Prosecute the torture.

November 17, 2008

Unacceptable

We all know the story of Joe Lieberman (I-CT). He'd been a democrat for a long time but then in the 2006 election cycle he lost the democratic nomination to an anti-war candidate named Ned Lamont. Instead of doing the noble thing and dropping out, he ran as an independent.

He won the election and promised to caucus with the democrats in the Senate.

But then his friend John McCain ran for president and he went campaigning for the republican and against the winner, Barack Obama.

During the past couple of years the Senate leadership couldn't punish ole Joe. They only had a one vote margin for a majority. If they pushed him, he'd walk and the democrats would lose their majority.

But now the dems in the senate have way more than that (56 without ole Joe). So how will they punish him?

Looks like a slap on the wrist. The dems will be proposing a compromise: Joe will keep his Homeland Security committee and be relieved of a lesser sub-committee.

I'm with kos on this one. This is unacceptable:
Um, what idiot would think that taking away a subcommittee from Lieberman would be seen as a "stinging rebuke"? In whose DC-Beltway-addled mind is that even remotely punishment?

Let Lieberman keep that subcommittee. No one gives a shit about it. The only thing that matters, the only thing that Lieberman wants, and the only thing we don't want him to have -- is the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

If this is the "starting point", and given the Senate Democrats' history of capitulations, expect Lieberman to come out of that meeting as majority leader.

Yea, I'm with kos here.

Hey YOU GUYS WON! Why don't you start acting like it and show Joe Lieberman the door.

5 comments:

Fillippelli the (Wannabe) Cook said...

Yeah, this will give me the push I needed to switch my registration back to "I" (after switching it to D for the primary).

Losers.

EdHeath said...

It's still not clear the Democrats will have the sixty votes or not in the Senate (and to be honest, I don't know what I am rooting for here).

Apart from that I gather Joe Lieberman is a still a liberal on most issues besides the war(s). I don't think he should have spoken at the Republican Convention or gone out on the trail with McCain, but I think if the Democrats are serious about wanting to be the big tent party, then they need to be willing to be inclusive. They need to show that at least within their party reasonable people can disagree reasonably, there’s room for different points of view. Plenty of independents and Reagan Democrats probably like or at least respect Lieberman for his stand on the war(s), and would think the Democrats were just being vindictive if they punished Lieberman.

Just my opinion.

Heir to the Throne said...

Funny how the Democrat will have a secret ballot for the Senate Dems caucus.
But they want to get rid of the secret ballot for the Employee Free Choice Act/check to shill for the labor unions.

kimber45 said...

heir,

Here's a challenge: You tell me how you think that the Employee Free Choice Act would harm worker's rights.

(I'm willing to bet that you know nothing about it beyond what rush, et al, have told you.)

Matte Braidic said...

Deep breath everyone.

Obviously Leebs owes Obama and we are two away from 60 blue seats. But what really what went down will only be known to a few.

Does anyone know why McCain made peace with "that one" so very soon after the election?

Do you think that they met one day before the senate caucus was to vote on poor Joe's fate was just a co-wink-e-donut?

McCain did the walk of shame to save his friend Joe the Senator.

We will never know what McCain had to pledge to Obama, but I bet it is worth it.

Who forged this deal? Raul ARI Emmanuel. The era of whimps is over