Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Lieberman Conundrum


Will Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain cost him politically? Photo by Matt Rourke of the Associated Press

Nine days after a presidential election in which he actively supported Republican John McCain, the fate of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) within the Democratic caucus remains an open question.

Lieberman got a major boost of support earlier this week from President-elect Barack Obama who has urged that the Connecticut Senator be allowed to continue to caucus with Democrats.

Then, last night, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh offered this readout on Lieberman's future prospects during an appearance on "The Rachel Maddow Show":

"I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of a embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be with us any of the time."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement but, at this point, Lieberman will probably take it. He is well aware that many of his colleagues felt as though his advocacy for McCain and, to a certain extent, against Obama, crossed the line and believe he needs to be punished.

The incident most commonly cited by disgruntled Democrats is Lieberman's speech at the Republican National Convention in early September. While he had promised in the runup to the address that he would only speak for McCain and not against Obama, many Democrats saw his speech as a denunciation of their nominee and an inexcusable act.

"Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," said Lieberman. "But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times."

Can Democratic Senators look beyond these comments -- not to mention the fact that Lieberman was a regular presence on the campaign trail with McCain in the closing days of the race?

We'll find out some of the answers next week when the Senate Democratic caucus convenes. At that meeting, a vote is expected on whether Lieberman can retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

The vote will be a secret ballot and even the most plugged-in Senate operatives acknowledge they have no idea how it might turn out.

On the one hand, Lieberman has a number of longtime friendship and loyalties in the Senate where he has served for the last two decades as well as the support of the incoming President of the United States.

On the other, Lieberman's actions over the last few years -- particularly in relation to the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential race -- have seriously alienated a number of his colleagues particularly those on the liberal end of the spectrum as well as the Senators elected in 2006 and 2008.

"Right now, folks say it's 50/50 that he retains the chairmanship," said one well connected Democratic Senate aide.

No matter what the outcome of the vote next week, questions will remain. If Lieberman retains the chairmanship, how will the base, who loathes the Independent Senator, react? If Lieberman is stripped out his chairmanship, will he stay in the party?

With Democrats still retaining an outside shot at controlling 60 seats at the start of the 111th Congress -- they would need to win the undecided races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota -- Lieberman's future party loyalty is not simply an academic question. It could be crucial to just how much control Democrats can exert over Congress in the coming months and years.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 13, 2008; 12:18 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: Media Bias?
Next: Obama To Resign From Senate, Who's Next?

Comments

It is shocking that anybody, especially Pres.-elect Obama would associate with this traitor. Maybe Obama feels he has been "rehabilitated," but Lieberman clearly said, "I didn't do enough."

Rev. Jackson chimed in too at :http://lumpsfromtheleft.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DrLumplevin | November 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Joseph Judas Lieberman should be ashamed of his actions and should retire from politics and do penance for his treachery. Maybe he can try out for a visa to Israel.
What a humbug.

Posted by: alzach | November 18, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I can puke everytime I thought of what Lieberman has resoundingly said about Pres-Elect Obama at the RNC.
I took that assinine remark of Lieberman in stride during the RNC and could hardly wait for the senate to convene and see what happens to this man.
THEY NEED TO GET HIM OUT OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP. THIS IS ONE GUY YOU CAN NOT TRUST AT ALL. HE SPEAKS WITH A FORK TONGUE.

Posted by: prudencerussell | November 15, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I am really alarmed by name calling & anti-Semitic remarks. Not all American Jews toe the AIPAC line. AIPAC should be registered as a foreign based lobbyist organization, it is a right wing, LIKUDNIK lobbying arm of the LIKUD party.Most American Jews remain faithful to our country & should be suspicious of AIPAC goals which contradict the US foreign policy in the region; a 2 states policy.
Joe Lieberman role in the Iraq war was no different than Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Kerry, all of these 3 Democrats voted to give George "W" Bush a carte blanche.

Posted by: yog2541 | November 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR MY HUSBAND'S HATEFUL ANTISEMETIC REMARKS.

HE WAS HORRIBLY DAMAGED BY HIS FELONY VOTER FRAUD TRIAL AND CONVICTION. BOTH THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE JEWISH AND HE HAS HARBORED HATRED FOR JEWS EVER SINCE. I CANNOT APOLOGIZE ENOUGH FOR THE HURTFUL THINGS HE POSTS ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

AS FAR AS NOT KNOWING JOE LIEBERMAN IS FROM CONNECTICUT, ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT MY HUSBAND DOES NOT LIVE A FACT-BASED EXISTANCE.

HE HAS BEEN UNDER A LOT OF STRESS LATELY AND TENDS TO SHOW HIS BAD SIDE HERE ON THE INTERNET. I HOPE AN ADJUSTMENT TO HIS MEDICATION WILL HELP THE SITUATION.

Posted by: mrsdocchuck | November 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

It's really nice of you to attempt to continue the drama by saying that it's a possibility that the Caucas will strip Lieberman of his chairmanship. After all, drama is what keeps people reading columns by people like you. The Democratic caucus currently consists of a bunch of wimps. The chance that they will stip him is absolutely zero. Certainly, there will be alot of pretty speeches, but the bottom line is that the Democratic Congress will never take a stand on anything.

Posted by: rob515 | November 14, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Two things: 1) I have a close Jewish friend who said to me, during the just past election, that he thought Joe Lieberman should be "sent to a concentration camp" for what he did during the run-up to the November 4th election. (These are not my words, so please no hate mail.)
2) I don't think there is a snowball's chance in the hot place that a secret ballot of Democrats will allow old Joe to retain his chairmanship, and I don't think that Obama believes there is, either, so, by taking the high road, he reinforces his reputation and the axe falls, anyway. Smart thinking. Why I voted for the man. Bye, Bye Joe.

Posted by: EINNOC10 | November 14, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

I say let Joe stay. Joe has been a good Democrat on most other issues, though he went astray on Iraq. I would have been ready to throw him out of the party for supporting any other Republican candidate, but not McCain. McCain was not just any other Republican Candidate. I can understand that McCain's extraordinary stature as an American hero and his long experience in government could draw the support of those who had the honest conviction that he was better qualified to serve as President. I think Barack Obama understands this and I am impressed that he is a big enough man to set aside Sen. Lieberman's switch and support his continued chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. I don't want Joe going over to the Republicans. We are going to need his vote on any number of important issues that will come up. Let's keep Joe. He is, if nothing else, a man of conviction. We also need diversity in our party, not a long line of yes men. It's healthier for our party to have other voices and not one orchestrated point of view.

Posted by: rcairo | November 13, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

There was an American kid, I think from California who became a Moslim, went to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban.

I don't remember his name, but the kid was picked up on the battlefield by American forces. He was sent back to the US for trial, was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.

He had a long sentence imposed on him very quickly. There haven't been any calls outside his immediate family for mercy.

The reason for the harsh sentence and almost universal animosity from his fellow Americans is because he's that lowest of the low, a traitor.

Nobody, not any society, encourages treachery as a desireable trait. Even criminals look down on rats.

To ignore backstabbing by one of your own is unwise. To reward it is unthinkable.

Posted by: fredfawcett | November 13, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

oggtheblog,

You got it all right. Except for the Taliban. They needed to be whacked. Plus they were sheltering Al Queida and treating their own people like sh**

That is America's war. Not Iraq and not Iran.

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

been on these boards for awhile, and I've seen anything having to do with Isreal quickly shut down with the anti-semetic charge. Ogg states nothing but the truth but he to will be turned in to the World Congress and all that entails. The only thing we can be sure of is they will go to ar. Just like the repug neo-cons who gave us Iraq and Afghanistan, the Demo neo-cons will give us Iran. I wish there was light at the end of the AIPAC tunnel, but if there was... it would no doubt be a financial train......

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Does Evan Bayh remind anyone else of George Mcfly?

Posted by: tgoode1 | November 13, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong -- please, feel free, I could be and often am -- but Iraq was NO threat to the USA. Not even IF the Bush lies were true. IF they'd've had WMDs, they still had no effective delivery systems. Or am I wrong?

AFGHANISTAN was no threat to the USA -- even when it harbored terrorists and was ruled by the Taliban -- who seem to be making a comeback there, despite our dead kids.

WHO were these punks a THREAT to? Realistically, even if every paranoid fantasy turned out to be true?

Yep. Israel.

Not the USA -- or anyone else.

So why are WE fighting 2 wars for a foreign country? Because they can't fight it themselves?

Be serious. Israel can INCINERATE any and all Middle-Eastern threats. Badda-bing, badda-boom.

So -- WHY are American kids dying in that sandy rathole?? WHY???

Posted by: oggtheblog | November 13, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

angriestdogintheworld,

No kidding. Im just tired of Israeli and othe interests taking over our foreign policy. Same goes for the oil lobby and the war-mongering military industrial complex.

Sick of people who are born in America and put Israels interests first.

Sick of politicians like Joe Lieberman for being so obviously making decisions in their self interest and their ethnic origins.

Sick of AIPAC people calling everybody who questions Israel and anti-semites.

I wish more people woudl stand up against this tactic.

They even went after Jimmy Carter believe it or not!

So many Americans killed for Israel's sake and the oil lobby's sake.

And SVREADER has the gall to support Lieberman just because he shares a religion with him!! and call everybody else anti-semites. How low is that??

If WAPO wants to block my access so be it.

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER,

My posts are offensive because I call a spade a spade?? And yours are not, for throwing accusations of racism and anti-semitism around???

Your head is screwed wrong side up. Your country - read Israel must be ashamed of you. AIPAC made a lousy recruiting decision. They should have vetted your intelligence (as they should have Palin's)

Lieberman is no democrat. He needs to go now.

Schumer and Al Frankin are patriotic American jews (I just found out) unlike your scumbag self and Joe the loser Lieberman.

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Nice knowing you Random, but with SV reporting you... you will be barred from the discussion. For future reference... go to the AIPAc site and read what they are up to and support it, otherwize you will not be allowed to be part of the "discussion".

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your move.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I hear you blog, hard to even fathom that the Dem Veep nominee with Gore would turn up the veep nominee of the repug nominee 8 years later. But we are not allowed to talk about motivation... because it is anti-semitic. Unbelievable. No such thing as a free country if you can't talk about such an aggregeous flip, and why? I myself think the neo-cons control both parties and so we my as well get ourselves prepared for a nuclear strike on Iran. A deal has been made. Forget the raiding of Fort Knox.... I just hope the "bunker busting" nuke they have developed does not throw up all into Global Warming 2.0..... but what should AIPAC care. They have an Aparthied system to maintain.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Random --

Unless the Washington Post feels that Jewish people aren't entitled the the same protections against hate speech as anyone else, they should immediately shut down your account.

You've made a fool of yourself, so you have no credibiliy, but your posts are extremely offenseive, and I hope they are removed promptly.


Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

NO MORE American blood will be spilt for the racist SVREADER and his apartheid country of Israel.

Americans for America!!

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER,

You are a traitor to this country. You and Lieberman should be tried for treason.
Im no anti-semite and I don't need to justify anything. Neither do anybody else on this board, who despise Lieberman for his principles and lack of loyalty. We dont give a flying f* what his religion is.

You are just repeating AIPAC's tired old bankrupt line equating anti-Israel to anti-jew.

just shows your insecurities and exposes your loyalty issues. You are vermin and an Israeli agent bent on pulling down a great country like America down the drain with you.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I am not anti-Israel -- which of course means that I'm automatically anti-Israel, no matter what I say. Them's InterWebs Tubes Tools.

MY problem is, is that we're fighting 2 wars on behalf of Israel.

Why SHOULD we? WHY should American kids be dying?

Israel is PERFECTLY capable of turning Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Iran, or any OTHER perceived Middle-Eastern threat, into a black-glass parking lot.

Why should WE be their stalking-horse? We GAVE'em nukes so they could defend themselves. DIDN'T we?

Well? DIDN'T we????

Posted by: oggtheblog | November 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Random --

You're an anti-semitic racist.

If the WP was enforcing its published policy on hate speech you would have been bounced long ago.

Jews are people too.

Plug the name and country of origin of any other ethnic group into your postings and see what a hateful racist you are.


Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Random --

You're an anti-semitic racist.

If the WP was enforcing its published policy on hate speech you would have been bounced long ago.

Jews are people too.

Plug the name and country of origianl orignal of any other ethnic group into your postings and see what a hateful racist you are.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER,

Whats the matter?? You cant take a bit of heat? You are loyal to your country (ISRAEL) and I'm to mine (AMERICA). The sad part is that you take everything you get from America and put Israel before our interests.

Doesn't look like you love your AIPAC agent job that much anymore. Go find a real job and leave this forum to people who put America's interests first!

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Just saw a MSNBC report (Andrea Mitchell) that Rodham Clinton is under consideration for State. Now you know and I know that Rodham Clinton CAN NOT be re-elected to her seat in New York.... so it is the Executive Branch or N.O.W.. Which means she is either forcing this on Obama similar to her Veep pushing or a deal was made way back when and we are being peppered. Obviously.... with Snipers and hard working white people and her connections to Wall Street and Hedge Funds, and obliterating Iran...... HRC would be the most polarizing chief diplomats to ever be considered, so.... the latter.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Emanuel apologizes to Arabs for what his dad says, and the Washington Post buries or does not report the story. The effort to save Obama has begun in earnest.

Posted by: EliPeyton | November 13, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

AHHHHH,

i've been FRAMED.
i sware to g'd i nvr said lieberstien was a scumbag.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

officer --

And good health to you too, sir. If you're a cop, thanks for risking your own neck for the safety of rest of us. We don't thank you guys often enough.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, svreader, when I voted for Obama, I didn't check my brain at the door. I didn't become a Leninist.

I have no doubt that the president elect is a better and smarter man than I.

Nevertheless, I see no reason why his election should be the occasion upon which I stop expressing political opinions.

Be well.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

We Democrats lost big-time two years after our last big victory.

Republicans want us to make the same mistake again.

In his campaign, Barack was famous for making a decision and moving on and everybody got behind it.

Lets pretend this is the campaign, or that we don't want to fall for the Republicans traps agsin.

The way to win is to support Barack.

I don't believe any true Democrat would want to undermind a Demoratic President, especially before the guy's even had a chance to sit behind his desk in the oval office.

Folks, I'd like to repeat that nothing we say here will make the slightest bit of difference about anything, and that's good.

The anti-lieberman posters, fall into several categories.

1. Republicans
2. Egotists, that think they're smarter than the President and his brain trust and want him to reverse himself on one of his first big decisions.
3. Republicans
4. Anti-Semites
5. Confused fellow Semites
6. Republicans
7. Bears

There are multiple points of view.

Only one really matters on this issue.

Why don't we support his?

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's a troll.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Happily, the Republicans are in no position to tear anyone into shreds. They can inflame their 38 per cent of the electorate more and more and more. That's it.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Random is a very confused mixed-up little dog.

Free to a good home.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Random is a very confused mixed little dog.

Free to a good home.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

all & all,
joe lieberman is a scumbag and a traitor.

keep this scumbag if you want.

i didn't say it, my gay lover did.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER is a Republican slave from Israel who wants Joe Lieberman in a powerful position so they can influence American policy in favor of Israel.

They supported McCain because of his obsession with bombing Iran and his support of the Iraq war, which cost thousands of American lives and countless Iraqi lives.

Neither Lieberman, nor SVREADER have a shred of humanity in them nor any care for human lives. They just plan to take America for a ride for their own purposes.

SVREADER, go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are an American patriot or an Israeli agent.

AMERICA FIRST!

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Give us Berabas

Posted by: hankomatic1 | November 13, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

This is tiresome. Random's a Troll.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

From today's WAPO: Liberman's chargesheet in case there is any doubt:

Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- who, on the excuse that they were close friends, campaigned relentlessly for Sen. John McCain -- of his post as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Lieberman also disparaged President-elect Barack Obama and helped GOP Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) in his race against Al Franken, and he told conservative radio host Glenn Beck that the filibuster is "one of the great protections we have."

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

To all the people calling for Lieberman's head --

If you aren't Republicans please understand that you're sure not helping the Democrats.

Folks, I'm amazed.

A Direct request from the guy that we all think is so brilliant, after he just ran the smartest campaign in history, and we're demanding he do the opposite of what he's figured out with the supercomputer between his ears and the ones of the smartest guys he could find.

Look in the mirror, Lieberman haters.

You'e turning into Republicans.

Republicans are supposed to be the ones full of hatred, not us.

Every Obama supporter that is full of hate should seriously consider taking a non-prescription anti-depressant. Whatever their favorite knid is. But mellow out. Like Barack. Remember, No Dram. Lets be effective not vendictive.

Barack's got to execute flawlessly or the Republicans will tear him to shreads.

He needs us to help sell his decision.

He needs our help.

There are multiple points of view on this issue.

Why don't we try pushing his?


Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Good 'Bye Joe You gotta me 'O' my 'O'....

Posted by: hankomatic1 | November 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

i know a puppy named "Poppy", "Poppy In Remberance" in sake of all Fallen Brothers & Sisters.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's priorities:
1. Joe
2. Joe
3. Joe
4. Israel
5. John McCain's a**
6. US of what A??

SVREADER's priorities:

1. AIPAC's bi-weekly paycheck
2. Israel
3. AIPAC's bi-weekly paycheck
4. Israel
5 AIPAC's bi-weekly paycheck
6. Israel

I doubt SVREADER even knows who Lieberman is. Hourly wage political trolls generally are uninformed and don't care that much

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of great scenes in Fiddler on the Roof ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman lost all credibility when he heartily endorsed Palin for VP, knowing that even he himself could not have possibly believed she was qualified to be either a VP or President. Given that his other best friend is his Republican co-chair on the Homeland Security Committee, Susan Collins, how can we trust 2 hawks to ensure we don't end up in another war?

Posted by: RIPRussert | November 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

eye for an eye?
that's bulls'tttttttttttt.

i deserve a pound of flesh.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Random --

Actually, its the ASPCA.

How did you get out?

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

This sack of sh*t should be humilliated and stripped of all posts he held thanks to Democrats.
Traitors should be punished.
F*ck Benedict Arnold Lieberman!

Posted by: analyst72 | November 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

There's a great scene in "Fiddler on the roof", when our people had been forced out of our homes in our little ghetto in anatevka in russia.

A man cries "An Eye For An Eye And a Tooth for a Tooth"

Tevya, the main character, replies --

A few more people like you, and the whole world will be blind and toothless.

The moral of the story folks, is don't pick a fight you know you're going to lose just because you're pissed.

Nothing we write here will have any effect on public polcy, and I'm skeptical that any of us will change very many minds.

What it does show is what kind of people we are, and a lot of us are pretty nasty ones.

Let Barack be Barack.
Let him run his game plan.
We elected him because we believed in his judgement.
Lets not undermine him before he even takes office.
That might be a new worlds record, but its not one we want.

We want to win.

People's lives depend on it.

Literally.

Please support our President.

Lets get at least one bill passed before we start shooting ourselves in the feet.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER is on AIPAC's payroll. In fact he maybe logging in from Israel or maybe he is Joe the loser himself.

Don't respond to his dribble.

America first!!

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER says those who want to ensure that Lieberman's actions against the Democratic Party are Republican Trolls. Duude! Stop with the paranoia. Lieberman will vote for what he votes for... he's already shown that. There should be consequences for being a traitor. He should be stripped of his positions within the Senate. I believe the Democratic Senate will gain back some respect from the American public, if it shows some backbone. I don't have high hopes that Lieberman will pay for his actions though.

Posted by: Let_it_Be | November 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The guys trying to get us to throw Lieberman out are most likely Republican Trolls.

Random is a racist pig, and in also violation of WP guidelines which I hope to see enforced sometime during my liifetime.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman needs to go!!

Dont care what Obama thinks

More importantly dont give f* how much AIPACis paying SVREADER to keep posting the same dribble over and over again

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

The guys trying to get us to throw Lieberman out are most likely Republican Trolls.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Joe wants to pretend Democrats are out to get him because he endorsed McCain. What BS.
Liberman campaigned on McCain's behalf spreading the most malicious lies out there about Obama. Liberman was vicious in his deceit and now he wants to say Obama capmpaigned to be bipartisan so all should be forgiven.
I never liked you Joe. I couldn't put my finger on it when Gore announced you as his running mate. I couldn't stand that whiny voice of yours, but now I know what bothered me. You are nothing more than a self absorbed, self righteous hyprocrite who will say and do anything to hold onto power.
Join the Republicans Joe, because in recent years you have never put the Democratic party above your interest. That does not mean you have to walk lockstep with Democrats, but there are rules and you crossed the line. You're no Democrat Joe you proved that when you lost the primary for your current seat and refused to get behind the Democratic nominee.
Joe you're nothing more than a vile media wh@re.

Posted by: sbundley | November 13, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

The guys trying to get us to throw Lieberman out are most likely Republican Trolls.

Republicans want us to kick Lieberman out or to make him ineffective so they can pick him and his vote and contacts up.

Lieberman and his vote are very valuable to us.

We need every edge we can get.

Don't take your eyes off the prize, guys.
Don't take your eyes off the prize.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

@ JoeM2 | November 13, 2008 8:13 PM

how do you, little ole you, know what Barak H. Obama wants, you're on the inside I guess. -- Remember that Obama won this election due to his affable manner, not on his experience, his apparent ability to be inclusive. You left-wing looney toons have a surprise coming, governing and campaigning ain't the same - it appears that these so-called supporters on this blog are not what Obama appears to be about. so get a life, this is still a multi-party political system, and defeated insulted McCain supporters do matter in more ways than you can imagine. I'll bet BHO keeps Liberman - and then what will the liberal left do, want to kick Obama for things not going your way. this is a prime example of why the inexperienced youth should not vote until they are educated in a bi-partisan manner. what an interesting 4 years it's going to be.

Posted by: jimbobmencken | November 13, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of stripping him of Homeland Security, but giving him Small Business, so he still has a place at the Chairs' table. If I recall right, all the other majority members of Small Business are already chairing something else.

No, with his record of backing Bush/McCain, he shouldn't be chairing that big committee; give him just enough to keep him on the ranch.

Posted by: cleonard1 | November 13, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

i want to grow poppies and have little memorials to everyone that's died for my freedom.

how can i pay these people back since growing poppies and posting memorials in their name isn't cool?

poppies are cool: biologically, medically, and historically.

people that revere Fallen Faces sport poppies on their lapels on Armistice Day, November 11.

poppies are like folded cranes. i can always make 1,000 cranes, but i can't grow poppies in Remembrance.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

From todays' WAPO:

Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- who, on the excuse that they were close friends, campaigned relentlessly for Sen. John McCain -- of his post as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Lieberman also disparaged President-elect Barack Obama and helped GOP Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) in his race against Al Franken, and he told conservative radio host Glenn Beck that the filibuster is "one of the great protections we have."

He has no principles and the anger on the street is real. Hope the rest of he feckless Dem senate is listening for their own sakes.

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans want us to kick Lieberman out or to make him ineffective so they can pick him and his vote and contacts up.

Trust me on this one guys. I've been through similar situations with executives in conflict in companies.

When you shame a guy he goes right out the door and takes a lot of customers with him.

The way you get to be CEO is by getting almost everyone to respect you and a few people who are willing to "die" for you.

Barack Obama is a born CEO.

I totally underestimated him at first.

The guy's good.

Let him run his game plan.

We don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We've done thzt a lot before.

Let's try winning for a change.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER = Joe Lieberman

Kick them both out

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

egalitaire, ;)

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Anger has its place in politics as in life. Who would respect a man who remained complacent while a drunk stepped forward and slapped his wife in the face?

Hatred, on the other hand, is "old world". Let justice be done, and once it's done, let bitterness go, lest the USA become the next Ireland or Yugoslavia.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

officermancuso:

touche!

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Hooray! the Dems have won; but winning doesn't mean anything if they don't stand for something. Lieberman has shown himself to be a turncoat. He has proven that he places himself before the party...and what is worse, the country. Kick this Benedict Arnold out! Let the Democratic Party show some backbone.

Posted by: Let_it_Be | November 13, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

REVISION:

ain't gonna touch this topic with a ten foot pole unless i want to be labeled "pariah" by certain lieberman constituents that aren't part of the Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

poppies in remembrance.
veteran's day is a most special day.
veteran's day is Remembrance Day.
Remembrance Day is Armistice Day.


Flander's Field is full of poppies.
Fallen soldiers since the American Civil War relish the benefits of said poppies of Flander's Field.

Elizabeth Hasselbeck, your husband is of recruiting age. Send your husband into Our War. There is NO EXCUSE for sending a loved one into War for Just Cause.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Our highest eithical responsibility is to peole starving, dying in the gutter, or suffering with cancer pain because they don't have health care.

Grow up guys.

We haven't passed a single bill.

We don't have 60 votes.

We're Democrats, not the Borg or the Republicans so we can't even count on every Democrat voting for what the party wants.

All politics is local politics.

Please guys, please.

Let's not go against a direct request from our new President when the guy hasn't even taken the oath of office yer, and we're supposed to be on the same side.

Don't take your eyes off the prize, guys.
Don't take your eyes off the prize.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

egalitaire wrote, "ain't gonna touch this topic with a ten foot pole."

Enjoy those clean hands in the mirror.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

By failing to take the principled position of stripping Senator Lieberman of the Homeland Security chairmanship, the Senate majority leader will not earn a place in Profiles in Courage.

In maintaining the status quo,he allows the junior Senator from Connecticut to continue to enjoy the best of both worlds: Democratic and Republican.

Imagine if other Senate Democrats decided to become "Independent" Democrats like Senator Lieberman. Why shouldn't they?

Posted by: jfp111conn | November 13, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

There's way too much anger and haterd on this board.

Barack campaigned on getting that out of politics and "no drama" effectiveness.

Let Obama be effective.

He knows what he's doing.

He's probably smarter than any of us on this board.

He's told us what he wants to to.

Are we going to undermine him?

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote, "Is revenge worth losing out on Universal Health Care or a Middle Class Tax Cut?

"What political party would, or would advocate, throwing away a Senate vote when they have less than 60 of them?"

Yup on Health Care. It's not clear to me that, absent the current financial crisis, we should buy the Repub dogma that tax cuts should always be on the agenda when the government is running deficits - in fact, it's clear to me that that's a dogma that's a hangover from Republican voter exploitation.

Get your tax cuts here and now, and let your kids pay. Great plan.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Don't take your eyes off the prize, guys.
Don't take your eyes off the prize.
Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse
==================================

what about Lieberman's prize? Don't you know that we know he will not take his eye off his prize.... WAR WITH IRAN !

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

ain't gonna touch this topic with a ten foot pole.

Posted by: egalitaire | November 13, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Response to SVReader -

BO doesn't want the support you describe.


Here's the plan: BO publicly forgives. but the Democratic Senators privately kick his ass out.

Bomb-Iran-Joey wants war. He favors torture. He has to go.

Posted by: JoeM2 | November 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

This person does not deserve a position of public trust. But we all know how the powerful special interest groups support him and how political expediency works in Washington. He will shamelessly prevail and will be a key actor on pivotal, significant matters.

Posted by: likovid | November 13, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Is revenge worth losing out on Universal Health Care or a Middle Class Tax Cut?

What political party would, or would advocate, throwing away a Senate vote when they have less than 60 of them?

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Toss him overboard, he is a traitor undeserving of a leadership position. How he could campaign for Palin is proof positive he is either nuts or just plain stupid. While he is at least not Zell "Who can I punch?" Miller, he deserves to be cut loose.

Posted by: misfit614 | November 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Yes, well, we know where Lieberman's loyalties lie.

Posted by: dexterpeabody | November 13, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

If we keep going this way, folks, we're going to lose Lieberman, who's a been a good solid Democrat on everything but the war snd Barack.

If Barack is willing to forgive him, and he's the one who Joe didn't come out for, and the right to be the most upset, why can't we?

If Barack wants us to forgive Joe and put this behind us, why don't we do it, since Barack does seem to be a pretty smart guy...

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

This is not Lieberman - the Conundrum.

This is Lieberman - the Nincompoop.
He's toast.
OLD toast.

Posted by: wardropper | November 13, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

mnlennon wrote, "Joe is, was and will forever be an Israeli first and an American second."

I don't exactly take this line. I have no doubt that Senator Lieberman sees himself as an American first. He sees Israel as he imagines he would have seen Poland before the blitzkrieg, and sees it as his duty as an American to stand by her side.

But this isn't 1940 and Poland wasn't building settlements in Bavaria, and yes, Lieberman has an ethnic tie to Israel that would explain to a neutral observer why he might have a blind spot when it comes to occasions when the USA ought to say to that nation, "not with my help, you won't".

The worst excesses of the Bush regime, it seems to me, were brought on by the neocons, and Senator Lieberman is a prototype neocon.

Of course, the Bush regime was also hampered by the sheer incompetence of its members, raised as they were on the bread and butter of belief that government can't do anything right. They sure demonstrated that point, although it might be put in more pointed form as "Republicans don't know how to use government for the common good."

Stand by for improvements - though it may take Obama and the Democrats four years to dig their way out of the swamp Dubya, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk have created.

I have a hunch that the American people will be patient, having a memory which lasts at least four years.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Note to Republicans: You lost the election. Shut up. Your views don't matter. This is a decision for Democrats to make.

Note to Democrats: This man turned on his party and his country. He fought hard to put Sarah Palin in the White House! The only thing he provides Senate Democrats is political cover to go limp on the Iraq War, torture, and the other Republican authored- Democrat enabled crimes. By taking a position slightly less bellicose than Bomb-Iran-Joey, they can look like warriors for peace and justice. We see through these tactics. We are sick of them, and we won't put up with them. Not for four more years. Not for one more year. Not for another month.

Note to Obama: Lieberman in charge of the Homeland Security Committee is not change and I don't believe in it.

Posted by: JoeM2 | November 13, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

navydvldoc --

You racist pig.

You're an insult to the Navy, if you're in it.

If you are, you're in violation of policy and requlations.

You are also the scum of the earth.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

For God Sakes, Folks!

While Obama is preaching unity, some of the folks here are packing bycycle chains and looking for a gang fight.

Hate, Revenge, etc, are bad for everybody.

They're bad for business.

Business is fixing what's wrong with this country and giving the American people the things like Universal Health Care Coverage.

We can't afford to fail.

Anger, hatred, revenge are luxuries we simply can't afford.

They're also really, really, stupid.
They always lead to more pain for the person or people who get involved with them.

We want "no drama" effectiveness, just like the campaign.

We need Joe.

He can help us achieve our goals.

Lets make him feel we're classy guys and he really owes us one by saying "the elections over, lets look to the future"

I'm pretty sure that's what Harack said.

I know that he wants us to all pull together and I know that he wants Joe ni the Democratic Party and worknig 100% to do everything he can to help get the President and the Democratic Party's Agenda passed.

Lieberman can help us a lot.

Don't take your eyes off the prize, guys.
Don't take your eyes off the prize.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Loserman should not be allowed to be the dog catcher. Send his sorry butt were all the other republican go...K street. Let the JEW fed for himself. Or better yet, send him to run for office in Isreal since he love it sooo much. But the Loserman is a coward, he may break a nail. So, he will stay here where he can talk a mean game. McCain with friends like Joe the Jew, No wonder you lost. LOL!

Posted by: navydvldoc | November 13, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman's support for McCain is forgivable, his attack on Obams certainly is not. In practical terms I think the Democrats should wait to see if they can, with Lieberman, manage to have 60 votes. If they do, let that traitor keep his chairmanship; if not, dump him and let him caucus with the Republicans who at this point are by and large not compatible with his policy positions.

If that happens, it will also show what the true Lieberman is: someone for himself and only for himself. That way, he exposes the real Lieberman even as he fails to get a chairmanship. I can see no better outcome for a traitor.

Posted by: steviana | November 13, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The hateful and vindictive comments show clearly the worst of the Democratic Party. This is the attitude that demands retribution and punishment for daring to speak the truth. This is the mentality that lies behind the intimidation of citizens through physical violence. Beware America; these Stalinist tactics can be turned against you, too, when you dare to express your opposition to the State / Party policy.

Joe Lieberman is a patriot and a gentlemen. To call him a "traitor" means you place loyalty to party above doing what is right for the country. Real Traitors are those who work against our country and undermine our victory at a time of war. Real Traitors reveal secret programs that are LEGAL in order to sell a few newspapers. Real traitors should be shot. Joe Lieberman is an elected representative and has earned the title "Honorable" both in name and in deed.

Joe Lieberman is more of a man and a patriot than any of his hateful critics. BTW: He is correctly representing his constituents, who reelected him, as an Iraq war supporter, and rejected his anti-war opponent. Why do the critics want to undermine the legitimate voice of CT voters?

Kick Joe to the curb, again, and you deserve the result...

Posted by: Sashland | November 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Joe is, was and will forever be an Israeli first and an American second. He really should be a Senator in the Knesset and thus have to register as a Foreign Agent. His support for McCain was based solely on McCains fidelity to continuounce of the Irag War which is in Israel's best interest not the United States. Any Company I ever worked for would have fired Me on the spot, and rightly so, if I told It's customers that the Competiter down the Street had the best deal and don't buy from Us. Thats what Israeli Joe told the voters to do. His bluff needs to be called and any Democrat that votes to allow Him to retain a major Chairmanship has lost His way.

Posted by: mnlennon | November 13, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. Lieberman needs to be kept very close.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

OH God bless all of you, wanting to spite yourselves. Homeland Security not relevant? Liberman not relevant? It seems as if you Libs watch toooooooo much Olberman, maddow or Mathews, the source for the ambient idealist. Obama is going to need all of the help he can get, so be nice, don't start abusing your new found authority before you officially get it. Now given the fact that you won, you got to admit that Obama is lacking when it comes to national defense, Right? right. the terrorist are not abating .

Posted by: jimbobmencken | November 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc wrote, "He won't win a secret vote. The position is too powerful. I see him ending up chairing Small Business."

So his best hope is chairmanship (or "chairship" for the hyper-correct) by card-check, eh?

And it wouldn't be politically correct, I guess, for the Dems to give him that post, and then rename the comittee "Small Potatoes"?

Geez I detest that guy. I can't help myself. I wish he and Palin would elope, perhaps I could become sane again (or for the first time ;)

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of weasels!

Joe has them over the barrel because they did not get their 60 seats.

They would rather let him off than take him to task because it would make their way easier. The right way is never easy!

I can only hope that this is not the first indication of what we can expect from the Obama camp for the next four years!

Posted by: buzzsaw1 | November 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The party of spineless wimps cowering to that traitor - they are just as disgusting as he is.

Posted by: lettie1 | November 13, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems are smart, they'll keep Droopy Dog in the caucus - you know, "keep your friends close, your enemies closer". Keep him hanging on for a vote or two until he outlasts his usefulness, and then send him to sleep with the fishes/

Posted by: vze2r3k5 | November 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Not to change the subject or anything, but if you prefer three day old burnt chicken livers to Sarah Palin, you might enjoy this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/13/gop-governors-unhappy-with-palin-press-conference/

which is the same as this:

http://tinyurl.com/5f8zar

The gist of it is that the Great White Hope has honked off her fellow Republican governors.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

He won't win a secret vote. The position is too powerful. I see him ending up chairing Small Business.

Posted by: gbooksdc | November 13, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I guess I would like to hear Obama's thoughts on this. Maybe he has plan...one that those of us would like to see...like Joe hung from his toe nails.
Say they give the chairmanship of Homeland Security to Lieberman. Can they take it away if Dems don't reach the magic number of 60? I think if we don't make 60, we should cut him loose and let him do whatever. If he votes against his own convictions out of spite....I guess that is what happens. We know he isn't going to support getting out of Iraq.

Posted by: lynettema | November 13, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a snake. It is true. But he may be useful. Only time will tell.
When the senate seats are sorted out he may be needed for one key vote. Imagine if the healthcare vote depended on him and he had been jettisoned. Now is not the time for revenge, patience, patience.

Posted by: seemstome | November 13, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If Joe Lieberman had a shred of integrity he would step down on his own. I think he should lose his chairmanship for several reasons and the main reason being his judgment. Joe Lieberman has been displaying bad judgment since 2001. He pushed as hard as Bush did for the War in Iraq. That displays bad judgment. He has watched Afghanistan fall apart. That shows bad judgment. He has advocated openly bombing Iran. That shows bad judgment. He campaigned against a democrat and lost now begs that same man he trashed to allow him to chair a committee. That shows bad judgment. And don't get me started of his advocation for Palin. That showed a willingness to lie for ambition. A year ago he didn't even believe he would be in the senate now he is begging to keep his chairmanship as if he is the only person who can do the job. And yes he said that in a Hannity and Combs interview. He is not going to caucus with republicans no matter what bluffs he is sending. If he did a recall petition would commence immediately in Connecticut and Lieberman knows this. Lieberman believes he is a US senator for the state of Israel. That is why he won't let go of HLS. I don't have a problem with him representing Israel but the least the traitor could do in move to Tel Aviv. Now putting all that aside, he should lose his chairmanship because there are 58 REAL DEMOCRATS who were elected by their constituents to chair those committees! They deserve that chair far more than Joe Lieberman. The spineless democrats found it impossible to stand up to Bush for eight years. If those wimps can't find a way to stand up to a republican in drag the house democrats will be out of power in two years and the senate democrats two years after that. Grow pair you wimps and get rid of that agent of a foreign power.

Posted by: Chop281Shop | November 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The Lieberman Conundrum?

What Conundrum?

He should be left out in the cold. Let him switch over to the GOP.

It's unlikely he'd be reelected in Connecticut as a Republican.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | November 13, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of offering Lieberman Homeland Security on the cabinet, the executive branch counterpart to his committee chairmanship. It also kills two birds with one stones by quashing this Senate imbroglio while portraying the promised bipartisanship. Since a Democrat would likely succeed him, it would solidify the Senate vote, removing the threat of switching caucuses, especially if the cliffhangers in AK, MN, and GA all go the Democrats' way.

Posted by: boborudnik | November 13, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Democrats will want to retain Lieberman's vote because he is socially liberal on issues like abortion, sort of the anti-Bob Casey.

They can also play up their large-tent magnanimity in doing so, scoring an easy two-pointer in the propaganda wars against the "tax waitresses to preserve wall street bonuses" party.

I can stomach Lieberman at Homeland Security for a while. I think the man's fundamental committment is to the security of Israel - an honorable enough committment - but more importantly, I think he recognizes that were the USA to become the target of terrorists as frequently as Israel is their target, support for his favored cause would be undermined. So he's got a motive to do a good job in that position.

Even though he looks and talks like Dopey.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I say let him keep the chair -- just change the nameplate to "Senator Liberweasel"

Posted by: outoftowner | November 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

He made his bed now he can sleep in it.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | November 13, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

As much as I'd like to see Lieberman thrown into a swimming pool full of hungry sharks, I believe that oggtheblog stated it very well, and correctly.

Posted by: squirebass | November 13, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Does Connecticut have a recall provision? And if it does where can I send a contribution?

Posted by: davidscott1 | November 13, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"Is anyone surprised that Liberals are not allowed to tell the truth about themselves??"

Not really, should they be?

Lance Haynie
http://www.lancehaynie.com

Posted by: LanceHaynie | November 13, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

After the meanspirited way that the country has been governed these past 8 years, complete forgivness for any of THEM is out of the question.

For Joe The Bummer Lieberman to have turned on his own party at a time when it was fighting for the country's future was unforgivable.

The people in the Democratic party who encourage giving Joe a break have to realize that its just too much to ask.

Decent people shouldn't be expected to have to associate with a guy like this.

Posted by: fredfawcett | November 13, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm waiting for the movie in which Sarah Palin plays Snow White and Joe Lieberman plays Dopey.

Perhaps Senate Democrats should create a "Seven Dwarfs" committee and award its chairmanship to the sanctimonious senator from Connecticut who never heard a pro-Israeli argument he didn't like.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 13, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not happy about Lieberman's role at the Republican convention, but I think he should be allowed to retain his chairship. First, it's my understanding that the whole idea of a Homeland Security Department originated with him. Second, whatever his role in the 2008 campaign, he worked hard for the Democrats in 2000, and that work should not be forgotten. And, finally, the Democratic party needs to be a "large tent," and labelling him a "traitor" doesn't do any good. Strategies for ending the war will be more thoughtful and better planned if the concerns of someone like Lieberman get taken into account. In my judgement, he has been a sincere supporter of the war, unlike the "political" supporters, who liked what this war could do for winning elections.

Posted by: jbfoster45 | November 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

codexjust1:

I know what you're sayin'. Believe me, I do. I'm to the left of you and almost anybody you know. And I think Lieberman is a skunk.

But in the hard, difficult days and years ahead, Obama is gonna do a lot of things you -- and I -- will not like. Guaranteed. (Personally, about the only thing I liked about the corporatist Bill Clinton was his uncanny ability to kick the right wing around at will.And play the bongoes while he was doin' it.)

Obama STILL needs our support. Should we NOT hold his feet to the fire? Oh, let's do. That's what we do -- unlike the Gonesville Old Party. BUT -- should we turn on him like the McSame campaign on Mooselini?

No. This is the 21st Century Internet. We can act upon right-wing lies, and STILL voice our concerns. We can do both. We CAN be pragmatic -- not doctrinaire.

We've had doctrinaire for 8 years -- look what it got us.

If Obama can USE Quisling Joe -- and I believe he's smart enough to do that -- let him USE Quisling Joe until he's used up.

Posted by: oggtheblog | November 13, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

DocChuck-

"And if the voters in Vermont will not do it, then the Democratic Party, led by Obama, who I voted for, must do it."

He would have to establish residency in VT first.

Posted by: leapin | November 13, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Caucus with the Dems?

Sure.

Be chairman of Homeland Defense?

Nuh uh.

He publicly and repeatedly spoke out on the campaign trail, with vituperative spittle, on what he thinks on that subject.

And we should take him at his word.

Now, maybe we can give him something on something he might not break, like Campaign Finance Reform ...

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 13, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"With a cage at night like a dog."

Amend that to read, "an untrustworthy dog."

Watch him like a hawk looking for a meal of mouse meat.
Real closely and from above.

Posted by: jato1 | November 13, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Send Lieberman,MacCain,Palin,Bill Kristol,Bush and Cheney to live in Israel for the next 8 years!!!!

Posted by: ipeluso | November 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is heading right down that path at top speed. At least Bush kept us safe. I am not confident Obambi will.
Posted by: king_of_zouk

Bush did little to nothing to keep America safe. Just look at the borders...wide open,
look at the ports...wide open, look at the refineries...wide open.
I'll take Obama over the crook Bush any day!

Posted by: tinkabell1 | November 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I've never got the sense that the Senate Homeland Security Committee was particularly relevant. It is surprising the Lieberman still believes he has something to offer as a senator.

Posted by: Bruce9 | November 13, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

In a just world, one in which evil is punished, Lieberman would be out on his keister. In our world, only politics matter. The Dems want his vote and will prostitute themselves to keep it. It would also be a surprise if he lost his seniority.

Posted by: Diogenes | November 13, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Lieberman's a traitor and a weasel. What he did is betray his party and it's presidential nominee during the most important election in 40 years."


Yes. And his support of certain initiatives was lousy. Make that lethal.

He also lost his primary and had no compunction to divide his party and serve his self interest.

And then he turned Quisling. You youngsters can look that up.


So, what to do???

1. Politics actually does make strange bedfellows.

2. Can his "loyalty" or complicity toward Democratic unity be assured?

3. In other words. is he of any use to the Senate's Democratic majority?

4. A number of years ago I was on jury duty. It was a significant civil case. Before leaving the courtroom for the punishment phase of our responsibility an alternate juror quietly said to me,
"To Punish Does Not Mean To Destroy."

Keep the b****rd on a short leash.

I'd prefer banishment to Alaska or a compulsory bacon and egg breakfast.

However, he might have some utility.

Perhaps he can communicate with Alien Spacecraft or something like that. Real short leash. With a cage at night. Like a dog.

Posted by: jato1 | November 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I believe there is a scripture that says, you are either with us or against us, and Lieberman has shown that he is against Barack Obama and everything the Dems stand for. You do not keep your enemies close where they have a greater advantage to stab you in the back. Makes no sense!

Posted by: dsoulplane

---------------------------


Fortunately, we are not a theocracy. "Scripture" says a lot of things.

But the truth of political history is that you keep your enemies closer than your friends.

Lieb will vote Dem when it is necessary..Supreme Court, etc....and when he doesn't (Iraq) it won't matter because we have moderate Repubs who will give is the votes we need.

Revenge is the way of Bush, Cheney, Rove et al.

It is not the way of Obama. Like Abe Lincoln, he looks to winning the war not inconsequential battles. Let's use Lieberman to further our goals...it will be easier to effect if he remains where he is.

Posted by: wpost4112 | November 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The Fix has it wrong. The remark that crosses the line was to accuse Obama of cutting the funding of troops in the field. It was a lie. Joe knew he was lying and that didn't stop him. He also knew that McCain had voted the same way.

Secondly he campaigned for other GOP members and lastly he was in charge of Governmental Reform and despite the most lawless admin in history (and with the house doing all the work) sat back and did nothing. The man is a cretin and a liar.

Posted by: Hebephrene | November 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman (R-Mossad) and Chief Lobbyist for AIPAC will remain as Committee Chair.

Democrats retain and continue abused spouse mentality post-election.

Posted by: Patriot3 | November 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"you'd have to be a dimwitted Lib to wait for tha actual inauguration to grapple with the fact that the Libs are coming and the economy is going in the toilet as a result. most of us with brains (aka not Libs) predicted that a few months early."

Posted by: king_of_zouk

Hey King-of_zouk: Where have you been, the Republicans are still in office and the economy is already in the toilet and I think the current administration flushed!

Posted by: tinkabell1 | November 13, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

KOZ needs to keep his powder dry. He's got at least four (more likely eight) years of President Obama to blog about.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama doesn't have to worry about Joe Lieberman. Its obvious Joe "The Lieberman" made himself look like a fool. He seems to be making the same bad judgment BUSH makes!
I think it is better to keep your enemies close to you. Joe has put himself into a political BOX. He may be a Jew, and that is exactly what Right Wing Christians do not like! So even though Joe would like to play the Republican conservative, his allies (The Democrats) are looking at him like you look at a person who sold the Cow for a few Magic Beans!
Hey Joe, the whole world would like to hear you’re rational. Can you please tell us your rational?
Love to hear it.

Posted by: vicbennettnet | November 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The problem that the Democratic caucus faces is this: The party just ran a 50-sate election that would have been impossible but for the contributions (i.e., money, manpower and enthusiasm) of its core constituents. A vote to retain Lieberman will be interpreted by the base as a betrayal of their efforts, which in fact it would be. I for one work damn hard for my money and I do not contribute it lightly to politicians. Now that they have my money and my vote, they cannot simply say “go home the party doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to us.” Such a betrayal of the party faithful, so soon after the election, would not be forgotten.

Posted by: codexjust1 | November 13, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

It's not Liberals fault for the fact that Bush and his administration screwed up. Liberals are a reaction to the failure of an administration blind-sided by ideology and the exchange of rational diplomacy for a Wild West one on steroids. Americans sure are sitting pretty. Congress (all parties) and the government in general forgot they had a job and should have hung up an "Out to Lunch" sign. Thus, they didn't see the credit crisis coming, we are on a collision course with nuclear proliferation and STILL bin Laden and friends are recruiting faster than the Boy Scouts.

Meanwhile, Lieberman's been "Joe the Rubber Stamp" for as long as it was politically advantageous. What's he done but support a war with more commercial than political foundation and for unbridled presidential power? He's nothing more than a cynical politician who exploited terrorism for self-interest and political gain. Now, we're paying the price. So, I could care less about whatever brand of bi-partisianship he's selling these days. It's nothing to do with party. America can't afford this brand of egotistical politician.

Posted by: quercus_and_quill | November 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the question of Lieberman staying in the Homeland committee chairmanship, or even the caucus, is even considered a serious question is testimony to how utterly removed the east coast elites are from how ordinary people here on the left coast see things. The man is a traitor on a very personal level and on matters of principle (the war), but in Washington it's all just business as usual, vote counting over principle. Feh, the Democrats deserve Joe Lieberman. Unfortunately the country does not.

Posted by: mike777r | November 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"1. Lieberman is from Connecticut, not Vermont. Our independent senator is also Jewish, but he supported Barack all the way."

Does HE think that Obama is a socialist?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's a traitor and a weasel. What he did is betray his party and it's presidential nominee during the most important election in 40 years. He didn't just praise McCain or make a couple of speeches on his behalf; he spoke at the Republican Convention, bashed Obama, and campaigned by McCain's side for weeks. Clearly he was hoping for a cabinet post in a McCain Administration. Well, Joe, you bet on the wrong horse. And words -- and deeds -- have consequences. Lieberman should be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. And he should be made to publicly apologize, to Obama and the Democratic Party, for his disloyalty during the campaign. Only if he apologizes should he be allowed to caucus with the Democrats. This is simple: Lieberman made a big mistake, and he must be punished for it. Otherwise, the Democrats will lose a considerable amount of credibility at a critical time, and others will be tempted to "go rogue" in the future.

Posted by: TruthTeller41 | November 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has said he does not want Joe "banished." If anyone was really hurt by Joe's actions it was Obama. So if he can forgive him, who are we to object?

The caucus will decide by secret ballot. Fair enough.

And in 2012, the good folks in CT can decide whether to keep Joe in the senate (if he runs--he'll be 70).

Posted by: mikeinmidland | November 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I say it is fine for Lieberman to stay in the caucus but he should be stripped of his chairmanship roles.

First he is no longer a Democrat. He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Second, he not only campaigned for McCain he repeated some pretty nasty GOP talking points. Furthermore, he campaigned for several GOP senators against Dem challengers - see Maine and Minnesota.

Third, what has Mr. Lieberman done with his Homeland security chair? It does not seem as if he has pursued any allegations of corruption and fraud.

Fourth, his position with regard to these chairmanships is opposed to Obama's and the electorates. He will not help usher in change but rather he will oppose change.

He does not deserve to keep his chair because he has been ineffectual and because he has strayed too from the fold.

Posted by: jswallow | November 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama has cancelled all public appearances and put on hold all transition efforts until he can get his 400 advisors to agree, with recent poll results in hand...
on exactly what to do about the dog situation. Liberal interest grups are fiercly lobbying and the CinC to be has promised to not avert his attention from this task until it is complete - estimated to be sometime around 2011.

"There are many competing interests" he stated at a press conference with a single question allowed.

He went on to say "Of all the fake promises I made, this is the one I will try to keep. If I don't, I'll be looking at fat interns for the next 4 years. Bill already showed me the secret closet and entrance."

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

RE: mikeinmidland

Oh, and PS: He didn't "adopt" the Independent label voluntarily--he lost the Democratic primary and had to run as an independent.

-------------
It's true "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord" We already kicked him out, and he won fair and square, even though I don't like it.

Going after Joe would be hypocritical to the Obama team and even hurt us with Republican cooperation.

Posted by: owldog | November 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Factually incorrect. You know Obama was a state senator for more than 4 years.

Would you rather he waited until Jan 19 to resign his senate seat? What is your point, except to make every news item an excuse to bash your next President?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | November 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

hey king_of-zouck,(what an obnoxious nick name)the Dow is up more than 500 points, does it mean President Elect Obama is responsible for it? You deluded repube!

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"and his longest held job yet."

In fact, you pathetic hack, his jobs as a state senator, lecturer, and lawyer all exceeded four years.

As to Lieberman, he can caucus where he chooses, but in no way does he deserve to be rewarded for his behaviour over the last two years (and particularly the last six months) by being allowed to chair the committee; that privilege belongs to Democrats, which he is not.

Posted by: SeanC1 | November 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing Connecticut voters can do; the State does not have a recall provision.

Posted by: MockingbirdGirl | November 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who are demanding Joe's ouster are apparently not with Barack Obama in his desire to get past "old-style politics."

I gave money to Lieberman in 2004 (very early before he dropped out) because he is a centrist. I was as outraged as anyone when he started shilling for McCain. But to oust him from the Democratic caucus would be to deny everything Obama has said about working together.

Yes, take away his chairmanship. Let him stay in the caucus.

Oh, and PS: He didn't "adopt" the Independent label voluntarily--he lost the Democratic primary and had to run as an independent.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | November 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I think this dumb Quaker should be kicked right out of the south Carolina House of Representatives. who needs a black female in office anyway.

signed, an edubacted Lib

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

RE: wesfromGA

Good idea. Let the citizens of CT, the voters, do the dirty work. Keep it cordial in DC

Posted by: owldog | November 13, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Does CT law allow a recall of US Senators? CT voters need to be the ones who decide whether to put Lieberman out of his political misery. What Lieberman did equals or exceeds what Gray Davis did in California. Connecticut voters ought to show Lieberman how they feel.

Posted by: wesfromGA | November 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a traitor and Connecticut should dump this senator from their choice. He is a disgrace to the Democratic party and disgrace to the congress. What a jerk!!

Posted by: Ruptan | November 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

RE: greenmountainboy | November 13, 2008 3:50 PM

---------------------
Good question.

It sometimes seems the best and the worst come from the USA. Netanyahu called Yitztak Rabin "Worse than Hitler" before he was killed. Netanyahu was from Upstate New York. Rabin was the first Prime Minister(and maybe only Prime Minister) to be raised in Israel with Palestinians.

Yet most American Jews would never live in a country with such "Jim Crow" laws and lack of Habeus Corpus for prisoners.

It is interesting that although the two-State solution is doomed, most right wingers will see "a land of all its people" true democratic Israel, as code for the destruction of the "Jewish State" (not Israel, mind you.)

Lieberman represents the past. Tolerating him shows where we are now, but not where we are going. We need that reminder of how bad the past is.

Posted by: owldog | November 13, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

joe must go. he can not chair shuch an important committee when his views offose the party and the president. this would carry the team of rivals thing too far.

Posted by: fred17 | November 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

President-Elect Obama Resigns From Senate President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday he's resigning from the Senate, effective Sunday. He is calling his four-year term "one of the highest honors and privileges" of his life

and his longest held job yet.


four years of promise - zero changes. the era of zero is here. ZerObama!!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of Connecticut I can tell you that it certainly has hurt Lieberman's long term prospects. No one I know has agreed to vote for him next election. Most people have come out very much on the other side, agrily and vehemently opposed to him ever repreesnting us again.

Posted by: amybc291 | November 13, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

With Obama winning CT by 61% and Democrats winning the Congressional seat 3 to 1, and Jewish folks voting for Obama 78%, I doubt if the old man will be around for another Seante term. May as well put up with him and maybe he'll see the tide of the future and change.

Posted by: owldog | November 13, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, chairmanships must be reserved exclusively for Democrats. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat; therefore, Joe Lieberman should not receive a chairmanship -- on ANY committee or subcommittee.

If this drives him into the arms of the Republican caucus, well, let's see how many committee chairmanships he gets from them! But at least he will have a heck of a lot harder time winning reelection in 2012 in Connecticut after losing his clout.

And defeating Joe Lieberman should be a personal goal of all Democrats at this point.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | November 13, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey DocChuck!

1. Lieberman is from Connecticut, not Vermont. Our independent senator is also Jewish, but he supported Barack all the way.

2. What does being Jewish have to do with anything anyway? Go back to your cave and leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | November 13, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dear "DocChuck" -
I bow to no one in loathing for Lieberman.
I live in Virginia, but donated several hundred dollars to Ned Lamont.
Be that as it may, there is a nasty, nasty whiff of anti-semitism in "This old, outdated, over-the-hill, turncoat jewish politician." If the senator was of a different faith would you have said "This old, outdated, over-the-hill, turncoat LUTHERAN politician?" Or "CATHOLIC politician?"
As with most bigots, you are ill-informed on multiple levels. Senator Lieberman represents Connecticut and so "the voters of Vermont" have no capacity to "do" anything.

Posted by: pjd56 | November 13, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it's a case of holding one's friends close and holding one's enemies even closer. Lieberman clearly showed no good sense or loyalty to his former party by campaigning for McCain.

"Independant" is a cover term for defector with Lieberman. When a politician takes on the label it only means that the political winds in the district shift direction almost hourly. Lieberman really needs a new watch.

Posted by: bfjackjernigan | November 13, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I might have thought that Docchuck knew what he was talking about, until he mistakenly said the people of Vermont (Lieberman is from Connecticut!!!).

Posted by: jweber91 | November 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman felt the need to distance himself from his Democratic brethren over differences in policy. He then threw his backing behind the Republican candidate for the presidency abandoning his former party's nominee. Why should he now be allowed to step back into his former party's good graces?

Posted by: scottberns | November 13, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk, you must make an excellent rug, because you certainly lie like one when you place all the blame for the state of the economy on the democrats. Let's see...

Christopher Cox, Harvey Pitt, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell, Grover Norquist, ...

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | November 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse


There are things that just happen, actions that can't be forgotten, lines that can't be crossed. Lieberman crossed one of those lines, and the overwhelming majority of those donors and volunteers and everyday folks who helped Obama win will feel it a betrayal if he lives to stiff the Dems another day.

Not exactly the same as pardoning Nixon but certainly along the same lines.

Bob Casey is anti-abortion, there are plenty of Dems who are Iraq hawks. The Democratic Party is tolerating more diversity of thought these days than the other side. But Lieberman did something virtually unprecedented, and he knew what the reaction would be.

Posted by: davidg7376 | November 13, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"you'd have to be a dimwitted Lib to wait for tha actual inauguration to grapple with the fact that the Libs are coming and the economy is going in the toilet as a result. most of us with brains (aka not Libs) predicted that a few months early."

Posted by: king_of_zouk

You are certainly deluded king, and I bet you are the only one saying that you have a brain...

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Why, oh WHY, will no one step up and say what needs to be said?

This old, outdated, over-the-hill, turncoat jewish politician needs to be put out to pasture . . . NOW!

And if the voters in Vermont will not do it, then the Democratic Party, led by Obama, who I voted for, must do it.

Liberman is a liar, he is interested in NO ONE other than his political advancement (and now, his very survival).

He needs to be dealt with, swiftly and severely.

Posted by: DocChuck | November 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I do believe it is not only a few senators that put isreal ahead of this country but Chenny is at the top of the list, What is best for isreal comes first and let the poor old taxpayer foot the bill

Posted by: ekirch | November 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I believe there is a scripture that says, you are either with us or against us, and Lieberman has shown that he is against Barack Obama and everything the Dems stand for. You do not keep your enemies close where they have a greater advantage to stab you in the back. Makes no sense!

And as for Palin, her ambition is bigger than her talent. She is like someone pursuing a singing career who cannot sing. Let Palin burn her self out as she is quickly wearing out the welcome mat!

Posted by: dsoulplane | November 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman doesn't have to fear the Senate Democrats because he has AIPAC to keep them (hat in hand) in line. He was carrying the AIPAC flag in this election and Israel has many more "US" Senators than any other "state" is allowed to have.

Posted by: 9ssevier | November 13, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse


king_of_zouk wrote, "At least Bush kept us safe. I am not confident Obambi will."

------------------------

oh. i'm not sure about that. i think there are a whole bunch of angry people in this world now.. and a lot of them wear al qaida nametags.. and they don't take well to war waged against them. it is just a matter of time for this country to be attacked again. it would have, and will happen, REGARDLESS of who's in office.

there isn't a finite number of terrorists. you kill one, two pop up. terrorism is a mindset. have you seen the look of a lot of those young kids who have lost family members in these wars in the middle east? they want R*E*V*E*N*G*E....

the u.s. can't protect every thing, and every body. they just can't. think about it.. they are only scanning a few percent of the shipping containers coming into this country. homeland security is a joke. the u.s. gov't cares more about 5 pounds of marijuana coming from mexico than they do about finding 100 suicide belts hidden in a pallet of persian rugs.

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse


I say: throw the bum out...he needs the Democratic party more than the party needs him....

do not let him in if he tries to come back. Quite an opportunist.

Posted by: wrock76taolcom | November 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Senate Democrats did not sink Joe Lieberman's primary run in Connecticut, Connecticut Democrats sank him.

If he chooses to caucus with Senate Democrats as an Independent, that's fine, but the Senate owes him nothing, and certainly not the chairmanship of a committee as prominent as Homeland Security.

Congress has moved past Lieberman on the vital issues relevant to the Department of Homeland Security, and his being stripped of the chairmanship there makes sense even beyond his betrayal of the Democratic Party in elections this year.

Posted by: JC505 | November 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

correction:

The economy IS in the toilet, thanks to Dodd, Obama, frank, PeLousy et al.

don't try to pin your government intrusion on the market on us. We weren't the ones giving houses away. when we pointed out the problem, your guys shot down the solution. the tapes don't lie. but it seems Libs do.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

mycomment writes
"sadly, too many members of congress have greater fealty to israel than they do to this country"

Rep Bachmann, is that you?

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"you'd have to be a dimwitted Lib to wait for tha actual inauguration to grapple with the fact that the Libs are coming and the economy is going in the toilet as a result. most of us with brains (aka not Libs) predicted that a few months early.

Posted by: king_of_zouk"

You in a coma or something, zouk? The economy IS in the toilet, thanks to Bush/Cheney and the Republicans. What remains to be seen if the "Libs" can get it out.

Posted by: thrh | November 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are not allowed to tell the truth about themselves or think!! The socialist elitist arrogance toward anyone with a different viewpoint is sickening. At least Sara Palin has experience unfortunately the liberal mind can't stand a woman who speaks for the good of all. Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer who wrote (or did he) some intelligent papers.

Joe Lieberman is a great American who does the right thing instead of catering to the Sick Liberal ego!

Posted by: AmerIndianTaxpayer | November 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I still have no idea why they have him chairing a committee anyway. Take it all away from him. He is more likely to hang his "swing vote" status over their heads any chance he gets as it is... Forget the filibuster proof 60 margin and kick Leiberman to the curb.

Posted by: docnolz | November 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse


you know...

nothing anyone (including myself) says here makes any difference.

barack obama has already said that he isn't going to "punish" lieberman.

and who is going to go up against obama? obama is a worldwide sensation.

EVERYBODY is kissing obama's a$$ now.. including the moose lady, bush, all the fox commentators.. in fact, the ONLY person that HASN'T kissed his butt is rush limpd*ck..

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

but i think that people should give obama a chance.

he sure as hell can't do any worse than bush. not by a LONGSHOT.

Posted by: DriveByPoster


Indeed he could. we could be attacked at home again. we could fumble the progress in Iraq. we could raise taxes and kill off any possible recovery. we could implement large expensive, ineffective government programs. (aren't they all?)

Bush's main problem was the spending and the cronyism. Obama is heading right down that path at top speed. At least Bush kept us safe. I am not confident Obambi will.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

What Lieberman has done is beyond forgiveness. Let him go and enjoy the many leadership opportunities in the Republican Party now. I can't believe anyone is even considering allowing him to keep that chairmanship. Are the Democrats that stupid to allow a Judas like this to sit in on their caucus? He is nothing but trouble and if the Dems keep him, they're asking for more.

Posted by: sdsmith1 | November 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris grossly understates the case. Lieberman said much worse things about Obama than the quote from the Republican Convention.

Bayh unintentionally stuck the knife in Lieberman by arguing that Lieberman is such a small man that he would let the loss of a chairmanship change his position on policy matters. So much for "country first."

Posted by: KC11 | November 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: multiplepov | November 13, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman's embracing of John McCain, his old friend, may be understandable to many, but his negative words towards Mr. Obama are not. I believe that Mr. Lieberman should become a Republican. He would be a moderate, voting his conscience on all issues, but not privy to the back door meetings of Democrats. He could still vote for the Majority when he so desired. He should not have a leadership position for the Democratic Party, but that doesn't stop him from leadership in the Senate on key issues. I believe, in this past election, he made his choice clear as to his party loyalty or disloyalty. Do the right thing, Mr. Lieberman, become the Republican moderate you truly are. Demos would like to have your vote, but will do just fine without it.

Posted by: HaroldFCrockettJr | November 13, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Quite the contrary on the economy. things went pretty well until the PeLousy congress took over. then the forward looking market reacted badly to the possibility that Obama might win. then the day after the election and most days since, the reality of Libs in charge finished off all hopes of prosperity we might have hidden.

the ultimate source of all this difficulty - Frank and dodd engineering the housing market. forget the reality of lending money - poor people have a right to own a house. and now we all get to pay for it. among many other things we will be paying for soon.

did you know you had a right to arugula? Can you believe how much it costs these days?

you'd have to be a dimwitted Lib to wait for tha actual inauguration to grapple with the fact that the Libs are coming and the economy is going in the toilet as a result. most of us with brains (aka not Libs) predicted that a few months early.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman does owe the Dems. He was elected with the understanding that he would caucus with them. To strip him of his chairmanship would simply the cost of an action. If Lieberman decides to caucus with the Repubs that is his call.

Posted by: tnlewis1 | November 13, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The Lib Dem Socialists are a very smarmy arrogant treasonous very unlikeable deceitful bunch.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | November 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse


king_of_zouk wrote, "In the far left ring for today's greatest show on earth we have the spineless Harry reid.....

.... On the other side we have madame generallissimo PeLousy, the worst speaker in history...... and a face like a plastic jackel locked in a perpetual smile."

--------------------------------

i agree with you on reid and pelosi.. they are both friggin worthless. pelosi 4 years ago said it was "off the table" for a bush impeachment. and that was because she herself was privvy to the info about the torture as part of the senate intelligence committee, so she was as guilty as bush was.

but i think that people should give obama a chance.

he sure as hell can't do any worse than bush. not by a LONGSHOT.

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I respect Lieberman's right to oppose the Democratic Party at any time. But, I don't want a scoundrel in the caucas. Lieberman asked Obama to come to his aid in 2006 when he was down to Ned Lamont. To then turn and make personal attacks on Obama in 2008 is the work of a dirt-bag. Who needs a dirt-bag in the Democratic Party?

Posted by: rdabrams | November 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect to President-elect Obama and Senator Evan Bayh, I think the Democratic Caucus should vote to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and let him wander the halls until somebody take him in.

What he did is unforgiveable.

Come on Dems - show some backbone and cut this poison out of the apple. Given the opportunity he will attack the party again. Why should the Dems be his charity case.

If you need more votes in the senate, then get more elected the democratic way, with honest debate.. Not by pimping Lieberman. I can't even bring myself to call him Senator anymore. McSame LAP DOG seems to fit...

I think he would have been the worst one-dimensional Secrtary of State this country has ever had (if McCain would have given him the job).

By the way - I am a 25 year Independent.

Posted by: ajon1600 | November 13, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Lieberman feels in his heart of hearts as if it's the Democrats who deserted him, and not the other way around (referring of course to his primary loss a few years back). Supporting McCain was payback, no doubt.

Remember, this is the highest levels Washington politics we're discussing -- so it's like Faber University...

Posted by: Samson151 | November 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman, the American Judas, is useful to Obama and the Dem agenda. He stays. No biggie. Proves Obama's larger vision and ability to put the good of the country before ego.

Another round for Obama.

Let's move on to more important things.

Posted by: wpost4112 | November 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that the Democratic party really needs Lieberman's Likud party of one! Mr. Lieberman is an extremely dangerous man not only to the people of America, but to the peace loving citizens of Israel! CT Resident

Posted by: dgward44 | November 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"and runs the economy into the ground "
Be serious king_of_clowns. We don't need President Barack Hussein Obama to run the economy in the ground, Georgie Porgie already done that...
Man I love that name Barack Hussein Obama, President of the USA, isn't great?

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you must be getting paid per post. Can't take anything you write seriously. Sorry. Too transparent.

Posted by: tellthetruth01 | November 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

What really bothered me about Lieberman through the last several years is not so much his support for the Iraq war, but this notion that he has that we should not be discussing this as a nation. I don't think he went so far as to call dissenters traitors, but just the idea that there should be no dissent really bothered me.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Senate Democrats do not have 60 reliable seats needed to shut down a filibuster. Therefore, pragmatism reigns and Lieberman stays because most of the time he votes with the Democrats."

No, I don't think that works. First, on any important issue that would require a cloture, you cannot count on Joe's vote. Iraq, the economy... how is he a liberal anymore? Maybe gay rights. Second, wait, I remember when the dems threatened a filibuster, we had a complete meltdown where the republicans decided to try and do away with the whole thing because they didn't like the minority party having a say.

Grow a pair, dems. Toss Joe and if the republicans start to block legislation, nuke em. Figuratively speaking, of course. Alternatively, if they suddenly decide the filibuster is IMPORTANT (now that they need it) enshrine it such that it cannot be taken away by the next republican congress.

Posted by: fake1 | November 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

What part of the word LOSERS you wingnuts don't get?
The Repubes are out, and given the fact that they are becoming the party of joe the plumber, mediocrity, ignorance and close mind, BY GOLLY, I BETCHA a SIX PACK, you are going to be out for quite some time, may be forever and the men on the right still reasoning will have to start a new party.
Hasta la vista losers!

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse


since this story mentions ole mister potato head himself, john mccain.. it makes me wonder.

after the mccains got their a$$es collectively kicked in the election... do you think walking death cindy mccain has starting hitting the percocets and vicodins yet??

you just know she will.

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Send him hunting w/ Dick Cheney.

Posted by: nonsensical2001 | November 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

sadly, too many members of congress have greater fealty to israel than they do to this country. and until aipac signs off on holy joe's marginalization, it ain't gonna happen. and give up that sweet, sweet dhs honeypot?

never happen.

Posted by: mycomment | November 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The following senators are lobbying on Lieberman's behalf:
Chris Dodd
Ben Nelson
Ken Salazar
Tom Carver
Now we can add Evan Bayh and Harry Reid on the list.

These tools don't think they are answerable to the electorate. They will soon find out differently, if they choose a crony over the public good.

Posted by: Pupster | November 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's decision to back McCain--and Palin--was his own choice. Fine. But no one in their right minds believes having Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the presidency is reassuring when it comes to the nation's security.

Lieberman has lost his credibility to chair the Homeland Security committee for this very vital reason.

Now, who he wants to caucus with is up to him. But his chairmanship should be toast. Period. If Harry Reid can't muster this, the Democratic Party should find a new leader in the Senate.

Posted by: tellthetruth01 | November 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee has 2012 website? http://www.HuckabeeShow.com

Has fox news finally gone too far, shocking video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFyNkNbO3g

Posted by: pastor123 | November 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I personally think Lieberman is a mangy dog and a scum, and I would love to say "off with his head"...

As it turns out, however, our President Elect is a wiser man than I am-- he wants to form a bipartisan coalition, he's for unity and conciliation... very well then, here is the first former enemy to recruit.

We need 60 votes in the Senate to pass universal health care, middle-class tax cuts, energy independence... After that-- I hope that we toss the mangy dog overboard!

Posted by: alarico | November 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Does not seem to matter what any of us think, only what the World Congress want's.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

As for what I think WILL happen? I think he stays. Dems are too spineless to give him the boot.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse


LOL

i just saw the caption for the photo at the top of this article;

"Will Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain cost him politically?"

cost WHO politically??? who's hurting who?

is lieberman hurting mccain?

or is mccain hurting lieberman?

THEY ARE *BOTH* LOSERS!!!

now all we need is the friggin moose lady to rear her big ugly head, "GOD SPEAKS TO ME! GOD WANTED ME TO RUN! IT WAS GODS DECISION ON NOV 4th! IF GOD WANTS ME TO RUN IN 2012 I WILL. BLAH BLAH BLAH"

ALL of these people are LOSERS!

L * O * S * E * R * S !

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

In the far left ring for today's greatest show on earth we have the spineless Harry reid. He will amaze you with feats of bending over so far that he has his head up his own clown suit.

On the other side we have madame generallissimo PeLousy, the worst speaker in history. watch as she dives to new lows in congrsssional approvals with a lack of passing any laws, a desire to punish and torture any of the clowns who can't fit in her little car and a face like a plastic jackel locked in a perpetual smile.

In the center ring, we have the messiah, THE ONE. watch as he reneges on every promise ever made, tries to vote PRESENT on bills and runs the economy into the ground faster than a sweaty palmed trapeze artist falling to the ground. He loves the spotlight but has no actual skills or performance lined up.


the media can then be heard to cheer loudly and declare that this is indeed the Greatest show on Earth, besides themselves, of course.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

it would be a step up for Senator Lieberman if he didn't have to continue his relationship with the dems...
hell will break loose next year and he would be better off standing on his own...
Senator Lieberman should not have to explain why he sided with the enemies of Israel...

Posted by: DwightHCollins | November 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The blather about Lieberman being some sort of bipartisan coming from the right wing is truly amusing. There is nothing bipartisan about Liebarman. He defended Bush during the numerous scandals involved in the famous GWOT like torture, lack of habeus corpus, illegal surveillance, etc. He did everything he could to impede the investigations of Bush's misdeeds. He totally supported McCain and went along with his switch to the dark side, even to the point of attacking Obama with some of the filthiest slander you can imagine.

For the right wing to now be sanctimonious about "bipartisanship" is just beyond disgusting. There really isn't an adequate word in the English language to describe their hideousness, but you get the idea.

Posted by: dkmjr | November 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Like I said before the king_of _idiots is a loser and needs to go blogging on the Faux News.
Yo loser! the American people have decided and the Repubes are now irrelevant, go join the Caribou Barbie's association

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I have not heard ONE WORD of public APOLOGY from Lieberman. Nor do I care to. No apology would ever be SINCERE and, in any event, questioning of Barack Obama's patriotism is UNFORGIVABLE.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman should be allowed to be the leader of the Independent party, depending on how he stacks up with the other Independent in the Senate for Senority. I don't think the Dems should give him any committee chairmanships unless no one else will take them.
He betrayed the Democratic Party. Let him serve the Independent Party and the State of Israel.

Posted by: bghgh | November 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the Democratic Caucus decides to do,I will still hate that SOB with a passion. And with that hate comes a daily prayer that Lieberman drop dead right on the Senate floor while giving a pro-Israel speech. C-Span ratings will soar.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | November 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Most of these comments are pitiable. Traitor? Shows one of the main problems/trappings of a two-party system. It's party first, country (maybe) second. If having Lieberman as the chair of the Homeland Security Committee is what's best for the committee (thus country), then so be it. Good for Obama and his remarks. Maybe there's a chance that bipartisanism will take hold. Petty "punishment" has no place in keeping the country safe. Of the two houses, the Senate has always been the more rational and calm, so I suspect will be the case here.

Posted by: joemdavis55 | November 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

It's very simple, Lieberman is a Republican! A true wolf in sheep's clothing.

The man deserves nothing less than political ruin for lying to everyone about his political raison d'etre.

Can't we stop playing his crass political game and politically neuter him once and for all?

Posted by: egenius | November 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse


i'd let lieberman stay, but i WOULD require him to dress up like BOZO THE CLOWN while congress was in session.

he can wear that big white baggy outfit with the ruffles on the sleeves and collar, and have a big round red nose, and the bright orange bozo hair and a big painted on smile.

oh yea, he also has to wear the little tiny hat and the size 28 shoes.

Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I think it sets a good tone for the new administration to follow Barack's lead in this. Why start out evening scores, when you have much more important work to accomplish. If Lieberman bolts, this will be a thing that people remember, diverting Democrats from achieving more important things than achieving petty revenge. Even though at times during the campaign Lieberman acted like a j***, applauding inane accusations. That said, it's time to move on.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | November 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a traitor. The entire nation knows that his first loyalty is to the racist state of Israel, not to America. He should be cast out of the Democratic caucus and then leave America.

Posted by: dsrobins | November 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

After all, he just spent two years without a single hearing into the Bush administration's misdeeds. If that isn't incompetence and abdication of responsibility, I don't know what is.

Posted by: dkmjr


you must recall then that the Messiah never once held his committee meeting to oversee NATO and Afghanistan. I concur - incompetent.

After all there may be steroids in baseball!! Heaven forbid. there ought to be a law.

Only one thing, Ringling brothers trademarked the three ring circus long before PeLousy, Reid and Obama came to town. It was always hard to pay attention with all those clowns vying for the spotlight.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the problem. Liebermann votes like a Democrat on consumer, labor, and middle class issues. He acts like a Republican when it comes to foreign policy, but so do a lot of blue dog Democrats. Leave him be. Right now, with the country in economic crisis, we need every sane vote we can get. We need to end outsourcing and get rid of the H1-B visa. If Liebermann is willing to do that, I want him. If not, then bid him "goodbye".

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Fool me once. Lieberman needs to regain the trust of the dems and should be replaced as chair of the Home Land Security committee asap. If he joins the repubs he can then show his ability to reach across the aisle. Far better to keep an eye on hom there.

Posted by: fjcarbone1 | November 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

People! Listen to yourselves!

Lieberman isn't going to start voting with the Republicans on everything. He just isn't. He won't last in 2010 if he does.

And it doesn't matter which party he caucuses with. It did matter two years ago since the majority was so slim. Now that the Democrats are looking at at least 57, Lieberman's caucus isn't going to change a majority.

Remember, Republicans and Democrats aren't just identical clubs. They represent philosophical differences. Lieberman is going to vote with his philosophy no matter who he is caucusing with.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

First of all Joe Loserman lost the democratic primary, and being the sore loser he is he demanded a "do over" by running as an independent. The Democrats should send him packing for good. Yeah, I know for the sake of pragmatism he should be allowed to caucus with the Dems, but How can the Democrats ever trust him again?
The base wants him OUT!!

PS hey king_of_zouck, what your bubbling about Obama has to do with blogging about this article. Do everybody a favor and go hide your head in the sand, loser!

Posted by: BFranco | November 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

DON"T Throw Liberman under the bus..

You will mess up the tires.

Isa

Posted by: Issa1 | November 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Joe, you really needs to accept the fact that you're no longer a Democrat. You lost your former party's primary for re-election in '06 and campaigned for the opposition of your former party in the presidential election of '08. You're not a Democrat.

Maybe the party changed; maybe you changed, but you don't HAVE to be a Democrat, so why are you pretending that you still are? Being independent doesn't mean you can't agree with and support much of your former party's platform, but drop this wishy-washy "Independent Democrat" nonsense already. There are many moderate Democrats in Congress, but they won their respective state primaries and didn't denigrate their party's nominee for President at their opposition party's national convention.

Not even the so-called Maverick ever did anything like that.

Posted by: ComfortablyDumb | November 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious beyond any doubt that the reason Lieberman wants to retain the chairmanship is to attack the Obama program. Lieberman's record for the last two years as chairman shows that his agenda has been to further the Republican program. He will use the committee as a platform to do to Obama what the Republicans did to Clinton, constant harassment with no actual basis in fact. After all, his attacks on Obama during the campaign were completely and totally false. Does anyone really think that he will now only go after Obama for real misdeeds?! Then once he starts that, there will be no way that the Democrats can remove him without opening themselves to charges of whitewash.

The argument that the Democrats need him in the caucus for the close votes is absurd because he will have no reason to go with the Democratic program whether or not he has a chairmanship.

To remove him from the chairmanship is NOT retaliation, but rather a prudent move to avoid future problems. In addition, it is the result of his actions that show serious incompetence. After all, he just spent two years without a single hearing into the Bush administration's misdeeds. If that isn't incompetence and abdication of responsibility, I don't know what is.

Posted by: dkmjr | November 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm! I thought the Dem campaign was run on the promise of bi-partisanship. You know - reaching across the aisle! Who could fit the description better than Joe the Senator? Tell me it ain't so - that the Dems have already recanted on their campaign promise - even before the Inauguration - and are giving the boot to someone who represents the spirit of bi-partisanship? Campaign promises indeed are short lived!

Posted by: militaryspouse | November 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Kick him out. Plain and simple.

Dodd, Bayh etc. better listen to the base on this one. We dont give a f* what they think. This is what we want.

Posted by: RandomGuy | November 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is an independent and so owes the Democrat nothing. Their past together is history. Vice versa, Democrats owe Lieberman nothing. Their cooperation this far is simply base on mutual benefits and some ideologies. They should continue caucussing with Lieberman but only in the area they agree. Thus, since they no longer believe the same thing on the direction of national defense and homeland security, Lieberman should be stripped of this chairmanship. He could be given chairmanship in aother commitee, health, for example, where he and the Democrats agree. Of course, he could turn them down and caucusses with the Republicans, but he would be foolish to do so. It is his choice whether if he want to be making new initiatives with the Democrats in the next 4 years or joining the Republicans in being obstructionists and, thus, reducing his effectiveness. One would think Lieberman would prefer the former even if its not in the committee of homeland security.

Posted by: pspox | November 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is an independent and so owes the Democrat nothing. Their past together is history. Vice versa, Democrats owe Lieberman nothing. Their cooperation this far is simply base on mutual benefits and some ideologies. They should continue caucussing with Lieberman but only in the area they agree. Thus, since they no longer believe the same thing on the direction of national defense and homeland security, Lieberman should be stripped of this chairmanship. He could be given chairmanship in aother commitee, health, for example, where he and the Democrats agree. Of course, he could turn them down and caucusses with the Republicans, but he would be foolish to do so. It is his choice whether if he want to be making new initiatives with the Democrats in the next 4 years or joining the Republicans in being obstructionists and, thus, reducing his effectiveness. One would think Lieberman would prefer the former even if its not in the committee of homeland security.

Posted by: pspox | November 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

When did it become absolutely unforgivable to speak out against the Party Apparatus? Gosh - the scandal - and independent thinker in the Democratic Party! And they act like this is a mortal sin. So much for intellectual diversity. If we're ever going to get something done on Capitol Hill - we're going to have to get back to letting individual Senators be individuals, instead of mandating that everyone march lockstep in whatever direction Reid/Gingrich/Pelosi/Lott say they have to march.

Posted by: mwcob | November 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are in a hard spot. If they censure Leiberman the Republicans will have a press field day. If they don't censure him the Republicans will be agast, cause then their own might jump and endorse Dempocrats. And that neither side wants.

Posted by: laurelphoto | November 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is an independent and so owes the Democrat nothing. Their past together is history. Vice versa, Democrats owe Lieberman nothing. Their cooperation this far is simply base on mutual benefits and some ideologies. They should continue caucussing with Lieberman but only in the area they agree. Thus, since they no longer believe the same thing on the direction of national defense and homeland security, Lieberman should be stripped of this chairmanship. He could be given chairmanship in aother commitee, health, for example, where he and the Democrats agree. Of course, he could turn them down and caucusses with the Republicans, but he would be foolish to do so. It is his choice whether if he want to be making new initiatives with the Democrats in the next 4 years or joining the Republicans in being obstructionists and, thus, reducing his effectiveness. One would think Lieberman would prefer the former even if its not in the committee of homeland security.

Posted by: pspox | November 13, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

That Joe Lieberman is a sanctimonious old hypocrite who should be stripped of his chairmanship there can be no doubt. This has always been Lieberman's modus operandi. Supporting the nominee of the opposing party while attacking the nominee from your own for his alleged lack of patriotism and experience goes beyond what is politically and morally acceptable. Lieberman came to the Senate as an Independent by defying his party after losing in a Democratic primary. Lieberman attacked Bill Clinton's White House Monica antics after having dumped his own first wife because of her alleged lack of piety. This is one too many. Cut this snakes head off once and for all.

What is he going to do start palling around with Palin/Hannity/Rove/Cheney/Bush? Pehaps the people of CT will keep him home next time. And if this happens despite Obama's plea to the contrary it will not be his fault. And if Lieberman survives he can pretend to be honorable for awhile again and beholden to Obama.

But then it was Hillary Clinton and her husband who also heaped praise on John McCain's qualifications during a Democratic primary while attacking Obama's qualifications. All this while pulling and playing the sex card from the bottom of the deck by complaining about sexism while asking for votes because of her sex.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Posted by: blackmamba1 | November 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Joe Lieberman should join "Joe the Plumber" and form their own party. He doesn't really deserve to retain his chairmanship for his remarks and actions against President-elect Obama, yet he would not easily fit the mold as a Republican because he's socially more liberal than even the "moderate" Republican Senators Snowe, Collins, and Spector.

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | November 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman can be useful, then use him like a box of Kleenex.

But don't trust him. If he double-crosses even once, step on him like a roach.

Posted by: oggtheblog | November 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I say ive the 'whiney' Senator another chance to earn Chairmanship of a Committee, see how he performs and if after a two year propationary period he shows a bit of loyalty reconsider appointing him as Chairman of Homeland Security. If he can't accept those terms then cast him to the Republicans!

Posted by: lairb7 | November 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Senate Democrats do not have 60 reliable seats needed to shut down a filibuster. Therefore, pragmatism reigns and Lieberman stays because most of the time he votes with the Democrats.

Democrats don't need a fight like this at this time. There are more important concerns, like the economy!

Obama loses nothing for a show of pragmatism.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | November 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The Obama girls need a hypoallergenic dog. Perhaps Droopy Dog Lie-berman can fill the bill.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | November 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, it need hardly be said, comes to the presidency with no comparable agenda, or much of an agenda at all. True, he has had position papers galore, but in the course of his run he contradicted several of their core assumptions or promises. He proposed significant spending increases, but in light of the credit crisis has said they may have to be postponed. He has said something similar about his tax plan, which features certain cuts for the middle class and a substantial increase for Americans making over $250,000 a year. He supported gay marriage, then opposed it. He opposed welfare reform, then said he would not question Bill Clinton’s decision to sign it into law. He has spent more than a year backing away from his statement that he would meet with America’s enemies without preconditions.

On election night, with his two enchanting girls flashing their million-watt smiles in anticipation of that “new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House,” Barack Obama told the worshipful throng before him and the tens of millions who voted for him that they had chosen to “put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” The day is now upon us, and hope, however audacious, will no longer be enough.

J Pod

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

LIEberman is a indepentent, when they control the senate he can chair a commity. Untill then, bye-bye.

Posted by: obrier2 | November 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Throw Lieberman under the bus real quick. This man simply cannot be trusted.

Posted by: truth1 | November 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk - do you know what 'hypoallergenic' means? Didn't think so. And in '08, 'gullible' is defined as: 'Ya Betcha, I voted for the Palin/McSame flea circus'. You really think Simple Sarah is a smart, strong, truthful leader? Ya, I'll just look at Russia and know the story. Ya, OK, I'll have ta bring ya some of that. And, I just read, I don't know what. Really.

Posted by: mlod2 | November 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled that the democrats would still consider keeping him as chairman of the DHS committee! He is a snake who has no loyalty to any party and has no morality. His only concern is power and the support of any war in the middle east that would further the interests of Israel. His support for McCain makes him nothing less than a traitor...The democrats would loose nothing by voting him out...The republicans would never trust him as one of them - even if they outwardly smile at him.

Posted by: genevieve2000 | November 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a lying skunk, he should be kicked out of the Committe as well as the caucus. He is a completely disloyal thug who I am surprised hasn't turned on Al Gore, yet.

The man is an opportunist and a warmonger and doesn't have an ounce of decency, voters of Connecticut will be well advised to boot him off, come next election.

Posted by: spidy99 | November 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama should make Traitor Joe a happy camper by appointing him the Ambassador to Israel. Get him out of the Senate, get him out of the Party, get him out of the country, and most importantly, get him out of our sight. He has made his choices and now he must deal with the consequences of decisions he made during the campaign and during Clinton's time in office.

Put ole Jose into harm's way, where he can serve his country (you make the choice of which country), and those of us who can't stand the sight or the sound of him can have a bit of respite in the coming 4 years without that weasel corrupting our lives.

Just my humble opinion....

Posted by: cameracowboy | November 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you're right on this. I'm really angry about his actions during the campaign but I'm also a pragmatist: we need to keep him in the Democratic Caucus given that we're within a hair's breadth of having a 60 Dem majority. If it doesn't work out he can be unseated later.

Posted by: LeftCoastOracle | November 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse


i love hearing joe lieberman talking on television... he has a whiney little voice, and it always sounds like he is about to start crying.

i'll bet that dennis kucinich could kick lieberman's a$$... anyone want to take this bet?

HEY KUCINICH! DID YOU HEAR WHAT LIEBERMAN SAID ABOUT YOUR WIFE???

IF SOMEONE SAID THAT ABOUT *MY* WIFE, I WOULD GO KICK HIS A$$!!!

but then.. that is what I would do....


Posted by: DriveByPoster | November 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

As an independent (and proud pragmatist) it is very disturbing to me to see the partisan long knives come out.

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative (like a very large portion of this nation). I have voted on both sides of the aisle and look for merit over party every time.

It was very encouraging to hear our new president speak about non-partisan cooperation in his acceptance speak. We are in a very tight spot and pure partisanship is a very effective means of ensuring stagnation and failure.

There is already a risk that given their minority position, the Republicans, stripped of the ability to participate in making legislation will simply see what they can do to stop the Dems. This is the usual way of how things work for both sides (see the recent Brookings Institute report for more info on this phenomenon).

With all this in mind, to hear party hacks (sorry folks gotta call it like I see it) calling for blood because one of their own broke ranks, doesn't look to me to be a great way to get the US back on track.

I'd like to encourage those who are using language like 'traitor' and 'liar' to think less punitively and more practically. Our nation depends on it. We are all Americans

Posted by: robert5000 | November 13, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I believe it would send a bad precedent if Lieberman did not suffer any penalty for his actions. His actions were simply outrageous! He did more than just endorse McCain for the presidency, rather he crossed a line by introducing Senator McCain at the Republican national convention, campaigning with McCain, and questioning the qualifications of the Democratic nominee to serve as commander-in-chief while at the same time defending the fitness of Sarah Palin to become vice-president (everyone knew she doesn't have the brains for the job after her disastrous interviews with Kati Couri) and to become president if McCain became physically unable due to illness or death to finish out his tenure in the presidency.

Lieberman's actions had less to do with a sense of patriotism or loyalty to his friend John McCain and more to do with wanting to even the score and avenging past grievances with the Democratic Party and his Senate colleagues after his 2006 Senate campaign. C’mon, does anyone think that Lieberman believes Palin was competent to become President? What if Hillary Clinton had endorsed McCain, would everyone be rushing to forgive her?

I recommend stripping away Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and not allowing him to ever become chairman of another committee or subcommittee at least during the upcoming congressional session. However, I would not boot him out of the democratic caucus. If he decides to walk, so be it!!!

Posted by: bbatson1 | November 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is a man of no honor!

Barack Obama campaigned for him when Joe's chips were down; and how did the undistinguished senator from Connecticut repay him? Stabbing Barack Obama neatly in the back all year long, even up on the GOP convention posium!

Lieberman even campaigned for Republican Senator Norm Coleman in his race against Al Franken!

No committee chairmanships for this turncoat! Call your senators, everybody and tell them:

JUST SAY NO TO JOE!!!

Posted by: JC505 | November 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It is understandable and excusable that Lieberman might have wanted to support his "friend", John McCain.

What is not excusable is that Judas Joe appeared on stage as a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention; repeatedly described himself as a "Democrat" (which he is not; he is an Independent); spoke in favor not only of McCain but of Sarah Palin (someone he did not know).

He also spoke AGAINST Barack Obama.

If he knew what he was doing, he deserves to be shunned for what he is: a turncoat and a traitor.

If he did not know what he was doing, he is mentally unfit to be a U.S. Senator.

From the transcript of Judas Joe's speech to the Republican National Convention:

"Senator Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead, but, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America.

(APPLAUSE)

"In the Senate, during the three-and-a-half years that Senator Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to get accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done.

"And I'd just ask you to contrast that with John McCain's record of independence and bipartisanship, but let me go one further. And this may make history here at this Republican convention.

"Let me contrast Barack Obama's record to the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups, worked with Republicans, and got some important things done, like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget.

(APPLAUSE)

"Now, I'm honored to say just a word about the great lady that John McCain has selected as his running mate.

"Governor Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer. She's taken on the special interests and the political power-brokers in Alaska and reached across party lines to get things done. The truth is, she is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

"That's why -- that's why I sincerely believe that the real ticket for change this year is the McCain-Palin ticket."

(APPLAUSE)

Posted by: pali2500 | November 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

At first, I was furious that Mr. Lieberman thought he could skate through all that he did during the campaign.
The friendship and support he gave John McCain was of little note, but when he attacked our candidates, that did it, in my eyes.
Then, our dear President-elect took his forgiving stance.
Perhaps Obama is right.
But, I would not allow Senator Lieberman to retain his preferred committee chairmanship.
I would give him another committee of his interests -- there are 2 or 3 listed in a previous article.
But if he can't support the incoming administration, the Homeland Security chair is just too much of a risk.
That committee carries a lot of heft and the new president will need complete support and cooperation.
What would the Democratic leadership do if Senator Lieberman began to undermine the new administration?
Is it worth that risk?
In this era of deep recession, this issue is bigger than Mr. Lieberman's bruised feelings.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | November 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Trust?

Posted by: jato1 | November 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

cdcomedian asks
"How did the GOP have so much "control" with 50 senators and Dick Cheney's tie breaker vote, but the Dems have 56 right now without Lieberman, and will most likely pick up Alaska... and still need Lieberman?"


The answer lies largely in party discipline. The GOP has more than the Dems. Also, there are more conservative Dems than liberal Repubs - so its easier for the Repubs to lure a couple Dems over than the inverse.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Hey kids, it was just an empty liberal campaign promise never intended to be kept. Same as always."

If only we could have eight years of a president who doesn't adjust in the light of new information.

Yeah...I wonder what that would be like...

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman disagrees with a majority of Democrats on the best ways in which to maintain security of the United States. That alone is reason enough to remove him as chair of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Posted by: Commentator_ | November 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's actions, even if he is technically an Independent, cannot be overlooked. It would be one thing to endorse his friend Senator McCain and do one or two rallies, but that is not what he did. He should be removed as chairman of his current committee and elected to the chairmanship of another, not so politically important, committee. Let him know that while they are unhappy, he is not unwelcome and that he can always work his way back up to the chairmanship of this or another important committee.

Posted by: caribis | November 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I have contacted both my Democratic Senators and stated my opposition to having LIE-berman remain not only as chairman of Homeland Security Committee, but also within the Democratic caucus.

I respectively suggest that those who likewise object do the same.

I also indicated that if he is not removed I would not be sending money to support either senator when they are up for re-election, which is quite soon.

This thing is an abomination, why cannot the good people of Connecticut submit a recall election on him is beyond me. He is a traitor of the lowest variety, a $cumbag, degenerate, whose loyalty to America must now be questioned.

The fact that this thing could effectively cutoff, misdirect, confuse or even deliberately conspire to suppress evidence of illegality and treason by bushie et al if left as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is truly frightening.

Remove him, recall him and confine him to the dustbin of history.

Posted by: opuddles | November 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Who's punishing whom? Dems tried to throw him out. He won as an independent. eg, he owes the Dems NOTHING.

Now, the fact that he wishes to caucus with the Dems still is now favor to them. They don't need his vote? fine, that's politics.

Even I'm scratching my head on what he expects to accomplish in the no man's zone but for Dems to call him a traitor is hilarious, they're the ones who attempted the assassination, they may be able to punish him, but it's hypocritical for them to challenge him on his loyalty. Nothing new on the forum, I guess.

Posted by: jhtlag1 | November 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Normally I would lobby for forgiveness, however in this case I am not so inclined. Senator Lieberman really cannot have it both ways. He needs to decide which side of the aisle he is on and where his loyalties lie. I used to think that he was better than his actions over the past five years and enthusiastically supported him as the Vice Presidential nominee but now I consider him a turncoat and political opportunist. The only reason to keep him in the caucus is to preserve the Democratic majority in the Senate, but I would advise watching your back, you never know when he will turn on the party again.

Posted by: BGF1 | November 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Screw the zionist SOB!!!

Posted by: demtse | November 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"How did the GOP have so much "control" with 50 senators and Dick Cheney's tie breaker vote,

but the Dems have 56 right now without Lieberman, and will most likely pick up Alaska... and still need Lieberman?"

One thing is that Republicans are a LOT more willing to use the filibuster than the Dems were. The filibuster record was shattered in the current congress.

Second, they don't really need 60. 57 is plenty. There were quite a few bills that could have passed with two or three more votes. Now the dems will have six more. The 60 number is as much of a marketing tool as anything to drum up donations.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Kick his arse out and do it now. Dems will need republican support to get cloture with or without the traitor. Better to lose a few cloture votes than put up with another second with lieberman in the democratic caucus.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | November 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a liar as well as a traitor. He promised the people of CT that if elected he would work to insure a Democrat won the Presidency in 2008. He did nothing to investigate or stop our current criminal-in-chief during his chairmanship.

Boot him off all committees as well as his chairs. If he doesn't like it, let him go where he really belongs - with the warmongers in the Republican Party.

Posted by: capone1 | November 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

CHICAGO – Not to put a damper on the Obama family's canine quest, but allergists have a news flash: There's no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog.

Doctors who specialize in children's allergies say kids who are truly allergic to dogs probably shouldn't get one.

So Malia and Sasha, how about a fish instead?

President-elect Barack Obama has said his young daughters have been promised a dog with their move to the White House. And in his first post-election news conference last week, he announced that Malia "is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just another in the long line of broken promises based on a total lack of any knowledge about how the world really is once the hope and change have been left in the ditch.

Hey kids, it was just an empty liberal campaign promise never intended to be kept. Same as always.

next up - our enemies now love us. and then.... tax hikes are good for you.

you Libs are as gullible as ten year olds.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Defer to the bi-partisanship Obama desires, at least for now. To allow Lieberman to continue, even in his present role, accentuates Obama's desire to find American solutions rather than partisan stalemate.

Certainly, filibuster is now less likely in the Senate with the improved Democrat majority. The several Republicans up for re-election in 2010 know, one can be sure, just how vulnerable they are. And even though Lieberman is less vital to progressing legislation, this is not the time to play power politics, while Americans are losing their homes, their jobs, their insurance, and their financial viability. Consensus, when it can be achieved, should guide the way. Punishing a socially and economically progressive Senator aside would serve no constructive purpose and would degrade the tenor our nation needs in its leadership.

Posted by: grantzdc9 | November 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Lieberman's future party loyalty is not simply an academic question"! Lieberman has NO loyalty to the party.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | November 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

so funny to see the different treatment of Jeffords and Liebermann. One is principled, the other a traitor. One left the party at a prime juncture to simply maintain power, the other dared to voice opposition to the surrender mentality.

the Libs will tolerate no bridging of the Obamabot agenda. Except he removed it and now has lowered all expectations of any progress on the seas falling, the climate recovering, the economy withering, the enemies loving us, the surrender pending, the unions taking over, the taxes going up, the opposition silenced, etc.

what jaundiced eyes you have.

the better to not see past the blinders.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

After losing in the contest with Al Gore, Mr. Lieberman ran for reelection to his Senate seat. He was soundly defeated in the primary.

So, in support of his party's primary choice Joe went independent and was reelected to "my seat". His rallying cry was "I'm gonna go with Joe."

Now I think we should simply say, it's time for Joe to go.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | November 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a disgusting liar and opportunist. But of course he will keep his chairmanship, as Reid and the Dems are usually spineless cowards. Even the GOP Senators know that Lieberman is untrustworthy. I pray the Dems grow a backbone and strip Lieberman of his chair. If he bolts the caucus over that, good riddance.

Posted by: vfazio | November 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

This is not an isolated incident. It should cost him.

Posted by: SarahBB | November 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse


He needs to be taken out back, pure and simple. Old School WOODSHED.

That moron belongs with the RepubliCONS...maybe he can run with Sarah, the vapid beauty queen. What a PAIR! LOL LOL

Posted by: misssymoto | November 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Remove him from the HSC chair. If he wants to stay with the caucus, fine. What awaits him with the Republicans? Other than wanting war with Iran what do they have in common? I know Joe is a worm and can turn in any way he chooses but he also has constituents in Ct. to consider if he plans another run. Chances are the Repubglicans will be backing one of their own rather than him. If he switches to Republican he loses. Why all the hand ringing about a filibuster proof Senate? Remember the "nuclear option?" Aside, there are moderate Republicans in the Senate that won't necessarily oppose the Democrats at every turn. This last election has just about minimized the Evangelical and war mongering part of their party. They are eating their own now after their disastrous showing Nov. 4th. Lieberman's pitiful leadership as HSC chair should automatically cause the Democratic caucus to dump him. Reid hasn't the gonads.

Posted by: nelsonh66 | November 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I saw this on a liberal blog but...

How did the GOP have so much "control" with 50 senators and Dick Cheney's tie breaker vote,

but the Dems have 56 right now without Lieberman, and will most likely pick up Alaska... and still need Lieberman?

Not to be a complete history buff... but how about we introduce the Republcans to the "Nuclear Option" that hung over our heads.

Posted by: cbcomedian | November 13, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

President-Elect Obama is a bigger man than me. I'll just say it: F Lieberman. Traitor.

Posted by: soonerthought | November 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I think you can count on the "Thugocracy" and brownshirts delivering on punishment for failing to toe the line. Liberals are in the end vindictive and petty operatives. It is contrary to their MO to voice any questions. Look what happens if you dare question the Messiah.

PeLousy and Reid are no less thugs then the chicago apparatchiks. Deploy the truth squads and begin the IRS audits.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

When Joe said losing his committee chairmanship would be "unacceptable," he should have been removed from that committee immediately. On a personal level, he has demonstrated he is a lying weasel (see his campaign priomises to CT voters when he last ran for the Senate). As a committee chair he was a bust while disagreeing with the incoming President publicly. Remove him from any committee that deals directly with national security issues and throw him a bone in another area. If he remains in national security role he will only undermine Obama. If he fails to accept this compromise, boot him over to his buddies on the other side of the aisle. He's political toast anyway.

Posted by: maxfli68 | November 13, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

my previous post: replace "anything" with "everything"

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how much the Democrats would need to worry about what would happen in terms of Lieberman's caucusing. In terms of purely who runs the show, Lieberman obviously no longer makes a difference. In terms of voting, do people think he is going to just suddenly vote with the Republicans on anything? If he does, well, let him. That would be career suicide. Connecticut will elect a non-Democrat who has a major chairmanship and votes Democrat on most things. They won't elect someone who has neither of those things. This is Connecticut. Don't worry about a Republican Senator.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me more than Lieberman's role in the campaign is his role in the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security - which has done a lot to increase Washington bureaucracy and nothing to increase security. It was his idea and it was a bad idea. So I would give him a failing grade on homeland security and would like to see him bumped from the committee for that reason. Put someone in that position who is not paranoid. I certainly think the Dems should try to keep him in their caucus, however. On social issues, Lieberman is an unabashed liberal - I don't think he is a very good fit for the current Republican party.

Posted by: wmw4 | November 13, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but when was Lieberman ever a Democrat?

He doesn't represent either party, he only represents Israel and every single one of his comments in the Senate only addresses Israeli issues.

He doesn’t belong to the Democrats, Republicans or Connecticut he is the Israeli representative in our senate. Keep him in a little corner and bring him out for Jewish holidays.


Posted by: Southeasterner | November 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Joe is a power-hungry pol, so there will be no surprises if he chooses to suck up his so-called principles and return to the Dems. They'll let him come back if he grovels...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | November 13, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I would advise the Democrats to let bygones be bygones. As long as Lieberman is willing to caucus with them, to support their agenda (with the obvious exception of matters related to the war in Iraq), and to chair the Homeland Security Committee in a way that does not impede the Democratic agenda, then he can be useful to them, and it would be foolish to throw that away for the sake of petty vindictiveness over an election campaign that ended very successfully for the Democrats.

Posted by: lydgate | November 13, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget."

Posted by: diana9 | November 13, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

MAKE LIEBERMAN A MAN WITHOUT A HOMELAND (COMMITTEE)


Lieberman's GOP convention treason was bad enough...

But fact is, he has failed to exercise meaningful oversight over the Department of Homeland Security and its sponsorship of programs that are alleged to be involved in "community stalking" of persons subject to "extrajudicial targeting" by ideologically-motivated operatives.

For that reason alone, he should be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Lieberman praised not only McCain, but Sarah Palin. If the Democrats don't question his judgment and fitness to serve based on his lax oversight of DHS, at least punish him for his endorsement of both ends of the GOP ticket by taking away his top committee post.

Democrats, let him keep his other committee assignments if you must, but Lieberman deserves -- and probably expects -- some retribution for his embrace of the opposition party.

Chances are, he'll accept the verdict and still caucus with the Democrats, if only because his constituents will further punish him if he doesn't.


BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER?

Not as long as government-supported extrajudicial targeting squads are "community stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens

OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

WHAT IF THEY COULD SHOOT YOU
WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE? THEY CAN.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 13, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget."

Posted by: diana9 | November 13, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman's supporters keep conflating:
Keeping him as chair of a major committee
with
Keeping him in the caucus.
Fine, that's their spin. But it's your job to see past the spin. You flunk with this column. Indded, Obama distinguished between the two in his comment. He clearly said that whether Lieberman continues in his chairmanship is something for teh Democratic caucus to decide.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | November 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman lied when he he said he wouldn't attack Obama at the RNC which would be bad enough for anyone, but particularly for someone who largely was chosen to be Al Gore's running mate because of his outrage over Bill Clinton's lies.

Posted by: srhodes1 | November 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a pretty forgiving guy and understand that things said "in the heat of a campaign" might be truth over-seasoned with hyperbole... However, I'm feeling less forgiving of Lieberman and I think it would be good politics and good policy for the Democrats to strip him of his Committee Chairmanship. Speaking in favor of McCain was one thing--extolling the virtues of Sarah Palin on the campaign trail after stating at the RNC "eloquence is no substitute for a record--not in these tough times--when Palin has neither eloquence nor a record, is hypocritical and undermines his entire rationale for supporting McCain! One need not believe in ideological purity to support the notion that the D's must stand for their principles, else they'll be dealing with such charactures of themselves in the future and lose the support of the American people. It would be sound strategy and sound politics for Obama & Reid to say to Lieberman, "Shalom, Chaver."

Posted by: MichaelinSeattle | November 13, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone surprised that Liberals are not allowed to tell the truth about themselves??

Even a tax avoiding ways and means chair is unremarkable.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | November 13, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company