Think she should point out the Joe Lieberman example loudly. She should use loaded language to capture the GOP lack of tolerance.

Mitch McConnell has his own back to worry about. If Teatards O’Donnell, Angle, Paul, et al all win in November, Jim DeMint will be making a serious challenge for the leadership post.

GOP – lack of tolerance

But isn’t that the dictionary definition?

“Think she should point out the Joe Lieberman examply, loudly.”

Me too!

I think the repubs should be every bit as much of dumbshits as was Obama when he rehabbed Lieberman. Of course, if there were a Nobel prize for helping Obama’s enemies out of the cesspool so they could help HIM fuck over progressives, that’s one that he would REALLY deserve. :o)

O didn’t rehab Lieberman. Remember, O chose Lieberman as his senate mentor. What Lierberman is doing is prepping the way that O wants to follow.

Someone should ask Harry Fucking Reid what he thinks of this.

That would be the same Harry Reid who introduced Gillibrand at an Upper West Side fundraiser last night as the ‘hottest’ member of the senate.

You are mixing apples and oranges with the “he is the least of my problems” quote from Harry Reid. It was utterred in late October of 2009. Which, of course, was a year after the general election.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/reid-lieberman-is-the-least-of-my-problems.php

If Murkowski wins and is returned to the Senate, I beleive she will be
treated by the GOP in a manner very similar to the way Lieberman was treated by the Democrats.

Needless to say my last post was sarcastic, and I did NOT see Obama’s rescue of Lieberman (so that he could write the healthcare “reform” bill and pimp for a war with Iran…) as being evidence of Obama’s “tolerance”.

It was damn-foolishness at it’s best, and conniving for down-the-road pull- to-the-right, at it’s worst…in hindsight, probably the latter.

The Republicans are disgusting, but at least they know how to deal with people who fuck with them, a skill Senate Democrats don’t seem to have acquired.

Ecahn, Joe Lieberman didn’t just run as an independent and beat the democratic nominee who beat him in the primary: he supported and physically campaigned for, John McCain. Without Obama’s pressure on the dems to keep him in good graces, he would have been in no-man’s-land with, at the least, the mark of Cain on him.

What Wombat said.

“It’s strictly business,” a senior GOP aide said.

Sounds like something Michael Corleone might say.

The Dems could take a lesson on how to play rough. Right, Holy Joe?

I forgot about the McCain support. My bad.

I still think Lieberman’s now serving as frontrunner for O, who wants to keep all of W’s tax cuts for his wealthy donors. But we’ll never know for sure.

Lunch’s been eaten, ipod has next audio book disc, so I’m back to outdoor work. BBL.

“you are a dud to me.”

Oldgold; if she runs and WINS, she will be welcomed, but if she pulls the votes to cost the repubs that seat, she, and the Murkowski family, will be total pariahs. And that family’s political power has been an Alaska fixture for a long time. If a grandson or granddaughter want’s to run in the future, they will have dues to pay the size of Mt. McKinley.

I have a vague recollection of discussions about what Mitch’s response would be to one of his fellow Rs running as an “Independent” or such after losing in the primary.

This confirms the consensus as to what he would do.

Unlike the Dems

Jim White has a fresh cross-post up: Washington Responds to Afghanistan Failures With More Petty Political Posturing

eCahn, I wasn’t barking at you. I think you’re one of the sharpies on here. :o) And I agree that Obama is using Lieberman. That’s why he leaned on the democrats to not look for payback on him; now, Obama owns him and can use that ownership, as he unspinnably has done with all of Lieberman’s flacking for the rightwing agenda.

Again, in hindsight, just think of how close we came to having this asshole be the veep, and to have a leg up for the presidency, after two putative terms for Al. That was reason enough to scotch any romantic notions of giving Gore another shot at it.
That Obama is largely responsible for Lieberman’s political salvation has moved from being evidence of Obama’s “humane forgiveness” (right here: Joan Rivers’ finger-down-throat gag-gesture…) and instead, is now just more unspinnable proof of what an unprincipled shit is Obama, himself.

Once again, this is the difference in the leadership style of the Dems and the Repugs. I have to give them one thing, they know how to lead and deal with their dissidents. The Democrats just roll over to theirs, which is why they’re ineffective at governing. They don’t seem to understand the concept of strong, purposeful leadership. They too often allow their agenda to be controlled by the smallest faction of the party, due to their spineless leadership. This does not signify a “big tent party” as the leadership loves to say to try and explain away their feckless leadership; it signals a leadership like Obama’s, that allows the republicans to walk all over him, while he strives for some mythical “bipartisan” support from the people who keep taking the truck and running his ass over and over and over again.

I agree. We can whinge here about the Republics being “mean” to Murkowski (who’s no saint), but otoh, I kinda-sorta agree with what they did. To me, this speaks more towards a unified leadership approach, and I believe that if Murkowski should win (she has a chance), they’ll restore the posts to her.

Speaking a long-time (and good) manager, sometimes leaders have to take strong, and not always popular, positions. I’m about to do something today at my job that is very likely to viewed as wildly unpopular with most/all staff (and maybe even the Board), but it’s a business decision that is best for the organization.

BHO rehabbed LIEberman for whatever reasons, but it was a piece o crap as far as the constituents were concerned. Watching LIEberman scurry around with his nose so far up McCan’t's butt during the 2008 campaign said volumes. Trying to “make nice” with Joe for the 60th vote was a load of hooey and was an early and succinct demonstration of Obama’s complete lack of leadership skills which continue to this day imo.

So I cannot totally fault Republics on this decision, but it is interesting.

BTW, I think the drumming out of the party’ of Murkowski, is just the first of many political shocks that we’re going to see. If, as I expect, we dems get hammered in a few weeks, Obama is simply going to be one hell of a lame duck. I think his clout will be so reduced that he will essentially be a rump preznint…having sat too long (even with just one term) for any good he may be doing. I expect the dems will quietly go to him sometime in 2012 and point out that if he runs again, it could put the party so far into the swamp that it will never come out. There will be NO republican willing to do rehab on the democrats, as Obama has done it on the republicans.
I think that if this happens, Obama will just choose not to run and will be content to go down as the first black president, no matter that he’ll also be the poster boy for presidential failure. And of course, then comes political chaos, with the repub candidate consisting of losers like Romney and wingnuts like Palin and her ilk, and the democrats being a bunch of inheritors of Bush’s and Obama’s fuckups, who won’t have enough political capital to do much about them.

As is being noted more and more often, these days. We are screwed.

dems will quietly go to him sometime in 2012 and point out that

2011 — if not November 3, 2010.

True. The GOP have much better discipline when dealing with “rogue” Senators like this. The GOP leadership said they would strip her of her leadership position if she did this, and they did. They kept their word.

The Dems would never make a threat like that. And if they did, they wouldn’t stick to it. Look at how Lieberman pisses all over the Dem leadership and the White House, and he’s never been punished in any way.

And Obama wonders why the base is so demoralised.

ShotoJamf and Wombat : My sentiments exactly.

When the Hell will Democrats bring in the pliers and blowtorch to the likes of a Lieberman or Nelson. I gotta give some props to McConnell on this one

Yep, no surprise. In fact, I’m down with it completely. The fact that they do this, and all of their caucus knows they will do it, is why Snowe and Collins will be voting “with their leadership,” as someone on MSNBC put it last night, on DADT, despite having expressed support for ending it.
Never mind their own principles, they know what will happen to them if they defy leadership.

The fact that Dems don’t, and won’t, do similar things – as exemplified by Holy Joe’s thumbing his nose at the party with no repercussions at all – is why the Dems can’t get their most important agenda items passed despite “controlling” Congress.
As exemplified, as everyone points out, by Holy JOe ridiculously un-Democratic behavior. Who thinks that any REpub who campaigned for any Dem, let alone a pres. candidate, would hold on to even a committee seat, let alone a chairmanship?

Murkowski/Lieberman: the perfect illustration of the problem of the Democratic party.

Gemini, I agree. The sooner the better; but I don’t think his numbers will be low enough in early 2011 to force the “leadership” into making the trek over to the WH to give him the word. It won’t be a firestorm; it’ll be like a wave building. Inexorable and irreversible.

Which is what’s starting now.

Janeane, as has been said, I think that Lieberman’s pissing is sanctioned by Obama. At this point, I think it’s all part of a plan to make him look “moderate” while he craps on progressives and protects the status quo.

With the T-Bag “zero tolerance” brigade now dominant within the Republican party we may see more defections from the “party of no” real soon. Specially from the far western and northeastern regions of the country. This is good news for progressives and those candidates in those two regions should be taking advantage of it. I certainly hope the Dem leadership wakes up to this great opportunity… before November.

Lieberman is obviously untouchable. He is a useful villain for the Democratic Party and Obama. AIPAC controls Lieberman and Rham. Rham controls Obama.

Rethugs defecting to the Democratic Party? How does that help Democrats. The D Party is already loaded to the gills with Blue Dogs, New Dems (and unprincipled Progressives) which are all defacto Republicans.

We need to weed out the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Real Liberals don’t want any more Republicans in the Party. Clandestine or otherwise.

“The D party is already loaded to the gills with the blue dogs…”

Post of the thread. :o) Or: :o(

And, it’s the same old Truman truism: The voters will prefer real repubs to bogus dems, every time.

“By choosing to run a campaign against the Republican Democratic nominee [Ned Lamont], she he no longer has my support for serving in any leadership roles, and I have accepted her his letter of resignation from Senate leadership,” .

Statement that should have been issued in 2006 re Lieberman.