Washingpost headline: Obama Supports Keeping Lieberman in Democratic Caucus. Huh? Which Obama?
President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed keeping Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in the Democratic caucus, suggesting to leadership that the two sides reach a compromise in the conflict over the former Democratic vice presidential nominee's future
Ok, fine. You really want to play the bipartisanship kumbaya game with the republicans and Judas Lieberman. You really don't have to worry about that. Judas' time is almost up. The GOP will run a strong candidate against him. We need to draft a strong candidate to defeat him in the primaries.
Take away his chairmanship, make him irrelevant. In addition to suggesting Obama might be a Marxist and accusing him of "not putting country first," Lieberman participated in The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, a movie which claims there is a vast conspiracy of American Muslims to subvert democracy ... and has a secret FBI file to prove it. For that alone, he should lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee unless he produces the file. What message are we sending by keeping an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a Committee that handles national security affairs? He can join the GOP as far as I am concerned. They welcome, encourage, and sollicite such statements.
Only after giving up his chaimanship should he be allowed to caucus with the democrats. If he does not like it, show him the door and a kick in the rear end will be greatly appreciated on behalf of all democrats.
Excelsior.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
You guys are in charge but you do yourselves no favors by trying to force your members into a strict party mold. A mob of yes men does this country no favors.
What Lieberman did is not about endorsing or voting the other guy. Name one sitting Republican senator who did this. Over there, there are consequences for doing what Lieberman did. He can be a democrat as long as he wants and he can vote however way he wants. Were he the 60th vote, that would be different. We don't have 59, so who cares how he votes. Take away his chairmanship. He does not deserve to chair anything. Go to the GOP and see if you will chair anything. They will laugh and say "Al Gore's running mate."
So this isn't about the voting, this is about party loyalty. No one is forcing him to vote for anything against his will, but they do have a legitimate gripe that he did some political back stabbing.
Still, I see no reason to toss him from the caucus. I suspect Reid needs to make a point for the disgruntled members of the Democratic caucus, but in the end I hope that they work it out. Lieberman is a valuable ally on many issues. It seems silly to toss that away on an ego trip.
Lieberman is from my state and I want him out. He votes with the republicans all the time anyway so he may as well move over.
But then again, there are some right here in Gather.
I think many in Congress would like to have done what he did to their own parties. Partisan legislation doesn't get passed in Congress, compromises do. This is compromise.
I say we should go after Liebermann. What do you all say? Huh? Huh?
There is only so much that a person may take?
When a child is naughty, that child ought to be punished.
Please do not tell me if Malia Ann, and/or Sasha were not naughty that they would not be punished.
Likewise, Liebermann should get it as well. He deserves a good political spanking.
What is that new Icon all about?
David, I don't want to see him out of the caucus. Take a away the chaimanship I am saying.
Tim Nelson, good to see you again. How are you dealing with your post obama traumatic syndrome (POTS).
McCain lite?