Lieberman

"Remember -- this is the guy who backed off an investigation into Katrina at the Bush White House's insistence."
.
That was after campaigning on that issue to show how he wasn't a Bush loyalist.

Sorry Kathy but Obama fulfills his bipartisan pledge when he accepts McCain at his word to work together. But Obama is a practical pol and if he wants to keep democrats in line to enact his agenda rather than to go rogue with their new majority he has to insist that Lieberman will get the boot.

judgementz, you raise excellent concerns. No way I'm voting that guy now.

Sgw,

So is this not a news sight? Or is it a totally partisan sight? It seems the liberals have basically taken over this sight. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of yes people then I would go to another sight I am here to debate. Why don't you go hang out a moveon, or politico, or daily kooks if you want the same opinion that you hold. I have better things to do with my time but, I am tired of the left controlling the conversation on the web their needs to be alternate voices.

sgw--Have you checked the freepers lately? The watchwords there are "new sons of liberty" and "obstructionism" and "go underground and organize"
.
Its an interesting mix of paranoia, martyr-complexes, and jingoistic hate. And tasty, tasty tears.

Perhaps if you had sufficient awareness to know the difference between a site and a sight, people might take your other opinions more seriously.

I frequently think it would be nice to have more diverse opinions expressed here at Swampland but unfortunately the rational-right has already abandoned the cause leaving judgementz aka jimmyjamz behind.

Judgementz, you know full well that you make this crapulous post as a bid for attention. You spew vacuous rhetoric and then accuse us of bias because we reject the nuttiness that you purport to be political theory, philosophy, or policy

"the difference between a site and a sight"
.
Theirs a difference?

It was members of the press like Joe Klein whose weeping over the fact that Leiberman lost the Democratic primary in Conn. gave him the cover to run as an independent. If the press had accepted the will of the people instead of moaning and groaning over those mean Democrats, then SoreLoserMan would have been gone two years ago.

I want him kicked out of the caucus now. Let him go hang out with his buddy McCain and Huckleberry Graham.

Well then begin the debate instead of just commenting on me mistyping sight. Yes my I was distracted and accidentally let my spell check change that. If that is the basis of your argument then I hope you have much better.

Ok judge, you wrote this "I am tired of the left controlling the conversation on the web their(sic) needs to be alternate voices."
.
Care to share your thoughts on talk radio?

Okay not that I've vented lets not get carried away. Yes we all want to run Lieberman out on a rail but lets wait for the 111th congress so that the economic stimulus that Obama wants the Democrats to pass in the lame duck session will get done. Then we can kick Lieberman to the curb. IN the meantime though we can strip him of his leadership -- we shouldn't give him an opportunity to broker a sweet deal so he can leave the Senate in style.

I think the fact that he was derelict in his duties as chair of Homeland Security is sufficient grounds to remove him, regardless of his partisan loyalties.

PNNTO -- Do you think judge can engage in rational conversation?

I, on the other hand, would throw Lieberman so far out of the Democratic caucus and party that he landed in Strom Thurmond's rotting lap. I also think that if Reid et al choose not to do this then they owe Democrats all over the country a full explanation and justification of their choice of action, and that explanation would need to be on the order of "it was the only way we could prevent an immediate global nuclear conflagration" Seriously, screw the lousy *&#%@ piece of &^$)@*

judgementz - (who I think isn't jimmyjamz, but the old judgement)(unless judgement was thrown off and came back as jimmyjamz - so hard to keep up)
.
I responded seriously to two of your posts on other threads, but you had moved on. I note that you do choose to repeat the same points. Makes it less interesting for us to interact.

Well then begin the debate instead of just commenting on me mistyping sight
.
You're here to debate? Then pick a topic and start throwing up some links, fool!
Here, let's start:
People have been so critical of Bush but he has maintained much better numbers than the Democratic congress that dipped to single digits this summer.
.
First off, "much better numbers" still means approximately 23% approval rate. Which still means that the public recognizes Bush as a dismal failure. Every single criticism of his Administration is justly deserved.
.
Second off, the reason Congress dipped to single digit approval numbers is (IMHO) because they were unable to follow their campaign promises. That is, we dislike them because they failed to enact a more liberal regime. Not because they weren't close enough to Bush.

judgementz
.
I will debate with you all day long on real issues or real policy but when you come in banging your wing nut bell nobody is interested in hearing that sh!t. Barack Obama wasn't wrong on the invasion of Georgia and you would be hard pressed to find anybody other than John McCain to say he was. Georgia precipitated the incident by attacking S Ossetia and everybody but you and John McCain has figured that out. Then you come in with the bogus 70 percent think the MSM is in the tank for Obama bullsh!t. But if I ask you to back up your rhetoric you will run for the hills. This site hasnt been taken over by liberals, this site has been taken over by GROWNUPS. So again either step your game up or kick rocks to the wing nut sites

How would the GOP react if they had won and Hagel came groveling back to them after trashing McCain and actively campaigning for Obama at the Dem convention and at public events? I'm sensing it would be very similar, if not more vindictive.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

dumdedumdum: Thank you!

SG -- I just love it when you are on troll defense.
.
Matt I get that you want to kick some traitorous behind and I don't blame you -- except there's the matter of the lame duck session, let get the second stimulus package out first then kick him to the curb -- oh but we can still strip the chairmanship right away.
.
But more importantly, Joe4 Klein I would rather you spend some time shining a light on how the remnants of the GOP is trying to define what change means.

Throwing Lieberman's old azz out of the Democratic caucus serves no purpose. While revenge seems sweet, it is only a temporary fix. Lieberman knows he can be placed in an ultra cold Siberian box at any time and basically ignored and made to feel inconsequential for the rest of his 4 years in office. He also knows he has no chance of retaining his Senate seat in 2012. His careeer is basically over. Just forcing him to do his job and eat crow for the next four years is punishment enough. The best response the Democrats can muster is to follow the Sun-tzu saying "Keep your firends close and your enemies closer." Heck you want to really drive the man crazy make sure he is required to attend a meeting with President Obama every two weeks.

"The best course of action would be to remove him as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, but allow him to retain his seniority."

What seniority. He's been an independent for all of 2 years.

Heck you want to really drive the man crazy make sure he is required to attend a meeting with President Obama every two weeks.
.
Oooh, now that's creative. I like it.

For judgementz

Stop your whining, you knew what this blog site was when you entered. But yet you are the one that decided to play in this playground.

Hey troll... gimme your lunch money... punk! If you don't like the way we play then bring your Mommy the next time. Just make sure she's got the rest of your lunch money for the week.