Democratic leadership considering exiling Joe Lieberman

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...ats/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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]

Originally Posted by Delgar

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]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

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]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

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

Get over myslef? Where did that come from?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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?