Which Dems are most likely to defect on Social Security?

I'm all for a reallyh big tent, but to go with Bushel on SS? THAT's way too big a tent. It's time to do the right thing, at least on this issue.

So far he's been with the Repubs on every important vote.

in Nebraska...very red state

...likely to defect on SS?

... of his own party on this. Why? Because his plan is reckless and destructive, and predicated on the LIE that Social Security is in crisis.

It will be fillibustered, but I want them to run on their trashing SS.

60-day blitz * is embarking on. I hope it doesn't change public sentiment (i.e., make people start believing that privatization is the way to go).

Come to think of it, I suppose OUR tax dollars are paying for his effing trip?? A trip that's so patently against our interests??

Shouldn't he be presiding over the country and not running all over the country spouting off about some BS crisis??

I guess it's his greatest desire-- to destroy SS. Imagine-- some leaders aspire to greatness by helping people-- this effing moron's quest is to destroy his own countrymen. Absolutely mind-boggling.

God, get these guys OUT!!!!!!!!!

last week? The president left Washington on what is essentially a CAMPAIGN trip in the midst of possible terrorist threats to the nation???

Of course, I thought that those threats were too convenient myself, but the sheeple don't have to know that.

Phrases like: "What are they afraid of" need to be used ad infinitum.

This is exactly what the Rs want right now, we have to keep the issue out there.

who dare not cross the boyking. They are truely the gutless party who have become the mindless drones enabling this criminal administration to do anything it damn well pleases.

Cowards all.

During the SOSU, she sat with her arms crossed and didn't applaud when Bush spoke about SSI.

I'm an Arizonan, and it might be the only time you would see a slimer like JD Hayworth vote AGAINST the president; his district has a heavy retiree population.

He votes for privatization, those feisty old guards will make sure he gets pink-slipped, and they have the power to do it.

What will probably happen is that they try to shelve it until after the midterms, which is why we must keep it a front and center issue. We need to hold every candidate's feet to the fire on it.

If we can push it to a vote, the Dems pretty much walk into a majority in 2006.

He retired last year, after speaking at the RNC.

remember all those multiple polls about who should replace Daschle?

This has the same kind of feel. Kind of spammy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1566651

for Bush's plan and not many seniors, most of whom oppose the plan or anything like it.

The AARP is up in arms, and seniors vote--even in bye elections.

Leiberman is nothing more than an articulate version of Zell "Nightmare on Elm Street" Miller.

From Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN:

Blitzer: "Are you for the president's Social Security plan?"
Lieberman: "No, I'm not."


"But...but...DINO! DINO! PNAC! DLCER! DOES NOT COMPUTE! NOOOOO!!!!"

If you are going to give out that information as being factual you need to post a link for your source. Simply citing a source is not going to cut it when you post such sweeping statements, so let's see a link to that bit of "information." In case you've not noticed, Joe Lieberman consistently stabs this party in the back, BUCKO. Kind of like his vote for cloture on the pending bankruptcy legislation... He's a war mongering fool on top of it all as well!

:evilgrin:
Now on the count of three, remove head from ass. 1, 2, 3!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/06/le.01.html

"I don't agree with the solution that he's proposed, because I don't see how you make the problem better by diverting payroll tax revenue that otherwise goes into the Social Security trust fund".

"In other words, if the fund's going to run out of money and it can't pay the benefits in the foreseeable future, then it doesn't make any sense to me to take more money out of it".


...and back in Connecticut:

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., said Tuesday he is "totally un-convinced" the government can shift Social Security toward private accounts without accelerating the onset of the program’s insolvency.


"I don’t see how you make Social Security more solvent ..by taking trillions of dollars out of the trust fund," Lieberman said.

http://www.bristolpress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14062885&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=10486&rfi=6

where the 90k limit is increased AND a portion of social security is put into private accounts? I think Bush's goal is merely to set precedent for shrinking social security which he expects to be continued by Rice or McCain or whomever they end up having run in 08.

I think Lieberman may have a greater chance to support a compromise plan than a lot of Republicans representing rural/populist/poor/social conservative areas of the country. While Joe may face a backlash from some in the state it is important to realize that Connecticut has a very high "pro-capital" population that holds economic-libertarianesque views. I bet you find more Democrats who support supply side-favor the wealthy economic policy in CT than in any other state. When you combine that with Joe receiving much of his funding from corporatist and realizing the lack of partisanship amongst CT voters you realize that Joe could probably get away with supporting Bush yet again.

The largest registered group in Conn is independents over 40% of the electorate. The second largest percentage of independents in the country. The only state with a higher percentage is Mass. Though their ratio of Dems to Repubs is higher than ours insuring the loyalty of their Democratic congressmen. Joe could support it and as a result lose a possible 2006 primary and win the election by going Indy or Republican.

Remember: Joe Lieberman has a higher approval rating amongst Republicans than he does amongst Democrats.

The only reason I trust he wont vote for it is because it could cost Joe his job.

Moderate Democrats are not going to vote for a measure that increases the deficit as much as this one does.
Liberal Democrats are not going to vote for a measure that destroys Social Security the way this one does.

The only thing we should be worried about is someone like Lieberman caving to a superficial compromise.