What made Joe Lieberman rethink his pledge to caucus with the Democratic party?
Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization
Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.[…] “I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding,’ ” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.
“The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we’re engaged in today,” he said.[…] The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.
It is still hard to see the threat here. Even granting this proposal’s symbolic nut-kick to sanctimonious war boosters like Lieberman the bill will never draw 60 votes to break a filibuster. Unless…
Senior Democratic aides said the proposed resolution would be sent directly to the Senate floor for action, without committee review, possibly as an amendment to a homeland security bill scheduled for debate next week.
Ah yes, that good old GOP medicine. Attach the poison to a bill that the other party would hurt itself to fight. It is not very hard to see why the GOP and the soon-to-be GOP would get tetchy.
Nasty? Partisan? Sure. In a perfect world I would love to see Congress handle important things with bipartisan fairness. Maybe (call it a dream that I have) we will get there some day. In the meantime we might as well come to terms with the true legacy of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. Their permanent Republican majority died on the vine but the next majority seems happy to adopt some of the old spiteful tactics. Now maybe the GOP will grasp why people like me advise against lowering the bar for official behavior. Means often outlive the ends. In the coming years when the right gets itself worked up in a lather about the awful nazi tactics of Reid, Pelosi, and Clinton/Obama/Edwards, it is probably unrealistic to expect even the smarter righties to recognize the unfamiliar smell of personal responsibility.
Zombie Santa Claus
Send those DemoRats to Gitmo now, it’s the only way to protect America from this emasculation of the POTUS!
If Congress had been playing fair in ’02 and ’04, we wouldn’t be in this giant quagmire in ’06. Republicans played dirty to get us into this mess. I can’t see how Democrats are going to stay clean when they’re starting knee deep in the shit.
Another important impact of this bill is that, unless I’m misinterpreting something, it pretty much yanks any legal rug out from under Bush’s inevitable attack on Iran…
Zombie Santa Claus
He’d better nuke them right before it goes into effect, then. It might be our only chance to preserve the American way of life.
I wish Democrats would play like statesmen, but I also understand the reasons behind why they don’t or won’t. And I can’t really blame them.
I have to admit, if being a hypocritical asshole were a reason not to vote for somebody, I’d be morally obligated not to vote at all. Fortunately, there’s a lot more at stake in most elections, or else those things would be a deciding factor.
Agree with Nikki, although there is that dark part of me that loves seeing the Republicans get their comeuppance.
It just isn’t a realistic expectation of humans to continue to play fair despite all they suffer when the other side doesn’t.
So Lieberman is ready for his final transformation into a Jew for Jesus – big deal. The only thing he gives a fuck about is getting Aipac talking points into the Congressional Record, which is what he did when he was a Democrat
Dems need to get past that non-binding resolution bullshit. Hell, the Retard doesn’t think he’s constrained by law let alone non-binding Sense of the Senate fluff.
If Dems want to show at least some baby teeth, then at least move to clearly limit the Iraq AUMF to Iraq only. Hard to see how Pubs with any brain cells could bitch that if dipshit wanted to do Iran or any other country, he be required to come back to Congress and present a case. As it stands now, looking at the way the admin is maneuvering, it seems fairly clear the Bush/Cheney couple would argue the current AUMF gives them authority for anywhere Decider Man says it does in the GSAVE.
Good riddance. Let him go whine somewhere else. I am so sick of this self important pompous ass acting like his shit don’t stink and pretending to be some sort of adult among the dems when he is nothing more than a WATB.
As for the “civility” of the dems with regards to how they conduct business, normally I agree an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind but the fact of the matter is Republicans made their bed and now they get to lay in it. They forgot to ask themselves what would happen if they were ever out of power all because of their hubris and misguided beliefs that they were right. Well time for them to pay the piper and if that means watching the Dems use their own tricks against them it’s almost prophetic justice.
I’d feel better about it if the Dems said (if not now, then after) that they were only going to use the Republicans’ dirty tricks to undo those things which were pushed through using it.
I’m in no particular hurry to get there. The whole point of Congress is to provide the game space to handle this kind of contest. So let it do its job.
The way to prevail is to have game. To play better than the other team. Have a better vision, appeal more to the true — and not manufactured, phony — interests of the people, and govern competantly. Those are things that the present day GOP cannot do. That’s why their “permanent majority” went away, and that’s why it won’t come back any time soon. Their problems are systemic and profound.
As for comity and bipartisanship? When the two parties are competing on the basis of different sets of responses to true interests of the people, maybe you will see that. As long as one side of the contest wants to play in an arena characterized by declaring war on the other side, and demonizing opposing views, then we are going to have hardball, and the harder the better AFAIC.
Sow, reap. Etc.
Further proof of the Democrat party’s totalitarian streak. Truly a caucus of corruption. The days of good Democrats like Joe Lieberman (the consience of the Senate) and Zell Miller are over.
Oh come on, Joe Lieberman never meant to caucus with Dems, that was just an election ploy and we all know it. Let’s cut the crap, shall we?
I agree with Sirota.
Lieberman would screw himself over real good if he switched, so he won’t. On the other hand, every Democrat in Connecticut who voted for Lieberman should be tarred, feathered, spanked, and sexed like a chicken.
Here’s an interesting thought: the party in power puts forth a bill to cede a great deal of such power to the minority party, and the bill goes in effect in, say, 6 years. The minority party may want to sign because it fits in with the bipartisansmanship game, but it’s far enough in the future that doing so endangers the ability to grab the same power they loathe to be under.
That is one of the cleverest lines in BJuice so far this year. It’s a pity that nobody will get the joke unless they know who Irving Biederman is.
That is just chickenshit.
Baruch atah hakuna matata, bitches.
Jews say, “Lieberman is a poofty bitch.”
Well, let Lieberman switch. Scott Keyes had a good post about why it won’t matter–Demoscrats will still run the Senate. Mark Kleimann and Hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings have both picked up on it. This is why he won’t switch–he won’t ahve any power then at all. Wait and watch Reid call his bluff.