Joe Lieberman on his way to the GOP

that is the problem with congress
they have way to many committies to do anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMadHatter

I could care less that Lieberman supported McCain during the primaries. Every politician should be entitled to do what they feel is right in their conscious.

But Lieberman went above and beyond supporting McCain. He absolutely shredded Obama Zell Miller style in the RNC convention and trashed the Democratic party as well. There was no need for that, Lieberman knew the ridiculous things he was saying about Obama were flat out wrong.

For that reason IMHO he doesn't deserve anything from the Democratic Party. He turned his back on them in a highly inappropriate way.

---

he told the country the truth
their party sucks
republican party sucks to

the third party does not but does not have enough power or money now

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wash...Lieberman.html

McCain Backer Lieberman May Keep Committee Chair

Article Tools Sponsored By
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 17, 2008

Filed at 9:19 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman appears increasingly likely to hold onto his prized chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee as he meets Tuesday with Democratic colleagues unhappy over his vocal support for GOP nominee John McCain during this year's presidential campaign.

...

Obama has reportedly told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada it would hurt the message of unity that he wants for his new administration if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus.

...

Oh Dear GOD, if he keeps the committee chair.... The heads of 96% of the progressive blogosphere will explode. Instantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMadHatter

I could care less that Lieberman supported McCain during the primaries. Every politician should be entitled to do what they feel is right in their conscious.

---

Conscience.

Sorry . . . pet peeve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I disagreed on the independent thinking part. If Joe feels something is not the right direction, such as his view on the Iraq war, he goes with it. I agree with much more of the democratic party platform as I do the republican platform but that doesn't mean I'd vote democratic all the time. The majority of the time yes. I guess I don't always make my point clear which doesn't surprise me.

---

Being for the war is one thing. Campaigning AGAINST the Democratic candidate is quite another.

He's technically not even a Democrat! He's an independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Oh Dear GOD, if he keeps the committee chair.... The heads of 96% of the progressive blogosphere will explode. Instantly.

---

...unless Obama plans on dissolving Homeland Security the department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This is true and why the democrats got rid of him! He's nobody's patsey, and thats all the democrats want. Still, he's too liberal to do any good as a republican. The republican party already needs to clean house of liberal republicans.

---

A complete self-contradiction in under 3 sentences.

Impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Again, I disagree and you are not understanding my point. I don't think "MY GUY" is doing that great if he/she cannot figure out a way to compromise and get things done. I don't give a rat's ass about party affiliation because it should not matter because the way I see it they are elected to work for us and not bitch at each other so much that nothing gets done. My point is that if a politician is more concerned about power then they are self serving politician.
Go on with your bad self.

---

Then why should you care if Lieberman gets kicked off of Dem committees? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

He votes his conscious and not always on party lines. Like we all should. But that is just my opinion.

---

whatever, this dude is an independent only in terms of which way does the wind blow.

Bernie Sanders is the only real indepedent in the Senate.

That sound you hear is the ongoing uproar in the progressive blogosphere. Lieberman keeps his chair. I don't like it, and I don't think the people of Connecticut like it and I still think Joe's days are numbered. The man is spineless but then again it looks the the Dems might be as well.

I know Obama was the driving force to keep him because until he stepped in it appeared he was going to be massacred. I hope he knows what he's doing because this fucker is a Judas as far as most progressives are concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

That sound you hear is the ongoing uproar in the progressive blogosphere. Lieberman keeps his chair. I don't like it, and I don't think the people of Connecticut like it and I still think Joe's days are numbered. The man is spineless but then again it looks the the Dems might be as well.

I know Obama was the driving force to keep him because until he stepped in it appeared he was going to be massacred. I hope he knows what he's doing because this fucker is a Judas as far as most progressives are concerned.

---

Yup.

He will be kept around until he is up for re-election. In the meantime, the knives are being sharpened.

Et tu, Brutus...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us...cs/19cong.html

Democrats Let Lieberman Keep Senate Chairmanship

By CARL HULSE and DAVID STOUT
Published: November 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, was allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday despite his support for Senator John McCain in the presidential campaign.

Democratic senators voted instead to oust Mr. Lieberman from the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he had been chairman of a subcommittee. That penalty was a slap on the wrist compared with the prospect of losing the homeland security leadership post.

"He's part of this caucus," the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said after the Democratic caucus voted behind closed doors in the old Senate chamber off the Capitol Rotunda. "We are not looking back. We are looking forward."

...

The vote was 43-12 in favor of keeping him on the committee. So, either there was no real threat (beyond vocal, harmless ones) of him losing his chairman spot, the again-realistic possibility of the Magic 60 was too strong, or Obama did an amazing job of turning the tide on a "massacre".

It was Obama's doing. It is extremely obvious that until he stepped in Leiberman was going down and he was going down in a huge fiery inferno of a wreck. The margin here is irrelevant as we all know lawmakers love to be on the "winning" side of things unless they have something to gain politically through opposition.

I don't know if I agree - Reid, even at his most critical, was still an apologist "he votes with me more often than a lot of my Senators". Perhaps Obama swung the tide, but I have no evidence that it was "obvious" that he was going down. The criticisms were generally meek and the rest was just whispers.

Well I guess there's no way we'll ever know for sure. I do think that if they didn't have a shot at 60 still today he'd be out. Then again the truth is that you always need votes in Congress, and having one less to have to worry about is never a bad thing.

I hate Lieberman though. Maybe part of it is wishful thinking, but I really believe his ass was on the way out pretty handily prior to this. The fucker said a lot of fucked up shit and it sucks that he's being allowed to get away with it. I think the people of CT will take care of business in a few years though.

Well, there are two things for sure.

1. He will not be able to run as a Democrat THIS time around either. No way in hell.

2. If he runs as an independent, he will likely get 35% or less.

Compounding those is the fact that, absent the scandal that undermined the CT Repub who was running, the Republican candidate should steal whatever leftover thunder he might have had.

I'd say his odds of winning a general election are maybe 5%. Tops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yup.

He will be kept around until he is up for re-election. In the meantime, the knives are being sharpened.

Et tu, Brutus...?

---

(whisk, whisk... the sounds of metal scraping on grindstones...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...nation/4384437

They need him for the filibuster proof caucus and that is why he was kept on, but don't think he doesn't have a giant target on his back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Well, there are two things for sure.

1. He will not be able to run as a Democrat THIS time around either. No way in hell.

2. If he runs as an independent, he will likely get 35% or less.

Compounding those is the fact that, absent the scandal that undermined the CT Repub who was running, the Republican candidate should steal whatever leftover thunder he might have had.

I'd say his odds of winning a general election are maybe 5%. Tops.

---

Technically, he ran as an independent Democrat last time. He just got alot of Republican votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I hate Lieberman though. Maybe part of it is wishful thinking, but I really believe his ass was on the way out pretty handily prior to this. The fucker said a lot of fucked up shit and it sucks that he's being allowed to get away with it. I think the people of CT will take care of business in a few years though.

---

I agree.

I can easily see the "Bachman effect" pumping up whatever Democrat is picked to run against him, and the nation bit that I posted shows that is happening already.

All the DNC has to do is pick ONE Vermont Democrat to back, and that person will have -3-4 years to raise a warchest the likes of which have not been seen for a Senate race before.

Time to buy stock in local TV affiliates in Vermont. :lol

I actually like the decision to keep Lieberman in his chairmanship for the time being, particularly if that move comes primarily at Obama's behest. While I don't think booting Lieberman would have had any real practical/political implications, Obama's general sentiment that we need more unity than division is well-served by the effort to save Lieberman. Far better to start off with embracing the recalcitrant Lieberman (and, perhaps, exacting some sort of quid pro quo for his salvation) and giving the impression of bipartisanship than to boot Lieberman in a fit of partisanship and appear to renege on a fundamental principle of the campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I actually like the decision to keep Lieberman in his chairmanship for the time being, particularly if that move comes primarily at Obama's behest. While I don't think booting Lieberman would have had any real practical/political implications, Obama's general sentiment that we need more unity than division is well-served by the effort to save Lieberman. Far better to start off with embracing the recalcitrant Lieberman (and, perhaps, exacting some sort of quid pro quo for his salvation) and giving the impression of bipartisanship than to boot Lieberman in a fit of partisanship and appear to renege on a fundamental principle of the campaign.

---

I don't think that will get any play in hardcore right-wing crowds. They'll whine about him not being bipartisan enough unless he stocks his cabinet with nothing but Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

They need him for the filibuster proof caucus and that is why he was kept on, but don't think he doesn't have a giant target on his back.

---

Having 60 Democrats in the caucus does not guarantee filibuster protection. On a lot of the "controversial" issues Senators Nelson (NE), Lincoln, Pryor and Landrieu are often on the "other" side. If the Democrats get lucky and sweep the three undecided Senate races Obama should consider appointing one of the two Senators from Maine to his cabinet. Both are considered moderate, the state has a Democratic Governor who would choose the replacement and Obama has said he would have Republicans in his cabinet. That would make Lieberman the 61st member of the caucus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

If he is all about the power then yes, he is. My point was that he didn't just bend over and follow party lines with the democrats about the war or whom he felt was the better candidate for president. As a democrat I'd fight any attempt to re-establish the fairness doctrine.

---

JoeC, Liebertwit didn't just not support Obama, he actively attacked him and campaigned for the GOP candidate. Big difference.

As it is, I think you'll be seeing and hearing from Lieberman a whole lot less now. The 60 seats thing is pretty much out the window, so Joe needs them a whole lot more than they need him. The stripping of that minor committee appointment was just the warning. If he were to actually lose the HomeSec chair down the line, he'd probably lose his seat the next election. That chairmanship enables the pork to flow to Connecticut. Without it, he's just a back bencher.