Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are changing the seating arrangements for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, according to Washington Wire.“For future hearings, Democrats and Republicans wont sit on opposite sides of the dais but rather, next to each other — alternating Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican etc.”
Reminds me of kindergarten, when they made us sit boy, girl, boy, girl. That was usually punishment of some kind.
As Joe Lieberman becomes more and more of a divisive, polarizing and controversial figure, these small sops to bipartisanship he pulls every now and then seem less and less authentic. I have yet to see Lieberman actually use the pull he has with both sides (and as chair of Homeland Security) to create compromise and consensus.
Advertisement
That should make Joe even more popular.
Yes, he is obviously becoming more and more divisive. Why does he behave in such a divisive way? He needs to stop being so divisive. You’re right, GC! That Joe Lieberman — he is soooooo divisive!
I wouldn’t call it divisive, just incredibly silly. But then our junior Senator seems determined to become a parody of himself.
I still can’t believe so many Republicans flocked to his side during the election, not out of fear of Lamont, but because they really believed in him. There isn’t a day that goes by where I don’t regret voting for Schlesinger.
Ok let’s review the election results again–
Alan somebody barely registered–but good for him for showing up.
Lament was the darling of the left, the darling of many on this esteemed website, and let’s not even talk about some other fan favorite websites.
Joe–Well, Joe was painted with black face by the left, villified, hung out to dry…But he still won by a comfortable margin. And today, many months after this decisive victory, Joe still manages to raise the hackles of the left, as if you are living in an alternate reality.
Joe got elected as a firewall to the angry, bitter left–a job he is evidently accomplishing with much success.
>>Joe got elected as a firewall to the angry, bitter left–a job he is evidently accomplishing with much success.
That sums it up as well as I’ve ever seen.
You say “Lament”, I say “LaMonte” …
Chirac is stepping down … maybe LaMonte can go help France maintain its beauty …
Oh, George Soros has invested many millions of dollars in Halliburton … maybe he’ll be Chairman of Halliburton some day …
The lefties have specific answers to all questions and they expect Democrats to comply with all of those specific answers … Lieberman irritates them by not complying as they desire … thank you, Joe Lieberman!!!
It really is a shame that what makes Lieberman so divisive, polarizing, and controversial is that he makes a concerted effort to NOT be those things, to NOT be so blatantly and painfully partisan. Ironic. Or hypocritical on the part of those Democrats who place party above principal. I forgot who won the election in November…how did that work out for them?
bj, i think i may have gotten tripped up on your double-negative…you do or do not regret voting for schlesinger? i’d like to know if i’m supporting your stance or opposing it.
regardless, i think the real shame is that the repubs couldn’t get behind their own potentially viable candidate because the dems couldn’t come to grips with how good they had it. lieberman’s voting record is overwhelmingly liberal — there are a few issues that he sides with the repubs on, but that doesn’t change the fact that referring to him as a “moderate” is being overly generous to the political right. the dems had (and sorta, maybe, possibly, kinda, still do have it…i guess) that seat, there was absolutely no reason to put up some political know-nothing with an abundance of rhetoric and very little substance against lieberman…you can’t “take back” a seat you already have, and trying to “take back the soul” the party was a ridiculous notion when you consider that all of lamont’s left-wing posturings would be pushed right to the back of the line and bottom of the totem pole. take a look at our two new MCs…no influence, no experience, absolutely no reason for anybody to give them the time of day.
i’m sure a few repubs here and there actually voted for lieberman because of his character…i am, however, a firm believer that most voted out of fear of what would happen if the left-wing nutjobs of CT’s dem party lined up behind this “flavor of the week” from greenwich and actually gave him his seat (and surrendered CT’s influence in congress). honestly, had lamont not even came into being, repubs would have absolutely thrown their usual 35-40% behind him.
what makes dems mad is that they are responsible for putting lieberman in the position which he now holds –more powerful and influential than even he could have ever imagined.
sorry, i should have proofread…
“honestly, had lamont not even came into being, repubs would have absolutely thrown their usual 35-40% behind SCHLESINGER.”
for those of you who needed the clarification.
I can’t wait to see how Lieberman reacts when the bill he is currently shepherding through the Senate is Vetoed.
By the way,Now that the Patraeus plan has failed I was wondering who is going to be the next General all you Republicans are going to tell us is the “Best and brightest and will lead us to victory”.
RedRidden, Lieberman makes every effort to be divisive, polarizing, and controversial. It’s how he gets so much PR. I still can’t help but laugh at CT Republicans who to this day defend Joe. Your candidate got screwed too, maybe even more than Lamont.
Joe is definitely a chooch. But, more importantly,I am always interested to see how ctkeith, a Democrat like Lieberman himself, can take a complicated situation and boil it down to a few choice partisan soundbites much like Joe does; ctkeith’s states simplisticly that the Patraeus plan has failed when the truth (that Joe distorts over and over again but ctkeith buys into obviuosly) is that Lt. Gen. Petraeus is implementing a plan that was handed to him – not one he developed himself – and he is now doing his best working the situation in Iraq and modifying the plan so that we can suceed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
CGG, the Republican candidate did not get “screwed.”
He created his own problems. If his view of the war on terror were similar to that of Lieberman, then I would have voted for him. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a John Murtha registered as a Republican.
And I’m also very proud to have Lieberman as my U.S. Senator. Not so long ago, he was chosen as the Democratic candidate for Vice President of the United States … for good reason. It’s the Cindy Sheehan-type Democrats who are freaking out about him …
CGG, Lieberman is making every effort to put an end to the fiery invective that has come to plague the D.C. culture. What is actually bi-(and even occasional non-) partisanship, YOU and the rest of out-there-in-left-field creation are perceiving as divisive, polarizing, and controversial behavior. Democrats view him as such — only within the context of their party — because he won’t “fall in line” with the stances they want him to take. I can’t believe we’ve come to expect blind, follow-the-leader representation from our Reps and Sens. Well, at least now there’s an explanation for why Murphy and Courtney got elected…
Nutmeg, I agree. It’s only to extremist whackjobs that Lieberman is divisive.
Nutmeg, I agree. It’s only to extremist whackjobs that Lieberman is divisive.
You just made my point. Thank you.
What point would that be, CGG? I may be right-of-center, but I certainly have issues with the extremist whackjobs on my side of the aisle too. MY point is that the occasional moderate stance is indicative of a common-sense approach to the issues, of being able to not only see but understand both sides.
Settle down. I’ve got issues with the Ann Coulters and Jerry Falwells of the world too. I just find it interesting that Dems never denounce the radical wing of their party…in fact, more often than not, they embrace it.
If Lieberman’s position on the war had been moderate no one would have primaried him. Plenty of Democrats get away with being moderate on Iraq and the War on Terror. Actually had Lieberman actually spent more time talking with local Democrats before the primary about his position he probably would have won that primary. Even Dems who disagreed with him would have appreciated him making the effort.
I’ll admit to being farther to the left than most, but believe it or not I believe in bipartisanship, and nonpartisanship. Senator Lieberman doesn’t. He’s not looking for solutions to problems. He’s looking to enhance his own image. And yes, I have big problems with that.
Dear CGG-What you wanted was a pacifist on Iraq–Joe aint that.
Your guy-Lamont-wanted out of Iraq, yesterday–and he lost big time.
In blue Ct you could not pulloff your plans to vacate Iraq.
What does this mean??? It means that Republicans lost because they misread our country–we want to win. Joe wants to win and that is why he won.
>>What does this mean??? It means that Republicans lost because they misread our country–we want to win. Joe wants to win and that is why he won.
You’re pretty bright, Rightyright.
Are you involved in GOP politics at all, TC level, anything? If not you should be.
And I want a pony…
How many more American families need to be destroyed before you all cure yourselves of delusion?
Even the Iraq Study Group concluded “winning” was a pipe-dream.
And oh yeah, the more you Republicans want to support Bush’s war, the more seats you’re going to lose in 2008. I just wish, in the meantime, that you and Lieberman were sending your kids to Iraq…
>>I just wish, in the meantime, that you and Lieberman were sending your kids to Iraq
My son’s been been talking to the Marines. He’s to my right politically – by quite a bit.
The family’s been in every war including the Revolution; several were also involved in the underground railroad as well.
Frankly – the “illegals” I know in Danbury and elsewhere impress me more than many of the posters in here, with their (the illegals) respect for liberty at any price.
No “chickenhawks” here; but quite a few turkeydoves and several Dodos.
ACR,
I guess you must be rooting for the Sunni insurgents since Liberty demands ridding ones country from any occupier (remember that American revolution) before it can take root.
Maybe your son will join in time for W to bring Liberty,at any cost of course,to Saudi Arabia where all those 9/11 hijackers came from.
ACR–
Which war did you fight in? My hat’s off to you, and I hope your son joins the Marines, (what an honorable calling), but I also hope he doesn’t get sent into the Iraq quagmire.
>>Which war did you fight in
Actually you’re the one running the mouth, where were YOU?
My son feels we should invade and totally occupy Iran right now; additionally No. Korea’s nuke capability’s should be rendered useless immediately and that country should be occupied and controlled by China (better them than what’s there now) and
Hezbolla should be eliminated from the face of the earth.
I’m hoping he gets his degree 1st so he can go in as on officer.
Invade Iran? With what army?
Pretty far out! But good on you for showing your true colors…
Just about half of the Republicans in the US Senate are to the “left” of Lieberman on Iraq if anyone from either side wants to be objective on the issue.
And invade Iran? With what Army?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-12-officer-shortage_N.htm
It’s expected that college age children will be overly aggressive and a little ignorant.
Unfortunately sometimes their Dads never matured enough to check their inexperience or maybe are still trying to work through their own feelings of inadquacies or regrets.
>>Unfortunately sometimes their Dads never matured enough to check their inexperience or maybe are still trying to work through their own feelings of inadquacies (sic) or regrets
Sorry Keith, real men defend their country and of you don’t think 9.00 a gallon gas would flatten the economy out to point of people living and starving in our streets then you simply haven’t thought it through.
I’m sure your fore bearers were opposed to both the revolution (a tyrant here or across the ocean what’s the diff?) as well as the Civil War (the one where Lincoln lied to the American people regarding the original reason for)
Nope – as long as you’ve got yours, to hell with the rest of the planet or anyone here that disagrees with your warped leftist views.
BTW – don’t play “tough guy” with Republicans.
“REAL MEN”,LOL
What branch and what war were you in again?
Sorry ACR,
“REAL MEN” don’t believe in preventive war and don’t have to twist intel in order to mislead a country into a War they have no idea what they were getting in to.
“REAL MEN” really listen to the Experienced Generals and PREPARE for a war and make dam sure they committ enough troops to make that war as short as possible.
“REAL MEN” would have stayed in Afganistan and captured Bin Laden even if that meant crossing into Pakistan to get him.
“REAL MEN” also READ the intel that says “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S. and shake the trees instead of going to Texas and cutting brush.
and “REAL MEN” NEVER,NEVER,NEVER use what other members of their family did in defense of this country as evidence of THEIR bravery.
All right, enough. This is accomplishing nothing, and violating the rules for commenting. Comments here are closed.