Democratic leadership considering exiling Joe Lieberman

[Displaced Flames fan]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/lieberman.democrats/index.html

Obama should jump on this immediately.

He gets elected and now the idiots that run Congress want to pull something stupid like this. Absolutely shameful.

[SportsJunky]

I personally think he stays where he is but I'd have no problem if he was yanked out of there.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I personally think he stays where he is but I'd have no problem if he was yanked out of there.

Why would you not have a problem with it?

[Weiser Wonder]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/lieberman.democrats/index.html

Obama should jump on this immediately.

He gets elected and now the idiots that run Congress want to pull something stupid like this. Absolutely shameful.
Typical congressional politics. The Democrats are trying to take control of their party. I think he should stay but he spoke against Obama at the Republican Convention so it isn't really surprising.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Typical congressional politics. The Democrats are trying to take control of their party. I think he should stay but he spoke against Obama at the Republican Convention so it isn't really surprising.


I know it's not surprising, given Reid and Pelosi are in charge. I would think, though, that they would want to follow Obama's lead of unity and progress but instead seem to be on their own petty crusade.

What can they possibly hope to accomplish? It's nothing more than petty vengence.

[Weiser Wonder]

They are trying to create a coalition that is loyal to the party. They want to be able to control votes. I don't think they are doing a very good job at this point.

There is something to be said, however, with the thought that if he's not a Democrat anymore he shouldn't caucus with them. Although I don't know Lieberman's views very well.

EDIT: Turns out he has a solidly liberal voting record minus the Iraq war. http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html

So I'll agree that it seems ridiculous to not have him caucus with the Democrats. Where is he supposed to go? He certainly isn't a Republican beyond some foreign policy views.

[Vulcan]

When someone crosses over to the other side, he can't expect to come back with things being just the same. This ain't religion, it's politics and I expect there to be some bad feelings.
I'd think he'll lose his committee posts at least.

[Kjesse]

I'd be surprised if Lieberman himself thought he'd keep his committee chairmanship if he backed the wrong horse.

Something needs to be done to send a message, but nothing severe. He and McCain have long been cross-party allies, and his backing McCain was at least honest.

The problem is he made some pretty stinging comments about Obama that weren't warranted, given his party affiliation.

[rubecube]

Considering all Obama did for Lieberman when he was fighting to be re-elected and how Lieberman basically stabbed him in the back, I doubt Obama will step in.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So I guess revenge is preferable to cooperation and progress here as well. That's encouraging.

[rubecube]

So I guess revenge is preferable to cooperation and progress here as well. That's encouraging.

I don't see it as revenge at all. They want people in their caucus that they can trust. Clearly they can't trust Lieberman.

[4X4]

I don't see it as revenge at all. They want people in their caucus that they can trust. Clearly they can't trust Lieberman.

Either that, or they can trust that Lieberman will vote according to his own beliefs instead of towing the party line.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I don't see it as revenge at all. They want people in their caucus that they can trust. Clearly they can't trust Lieberman.

Trust=vote their way every time no matter what.

That's the Reid and Pelosi way.

[rubecube]

Trust=vote their way every time no matter what.

That's the Reid and Pelosi way.

Hey, I'm no Reid or Pelosi fan but I don't think they're doing anything blatantly wrong here. It's not like Zell Miller was welcomed back with open arms to the party after the garbage he pulled either. As far as I'm concerned, Lieberman made his own bed.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hey, I'm no Reid or Pelosi fan but I don't think they're doing anything blatantly wrong here. It's not like Zell Miller was welcomed back with open arms to the party after the garbage he pulled either. As far as I'm concerned, Lieberman made his own bed.

Zell Miller flat out changed parties. Big difference.

[rubecube]

Zell Miller flat out changed parties. Big difference.

I agree with you to a certain extent. My problem probably is that I'm to ingrained with Canadian politics, where we're used to the party whips and MPs being expelled from their parties for not voting along party lines. It's actually the thing I hate most about Canadian politics.

Let me clarify, I have no problem with Lieberman not voting with the Democrats 100% the time. I'm just saying the guy can't run as an independant, stump for the Republican nominee, and then expect to be included in the Democrat caucus. What do the Democrats owe him? It's pretty clear he puts his own ambitions before the Democrats on his list of priorities, they're just doing the same.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I agree with you to a certain extent. My problem probably is that I'm to ingrained with Canadian politics, where we're used to the party whips and MPs being expelled from their parties for not voting along party lines. It's actually the thing I hate most about Canadian politics.

Let me clarify, I have no problem with Lieberman not voting with the Democrats 100% the time. I'm just saying the guy can't run as an independant, stump for the Republican nominee, and then expect to be included in the Democrat caucus. What do the Democrats owe him? It's pretty clear he puts his own ambitions before the Democrats on his list of priorities, they're just doing the same.

Well, he didn't run as an independent by choice, but by necessity.

That aside, it's not about owing him it's about making the most out of the resources you have. Lieberman has to be considered one of the finest members of the Senate. Don't you want that guy as an ally?

I would.

[rubecube]

Well, he didn't run as an independent by choice, but by necessity.

That aside, it's not about owing him it's about making the most out of the resources you have. Lieberman has to be considered one of the finest members of the Senate. Don't you want that guy as an ally?

I would.

Only if I were sure he could be trusted as an ally which, IMO, he's proved he can't be. I'm just saying when the guy lost his Senate nomination and ran as an independent, Obama went to bat for him. Joe didn't return the favour and actually tried to help Obama lose. How can he be considered an ally after that?

[Ice]

They don't want an ally, they want a puppet. Because Lieberman isn't the ideal yes man doesn't mean that he shouldn't have any value to the Dems. Alienating him is stupid. Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of having a politician who is willing to stand on his principles even if its not popular with those in his party, unfortunately a willingness to be contrary to the Reid and Pelosi types is enough to get walking papers.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

My own sense is that he won't be expelled from the Caucus, but he may also find himself on the outside looking in when committee chairmanships are passed out.

He also may find that he faces a primary challenge when he runs for office next, but he's dealt with that before and come out of it okay. But the fact is, he did more than support McCain. He did so while saying nasty things about Obama. He stood there at Republican rallies while the atmosphere became hostile. He smiled, fist-pumped the air, he described Obama as "naive" in an interview, the list goes on and on.

Bipartisanship means working with people from across the aisle. It doesn't have to mean turning on your fellow travelers so completely. Many Republicans endorsed Obama, but you didn't see them at Obama rallies talking about how McCain was "erratic." The closest example was Colin Powell, and if you don't think the knives are out for him in the GOP....

In the end, my guess is they'll forge a compromise position. Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats and will vote with them on procedural motions. He will continue to vote how he pleases on everything else. He will give up his seniority status within the party. It may not be fair, but it is life.

[Phanuthier]

Well, he didn't run as an independent by choice, but by necessity.

That aside, it's not about owing him it's about making the most out of the resources you have. Lieberman has to be considered one of the finest members of the Senate. Don't you want that guy as an ally?

I would.
Definately - one thing that Obama did very well this campaign is, it was pretty much mistake free and kept focus on what it was. I hope he keeps that up, its tough, but in the case such as this, I believe Obama can put that stuff aside and keep Lieberman in the Senate, and I hope he does if Lieberman is considered one of the finest in the Senate.

[Ronald Pagan]

Trust=vote their way every time no matter what.

That's the Reid and Pelosi way.
Oh god. Get over yourself. That's POLITICS.

[transplant99]

Im not surprised they want to boot Lieberman either. Its one thing to not support your parties/caucuses candidate, its entirely another to actively campaign with the opposition. I cant believe how many times, especially the last couple weeks, i would see McCain stump speech and there was good ole Joe over the guys shoulder.

He made his choice and now he will have to deal with it, but my own belief is that they will allow him to stay but keep him from any committee chairs.

[Ronald Pagan]

Agreed Tranny.

Lieberman made his bed now he has to lie in it.

There's nothing vindictive about it. Lieberman supported the other party. There are no rewards for supporting the loser.

Basic politics at work here.

[HOZ]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/lieberman.democrats/index.html

Obama should jump on this immediately.

He gets elected and now the idiots that run Congress want to pull something stupid like this. Absolutely shameful.


Reid and Pelosi...watch out! Careers will litter their road to domination.

[Bobblehead]

Agreed Tranny.

Lieberman made his bed now he has to lie in it.

There's nothing vindictive about it. Lieberman supported the other party. There are no rewards for supporting the loser.

Basic politics at work here.

But isn't that really part of the reason people are disillusioned with politicians?

Politicians making decisions not based on the greater good of the people who elected them, but decisions based on their own petty partisanship.

Censure him, remove some of his seniority within the party. But he should still be put on committees or in positions where his knowledge is beneficial to the USA. Heck, he may be more valuable than ever in being able to create bi-partisan support.

[ikaris]

The guy is terrible and it's great that the Democrats are wanting to get rid of him. As many have pointed out, he deserves what he gets. Obama needs people that are loyal. We've witnessed a president that has been influenced by various cronies in his administration and seen the horrific results.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

But isn't that really part of the reason people are disillusioned with politicians?

Politicians making decisions not based on the greater good of the people who elected them, but decisions based on their own petty partisanship.

Censure him, remove some of his seniority within the party. But he should still be put on committees or in positions where his knowledge is beneficial to the USA. Heck, he may be more valuable than ever in being able to create bi-partisan support.


I have a sort of unorthodox view here: it might be for the best (for the country) if Lieberman switched parties and became a Republican.

Think about it: he's hugely popular in his home state, and would singlehandedly double the size of the GOP's New England congressional delegation. He's popular in his home state, and can probably continue to win even if he changes parties.

He's a moderate, and as a Republican could oversee the resurgence of the Goldwater wing of the party, something the party desperately needs. He could shepherd the party away from being a regional, southern white party to being a national, big-tent, fiscal conservative party, which would be a very, very good thing for the GOP. Joe Lieberman could singlehandedly save the Republicans from themselves. Which in the end is good for the country--because in politics, choices are the fuel that keeps the engine running. The more regional the GOP becomes, the dumber the political discourse in the U.S. will also become.

Not to mention that Reid gets to have his witchhunt, but can still appoint Lieberman to as many committees as he wants--now as a minority member but probably a swing vote on key issues. It heads off the inevitable primary challenge, which was bound to be ugly, and solves the problem in a way that lets the Democrats have their moment of umbrage, doesn't do any lasting harm to Lieberman or the Senate, helps the GOP recover from a humiliating defeat and also begins the process of rebuilding the Republican brand post-realignment.

In other words, everybody wins!

[Flames in 07]

Im not surprised they want to boot Lieberman either. Its one thing to not support your parties/caucuses candidate, its entirely another to actively campaign with the opposition. I cant believe how many times, especially the last couple weeks, i would see McCain stump speech and there was good ole Joe over the guys shoulder.

He made his choice and now he will have to deal with it, but my own belief is that they will allow him to stay but keep him from any committee chairs.

Hey look I agree with something you say.

Being critical of your leader is one thing, it crosses the line when when he puts on a different colored jersey and starts actively pursiuting his own team to lose.

DFF, I think your are short changing people when you assume it is simple revenge. I may be that simple but how do you know? It could be that they just don't trust him, in what he says or what he does. Who wants to give responsibility to someone they cannot completely trust?

And I agree that they likely won't punt him. But I believe and hope he's on the outside fringe of the party looking in.

[Ronald Pagan]

But isn't that really part of the reason people are disillusioned with politicians?

Politicians making decisions not based on the greater good of the people who elected them, but decisions based on their own petty partisanship.

Censure him, remove some of his seniority within the party. But he should still be put on committees or in positions where his knowledge is beneficial to the USA. Heck, he may be more valuable than ever in being able to create bi-partisan support.
You have to prove that having Lieberman as a committee chair is for the greater good for me to be swayed. For every old dog Senator there is another up comer with a fresh perspective.

And arguably this is representation at its most basic. The American people repudiated the Republicans and heavily supported the democrats. Committee membership and chairs should reflect that will of the electorate.

[Azure]

I don't see it as revenge at all. They want people in their caucus that they can trust. Clearly they can't trust Lieberman.

Yes, they certainly can't trust Lieberman to tow the party line, and vote step in step with the rest of the Democrats.

Screw him for doing what HE thinks is right.

[Azure]

The problem is he made some pretty stinging comments about Obama that weren't warranted, given his party affiliation.

Poor excuse.

Obama's new chief of staff was a Hillary supporter for the longest time.

[Azure]

Only if I were sure he could be trusted as an ally which, IMO, he's proved he can't be. I'm just saying when the guy lost his Senate nomination and ran as an independent, Obama went to bat for him. Joe didn't return the favour and actually tried to help Obama lose. How can he be considered an ally after that?

Why should Lieberman return the favor? He thought McCain would make a better leader, and acted accordingly.

Whats the big deal?

[Bobblehead]

You have to prove that having Lieberman as a committee chair is for the greater good for me to be swayed. For every old dog Senator there is another up comer with a fresh perspective.

And arguably this is representation at its most basic. The American people repudiated the Republicans and heavily supported the democrats. Committee membership and chairs should reflect that will of the electorate.

And my point is that the election is OVER. I wish people would put partisanship in the closet until the next election. At this point I think the party labels should represent the general principles the politicians represent. Party labels should not be a reason to hurt the greater good.

I'm not saying he deserves a committee chair. I'm not sure where you pulled that assumption. I'm saying he should get a position he is best qualified to do, regardless of what happened during the election. I believe the phrase I am looking for is, "Cut off the nose to spite the face".

And new <> good. Fresh <> better. For that matter, experienced <> better. But at least in politics where your record frequently put to the test, to be re-elected should count for something. The electorate believes they are still doing a decent job. Sure you need fresh ideas. But you also need experience to help move those ideas along quicker. Teams need slick rookies, but they also need a few wily veterans.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Oh god. Get over yourself. That's POLITICS.

Get over myslef? Where did that come from?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hey look I agree with something you say.

Being critical of your leader is one thing, it crosses the line when when he puts on a different colored jersey and starts actively pursiuting his own team to lose.

DFF, I think your are short changing people when you assume it is simple revenge. I may be that simple but how do you know? It could be that they just don't trust him, in what he says or what he does. Who wants to give responsibility to someone they cannot completely trust?

And I agree that they likely won't punt him. But I believe and hope he's on the outside fringe of the party looking in.

I know because Pelosi and Reid have a history of polarizing actions and comments.

But evidently I need to get over myself...whatever that means...so I'll defer to the rest of you to have it out over this.

IFF, that's a good suggestion and one that very well could take place I guess. But you know the GOP is nothing but a bunch of bigots so they probably wouldn't welcome a Jew.:rolleyes:

[FlamesAddiction]

I think the bottom line is that if Lieberman doesn't agree with Democratic Party on important issues, then he really shouldn't be in the party.

I understand that it's ok to not tow the line all the time, but if you're in a political party, then you have to on fundamental issues... otherwise it is defeating the purpose. For example, I'm sure the Conservative Party in Canada wouldn't want a particular MP in their party if they continually voted with the Liberals and publicly endorsed people to vote for the Liberals in the federal election.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I think the bottom line is that if Lieberman doesn't agree with Democratic Party on important issues, then he really shouldn't be in the party.

I understand that it's ok to not tow the line all the time, but if you're in a political party, then you have to on fundamental issues... otherwise it is defeating the purpose. For example, I'm sure the Conservative Party in Canada wouldn't want a particular MP in their party if they continually voted with the Liberals and publicly endorsed people to vote for the Liberals in the federal election.

What fundamental issues does he not agree with them on?

Iraq. That's not a fundamental issue. He's a democrat, through and through, based on his belief system.

[FlamesAddiction]

What fundamental issues does he not agree with them on?

Iraq. That's not a fundamental issue. He's a democrat, through and through, based on his belief system.


I would argue that Iraq is probably the most fundamental issue facing the U.S. The defense, security, and economy of the country is directly tied to Iraq. The other would be who he wants to be President. That in itself is the baseline for every issue.

I can see if it were just isolated issues, but when he is flat out asking the public to vote for the other party, that is harmful to the party as a whole.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I would argue that Iraq is probably the most fundamental issue facing the U.S. The defense, security, and economy of the country is directly tied to Iraq. The other would be who he wants to be President. That in itself is the baseline for every issue.

I can see if it were just isolated issues, but when he is flat out asking the public to vote for the other party, that is harmful to the party as a whole.

I'll ignore the first paragraph because I don't think you and I have the same definition of fundamental issues. To me, a fundamental issue is one that defines a party and it's belief system. I don't understand how Iraq falls into that.

I understand your points (everyone) but at some point this country has got to stop polarizing and start working together for the advancement of the country. That's the main reason I voted for Obama in the first place.

Have you guys not seen from 'afar' how divisive the last 8 years has been? Is it so much to ask to freaking move on from it?

[Azure]

Have you guys not seen from 'afar' how divisive the last 8 years has been? Is it so much to ask to freaking move on from it?

No kidding. But we're beginning to see the 'its alright, as long as my party does it'....spiel all over again.

[rubecube]

Yes, they certainly can't trust Lieberman to tow the party line, and vote step in step with the rest of the Democrats.

Screw him for doing what HE thinks is right.

And the Democrats are being jerks because they're trying to protect their own party? I wouldn't put Lieberman on some kind of moral high ground for "doing what he thinks is right". Joe Lieberman is in business for himself.

As other posters mentioned, there were Republicans who were for Obama but didn't come out with nasty things to say towards McCain. Lieberman was doing his best to ensure he had a spot in McCain's cabinet. Clearly, the Democrats have recognized that Lieberman will only be with them when his ambition takes him there.

[mykalberta]

Honestly now is the time to do it. No one has a 4 year memory. Obama has already won, and won convincingly - get rid of the dead weight now IMO

[EddyBeers]

Trust=vote their way every time no matter what.

That's the Reid and Pelosi way.

Where do you even get that from that article, all they are going to do is ask Lieberman to step down from his coveted chairmanship position and caucus with the Dems as a backbench Senator. The article states that they may boot him from caucus, but other articles have stated that whether he decides to remain in caucus is his decision They may give him the chairmanship of some subcommittee is what I heard the other night.

It is Lieberman who is being ridiculous, saying that losing the chairmanship is not an option. Well it is an option, and a fair option.

[EddyBeers]

"In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party." - Lieberman (this is a bald face lie)

"when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground" - Lieberman (if this is true, he should have also stated that McCain wanted to cut off funding to the troops)

It would be tough for Reid to deal with someone who says such bald faced lies.

[mykalberta]

"In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party." - Lieberman (this is a bald face lie)



Do you have any links to back that up? Just wondering. Doesnt it seem logical that a Junior Senator likely didnt get anything significiant done with Republicans?

Also, any link on the willingness to take on the interest groups in the DNC.

I havent seen links for or against either point. I assume you do. Thank you.

[Azure]

Oh, so now throw ol' Joe under the bus too.

To hell with working across political lines. Don't like 'em? Kick them out.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Where do you even get that from that article, all they are going to do is ask Lieberman to step down from his coveted chairmanship position and caucus with the Dems as a backbench Senator. The article states that they may boot him from caucus, but other articles have stated that whether he decides to remain in caucus is his decision They may give him the chairmanship of some subcommittee is what I heard the other night.

It is Lieberman who is being ridiculous, saying that losing the chairmanship is not an option. Well it is an option, and a fair option.

Did you quote the wrong post because the text you quoted wasn't from the article it was in response to someone else's reply to me.:confused:

[Devils'Advocate]

Elizabeth May goes against her own party and says that in ridings where the Liberals could win seats then to vote for them. Wingbat.

Lieberman goes against his own party and says to vote for McCain because he doesn't think his party's candidate should win. A good politician reaching across the aisle to make democracy work.

I don't understand politics. I just don't.