Joe "The Senator" Lieberman's future in the Democratic Party

You can take action here: (0.00 / 0)

We need to keep the grassroots pressure on, especially right now, if we're going to see any substantive positive change in our national policy.

Try making a couple phone calls using this sweet tool from FireDogLake:

---

by: Ivan Jacobs @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 13:18:28 PM CST

Hang him...hard (0.00 / 0)

It's especially important, more than anything else, that he not keep that committee chair, as he can raise a lot of unwarranted hell there. Let im go caucus with the GOP, ensuring he loses in 2010. Hell with him.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:22:42 PM CST

Important... (0.00 / 0)

Leahy is one of the group that will decide this. It's important to contact him and let him know.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:23:32 PM CST

Can't tell if it is "damning w/faint praise" (4.00 / 2)

The issue is whether Obama endorses Lieberman's bended-knee, hat-in-hand, grovel and threat bid to keep his chairmanship.

The sound of President Obama not saying anything about the Homeland Security committee Chairmanship is deafening and a signal to Democrats to boot him from the one position that gives Lieberman power in the Senate and leverage in Washington D.C.

By not expressly backing Lieberman as Chairman or mentioning the position when discussing Lieberman's plight, our President-elect is speaking at full volume to any Democratic Senator who still registers a pulse, which is almost all of them. 

"President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter said in a statement issued today. "We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."

Huh? Guess what, President-elect Obama would be happy to have Olympia Snowe or David Vitter, for that matter, "caucus" w/the Dems if it means their votes.  The ONLY issue that matters to Lieberman, however, his is chairmanship. The only issue that matters to us and to President elect Obama is denying him that chairmanship and all preventing any more of the incompetent and dangerous behavoir that came with Sen. Lieberman sitting at the head of the committee table for the past two years.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:33:17 PM CST

I'm with you. Keep your friends close... (4.00 / 1)

...and keep your enemies even closer.

Strip him of his chair and keep him reined in.  Kicking him out of the party would give him freedom to keep trashing Dems.

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 16:35:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

agreed (0.00 / 0)

If Joe L had jumped parties in 2006, nothing would have changed in DC and the Republicans would have had the majority in the Senate.  No investigations would have happened and more judges would have been approved...  but he stuck with the Dems.  Strip him of his chair for talking at the Republican Convention and for being a pro-war hawk.  

---

by: Schrodinger's Cat @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 18:38:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kick! (4.00 / 1)

I can see the wisdom in Obama's strategy -- assuming that he is NOT allowing Lieberman to keep his chairmanship: Give Lieberman the option of staying in a limited role, or quitting in a huff. But there are two very good reasons for showing Joe the door (aside from revenge, which is a considerable reason in itself):

-- You show that there is discipline in the Democratic Party, and consequences for actions such as Holy Joe's.

-- You just about ensure his defeat in his next re-election bid, and his replacement with a real Democrat.

I say, Joe should go.  

---

by: jvwalt @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 17:05:10 PM CST

Speaking of Nate's comment on trashing Dems (1.00 / 5)

If David Zuckerman won't stop maybe he should not be a chairman anymore either.  Lieberman should definitely be out.

---

by: politico @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 18:55:08 PM CST

I don't see this at all (4.00 / 2)

Lieberman deserves to take a beating not just because he attacks Democrats, but because he pretends to be one, and has shown himself to be a traitor.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 20:43:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't see the Parallel (4.00 / 2)

Zuckerman hasn't changed. Yes, he was just in a tough re-election campaign against a Dem with no substantive policy differences, but that's electoral politics. He was a Prog before he was given the chair, and he's still a Prog.

He's also been a real asset to that committee, passing every bill unanimously last session, I know his colleagues in the House expect him to continue providing that kind of solid leadership on Ag.

I really don't see the comparison between Lieberman and Zuckerman, if you want to make such an argument you should attempt to provide supporting evidence.

---

by: Ivan Jacobs @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 20:56:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ooo... (4.00 / 1)

Sharp and pointy comment, but is it really troll-worthy?

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 19:38:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought so. Entirely different if he'd said it in a thread about Zuckerman. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 20:59:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm cutting some slack since Politico just showed up two days ago. (0.00 / 0)

I respect what you're saying.  I'm thinking this is more of a first time "meh" comment, though.

Politico, it's also not uncommon for any of us to just fess up and say, "Ok, I was a little over the top on that one."  

Unlike in the real world of politics, it's ok to admit we're less than perfect here.  In fact, I think it's appreciated from time to time.

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 21:29:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a diffent take on this (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that Democrats should place Lieberman in charge of a committee which covers issues on which he broadly disagrees with the Democratic caucus.  But I have no problem with them keeping him in the party.  

I think they should give him a chairmanship on a committee in which he largely agrees with the Democrats and let him fade into the background rather than treating him as though whether or not he stays with the party is relevant.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:54:19 AM CST