Joe Lieberman is up to his old tricks, undermining the Democratic Congress's efforts to pass an effective stimulus bill. Lieberman is supporting a version of the bill that would end up killing jobs, raising property taxes, reducing investment in green building, and cutting off vital infrastructure projects. The stimulus bill that was passed in the House is getting beaten down in the Senate, and Lieberman is carrying one of the clubs.
Just days ago CT's Congressional delegation and economic leaders championed the many benefits this bill would deliver:
Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, said Tuesday that the White House stimulus package could create up to 44,000 jobs in Connecticut, the majority of which would be in the construction and manufacturing sectors.
"The program will include the largest investment in the backbone of the American economy, our basic infrastructure --roads, transit, broadband, schools -- since the interstate highway system," Summers said in a meeting with reporters in the Old Executive Office Building.
Himes said when it comes to infrastructure, transit is the most important issue facing Norwalk and Fairfield County, but there are issues with government buildings and utilities that cannot be ignored.
"The schools are crumbling and the sewage systems are not up to snuff," Himes said in a telephone interview.
[T]he group had drafted a list of nearly $90 billion in cuts, including $40 billion in aid for states, more than $14 billion for various education programs, $4.1 billion to make federal buildings energy efficient and $1.5 billion for broadband Internet service in rural areas.
So, just when state residents were starting to feel hopeful about getting through this crisis without too much pain, Lieberman pulls the rug. It seriously makes you wonder if Lieberman enjoys watching bridges collapse and schools fall apart.
UPDATE Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are voting more consistently with Democrats on the stimulus bill than Lieberman is. See the chart. (h/t Jonk, CTBlue)
In a letter to the New York Times today, Sens. Lieberman (Idiot-CT) and Collins (R-ME) are still trying to cover for their own failures on oversight. FEMA would not fall under their watch if it were split from Homeland Security (Lieberman as Chairman, Collins as a former chairman and now ranking republican member), which would be all to the good keeping it as far from them as possible.
Your Nov. 24 editorial "Fixing FEMA" is based on a myth that the agency was capable of handling a catastrophe before it was included in the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 to ensure an all-hazards approach to disasters, whether they are natural or man-made.
But our 2005-06 investigation into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina found that FEMA had never faced a catastrophe the magnitude of Katrina and would have been unable to respond effectively regardless of whether it was in or out of the Homeland Security Department.
Fortunately, today's FEMA is far better prepared than it was in 2005. To reform FEMA, we wrote legislation in 2006 elevating it within D.H.S. and providing the administrator direct access to the president in emergencies.
The real problem of Katrina and Washington, as seen through Joe Lieberman's eyes. [From 9/8/05, PBS Newshour]
Chris Dodd returns from his grueling campaign in Iowa just in time to help us ward off another attack on the Constitution. First it was FISA, and now it's the Thought Crime Bill.
All five of Connecticut's Congressmen voted to pass H.R. 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, better known as the Thought Crime Bill. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 404 to 6, and it has now moved to the Senate (S. 1959). Among the six Congressmen to vote against the bill were Dennis Kucinich and Neil Abercrombie, who explained to Jennifer Abel of the Fairfield County Weekly why this bill is so scary:
Kucinich ... told us he voted against the bill because it's "unconstitutional" and "a thought-crime bill." And a representative of Hawaiian congressman Neil Abercrombie said his boss voted no because he felt the bill gave law enforcement too much power, and didn't sufficiently protect individual rights. [...]
The bill says nothing explicitly ominous. It even specifies that the "Department of Homeland Security's efforts...shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." So what's the problem?
"Essentially," said Kucinich, "the bill moves to criminalize thought by giving an overly broad view of the threat of homegrown terrorism."
The bill attempts to prohibit forms of belief that "might" lead to violence -- you don't have to act on those beliefs, just "facilitate" them. Abel writes:
"Violent radicalization," one of the threats the bill seeks to curb, is defined there as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change."
Acts of violence are already illegal, whether stemming from extreme beliefs or not. But "adopting" or "promoting" beliefs is supposed to be covered by the first amendment, which Kucinich said, "protects freedom of speech, which should also include freedom of thought, thought usually precedes speech, unless you're talking about Washington. This undercuts the first amendment, [because] lines like 'ideologically based'...says government should police ideas, not conduct."
One of the other dangers of the bill is that it allows the government to define ordinary, run-of-the-mill activist demonstrations as forms of terrorism. Kamau Franklin, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, elaborated on this point during a discussion with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!:
[T]he broad definitions allow for new laws that can be passed, that can basically equate social justice activism and civil disobedience to terrorism in some ways. So in the past if someone got charged for blocking the street, there [sic] were charged with disorderly conduct, or obstruction of governmental administration. Now, after this commission is done, if new laws are passed, with the broadness of the definitions, the Feds can now say "well, wait a minute, you threatened the use of violence or threatened the use of force. And that by itself can mean that we can now charge you with federal terrorist crimes.
Reading that quote makes me think of the Ken Krayeske case, and how Hartford cops threw Ken in jail for taking pictures of Governor Rell. Imagine if they had charged him with terrorism ...
The last chance to kill this bill is in the Senate, where it awaits action by Joe Lieberman in the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman and the bill's sponsor, Susan Collins of Maine, are strongly in favor of the bill. So is Chris Shays.
Just like the FISA bill, this Thought Crime Bill needs someone to filibuster it or threaten a hold, someone who values the Constitution as much as Chris Dodd. Now that his Presidential campaign is over, let's give Dodd a new mission: Stop the Thought Crime Bill.
After being asked by Collins for his support, Lieberman announced in April that he would endorse her. He has since raised money for her campaign in Hartford, Conn., and in Washington, D.C., and has contributed $10,000 from his political action committee.
Lieberman said he hopes his endorsement doesn't backfire and that it helps Collins' campaign.
"I'm disappointed to become such a target from liberal Democrats," he said. "Sometimes in our politics today, partisanship overcomes friendship, and that's a value that I don't respect."
Joe, Joe, Joe. The only two candidates that you have thrown your support behind are both Republicans and you are disappointed that you are a target from Democrats? Well, let me inform you Joe that I don't respect many of your values. And any time anyone disagrees with you then it's called partisan.
Others suggest that the endorsement could backfire by generating more support for Allen from liberal Democrats who use the Internet to organize and raise money, and who regard Lieberman as a pariah because of his advocacy of the war in Iraq.
"Nobody fires up the Netroots more than Joe Lieberman, not even President Bush," said Amy Walter, editor of the political newsletter The Hotline.
Well value this Joe. I will work hard against Collins. I do not respect you or her. Period.
But while one of Connecticut's Senators is doing his best to get NOLA and the Gulf Coast back on track, the other is all too predictably still blocking any meaningful investigation of what happened in the White House during those horrific days two years ago this week, from his perch as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Jan. 11, 2007 - Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush's new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans....
But now that he chairs the homeland panel-and is in a position to subpoena the records-Lieberman has decided not to pursue the material, according to Leslie Phillips, the senator's chief committee spokeswoman. "The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House's role in Katrina," she told NEWSWEEK.
Spokeswoman Leslie Philips said Friday that Lieberman, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wouldn't issue subpoenas to the White House as he called for less than a year ago.
"The senator believes a more productive use of his time and that of his staff is to make sure legislative fixes are implemented and ensure that a response to a future catastrophe is better," Philips said. "The senator feels the American public has already concluded that the White House response was sorely lacking. Rather than take on the White House and open an old fight, he believes he can be more productive by moving forward."
Lieberman said he was not interested in "looking back, and assigning blame would be a waste of Congress' time." Responding to yesterday's protestor, Lieberman said, "We don't want to play 'gotcha' anymore."
Of course, Joe Lieberman - along with his fellow traveler in obsequiousness Susan Collins - were calling for us to "move forward" from the "blame game" just days after the storm hit, promising that the time for an investigation would come... later:
"Obviously, what Michael Chertoff and Michael Brown did in this circumstance would be of great interest in our inquiry... the last thing we want to do now is reach judgments about who should stay and who should go."
"Look, Mr. Brown works for President Bush, and Sec. Chertoff... I wish we could focus now on [the recovery], and not get too much into the "blame game" right now.... We've committed to a no-holds-barred investigation... particularly for our committee... we want to know why it didn't work."
So, two years later... is it time to reach those "judgments," yet?
And what exactly happened to that "no-holds-barred investigation" you promised the people of New Orleans - and the people of the nation - Senator?
In today's Hartford Courant, the article "Lieberman: Alone in the Center" implies that Joe Lieberman is essentially a "man of conscience" who votes with Democrats 88% of the time but is isolated by his party because of his stance on the war. To me, this piece merely drives home one simple point: People still don't understand how Lieberman's lack of honest, intelligent leadership continues to hurt our country.
We all know that Senator Joe Lieberman is capable of saturating the media on the issues he cares most strongly about, specifically bombing Iran and "surging" in Iraq.
However, on one issue vitally important to our nation's security -- protecting America's chemical facilities from terrorist attacks -- Joe has been far less vocal; in fact, sort of docile. Why?
Based on a story in the March issue of Washington Monthly about Republican attempts to kill chemical security legislation, and Joe's silence on the issue, it appears that Joe cares more about his strong "friendships" with Republicans Dick Cheney and Senator Susan Collins than he does about national security.
Shameless Chris Shays was on CNN's The Situation Room last night. Shays continues to lie through his teeth about his various positions on possible Iraq withdrawals and timetables. Shays of course voted against the recent bill H R 2956, the so-called "Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act" calling it--naturally--irresponsible. Shays mentions something about the day George Bush leaves office in 2009 being better. Or something. Who knows really.
Meanwhile another faux moderate, Susan Collins of Maine, voted in the Senate for the Levin-Reid amendment, for a withdrawal of combat forces, on July 18. So what's the difference? Well, as I see it, Collins is in the Senate and has a bit more leeway than Shays. For whatever reason, the dynamic is different perhaps because the stakes are higher or that elections are every two years in the House. The Republicans simply cannot afford to lose the seats presently occupied by Collins, Coleman, and Smith, which are definite potential pickup seats. Hagel, who is not a moderate though, voted for it as well, as did Snowe.
Shays is stuck in no-man's land. He can play the moderate but if he ever dares vote for a Democratic proposal ending this occupation he's through, and he knows it. So we're treated to this constant charade or pantomime where Shays says one thing and does another.
UPDATE: WINO Chris Shays Says He Wants Withdrawal, But Keeps Voting Against It by Greg Sargent over at TPM lists Shays most recent position/s. (The WINO caucus, as you all know, refers to Waverers In Name Only -- GOP members of Congress who are allegedly "wavering" in their support of Bush's war policies but won't vote for anything that would actually change those policies.)
FEMA Knew Of Toxic Gas In Trailers Hurricane Victims Reported Illnesses
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01
The Federal Emergency Management Agency since early 2006 has suppressed warnings from its own field workers about health problems experienced by hurricane victims living in government-provided trailers with levels of a toxic chemical 75 times the recommended maximum for U.S. workers, congressional lawmakers said yesterday.
[...]
As many as 120,000 families displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita lived in the suspect trailers, and hundreds have complained of ill effects.
What is Congress's role in a situation like this? To investigate. You might expect that Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, who chair the Senate Committee on Homeland Security—the committee that oversees FEMA—to lead an investigation. But you’d be wrong. Just as they failed to look into the incompetence that led to the Katrina disaster, Joe and Suzy have been AWOL on this scandal too.
It was Democratic Representative Henry Waxman—and Republican Tom Davis—who investigated this scandal and maybe saved some lives....
Well, almost. Below is an internet ad by the republican frontgroup Partnership for Public Service, led by Samuel J. Heyman of Westport CT. Lieberman (and the moderate Dem Jane Harman of California) are front and center in their effusive praise of this Bush enabler.
And a reminder that the bipartisanpalooza for Collins is tonight in Washington D.C. (Lieberman Helps Collect Cash for Collins). Graphic courtesy of Kath25 at Dailykos, which tparty linked to below.
This is good stuff. Tom Allen is hanging Joe Lieberman around Susan Collins' neck:
Joe knows exactly what he's doing in supporting Collins: attempting to retain any shred of his own continued relevance by keeping the Democratic majority in the Senate as slim as possible in what is looking, once again, like a very tough cycle for GOP incumbents across the board.
And Allen knows exactly what he's doing in tying Collins to Joe: making sure that this "moderate" Republican owns the Bush-Cheney-Lieberman war that she's done nothing to oppose (see this NPR report on the Allen campaign this weekend), and that the Democratic Party stays strong and united against the Lieberman-GOP nexus. It's exactly the approach that Maine Dems hinted at when they "welcomed" news of Joe's endorsement of Collins back in April.
Yes, Lieberman is ridiculous, but he's also needs to be toxic.
So do what you can to help our Democratic friends up in Maine re-defeat Joe once again. (And keep an eye on the tubes for more on this effort in the coming days.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) is never going to win any popularity contests among his party's liberal base -- a fact he seems decidedly unconcerned about despite his 2006 Democratic primary loss to Ned Lamont.
WTF? D-Conn? I thought we were beyond this! And Lieberman is decidedly unconcerned? Please, he is consumed with getting back at the Democrats because of his loss.
Not only has Lieberman endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) -- one of Democrats' biggest targets in the 2008 cycle -- but he's planning to co-host a fundraiser for her on June 21 in Washington, D.C.
The event, which will be held in a Capitol Hill location still to be determined, will feature Lieberman and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- a very rare bipartisan fundraiser. Attendees are being asked to raise $3,000; $2,000 would come in the form of a political action committee donation while the other $1,000 would be a personal contribution, according to an electronic invite for the fundraiser obtained today by The Fix.
"Let's try to make this a bi-partisan tour de force," reads the invite.
Lieberman's willingness to work openly for Collins's reelection will surely not sit well with Democratic strategists who want Rep. Tom Allen (D) to oust the two-term incumbent. For Lieberman, his support of Collins is payback. She was one of a handful of senators who campaigned for him in the general election following his loss in the Democratic primary to Lamont. (He ran for and won reelection as an independent.) Lieberman and Collins also serve together as the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate.
"Democratic strategists" should know Lieberman would do something like this. This is his modus operandi -- sticking shivs into Democrats nationwide as he perpetually relives his 2006 grudges. The only reason he still caucuses with the Democrats is because he can read the tea-leaves. Democrats are well-positioned to expand their Senate majorities in 2008 and 2010, and a party switch would've ensured Lieberman's long-term irrelevance. As is, he relishes being the contrarian on the Democratic side, even if he is now just an indepenent.
Congressman Tom Allen just filed the paperwork today to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Susan Collins. He's going to do an official announcement tour around Maine later this month. Tom will be Maine's next Senator.
The Allen campaign just launched its website today too.
In 1996, when Susan Collins first ran for Senate, she promised the people of Maine that she'd only serve two times. In typical GOP fashion, she lied. She's going to run for a third term. But, she won't get it.
This is going to be one of the premiere races in 2008. Susan Collins has staunchly stood by George Bush every day, especially on his war in Iraq, for which she voted in 2002. Last year, she campaigned for Rick Santorum. She cast the deciding vote to bring Trent Lott back in to GOP Senate leadership. And, all anyone needs to know about the pro-Iraq war record of Susan Collins is that pro-Iraq war Joe Lieberman supports her. She's already endorsed pro-Iraq war John McCain for President. That's the company she keeps.
Tom can -- and will win. Maine is a blue state. Tom has represented the first Congressional District, which includes Greater Portland, since 1996. He's a proven vote getter. In the 2006 election, Tom got 60% of the vote without running one t.v. ad meanwhile, the Democratic Governor was re-elected with only 38% of the vote in a four-way race. Approximately 72% of the media market in Maine comes out of the Portland-Auburn stations, which comprise the southern part of the state. A good chunk of voters in the Second District, including the very blue city of Waterville (hometown of the venerated George J. Mitchell) was in Tom's District until the last re-districting (in 2002). Collins best election was in 2002 -- the best GOP year ever, and she got just 58%.
(Maine turns Sour-Joe lemons into lemonade: this is how to make an endorsement you're never going to get work to your advantage. - promoted by mattw)
From CongressDailyPM: Maine Dems Welcome Lieberman Endorsement Of Collins
Maine Democrats say the endorsement of Republican Sen. Susan Collins by Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman underscores a central argument in their challenge of the two-term senator next year: the war in Iraq. A political adviser for Democratic Rep. Tom Allen -- an unannounced but likely candidate against Collins -- said Lieberman's support for the war and Collins' support for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tie her to the Bush administration's politically unpopular war policy. "I think the Lieberman endorsement is significant. For us, it's a gift," the Allen adviser said. "It paints a picture of Susan Collins with people like Lieberman and McCain, who support the war."
Joe, you are a complete asshole below:
Collins raised $837,000 in the first quarter, including a $5,000 donation from Lieberman's leadership PAC, and ended March with $1.2 million on hand.
And from Steve Abbott, chief of staff for Collins:
Collins' productive working relationship with Lieberman on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is a model of bipartisanship and demonstrates her moderate positions.
After reading the above, I laughed when I read the first comment:
Lieberman will be a big help. They improved Homeland Security by having Republicans and Democrats sit boy-girl dinner-party style instead of across the aisle from one another.
Gee, the next comment is from someone named Dan who was a Lieberman voter:
Lieberman needs to remember what state he "represents." He has not been home (that I know of) since the election, and has no represented the views of my state at all. I voted for him, believing his lies. Now, I'm going to go public with a little bit of a scandal: that Joe doesn't have a real address in Connecticut.
Joe Lieberman has told CongressDaily (subscription required) that he will support Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine in her 2008 reelection campaign. Collins had endorsed Lieberman last year when he was running for reelection. Moreover, Lieberman affirmed his previous statements that he might endorse a Republican for president and would not rule out a switch to the GOP.
"I'm going to support Sen. Collins' re-election," he said in an interview with CongressDaily reporters. Lieberman, who was re-elected last year as an independent but continues to caucus with Democrats, added that his leadership PAC has already made the maximum contribution of $5,000 to Collins' campaign.
"This is without regard to who the Democratic nominee would be," he said. "I would just feel that I was not being honest to myself and everything I've said about what our politics should be like now if, for partisan reasons, I didn't support somebody who I think is a great senator."
... Lieberman also reserved the option of endorsing a Republican for president in 2008 and repeated statements that he has not ruled out a future -- albeit unlikely -- switch to the Republican Party.
During the wide-ranging interview, Lieberman said he had not discussed his decision with Senate Majority Leader Reid. His staff did inform Reid's office of the plan Thursday; a spokesman for Reid declined to comment.
Lieberman acknowledged his support for Collins could shape the balance of power in the Senate, which Democrats control by a single vote. But he said his decision was ultimately driven by "the wonderful productive working relationship" the two have and the fact that she campaigned for his re-election last year. [Emphasis added]
There is no question that Lieberman shares no allegiance to the Democratic Party. I don't begrudge him that--he's no longer a Democrat because he failed to live up to the expectations of Connecticut's Democrats. We all know how angry he's been the last year, so this shouldn't strike us as a surprise.
But yet again the political miscalculations by Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid about the possible fallout of Lieberman winning the general election on his own ticket are coming back to burn the Democratic Party. Clearly Lieberman pulled the wool over the eyes of big name Democratic leaders -- people who may have been able to force him out of the race by publicly condemning his decision to ignore the will of CT's voters -- and now Joe is operating with no regard to the Democratic Party's needs. Lieberman has done everything but join the GOP in name. He is an independent-in-name-only (IINO). He endorsed someone outside of his caucus without consideration of who the Democratic challenger would be and he's giving money to her reelection campaign--$5000, the exact same amount Ned Lamont received from Hillary Clinton and a handful of other Democratic senators.
Worse still, Lieberman understands the importance of Collins seat for the control of the Senate. He knows that her reelection will limit the Democrats' progress towards a filibuster-proof majority. He's making decisions that could dramatically affect the future chances for a Democratic president to pass Democratic legislation while cutting Harry Reid out of the loop of his decision. How exactly is Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats? What do Democrats gain by having him as a member of their caucus? Someone tell me, I do not know.
If anyone was wondering how Sen. Bipartisan is using his skills as Chairman of Homeland Security, this might provide a clue. Is he investigating better ways to improve our ports? Perhaps verifying that airlines are using state-of-the art safety equipment?
MLN is powered by