Oh, Harry! Majority Leader Reid continues to defend Lieberman
By SilentPatriot Tuesday May 06, 2008 4:00pm
I like Harry Reid. I really do. That's why it kills me when he -- along with one of my other favorite Senators, Chris Dodd -- continues to defend Joe Lieberman by saying "he only disagrees with us on the war." First of all, "the war" is no small issue in and of itself. Indeed, it encompasses virtually every critical aspect of George Bush's presidency, from torture to the Military Commissions Act to FISA. And besides the war, Lieberman has split with his party on the oh-so-minor issue of supporting its nominee for President.
Download | play 
Download | play
"Lieberman, who supports us on virtually everything except the war, [actually gives the GOP a 50-49 majority]"
With a razor-thin majority, it makes sense politically to try and keep him happy. But do we really need to kid ourselves and pretend like Traitor Joe hasn't abandoned the party of every single important issue of the day? Hopefully Reid, Dodd and everyone else is just playing nice until we pad our majorities a little more. Then we can finally strip Senator Joe Lieberman (I) of his committee assignments and make his transformation into a full-blown neoconservative complete.
Let's not also forget that Lieberman has shown an eager willingness to assume the role of Zell Miller, 2008 edition. No doubt he will use that precious opportunity (most likely on prime time television) to repeatedly bash the party Harry Reid and others still believe he belongs to.
Glenn has a comprehensive rundown. You can also check below the fold for a few more one our readers sent us.
Final Passage of S 2248: Joe Lieberman votes with Republican caucus and Blue Dog Dems to pass retroactive immunity:
Cloture on S 2248: Joe Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Dodd/Feingold Amendment 3907 to strip RI from S 2248: Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Feingold Amendment 3912 to limit bulk collection: Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Specter-Whitehouse Amendment 3927 for substitution in telecom cases: Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Feinstein Amendment 3919 - the "good faith" amendment for telecom cases: Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Feinstein Amendment 3910, covering exclusivity of FISA: Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Feingold/Webb Amendment 3979 - sequestration - Lieberman votes with Republican caucus
Notice a pattern?
Login or Register to post comments.
Lieberman was always a Republican plant. GORE lost because of his association to this feckless ASS CLOWN.
I haven't liked politicians siince I saw the biggest asshole in my 6th grade class become President, then dickhead, in that order. Reid is no different. He loves the power and attention just like everyone else. Waiting for these "democrats" to grow balls and take on Bush, or Lieberman (!) is like waiting for Godot.
Why? In the name of God, WHY??
That miserable gutless wimp, and you LIKE him?
If Reid doesn't make nice with Holy Joe, he loses his position of Majority Leader. Now, tell me, why would he do that and let Mitch McConnell take over setting the agenda? At least now Harry R can look like he's in charge when he runs for re-election.
I am hoping that the Dems can cut him loose the moment they get a true majority.
mackiddo5 @ 5:
They could do it now, but they won't. That's why they're called Spineless Democraps.
Wait, the great leader Pelosi is talking about her gas price plan.
Her plan is begging the President to do something.
Veto and drill is w's plan.
In return, she will pass billions more for Iraq.
Hilarious.
Now back to your regular scheduled hatred of Hillary.
OMG.
We are so screwed.
The republicans won the election of 2006 SP. They minimized the actual gains by democrats (seats), got Hoyer in the house (over Murtha) , Reid in the Senate and Lieberman to chair a key committee (that has done nothing).
In case you missed it, if the democrats had gotten the seats they won the republicans would be bleeding from every orifice right now (Murtha would have gone after Bush over Iraq with a club). Instead, they have won literally every contest in congress they have faced.
Have you been paying attention?
Democrats suck in a street fight.
I checked the calendar; it's not April 1. I rechecked the website -- it is C&L.
Therefore, I can find no earthly explanation for your claim to "like" Harry Reid.
If ever there was a symptom of what is wrong with the Democratic Party, Reid is it.
I doubt I'll ever again take anything you write seriously.
There's not much to like about Harry Reid.
I don't know what you like about him, Silent.
He's inneffective.
What namvetted says makes some sense...
But I still remember the Harry Reid of hot air and blustering, threatening to shut down the Senate over Phase II (which was delayed.... and delayed... and delayed... until everyone forgot about it).
Harry could have shut down the Senate over this.
It would have even prevented the appointment of one of the most egregious Supreme Court disasters in modern history...
But he didn't.
That's just one example of why I am incredibly unimpressed with Reid.
Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is a
Fascist Neo-Con Republican with a lying, bigoted, warmongering, heart to prove it.
I agree with mackiddo5 ... we need a larger majority in the Senate. That oughta happen come November. Then Lieberman's "influence" will be severely curtailed.
Of course, then he'll go full-on Republican, too, but what's the diff?
I think it is very important that you explain why you like Harry Reid. Very important.
If you insist on sticking to that position then I think it is incumbent upon C&L to fire you're sorry a**. That is the most ridiculous statement I've seen on a C&L posting in years--and they're have been some doosies in the past.
He has us over a barrel
I know, I know. There was an agreement when the 110th Congress was organized that the Dems would stay in control of the Senate even if there was a defector from our 51-49 majority. But I'm sure that that agreement could be overturned by the simple 51-50 majority (Reps plus new Rep Lieberman plus VP) the other side would have after Lieberman defects. Even if this vote were filibusterable, that same 51-50 majority could pull the nuclear option to get around the filibuster.
But, but -- we had a agreement! The Republicans would never go back on an agreement, right? Right?!
Well, if you put it that way...
archmunster @ 13:
Here here
Sounds like Harry is suggesting we all just give each other a big hug and forgive each others sins and shortcomings.
Senator Joe Lieberman (I)
That "I" does stand for Israel, right?
Gore lost because Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and the America hating criminals on the Supreme Court fixed the election. As much as I dislike Joe Traitorman, I think he was a non factor in the 2000 election.
Lieberman is nothing more than the Dem member that Pelosi and Reid picked to provide Bush with the votes he needs to push the war. Pelosi and Reid knew that at least one Dem would need to vote with the repubs on the war to keep it going, so they made a deal with Lieberman. Lieberman can support the war, and Reid won't mess with him. This allows Reid and Pelosi to support the war by proxy.
"First of all, 'the war' is no small issue in and of itself." Someone should inform the corporate media about this, since they devote no more than 5 percent of their nightly coverage [if even that] to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. military. But it would look rather unseemly to look with pity upon the Iraqis and the Afghanis, while daring to put the United States military in a less than benevolent light. Apparently the last thing the network and cable shows wish to do is to tell the truth as to how American forces have brutalized and oppressed the Iraqi and Afghani people. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is of actually seeing an anti-war activist appear on the corporate airwaves.
this is why clinton should flush the party....fight till august, then flush these bums....
i am an obama guy, but if clinton flushed the party, she might have my vote....
Yes, Harry. You disagree with Joe on the great moral issue of our era.
me @ 6:
Then they would no longer have control of the Senate.
There is something called, "tactics" ya now?
Bush runs America into the ground, blames Democrats http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Maybe instead of covering for Joe, Reid should cover for real Democrats, stand up for America and go after Bush?
Ruthless People @ 24:
Reid is doing his job NOT the job you think he should be doing. He is where he is to do exactly what he is doing. Bush is safe.
anon @ 25:
I think the same thing everytime Pelosi binks wildly at the next Bush crime yet never seems to be able to bring impeachment to the table.
When you say you like Harry Reid, you simply mean he seems like a nice guy and not a child molester or cannibal, right?
Ruthless People @ 26:
agreed
Andotech @ 27:
"seems" like a nice guy. "Seems" being one of the worst words ever invented.
I mean people say that about serial killers. "He was really quiet, never bothered the neighbors, and "seemed" like a really nice guy.
it is almost like our elected leaders are representing what the people want.........NOT!
Ruthless People @ 26:
Forget her, she's a basket case.
ma @ 30:
Yeah getting screwed is obviously what the people want in that case.
I can't believe this is the same Harry Reid that shut down the Senate while in the minority and made video doctor Frist look like the bumbling idiot he is. This was after that douchebag Roberts kept stalling on part 2 of the investigation about fixed intelligence leading us to invade Iraq. Does anyone else remember that? Where is THAT Harry Reid?
He lets the repug minority wave their hand and say filibuster and block our agenda instead of forcing them to take the floor and stand up and let the American people see what they're doing.
When it came time to block the telecoms from getting amnesty, he did however threaten to force Feingold and Dodd to actually take to the floor and follow through with their filibuster.
This begs the question. What do they have on him?
I detest the word "pussy" but Harry Reid is the one man who can tempt me to use it.
They have GOT to get rid of Peosi and Reid as leaders.
Scy @ 35:
But "they" don't think anything is wrong.
Your giving they way to much credit. We're the poor suckers doing all the complaining.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 17:
As much as I loath Israel's fascist policies, I don't think Lieberman has shifted his loyalty because of Israel (re: the Iran/Iraq issue). Case in point, Chuck Schumer. He grilled Alberto Gonzales during the Senate hearings. He's quick to show he's a liberal and a democrat when it comes to U.S. related matters. But, the minute Israel is in the picture, he shifts his priorities.
For example, back in 1992 when Bush Sr. froze foreign aid to Israel because Israel refused to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, Schumer was up in arms in Congress. He lead the anti-Bush cry claiming Israel's security will be jeopardized without the financial aid. Within three days, Bush buckled under heavy pressure from both pro-Israel supporters in Congress and various non-governmental organizations.
So, Lieberman is just an opportunist. His involvement with Israel is just a matter of convenience, unlike Chuck Schumer who's commitment to Israel is more ideological than opportunistic.
L.A. Confidential @ 36:
We may as well be shouting at the moon.
At some point we must draw the line about consorting with an enemy. Not a political one, but one that is willing to kill other people and make you criminally involved. Add the conspiracy required to bring it about. There has been no effort by Sen. Reid to put the brakes on rampant criminal behavior by the White House gang. He could have refused to bring votes to the floor. He could have informed the president that he will no longer allow him to appoint anyone, to any post. When you work with someone committing war crimes, you are considered a conspirator.
It is time to become a democrat, and more importantly, a human being, a citizen, a person, of these United States.
The 'democratic' party exists in name only. It's mostly just reslugs playing at being dem, keeping things in check for shrub co.
L.A. Confidential @ 31:
No, she's a rubber chicken!
SilentPatriot-
I'm glad I don't face the problem you do.
I don't like Harry Reid.
He let us all down by not confronting Bush on the war.
He is weak.
People are being killed, and he goes uh, blah.
He can support Lieberman because, well, it's only that pesky war thing.
He IS Lieberman.
You can't be full of just a little shit.
Harry is defending Lieberman because the DLC is scared shitless that he'll defect to the GOP. They have to lick Joe's balls at every opportunity to try and prevent him from signing up with the Torture Party.
Christ, these peole are so out of tune with every American. Bush's actions are CRIMINAL. He should be impeached. And Lieberman? A useless tool for the right. When will the people of Lieberman's district get the balls to vote him out?
Maybe it's time for a new majority leader.
...and Speaker of the House, while we're at it.
I'd like to re-run this scenario if the Democrats can pick up a strong majority, maybe even near 60 seats in the Senate.
Then, all of a sudden, it might be, "Yeah... Lieberman, Lieberman... Hmmm. Do I know him?"
Harry Reid is exactly the spineless pandering do-nothing that the Republic Attack Machine associates with the Democratic Party.
I don't like harry reid. I do not givce a shit how many times he smiles. he's fucking this country. his disposition means nothing. his actions mean everything.
fuck harry reid
When will you UNDERSTAND there is no difference they don't work for us( you and me ) they work for the corporations!!!!! They will never leave IRAQ until the CORP's leave. Above the White House,Congress and the Senate are the letters W W E World Wide Entertainment for our Entertainment only
Harry Reid while a nice guy comes across to me as very weak and timid. As a leader of the Democratic Majority it would help if he had a stronger "take charge" or tougher demeanor. Look how meek he was on the show. Almost quiet. Chris Dodd would have been a better choice in my mind for this leadership role.
Harry Reid, while good for Nevada, has been a disaster as majority leader. Check out the video. He has the charisma of a tree.
Here's a funny cartoon I saw about him promoting his new book:
http://www.politickernv.com/robtornoe/1418/harry-reid-being-majority-lea...
Harry Reid, while great for Nevada, is a disaster as the majority leader.
Saw this funny cartoon of him running away from competitiong.
View Cartoon
anon @ 15:
Totally uncalled for.
Larry Lamborghini @ 1:
Right on Larry.
I'm so sick of "progressives" who blame Gore's loss on Nader - and not on Gore and his idiot running mate.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 48:
Bravo.
Succinct and to the point.
Harry Reid needs to go.
He is a pansy, a coward, and a traitor.
He's a Mormon too.
The state of Nevada has sent a Republican in sheep's cloathing to Washington.
Well we have kicked out the speaker before, I guess it's time to do it again.
Is there ANY DEMOCRATS IN NEVADA would would seek to challenge this guy in a race for his seat?
It is being done all over America you know.
getalife @ 7:
And Hillary's plan is to what? Dodge sniper fire? Oh ya, cut taxes temporarily to help out big corporations and save you $10/year. Nice.
When this guys the majority leader, you KNOW the alternative choice must be as bad as it gets.
I did a spit take when Jon Stuart said Reid's book was titled "The Good Fight." If by good fight, you mean caving in constantly to Bush and mitch mcconnell, and allowing idiotic votes to be brought to the floor (Petraus Betray us resolution), then yes, I suppose it is accurate. By the way, if the dem leadership continues to allow non-sensical gop-inspired measures to come up for a vote, just how do we benefit by holding the leadership chairs?
Zapp Lieberman and Kif Reid
really tired of people in general and i guess the moderator of crooks and liars is no exception saying what is politically expedient to say. I like harry reid. It's gutless wonders like harry and nancy who have placed us in the position we are currently in. as for elmer fudd lieberman, when the dems and liberals win in a landslide next election is everyone then going to forgive and forget and joe and rush and hannity will be welcomed back to the fold with open arms. maybe in more prosperous times' however, look where we are now. owing trillions or billions to china, $5 gallon gas, involved in a neverending war that WE STARTED and millions of innocents dying on both sides. These will all serve as reminders to future generations why there should be no glad hands extended to the traitors. You all have to decide which side of the fence you choose to live on.
with the senate numbers being what they are, what choice does reid have?
which is why Chris Dodd or even Clinton should be Majority Leader beginning in 09! Although I like Reid I think change means down the line.
Where's this country this week? Last night at our weekly antiwar vigil,in the heart of a republician county I had a sign that read:
"Remove the war criminal from our White House"
The reaction ,unofficial of course, in the course of one hour I never received as many smiles, thumbs up and people rolling down their windows saying they agreed with me.
There were two nut cases who took issue with the expressed sediment out of 2/3 hundred that went by.
Are you listening Nancy?
no longer a proud american @ 61:
The next election will also be conducted on republican voting machines so don't count on any stinking landslide.
Hey, Harry. "The war" ain't just about Iraq. It's about our future in the world. No "war" has ever been declared, by the way...it's just an invasion and occupation, with an origin in lies and a permanence based on hubris.
Joe Lieberman doesn't just disagree with you on "the war," Harry. He's willing to spend America's future (not any of his own family's future, of course) on a permanent occupation of a country that doesn't want us around. He's willing to attack Iran, which had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. All of this, presumably, because he has some religious zealot's view of Israel as a sacred land that needs our protection.
And, Harry...he doesn't give a rat's ass about you or the Democratic party, either.
If anybody has any wonder why a nobody like Obama struck such a chord with so many Democrats this year, they need only look to what the likes of Reid, Lieberman and Pelosi have brought us. We've had more than enough opportunities these past two years to hold this Administration accountable for something, and our Democratic "leaders" have looked the other way at almost every turn.
Reid needs to retire to "LobbyLand" where most of his kind tend to go. Besides, it pays better. He'd be better off, and so would most Democrats and the American people.
Excuse me, Harry, but isn't he supporting the Republican candidate for president, and hasn't his Democratic superdelegate status been taken away from him because of it? If he just wanted to support the war, he could have endorsed Clinton.
lex @ 11:
Achtung: Jawol mein Fuhrer
“he only disagrees with us on the war.”
...and whether we should have a Democrat or Republican in the White house.
motorfingaz @ 23:
And the difference would be... ?
Oh yeah, if the Dems lost control of the Senate, there would be no impeachment, no meaningful hearings into republican criminality, no enforceable subpoenas, Bush would get all his judges confirmed, and the Iraq war would keep getting funded forever.
So the difference would be...?
ghostrider @ 53:
Your opinion. Admiration of Reid is uncalled for.
this is why we need to roll over the g.o.p. in as many congressional contests as possible. give the ol' beltway a cosmic blue toilet flush. obama gives us the best chance to pull it off.
then you purge lieberman from the party. make him admit his party's likud.
then, knock harry reid out with a punching nun puppet (yeah, it's that easy) & put someone like chris dodd in his place (or, hillary, if she promises to make up for her horrid votes over the last eight years and start setting a good example for tomorrow's gals).
and Dodd too? Yeah, right , just the war. Uh huh sure. Meanwhile, Lieberman goes on another campaign tour with McCain.
First we're stuck with Daschle and now Reid. Why do we reward all the milqtoasts in our party? How about choosing someone with some fight in em???
brian @ 75:
our leaders, like paul wellstone, die under mysterious circumstances, then the rest of us bury our heads in the sand, keep quiet, even though we know something's fishy, and we let it happen over, and over, and over, and over again...
I am so sick of Reid I could vomit. Him and Pelosi both. If I never hear another word from the mouth of either, it will be too soon.
Of course he supports war-criminal LIE-berman.
*
bullfrog @ 76:
The Dems will never open their mouths again...they have been warned.
We have all been warned.
me @ 3:
No kidding. It's like the Dems who show up on Faux News and never fail to say "I respect you a lot" to the most weaselly excuses for humanity.
mackiddo5 @ 5:
Cut loose LIEberman or Reid?....or better yet, both?
motorfingaz @ 23:
And exactly how would the "flush Lieberman" scenario result in worse voting results then we already have in the Senate? Particularly when Harry Reid gives the Repugs implied Filibuster power, and an effective 10 vote advantage, on key legislation (like the FISA amendments). When Harry lets the Repugs require 60 votes for Democratic legislation, LIEberman's one little vote means squat.
Harry Reid:
and waterboarding...
and Habeas Corpus...
and telecom retroactive immunity...
and confirming Mukasey...
and No Confidence vote on Alberto Gonzalez (yeah, LIEberman was confident in Gonzalez)...
Reid just missed a few. /sarcasm
Reid is nutless , NOT what the Dem party needs as leader but the classic whimp and push over .
me @ 71:
Everything you just said is either 100% false, inaccurate or misleading.
1. Impeachment hearings are in the HOUSE, not the Senate. Trial is in the Senate. Note that if the Bush's Cabals dirt is aired on TV for a few weeks straight, who the F&*K cares what Libershmuck thinks. Infact, its the airing of the dirt that gets the votes, not the votes that get the dirt. Read Nixon's impeachment history, dont propagandize it. So who needs Joe for this?
2. There are NO meaningful hearings now - so whats the loss? Who needs Joe for this aswell?
3. What Senate subpeonas? White House isnt even acknowledging the House ones. They are using that Nixonian phrase "executive priviledge". So who needs Joe for this?
4. 2/3 on judge confirmations b/c 1/3 can fillibuster. Who needs two-faced Joe for the 1/3?
5. War is getting unending funding now...so who needs Joe to continue to do nothing?
reid another closet neocon?
reid another closet neocon?
Absolutely! What's to like? He seems to be addicted to seeing bodybags. How many of these jerks have sat down and watched the videos of the suffering people in Bagram and Guantanamo Bay and yet gone out and asked people to give them money to be re-elected? Talk about absolute power absolutely corrupting! Those who think that HiLIARy is not a neocon are the ones who really "get" to me. I think Reid takes second place in the heirarchy of TRAITORS right now. The sooner Washington DC burns to the ground the better. The symptoms of American schizomaniac behavior are getting worse by the minute. It's impeachment and a ditch of the voting machines by November .. or? And yes, there is STILL time ..
Harry Reid (R) Nancy Pelosi (R) Who are they trying to fool ?
I gave up on Reid and Pelosi a long time ago. I regard them as DINO's.
Hillary for Senate Majority Leader
Speaker Robert Wexler
President Obama
Vice President ???
Attorney General John Edwards
I don't FF through many of Jon's interviews, even the fluffy movie-pimping celeb ones, but I couldn't bring myself to watch this one. That Casper Milquetoast voice of Reid's just drives me insane, never mind the pathetic excuses he says with it.
Wexler for Speaker! Cocaine and hookers for everyone! LOL
Srsly, Wexler would be perfect. It'd be nice to see the people with drive in the right direction in charge for once.
I don't like Harry Reid. I really don't. Beneath that small town lutheran demeanor lurks a totally arrogant asshole.
Harry Reid is the most feckless, incompetent, impotent, and pathetically flaccid Majority Leader either party has had in the last 100 years. I'm all in favor of Hillary replacing him; at that point the Democrats would have a Majority Leader with actual testicles.
mrbill123 @ 84:
Actually, no.
Duh. That doesn't mean Senators can't publicly ask the House to do it. It doesn't prevent a Senate resolution. It doesn't prevent hearings in the Senate.
Exactly my point. If Reid told Lieberman to go fuck himself and officially join the repubs, nothing would change.
Exactly. So what in the world is the point of kissing Lieberman's withered ass?
Thanks for making my point for me.
It's pretty clear that Congress does not work for the People of the United states. Reid is a perfect example of that.
Reid has to be replaced.
Larry Lamborghini @ 1:
Gore lost because he is a liar [I invented the internet] , a looser [by definition], and a bloviating buffoon [ I'll save the planet ...], a crook [ ... and make millions doing it], and a hypocrite [I can buy carbon credits to support my energy hogging lifestyle]
Login or Register to post comments.