Lieberman pondering 'options' after Reid meeting

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
He's basically a traitor. He deserves to be stripped of all titles for turning his back on the Democratic Party, of which he agrees with on 90+% of the issues.

Wait, what? Because he holds a different viewpoint on who would be a better President, he is a traitor?

Lieberman went way, way beyond holding a different view on who would be a better President. The Dems (unlike the GOP) can tolerate that kind of disloyalty. Instead of campaigning for McCain as he said he would, Lieberman also campaigned for Palin and gave numerous speeches praising her. He also campaigned for the GOP underticket. In short, there was absolutely no difference between Lieberman and a rank and file GOP member.

As far as Lieberman being a "liberal" consider the source of the rating, the National Review. As a matter of fact, Lieberman hasn't been a liberal since the 1970s.

I personally doubt he will run again in 2010. He's totally burnt his bridges with the CT Democratic Party, no longer attending any functions or contributing any support in any way. I don't know the last time he was in CT, unless it was a fund raiser for McCain. In 2010 he'll be in his mid-70s and it would be a fine time for him to retire. Otherwise he will face a strong challenge for sure.

In 2006, he said he would exercise independent judgement, and he has. He said he would maintain the Dem majority in the 110th congress, and he has. He put his party before his country and stood up for the candidate he believed in.

I don't know why any of this makes people so angry. At least he was honest upfront about it, unlike Jim Jeffords who blindly switched parties months after the election.

Kick him out if you want. You're certainly entitled to. My guess is he'll want to join a (hopeful) 2012 Republican administration anyway.

It must be rather liberating for him, though, not to have to deal with this kind of bullshit.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I doubt very much Reid went so far as to threaten to expel Lieberman from the Dem caucus. Joe's talk of leaving probably has to do with a threatened stripping of his chairmanships. What did he expect after going way, way beyond supporting McCain?

Fern-if Joe wasn't a Dem when he was campaigning for McCain, Palin and the GOP underticket, why should he get the privileges of being a Dem now?

He's getting what he deserved. I don't know how that makes him a traitor.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-
Fern-if Joe wasn't a Dem when he was campaigning for McCain, Palin and the GOP underticket, why should he get the privileges of being a Dem now?

I still think the ambassadorship to Israel is the best solution for all.

I don't really know the answer to that. Before they needed him to keep their slim majority, now they don't.

Ambassador?

I see many asking why would he stay around in the Senate in a mostly do-nothing job, so he should become an Ambassador. Cripes, I can't think of a more do-nothing job than ambassador. And talk about dropping out of sight', we hardly ever see our ambassadors. I doubt most people could name any.

I suspect begining back in 2006 he could see this coming one way or another. He's out-of-step with the Dems on Iraq and ME policy and knowing they'd likely get a pretty good majority in 2008 he'd be less useful to them. He may have thought his only shot was with his buddy McCain. Might really have been the only card he had to play.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
"Traitor", throw him out etc?

Gotta love that those who've been complaining of Bush's "my way or the highway" have shown themselves to be that which they dislike.

Joe wasn't a Dem while campaigning with McCain; I don't see how he can reasonably be called a traitor or how the Dems should expect any type of loyalty; the guy is technically an independant.

I see no reason for him to caucus with the Repubs. As far as Repubs go, I think Joe is more valuable to them as a *Dem*. He'll take up one of their seats on a committee and might vote with the Repubs. If he's listed as a Repub, he'll just be taking up some other Repub's seat.

Fern

If the Democrats shouldn't expect any loyalty from Lieberman, why should he expect any loyalty from the Democrats? After all, as you said he's not one of them. The chairmanships are at the sole discretion of the ruling party, if you actively campaign to defeat the ruling party, you shouldn't be shocked when they no longer want to give one to you.

Or are you really arguing that members of a caucus should be able to willfully work against the interests of that caucus without any repercussions?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-
Fern-if Joe wasn't a Dem when he was campaigning for McCain, Palin and the GOP underticket, why should he get the privileges of being a Dem now?

I still think the ambassadorship to Israel is the best solution for all.

I don't really know the answer to that. Before they needed him to keep their slim majority, now they don't.

Ambassador?

I see many asking why would he stay around in the Senate in a mostly do-nothing job, so he should become an Ambassador. Cripes, I can't think of a more do-nothing job than ambassador. And talk about dropping out of sight', we hardly ever see our ambassadors. I doubt most people could name any.

I suspect begining back in 2006 he could see this coming one way or another. He's out-of-step with the Dems on Iraq and ME policy and knowing they'd likely get a pretty good majority in 2008 he'd be less useful to them. He may have thought his only shot was with his buddy McCain. Might really have been the only card he had to play.
Fern

This I agree with. He was campaigning for a place in McCain's cabinet if McCain won. He definitely saw the writing on the wall. Even if the Democrats didn't boot him out, he is unlikely to be elected again in Conn. He had to find another line of work, post haste.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

If the Democrats shouldn't expect any loyalty from Lieberman, why should he expect any loyalty from the Democrats? After all, as you said he's not one of them. The chairmanships are at the sole discretion of the ruling party, if you actively campaign to defeat the ruling party, you shouldn't be shocked when they no longer want to give one to you.

I don't think I've posted anywhere that he should continue to have his chair(s)?

My point is the hypocrisy of so many posters, complaining about "my way or the highway" stuff and then turning around and fully endorsing it now.


Or are you really arguing that members of a caucus should be able to willfully work against the interests of that caucus without any repercussions?

Tough question. I think politicians should put country above party. If he sincerely thought he was doing that, to *punish* him strikes me as petty. But then I'm of the opinion that a lot of politics is petty.

Personally, I'd prefer they handle their jobs more professionally and put the best people for the job in committee assignments instead of using them as rewards. But no use in holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

See bolded

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

If the Democrats shouldn't expect any loyalty from Lieberman, why should he expect any loyalty from the Democrats? After all, as you said he's not one of them. The chairmanships are at the sole discretion of the ruling party, if you actively campaign to defeat the ruling party, you shouldn't be shocked when they no longer want to give one to you.

I don't think I've posted anywhere that he should continue to have his chair(s)?

My point is the hypocrisy of so many posters, complaining about "my way or the highway" stuff and then turning around and fully endorsing it now.


Or are you really arguing that members of a caucus should be able to willfully work against the interests of that caucus without any repercussions?

Tough question. I think politicians should put country above party. If he sincerely thought he was doing that, to *punish* him strikes me as petty. But then I'm of the opinion that a lot of politics is petty.

Personally, I'd prefer they handle their jobs more professionally and put the best people for the job in committee assignments instead of using them as rewards. But no use in holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

See bolded

Fern

A fundamental part of accomplishing a shared agenda for a party is party discipline. If you don't act collectively, most times all that happens is you flail around in a dozen different directions and fail to get anything done. How can you enforce discipline if people in your caucus are allowed to actively campaign for its defeat? Punishing wayward members IS putting country before party, because without any discipline Congress would be chaos.

As far as putting the 'best person' in the chairmanships, how are you determining who is the 'best'? Since Congress is where the rules come from, and the rules are generally based on ideology, everyone's concept of who is the best will be different. You could say they should put knowledgeable people in the chairmanships, but they already do that. There are a large number of people on the HS committee that are as knowledgeable as Lieberman on these issues.

These just seem like strange distinctions to draw, and they don't really seem to mesh with a well functioning congress. It's not 'my way or the highway', it's 'actively work to defeat your caucus and face the consequences within it'. It's just like everywhere else in society. If you work for a company but take a few months off to help their competitor out, don't be shocked if your desk isn't waiting for you when you get back.

 

[Mani]

Leiberman's going to end his own career if he caucuses with the GOP. He stuck around in 2006 because he was seen as a democrat with an independent streak. Connecticut won't care much for him once he goes public as a republican, and he knows it. The dude has zero negotiating leverage right now.

The dems will likely kick him on his ass. It's one thing to cross over on endorsing a candidate. It's altogether another to do so as publicly as he did and take part in the trashing of his own party's candidate in the republican convention. The guy has to be a complete moron to expect the dems to simply forgive and forget.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Mani
Leiberman's going to end his own career if he caucuses with the GOP. He stuck around in 2006 because he was seen as a democrat with an independent streak. Connecticut won't care much for him once he goes public as a republican, and he knows it. The dude has zero negotiating leverage right now.

The dems will likely kick him on his ass. It's one thing to cross over on endorsing a candidate. It's altogether another to do so as publicly as he did and take part in the trashing of his own party's candidate in the republican convention. The guy has to be a complete moron to expect the dems to simply forgive and forget.

Right now Joe is probably considering retiring when his term is over. If he runs again, he will probably lose because the Dems are going to target him and pour huge dollars into CT to beat him. So, this is his swan song. Actually, more like a dive....

-Robert

 

[Rainsford]

I think our system of government should put party above country when it comes to matters that affect the country, so I don't think Lieberman's position in the Senate should be at risk because he endorsed the other party's candidate...trying to expel him, as others have suggested, is ridiculous.

On the other hand, it would be silly to pretend that our government isn't structured around party as well as country. When Republicans are in control of the Senate, they give chairmanships to their fellow Republicans. This isn't "punishing" the Democrats, this is just how the system works. Similarly, Lieberman has effectively become a Republican in all but name, and I don't think it's unreasonable to treat him that way. Party loyalty shouldn't be the only thing Senators take into account when making decisions, but given that our system is structured the way it is, it should be at least considered. Republicans are, for the most part, loyal to their party, so it would be stupid of Democrats not to try to encourage the same thing.

I might reconsider if Lieberman seemed to be a good guy who was following his own path. But I think it was far more cynical and calculating than that. He's hugely liberal on almost all issues except defense, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for him to endorse McCain. However, given his stance on defense, he's not a popular Democrat (although popular enough to caucus with them), so his chances of being anything more than a Senator in the Obama administration are pretty small. But everyone loves someone who switches sides, so despite his liberal stances, he's semi-popular with Republicans. Enough so that his high profile support of McCain was probably intended as a way to secure a job of some sort in a McCain administration. He wasn't putting country before party, which would be admirable, he was putting himself before both of them...which is something I think is despicable and should at least result in him fading into irrelevancy.

 

[zoiks]

Joe is probably thinking that he'll be able to run as the Reps nominee for president.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

The Dems should immediately strip him of his chairmanship, not so much because he betrayed them in the most egregious way, but because he failed to uphold the responsibilities of his chairmanship: He gave the Executive carte blanche to consistently undermine the Constitution of the U.S. at every turn.
THAT is why he should be fired. When he should have been acting as a firewall to Bush and his band of Neo Cons- who were busy running roughshod over nearly every Democratic precept we hold dear- he simply let them do it with impunity.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...a way to secure a job of some sort in a McCain administration....

Its been widely circulated that he was on the short list for potential VP's, and recently reported in Newsweek that he was McCain's first choice for VP until the idea was shot down by McCain's senior advisers the day before the republican convention.

Newsweek, you are on page 2, scroll down

No one is calling for his expulsion, simply a reduction in of his rank. In this thread 1 person mentioned the rules for expulsion, not a call to expel.

The dude is too much of an attention whore to join the minority party, and there is no way in hell the Republicans would offer him a leadership position, although I would love to be wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
The Dems should immediately strip him of his chairmanship, not so much because he betrayed them in the most egregious way, but because he failed to uphold the responsibilities of his chairmanship: He gave the Executive carte blanche to consistently undermine the Constitution of the U.S. at every turn.
THAT is why he should be fired. When he should have been acting as a firewall to Bush and his band of Neo Cons- who were busy running roughshod over nearly every Democratic precept we hold dear- he simply let them do it with impunity.

I can't argue with that, at all.

Add the fact that he's added insult to injury repeatedly wrt Dems to round out the picture.

His chairmanship is basically gone, and he may end up tossed out of the Dem caucus, as well. He won't win again in Conn, either.

He'd have to grovel magnificently for it to be any other way, which seems unlikely.

If there's such a thing as a fatal miscalculation, he's made it...

 

[Lemon law]

Lieberman only won his reelection bid as an independent due to a total fluke, the GOP candidate was a total Turkey, had a gambling addiction, and not even Republicans would vote for him.

If Lieberman is crazy enough to think he has a chance of running for Senate again when his term expires in 2012, age is the number one factor against him. He was born in 2/1942, which made him 66 when he ran in 2006, he will be 70 in 2012, and in many minds, that is too old. Pair that with the fact that he will have a hard time getting the democratic nomination in CT., the fact that the Repubs are unlikely to run a patsy again,
and the fact that CT. is a solidly democratic blue State makes another Lieberman independent run very dubious.

Defaulting back to the question of which party Lieberman's best chances of reelection in 2012 lie in. If Joe even will try to run for reelection in 2012. One thing for sure, McCain is politically dead as he is now way too old and will be blamed for the loss in 2008 by a large part of the GOP.

If Lieberman jumps ship to the GOP, the dems will probably slaughter him in any future Senate race, if he stays with the democrats he has four years to worm his way back into good graces, but I suspect any future Palin Lieberman Presidential ticket is a real pie in the sky speculation. And not only pie in the sky, but Lieberman would, IMHO, be a fool to burn his bridges behind him by making any decisions prematurely. Lieberman always retains the threat to jump ship, he is better off taking his lumps for now, and waiting to see how the winds of change are blowing. As it is, if the dems can manage to pick off the Senate races in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia, Lieberman gets right back into the drivers seat with the critical swing vote. And if Obama starts to lose popularity as year one or two of his Presidency goes into history, a Lieberman GOP switch is far safer and more earth shaking. But if Obama does well, a Lieberman defection to the GOP is going to be the fool play of the century.

And then the only Lieberman future will be like a white J.C. Watts, someone to parade out for a few days at every GOP convention, and then to be packed away and stored in the prop room for four more years.

 

[chess9]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...collins.html?th&emc=th

"Still, there is a fine line between good sportsmanship and being played for a sucker. I am thinking of McCain?s other BFF, Senator Joseph Lieberman, who not only endorsed the Republican ticket and spoke at the Republican convention but also said, in the course of the campaign, that unlike McCain, Obama did not always put his country first. Since Lieberman is part of the Senate Democratic caucus, all this is not normal like squirrels climbing trees. It?s more like squirrels breaking into your house and setting fire to the sofa.

On the other hand, the most Lieberman accomplished with months and months of nonstop campaigning was to push McCain support in his home state of Connecticut to 38 percent. Treachery is bad, but inept treachery is easier to get over. Since Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, needs the vote, you could understand him telling Lieberman that he?s still welcome.

Lieberman, however, apparently is demanding that he also be allowed to keep his chairmanship of the homeland security committee. CNN reported that he turned down appointments to less prestigious posts and went home to mull his options. I know what you?re wondering, but Lieberman did not promise to drown himself if Connecticut failed to go for John McCain."

-Robert

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's time for Change, and Lieberman does not constitute a new beginning but more of the same old antics. It's time to take out the trash.

fixed

You sound more and more like Bush everyday.

To paraphrase from Men in Tights:
"Unlike our President, I speak in complete sentences"

I personally don't like Lieberman. I'd rather listen to someone scratching their fingernails on a blackboard then his whiney voice, but like it or not he is still a duly elected Senator with a lot of senority.

So much for non-partisan politics if the Dems can't even get along with a fellow liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I personally don't like Lieberman. I'd rather listen to someone scratching their fingernails on a blackboard then his whiney voice, but like it or not he is still a duly elected Senator with a lot of senority.

So much for non-partisan politics if the Dems can't even get along with a fellow liberal.

This board is so starved for news and information that 4 days after a new election it's already covered with predictions for an entire congressional term and an entire presidency based off the selection of a chief of staff and Lieberman getting into trouble. (something everyone knew would happen after the election anyway)

 

[Jhhnn]

Lieberman is toast. He'll take what the Dems give him, and like it, or end up with even less. He made his own choices, and now he gets to live with the results.

Personal responsibility, remember?

 

[Thump553]

According to an article in this morning's Hartford Courant, much of which is based on an interview with Dodd, the thinking is Reid proposed to strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security chairmanship but offered one or two lesser committee chairmanships as consolation. Even that light slap on the wrist is apparently not acceptable to Righteous Joe. No sources named, but I strongly suspect they have the story right. Lieberman himself has been a prime source for that paper for several decades.

I'm disgusted if that is all they are going to do. I'm not out for revenge, but no way Leberman should be considered one of the leaders of the Democratic Party after actively campaigning for Palin and the GOP downticket. Campaigning for McCain is tolerable if that is where his heart really was, but the rest is totally unexcusable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
According to an article in this morning's Hartford Courant, much of which is based on an interview with Dodd, the thinking is Reid proposed to strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security chairmanship but offered one or two lesser committee chairmanships as consolation. Even that light slap on the wrist is apparently not acceptable to Righteous Joe. No sources named, but I strongly suspect they have the story right. Lieberman himself has been a prime source for that paper for several decades.

I'm disgusted if that is all they are going to do. I'm not out for revenge, but no way Leberman should be considered one of the leaders of the Democratic Party after actively campaigning for Palin and the GOP downticket. Campaigning for McCain is tolerable if that is where his heart really was, but the rest is totally unexcusable.

There's also a huge difference between positively campaigning for a guy you genuinely think would do the best job, and trashing your own caucus' nominee with some really slimy attacks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Joe's got a helluva opinion of himself, that's for sure. He's begging for a smackdown, and has been ever since he turned independent.

Dems needed him over the last 2 years, and acted accordingly. He returned the favor by campaigning for the other side, speaking ill of the Dems' now successful candidates.

To think that there will be no repercussions for that is delusional. If he hadn't figured on that going in, he'll figure it out rather shortly.

Reid has already told him that it doesn't have to be double or nothing, but Lieberman is apparently going all in on a busted hand of cards...

 

[SP33Demon]

We all saw what flipflopping got Bob Barr. Nader received more votes this election. Good luck Joe, you'll need it.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The main issue is not that Lieberman campaigned for McCain, but rather that he campaigned against Obama, purposefully mischaracterizing his position on Israel in order to inflame Jewish-American suspicions. If he had limited himself to simply serving as a character witness for John McCain, he'd be fine now. Its ironic that exit polls show Obama got 78% of the jewish vote anyway

And to all the people who will inevitably say that this shows Democratic intolerance for dissent, the Democrats dissent all the time without recrimination, but you don't attack your own party's presidential nominee. And this is AFTER Obama stood by Lieberman in the Connecticut 2006 race. It's the height of ingratitude.

The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

 

[seemingly random]

Lieberman's actions are not much different from a spouse who has strayed and is seeking a welcome return - as if nothing of any consequence has occurred.