How do the Democrats solve a problem like Joe Lieberman? The 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee and current Connecticut senator, who now calls himself an “independent Democrat,” was strongly behind GOP nominee John McCain, even speaking at the Republican convention. Now, many Democrats want to purge Lieberman from their caucus and strip him of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. But that sounds like behavior at odds with President-elect Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship. Plus, Senate Democrats will need help to reach the 60-vote procedural hurdle. Look for Lieberman to be forgiven.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
20 Comments
He should be crushed like a bug.
The Democrats should run the strongest candidate they can find against him the next time he stands for election and pour every dollar they’ve got into defeated this turncoat POS.
Capn – I think that is a long 4 years away …
“…at odds with President-elect Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship.”
Obama is so committed he get Raum-bo Emanuel to be chief of staff. Change? Keep it.
Where’s the bipartisanship? Didn’t Obama say it was about bringing all of us together?
I still do not understand the bitterness after you win. How sad you must be.
On everything except the war Lieberman has held positions even to the left of most Democrats. So – keep him in the caucus.
I’m troubled by Lieberman’s comment, “I fear America will not survive” if Democrats get sixty votes in the Senate.
We won reelection two years ago by stressing his Democratic heritage. And the fact is, he was put into office to represent the people of Connecticut, not John McCain or even the Democratic caucus. But the voters he must answer to are those who elected him.
But he should lose his committee chairmanship. It would be particularly petulant to switch party allegiance over a committee assignment. And we know he’s certainly capable of that.
Let his record in the 111th Congress determine his status in the 112th.
sunflower5
Posted November 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
Where’s the bipartisanship? Didn’t Obama say it was about bringing all of us together?
—
George W. Bush also said he was the uniter and not a divider and how did that work out for the country?
Bipartisanship works two ways and after all the personal attacks and name calling done by the McCain/Palin campaign, are they ready to truly put Country First or are they only wanting to stonewall and throw their hissy fits like the Republicans in Congress has since 2006?
Poor, Joe, The Man Without A Party.
It’s his Jewishness that keeps him divided from the dems. Any war where Israel might benefit from, he’ll support to the end of America.
Not really Phantom:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27576931
Obama’s chief of staff pick has tough-guy rep
Emanuel also adds political instincts, White House experience
Trade him for Olympia Snow.
The Right doesn’t like him, that’s good enough for me.
I heard his strategy is to get through bills vetoed by bush, but had a majority of support.
mom – your guy won. Why keep up the moaning and groaning over Bush, McCain or Palin?
Do you ever have anything positive to say? You won and your still living in yesterday. Should everyone that lost also live in the past? Or should they move on and make the best out of reality?
Either Obama is truthfull about bipartisanship or he is not. That was the question.
mom
Posted November 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
George W. Bush also said he was the uniter and not a divider and how did that work out for the country?
____________________________________
You have to admit mom that Bush finally delivered as a uniter. We united against the Republicans and thoroughly spanked them this election!
There will be no forgiveness of him at all.
Lieberman has earned himself a very short leash. He should be told exactly what he is to do and say and when. If he deviates from that in the slightest, he gets kicked to the curb and primaried.
sunflower5
Posted November 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
mom – your guy won. Why keep up the moaning and groaning over Bush, McCain or Palin?
Do you ever have anything positive to say? You won and your still living in yesterday. Should everyone that lost also live in the past? Or should they move on and make the best out of reality?
Either Obama is truthfull about bipartisanship or he is not. That was the question.
—
As usual you missed the entire point (or you carefully chose to ignore it).
Bipartisanship works two ways – that means YOUR side (the losers) need to work just as hard at being bipartisan as the winners in this election.
And I didn’t hear you crying for bipartisanship when you thought McCain was going to win?
Why all the harping now about bipartisanship?????
mxyzptlk
Posted November 6, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
mom
Posted November 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
George W. Bush also said he was the uniter and not a divider and how did that work out for the country?
____________________________________
You have to admit mom that Bush finally delivered as a uniter. We united against the Republicans and thoroughly spanked them this election!
—
You have a point! At least this is one thing GWB did not mess up, huh?
“And I didn’t hear you crying for bipartisanship when you thought McCain was going to win?
Why all the harping now about bipartisanship?????”
Back to my Titanic analogy.
The con ship has sunk. The cons are in the freezing water of electoral rejection. They’ll BEG we pick them up and then they will get about seating the lifeboat according to class.
sunflower5 is just taunting, wanting a reaction. Such an obvious ploy shouldn’t be dignified with a response.