Is Lieberman being thrown under the bus?

[Viking Prince]

An Embrace of Lieberman? Not Exactly.

The political status of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut was indefinite on Thursday after he met with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, to discuss Mr. Lieberman’s support of Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for president.

conrinued:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mr. Lieberman, a one-time Democrat who became an independent, could be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Although neither he nor Mr. Reid addressed that issue after their meeting, the Associated Press reported later that an aide to Mr. Reid said the majority leader was considering having Lieberman removed.

“I’m thinking about what my options are,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Mr. Reid issued a statement notably lacking in warmth in which he called the meeting “the first of what I expect to be several conversations.”
“No decisions have been made,” Mr. Reid said. “While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps.”

Connecticut Democrats are scheduled to meet on Dec. 17 to decide whether the state party should censure Mr. Lieberman, the A.P. said.
Mr. Lieberman and the Senate’s other independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, vote with the Democratic caucus on most occasions and have given the Democrats what amounts to a 51-to-49 majority. With three races still undecided, the new Senate is certain to have gained at least six more Democrats, so Mr. Lieberman’s vote will not be as important to the Democrats’ hold on control.

Mr. Lieberman has ridden a remarkable roller-coaster, politically speaking. As Vice President Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, he came close to being elected vice president on the Democratic ticket. But he lost the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006, in large part because of his support for the war in Iraq. Then, with some of his former Democratic colleagues probably wishing he would fade away peacefully, Mr. Lieberman won re-election as an independent.

Mr. Lieberman’s split with his former party seemed all but complete with his support this year for Mr. McCain, and the speculation that Mr. McCain seriously considered naming him as his running mate.

The man is truly a Democrat. There is no reason for the Republicans to take him into party causus discusions and votes.

Two questions:

1) Should the Democrats kick him out for supporting McCain and the Iraq war effort?

2) If Reid does this, what chance is there of any attempt to "reach across the aisle" for any legislation compromises?

[Winter]

I live in his state, Connecticut, and I can tell you that support for him has evaporated after his endorsement of and campaign for McCain. Most people I've talked to consider him a snake, and the local news has run stories about how his constituents aren't happy with him at all. It doesn't matter if he's stripped of his chairmanships in reality because in four years he won't be around to make use of them.

That said, I support any measure of punitive action against him. If he still wants to pretend he's a Democrat he doesn't get to go around campaigning for the opposing party's candidate.

[Plebeian]

The Democrats should not trample him, rather take him off more important committees and place him on less important ones. It's very short-sighted to bruise the man that could potentially be the tie-breaker you need. Democrats will one day need him again, remember Clinton came in with practically similar Congressional results too and two years later the Republicans surged back.

Also, can you blame Lieberman that much? He ran with Gore and then when they lost and he decided to run for the Democrat's nomination he was abandoned by Gore. In his own Senate race the Democrats abandoned him for another candidate. You can't blame the man for being a little angry over his own party's treatment of him.

[Fabolous]

I live in his state, Connecticut, and I can tell you that support for him has evaporated after his endorsement of and campaign for McCain. Most people I've talked to consider him a snake, and the local news has run stories about how his constituents aren't happy with him at all.

Yeah, he is a snake because he backed the other guy. Even though his own party didn't support him two years before in the primary, and he still had the strength and courage to win his Senate seat regardless. But then he soldiers on the good Democrat despite their abandonment of him, gives them the Senate majority and all, but then despite this great service to them, when he supports his closest friend for the Presidency, he is a snake.

That makes sense.

It doesn't matter if he's stripped of his chairmanships in reality because in four years he won't be around to make use of them.

That is what everyone said two years ago.

That said, I support any measure of punitive action against him. If he still wants to pretend he's a Democrat he doesn't get to go around campaigning for the opposing party's candidate.

Yeah, because the Senate isn't about considered decision making effecting the entire country, but about a mob mentality and groupthink. How dare a Senator not agree with his party on something. Terrible. Just terrible.

[Winter]

Lieberman wasn't abandoned, he lost a very close primary. He should have gracefully stepped aside and let Lamont win the election. Hell, he probably could have run for governor or congressman later on and won. But no, like a child he couldn't give up and formed his third party with which he basically held the democrats hostage in the Senate for two years. His vote was the only reason he was allowed to continue this ridiculous charade of being a Democrat while campaigning for McCain!

Were the Dems at the 60 vote filibuster margin with Lieberman, I have no doubt they would have kept him on. But with them a few votes short anyway it is better for the party to cut this snake loose and wait for the midterm elections to pick up a few more seats.

[André Masséna]

Speaking of childish.

So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama. I guess that makes him a liability. Even though he still votes on the left side of the issues.

Wasn't it the Democratic Candidate, Obama, the one talking about bridging the gaps and working on both sides of the aisle? Yeah, so when Lieberman actually does it...it's bad? Ironic....or hypocritical. I can't decide.

[Oglethorpe1983]

WOW...The Oba-Rei-Osi world is such so warm and tingly....

I mean to threaten to remove the chairmanship of a senior member of Congress just because he disagrees with you occassionally... I guess this is that CHANGE were hearing all about

[Winter]

Speaking of childish.

So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama. I guess that makes him a liability. Even though he still votes on the left side of the issues.

Wasn't it the Democratic Candidate, Obama, the one talking about bridging the gaps and working on both sides of the aisle? Yeah, so when Lieberman actually does it...it's bad? Ironic....or hypocritical. I can't decide.

Lieberman abandoned us. We sent him to Washington to work with the Democrats, not go on some cross country adventure trying to get a Republican elected! He forgot why he was there and he deserves to go.

Hell, that's why he lost the 2006 primary.

[John I Tzimisces]

Speaking of childish.

So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama. I guess that makes him a liability. Even though he still votes on the left side of the issues.

Wasn't it the Democratic Candidate, Obama, the one talking about bridging the gaps and working on both sides of the aisle? Yeah, so when Lieberman actually does it...it's bad? Ironic....or hypocritical. I can't decide.

From the position of someone actually from CT, the blowhard is too busy running for president and misrepresenting himself to his constituency in order to get votes in a blue state to do us any good. Someone get rid of this snake.

[ZaPPPa]

So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama.

Not backing someone or actively backing the opponent are totally different things, even you know that.

[Mímirswell]

So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama. I guess that makes him a liability. Even though he still votes on the left side of the issues.

How about the fact that Obama publicly supported Lieberman in the 2006 campaign while the rest of the party had abandoned him due to his position on the war?

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Joe even said this at the time about Obama:

As far as I'm concerned [Barack Obama] is a 'Baruch,' which means a blessing. He is a blessing to the United States Senate, to America, and to our shared hopes for better, safer tomorrows for all our families. The gifts that God has given to Barack Obama are as enormous as his future is unlimited. As his mentor, as his colleague, as his friend, I look forward to helping him reach to the stars and realize not just the dreams he has for himself, but the dreams we all have for him and our blessed country

But when Obama did "reach to the stars", Lieberman abandoned him and joined McCain. So even when he was explicitly told by Harry Reid that he could back John McCain at the Republican Convention but he could not attack Obama, Lieberman broke the promise, exclaiming (among other things) at the Republican Convention: "..when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground..", a clear misrepresentation of what occurred in the Senate and intended to smear Obama. In truth, Obama opposed a rider attached to the bill but supported the bill itself, he was voting against it to defeat the bill so he could endorse it later without the rider. Or how about his response "That's a good question" when asked if Obama was "a Marxist" by Napolitano of Fox News.

If the party cannot count on your support for a man the whole heartily backed you when you were down, you do not deserve the support of your party.

[Каие]

Speaking of childish. So the guy has a conscience and didn't want to back Barack Obama. I guess that makes him a liability. Even though he still votes on the left side of the issues.

I am getting echoes of the GOP and Colin Powell.

[André Masséna]

Yet he won his seat anyway. Boo bi-partisanship.

[Winter]

@ Andre

You don't live in CT so I wouldn't expect you understand CT politics, but generally when you loose your party's primary you honor your initial pledge to stand aside, and not do everything in your power to destroy not only your party's senate candidate but their presidential candidate as well.

To be honest I don't mind if Lieberman tries to remain in the Senate, just as long as he stops pretending he supports the Democrats. He's a liar, and he needs to tell his constituents the truth for once.

[Viking Prince]

@ Andre

You don't live in CT so I wouldn't expect you understand CT politics, but generally when you loose your party's primary you honor your initial pledge to stand aside, and not do everything in your power to destroy not only your party's senate candidate but their presidential candidate as well.

To be honest I don't mind if Lieberman tries to remain in the Senate, just as long as he stops pretending he supports the Democrats. He's a liar, and he needs to tell his constituents the truth for once.

I also do not live in CT, but I seem to recall the entire kick Lieberman off the ballot was soley due to his vocal support of the war. Those who worked towards his primary defeat had stated their intention was to set an example for other Democrats that were also supporting the war effort.

I could be wrong, but that is my recollection.

Back to the reason for posting the thread -- If Reid pulls Leiberman, is this sending a message to other centrist Democrats that they risk excommunication from the table of Reid? What happens when the Republicans take back 50% of the Senate -- my guess is that the centrists will change party affiliation and not risk the fate of Lieberman.

[Jaguar Paw]

I think rank and file Democrats, like myself, think he has crossed the line and should be drummed out, but in reality I don't suppose he will be.

[André Masséna]

Your partisanship makes me laugh.

[Finn]

It would be silly of the Dems to take away his Chairmanship. Just because the Democrats now have a large majority, it doesn't mean that in 4-6 years things will be the same. More than likely the GOP will regain some of their lost seats, and Lieberman's vote will be a valuable commodity once again.

[Major.Stupidity]

Your partisanship makes me laugh.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Your partisanship makes me laugh.

Says the kettle to the pot.