Dr. J.'s Commentary: Why Did the Democrats Blink? Two Words

[Demeter]

Joe Lieberman

see link for his rationale and exposition of events.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/064



At last an explanation that might make sense of it all, and justify the action!

[LisaM]

1. That's exactly what I thought.

I even told my partner that and he scoffed at me.

[AndyA]

2. I wondered about good ole Joe myself.

His nose is so far up Bush's butt he knows what he's been eating.

Joe Lieberman can just go to hell. He'll probably wind up there anyway for supporting the death of so many innocent soldiers. Their blood is on his hands.

We would be so much better off with Ned Lamont in Joe's seat.

[elocs]

3. That does make sense, but the explanation will not play well with many here

who prefer to simply cast the Democrats as cowards and spineless based upon one vote. They also don't seem to appreciate that actions have consequences and sometimes long term, negative consequences. They want what they want now and consequences be damned. You would think the Democrats had voted to fund the war deliberately just to piss people off and to alienate a good chunk of their base.

[Demeter]

4. Oh, It's STILL Cowardly, No Doubt About That

But it doesn't look as stupidly suicidal, well, not on the surface....


Oh Hell! There isn't any good way to look at it!

[LisaM]

6. Would you prefer to see us lose the majority?

Also, they did manage to up the minimum wage.

[mike_c]

7. what is the point of HAVING the majority in this situation...?

yes, I'd rather see the dems lose their one vote majority in the senate if keeping it means acting like republicans in order to please Joe Lieberman. Let Joe defect. It will be the end of his political career. Frankly, I wonder whether he actually has the courage to do it-- he would be a small time fringe republican at best, and only until his constituents kick him out. And I have no doubt that they would-- Lieberman would never be the first choice of the CT republican party.

[LisaM]

16. Because there are other issues - like choice - where he'll vote with the Dems

It's really hard to keep choice up there as a major issue, but at this point in my life, I really don't want to see women's rights regress.

[Birthmark]

8. Sorry, but that's...something.

That does make sense, but the explanation will not play well with many her who prefer to simply cast the Democrats as cowards and spineless based upon one vote. They also don't seem to appreciate that actions have consequences and sometimes long term, negative consequences. They want what they want now and consequences be damned. You would think the Democrats had voted to fund the war deliberately just to piss people off and to alienate a good chunk of their base.

The way that works, my friend, is that people die so that Dems can hold the majority in the Senate. To some, including me, that seems unconscionable. I understand that others can justify such a bargain. I just don't understand how.

[elocs]

21. If Dems do not hold the majority in the Senate,

how many would die elsewhere? How many people would not be helped that deserve to be helped or have a voice? If the Dems do not hold the Senate, how does that help with investigations of Bushco? Supreme Court nominations? Oversight? All not important for Dems to maintain control? Here at DU we tend to obsess on one subject or issue to the exclusion of many others that are just as important to everyday, regular Americans who are just trying to muddle through their lives and the daily difficulties of living such as poverty, healthcare, or discrimination.

[Berry Cool]

9. I would be one of those who calls them cowards and spineless.

I got your two words right here: They're wusses.

"Oh, we're sooooo afraid of Lieberman. We don't have the votes so what's the use--we'll NEVER get the votes! Oh, and if we don't push through a bill now, Karl Rove will tell everyone we DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS! And our friends the lobbyists will get all MAD 'n' stuff!" :scared:

Oh, I DO appreciate that actions have consequences. I'm not so sure THEY do, though.

[elocs]

12. Democrats losing control of the Senate would be a severe consequence

for many people about many other things and issues rather than the war. Governing is more than about what is happening right now. Things are not always a simple black and white and you can't always get everything you want it when you want it. The Democrats are the only hope to end the war and just because it didn't happen right now doesn't mean it won't happen. Ranting, raving, name-calling, and threatening to leave are not productive ways to change things. If they were somebody would have written a best selling book about how good and how well those methods work.

[HooptieWagon]

5. He's probably right.

However, a strong '08 election for the Dems (including a more than decent shot at the WH) should give the Dems the numbers to marginalize Lieberman. He's got about 18 months to shape up, or he's likely to be a pariah - kicked off committees, no perks, no earmarks, given a crappy office, etc. ... and it will be well deserved. Reid should remind Joe of the consequences of his actions. My guess is he retires a pariah before '09 is complete.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Reid is part of the problem and should be replaced ...

or at least it would "be nice" if his wife stopped lobbying. :shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

11. We Aren't Gonna Have a "Strong" Election in 08

If we're lucky, and we get a good candidate (not Hillary, Obama or Edwards)
and their candidate really blows it, we might be able to win in a squeaker.

There won't be any landslide for us, too many still believe everything the Repiglican media says.

[yurbud]

18. I'm not seeing that right wing candidate who can knock it out of the park

Guiliani will have negatives as the right gets to know him, and the GOP base already hates McCain because he didn't leave the reality based community soon enough for him.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. It's a lame argument, as far as Lieberman goes.

What did Lieberman say in the fantasy sequence put forth in the article? That if any more than 10 Dem Senators voted against funding he was switching parties? Sure.


Nobody but a few naive DUers believe that the Dems walk on water and are the second coming. They aren't by the way. Some of them are in favor of stealing Iraqi oil at the cost of American lives.

Some Dems are corrupt. Some Dems would sell their grandma for power.

What was so disappointing and created such a sense of betrayal from the vote was the number of otherwise sane and decent Democrats who voted to give bush a blank check to kill and maim our troops and who voted to force the Iraqis to sign production agreements with the multinationals.

I always knew that bill would pass, I was just surprised at how many Dems crossed over to the dark side to enable passage and enable bush.

Besides the ethical sellout, there was also the political message sent. "Don't count on Dems. They will usually back down and vote with bush."

Only a rank and file Dem who was in complete denial wouldn't be disgusted. Or one who is willing to see our troops maimed and killed for oil and likes seeing Dems vote with bush.

[bemildred]

14. More fearmongering bullshit to justify a spineless sellout.

Around 70% of the public wants the war ended. Being anti-war is a winning position.

[yurbud]

19. maybe this is why Dems say GOP has to be convinced--because they have this trump card

although Democrats should still try to put together a filibuster proof 41 votes to block funding next time.

[bemildred]

20. His arguments are not without some merit.

It is one of the reasons that having two big parties that stand for not much except staying in power is a bad situation.

[MasonJar]

15. Great and sensible reasoning. Let's back up and back our dems in

Congress. Hopefully next time we will have a bigger majority and can send the Bushistas straight to jail.

[yurbud]

17. I thought of this--fairly obvious political blackmail. works for impeachment too