Joe Lieberman faces petition to expel

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/joe_lieberman_faces_petition_t.html

Joe Lieberman faces petition to expel

The senator calls the petition "old, petty, partisan politics."
Posted July 9, 2008
The Swamp


by Katie Fretland



A group of netroots activists plans to deliver a petition to the Capitol this morning with 43,000 signatures, asking senators to boot Joe Lieberman from his position in the Democratic caucus.

Filmaker Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films has led the petition effort, which attacks Lieberman's record on the Iraq war. The petition calls for Lieberman to be removed from his position as chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

"We CANNOT tolerate a leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus who supports George Bush and McCain's War in Iraq," the states on its website. "We CANNOT tolerate a Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who endorses and stumps for McCain. We call on the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and his leadership role."

Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com said that Lieberman's view on national security and Iraq are a the far right of the political spectrum.

"He has attacked our presidential nominee; he has consistently attacked the position of our caucus," Stoller said in a statement. "He has no standing as a Democrat, and should be stripped of his placement within the caucus. The future of Lieberman's standing within the caucus is a litmus test for whether Democratic senators are serious about ending the war."

Lieberman press secretary Marshall Wittman denounced the petition. He said in a statement that Lieberman will continue to put the country's interests before partisan interests.

"Americans are tired of this type of old petty partisan politics," Wittman said.

what a disgrace to my state and to the Nation.

I'm fucking outraged that the Dems allow this slug to hold a position.

are tired of LIEberman, and the overworn cliche of "old petty partisan politics" he likes to use to dismiss any legitimate concerns regarding him.

WTF doesn't he just make it official and switch parties already?

while it covers removal from the Caucus, which is fine by me, it also calls for removal of his Chairmanships, which is not within the power of the Majority Leader. The only way this owuld happen is through a new Organizing Resolution, which the Republicans would never agree to.

loose their slim majority if they kick Lieberman out.

Whatever status the Dem's have now will remain so until the end of the 110th Congress. (January 09)

We have to hold on to this pariah but in January we can give Mark Warner his chairmanships.

Difficult, I know, but possible.

x(

That said, it does signal our intentions pretty good for what will happen next year, should we take more senate seats and Lieberman no longer be necessary.

Bryant

The only way his behavior makes any sense is if he thinks the GOP will be in a majority come January. I haven't seen any pundit who believes that is likely.

With his recent actions -- and with the netroots pressure that is building up -- if the Dems end up with a majority without him, he will have to be booted. I don't see how that works for him.

full steam ahead, damn the consequences? I fervently hope he has to leave in shame with his head between his knees. The less I see and hear of him, the better.

If so, then you're right and we shouldn't jeopardize that. But if he's doing absolutely nothing for it, not voting on any legislation that other Democrats support and not in favor of investigating nefarious Bush activities, then he's a liability and not a part of the Dem majority anyway, no matter what he calls himself.

Thus giving them a Democratic Majority. If caucauses with the Republicans, then they would have the majority.

Bryant

You see, if Lieberman switches, Mitch McConnell will not automatically become the majority leader, and Harry Reid will not automatically become the minority leader. The situation is different from 2001, when Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched and made Tom Daschle the majority leader for the Democrats. Then, Daschle, with his 50-50 split, negotiated an advantageous agreement with Trent Lott whereby there was no need to pass a new resolution switching Senate leadership should the majority switch between the parties. Thus, Jeffords' switch automatically demoted Lott and promoted Daschle.

Now, however, there is no such agreement. When Lieberman switches, as he will in August, the Republicans will need to pass a new resolution to give Mitch McConnell the big chair. And, like everything else in the Senate, a new organizing resolution will require 60 votes to pass. And the Republicans don't have 60 votes.

But they do have one thing -- the ability to apply political pressure. The Republicans will argue that, when Lieberman switches, the fair and honorable thing would be for the Democrats to unilaterally disarm and turn the Senate over to the Republicans. And some Democrats, being Democrats, will respond to that pressure and consider caving (as the old joke goes, a Democrat is someone so fair-minded he won't even take his own side in an argument).

But we can't let them. The Senate leader controls the Senate schedule. And this year, when both Presidential nominees are Senators, the Senate schedule can be used to schedule votes that embarass the opposing party's nominee. Harry Reid needs to keep that control, Lieberman or no Lieberman.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/6/193231/3213/718/547463

I'm with Kos on this one! Let him pull the trigger on himself, then make SURE the rest of the
Dems don't give in!

If the Lie-man switches at the GOP convention, that is only 2 months before the election. Surely we can get 41 Dems to say, "Let's wait 2 months so that the people can decide this issue."

That's all I want to know.

is a ferret-faced cretin and I hope they kick him to the curb. Let him move to Israel, already.

I hope 'moderate' dems aren't feeding or buying into that crap.