Kick Joe Lieberman Out Now

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/3/2008 5:35:28 PM

This is intolerable:

On Meet the Press, host Tom Brokaw informed guest Joe Lieberman (I-CT) that nearly 50,000 activists have signed onto the "Lieberman Must Go" petition being circulated by Brave New Films. "Do you think you're going to be comfortable next year in the Democratic caucus?" Brokaw asked. Lieberman said he's crossed party lines to support John McCain because "this is no ordinary time."

Brokaw followed-up by asking if that means he will speak at the Republican convention. Lieberman practically confirmed that he would indeed speak.

Joe Lieberman has endorsed John McCain for president and now will probably speak at the Republican National Convention. This guy's a complete disgrace and must be kicked out of the Senate Democratic caucus. Now. Please sign the petition. Thanks.

P.S. By the way, just to clarify, I am not proposing this because I think Lieberman is too "moderate" or whatever (actually, he's progressive on many issues, including the environment).  It's simply because he is actively, publicly, and vocally backing the Republican nominee for president.  That's inexcusable, and I can bet you that if a Republican U.S. Senator were actively backing Barack Obama, the GOP caucus would take action - fast!


Comments



One thing I thought during that interview. (Pain - 8/3/2008 5:47:13 PM)

Joe L. said he was supporting McCain because between the 2 candidates he feels McCain is the better choice.  My question is, when did he begin supporting McCain?  For some reason, I think it was way before the primaries were over, which effective means Jumping Joe had already ditched the Democrats a long time ago...which of course we all know, but anyway.

Is that right, or not?



December 2007 (Lowell - 8/3/2008 5:49:39 PM)
See here.


Lieberman is no Democrat (Jim White - 8/3/2008 6:24:36 PM)
I would not be surprised to see a McSame-Lie berman ticket.  


As an added bonus (Lowell - 8/3/2008 6:26:30 PM)
Check this out!

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.


Yeah, but... (ericy - 8/3/2008 9:36:25 PM)

They seem to have trouble with this fillibuster thing these days.


I think the expression is (spotter - 8/3/2008 6:35:37 PM)
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Well, the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

And what's with the big grin?  Is he schtuping Cindy McCain, or what?



A scenario (perkinsms - 8/3/2008 7:46:50 PM)
1.  As you suggest, the Senate Democratic Caucus kicks Lieberman out.

2.  Cheney casts the tiebreaking vote in a Senate reorganization.  All committees and subcommittees get new Republican chairs, and McConnell takes the helm as Majority Leader.

3.  The new Republican leadership controls the floor, and Democrats get to vote on controversial "wedge issue" bills repeatedly from now until November.

4.  30 second television ads citing Democratic votes on wedge issue bills run in all swing Senate states.

5.  Instead of gaining 6-10 seats and being able to kick Lieberman out after the election, the Democrats only gain 2-4 seats and get to kick Lieberman out of the election.



My understanding is that (Lowell - 8/3/2008 7:56:28 PM)
the Senate can't be reorganized at this point, so your scenario stops at #2.  


This is correct (aznew - 8/3/2008 8:12:27 PM)
The Senate would not be reorganized. This explains why:

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007...

I actually wonder whether Lieberman has any intention of returning to the Senate next year anyway? If McCain wins, he anticipates a Cabinet post. If McCain loses, he has to know he is toast if he speaks at the GOP convention.

Could just be Joe's Last Hurrah.



Thanks for that (perkinsms - 8/3/2008 9:10:17 PM)
That was one of my fears.  At #2 the GOP would start filibustering everything in sight until they got a vote on a reorganization, which they would not be able to force, so it's sort of a stalemate?


That's my understanding (Lowell - 8/3/2008 9:25:36 PM)
but I'm not 100% sure.


keep the focus on electing Democrats (Greg Kane - 8/3/2008 7:59:06 PM)
Joe Lieberman would probably greatly enjoy diverting more attention away from the critical issues facing voters and becoming the center of attention as a sanctimonious martyr. I'm quite sure the press would love to have endless discussions about poor Joe's treatment at the hands of angry young Obama supporters.

Democrats can best deal with Lieberman after November... that is IF they keep their focus and do not get sidetracked.  



A presumptuous, condescending @#$% (bigforkgirl - 8/3/2008 8:34:14 PM)
Referring dismissively to Obama as a "young man" put me over the edge. He was incredibly rude to Kerry, interrupting constantly.  


Did he mean Obama is a "boy"? (Rebecca - 8/3/2008 11:07:20 PM)


No... (notwaltertejada - 8/4/2008 6:32:52 PM)
he meant that he is a...young man. In the political world that is. Many senators are at least 20 years older than him and have been around for ever. Very few are as young as Obama.
Give me a break...Obama is not always the victim of racism.  


I've Gotta Agree With Greg Kane (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/3/2008 9:32:15 PM)
The best way to fight Joe Lieberman is to win enough seats in the Senate to not need him to keep the majority and then to boot him out of the party.

Am I outraged at his antics?  You betcha.

Do I want to make sure we keep the majority and advance a progressive agenda?  Even more than I want revenge on Lieberman.  Let's keep our eye on the prize and not shoot ourselves in the foot this time.



Why would kicking Lieberman out (Lowell - 8/3/2008 9:35:01 PM)
hurt us in November?  I think it would show that Democrats won't put up with crap, that we have cojones, that we don't let people walk all over us, etc.  All good things in my opinion.  


He won't hurt us in November at the polls (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/4/2008 9:28:28 AM)
I' m just paranoid.  I don't want there to be even a whiff of a chance that the Senate could revert back to Republican control in September.

If that happens, the scenario of Republicans forcing wedge issue votes that wouldn't play well in some conservative districts held by Blue Dogs could create endless mischief and cost us a few seats.  I think we'd still get control of the Senate at the end of thd day, but not by as much.

If Obama wins, we actually won't need a veto-proof majority to get things done.  But giving him as many Democrats in Congress as possible will put him in  a stronger position.

There is wisdom in picking your fights.  And it's better to win the war than just a battle or two.



This would combat the (Lowell - 8/4/2008 10:22:20 AM)
"Democrats are wusses" meme.  That's crucial to swing voters, independents, and others who will determine the election this November.


because its a distraction (Greg Kane - 8/3/2008 10:29:30 PM)
distraction from anything not directly related to electing Democrats plays into the Republican playbook. If we're going to beat them we need both brains and cojones.

Lets be smart and clear headed about this. We're in a tight race. We don't have time to stop and step on a bug right now.



What's the issue here? (tx2vadem - 8/3/2008 10:35:05 PM)
Are we not the big tent party?  Senator Lieberman is supportive of Democratic positions in general.  Where most of the disagreement comes is his positions on foreign policy.

Why do we want to purge him from the party?  Because he is being disloyal to the party in this one instance.  Let's remember what Lyndon Baines Johnson once said: "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order."  Maybe that is Joe's mantra.  If he is feeling that he is doing what is best for our country (despite my disagreement with that), I can still accept him as a Democrat.

If you want a party that agrees with everything you think, that is not either the Democratic or Republican Parties.  You would need to form your own movement.  I would not be quick to "cleanse" the Democratic Party as Republicans have tried to on their end.  Besides Lieberman there are probably a list of sitting Democratic Senators and Representatives that you don't agree with.  

If you want to purge Lieberman, why not Webb for his votes on FISA?  Do the only people who deserve to be Democrats are those that agree with this group?  



I've defended Lieberman in the past (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/4/2008 9:37:19 AM)
using the same arguments.  But he is supporting McCain for president, possibly planning to attend the Republican convention, and causing embarrassment for the Democratic Party.

He has a right to support anybody he wants.  Nobody is suggesting that he be jailed.  But he, in fact, lost the Democratic primary in his state, ran as an Independent and is now supporting a Republican.  The Democrats do have the right to refuse to caucus with him and to strip him of his chairmanship.  I just think they should wait until after the election to do this because we don't need the distraction right now.  And doing it now only gives more publicity to Lieberman and makes him look like a martyr.  It strengthens the meme that both he and McCain are bipartisan party mavericks, which could actually work in their favor.

Remember, separating McCain from Republicans right now helps him.  Painting Lieberman as a maverick, by association also pictures McCain as one.  And while Liebeman is currently a maverick by necessity, McCain has spent the season pandering to his party's rightwing.  Some in the media are finally starting to recognize this.  Let's not undercut that perception.



You're right (tx2vadem - 8/4/2008 10:30:44 AM)
and quite sensible in your approach too.  My opinion is still that he should remain a part of the party if he so chooses.  If Senate Dems decide after the election decide to strip him of his chairmanships, that's fine.  If he still wants to caucus with Dems after that, why not?  Chances are Dems will still need his assistance after the election.  

I am in absolute agreement with everything else you have said.  Making him a cause celebre would be a mistake.  



that was a clear assesment (presidentialman - 8/4/2008 1:39:02 AM)
And I think, yes, not all the people who matter write for Raising Kaine, were connecting to go to an Obama rally with facebook, etc., etc. I mean the Senate already looks like somethings going to happen with retirements,scandals and health issues among it members, not to mention new blood. Why can't this be looked at until after the chickens have all hatched?