Printable View
Joe Lieberman is apparently going to be punished today by the democratic party for supporting John McCain during the election.
Seems a bit ridiculous to me to 'punish' someone for expressing their beliefs. Last I checked this was a free country and Lieberman was an independant. What are everyone elses thoughts on this?
Lieberman penalty expected today - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
I also think it's wrong, and goes against the very nature of what I consider a 'liberal' to be. Tolerance for other beliefs and views is important, and if Senator Lieberman truly felt that supporting the Republican candidate was the right thing to do, and he did not break any laws in doing it, the Democratic party is completely in the wrong here.
I am a Democrat myself by the way. And I do NOT support this action.
Well the Democrats are in control and they can basically do whatever they want. They aren't being very fair, but that's normal in politics.
the dems should have kicked him out long ago...i'm sure the republicans would gladly adopt him...they could use a mascot
"revenge is a dish...best served cold"
Lieberman was caucasing with republicans. He should just be kicked out of the party, but not punished in the senate for his actions.
By the way, I think Lieberman is a punk for a lot of what he said and did.
Liberman is not in the democratic party. He is an independant and was before he endorsed McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I read somewhere that Obama was not inclined to punish Lieberman for the sake of bipartisanship. There's lie #1 and he hasn't started his term!
Obama hasn't punished him, so how can that be a lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
He ran as an independent for his senate seat, Daihashi, but he wanted to come back to the Democratic party after the election.
Democrats have been upset with Lieberman since 2006, when he lost in the senate primaries so ran as an independent and won. It's not just because he spoke at the Republican National Convention and said things like "After all, what's a democrat like me doing at the RNC?"
Apparently, the democrats are letting him back in to the party and he's been very apologetic so it looks like the democrats solved this issue amicably. Not sure how I feel about it after what he said during the campaign but it's not my choice to make.
Lieberman's only been an independent for 2 years, Daihashi. The rest of his career was with the big D next to his name.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Again.. Lieberman was not part of the Democrat party when he endorsed McCain. So why are they punishing him?Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Secondly, why does endorsing a candidate of another party make you worthy of punishment?
Personally I think Lieberman is kind of a scumbag. He's the type of person who sits on the fence and waits to see which side comes out on top. I can almost 100% guarantee that if Republicans win the election next time around Leiberman will be a Rep so fast your head will spin. Or at the very least an independent. Someone mentioned it before that he ran as an Independent after he didnt get elected as a Democrat. Tells me that he'd rather win at any cost than really get anything done.
If this were the headline on a British newspaper then we would all expect it to mean the said politician had been caught in flagrante delicto during a sado-masochistic practice. :D :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
The question was whether or not they'll let him back as a member of the Democratic party. All they could really do to punish him is take him off the committee he was on, which they didn't do. Why are you still so uptight about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
And, to your second point, it's because he went against the party while he was an independent, so why should they let him back? Personally, I think he should have stayed as an independent or gone to the RNC, but apparently the democrats really want to hit that magic number of 60 in the Senate.
First off, the DNC pussy-footed around this issue considering that joe kept his coveted chairmanship. I'm a progressive dem, so this enrages me for a number of reasons.
a) Lieberman wouldn't have gone over the fence, regardless of his threats. He votes with the dems on a majority of issues, its only on important things such as the Iraq war and investigating Katrina that he's been in W's pocket. Any time George wanted to reach across the aisle, there was Joe. Remember? http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_...9_o-727655.jpg
Be honest with yourself, if he switched parties, would the repub's put up with him bucking the party line like he has? Not a chance.
b) he's not a democrat. When defeated by Ned Lamont in the democratic primary (no small feat, look it up), he ran as an Independent. Now, when the country is obviously looking for change from the last 8 years, why would you continue to allow a bush stooge to chair one of the most important committees in the senate. Add in point A, and the fact that he has the gall to threaten his supposed party if they don't comply with his demands, and this forms the recipe for compliance.
c) he actively campaigned against the party. When the McCain/Palin rallies were hitting their lowest, most racist moments, there was Joe standing with them on stage lashing out against Obama. Not just did he fight the democrats in the presidential race, he also cast his support for a couple republican senate hopefuls as well. Is that how the democratic party is rewarding betrayal these day?
I'll add a few more when I'm not as inebriated as I am at the moment. Instead, I'll just throw in a fun movie to illustrate my point. *Bonus points anyone who notices the clear respect Joe has for Harry Reid in this clip* [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwJ8dLAHpU[/YOUTUBE]
Just to make sure I have this straight.
People are upset because he chose to do what HE WANTED as opposed to doing what the party TOLD him.
Thanks for the replies everyone. :hippy:
If a US soldier did that, he'd still be convicted of High Treason.
Yes, it's great that Lieberman did what he wanted and supported the Republicans when he thought they had it right. He was an independent, after all.
Anyway, Obama's Unity message is starting to sink in to Harry Reid's head. He (Obama) doesn't want his term plagued by the nasty partisanship that we had under the Bush administration.
A soldier signs a commitment to be property of the United States Government for however long they deem. A soldier isn't a person in this context, he/she is a government asset. Lieberman didn't have to sign such a commitment to join the democratic party.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I was talking about High Treason, not any military regulations that a defecting soldier would violate.
The vote wasn't about kicking him out of the democrat caucus, just stripping him of his committee chair. Committee chairs are leadership roles within the party. When he has opposed the democrats on various issues relating to his committee, wouldn't you think he would be replaced by someone who would side with party? By taking away his prized committee he would have faced a simple choice: be relegated to nothing more than a vote in the majority, or hop the fence and join the minority party that he by and large votes against. Do you honestly think he would abandon policies he has supported for most of his career just to play a minor role in the opposition party?
Instead they take away his subcommittee in which he has sided with dems, but left him a committee that he uses to oppose the democrats. Because that makes perfect sense.
From a controls perspective, that's the way it should be, legit policy control and keeping things balanced. We don't need another administration full of yes men.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
Just mentioning a soldier would be charged with high treason in comparison with Lieberman's defection is comparing apples to oranges, but none the less you made the comparison and military vs civilian regulations have everything to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
So we achieve that by keeping Bush's yes man in that position? I fail to see the logic in this. Americans obviously want us out of Iraq, so they vote keep a supporter of the war in power. Americans desire accountability from our leaders, so they keep someone who refused to investigate the greco-roman cluster fuck that was hurricane Katrina.Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
Can we not agree that the Dept of Homeland Security has become so bloated and bureaucratic that it is largely inefficient? Are our ports safer? No. Is airport security any better now then it was? no. Joementum had his chance, and the results are glaringly obvious. What happened to this vaunted "change" we've heard so much about?
We can all agree Lieberman is a tool, but he isn't a Bush yes man, he always acted on his own accord. He voted for the first gulf war and well as the current one we are in. He's always been for the war on Iraq since the 90s. The department of homeland security has nothing to do with Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
If you actually looked at the GAO report on the Progress Report on
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, while it does indicate a vast amount of inefficiency in some areas, maritime security was actually one of the greatest areas of progress, a progress rating of "substancial." Airport security got a progress rating of "moderate." Overall, most of the departments are making progress. See page 2:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07454.pdf
See, Lieberman didn't do that bad of a job. It isn't easy to consolidate a vast amount of federal agencies. Some people think it's comes together like a magic wand.
You won't convince anyone here unfortunatley. My post was really to illustrate how many people here are "open-minded" yet against someone who is a free thinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
Being part of a party means that you share their philosophy and GENERAL goals. It doesn't mean that you have to do or agree with everything the party says.
This is true of both Democrats and Republicans a like.
ps: You're correct about Lieberman and not being a Bush yes man. I was hoping more people would chime in to bash Lieberman before I brought up those points.
Hooray for oppressing free thought.
God, I'm amazed at how revolutionary the concept is. I don't oppose him because I'm against the war in Iraq, I oppose him because I hate free thought. I've been living a lie this whole time!
I still don't see how you equate Lieberman's position on the war on Iraq to his performance being the chair of Homeland Security And Government Affairs when his performance show he clearly did a decent job. You tend to forget why DHS was created. Various law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to be consolidated in order to have all information, operations and resources coordinated from one central point. It's because information was not shared efficiently between these different agencies, often times they would compete against each other. The intent is to create more efficiency and it's working. The concept of consolidation is to cut costs and bring more efficiency, which goes against everything you been spouting. Leading you to believe what you hear rather than what you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
But as Daihashi says, I'm not going to convince anyone, free thought after all.