I would respect the man if he was standing up for something that he has believed for some time. But he is completely opposed to the very positions that he has been on record for having for several years now. It’s time to ax the filibuster and tell Joe to go suck eggs.
I find it quite easy, actually.
It’s the other thing for me, whatever it is, that is the opposite of not respecting him. My mind reaches for the concept, but recoils in shock, horror and dismay. But it’s the not not respecting him thing I can’t seem to reach.
That is true, but it has nothing to do with whether voting is prohibited on the Sabbath. “Work,” as prohibited on the Sabbath, are only such activities as fall into “Forty minus one” categories as discussed in the Mishnah:
[ol]
[li]sowing[/li][li]ploughing[/li][li]reaping[/li][li]binding sheaves[/li][li]threshing[/li][li]winnowing[/li][li]sorting[/li][li]grinding[/li][li]sifting[/li][li]kneading[/li][li]baking[/li][li]shearing wool[/li][li]scouring wool[/li][li]carding wool[/li][li]dyeing wool[/li][li]spinning[/li][li]warping[/li][li]making two heddle leashes[/li][li]weaving two threads[/li][li]unpicking two threads[/li][li]tying[/li][li]untying[/li][li]sewing two stitches[/li][li]tearing in order to sew two stitches[/li][li]catching a deer[/li][li]slaughtering[/li][li]or flaying[/li][li]or salting it[/li][li]tanning its hide[/li][li]scraping its hide[/li][li]cutting it up[/li][li]writing two letters[/li][li]erasing in order to write two letters[/li][li]building[/li][li]demolishing[/li][li]extinguishing[/li][li]kindling[/li][li]striking with a hammer[/li][li]transferring (carrying) from one domain to another[/li][/ol]
See 5.1.2, Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 73a-75b and 49b. As the Gemera explains:
Ignorance fought?
No proxies allowed. 
Where does sausage making fall into this?
Well, maybe. Where does the no driving bit come into that?
Two things, as I understand it – it is ‘transferring [physical objects] from one domain to another’ but more importantly an internal combustion engine kindles fire at a rate equal to its RPM. Both are forbidden ‘work’. (I’d be fascinated by the question of whether a steam-powered vehicle like the old Stanley Steamers started before sundown Friday and allowed to remain running through the Sabbath could legitimately be driven in pursuit of something good in itself, such as synagogue attendance or the giving of alms.
It’s covered under a subset of ‘making two heddle leashes’, as is ‘driving to work so as to cast a vote’.
So transferring ink from a pen to paper ought to be forbidden, then?
Under what category?
The “transferring objects from one domain to another” refers to moving things from inside to outside, or, as rav Adda bar Ahavah observed, from one private domain to another, through a public domain; all those are forbidden. So far as I know, it doesn’t apply to pen and ink. Certainly it wouldn’t apply to a voice or roll call vote.
The big problem with driving a car is that you kindle flame, as Polycarp suggests. For this reason you can’t even turn on an electric light, because of the spark that leaps across the switch connection.
In fact, I know it doesn’t.
As the Mishnah says:
John Hancock for the win!
If she has an inflation valve on her back, I think I dated her too.
I read a few years ago that Lieberman would not be able to vote on Shabbos if he were in the House, because they vote electronically. The Senate still votes by voice.
In any event, Lieberman only has one principle, and that’s the importance of Joe Lieberman. If he even has so much as a decent parking spot after all this nonsense, much less a committee chair, then we might as well give up on the Democrats.
That opens the interesting question about whether the rule against proxy voting would extend to having someone else right next to the Congressman, whose duty was to push the button as directed. Each House may set its own rules, so it would be up to the House to permit or deny that procedure.
If that were so, why would he be embarking on this obviously self-destructive path?
Because he’s a cob nobbler hobgoblin. I thought we established this.
Well, don’t get me wrong – no one could possibly find a hole in that tightly cogent argument.
But just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, the argument seems to be that Lieberman is not acting out of any principle except that advancement of the interests of Lieberman. So a path that would lead to result adverse to his interests doesn’t seem like the kind of thing such a person would do.
Perhaps I’m missing some of the definitional subtleties of cob nobbler hobgoblins.
i think Lieberman’s interests consist primarily of “Look at meeeeeee!” with a smattering of “Look at them being so mean to meeeeee!” thrown in there.