Here is what I don't understand about a lot of you. Did you think Obama was LYING when he constantly

[La Lioness Priyanka]

stressed that he wanted to reach across the aisle? That he wanted to find common ground? That he wanted to stop this partisan politics of the last few years?

if you believed him, as I did, why do you get so shocked that the Dem's didn't want to make a big issue out of lieberman. Why they wouldn't want to waste political capital crucifying one senator?

Yes, Lieberman sucks, we can all agree on that but stripping him of his title also seems like a petty act of vengeance if you aren't a true blue dem.

I just don't get why people want to crucify Harry Reid or Pelosi for following in the footsteps of Obama and moving away from partisan politics.

[sufrommich]

1. I agree,he has always been pretty outspoken about his

wish to transcend the pettiness of Washington.Whether others follow is beyond his control,but he can lead as he said he would,and that's what he's doing.

[rug]

67. How is keeping Lieberman transcending the pettiness of Washington?

[enigmatic]

2. This is a good answer

"Step 1: Construct a neurotic personalized fantasy of Barack Obama that is fundamentally about your personal psychological issues
Step 2: Blame everyone else in the world for the defects and inconsistencies of your interior psychodrama"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7886872&mesg_id=7886872

[EFerrari]

10. Problem is, that Obama was the architect

and now, as usual, "the left" is the "everyone else" that is being blamed.

Pretty neat trick! :)

[Metric System]

3. Kicking Lieberman out would have sent a message that Obama was all talk about post-partisanship. If

Dems can't work with Lieberman, who many Republicans see as a leftie (yeah, I know...), how could they ever find common ground with Republicans? I commend Obama for talking the talk and walking the walk. No, personally I'm not big on the idea post-partisanship, BUT I can see why things went this way. There wasn't much choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. exactly my point. if we cant get along w.lieberman who was once our VP nominee

than how on earth are we supposed to get along w.real republicans

[No Elephants]

60. It was probably easier to respect King George III than Benedict Arnold.

[urbanasaurus]

65. Mine is "then" VS "than"

"Then" and "Than" are two different words.

"than how on earth are we supposed to get along w.real republicans"

[JuniperLea]

20. I think this really puts Lieberman in a hard spot...

He's been given a pass for his dirty deeds... I'm betting that's the last pass he gets. If he's smart, he knows this.

[AlinPA]

31. He will probably fly to GA this evening to campaign with McCain for Chambliss.

[JuniperLea]

39. That would be really stupid of him

He's been offered an olive branch. When you turn around and beat the olive branch bearer up with his own olive branch, it's asking for something.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. I absolutely agree

and, his "name" in CT is not doing very well at all.

[derby378]

4. I have enough reasons for wanting to give Pelosi the boot...

...without resorting to the Lieberman spectacle. I think she has failed the American public.

[EFerrari]

5. Why do you believe this is a step away from partisan politics?

It was nothing of the sort. That's the frame that has been put around a very partisan, political deal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. We are punishing him by removing him from an important role because of his support of the GOP

candidate.

in what universe is this NOT partisanship. We havent even made an argument that he is unfit for the role

[EFerrari]

13. Lieberman's "see no evil" oversight role during the Bush admin

had consequences for real people. That should have been at least as important as whatever he did to Democrats. So you see, when we're told that Obama wants to avoid politics in service of government, that statement makes no real sense.

Obama has made a very political calculation in keeping Joe. And, he may be right.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. again, no one has even made an argument that lieberman is incompetent in his role

we are ONLY doing this because of his betrayal. This makes it petty politics.

[EFerrari]

15. That's what the talking point is, that's not actually true.

The net has been making that case; the corporate media keeps repeating "retribution" and focusing on that. (And that's why it's ironic that the net is accused of partisan bloodlust when WE are the ones that have been raising the other issues.)

Off the top, JL put this up:

Most of the attention on whether Joe Lieberman should be ousted from his Senate committee chairmanship has focused on his disloyalty to Democrats and his control of homeland security issues, but there’s also the question of how well he has handled his panel’s broad government oversight responsibilities.

In contrast to his House counterpart, Rep. Henry Waxman, who has chaired dozens of high-profile hearings on the Bush administration’s wrongdoing the past two years, Sen. Lieberman has not held a single hearing on Executive Branch malfeasance nor has he issued any subpoenas demanding information from the administration.

That means Lieberman’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has passed over for hearings issues such as warrantless domestic surveillance, Iraq contracting fraud, “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

Lieberman has seemed determined to ignore issues that put Bush – and especially his “war on terror” – in a negative light. In 2007, Lieberman did hold one hearing on "reconstruction challenges in both Iraq and Afghanistan."



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111308a.html

[yodermon]

26. No, the argument *HAS* been made that he's incompetent.

He didn't hold any hearings on Katrina, and has basically allowed bushco to run roughshod over the constitution even though his committee (as Waxman's in the House) could have held hearings on his abuses of power.

Preserving his chairmanship was the political thing to do, and firing him would've been the practical good-governmental thing to do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. i see your point. i however do not believe than very many people

aside from true blue dems would buy that argument.

[Dr Fate]

37. Who are the DEM voters demanding that Lieberman stay in his chair?

Is there a poll I missed or something?

Who are these less than true Blue DEMS who need convincing one way or the other?

I havent seen ANY DEM voters, true blue or otherwise specifically calling for Lieberman to be allowed to stay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. i dont think anyone is insisting he stay in his chair. i think a bitter fight over him

at this point would be against obama's views and a waste of political capital.

[Dr Fate]

45. Who said it needed to be "bitter" or involve a " fight"?

When we kicked the other Republicans out of their chairmanships, did that involve bitterness or fights?

If "Bipartisanship" and avoiding bitter fights is really the issue, then why didnt we let other "qualified" Republicans keep their positions as well?

[No Elephants]

62. So? If there are a good government reasons

to remove him, you make it clear to the public why it is being done, the same wat that Bushco made it clear to the American publi why invading Iraq immediately was necessary. You go on all the talk shows and morning news shows. And if 100% of the people do not buy it, so what? Since when do all Americans buy anything? That simply cannot be the standard for taking good government action. Besides, Pubs don't think all that much of LIEberman either. Few respect a traitor.

[EFerrari]

29. Thank you! I've been trying and failing to say that.

:hi:

[Dr Fate]

35. No- we wanted him to be removed b/c he disagrees with us on the ISSUES.

If that is "partisanship"- then so be it.

You think unrepentant pro-Bush conservives are fit for governing? Do tell.

Unless your argument does not allow us to judge people by their past actions and positions, then please tell us all about how you think Joe and McCain have been correct on the issues.

[daninthemoon]

16. Exactly what bothers me. Reid said "joe is a democrat" and that was it.

I wanted to hear the leaders say that this was an example of the new tone of a post-partisan Washington as Obama has spoken about. Instead, reid made a completely partisan statement explaining the decision. That is why we need new leadership. This was a squandered opportunity at best, or a downright partisan act of power consolidation. Not the right message either way.

[question everything]

Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the CT primaries

Lieberman was always right of center, as his CT voters would agree. Most of us have never paid much attention to him until Gore chose him as a running mate, partly because Lieberman publicly scolded Clinton for the Monica affair.

As posed elsewhere, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4486356 Lieberman got 100% approval from NARAL and it is the "Supreme Court Stupid." If Lieberman decided to call it quit and the Republican governor of CT appointed a Republican replacement, would s/he vote for a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee?

[rvablue]

17. Lieberman would "never call it quits"...he is an egotistical power monger. n/t

[Jennicut]

41. He was never right of center, just on foreign policy

He was always liberal and moderate on domestic and social issues. He is pro choice. That is why the right wing nuts were up in arms when McLame wanted to choose him at the VP nominee. Loserman is a man without a party to identify with. Neither side trusts him so he ends up with us. Who really cares? I should care more since he is my Senator but we got bigger fish to fry folks.

[LynneSin]

55. A 16pt rating from the American Conservative Union hardly qualifies for 'right of center'

http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#CT

[Danger Mouse]

56. Bullshit. Liebertoad is fairly liberal. He's just ridiculously hawkish on foreign policy.

[jobycom]

6. Watch the top of the page.

See Bush get smashed? That's why. Some "Democrats" want revenge more than they want to accomplish our agenda.

[AndyA]

7. My disgust with Reid and Pelosi long predates Obama's statement.

Reid and Pelosi pissed away two years. They allowed Bushco to run things virtually unchecked. Subpoenas were ignored, documents "lost", and the war continued to rage.

Meanwhile, everything back here at the ranch was about to fall to shit...and no one said a thing...no one knew...not one red flag that things were amiss.

That is my objection to Reid and Pelosi. They've been a door mat to Bushco, and we're all suffering because of it.

We'll never get the lives of the dead troops back. And those billions wasted in Iraq could have done something beneficial here in this country. We'll never get those billions back, either, now that we DESPERATELY need them.

[WeDidIt]

11. Okay, I can't take this any longer

It's AISLE!, not "Isle".

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. absolutely. fixed. why the eyeroll though??

[WeDidIt]

21. I held my type at least eight or nine times today

and couldn't take it any more is all.

[Lerkfish]

22. oh some of us have our little pet peeves. Mine is "site" instead of "cite"

dunno why it irritates the crap out of me when people on boards say "site" instead of "cite".
or "marshall law" instead of "martial law".


but it does.

[SIMPLYB1980]

40. Unless they are talking about this "Marshall law".

http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-04/tk5-marshall-law.html

[martymar64]

53. Mine is "loose" vs. "lose"

Loose is how you get after a doob or two. Lose is what happens to your car keys.

[wryter2000]

18. I'm fine with Obama

But, he doesn't run the Senate. I don't think he's even in the Senate any longer. Besides, why should we have to reach "across the aisle" to someone who's supposed to be a Democrat. Or at least, an independent.

[JuniperLea]

19. I'm glad to know others were paying attention...

Yes, he said it many, many times. The high road truly is the road less traveled. Far too few here are recognizing that path.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. i did pay attention. i am not sure i love it but atleast i know i wasnt lied to. nt

[JuniperLea]

36. Not being lied to by the guy at the top is a pretty big change from what we're used to!

I'm not sure I love it either, but I wasn't sure of it when I heard Obama talk about this sort of thing during the campaign. I just put my faith in him to know what was good for us all. We don't know the dynamics of his administration... yet. I'm all for giving him a chance.

[Dr Fate]

32. Do you think Lieberman and McCain have done good jobs as Senators?

How is letting someone who does a poor job continue akin to being on "the high road"?

This is not about revenge for some of us- it's about who can do the best job.

I dont think Lieberman is right on Securtiy or FP issues- do you? If you agree with Joe and McCain on the issues, then which ones?

[JuniperLea]

34. That isn't what this is about

It's about learning to work with people you don't agree with much. Political Sandbox 101.

[Dr Fate]

42. "Working with" people who are WRONG and allowing them to head committes are two different things.

I was all for "working with" Lieberman- his constituents expected him to "work with" DEMS no matter what his standing.


You are wrong- Lieberman's stances on the ISSUES is what it should be all about.

DEMS have already learned how to "work with" people who they supposedly disgagree with-they have been "learning" how to do this for 8 years plus...

For you to suggest that opposing Lieberman is not about his incompetence and his incorrect stances on the issues is just plain wrong...

If "Bipartisanship" and "working with" people you disagree with is really the issue, then why dont we let other "qualified" Republicans keep their Senate positions as well?

[JuniperLea]

46. Did you listen to Obama at all during his campaign?

I'm thinking, no.

What other "qualified" Republicans are you talking about? The ones who lost their seats in the election?

[Dr Fate]

47. Of course I listened to Obama. So you think Lieberman has done a good job?

When I listened to Obama, I assumed he meant he would work with Republicans where there was common ground, not allow top postions to go to people who are are not only INCOMPETENT- but who are opposed to Obama and the DEMS on major issues.

Despite the Pro-Lieberman spin, this is not about "revenge"- it's about whether he has done a good job or not. He has not.

What other Senate Republicans should we give top postions to, based on your listeing to Obama so closely during the campaign?

[JuniperLea]

51. Did Obama say he would only work with people who you thought were doing a good job?

No, no he didn't.

I don't think Lieberman has done anything close to a good job, except for the votes he cast in harmony with the Democrats. But that isn't the point. And you still don't get it.

[Dr Fate]

52. Did Obama ever say he wanted top positions to go to those NOT doing a good job?

No, no he didn't.

In fact, I'm not sure Obama EVER specifically said that Lieberman should keep his chair- but only that he should remain in the caucus.

You still don't get it- it's about competence.

Again- "working with" is not the same thing as allowing top positions to got to unqualified people. I think you are confusing the two on purpose, for the sake of making an excuse.

As far any votes cast in harmony with DEMS, Joes' constituents expected him to continue that no matter what his standing was, so that is another non-issue...

[Clio the Leo]

23. I would be interested to know how many who are upset about Lieberman...

... not getting stripped have read "The Audacity of Hope." It's all right there.

Barack Obama has yet to do anything that has suprised me and I am CONSTANTLY reassured that my vote was the correct one.

[MyNameGoesHere]

24. Well it is obvious

They did not hear their candidate. I was a late believer in President Obama but that was because I wanted to be sure he walked the walk. So far he has. I am happy with what he is and wants to do. But then again I am not easily enamored by speeches as some here are.

[Dr Fate]

28. Inter party loyalty has nothing to do with Bi-partisanship.

Next you will tell us that we have to let ALL Republicans keep their committee positions.

Does the public really inist that Lieberman maintain his chair, or is this just something that DEMS insist on?

I'm not sure the public cares whether Lieberman keeps his chair or not- if so, I've never seen a poll or anything.

This isnt about Obama's pledge to be bi-partisan- but it is certainly yet another case of the DEMS disregarding & thumbing their nose at the base once again.

I hope they know what they are doing.

[RiverStone]

30. Reach across to whom?

Lieberman is despised by many Dems and rethugs...this is not bipartisanship.

This is good ol boy politics.

Nothing more.

[mmonk]

33. Bipartisanship is overrated when the opposition is wrong.

[ProSense]

43. Bipartisanship trumps accountability?

Then why the hell is Congress investigating anything, and why the hell are Dems claiming that they need 60 seats?

All of this is bullshit.

Do the right thing: good government = accountability.

Dems are quick to point out why we need to vote Republicans out, but the minute elections end, it's back to the same old shit.

This vote amounts to helping right wingers save face. Lieberman gets a slap on the wrist (it wasn't even that) for all the wingnut slime he supported during the campaign.

[Dr Fate]

44. It's not about bi-Partisan ship- it's an inter-party matter, in fact.

"Bipartisanship" is now being thrown out there by Pro-Lieberman, anti-spine DEMS.

If "Bipartisanship" is really the issue, then why dont we let other "qualified" Republicans keep their positions as well?

[Chulanowa]

48. No, I didn't miss it. But I do think it was one of his naive points

Reaching across the aisle with the Republicans in their current state is like sticking your hand into a pit full of rattlesnakes. You'll probably regret it, and even if nothing goes wrong, it's a guarantee nothing will go right, either.

He can want to stop the partisanship all he wants. And I commend him for it. But the other part of this equation is full of people who have been portraying every American that calls themselves a Democrat, and everyone who's a Republican that doesn't think the Dems are so bad, as a baby-murdering terrorist-loving, child-raping elitist subhuman who needs to be rounded up and gassed. Do you understand this? Because as much as I like Obama, I really don't think he understands. I'm sure he's aware, but he doesn't seem to understand, that he wants to reach across the aisle to people, many of whom would gladly see him (and all of his supporters) dead.

Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if he sticks out his hand and they don't clasp on, he'll shrug and move on to let them do whatever, while pursuing a real agenda. That would be fine. But, pardon my fear of a "cuddly" administration that wastes two years trying to "bring them on board"

The basic thing is, we are in charge now. Democrats are the majority in Congress and will control the Executive come January. Bipartisanship means that the Republicans should be working with us, NOT the other way around. There should be no Democrat coming to Boehner, hat in hand, asking the Republicans to come play. If they want to sit in their holes and snarl, then fuck them.

[olegramps]

68. I think that Obama's reaching out can only have positive results.

If the Republicans choose put the welfare of the nation first and want bi-partisanship cooperation, Obama is the winner. If they choose to be uncooperative, then they will be the loser and Obama will again be seen as taking the high road. It appears to me to be a win-win situation.

I believe from what I have read that the citizens are feed up with the partisan do nothing congress.

[kath]

49. "partisan politics of the last few years"? - FALSE - there has been plenty of "bipartisanship" - way

too much of it, in fact. Please read this Glenn Greenwald piece: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/18/bipartisanship/index.html Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?

As Senate Democrats this morning prepare to reward Joe Lieberman with the powerful Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, the most commonly recited claim -- both with regard to the Lieberman issue and Washington more generally -- is that Barack Obama's campaign to "change" Washington requires, first and foremost, an end to partisan bickering and a renewal of bipartisanship. As but one of countless examples, Steny Hoyer told The Hill yesterday "that bipartisanship will be a priority" and the 33 new Democratic members of Congress "were elected on promises of bipartisanship." In The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein complains about "escalating partisan conflict" and "hyper-partisanship" and claims that "American politics has been polarized as sharply as at any point in the past century." Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.

Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on. Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.

Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions. The Bush administration committed war crimes, broke long-standing surveillance laws, politicized prosecutions, and explicitly claimed the right to break our laws, yet Congress did nothing about any of that except to authorize most of it, and investigated virtually none of it. With regard to many of those transgressions, key Democratic leaders were briefed at the time they were implemented and quietly acquiesced, did nothing to stop any of it. Both parties are in virtually unanimous agreement that our highest political leaders should be exempt from accountability under the rule of law even for the grave crimes that have been committed.

As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get? {emphasis mine}

Over the last eight years, one can locate a couple of exceptions to this lockstep cooperation in the domestic policy realm, where Democrats managed to deny Bush's wishes -- the failure of Bush's Social Security privitization scheme and some isolated disputes over the magnitude of tax cuts. And there have been some Democratic initiatives -- SCHIPs funding and mandating more home-time for troops -- which were vetoed or filibustered. But one is very hard pressed to find any meaningful examples beyond those isolated cases. Indeed, the bulk of Bush's most substantial defeats -- immigration reform, Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal -- came as a result of opposition from the Right, not from Democrats. Bipartisanship -- cooperation and agreement among the two parties -- is the standard operating practice of Washington, and it has been for many years. It's certainly been vastly more common than the "partisan gridlock" that conventional Beltway wisdom spouters relentlessly complain is plaguing our political process. There has been far more harmony and agreement among the two parties, particularly their leaders, than there has been acrimony and discord. I'm asking this literally: how would it have even been possible to have substantially more bipartisanship over the last eight years than we actually had?

{more}

[Doityourself]

50. I believed him! n/t

[LynneSin]

54. OMG STOPIT STOPIT STOPIT..... How dare you come to GD:P and make *gasp* SENSE!!

great post. Seriously, I wanted Lieberman out more than anything but I also know that to do so would go against what Barack was campaigning for this season.

[Danger Mouse]

57. Well, yeah, you're right.

But all some of us care about is revenge.

[Autumn]

58. Oh man, you fucking paid

attention during the primaries. Kudos and a hug for you.:pals:

[my3boyz]

59. I'm sorry. I'm all for bi-partisanship but Lieberman is a traitor

as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if they allowed him to remain in the Democratic caucus. However, he SHOULD NOT have a leadership position. Period.

[BzaDem]

66. "I'm all for bi-partisanship but oops not really."

Do you think bi-partisanship is great as long as we only work with those whom which we agree?

[NewJeffCT]

63. There you go making sense again by actually listening to somebody's words

just imagine the panic when a Republican and an independent are named to the cabinet...

[pampango]

72. Perhaps subconsciously many of us probably assumed that Obama's vow to "reach across the aisle"

was just something that politicians have to say to get elected (like "compassionate conservatism"). As he begins to show that he actually meant what he said, he may be ruffling more feathers than he would have if he had just forgotten his campaign statements and acted as partisanly as Bush/Rove just in the opposite direction.

Many politicians (and internet message board posters) have their identities wrapped up in vilifying the "other side". A president who sets a standard that such vilification is "uncool" will upset a lot of people - and not just repubs.

[NewJeffCT]

73. When I started a few threads speculating on an Obama cabinet

I always put at least one Republican and one Independent in prominent roles because I was taking Obama at his word. I even prefaced by saying that my personal preference would be for a cabinet full of Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold clones, but I was putting in Republicans & indies because of what Obama said... I still got criticized for doing it.

Chuck Hagel? No way!! Mike Bloomberg? No way!! Arnold Schwarzenegger? No way!!

[depakid]

64. "stop this partisan politics of the last few years?"

What partisan politics?

The Dems have either caved or have actively and/or intentionally given or gone along with Republicans on almost everything they've wanted.

Indeed, the past 8 years have been among the LEAST partisan times in US history in terms of policy outcomes and unqualified (and/or extremist) nominees approved for office by Dems in the Senate.

Most people thought the country voted to CHANGE all of that- and trusted Obama and the Dems to show some courage and political fortitude. If it turns out that they were wrong, then 2010 is going to look a LOT like 1994.

As well it should.

[Orsino]

69. I allow for the likelihood that any politician lies...

...even our Anointed One. So far, though, he seems remarkably true to his word, in perhaps the best ways possible.

It's going to be a big-ass tent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. i didnt support obama till he was the nominee but i never thought he was lying to us

i thought he was very sincere in his speeches and this rhetoric came up many times. he never said he was going to throw the repubs/rinos/dinos away

[lame54]

70. Didn't Obama run on a platform of "CHANGE"?...

This would have been a damn good change

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. yes but he also delineated his idea of change. that change was bipartisan effort

and not political bickering

[lame54]

78. and this put an end to that , didn't it...

:argh:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. it will if we let it go nt

[seabeyond]

71. i voted for obama to do a job. now i am going to let him do his job.

IF he fucks up, then we will talk. otherwise, it is his to do.

i hear what you are saying

[IndianaJones]

76. Obama has seen what the right has done to the R's and won't let the left do the same to the Dems. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. from this thread i have come to the conclusion that only those of us who werent all for obama in the

primaries, actually paid attention to what the man was saying. i disagreed with him to begin with but then reconciled later that he may have a point. we cannot ignore people and dismiss them cos we dont agree

i never believed obama was lying. he appeared and still does appear very sincere in his commitment to make DC work for the majority of us.

[woo me with science]

77. LOL!

This thread is hilarious! You are exactly right, and you remind me of the teacher who made the class promise to share their ice cream and is now facing breath-holding temper tantrums because she made them follow through on their promise.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. in your analogy am i the teacher or is obama the teacher?

:)

[woo me with science]

84. Good point. He is.

You are more like some hapless visitor who stepped in briefly to observe the class. :rofl:

[Eric J in MN]

82. If you want to end partisanship, then give Lindsey Graham a chairmanship.

He deserves one as much as Lieberman.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. i dont think its about rewarding republicans or DINO's as much as an appearance

that we are not being punitive. the republicans appeared very punitive when they took office 8 years ago. the more we move away from that political legacy the better it is. the better it appears we are.