Rachel Maddow Show: Risks of Keeping Lieberman as Chairman

share
1

Recent videos from vbdietz

1 "Waste" TV Ad
Sep 10, 2009
5 What honeymoon?
Mar 20, 2009
126 videos see all

what people are saying

more about "Rachel Maddow Tells You About Joe Lie...", posted with vodpod
Nov
2008
Regan187 commented on this video
ladies ladies ladies ......calm down ,its all over now . History has been flipped upside down ,get with the program and stop wynin.
Nov
2008
Rachel Maddow clips Joe Lieberman's balls and makes a good case to strip the loser from his committee chairmanship. Why wait? You'll be let down either way: either as a potential turncoat or as a constant sign of failure for supporting McCain so diligently.
pumabydesign001 commented on this video
As for that biotch Rachel, throw her ass a bone. She is a sell out to the sisterhood and should be put in a cage.
pumabydesign001 commented on this video
This is a Democratic society, not a communist society. Lieberman has more balls than Pelosi, Reid, Brazile, Kennedy and Obama put together. Leave him alone. At least he is man enough to stand up for what he believes in. He's been in the game long enough to know when something stinks.
pkulak added this video and said
Rachel makes some great points here. Lieberman's got to go.
vbdietz added this video and said
Well said, Rachael.
Download | Play Download | PlayRachel makes a very strong case for why Joe Lieberman should not remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and why the damage he could do and already has done in that position far outweighs the slim hope he might vote with the Democrats when really needed. Responding to Evan Bayh's promise that they'll take the chairmanship away from him if he tries to pull any investigative shenanigans on Obama, Maddow notes adroitly:Are you really going to wait until he starts his first off-base witch-hunting investigation of Obama into whether he's a Marxist or a traitor or whatever, and then you're going to take away his gavel. I'm sure that's going to go over great. ... Listen, Democrats, you have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won't get your 60 votes. But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election, you do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government. You go, Rachel. Why didn't the Democrats already do something about his failure to hold any hearings on hurricane Katrina and the no-bid contracts given to Cheney's buddies? Why have they allowed someone who's acted as a protection arm for the Bush administration to chair one of the most important Senate committees in the Congress already and not investigate the fraud and corruption that has occurred in this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? How can Democrats think it would not be a complete political disaster if they tried to shut Lieberman down after he decided to use the position to possibly go after Obama in the same way Republicans went after Clinton for overblown controversies? Especially given the statements he's already made about Obama regarding foreign policy, particularly his oft-stated fear of what actions Obama might take as President?Joe Lieberman needs to go before he can do any mo...

add a comment

2000 characters left.
First collected by dailygadfly.com
Nov 14, 2008
from youtube.com
join Your favorite videos on the web, in one place. Start your collection now.

related videos

tags

collected by 12 people

details

3,203 views

original description

Download | Play Download | Play Rachel makes a very strong case for why Joe Lieberman should not remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and why the damage he could do and already has done in that position far outweighs the slim hope he might vote with the Democrats when really needed. Responding to Evan Bayh's promise that they'll take the chairmanship away from him if he tries to pull any investigative shenanigans on Obama, Maddow notes adroitly: Are you really going to wait until he starts his first off-base witch-hunting investigation of Obama into whether he's a Marxist or a traitor or whatever, and then you're going to take away his gavel. [Laughs] I'm sure that's going to go over great. ... Listen, Democrats, you have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won't get your 60 votes. But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election, you do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government. You go, Rachel. Why didn't the Democrats already do something about his failure to hold any hearings on hurricane Katrina and the no-bid contracts given to Cheney's buddies? Why have they allowed someone who's acted as a protection arm for the Bush administration to chair one of the most important Senate committees in the Congress already and not investigate the fraud and corruption that has occurred in this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? How can Democrats think it would not be a complete political disaster if they tried to shut Lieberman down after he decided to use the position to possibly go after Obama in the same way Republicans went after Clinton for overblown controversies? Especially given the statements he's already made about Obama regarding foreign policy, particularly his oft-stated fear of what actions Obama might take as President? Joe Lieberma
Flag this Video as inappropriate or broken