Had Liberman been a good Democrat instead of an a-hole,

[chieftain]

this could have been a Congress that ranked with LBJ's and FDR's in passing progressive legislation.The DADT vote demonstrated what could have been had we had a true 60 seat majority. Maybe Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln would still have flaked on us, but Lieberman gave the others cover that they would otherwise not have had.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi deserve tremendous credit for getting what they got given the spinelessness of too many Democrats. Lieberman's problem wasn't lack of spine but lack of integrity. He let his personal pique drive him into the arms of the most reactionary forces in the country.Now he is trying to weasel his way into the Democratic Party to save his career. I hope we leave the rat bastard out in the cold.

[Aramchek]

1. Imagine if we'd had Ned LaMont

[BrklynLiberal]

3. I don't live in Conn, and I sent money for Lamont. That was such a

disgusting thing for LIEberman to do...and it was repukes who voted him into office. If Dems had wanted him, he would have won the Dem primary...

[villager]

5. Imagine if Obama had campaigned for the Democrat, instead of Lieberman!

n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Yeh. I remember that.!!!

x(

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. Really?

You remember Obama campaigning for Lieberman after Lamont won the primary?

Might want to look into the source of those false memories.

Edited for linkage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Sending out an email to 5000 people, as opposed to actually appearing in person?

DUH. Sorry, but he campaigned for LIEberman. Truth be told, Obama did not even have to hit a keyboard himself for that email to go out...

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. He did.

Obama supported Lieberman in the primary, but fundraised for Lamont in the election.

I can barely tolerate Obama, but let's not distort history. We're not FOX News.

Edited for link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

[villager]

15. Well, okay. Obama did send out an email for Lamont, after traveling there in person for Lieberman:

As your link notes.

So it's something.

[Tesha]

22. Precisely! (NT)

[BrklynLiberal]

2. As far as I am concerned, LIEbeman is a man without a party. Hope he is tossed out when this

term is done...and replaced by a REAL Democrat.

[T Wolf]

4. Let's hope it is Spectre, the Sequel. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

8. +1000..and no doubt LIEberman will be just as bitter and self-centered.

[Mister Ed]

6. But for Lieberman, we would have had a public option.

Thanks to him, insurance companies do not have to face that sort of competition. They're free to raise rates as they choose, and they're doing just that.

Big RW talking point at work, of course: "Obamacare has driven up insurance rates!"

I wonder what the the dumbasses think the insurance companies were fixin' to do without health care reform? (Hint: what did they do every single year before the law was passed?)

[vaberella]

9. Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln and the other 10 Dems who were against the PO. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

12. Exactly. The Public Option was a no-go because of several Blue Dogs in the Senate.

Lieberman, however, singlehandedly put the kibosh on the Medicare buy-in negotiated by Dems because he wanted to stick it to liberals.

http://www.newser.com/story/76094/joe-lieberman-nixes-medicare-buy-in-plan.html

[StevieM]

25. That was enormous. It allowed the GOP to develop a false narrative, whereas the Medicare buy-in

would have immediately helped to quash their dis-information.

[chieftain]

10. Too true and

he single-handedly stopped the effort to open Medicare for folks above 55 or so years of age. There is a whole cohort of people who have worked all their lives and are now being replaced by younger, cheaper and/or off-shore employees. They are too young for Medicare and of an age when the body begins to break down. There was real support for this feature of the ACA and Joe nixed it.

[AtomicKitten]

11. (oops)

deleted - wrong place

[NorthCarolina]

24. I don't think there was ever really a chance at a PO, Lieberman or not. It was all showboating. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Then it should never have been promised. eom

[Laelth]

16. Had Lieberman been a good Democrat, NOTHING would be different.

As I argue here: http://laelth.blogspot.com

Washington is famous for being tone-deaf and insensitive to the needs and desires of the American people. For example, most Americans opposed the 2008 TARP bailout of the financial industry. Did our politicians care? No. They did it anyway, and members of both major parties were complicit in the bailout. Most Americans wanted a public option included in Obama’s health care reform package, but did that matter? No. Most Americans wanted to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Did that happen? No, and again, both parties were complicit in extending those budget-busting cuts for millionaires and billionaires. People who vote for Democrats complain that their legislators are weak and ineffective because they fail to enact legislation to improve the economic conditions of working Americans. People who vote for Republicans complain that their legislators are weak and ineffective because they fail to balance the budget, combat illegal immigration, ban abortion, or act upon other planks of the religious right’s agenda. Neither party seems to serve its constituents well, and both parties blame the opposing party for their failure to do what their constituents demand.

This behavior would be puzzling if the explanation for it were not so abhorrently clear. The fact of the matter is that neither major political party represents its voting constituents. They pretend to, and they ask for our time, our money, and our votes on that basis, but they regularly fail to do what they promise us they will do--what we elect them to do. Let’s face it. Republicans controlled all three branches of the Federal Government from 2003 until 2006. If they wanted to balance the budget, they could have done it, along with a host of other things that their constituents wanted. They could have tried to outlaw abortion if they really wanted to, but they didn’t. Democrats, for their part, have controlled the Presidency and both chambers of Congress for the past two years. If they really wanted to enact some significant progressive legislation, they could have done it. They didn’t, but why?

Both Republican and Democratic politicians fail to actually represent the interests of those who vote for them because they are part and parcel of what I call the nation’s political caste. That’s who our politicians work for, not “the people.”

That's why I say nothing would have changed had Lieberman been a "good" Democrat. In fact, he was being a "good" Democrat by not allowing liberal legislation to pass. He served his wealthy masters well.

-Laelth

[PassingFair]

17. There are a lot of people who post on this message board that don't seem to know...

how to tell a Blue Dog from a New Dem.

Both groups stand in the way of Progressives.

The Blue Dogs as a group, and the New Dems
as necessary to bog down progressive legislation
and enable the republicans to carry out their
missions.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Sad, but true.

[sallyseven]

20. I think that the dems passed a lot.

Health care, DADT, Stark,a lot of other things that I cannot think of right now. It was very productive even with the repuks throwing hissy fits all over the place. I think that any blue dog should be watched carefully and every time they side with the repuks they get a letter from us. I resent that you take this attitude that because they don't give into to your wishes they are not doing their mobs. A lot got done in spite of the weirdos on the right.

[Laelth]

21. A lot of legislation has been passed in the last two years. That's true.

Please read the essay I linked to above. Obama passed a remarkable amount of legislation. He's not weak. He's a strong leader. He was very successful in Congress.

That's not the problem I have with him.

-Laelth

[AtomicKitten]

23. This lame duck session was spectacularly productive.

The tax issue obviously was the sticking point. Once that was settled (temporary extension of all tax cuts in exchange for what is tantamount to a second stimulus), stalled legislation began to flow: extension of unemployment benefits, the Food Safety bill, repeal of DADT, 9/11 Responders health bill, and the new START treaty.