Joe Chooses His New Friend, Karl Rove, Over the Rule of Law

[kpete]

June 11, 2007
Joe Chooses His New Friend, Karl Rove, Over the Rule of Law
by emptywheel

Between Joe Lieberman's calls to bomb Iran over the weekend, and his no vote on the no confidence resolution against Alberto Gonzales today, we have hit the final straws in Joe Lieberman's little dance with the dark side.

When a man cannot vote the no confidence that the entire Senate, save Orrin Hatch, implicitly shares, that says his interests lie with the party that is covering its ass rather than with the party with which he caucuses. It says his interests lie with protecting Karl Rove from the scrutiny a real AG would bring, over the rule of law.

And if Joe Lieberman won't vote with his former party on this vote, along with seven Republican Senators (Scottish Law Specter, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Sununu, and Coleman), that says he won't vote with Democrats, ever, when it counts. If Norm Coleman--as much a flunkie of Karl Rove as anyone in the Senate--votes for the no confidence resolution, and Joe Lieberman does not, we have no further use for Joe Lieberman in our caucus.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/joe_chooses_his.html

[WCGreen]

1. All those folks are up for re-election, I believe, in 2008...

All except Joe....

[BlueStater]

2. I agee. FORCE HIM OUT ALREADY!

The little shitheel has no place in the Democratic party.

[fooj]

3. Reid has allowed the Dems to believe that if Joe bolts...we lose the majority.

It's simply not true. Reid needs to hear from us. Loud and clear, imo.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/lieber...

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

<snip>

[BlueStater]

5. He already votes with GOP the majority of the time anyway

So what the fuck does it matter anymore?

It's time to go, Joe. Get the fuck out of my party.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. And what stops the new republican majority

from re-writing the rules?

[bobbolink]

8. Good information.. thanks!

I didn't know that.

So much to keep up on, so little time....

:thumbsup:

[HereSince1628]

4. Joe's voting on behalf of the dissenfranchised voters of the 51st state

This was just a demonstration to Bush that Joe _really_ believes in an attack on Iran and is not one of those weak kneed Democrat surrender monkeys.

[IChing]

9. A petition or letter writing campaign to the Democratic Party

I want an explanation by "leadership" from the Democratic Party

on why this DLC neo-con Bush kissing, war mongering, zionist, anti-justice,
ass-wipe

has not been at least heavily officially criticized

[HereSince1628]

10. I'd like an explanation about why they brought this forward without the votes

but they couldn't do that with various Iraq funding measures.

[Fridays Child]

14. Joe Lieberman probably voted "no" because he secretly supports the torture of Muslims...

...a practice near and dear to Gonzales' heart, as we all know.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. LIEberman is not only not a Democrat, he is not an American.

I really wish that he would retire to his country of preference, Israel, or the country of his making, Iraq. Or maybe to the country where he is proposing yet another NeoCon war for Israel ... Iran.

For one who literally wept with joy at his joy of being nominated for the VP candidate, I now weep because of his duplicitous self-serving wrong notions.

[HereSince1628]

13. The sad truth is Congress depends not on its head for regularity

but on it's asshole.

One puckered up asshole and it gets sick to its stomach.

[Fridays Child]

11. Can he be recalled and a special election held to replace him?

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

15. I second that.

The people of Connecticut deserve to have a re-do on this one. He said that he would still side with the Dems even as an (I), and he used that as a desperate tactic to get votes and hang on by his claws to a seat he was destined to lose. He flat out lied to his constituency, and that's a slap in the face to democracy. I used to like him, but now I think he acts like a traitor.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Fucking shit-for-brains Connecticut electorate.

[MasonJar]

16. There is a significant difference between his caucusing with the dems,

even though he votes for the pugs, and caucusing with the latter. As long as he caucuses with us, we get the majority status which prevents the evil ones from having it.