Do we let him stay as chairman of Homeland Security? Do the Dems oust him? Do the Republicans adopt him? Or should he wander the halls of the Senate caucusing with himself?
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
He didn’t earn his chairmanship. he got it as a sop so they could have his vote. He showed his appreciation by working against the Democrats; not only Obama, but other Senators and Congressmen.
Drop him and tell him he may earn his place back in the Democrat Caucus by his actions. If he votes consistently with the opposition then he will never be a Democrat again. If he shows allegiance to the Democrat cause then welcome him back. The status quo should not be accepted.
If Obama’s disciples can’t reach across the isle to McCain and Liberman, then their stated desire for bipartisanship—insincere rhetoric.
Liberman did a good job…job performance should count for something…
56 million people voted for McCain, far too many for Obama’s civilian defense force to lock up.
And many of us are armed.
His stance on the war proves there still is at least one Democrat that believes in America and has some kind of honor.
#34,
An illegal acton to promote regime change is honourable?
I see you are a TR American.
Cursor_
Tar and feathers sounds appropriate.
Please explain where he voted consistently with the opposition? I see a vote for McCain and supporting the Iraq War, the latter done by many Democrats.
#34, iSnotAir,
You remind me of a screen door on a submarine. Funny until some Republican Assistant Under Secretary in the Defense Department orders them and they are installed.
Lieberman’s stand shows he is NOT a true American. True Americans don’t send their sons off to die overseas in a stupid war so his friends can reap windfall profits.
I say put him in charge of lawns and grounds.
I would hate to be in Lieberman’s shoes. I honor the fact that he stood by McCain during the election, it showed me that he has integrity. How can you let a friend down? McCain needed Lieberman. He needed everyone.
Lieberman may be a little different than most Dems, but I appreciate his open mind on all issues. Although I might not agree with all of his ideas on the issues (mostly the war issue), I commend him for having our country’s best interest at heart.
Marc couldn’t even run a 7-11, but he thinks he’s part of the left wing decision making. How cute.
You could count on one hand the Democratic members of congress with Lieberman’s integrity. I disagree with on many things, but I respect him–which is more than I can say for most of them.
If the Democrats demote him, he will most likely cross the aisle to the Republicans–whose tent is actually big enough to admit him. And by doing so, the Dems will guarantee themselves to not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (since even if they steal all three remaining close elections, that will still bring them JUST to 60/40).
Time for the Dems to make up and be friendly.
Let’s demonize Joe. He’s an terrible independent thinker that is not 100% partisan. That’s terrible.
We need more people that mindlessly follow their party’s line.
Oh wait, we have 99 other senators that already do that. Maybe it’s a good idea to respect a guy that has a backbone and shred of integrity.
@38-
“Lieberman’s stand shows he is NOT a true American. True Americans don’t send their sons off to die overseas in a stupid war so his friends can reap windfall profits.”
Yeah that’s it.
The fact that Lieberman’s kids actually signed up shows that even though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do, they believed in serving their country so much that they put their lives on the line for it. And I really don’t think the kids or Lieberman were thinking about their Dad’s friends profits when they enlisted. To each his own, I disagree with the war also, but that doesn’t make sense to me.
Funny, if McCain’s position was in trouble with the Reps because he supported Leiberman with an endorsement of some sort he’d be lauded for being independent, blah blah blah…oh wait, Mc is a bit like Leiberman. Both are a bit independent, they’ll tell their own party they’re a bit ‘off’, occasionally even poke an eye out in the process. But MC can do that yet Leiberman’s a traitor for not walking in lockstep. It’s not like he tried to set party to the Dems. Hell, the Dems were the first to substantially pull one. They chose not to support his incumbancy with DNC $$ so he wound up going indie.
Obama overlooking Leiberman’s ‘waywardness’ is the smartest thing. He appears magnanamous, and if the DNC does oust him it isn’t BO’s fault. He (Leiberman) never struck me as a bad sort, what a rip if they throw the book at him while true crooks/zealots–Dodd, Frank, Waxman–continue to stay in place. Without a few moderates on either side, though, there will be less cover politically. So let them do it at their own risk.
#45 – Turbo
>>Yeah that’s it. The fact that Lieberman’s
>>kids actually signed up shows that even
>>though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do,
>>they believed in serving their country so
>>much that they put their lives on the line
>>for it.
wtf???
“Matt Lieberman graduated from Yale University in 1989, and from Yale Law School in 1994. He is the Head of School of Greenfield Hebrew Academy in Atlanta, GA. Rebecca Lieberman graduated from Barnard College in 1991, and from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1997. She is married to Jacob Wisse.“.
#46 – Selvy
>>Hell, the Dems were the first to substantially
>>pull one. They chose not to support his
>>incumbancy with DNC $$ so he wound up going
>>indie.
wtf?? Is this April Fools’ Day or something? Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman was forced to “go indie”, or find a new line of work.
#48: The Democratic party and MoveOn.org put all their support (money) behind the guy who ran unsuccessfully to unseat Lieberman. Prominent members of the Democratic party also came out to support the other guy (e.g. John Kerry).
Basically, the Dems threw him under the bus, thinking they could replace him with a basically unqualified one issue candidate.
Well, despite all the money and endorsements, their candidate lost.
Then they tried to pretend that “no, we never wanted Lieberman out of the party”. No, not as long as it was 50/50 in the Senate and they needed him.
But bottom line is: Karma is a bitch and Lieberman emerged more powerful after the whole mess than he was before.
#35,38 – nothing at all illegal or out of line about the war. We pulled out the first time under certain conditions. The conditions were violated and we went back in. Period.
Lieberman has more integrity than most of the rest of Congress combined. Especially the necrophiliac Reid and Cannibal Pelosi.
#49 – Kwadwo
Lamont funded most of the campaign costs (>$13,000,000)out of his own pocket. Moveon dot org gave him about $250,000 (1.9%).
Polls since the 2006 election have shown that Lamont would pound Lieberman to bits, if the election were held at the time of the poll. The most recent one, taken after Lieberman was pimping for McBush, shows he’d lose by 59% – 34%.
Lieberman is a loser.
#50 – Booger
>>nothing at all illegal or out of line about
>>the war.
I guess that depends on your definition of “illegal”. It’s certainly immoral.
>>We pulled out the first time under certain
>>conditions. The conditions were violated and
>>we went back in. Period.
Oh, didn’t you get the memo? We “went back in” because Iraqis were the 9/11 hijackers, they had WMDs, etc.
You should be watching more of Faux Spews.
#51
Patently untrue. The DNC withdrew their funding from Lieberman and backed Lamont. After Lamont lost, they rewrote history to make it look like they hadn’t backed a losing loser horse, but that isn’t what happened.
It’s nice that polls showed Lamont could beat Lieberman at some point. Polls last year also said that Hillary would pound Obama.
The only loser here is the myopic small tent Democratic party who has no room for anyone who doesn’t tread the party line 100%. ‘My way or the highway’ meets a swift kick to the balls. Fortunately the swift kick won.
#53 – Kwadwo
Not just would Lamont beat Lieberman “at some point in time”, but at every point in time since residents of the Nutmeg State realized what a loser they’d put in office.
With every loving stroke his tongue applied to Dumbya’s ass, the margin got wider and wider, until now Lamont would beat Lieberman almost 2:1.
As to the size of the tent, I wouldn’t go bragging about the size of the Republicans’. The only reason that there’s any diversity at all is because they have to pander to both the snaggle-toothed cross-eyed inbred mutants who want hang all the niggers on one hand, and the $100,000,000.00/yr business titans who have been milking middle American for far too long on the other.
In any case, Lieberman made his bed, now he’s got to lie in it. It’s one thing not to “tread the party line 100%”, it’s quite another slavishly support a war based on dishonesty, and to become the national champion for a presidential candidate from the opposing party.
TFB, Joe.
Oh my how some people have such short memories.
Lamont won the primary over Lieberman. In our democratic system that means the party now supports Lamont. Lieberman then ran as an “Independent Democrat”. The Republicans then dropped support for their official guy so the wing nuts could now support Lieberman. Lieberman narrowly won in the end because of Republican support and the Democrats that still supported him.
The Democrats might have needed Lieberman before but they certainly don’t need him now. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats then he better start showing some loyalty and earn his way back into their good graces.
He comes from a state with a republican governor. Remove him and replace his seat with a republican. I think not a good idea.
#56,qs,
Then so be it. If the Republicans want to be portrayed to the American public as obstructionists, they do so at their own peril.
my comment is in the form of a cartoon:http://theangrygene.tumblr.com/