Monday, February 26, 2007

Joe Lieberman has to go. I don't care if they rewrite the CT constitution, the people of that state need to recall, recant and remove that jackass.

Apparently he's written (another) op-ed in the WSJ.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

F**k Lieberman and his holy posturing and posing. Let him leave the party and go hook up with McCain for VP on a pseudo "bipartisan" ticket.

Glenn Greenwald, once again, puts the hammer to the nail and details Joe's various mendacities.....

The reason our mission in Iraq has proven to be so disastrous and corrupt is very simple -- the advocates and architects of that war are completely corrupt, inept, and deceitful. Recognizing this fact and ceasing to accord people like this with respect and credibility is infinitely more important than any specific debates over particular policy or strategic questions.

Everywhere Joe Lieberman goes, he should be asked by journalists why anyone should listen to anything he says, or believe anything he says, in light of his history of deceitful statements and tragically wrong assertions, beginning with his 2005 Op-Ed which today he completely repudiates while pretending he never said any of it.

Go read Glenn's smackdown. This guy has GOT TO GO.


At 10:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

While I agree with your sentiment, the people from CT can't do jack. It's a federal position and not subject to any changes in state law.

The best thing to do is elect more Democrats to the Senate, and THEN force Harry Reid to take away his committee assignments.

At 11:26 AM, Blogger Mary Ellen said...

Unfortunately, we are stuck with Lieberman thanks to CT's inability to see him for the liar he is. We're stuck.

Harry Reid is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this guy. Lieberman is holding the Democrats hostage with his threat to take away their majority if he changes his party affiliation.

What the Dems should do is find a Republican in the Senate who would be willing to change HIS party affiliation from Republican to Democrat...offer HIM Lieberman's committee positions as a deal, and then tell Lieberman to f**k off. There has to be at least one Senator who is fed up enough with the Republican party to jump camp.

At 12:26 PM, Blogger Finian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 12:28 PM, Blogger Finian said...

typo there

Democrats should not put up with his posturing and childish ways. I'm with mary ellen -let's trade him for Susan Collins -she isn't running ayway.

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Finian said...

heads up
McCain is going to be on Letterman on Wednesday Top ten lists needed

At 3:25 PM, Blogger Sue123 said...

Actually, Harry isn't stuck with Joe. I don't really understand why the Senate is letting him get away with his behavior.
To wit:

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.

From Political Insider

Cliff - say 'hi' to my friend Aldon Hynes - he should be somewhere there in the dark with you.

At 10:27 PM, Blogger Paddy said...

Very good point that I've seen other places Sue123.

It's just that once you get into the dirt on alot of these situations, the public blanks out. Too difficult to understand.

But, something to def consider.

At 10:49 PM, Blogger GottaLaff said...

Sorry, but I'm still gagging from the photo. EW.


Post a Comment

<< Home