If Lieberman isn't stripped of his chairmanship, Senate Dems can't be taken seriously

[redstate_democrat]

They will be considered all bark and no bite. This is a matter of PRINCIPLE. Democrats stood with Lieberman, gave him a chairmanship, even though Lieberman ran against the Democratic party in CT after he lost. Lieberman promised not to talk down Obama at the RNC convention but he lied and did it anyway.

Have we forgotten that he

* Campaigned for Norm Coleman against Al Franken and wrote an Op-Ed defending him from attacks from Franken

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/lieberman-going-to-bat-for-coleman-2008-10-14.html
"Any suggestion Sen. Coleman stymied Democrats' investigations into Iraq-related matters is unfair and unfounded," Lieberman wrote this weekend in an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

* Said that Hamas so-called endorsement of Obama raised questions about Obama ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbLdZ4JPx-U

* Lied at the RNC convention when he said the following:

Lieberman attacked Obama's rhetoric, saying "eloquence is no substitute for a record."

"In the Senate, has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party," Lieberman said in his speech.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.democrat.reaction/index.html

* Accused Obama of not taking principled stands

“I wish Sen. Obama would just say the surge has worked,” Lieberman said, “rather than changing his positions on how and when we should exit Iraq without acknowledging that these changes are understandably based on the facts on the ground.”

As Obama stressed shifting resources towards the conflict in Afghanistan, Lieberman stressed the two front’s interdependence, saying what happens in Iraq effects not just Afghanistan but other American interests around the world.

“What Sen. Obama does not seem to understand is that, had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq, the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London,” he said.

Lieberman also accused Obama of not taking principled stands, suggesting he “said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus -- only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org?”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/15/1200738.aspx

* Said Sarah Palin would be ready to be President if something happened to McCain, after going on and on about how Obama wasn't ready to be president.

“Let’s hope she never has to be ready because we hope McCain is elected and lives out his term. But if, God forbid, an accident occurs or something of that kind, she’ll be ready. She’s had executive experience. She’s smart. And she will have had on-the-job training.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/lieberman-addresses-palins-readiness/

* Would have run as John McCain's running mate AGAINST the Democratic Party, Obama, and America if he was chosen. The only thing that prevented him from doing so was Bill Kristol and Karl Rove.

* Said he "wouldn't rule out" joining the Republican Party MONTHS AGO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecr-QvOukfM

Im sorry, but Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is not loyal to the party. He cannot be counted on to support President Obama's military strategy. He cannot be counted on to not confer with the Republicans on key Democratic issues. He should not be allowed in the weekly strategy and policy meetings. And he MUST NOT be allowed to continue chairing the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. These committees are too important for incoming president Obama.

I know people are saying that since Lieberman votes with Democrats he should be allowed to stay. Snowe and Collins vote with Democrats on issues as well, does that mean we also give them committee chairs as well? That's ridiculous.

Joe Lieberman knew what he was doing when he decided to speak at the RNC convention and run down Obama, defending Palin! He said the Democratic Party had left some of its core values. He ran us down!

The night he spoke at the RNC convention, he placed the Obama campaign, specifically Robert Gibbs, in the position of going on Larry King to dispute the hate talk Lieberman made at the RNC. Gibbs was pissed. The Obama campaign was pissed. Richardson had to go on tv as well to denounce it.

And as a result Lieberman doesn't want to accept the consequences of his actions like a man? He wants to pull the "change card" on Obama? And Dodd is going along with it?

FUCK ALL OF THEM.

LIEBERMAN MUST GO! Or the folks in charge of deciding whether he goes should go.

Obama deserves a functional Democratic caucus. Lieberman's presence on important committees could hold up important legislation.

In addition, it's just the right thing to do. What a SLAP in the face to Obama if these FOOLS in the Senate don't act appropriately. Obama isn't pushing it because he expects the Senate Dems to do the right thing without him having to SPELL IT OUT like a kindergarten teacher. Any FOOL would know what to do in this case. I bet Obama is watching to see what gets done. Rahm will be taking names, I'm sure. That list of cowardly Dems will sit on his desk for the next 8 years. He'll know who he has when the chips are down. He'll know who he will be able to count on for sure.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Reid must go. Enough of sternly worded letters and folding with a flush in hand.

[redstate_democrat]

4. Reid seemed to show a little testicular fortitude earlier this week, but it seems his balls

shriveled back up after Lieberman tossed out his weak ass threat of caucusing with the Republicans. Is that ALL it takes before Reid folds like a cheap tent? No wonder Democrats got pushed around WHILE IN THE MAJORITY. They are some of the most SPINELESS politicians in the world. Lieberman is LUCKY to have even been given the sit down. If it had been me in charge, Lieberman would have learned about his chairmanships being stripped in the NYTimes.

[Critters2]

2. K&R!

:kick:

[TheDonkey]

3. he needs to go. Lieberman betrayed Obama and Democrats in general, stumping agains all of us

the guy is pathetic.

[Historic NY]

5. Exactly he is a Benedict Arnold.

[Borgnine]

6. Here's my question:

What's the worse that can happen if we boot him? Is he going to suddenly start voting against all of his principles out of spite? If so, CT voters will surely give him the boot. So what's the problem? He's politically neutered at this point, and we don't have to cave in to any of his demands.

[redstate_democrat]

7. He is in no position to be making demands.

Reid and the rest of the gang don't seem to understand that.

[ecstatic]

8. they should have quietly booted him weeks ago. Why are they

dragging things out so that the MSM and everyone else can get involved in each blow by blow? This story could have been old news by the time Obama won!!

[autorank]

9. So what's taking so long? SOLID K&R

I had this in the subject field "n/t" but I can't resist commenting.

I had the same thought today when I realized that this wasn't a done deal. In fact, my thought
was 'kicked out of the caucus.' There's more than enough in your OP and that's not all.

This guy is a Republican from way back. He caved in Florida 2000, totally. He's simply awful.


Great post!

[AdHocSolver]

10. Democrats cannot depend on Joe's vote without giving in to extortion. Better he should go now.

Some argue the Democrats need Lieberman's vote to make the Senate "filibuster proof". This is delusional thinking.

Lieberman has shown such disloyalty to the party that it cannot be assumed that he won't betray the party again. At the very least, he will extort advantages for his vote possibly making demands that will cripple President-elect Obama's ability to govern.

If Reid doesn't strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanships, then Reid will have betrayed the trust of the American people.

The only reason Reid is reluctant to remove Lieberman that I can see is that, if Reid can't push through Obama's agenda, Reid will use Lieberman as a scapegoat for Reid's failures.

The Democrats must NOT leave Lieberman in a position to sabotage the party's ability to carry out Obama's agenda. This will betray the public trust in the Democrats to accomplish anything, and will have serious repercussions in succeeding elections.

It is better that Lieberman be relieved of any chairmanships NOW rather than leave him in a position to act as a "fifth columnist" for the Republicans.

[progressive_realist]

12. Amen to that.

If any staffers for Reid happen to read this, realize that if Lieberman becomes the difference between success and failure on any major initiatives between now and 2012, we will be holding Reid responsible for not getting rid of him when the time was ripe. Seriously, he won't be any more reliable if he is allowed to keep his chairmanship than if he is stripped of it. And if we get dragged into any more worthless investigations of stains on dresses like we did ten years ago, I'm going to be absolutely livid. I switched to Democrat to avoid any more of that nonsense.

[cliffordu]

11. K&R big time. He needs to go.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. I see him as a republican mole. In the future he can stall or stop any progressive

Bill in its tracks by threatening his vote or leave the caucus. Trying to appease him is the same as capitulating to the republicans. Not compromise. Capitulation.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Reid is an idiot for having highly publicized meetings with Joe without being prepared to axe him.

If he wasn't sure he was ready to follow through, he should have made any meeting or negotiation on the down low. To do otherwise just makes him look stupid and weak.

What the hell is the guy thinking.