23 posts categorized "JOE LIEBERMAN"

Dec 09 2010
Say It's So, Joe! Comments (0)


And Harry Reid is on board...this could be very interesting after all:


Nov 19 2010
DADT Repeal Marches On Comments (0)

Following President Obama urging Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) to keep the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military-spending bill, here's the first decent thing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) has done in forever—heading up that press conference calling attention to the fact that he and many others in the Senate still want to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He says we have the 60 votes, so it's all up to Sen. Majority Leader Reid (D-Nevada) to make sure that the bill is open for debate, as Republicans have insisted upon.

 Read More

Mar 03 2010
Repeal Appeal Comments (0)

A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell...by Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who in a statement said:

"To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence."

Markudall The other senators at the press conference included Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois).

According to Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado, pictured), it will be inserted in the defense appropriations bill, which should mean it would take 60 votes to remove it as opposed to 60 votes to pass it. Because there are not 60 votes to pass it.

Feb 22 2010
Credit Where Credit Is Douchebag Comments (3)
Even douchebags aren't wrong ALL the time—Joe Lieberman will be the chief Senate sponsor of a bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Thanks, Joe.
Dec 15 2009
Not So Fast... Comments (1)

 ...I was thinking we'd be better off accepting the Senate bill and moving on, but now Howard Dean—whose opinion I respect on this subject ahead of most anyone's—is saying we should kill the bill and go back to the House and start reconciliation. That would be the bold, "Fuck yeah!" thing to do. I'm not sure President Obama has the guts to do that at this point in time—he needs closure because he's had a year of seething hatred from the right and six or more months of incredible impatience and hysteria over dashed expectations from the left. It doesn't help him that the economy, while improving, is still considered in the dumps, something I think he's helped to improve, albeit imperfectly.

 Read More

Being Less Sick Isn't Being Well, But It's Still An Upgrade Comments (0)

I'm pissed at the loss of the public option, I'm pissed at the loss of the Medicare buy-in, but maybe—just maybe—I'm way too pissed at the fact that one numbskull, greedy, vindictive bastard (Joe Lieberman) caused all of this. It was dispiriting reading the rage on progressive blogs over the news that the White House wanted to go along with pretty much all of Lieberman's demands in order to pass HCR. However, I think there is a point where disappointment or even justifiable anger turns back on us and hurts us much more in the end than the item causing the disappointment or justifiable anger.

 Read More

Dec 14 2009
LIE-berman Comments (1)

Joe Lieberman was for the Medicare buy-in before he was WAY against it. Total douche.

Meanwhile, here is a funny and insightful explanation for Lieberman's actions—not cunning, but idiocy.

Spoiler Alert Comments (1)


"Don't worry, I'll always have your back."

Of all the things progressives bemoan about the Obama Administration's learning curve nothing—nothing—tops its early and continuing failure to marginalize Joe Lieberman. Why they haven't vilified him to the point where he has no choice but to either become the Republican that he is or cave on health care is beyond me. If he were a Republican, then at least his bullshit would not be newsworthy.

PH2009121302818-thumb-454x302 PreviewScreenSnapz001 The latest? Without even waiting for the CBO score to see if the already watered-down current HRC bill is fiscally responsible, he told Harry Reid face-to-face that he is against the ghost of a public option it still contains AND against Medicare at age 55 to the point where he won't just vote against it but would support a Republican filibuster. 

At some point, one of three things is going to HAVE to happen:

(1) We give up and let the Republicans sink health care reform, then spend the next 10 months and the following two years screaming bloody murder about the party of "NO" that killed health care reform.

(2) We give up and force parts of this through using reconciliation, which I've read about and understand to be no picnic, risking the ire of Independents, then spend the next 10 months and the following two years listening to the right screaming bloody murder about the party incapable of taking "NO" for an answer.

(3) We continue giving in until the final health care reform bill passed is completely devoid of any real reform, which is all Lieberman would accept since he's corrupted by the industry and is continuing to campaign for John McCain's long-dead presidential bid.

Or someone punches him in the face. I guess that is option four.


Ads by Gay Ad Network