Lieberman gets a spanking

[daihashi]

Lieberman's only been an independent for 2 years, Daihashi. The rest of his career was with the big D next to his name.

Again.. Lieberman was not part of the Democrat party when he endorsed McCain. So why are they punishing him?

Secondly, why does endorsing a candidate of another party make you worthy of punishment?

[PicsorShens]

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.

[psychocat]

Lieberman gets a spanking

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. :thumbsup:

[JakeMartinez]

Again.. Lieberman was not part of the Democrat party when he endorsed McCain. So why are they punishing him?

Secondly, why does endorsing a candidate of another party make you worthy of punishment?

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?

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.

[RamblerGambler]

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]

[daihashi]

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:

[JakeMartinez]

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.

[thcbongman]

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.

[JakeMartinez]

I was talking about High Treason, not any military regulations that a defecting soldier would violate.

[RamblerGambler]

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.