Comments on Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is the rectal mucus of the giant ass that is Connecticut.

Just thought I'd through some rectal mucus out there. Must be listening to Dan's podcast too much.

Lieberman is right. There is no strategy but to finish the job in Iraq. This means staying until a political solution can complete the equation of stabilizing this poor country. It was a mistake going into Iraq. No doubt about that. But I’m really getting sick of delusional democrats thinking that we can just leave and turn it over to .

An error chopped off the end of that sentence. But now I think it’s just fine the way it is.

Raindrop, this was not a "bring all the troops home" initiative - it would have required that troops have as much time in the states as they do in-country, which if you look at the rates of PTSD and other psychological problems of returning soldiers is probably a really goddamn good idea. But hey, Joey and the Rs "support the troops," right? Riiiight.

Dan, I would donate to that recall effort.

Raindrop, do you have your gear packed and ready to ship out?

I heard Lieberman utter those lines on NPR this morning and literally screamed at my radio. There MUST be a way to recall him.

States can't control the terms of office for federal officials (like Senators), so Lieberman can't be recalled by state initiative.

Only state and local officials are subject to recall elections, and not all states allow it (Connecticut, for example, does not). Federal law prohibits the recall of U.S. officials.

To get rid of Joe Lieberman, Congress would have to impeach him for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Editorial correction:

S/B Vice President Lieberman

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma

Sean @8-- you're on to something, although impeachment applies only to the executive branch. Here's the line you're looking for, from Article I Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member".

Maybe Joe Lieberman also assumes a 'wide stance'?

I think I'd say there's no bigger asshole in the senate than Lieberman when it comes to the war. He's got his head about a mile up his ass in that regard, but considering a wide scope of social issues, I'd rather spend my energy trynig to oust a full Sen-R rather than a half Sen-R.

impeachment sounds fine for all of them.

but more realistic (in a purely parliamentary way only) is for the dems to simply NOT ALLOW A VOTE ON FURTHER FUNDING OF IRAQ.

lieberman can't stop that.

but it would take democratic spine, so fucking forget it.

Yeah, isn't it funny how winning control of Congress in December 2006 broke the back of the Democratic Party?

And they expect us to believe that there's just not a thing that they can do about Bush; what a bunch of fucking losers.

We have to face the Awful Truth: Both parties are for the war, and the only way we're leaving Iraq is if we lose control of the situation, which given the current level of government and military incompetence could happen any day.

@2: "This means staying until a political solution can complete the equation of stabilizing this poor country." But what if there IS no political solution? How long do we stay? Forever? Even if it threatens our national security by fomenting terrorism aimed at us and our allies? At some point we have to accept that our military has done all it can do, that we are facing diminishing returns and that we have to cut our losses. Maybe this is called "cut and run," but I haven't heard ANYONE say that our continued presence is likely to result in further political stability. In fact, I keep hearing the opposite. The surge clearly has not resulted in the Iraqi government making political headway on anything. Does anyone else notice an eery resemblance to the Enron debacle here? ("The company is fine, keep buying the stock, keep buying, oops!")

I don't know, the call for a general strike in the new issue of Harper's is sounding like a better idea every day. No need for self-righteous, orange wearing 911 conspiracists to guilt you into it, just stop going to work, stop driving your car, stop going to malls, stop giving your consent with every action to this hijacked government. We have to do something, and I a) can't wait until January, and b) am not convinced that whatever change comes then will be enough.

It's something to think about, anyway.

@15:

a general strike will never, i mean NEVER, happen in the goddamn USA. at best, you'd get 10% of the populace to do it. the rest are too fucking scared of losing their jobs, and with good reason.

4 hundres eighty nine days, 43 minutes and some odd seconds until I can breathe easy.... that is if W hasn't effected his coup with a weakended military out of the way and unable to oppose him, and declared martial law and himself chimperor for life... I'm not a conspiracy nut but I am worried that we still won't be rid of him in January

@16 - but why does that stop people who might actually do it from trying? Even 10% - 20 million people stopping work, shopping, culture in protest - would be a statement. If it were an ongoing thing, it might gain support as people saw other people doing it. What do we have to lose? At worst, it's a day off. At best, we can actually make it known to those in charge that they are not in charge.

I mean, there's a big part of me that's with you - it could never work, what's the point, yadda yadda, but I'm getting really fed up and sick of feeling ineffectual and powerless, and I think a lot of other people are too. At least read the editorial in Harper's (October issue). It's a powerful piece.

#17 I've had that same "it could never happen, could it?" fear.

@19 - considering the huge number of private armies in this country that are run by strongly right-wing companies (Blackwater, etc.), it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

A nod to local author Jonathan Raban's Surveillance... set in Seattle in the close future when the Dep't of Homeland Security spends billions on playing out terrorism scenarios in the middle of the city in efforts to either a)practice for when the real thing hits or b)keep the citizens in a constant state of fear. Brilliant read about where the country's headed, especially alongside the Hitchens I've been downing like it's candy-covered sunflower seeds.

It's possible and necessary for those of us paying attention to take action, to live with courage as if we still had the right to freedom of speech and public assembly. It's only going to get more difficult as the wars continue to rage.

They have these things called "elections"--and there will be tons of anti-war candidates in the next cycle, you can be sure of that.

Don't blame all the Democrats just because we're in the middle of a transition away from the Bush/Cheney Years; the reckoning for all these unspeakable Republican acts cannot happen overnight--but happen it will.

I don't understand Joe Lieberman. I mean, I truly don't fathom his purpose in the Senate or the fundamental meaning of his existence. It's baffling.

@23: AIPAC.

I share the concern of 17 and 19. I still wonder why you'd build a monarchy and then abdicate. How many Bin Laden videos will pop up between now and Jan '09? funny how we hear from him right around 9/11 and then nothing. Have to wonder whether BushCo have him in a cave somewhere making videos?

Lieberman, I just can't believe that he ran a false campaign. Shoudn't he have mentioned that he wanted to attack Iran? He's now the most hawkish member of the Senate. Nonetheless, I think there were enough hints (such as the Bush kiss video), and it's infuriating to see the "what if the election were held today" b.s.

LIEberman is, as always, a waste of space in the Senate.

A suggestion: follow Lieberman around until he goes into a Senate lavatory, go into the stall next to him... oh you can probably figure out the rest.

Just make sure you have a camera team stationed just outside the door who can hear your screams.

Dan Savage might hate Joe Lieberman, but the way he squashed Ned Lamont like an insect in the election suggests that Connecticut voters do not, despite Dan's claims to the contrary, hate him quite so much. If he's really so unpopular in Connecticut now, he'll lose next time around. Simple, no?

Joe Lieberman is a Zionist first, an American second. He gladly uses American tax dollars and military to protect Israel any way he can. It is no surprise he wants US troops to stay in Iraq, because his long term strategy is to destabilize and attack Iran. Lately he introduced a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, he claims, that is not an invitation to war with Iran. This is clear evidence that war with Iran was his long time goal, for which his support for staying in Iraq was only a stepping stone.