Lieberman to Replace Rumsfeld?

I highly doubt it. Even though Lieberman is a hawk and has taken conservative social stands he is an economic liberal and liberal on many other issues. The Republican love of Lieberman is like the Democrat love of McCain, fairly shallow and based only on one issue.

Of course as the saying goes politics make strange bedfellows.

 

The first step is getting rid of Rumsfeld. If I made just a third of the mistakes that guy has made, I would have been out of a job a long time ago.

 

hey, works for me- republican gov of conneticut gets to appoint his successor in the senate.

 

hummmm....

Lieberman meets with Rumsfeld amid retirement speculation

(Washington-AP, Dec. 8, 2005 7:49 PM) _ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hosted Senator Joe Lieberman for a breakfast meeting today amid speculation that the Connecticut Democrat could be in line to succeed him.

Lieberman, who has emerged as President Bush's staunchest Democratic defender on the Iraq war, has bucked his party as a vocal advocate for Bush's Iraq policies.

He did not talk about the morning meeting with Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lieberman aides provided few details about the breakfast, saying that their boss does not discuss private meetings.

The Pentagon told reporters that Rumsfeld, who routinely meets with members of Congress, wanted to hear Lieberman's impressions of his visit to Iraq over the Thanksgiving holiday. It was the senator's fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4222023&nav=3YeX

 

Lieberman makes me want to puke. Ralph Nadir is worse, but GOP Joe is running a close second as of today.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I knew Gore was going to lose because of Lieberman. But he's getting way out of hand years later. I think that's part of problem among Dems. Too many politicians try too hard to figure what other people want to hear instead of what they really believe. But I guess in terms of war, Lieberman did say what he really wants. However, I think a registered party member should be more responsible. If his view is totally different than the party line, in very important issues, especially in war or peace. He should quit first, before he tries to score politically. But he never had that backbone. That's why I like Dean a lot, he stands to what he believes. Dems were so stupid to give up on him and replace him with Kerry. I am wondering can the Dems just have a vote to kick Lieberman and Zell Miller like guys out?

 

more crushing of dissent.

 

I don't see it that way. The party is a politically oriented group, which is formed by a group of people with similar believes and principles in most important issues. There is a common agreement in those guidelines. Once you are against that you are agreed upon, that party no longer represents your view, and your view no longer represents the party's view. To stop mis-representing each other, the best way is to be apart of each other. Nobody forbids him to say anything, but he should stop to take advantage of the party and the current partisan environment. He can be on his own, or form new parties. BTW, I am for more diversification in political parties and coalitions in elections.

If the Rockets decides to play an in-and-out style, with TMac and Yao as core, which is accepted by all the other players before join. If DA wants to play ISO instead, and continues to do so on the court, he would see less and less minutes and be shipped out in the earlist convenience. Is that also crushing of dissent?

 

egal, US party politics is different from that of CCP. It's commonplace to vote against your party's establishment. To any (acutally a better word is "either") party, the single most important thing is to capture the majority of the seats in Congress. This virtually guarantees a party's control of the legislative body, namely, the chairmanship and a simple majority in any committee in both chambers of the Congress. Despite not being liked by many nationwide, a maverick would almost never be kicked out by his commrades within the same party. The ultimate decision rests only upon the voters in his/her own district/state.

 

i can't see how any self respecting man would go into an administration which beat a ticket featuring the aofrementioned self respecting man by stealing the election.

and yeah whens lieberman's term up? i have serious problems with one abandoning the party by going into the adminstration and having the governor appoint a member of the other party. whats the precedence on that?

maybe if sharon loses the upcoming election he could apply for this position...

 

but that's under the perception if that maverick gets elected it helps the party. In reality, it hurts the party, and in general election. If a Rep-like registered Dem got elected to Senator, which means people voted him because of his promoted policies, which are GOP-like, right? In other words, that person is using party resource and influence and even financial support to promote another party's ideas. I don't see any benefit to the party, only harm. Why wouldn't they kick him out then? You might lose that seat, but on the other hand, voters might want to vote a TRUE democrate if the option is presented, and you still have the chance to save the seat; furthermore, nation wide, voters will see your clear vision of politices as a party, which helps you long term. Isn't so-called flip-flop a major problem for Kerry? Just imagine, if there are more clear-cut dems presented in the election, representing a clear-cut party, I guess you can actually gain more votes.

 

Well there are always *independent minded* Congressional members in both parties, so the single vote from one maverick isn't *that* critical. Another thing to keep in mind is that party positions and policies change from time to time, and more often than not are in line with what the party *perceives* to be the interests of a major voting bloc they can comfortably capture in election. For instance, the Democratic Party used to be representive of the South and a lot more conservative than it is now, both socially and fiscally (though this assessment shall again be put in perspective given the drunken sailor like spending by the majority party controlling the Congress in the last four years).

Let's say the Democratic Party takes back the Senate with a single majority, and Lieberman becomes the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (on which he is currently the ranking member, aka No.2). He gets to influence heavily the matters limited to this committee only. However, by virtue of his party registration, the Democrats control all other committees. The benefits of keeping him in the party clearly outweigh the drawbacks. Of course Joe would still vote with his party in significant number of times, compared to most of the Republican members.

Lastly, my understanding is that there is no such thing in either party's constitution that one can be voted out of the party.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I am too simple and sometimes too naive for politic. You know where it's from, right?

 

I think as long as you are not too emotionally attached to a single party, you should be OK.

 

This is exactly why it would be done. If a Pres picks someone from the other party, it's almost always a seat that will be filled by the Pres' party.

 

Honestly, I don't like lots of things of the Dems, but I can't stand the current GOP, and there is no other party. The worse thing is, I don't even get to vote My wife always asks me why I care then? I told her that US used to be a lot better when it's far far away in our memory. But reality sets in when you get closer to it. To be selfish, I want it to be better, as the most powerful country, coz it would benefit everyone around the world, including me and my family. Despite sometimes people tell me it's none of my business, I still shamelessly butt in.

 

Liebermans' got to know this. It will go a long way in showing where his loyalties lie whether he accepts or not.

 

There was a story on NPR yesterday that mentioned all this, interviewed Rumsfeld, and determined that there was nothing to the story. Whether it would be a good idea or not, it's apparently not going to happen.

 

Reid: "I’ve spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he’s out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."

crooksandliars