What Do think the Dems Should Do to Liebeman

cccc

It looks like they are not going to remove him from any of the leadership positions he had prior to the election.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/18/2008-11-18_senate_democrats_let_wayward_senator_joe.html

I personally believe they should remove him from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee; allow him to continue to head up the sub-comittees he already runs, and give him the chairman position of a reletively minor full-committe. If he he doesn't like it, let him leave the party.

Do you agree?

sweet tea

god yes. if even that -- what does this guy have to DO to get kicked out of the caucus? i hate his little smile.

daver

There is no room in the Democratic party for those that don't toe the party line. He is a maverick, I vote for water-boarding.

boygabriel

As much as I personally despise him for campaigning for John McCain, reality is that the Dems aren't going to punish him when every member of Congress is so important towards increasing your caucus numbers.

I think we on the left should spend less energy being angry at him and more energy getting him replaced in his next election with someone who supports good democratic candidates (or issues) like Barack Obama and not starting a war with Iran.

F*ck I hate intellectually simple war hawks like Lieberman.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: F*ck I hate intellectually simple war hawks like Lieberman.

Characterizing Lieberman as an intellectually simple war hawk is _so_ not accurate. FWIW.

boygabriel

daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]F*ck I hate intellectually simple war hawks like Lieberman.

Characterizing Lieberman as an intellectually simple war hawk is _so_ not accurate. FWIW.

Lieberman may not be intellectually simple, but the war hawk way of dealing with situations like Iran most certainly is.

Sabre-rattling and refusing high-level diplomatic contacts, meanwhile secretly chomping at the bit to drop bombs = intellectually simple.

And you just know Lieberman would love to green-light a bombing campaign on Iran.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver][quote=Boygabriel]F*ck I hate intellectually simple war hawks like Lieberman.

Characterizing Lieberman as an intellectually simple war hawk is _so_ not accurate. FWIW.

Lieberman may not be intellectually simple, but the war hawk way of dealing with situations like Iran most certainly is.

Sabre-rattling and refusing high-level diplomatic contacts, meanwhile secretly chomping at the bit to drop bombs = intellectually simple.

And you just know Lieberman would love to green-light a bombing campaign on Iran.
"intellectually simple" + "war hawk" vs. "intellectually simple war hawk" - got it. And yes, I agree that Lieberman would be all over blowing the shit out of Iran given half the chance. What is it with this guy? I like him on other things, and he is genuinely a thinking fellow. Damn. Perhaps he might feel differently if he had served and hadn't gotten a deferment. Although McCain would serve as evidence of a hawk that you would think _might_ think differently based on his experiences. Arg.

boygabriel

Honestly, neocons like Podhoertz & Co seem like they simply can't get enough war.

Bombing campaigns, open threats, the invasion of Iraq. No such thing as too much war for these people. They never met a diplomatic enemy they couldn't threaten with bombs.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: Honestly, neocons like Podhoertz & Co seem like they simply can't get enough war.

Bombing campaigns, open threats, the invasion of Iraq. No such thing as too much war for these people. They never met a diplomatic enemy they couldn't threaten with bombs.

I knew a guy like that in high school. He beat me up.

I think he's a cop now.

Why don't they let boys play with Barbies?