The Irrelevance of Joe Lieberman


Speaking in Hartford last Wednesday, Lieberman remained unwavering in his opposition to Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq. "What we are doing now there is not working, but that doesn't mean in any sense that it is time for us to retreat," he said. "This is a test in a very difficult and dangerous hour in our history." . . . "The voters spoke on Tuesday that they're unhappy with the status quo," Lieberman said. However, he added, "I don't believe they want us to pick up and leave."

Yet Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and other Democrats called yesterday for the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in the next few months. The new Congress, said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in line to chair the Armed Services Committee, "is willing to implement the people's will and to put some pressure on this president to change course in Iraq, forget the stay-the-course policy that is no longer viable." Levin said on ABC's "This Week" that redeployment should begin within four to six months.

What Joe Lieberman has to say on Iraq is simply irrelevant. What Reid, Levin, Pelosi and Murtha say matters from the Congress. And of course what Bush says from the Executive. Joe Lieberman is not part of the conversation.

< Dems to Push for Phased Troop Withdrawal | Will Dems Remember Their Progressive Base? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:26:06 AM EST
    i believe that was my comment, from the moment he decided to run as an "independent". the registered democrats, in his district, told him exactly what they thought of him, in the primary.

    that he still doesn't get it goes right to the heart of his problem: he's a "zelig", changing shape and personality, depending on who he's standing next to at the time. he has no substance of his own.

    i'll bet cash money, if he runs again, he'll be soundly thrashed, because the bulk of those who voted for him this time will be dead.

    Hey Sparky (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    Would that be the Irrelevant Chair of DHS?  lol.

    So Sparky, tell us, since you are so brilliant at telling us what matters and what does not, how long before we are out of Iraq?

    Where does Hillary stand on troop withdrawals?  Does that make her irrelevant?

    You blab a lot and never really say anything.  You do not provide an ounce of analysis so I do not think you qualify to be an commentator, and your posts are so bare they would embarass a freshman reporter.

    So other than Lieberman and Obama chastising, what do you bring to the table?

    Utterly irrelevant (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    FHS Chair? Boy the power . . . of pork.

    Joe is now Ted Stevens.


    DHS? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    The fact that you have to post on nearly daily basis that Joe is irrelevant only disproves your theory, or did you miss that in Logic 101?

    Give me some meat not a retread of WP stories with a lack of depth on the issue.  Perhaps you are posting the meatier stuff on another blog and I am not seeing it, which might help me with context.


    Naw J (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:14:21 PM EST
    I just enjoy pointing out he is irrelevant.

    You seem to be the one lqcking depth - the Dems just put quick redeployment down as their marker.

    The other side of the argument is President Bush.

    Joe can hold his coat, but that's it. Joe's thoughts are irrelevant.

    Man  I enjoy writing that.


    geez jlvngstn, are ye daft? (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    let me repeat this, for jlvngstn, who apparently drank deeply of the kook-aid: lieberman has been irrelevant, for a long time, not solely due to his stance on iraq, but for his multifaceted ineptitude.

    he's a man with no sense of himself, he has no basic, core principals, that he doesn't deviate from. whichever way the wind is blowing, look for him there. that he's not a democrat was crystalized in the primary, when he lost to lamont, an almost total unknown.

    that he then chose to run as an independent tells you the nature of his arrogance: he's so compelling, the senate can't do without him. not!

    his demographic is old people, a majority of whom will be departed, when next he runs for re-election. lamont will have gained recognition ground, in that time.

    since this thread has nothing to do with hillary or obama, that comment was, itself, irrelevant.

    CP (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    He won.  And BTD writes about him daily.  You know who is irrelevant?  Dan Rostenkowski.  When is the last time you heard from him?

    I never liked JOe and was pissed that Gore chose him as his running mate.  The dems did little or nothing for Lamont out of fear that Joe would win, that makes him relevant.

    I think the MSM makes people more relevant than they are, and certainly an argument can be made that MTP has given Joe too much air time (one episode is too much for me) but   until I see something of significance from BTD I will assume it is the usual blather.

    Really makes no difference to me if you agree or disagree, just seeing Blabberman is not relevant on a daily basis tells me that he is.


    Joepublican (none / 0) (#8)
    by ShochuJohn on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:11:48 PM EST
    A man who could, if he chose, single-handedly give the Senate back to the GOP is irrelevant?  I beg to difffer.

    We don't control the Senate by much, so let's pucker up and kiss that Droopy Dog face (or at least try not to alienate him too much).

    Give him his seniority (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    That's what he was promised.

    That's what he'll get.

    Nothing more.


    Keep it up (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:07:40 AM EST
    What you have here is a failure to communicate.


    He is a last term Senator who feels like he was sh&t on by the party, and that the party has left him. He's made a promise, but is most likely looking for a way out.

    Keep it boys and girls and you will discover that you have lost the Senate.

    Gosh the Repubs must love the moves you folks are making.


    he gets nothing................. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:17:09 PM EST
    for his district, unless he puckers up. that's the power the dems hold over him, like a damocles sword. he either votes how they tell him, or he gets to explain to his constituents why he comes to them barren. they aren't going to like it, at all.

    if he wants to play the game, he gets to play by our rules, not his. bear in mind, it will be dems who controll all the committees, not republicans, in the house. this would include all the appropriation committees. that's where the money is.

    as well, i bet you there's going to be a couple of republican defections in the senate. that will make joe even more irrelevant than he already is.

    "if you grab a man by the balls, his heart and mind will follow."

    lyndon johnson

    How do you dictate... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:41:10 AM EST
      ...to the person who can take away your power to dictate?

      Far from having to accept whatever "rules" the leadership might like to impose upon him, in reality he can simply cause new rules to be promulgated if he is pushed too far.

      EVERYONE who matters recognizes that. They also recognize that they can't use pork to  single out Lieberman for punishment in any event. Connecticut might be unlikely to go Republican for President in 2008 even if the Democratic leadership punishes the people of the state to get back at Lieberman but there other races there  where we want Democrats to win. I'd rather be Lieberman playing martyr than a Democrat explaining why my Party punished my constituents for electing Lieberman.

      Face reality. When you pick a fight you  either win and benefit or lose and pay the price. Picking a fight with Lieberman may well have been justified but the fight was lost in no uncertain terms.

      It would be a lot wiser to accept that and stop trying to put an absurd spin on what happened. That just keeps the spotlight on him even brighter and makes him even more relevant than his victory alone.

      Next time, either pick your fights more shrewdly or fight better.