Whitehr Lieberman

[Anonymous]

With Lieberman in discussions with both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, would anyone venture a guess what his future holds?

[Anonymous]

Oops -- "Whither", not "Whitehr"

[Anonymous]

I think he's actually kind of irrelevant now: the dems don't really need him as much as they have in the past, and he doesn't really do much for the republicans either, since they're so far from a majority.

[Anonymous]

He's probably going to get punished somewhat. But he has a swing vote, and if he plays it right it is worth something - especially if the Democrats get close to 60 and are able to break a fillibuster.

In many countries, a very small party sits between two opposition parties and can command great power by swinging between supporting one or the other. Israel is in that situation almost always, and certainly Germany was that way before unification. I don't know about now.

[Anonymous]

He is going to hell.
In a handcart

[Anonymous]

Its too bad there is no provision for a state to recall a senator. He has four years left and I doubt Connecticut voters are too thrilled that their Senator took so much time away to actively campaign for a candidate they overwhelmingly did not support and now is offering his "votes" to the highest bidder.

It would be ridiculous for Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. This committee is responsible for oversight of the executive branch and he did nothing to investigate anything in the Bush administration while his counterpart Waxman in the Senate did a good job. I could see Lieberman using his chairmanship for his own survival purposes with inappropriate investigations of an Obama administration if Lieberman doesn't get what he wants. He has already signaled that his "vote" on any issue is for sale and he will join the Republicans if he doesn't get to keep his chair. The Republicans are obviously going to expect him to vote with them not against them. So much for an "independent prism", I guess all that counts is what is good for Joe.

Very unethical if you ask me. IMO it is fine to cross parties if that is where you stand on the issues and everyone understands he has a long friendship with McCain but you have to be willing to stand by your choices and accept the consequences. Even if he had not supported McCain and more importantlu actively campaigned on issues counter to his own "supposed positions", he should still lose the chairmanship since he has done nothing with it. His actions to hold onto his own power are incredibly dubious and show a complete lack of integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its too bad there is no provision for a state to recall a senator. He has four years left and I doubt Connecticut voters are too thrilled that their Senator took so much time away to actively campaign for a candidate they overwhelmingly did not support and now is offering his "votes" to the highest bidder.

It would be ridiculous for Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. This committee is responsible for oversight of the executive branch and he did nothing to investigate anything in the Bush administration while his counterpart Waxman in the Senate did a good job. I could see Lieberman using his chairmanship for his own survival purposes with inappropriate investigations of an Obama administration if Lieberman doesn't get what he wants. He has already signaled that his "vote" on any issue is for sale and he will join the Republicans if he doesn't get to keep his chair. The Republicans are obviously going to expect him to vote with them not against them. So much for an "independent prism", I guess all that counts is what is good for Joe.

Very unethical if you ask me. IMO it is fine to cross parties if that is where you stand on the issues and everyone understands he has a long friendship with McCain but you have to be willing to stand by your choices and accept the consequences. Even if he had not supported McCain and more importantlu actively campaigned on issues counter to his own "supposed positions", he should still lose the chairmanship since he has done nothing with it. His actions to hold onto his own power are incredibly dubious and show a complete lack of integrity.

As if so much was being done in the senate with McCain, Obama, and Biden absent also.

The rest of your argument is a bit weak IMO - a committee chairman cannot unilaterally start an investigation - s/he needs the support of the committee majority to do so.

For Lieberman, a strong defense and support of Israel trumps issues such as health care or tax cuts. He has made no bones about it all his career. Personally, while sure he would like to keep powerful chairmanships, I don't think he cares all that much or else he never would have had the courage to step outside the fold. Right, wrong, or indifferent - doesn't matter, it was a ballsy move on his part when all the conventional wisdom said McCain would loose.

[Anonymous]

"As if so much was being done in the senate with McCain, Obama, and Biden absent also."

McCain, Biden, and Obama were actually running and they were running within the platform and positions that their states elected them to office. McCain can proudly return to the Senate and represent Arizona. Lieberman is not in the same position with Connecticut especially if he joins the Republicans on issues beyond Israel. I agree that Lieberman was always upfront with unconditional support for Israel which is fine as long as your constiuents know this and still vote for you. His support for the rest of Republican positions, which will have to come in votes if he ditches the Dems is the betrayal of the voters trust.

Lieberman had a much more supportive group in the house than Waxman had in the Senate. Lieberman's committee failure does belong to him. He does care greatly or else he would not be shopping his vote out to the Republicans which IMO is why he should go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lieberman had a much more supportive group in the house than Waxman had in the Senate.

It was probably a typo, switching the two names, but just to avoid confusion, let me note that Lieberman is in the Senate and Waxman in the House. If your point was about cross-chamber relationships, I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
For Lieberman, a strong defense and support of Israel trumps issues such as health care or tax cuts. He has made no bones about it all his career. Personally, while sure he would like to keep powerful chairmanships, I don't think he cares all that much or else he never would have had the courage to step outside the fold. Right, wrong, or indifferent - doesn't matter, it was a ballsy move on his part when all the conventional wisdom said McCain would loose.

Please remember that traditionally the Democrats have been stronger supporters of Israel than the Republicans. It is only recently that the Christian Evangelicals have pushed the "Israel -- Do or Die" line which is in line with their desire to bring on the Second Coming (only supposed to happen when Israel is a nation) and not because they care a whole lot about Jews. (apologies to those evangelicals who feel differently -- I know you don't all agree on this) Support for Israel is also strong among the Democrats. I have heard that Rahm Emanuel is himself a hard-core Zionist.

I don't disagree that Lieberman is in trouble -- just want to make sure that people don't automatically assume that unquestioning support for Israel makes someone a conservative because there are a lot of liberals who also support Israel without question.

I can only hope Obama will be different. I would like him to see the ways in which Israel has enshrined inequality into its system in a way which (I'm so glad to say) would not be approved of by most Americans if it happened in the United States. However, I am not optimistic given that he chose Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
For Lieberman, a strong defense and support of Israel trumps issues such as health care or tax cuts. He has made no bones about it all his career. Personally, while sure he would like to keep powerful chairmanships, I don't think he cares all that much or else he never would have had the courage to step outside the fold. Right, wrong, or indifferent - doesn't matter, it was a ballsy move on his part when all the conventional wisdom said McCain would loose.

Jews vote solidly Democrat because of the party's support of Israel. Republicans have not been interested in, or effective at negotiations around Israel and Palestine. Jews were second only to blacks in their support of Obama.

Lieberman split with the Democrats over Iraq, plain and simple.