Those who want Joe LIEberman to remain a Democrat

Tuesday Oct. 21, 2008 09:15 EDT
Those who want Joe Lieberman to remain a Democrat

Salon's Mike Madden today explores the reluctance of Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership to expel Joe Lieberman from their caucus and deny him ongoing Chairmanships "even if things break their way and the party winds up in control of more than 60 seats." In order to advance the argument, Madden decided to grant anonymity to "a consultant close to some Senate Democratic leaders" to enable the "consultant" to say this:

And while punishing Lieberman would please the party's base, if the leadership needs his vote, that could be counterproductive. "The need to satisfy Daily Kos is not as important as making sure you have the votes you need," said a consultant close to some Senate Democratic leaders.

Voters might not be that impressed by punishing Lieberman, either. "At the end of the day, who gives a shit if Joe Lieberman is allowed to be chairman or do X, Y and Z for the Democrats? People care about if there's going to be an effort to get them healthcare, and do something about energy and all that . . . . It might be gratifying in the short term to get him, but in the long run what does it really get you?"


It's always good to be reminded of how craven and empty are the people who steer the Democratic leadership in Congress. First, I'm always amazed at what cowards so many of these "Democratic consultants" are who are willing to express their views only if they can hide behind a protective wall of anonymity when doing so. They're not demanding anonymity in order to leak incriminating information about the government or to criticize their bosses or because they are citizens engaged in other lines of work or even to further discussion. They simply want to denigrate people and express controversial views without being held accountable for what they say. That cowardice isn't merely a severe character flaw but is also rather reflective of how the Democratic leadership generally conducts itself.

Secondly, ponder what is being said here. Joe Lieberman isn't merely someone who has deviated from Democratic Party dogma (if such a thing exists). He has not only campaigned against Obama, but has been one of the worst disseminators of the McCarthyite slime thrown at him, linking him to Marxism and terrorism, and has spent much of the year running around South Florida trying to scare Jewish voters into believing that Obama is hostile to Israel. Lieberman hasn't just supported the Republican nominee -- along with other GOP candidates such as Sen. Norm Coleman -- but has led the way, as he tours the country with Sarah Palin, in the ugly and demonizing tactics on which the McCain campaign has come almost exclusively to rely.

If Democrats, even with large majorities in hand, are willing to continue to embrace and empower someone like Joe Lieberman, what message does that send other than making clear that they stand for nothing, care about nothing beyond perpetuation of their own power? If there's no line someone can cross, no idea or statement too reprehensible to express, while still being welcomed in the party, what does that say about the party?

More:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/21/lieberman/


(Yes, it's more than 4 paragraphs, but two of those paragraphs are from a secondary source).

When President Obama's administration starts making progress, watch Unholy Joe come crawling back.
Please, people of Connecticut, will you please vote this joker out already!

When President Obama's administration starts making progress, watch Unholy Joe come crawling back.
Please, people of Connecticut, will you please vote this joker out already!

That is all.

That is what the Democratic Majority is sorely lacking. The ability to differentiate between doing what is right and doing what is expedient. It was expedient not to go for Impeachment and Accountability but it certainly was not Right.

Vote in a blue-dog when the opponent is a vicious right-winger for example.
However in this case I think Congress should ditch the pragmatic approach and get rid of Lieberman.

It is one thing to go along with McCain because you are a friend and think his Israel policy or war policy is better, but like the article said... he has gone way too far.
When he stand up with Palin and supports her and the Republicans on every talking point...that is too much.

It's not just to satify the base either. I would venture to guess that even the most pragmatic Democrat would agree: ditch the SOB and take our lumps.

not just lieberman either. Reid and Pelosi have been failures as far as I'm concerned.

Conyers, too, was in a position to do something and sat on his hands. Fuck him, too.

so the democrats can tell that jerk to ESAD because they no longer will be held hostage.

a Democrat?

After we kick his ass out of the caucus, the it's time to purge the right-wing collaborators like this "anonymous consultant close to Democratic leaders." My bet says the unnamed asshat is James Carville.

at their convention, he should be stripped of all party perks in the Senate. Put him on an equal footing with all the freshman Senators.

However, kicking him out of the party would be counterproductive. After all, purges is what they do.

My guess is that he won't be re elected in 2010.

I bet there isn't one.

Joe has to go.

Don

If we can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we can tell Lieberman to take a long walk down a short pier, without worry of him being able to do meaningful damage to us.

:evilgrin: