« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Joe Lieberman assuming the Zell Miller mantle

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  October 30th, 2009 at 01:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Harry Reid must be as slimy as Tom Daschel was in the Democratic Party Cloakroom

The conversion of former Georgia Lieutenant Governor and U.S. Senator Zell Miller from Yellow Dawg Democrat to the DINO (Democrat in name only) that endorsed President George W, Bush for re-election at the 2004 GOP convention began with his first encounter of the glazed-over, in denial lying eyes of “Bush-lied” fellow Democrat Senators in caucus meetings on Capitol Hill in 2003-4.

joe lieberman

So disgusted with the un-patriotic, US-enemy emboldening speech and actions of the Democratic Party after mass stockpiles of WMD were not found in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, that he stopped attending their meetings. But Senator Miller, appointed by Roy Barnes, then Democrat Governor of the Peach State, to complete the term of Paul Coverdell after his death, never got so disgusted that he changed parties.

Joe Lieberman is younger than Zell Miller and making bold, unprecedented moves against the party he has caucused with for his entire career, even considering the fact that he is, technically an “Independent Democrat” and not the plain vanilla variety after the World’s Oldest Party tried to defeat him for re-election after he dared to support a Republican Commander-in-Chief while his nation was at war. The wars, we might add, that the vast majority of democrats voted to launch, support and fund for years, but I digress.

Has any senator since the late 1950s or early 1960s announced his intention to filibuster major legislation proposed by his own Majority Leader, until Senator Lieberman announced his intention to filibuster the Harry Reid version of ObamaCare less than two hours after the senior senator from Nevada proposed it earlier this week? Could any conservative Republican had made a more categorically conservative argument against ObamaCare than this:

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Mr. Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”

I will not argue that Joe’s statement is unique as compared to statements regularly made my conservative Republicans, because we have many in the GOP that do so. But Lieberman, unlike Republicans that regularly disagree with their party and who go out of their way to reach across the aisle to Democrats, only very rarely gets invited to co-star on the Sunday Shows to be praised as courageous.

Yet, who has displayed more of the kind of career threatening courage memorialized in JFK’s Pulitzer-prize winning book: Lieberman or McCain?

Did the GOP run a candidate against him in his last party primary? Was he ever deprived of power within the caucus? Has their been an absence of McCain or his “vice-president” Lindsey Graham on Sunday TV before Noon? I think not.

The junior senator from Connecticut continues:

Mr. Lieberman added that he’d also oppose a bill that includes Mr. Reid’s provision for states to “opt-out” of the public program “because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”

Lieberman was not content merely to threaten one filibuster. He felt compelled to issue a pre-emptive strike against the tricks the Dems have up their sleeve to try and fool the public into letting the nose of the socialized medicine camel under the free market tent.

Was Lieberman content merely to pronounce on the ubiquitous issue of the day? Not on your life. Yesterday:

Sounding more like an independent than a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells ABC News he will campaign for some Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections and may not seek the Democratic Senate nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012.

“I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I’m going to call them as I see them,” Lieberman said in an ABC News “Subway Series” interview aboard the U.S. Capitol Subway System.

Lieberman infuriated fellow Democrats in 2008 by supporting Republican presidential nominee John McCain as well as congressional candidates Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

Joe Lieberman has always distinguished himself from the blood-sucking vampire in need of a stake through its heart that we all know as the National Democratic Party, especially on national security and values issues (with the glaring exception of abortion, regretfully).

The Senate Cloakroom for donkeys must be reaching a stultifying level of disgust for Joe to defy his “leaders” in such brazen ways, and given the tenor of his conservative rhetoric, one has to wonder if he might be ready to cross the aisle as Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords did in 2002.

This conservative Republican rooster is ready to crow with joy if he does.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • primafacie

    He’s also an ardent supporter of any and all of Israel’s policies. Israel has universal health for every citizen of the country and our tax dollars support this state. So, my takeaway from this is that single payer is good enough for Israelis, but not for Americans. Say it ain’t so, Joe! Are your masters in Hartford a bit concerned about a little competition?

    The guy that cleaned my carpet is from Puerto Rico. He’s about 50 and pays $39 a month to for a health, dental and vision policy. The insurance is valid stateside as well. So, maybe a little “government run” competition might level the playing field.

    Of course taxes will go up- on people that can well afford it. Remember, our tax rates used to be treble what they are now on the wealthiest Americans and they survived just fine. Are you one of those? Didn’t think so. You’d have better things to do than read blog comments. Had we gotten single payer to begin with, instead of trying to appease a boatload of corporate toadies on Capitol Hill, an enormous burden would have been lifted off not only the likes of GM and Chrysler, but small business as well.

    Joe’s playing with fire and he’s going to get relegated to the back bench and no chairmanships if he continues to attempt to thwart the will of a majority of Americans. Using Zell as a precedent is silly. By 04, Zell had pretty much lost his mind and was no longer himself at all. He WAS an excellent governor for us back when, but he’s no longer himself.

    Regardless of party affiliation, we need real insurance that actually pays in times of crisis without costing the Earth, forcing bankruptcies and losing our homes. All the little spoonfed lies the corporations try to get us to repeat are still lies that subvert and go against our own self interest in the end.

    1900 pages is a lot of bill. Obama could simply sign a measure extending Medicare to all Americans and remove the cap on contributions and been done with it. I think for amusement he decided to see what Congress would do instead.

    Either way it goes, we got our answer, didn’t we?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • aesthete

    given that the government doesn’t actually need satisfied customers to provide revenue. As for Puerto Rico, you may not be aware, but the island currently has an unemployment rate and deficit that make California look good–something that they’re dealing with rather painfully right now. The rest of your post is mindless drivel and class warfare, which I assume you’re intelligent enough to recognize (although with the recent bumper crop of “college educated” kids as an example, it’s certainly difficult to underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion, and the effects of propaganda.)

    As for the Israel stuff, I’m not even going to touch that.

  • Flagstaff

    he had stood up to Bill Clinton’s lies during the runup to impeachment.

    Still, he has a lot of credibility because of his rejection by the Democrats and his independent stance on some issues. It is essential that people in his position (NOT Republicans or conservatives) speak out against these bills, and he’s saying exactly the right things:

    To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don?t think we need it now.

    …it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.

    (My emphasis added.)

    Republicans seem to believe, perhaps rightly, that they can’t say, “It isn’t necessary and we can’t afford it.” Their words would be twisted into “Republicans just want you to die so their greedy, profit-worshipping special-interest supporters can get rich.” Lieberman has no such problem; coming from an Independent-Democrat, his words carry ten times the weight of those uttered by “partisan” Republicans.

    Now, I only hope he stands by his statements and gives Snowe and Collins the courage and ispiration to vote with him against cloture.

    And he has to do it against every bill (his criticisms nail all so far, and any that the Democrats might come up with in the future), which his words indicate he will do.

  • Flagstaff

    That’s a combination of “troll” and “tool.”

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • Achance

    Obviously you’re in the tank for the Communist in Chief. Obviously, you don’t know a damned thing about health insurance. Obviously, you have never, nor do you seem to plan to, made enough money to actually pay taxes. Some of us really don’t like having our hard-earned money confiscated to support looters, moochers, and idiots like you.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I did not favor Clinton’s removal from office based on what he was impeached for. My opinionmight have been different had Trent Lott not agreed to keep the real crimes sealed on China etc.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    …then why do you need a trillion dollars to pay for it AND have to increase how much I pay for my current insurance (for less coverage) as well?

    The difference between people like you and me is, I paid attention in 2nd grade mathematics class.

  • ceili_dancer

    Which corporations were run through commerce instead of National security that helped the Chinese from blowing up their rockets at launch time? All this for some campaign cash and some coffee meetings with bundlers.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Flagstaff

    but I was referring only to the fact that Joe stood with Clinton as Bill lied about his situation. The vote probably ended correctly.

  • Flagstaff

    be remembering things wrong.

  • primafacie

    The most important thing we send a person to Washington to do is to reflect the will of his/her constituents. This is undeniable fact. A majority of those in Connecticut want a public option. Joe instead is doing the bidding of those in Hartford that just happen to own insurance companies. So, he’s probably not real popular at home just now.

    It’s ironic how there wasn’t any discourse concerning deficit spending for the Iraq war or what we’re spending in Afghanistan, which isn’t exactly cost efficient either.

    Some important guy once said we’re judged by how we treat the least amongst us. With people suffering terribly for lack of healthcare, we might just need to re prioritize. I hope for a more compassionate country with a mantra better than “I got mine now you get yours”. The current health bill is flawed, granted, but we can’t afford to continue the status quo either.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    When you peed on insurance companies, funny you didn’t mention the AARP, who sold their support for a sweetheart deal on their insurance policies at the cost of the seniors who will have to buy them to fill in the increasing gaps caused by cutbacks in Medicare that Obamacare is also prescribing.

    Or the other players who sold out for a cut of the pie, who were good guy with this administration (included the above mention Hartford insurance companies) until some them figured out that they the deal was off and they were being thrown under the Obama bus. It wasn’t until they protested that they suddenly got slimed. After all, in the mind of the left, there is not such thing as good faith opposition: just “my way or the highway” (under the bus).

    Yes, there are lots of better ideas of health reform, such as allowing insurance companies to sell across states lines, tort reform. But the Democrats have stuffed any discussion of them and then complain that they’ve got the best idea because they won’t allow any other ideas to be voiced. That’s called chutzpah.

    Most of your other comments are straight trolling.

    However, back to “the least amongst us” – it’s not very charitable to raise prices, decrease the number of health providers, kill research and innovation, and arbitrarily restrict services and prolong access time to treatment. But I wouldn’t want to disturb your rote recitation of Obama’s talking points.

    By the way, the One who spoke of “the least amongst us” was named Jesus of Nazareth, and many of us are quite acquainted with Him and all His words, so you needn’t be reticient to identify Him.

    However, you also need to be prepqred to explain how that phrase has the slightest bit to do with Obamacare. And He never advocated his followers to work to make Caesar more powerful and more overbearing.

    And the mantra ?I got mine now you get yours” is all in your head; it’s certainly not anything that is being expressed here at RedState.

    I suspect you won’t be around long at this speed…

  • BlackConservative

    He’s a flaming liberal in everything except the war, very similar to his good buddy John Sidney McCain. Him becoming one of us makes him nothing more than slightly to the right of the Maine girls, and in lockstep with Scozzafava that we’re all working hard to defeat. Joe is for Joe the way McCain is for McCain, and I will never get behind either. The fact that Lieberman is a neo-con is certainly a bonus for us in terms of national security, but his lack of regard for the sanctity of human life and respect for the family and Judeo-Christian way of life will never gain him kudos in my book, not to mention the fact that hes never seen a tax he doesnt like. He’s a one trick pony that would spend his time as an R stabbing us in the back and getting his jollies sticking a knife into us like McCain and Graham.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    you take the word right out of my mouth. I can respect Lieberman to some extent, but I can’t get over the whole “lets turn our nation into another failed socialist cesspool, and kill babies while we are at it” thing.

  • janis

    As for your claim that we can’t afford the status quo, why not? It’s a heck of a lot cheaper than anything your side has come up with so far. How about the whopping big bonus that this health care bill will give to trial lawyers, hmmm? The bill offers states money to come up with alternative ways of dealing with medical lawsuits besides litigation. But the catch is that ANY state that has made its own laws for tort reform is excluded from the program.

    How’s that for “reform”? As to your assertion that we all feel “I got mine now you get yours”, that’s the thinking of the party in power currently. Although they are doing it one better, ” I’ve got mine and I’m coming for yours, too.” Swell folks. And those same swell folks are the ones least likely to donate their own money to help someone else. But they’ll damned sure be happy to donate mine.

  • BlackConservative

    I get where gamecock was going, but why create another Mccain? God knows we are damaged enough by the 1.0 version.

  • Flagstaff

    **”Joe instead is doing the bidding of those in Hartford that just happen to own insurance companies.”**

    Got some proof?

    **”It?s ironic how there wasn?t any discourse concerning deficit spending for the Iraq war or what we?re spending in Afghanistan, which isn?t exactly cost efficient either.”**

    There is a difference between paying for national defense, a Constitutionally mandated duty, and paying for insurance for everybody and his brother, partly by forcing people who don’t want it to buy insurance for themselves, a Constitutionally questionable gimmick.

    The war in Iraq will soon be over (unless you want to count it as over already), and the war in Afghanistan will end someday relatively soon. When they do, we’ll still be paying through the nose for ObamaCare Insurance, and our health care will have deteriorated because of it.

    The deficit has gone from less than $500,000,000,000 to over $1,400,000,000,000 in less than a year, almost a triple. The health care madness will guarantee that will continue for years to come. Obama’s spending plans are to drive us from the current $12,000,000,000,000 in national debt to about double that in 10 years, and in truth it will be even worse.

    **”we?re judged by how we treat the least amongst us.”**

    Passing this bill will treat them worse, not better. Nearly one-half trillion dollars cut from Medicare, $400,000,000,000 added to our tax burden, and higher premium costs for the 85% of Americans who already have health insurance.

    And it will saddle our children, their children, their children, and their children ad infinitum with an unrecoverable debt coupled eventually with rampant inflation.

    If you get nothing else, get this. We’ll be borrowing about one trillion dollars per year to cover our shortfall, every year for at least the next ten years. Then, we’ll need to borrow more. At some point, the people we’re borrowing that money from (remember them?) will decide we are bad credit risks, and won’t lend any more. That’s when the interest rate hits the up elevator, BEST CASE. Worst case, they won’t loan us any more money.

    **”The current health bill is flawed, granted, but we can?t afford to continue the status quo either.”**

    Your biggest miss of all. The status quo is not to do nothing, but to continue making incremental changes to the health system that can be observed and modified. Let’s start with eliminating abusive medical lawsuits and allowing health insurance policies to be provided across state lines. Both of those measures will help reduce health costs without reducing the availability of health care.

  • janis

    He’s got a lot more power being an Independent at this point. While being no fonder of his liberal voting record than either of you guys, kyle and BC, I still can acknowledge his usefulness to us as an eye-poker against the Dems.

    Besides, he always makes them frothing-at-the-mouth crazier than usual, so there’s that, too.

  • pilgrim

    Remember that GC was member in good standing with the Democratic Party until his epiphany in 2000. I also do agree that there is no reason to cheer about creating another McCain. But if Joe has an epiphany toward true conservatism like GC had, then I would welcome him with open arms.

  • Flagstaff

    “and won?t lend any more” should have been “and won?t lend any more at low rates.”

    That should make more sense.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • aesthete

    considering that the health care propositions being advanced by the Democratic Congress are massively unpopular among the constituents of many Democratic Senators, including the blue dogs. So I take it that you are fine with them representing their constituents’ interests by voting against the bill.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Clinton from office, but Joe was quite unique among democrats in his public statements condemning the president’s immoral and illegal behavior.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    That is all I am saying. When you have a guy actually announce in such a brazen way that he is going to filibuster his own party, which is the second most vital betrayal one can do to a party (the other being voting against their majority, ie not caucusing with them) and that he is going to back repubs in 2010 all at such a crucial moment, it looks like the kind of actions that could lead to Joe’s switch, and obviously, despite his liberal views on most issues, given his getting it right on the two vital issues of defense and against socialized health care,

    we obviously wouldn’t tell him or really any senator that wanted to stop harry Reid and any democrat from being majority leader and thus providing us with the ability to at least filibuster and have more votes to stop Obama’s lib policies

    we would take him in a heartbeat.

    That says nothing necessarily about his next election and choices there.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    And given the choice of a repub from CT or a dem from CT, its obvious we would give Joe a “pass” on a switch.

    Right BC and K8?

  • antisocial

    At his age I think he is beyond transformation. Work with Joe Lieberman(even support him) where our interests/morals match. I don’t think we should welcome him to our house.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I am serious, I think we are better off as a party and the nation is better off with liberal democrats and conservative republicans. That way everyone knows what the score is and when there is a clear cut difference in the parties we usually win.

  • Vegas_Rick

    What the hell’s wrong with shirts and skins? Cowboys and indians? Cops and robbers? Liberals and Conservatives?

  • janis

    “Eminently sane” as opposed to “bats**t crazy.”

  • Vegas_Rick
  • Vegas_Rick

    I very rarely LOL, but that one got me. And it is soooo true.

  • janis

    longer this goes on, the more these people will reveal themselves. They fully seem to believe that they’ve got all the power over us forever and can then do as they please in any and all areas.

    What they don’t seem able to comprehend is that they are, in the main, utterly divorced from reality. Gravity no longer applies, the sun rises in the north, head over heels in deep doo-doo debt just screams for more spending, the earth functioning as it has for billions of years is going to go rogue 15 minutes after Obama lands in Copenhagen and kill us all, and the one I just adore, personally:

    Treating your bosses (that would be us) like icky redneck trailer-trash and wasting our hard-earned money on absolute crap in order to enslave us is a winning combination to get just ooboodles of votes.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    We would rather ObamaDems chair committees and decide what gets a vote on the floor.

    Not

    The choice in case Lieberman or others wanted to switch in the middle of the term is between a dem vote that hurts America vs a GOP vote that helps protect America from dem majorities.

    That is all I am talking about, ie the practical circumstance with a mid term switch

    not a choice in a primary or gen election

    and certainly not an imagined choice of pure parties.

    Of course we would welcome Joe to be part of the numbers that give the GOP power vs the dems. Its not a close choice. Hasn’t the stimulus and budget already passed and a congress that doesn’t object to executive regulatory action on carbon etc make that obvious> Obama’s first budget is $1.8 trillion that is triple the worst bush-gop budget, and threatens the currency.

    Or would any of you actually say to Joe, no thanks, since you are not a pure conservative, we won’t accept you into our caucus?

    not seeing that…

  • BlackConservative

    We are in the process of offering a choice, not an echo, to quote Ms. Schafly, and McCain/Grahmnesty Republicans muck up what we are doing, which is reinvigorating conservatism. The McCain moderates which Joe would be a part of, would be more interested in getting their Meet the Press masturbation session with the press than advancing conservative legislation. I could do with less McCains and Maine girls because they enjoy the face time for their backstabbing. And socialized healthcare and defense mean nothing if there is not a country worth defending. Gomorrah is still gomorrah if you are moving there quickly or slowly-killing babies and the American family is not canceled out because you want some face time for opposing part of the socialist agenda

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    To McCain, Graham and the other rinos, and Lieberman too, it is all about getting face time on the talking head shows. I mean THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY THING THAT MOTIVATES THEM!

    I am sick of seeing their sad mugs and hearing constantly praising their “dear friends” across the Isle. Dear friends don’t repeatedly lie to you, call you names and go back on every deal.

  • Vegas_Rick

    As much as we dream of party purity, it is only that. A dream. I would welcome Joe, even though I disagree with him on many things, simply because he appears to be the rare politician with unviable(?) principles.

    Cops and robbers are fun because no difficult negotiations and compromises are required.

  • BlackConservative

    The big tent is closed for renovations right now. Neo-Cons and compassionate conservatives are no longer welcome. The GOP is being taken back by the people that made it-conservatives. McCain and his liberal freinds are doing far more damage to the country by reaching across the aisle giving his liberal friends cover for their socialism and cover to destroy the fabric of our society. The sanctity of life is one of the things that defines us as a party-we stand up for human life-that is a requirement, even here at RS to be a FP poster. Joe does not stand with us in the destruction of our domestic society, and thus would not be welcome in my party. Diary coming later tonight GC after the Blackhawks game :-)

  • Jaimo

    What numbers do you have to support that the majority in Connecticut want a public option on healthcare?

    I live here and I’m not familiar with any numbers that overwhelmingly support a public option.

    Not a huge fan of Joe, but I tell ya, I’d take a second look come re-election time.

    Also, isn’t Joe taking care of Connecticut by factoring in the insurance companies. They do employ a crap load of people in Connecticut.

    The status quo doesn’t have to continue. Give those who don’t have coverage some sort of SCHIP plan on the cheap and leave the rest of us alone.

    If this health insurance is going to be soooooo wonderful, how come the unions will be exempt and all of Congress?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    fix America.

  • izoneguy

    need to get the hell out of the way – go retire – play golf – whatever….

    It is hard enough fighting the socialists.

    And that’s the part the moderates will never get.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    If Joe wanted to switch parties, we could have a vote frm CT that would stand against a dem pro-choice majority having as much power; and who would stand up for national security and against the health care bills that diminish life.

    Moreover, Joe is liable to eventually become pro-life unshackled from the dem party which is bought and paid for by the abortion lobby.

    It would be reckless and useless and of no purpose not to let Joe caucus with the GOP IN MID TERM.

    Nothing stops us from trying to get a prolifer to challenge him in his primary for re-election.

  • jeffreywturner

    Support for the public option specifically seems to run around 40% nationally, depending which survey you want to believe. I tend to believe people with great records on predicting actual outcomes on elections, like Rassmussen. I know Connecticut is left of center, but I doubt the support there is more than 10% different than it is nationally.

    Also, by your same logic, if a majority nationally oppose a public option, then Obama should oppose it since he was elected to represent the entire country.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …unless (1) Joe wants to run in the next election as a Republican, and (2) CT election law requires a certain waiting period after registration before being eligible to run in that party’s primary.

    Otherwise, Joe can remain officially an independent and could choose to switch to caucus with the Republicans. That would mean that he givers up in committee leadership positions, which would harm his constituents, so there doesn’t seem to be any upside to that, all things otherwise being equal.

    The real choice will come if the Democratic leadership makes conditions on continuance of his committee posts that would force him to abandon his prinicples – for instance, if they threaten him to change his fillibuster position. Then he will have to choose.

    But that won’t come up unless he is the 60th voter on a fillibuster (or 50th on a regular vote) that the Democratic leadership considers vital. And then it becomes a test of wills.

    As far a Joe and the Republican party, Joe is a cradle Democrat of the old school before the Democrats left – the so-called Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller (as your title notes) Democrat – except that he’s from New England, not the south. It would be very difficult for him to switch parties unless he truly felt that the Democrats had gone so far left that they threatened to bring down the whole American republic two-party system and/or were endanging Americas foreign policy interests to the extent of jeopardizing our nation’s future existence.

    Only that could override his social liberalism and, more importantly political identity as a Democrat. It’s hard to describe – it relates to the image of Democrats as being the party of the working/ordnary people vesus Republican as being elite, business, and old-line antiSemitic WASPs who restricted his forebears. The kind of political DNA that keeps so many older Jewish people in the Democratic camp.

    But Joe has fired the first warning shot in this skirmish that the Obama administration & the far-leftist Democratic leadership is approaching that point where they are becoming the enemies of the American he believes in and – (this is critical) where he no longer thinks he could change the course of the party from inside.

    But caucusing with the Republicans as in Independent, that is a more realistic possibility than seemed last January when he cut his deal with the Democrats.

  • streetwise

    n/t

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it look like he is poised to do something

  • redneck_hippie

    to actually try and represent his constituents. That alone is enough to get him thrown out of the caucus.

    There isn’t a whole lot of room for moderate democrats in the Obama-Pelosi-Reid politburo government. Joe is a lib, but he does have principles, such as they are.

  • David123

    and Joe Lieberman knows it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Third Street

    Lieberman is totally untrustworthy. I’ll take his opposition to health “reform”; I’ll take it gladly. I’m just not counting on him actually being there for us when it comes down to a vote, no matter what he says now.