Poll-435]

55. Whoa

There are campaigns and then there is governance.

If Lieberman was the difference between fixing the health care crisis, or not, how would you vote?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

70. riiigght, I'm sure LIeb's GOP friends will help with that

how stupid must Dems be if they fall for that line of crap.

[IsItJustMe]

4. The Democrats are going to regret keeping this POS hanging around.

Believe me now or later, but I know you are going to believe me when it is all said and done. Joe will be dangerous to an Obama administration.

[Political Tiger]

26. True. LIEberman just can't be trusted.

He's proved that over and over.

[ecstatic]

5. I loved it! Let him go and then watch as he tries to run for Senator as a

rethug...in NE!! :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

9. Collins won.

:justsaying:

[VespertineIconoclast]

7. I have to say I agree with her on the Lieberman front....

She made some sound arguments against keeping him in the Democratic Caucus!

[GodlessBiker]

11. She was spot on. He is dangerous and it will look real bad to take away his gavel...

only after he begins to do something really stupid against the administration.

[av8rdave]

12. Keep him as a dem, but make him sit at the kids' table when it comes to committee work

[d_b]

14. Did Rachel just rick roll me?

[dascientist]

19. yes

[political_Dem]

16. Remove him from power, but allow him to caucus.

But Rachel is right in saying that we've probably lost Lieberman anyway. Time and experience has shown that Lieberman likes to play off both sides. He's not to be trusted. So, remove him from power where he won't do any harm.

[Political Tiger]

17. Yes! I could not find a reason to disagree

with anything she said.

[Danger Mouse]

18. Meh, let Lieberman have a chance to play nice.

If he doesn't, at least we'll have a valid excuse to tell him to sit on a flagpole.

[TahitiNut]

22. He already had it. He blew it. Fuck him. No chairmanship.

:shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

44. But you know that's not going to happen.

[TahitiNut]

59. No. Only people who shop at Crystal Balls 'R' Us think they know what's going to happen.

:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

45. If he can't play nice by supporting our guy during a presidential election...

it's not going to happen, IMO.

Rachael is calling it right on this one.

[TahitiNut]

61. Hell, I'm an (antipartisan) independent and I sure get it. Even as antipartisan as I am ...

... it's exactly what I'd do. Lieberman is worse than a partisan ... he's ideologically blind to the point he allies with liars, profiteers, and war criminals for the sake of ONE zealous obsession.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

71. what could be worse than campaigning against the Dem Pres candidate?

what are you waiting for?

[TahitiNut]

20. She's NOT saying "dump him." She's saying he doesn't deserve a chairmanship.

I agree. Let him caucus wherever he wants. But he's already abused his trust in both his position as chairman and in the campaign. It's just plain stupid to allow him to continue as chair man of Homeland Security.

I'd assign him to committees without relevance to Connecticut -OR- the Middle East, no chairmanship, and let him deal with trying to convince the voters of Connecticut he deserves their support.

Caucus with the GOP? I doubt they want him. They USED him. He's used up.

Fuck 'im. :shrug:

[dascientist]

24. that's what I meant, pardon my vague statement

[Dragonfli]

23. She Alluded To A Point I Made Recently That

Few LIEberman apologists have considered, a very real and dangerous potential action on his part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=239278&mesg_id=239310

This is from a reply I posted to the Bayh interview YouTube, and really should be discussed more.
No one I know but me has posted this obvious possibility.
If only I were a silver tongued poster rather than the clumsy writer that I am.
Someone may get this point and even consider it.

As it is - silence as far as I know.

[Clio the Leo]

25. Which is why we elected Barack Obama and not Rachel Maddow...

... bless her.

I gotta agree with O on this one, but I still adore Rachel.

[me b zola]

38. I'm not sure that O disagrees with Rachel

AFAIK, Obama has only stated that he wants Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Dems. I have not heard nor read a statement from Obama stating that it is his wish for Lieberman to retain his chair.

[Dragonfli]

41. A point JOEpologists conveniently ignore.

Thanks for reminding them!

[TahitiNut]

60. Exactly. Why are some idiots so damned deaf to that distinction?

No matter how many times it's pointed out, they just ramble on like taking-point-programmed Chatty Cathy's.

[Dragonfli]

67. See post 63, I believe it is intentional

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. I totally agree! Dump the freak. His little money-fest is over anyway since

Repukes no longer rule

[abumbyanyothername]

29. Lessee

Obama = 66 million votes.

Rachel = 1 million viewers. Maybe.

I'll stick with Barry.

[MadMaddie]

30. She is right...he failed at the position why should he

continue be rewarded for failing to investigate the * admin? Bet your ass that he will have no problem investigating the Obama administration for sneezing wrong.

Get rid of him he is damaged goods and he did it to himself.

[Political Tiger]

32. If LIEberman loses his chairmanship

and stops caucusing with the Democrats, doesn't that fact alone show that LIEberman is more concerned about power than following his conscience? If he starts voting with Repukes just to spite Democrats, to me, that would just show he has no real convictions and is simply willing to stand by those who kiss his sorry ass!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Youphemism]

34. He's long been "in name only." Still, I think he might be a useful tool....

As far as being a useful tool goes, he's halfway there already.

I've been as eager to get rid of this twit as anybody. But remember, Obama is pretty smart. He knows who his enemies are, and how to play them.

If they dump Lieberman now, there will be some backlash about the bipartisan promises Obama the candidate made.

While I dislike Lieberman enough to live with that, hold the bile in your throat long enough to consider this:

They can kick him out at any point. Like a child who's misbehaved, Lieberman has been given a last warning. That ensures one of two things:

1. Lieberman will be forced to vote with the Dems on any critical legislation that comes up.

2. Lieberman will once again show his true colors, vote against the Dems, get kicked out, and there will be no ability to claim it's retribution on Obama's part.

It seems to me that hanging onto him until his next backstabbing is a win-win/lose-loser prospect. (Win in gaining a key vote, win in getting rid of him the first time he turns on us, lose in that we have to tolerate him a little longer, loser in every aspect of his life.)

Overall, I think it's a net gain. I just wish I trusted the dems to finally follow through with kicking him out the very first time he backslides. And I hope not to see his face much until then.

I can certainly understand people disagreeing with me on this. The thought of having Joe around any longer makes me want to vomit, too. But I like the thought of giving Obama every bit of leverage possible in starting his first term. The threat of being grounded might make Joe behave better for a little while, and yet allow us to watch him get booted eventually anyway, when he backslides, as I'm sure he eventually will.

[dascientist]

36. So what legislation is going to be the first gauge of Lieberman's intent?

.......

[Dragonfli]

37. If he gets booted for false investigations against BO

He and the Repukes will hang him on a cross and cry "cover up".
So no, they won't be able to get rid of him over a witch hunt.
Just stating the obvious

[Political Tiger]

43. I think that's the painful truth.

And I wouldn't put it past LIEberman to go on a witch hunt against Obama just so the Dems would then try to oust LIEberman, so then LIEberman could make himself out to be a victim and give the Repukes ammunition to cry cover-up!

[Dragonfli]

48. He loves the victim role - And it is exactly his MO

[Political Tiger]

49. Yes it is.

And he would love to create a scandal just so he can claim he was right about Obama during the campaign.

[Dragonfli]

56. Hopefully the caucus will not force a test of this theory

By blindly following his blackmail proposal.
He still thinks they are that stupid and spineless, I still hope they are not.

[jenmito]

35. K&R. She also showed video of him talking about how naive Obama is and other hurtful things. n/t

[tularetom]

40. Best argument I've heard yet for shit canning him

It would be easier to support him if I could think of even one redeeming human quality that he possesses. But I can't. He's a slug. He's lower than a slug. He's the slime that the slug excretes.

On the other hand Obama is reportedly pressuring the caucus to keep him on and I've learned to trust Obama's judgment. Maybe he knows something Rachel doesn't. Maybe he has an even more diabolical fate in store for Lieberslug.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

[Dragonfli]

63. Obama has not weighed in on the committee chair

As far as I know he only said he wants him in the caucus.(please correct me if I'm mistaken)
Without any undue power he would be safe in the caucus, and I agree with keeping as many of his votes as possible.
It is his chair they need to strip him of. He can caucus with us if he likes, I could understand why Obama would be emphatically in favor of that.

Some LIEberman apologists like to confuse the two in order to claim Obama wants him in that chair, that is misleading and it muddies the debate over his chairmanship. I suspect purposefully so.

[tularetom]

65. As far as I know Obama has not publicly weighed in on Loserman at all

But you are correct the only thing I have heard is that Obama has let out that he favors keeping him in the caucus.

[biscotti]

51. he is not to be trusted

Why should he be shown any respect?

[Raksha]

58. Rachel is right. Keeping him on as Homeland Security

committee chairman under the circumstances is almost like giving him permission to launch a witch hunt against Obama. And then it would be "awkward" to remove him, because the Repukes would scream that he was bieng persecuted. It's too bad the Senate Dems are such wusses that they even CARE what the Repukes say about them, but they are what they are. I doubt that they'll show much more backbone even with a Democratic president.

[Colobo]

62. I hate the bastard, but we need to use him.

[Dragonfli]

64. Use him safely, Like sex.

Put a rubber on him and take away his leadership role.
He would look good dressed in a rubber positioned in the caucus without any rewards for his betrayal, don't ya think?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

72. LIeb is against Dems having fillibuster proof majority

so you know whose side he will vote on when there is a Dem verses GOP issue.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

66. I think Obama is wise

give Lieberamn the rope to hang himself. If Joe goes with the Dems, then all is well and progressives benefit. If Joe goes with the Repubs then Obama and Reid can kick him off whatever we want and it will look justified. It's the shrewd choice and the best of two bad options.

[arewenotdemo]

68. Nah. Just hang the SOB now...he's provided plenty of rope already.

[Moochy]

74. Hella