I don't know what he gains caucusing with the GOP as that automatically leads to him being stripped of his chairmanships. The best he can do is ranking minority member and there are probably quite a few Republicans ahead of him who want that position.
They should talk to him and see where his head is, maybe we can use him to push through legislation, but they should put him on probation.
Hayes, what would be dumb would be assuming he didn't know what he was doing or what the probable consequences would be. If Lieberman honestly believed he could tour the country applauding McCain, always being over his shoulder shaking his fist and grinning, do everything he could to defeat the Democratic candidate for President, address the GOP Convention and speak ill of Senator Obama, and then simply walk back into the Senate chamber and assume his Democratic seniority, the guy was either demented, delusional, or so filled with hubris that he couldn't imagine he could get slapped for his actions. Honestly, if he isn't stripped of his seniority, I'll be shocked. Stunned. Perplexed. Really!
He isn't crawling back, he said he will support Obama, as many politicians have said they would. He doesn't follow exactly the democrats way and gets flamed for it. Amazing how the Democrats just try and use this guy.
I agree. They're ready to toss him aside now that they don't need him anymore. I think the Dems and Obama should just suck it up and play nice. They got what they wanted this election, there's no need to be petty now.
To be fair, even the most progressive Jewish senators (Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold) are unabashed Israel supporters. EDIT: I'll add that Al Franken would be too if he were elected.
Lieberman sided with Democrats about 80% of the time on issues where there was contention. You don't throw that away to "punish" someone. That's just dumb. I'm sure they'll reach some compromise - maybe let him keep his subcommitte chairs. The gains in the Senate are great but not filibuster proof. On many issues having Lieberman will help in recruiting the few numbers needed to make legislation decisions despite large GOP resistance.
If the Democrats strip him of his chairmanships then he has nothing to lose caucusing with Republicans. I think HayesStreet has a point and it might not be a good idea for the Democrats to completely alienate Lieberman. While the Democrats will have a big lead in the Senate getting to 60 is impossible. The Republicans as an embattled minority will try to use every stalling tactic available to them and the Democrats will still need Lieberman to break fillibusters and shore up other close votes. Also since Lieberman still has four years on his term there is no guarentee that the Democrats will hang onto their huge lead in 2010. Lieberman might be needed then to just maintain the majority.
Consider though that Lincoln Chafee voted against Bush in 2004 and voted with the Democrats on most issues and frequently spoke out against the Bush Admin and the Republican agenda yet in 2006 the Republicans still supported him and there was no talk of stripping him of his chairmanships or committee assignments. Individual senators even without chairmanships still wield a fair amount of power and that power shouldn't be discarded lightly.
Wellstone supported Israel but he also criticized them too regarding the treatment of Palestinians. I'm not aware if Lieberman has criticized Israel at all.
Look, Democrats can't trust Lieberman. He's proved that they shouldn't by his own actions. There are actual, hardworking Democratic senators who deserve promotion. If Lieberman is in their way, it would be a travesty to allow that to happen, in my opinion. And I'll add this. If Lieberman has any personal integrity, whether he is or is not in the Democratic caucus won't affect his vote on social issues. If it does, then he deserves whatever he gets anyway. He would be a hypocrite.
Umm, I tend to think Wellsone's call for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem had much more significant impact than the cookie-cutter criticism he had for Israel on US-Palestine relation.
Sure they can't trust him which is why in a term when you know the Republicans are going to be blocking a lot of stuff you hold Lieberman's chairmanships as stick to keep him in line. Whether he spoke at the RNC or campaigned for McCain those aren't that important if he continues to vote with the Democrats, especially breaking filibusters. If you strip him of his chairmanships now then there is nothing holding him back from voting with the Republicans even out of spite. If the Democrats really want to punish Lieberman they should work to get him defeated in the next election.
I think it's probably important to remember that the party allowed Lieberman to be challenged by his own party for his own seat in CT, so if you're big on "trust" then you'd have to agree he didn't strike the first blow. I'm also a little suprised that you'd consider someone untrustworthy and without integrity for supporting the position they felt was the correct choice. Most unlike to you demand blind alliegance. Ultimately, it isn't practical to "punish" him by cutting off the proverbial nose to spite the face. Better to have someone voting 80% Democrat than 100% Republican.
Hayes, did you read my earlier post? Lieberman promised not to attack Obama during his speech at the GOP convention. He wasn't "forbidden" under threat of losing his seniority from speaking there. Lieberman said he would honor his promise. He did not. Lieberman lied. And I certainly don't expect "blind allegiance" from any member of Congress, from any party. If anything, I think you are being a bit myoptic in regards to my posts in this thread.
