Comments on: Go, Joe!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:55:58 +0000

Joe Lieberman caucuses (that doesn’t look right, but my spellcheck isn’t flagging it [although it just flagged the word "spellcheck" so what does it know?]) with the Democrats, and he’s a complete liberal. I’d oppose him if I lived in a state where a conservative was a viable option. I don’t. I’ve voted for him two of the three times he’s run for Senator. (I voted for the Republican in 2000, because Lieberman was running for Vice President and I didn’t like the fact that he could run for two offices at the same time.)

If I and those who think like me had voted for the Republican last time around, we’d be dealing with Senator Ned Lamont, who’d be completely in favor of whatever crazy health plan Harry Reid and Barack Obama put forward.

In other words, by praising Joe I’m praising my own judgment. Do you really want to take that way from me?

By: Magnus Caseus Formatis

Magnus Caseus Formatis — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:06:38 +0000

Yes, he was kicked out. Just the same, he didn’t leave on his own. I think he still fancies himself a democrat, even if he supported the Iraq war. Perhaps, in this case, he can make the “Reagan” claim: that he didn’t leave the party, the party left him (with emphasis on the word “left”)

The stakes for the Democrats are much higher with Obamacare. If one congressman can be bought for $300,000,000.00, what might Joe’s price be? TARP money abounds, and the Dems are not afraid to spend it, if they think it will keep them in office. And, David, you’re right, too: The world doesn’t work this way, at least, not the one I live in. I don’t live in the political world, though, and that seems to be the way it works.

Conversely, I’m pleased that Joe does seem to be a “spoiler” for the Dems. They’ve certainly needed one for quite a while, and about 60 of them would be great. Still, he’s way too liberal for my future, as is/was McCain.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:08:06 +0000

I know two things about Lieberman:

1. He’s a lousy driver. I had to honk at him once, and not in a “Hey, that’s Joe Lieberman!” way. In a “C’mon, c’mon let’s go!” way. (Ironically, he was hesitating over making a left turn.)

2. He knows someone in my apartment building well enough to stay over one night last winter during a horrible snow storm. It was weird running into him at midnight in my lobby. Given his driving skills, he showed good judgment by not being on the roads.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:58:43 +0000

Lieberman was pretty solid on Iraq when like that idiot Specter he could have just folded for the scratch behind the ears from his party. He didn’t. He stayed solid. I admire that.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:31:15 +0000

Huh. I wonder what I was thinking of. Could be that the process of shuttling a bill back and forth between House and Senate was once described as “reconciling” the differences between the versions and I thought that was “reconciliation.”

Never listen to me, Kit.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:52:41 +0000

Nope thats not reconcilliation. Reconcillation is a budget rule that allows the Senate to pass a bill strictly on a bare majority. Normally bills cannot pass the senate unless there are 60 votes for it. Its only used for the budget not for anything else. But Reid has made it plain he “could” use it. However it would have to be discussed with the Senate Parlimentarian and the GOP would have a lot to say on that issue. Lets just say if Reid uses that AKA the nuclear option he will earn a lot of hate from his own party. I know he has been told don’t go there.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:42:13 +0000

Bills which pass the House and the Senate can be very different from each other, Kit. “Reconciliation” is the process of ironing out those differences so that there is one unified bill to send to the President. It’s also a way to sneak things into a bill at the last minute and hope no one makes too big a stink about it.

By: David Marcoe

David Marcoe — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:18:12 +0000

Mike, you hit the nail on the head. Such cynicism, aside from being no way to live, is completely irrational, by nature. In fact, you can apply the same attitude to any person alive, extending a possibility to a certainty without evidence. But manifestly, this is not so. The world doesn’t work that way. It never has. For good or bad, things change. It’s as irrational to be a blind optimist as it is to be a blind pessimist.

Magnus, Leiberman was kicked out of his own party for refusing to back down on Iraq. That builds a certain cachet of trust.

By: Kit

Kit — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:12:18 +0000

Steph,

What is “reconcilliation”?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:59:49 +0000

I guess that’s possible, Magnus. But you could say the same about any politician on any issue so if that isn’t an invitation to despair and apathy, I’m not sure what would be. I’m gonna believe him until he gives me a reason not to.

Go to gravatar.com and register with the same e-mail you use to comment here. Upload the picture you want, and Bob’s your uncle.