Lieberman begins crawling back

I don't know too much about the CT Democratic party rules but I doubt the party allowed Lieberman to be challenged in the primary but under party rules they couldn't close the primary and under party rules they have to endorse who wins the primary. Remember that the DNC actually supported Lieberman in the CT primary and several prominent Dems including Bill Clinton and Chris Dodd publically campaigned for Lieberman.

 

I don't think it's that important whether to strip him or not.

But I will say that having Joe lose the Democratic primary wasn't the first blow. The first blow was Joe's positions and tactics and the way he handeled those prior to the Democrats challenging him for his seat in that election.

 

Lieberman on MSNBC now.

 

myopTic? Now you've crossed the line, mister!

True, but I don't think it's realistic to contend the party (either party really) can't or doesn't strongly discourage entries into some races with incumbents. Regardless, I think voting 80% of the time with the party that tried to remove you from office isn't a betrayal, it's about as good as you can expect.

 

anything said worth noting?

 

Difference between Democrats and Republicans:

A middle-of-the-road Republican spends his entire career bashing other Republicans on a variety of issues, and Republicans nominate him for President.

A relatively liberal Democrat spends 4 years bashing other Democrats on one issue, and Democrats want to banish him to irrelevancy.

 

I think it is worth being said that the more liberal components of this board wholeheartedly support Republicans breaking with and criticizing Bush but are simply flabbergasted that an independent could criticize Obama.

 

Criticiaing Obama is one thing. It's not a problem if it's done in house or is a debate ala the Dem. primary. Joe took his judas tendencies to a whole new level by actually speaking at the Republican convention. He was fully aware of the consequences.

 

The big difference here is that Chafee was a Republican holding a seat in a Democratic leaning area. If the Republicans withdrew support from Chafee he was very likely to be replaced by a Democrat (Which is what eventually happened.) Lieberman has been bucking the party and attacking Obama from while holding a seat that will likely be filled by another Democrat if he loses it.

Lieberman should be stripped of his chairmanships and he should face a strong Democratic challenger. If the Democrats are going to get anything done they need strong party discipline and that's not fostered by coddling the viper at your bosom.

 

There is a huge difference between critizing your candidate and actively campaign against your party's nominee. If he just said he support Mccain no one would have much of a problem with it.

 

Yes. Absolutely. Let him slink along without any power or publicity till he campaign against Obama's reelection.
.

 

not really. he had a meeting with Sen. Reid and said he'll take the next few days to "consider my options". also said the election is over and he's willing to work with the President-Elect.

Sen Reid also issued a statement expressing his concern about Lieberman's recent activities and emphasizing that nothing is decided.

 

That is a good point but Lieberman's not going to be up for election until 2012 and in the meantime there is going to another Congressional election where Democratic fortunes could change.

Politics is the art of compromise and to throw out another cliche makes strange bedfellows. Given that Republicans are embattled and likely to exert some serious disciplines I predict the Democrats will need Lieberman's vote sooner or later. Consider if Stevens retires from the USSC in the next year it well within the realm of possibility that Republicans will put an all out effort to block an Obama appointee. If Lieberman is caucusing with the Repubs Dems might well regret kicking him to the curb.

 

LOL What is the real story of that photo? Photoshop aside I mean.

 

Sishir, as you know, this particular issue is a big deal to me. Probably the most important issue for me in this election. I honestly believe, despite what I've said about Lieberman, that the man has enough integrity to vote for a moderate to liberal justice, either for the Supreme Court or for one of the lower courts. I'm not concerned about that at all, regardless of how this plays out.

 

I agree with Deckard's post above. Lieberman, for all his faults, is not going to cast a vote against principle, regardless of any hurt feelings or chairmanship.

There was a deal though. In fact there were a few.

The first deal was that if certain Democrats would endorse him in a tough primary race he would do all he could to elect a Democratic president. That was the premise under which he retained his chair. He broke that pledge. The second was that, even if he supported a Republican, he wouldn't argue against the Democrat and he certainly wouldn't speak at the GOP convention against the Dem nominee. He broke that too. That was the final straw.

I don't really care to punish him, I'm not out for blood. We won and I'm not looking for recriminations. I'm feeling generous.

But let's not pretend that having him in our caucus would mean anything because it wouldn't. So why let him keep a chair?

There is important work to do. And with Dems controlling Congress and the WH, we need to know that the people running these committees have the president's best interests at heart. Lieberman doesn't. And he gave up his right to his chair when he broke his promises twice over.

Reid apparently offered to let him chair a subcommittee instead and he is reportedly considering it. Fine. He can have that if he wants and if he doesn't that's okay too.

He's done in CT. He will never be elected there again, because he violated his bond of faith with the voters that elected him. In the meantime, he can be on the bus or off the bus.

But Democrats owe him nothing and he can't do us any special favors. Who caucuses with whom only matters when the votes are actually cast. Lieberman is honorable in this way at least - he won't cast a vote against his own beliefs regardless of any bitterness (I am respecting him by believing this.).

So he can stay in the caucus or leave it. I don't care. But he gave up his chair when he stood up at the GOP convention. "Elections have consequences."

And I have a hell of a lot more faith in Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (in fact, I have more in Norm Coleman) than I do in Joe Lieberman in helping to advance the agenda of our next president.

We've held his hand enough. He lost this one. Now he's on his own.

 

Possibly not but who knows what he would do if he felt very bitter towards the Democrats. For that matter if joins the Republicans he will then be under pressure from the Republicans to stay in lockstep with them since they would be wielding the stick on him.

YOu say that Lieberman has sold the Democrats out but at the same time you trust him to vote with the Democrats on critical issues. If he has sold the Democrats out so much then the last thing would be to trust him on critical issues. IMO this is one of those situations where you do what you can to keep him in the caucus where you can wield some leverage over him but make sure he doesn't get reelected in the next term.

Its understandable that Democrats feel bitter about his actions this last campaign but what he says doesn't matter to as long as his vote can be counted on. In spite of Lieberman's rhetoric and actions on the campaign trail as far as being a traitor he still doesn't compare to Zell Miller who broke one of the key party rules and voted for a Republican to be Majority leader or to Jim Jeffords who's defection actually costed the Republican's majority status. Both of them did so knowing they weren't going to run again and relatively late in their terms so either party couldn't exact much control over them but Lieberman, if he still wants to wield some power or aspires to being in office beyond his current term, still has something to lose.

 

Good luck on trusting Norm Coleman. If you look at his record while he has voted against Bush he toes the party line when it comes to major votes such as on Iraq, tax cuts and USSC appointees. As I've been saying the man is an oppurtunistic shill who has sucked up to the Bush Admin when they were popular but come 2006 when they plummet in support and Congress shifts you see him changing his colors.

there is one reason you might trust Coleman more, if he wins the recount and returns to the Senate and the Democrats actually get a lot done it wouldn't surprise me to see him switch over as that is the kind of opportunist he is.

 

I don't place any special faith in Coleman, judoka.

I only said that I trust him as much or more than Lieberman - a person who has demonstrated repeatedly he can't be trusted.

If you want to give him a third or fourth break for whatever reason, fine. But don't pretend it would be good for Democrats to do so. He's proven time and again he'll do whatever the hell he wants regardless of any promises of loyalty.

So why should we reward him with a chair? Answer: we shouldn't. And won't.

He burned that bridge, not Democrats.