They are following Obama's lead. Get used to it for the next 4 years. I'm surprised at how the whole thing has played out. Obama's willingness to let Lieberman slide caught me off-guard.
Well we know that Lieberman has no loyalty except perhaps to Israel or his fellow neo-cons. I don't know how Obama can expect Lieberman to reciprocate. Obama is doing the same thing with a lot of conservative or status quo folks. It will be interesting to see what he accomlishes by this.
Keep in mind that if Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans in this lame duck session then the Republicans are the majority in Congress. Like it or not the Democrats still need Lieberman's vote.
Unfortunately though given the issues at hand, economic collapse and the last days of the Bush administration looking to cement its legacy, this is a weak that the Democrats very much want to be in the majority and aren't willing to wait until the next Congress comes in.
What is wrong with not being loyal to a party? People argue that Obama is bi-partisan, and then argue that Lieberman is a traitor. Which do people want? People that toe the party line or people that work both sides of the coin to do what they consider in the best interest of the country?
The problem with Lieberman wasn't that he supported McCain - Hagel basically supported Obama as well. It was how he went about it. He called Obama a socialist, he subtly encouraged the Muslim rumors, and just all around was very antagonistic - everything that Hagel, for example, was not. While it started primarily on national security issues, by the end, he was basically railing against his own party platform on basically every issue - which legitimately then brings up the question, "in what way is he a Democrat, and why would he lead a committee?"
on glen beck the day or the day before the election, he agreed with beck that democrats having a filibusterer proof majority in the senate would be dangerous for the nation.
then why should the democrats give him one of the most powerful chairs? aside from the fact that they are gutless pansies.
^Then he should be cast off as an independent instead of retaining seniority seating in select Senate Committees.
The problem here is that the Dems have a majority because of the effort and votes of Democrats from all over the country. Having the majority means you get to chair the committees. Holy Joe actively worked against this and does not deserve to accrue the benefits based on the votes and hard work of Dems across America. Look at the man as he is, not how he once was, and call his bluff.
Don't you think that takes away the democracy? If you aren't a Republican or Democrat you can't have seniority seating in Senate Committees. I think that is wrong and an unjust part of the system.
This is why you should vote independent. Both major parties are full of crap and if left unchecked will be the ruination of this country.
Then why don't you move to Canada? (sorry, but I've been told this before!) If having a two party system is the "ruination of this country," then we have survived that ruination, incredibly, for most of our existence as a nation. In light of that, don't you think your statement might be seen as a tad absurd?
If you don't like it, quit whining and do something about it. Until then, this is the system we have and if anything is to get done, it has to be through this system.
