Punish Joe Lieberman?

The Senate Dem Caucus votes today on whether Joe can stay, and whether he gets to keep his Dept of Homeland Security chair.

What should happen to Joe?

Would it be different if, say, Arlen Specter, or Susan Collins, had supported Obama?

He's an independent. If the dems don't want him the repubs do. The only one that can punish him are his constituents by voting him out of office. He backed who he thought was the best candidate. I don't see the problem. At least he's not a yes man.

Anybody remember, after the 2004 election, when Arlen Specter had to go prostrate himself before the Prez because he'd had the audacity to act "independently" on judiciary appointments as chair of that Senate Committee?

billw wrote:He's an independent. If the dems don't want him the repubs do. The only one that can punish him are his constituents by voting him out of office. He backed who he thought was the best candidate. I don't see the problem. At least he's not a yes man.

Well I do see a big problem. He picked the wrong guy & now he should pay for his turncoat decision. He's no longer a Democrat so why pretend he is. We don't want him back!...CYA Joe! (maybe you can get a job on Fox News when they toss you out of your Conn. Senator job)

Same thing would happen to Specter or Collins. You are either in a political party or you aren't.

Devil505 wrote:He picked the wrong guy & now he should pay for his turncoat decision

Which is half the problem in America today, you're suggesting a person be removed because of his politics and not on merit.

It's only "merit" if you agree with him!

Otherwise, it's disloyalty, which is a serious crime in political circles on both sides, because it undermines the likelihood of being able to acquire majority status.

And, in the end, Joe's act of contrition today and the subsequent whipping he'll get with that wet noodle will be the best evidence of the practical political considerations in play.

Richard S. wrote:

Devil505 wrote:He picked the wrong guy & now he should pay for his turncoat decision

Which is half the problem in America today, you're suggesting a person be removed because of his politics and not on merit.

Absolutely. When you actively work for the Presidential candidate of one party & attack the candidate of the party that had you as their VP candidate 4 years ago, you don't deserve to be let back in. I don't care how much sniveling & groveling you do! Connecticut Democrats took a big risk electing him as an Independent over his Democratic opponent last time. They won't make the same mistake again.
(& I say Reid & Pelosi need to go too!)

What about loyalty to the American people, their constituents! Country should come before party and Joe honestly believed the country would be better off with Obama. He's an independant but they caucaus with the Dems. They will strip him of his chairmanship but they won't kick him out. Even the Dems in the Senate arn't that stupid.

stockingfull wrote:It's only "merit" if you agree with him!

Fine but what does that have to do with throwing him out because he supported a candidate you didn't like? I know both sides of the aisle pull the same crap but as I said that's half the problem. They do the same thing all through governement, new majority comes in and people start losing their political appointed jobs not because of the job they are doing but because of who they supported for election. That don't make sense, hence the reason things should be done on merit.

Doing a good job = Keep it.
Doing a bad job = Lose it.

Government should be run like a small business, no dead weight there because they can't afford it. You either perform or get the boot.

Richard makes a great point. If we adopted the good job = stay and the bad job = gone the polical parties would be in a shambles and I think that would be fantastic for our country. To hell with the parties. As far as Lieberman is concerned, he should be able to stay in the Senate, as he will, but why should a party, even if I disagree with them, keep a guy who tried to burn them? Lieberman is a *censored* in just about every category I can think of and I would like to wipe him, Pelosi and a few others from the Senate tomorrow.

Well......In their infinite wisdom, the Dems decided to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee. Not being big on letting bygones be bygones, & preferring my pound of flesh , the way I look at is like this:


Presented as a logical syllogism:

1. The majority party gets to pick the chairmen of all committees. (Almost always selected from among the majority party)
2. Lieberman is not a member of the majority party

Therefore: He should not be a chairman

(he lied to the Democratic party by saying that, while he would attend this year's Republican Convention, he would not speak ill of the Democratic candidate....which he turned around & did!)

I'm not totally vindictive.........I would allow Lieberman to Chair a 3 member committee on Senate ethics...consisting of him (Lieberman) Alaska Senator (& convicted felon) Ted Stevens & Senator Larry Craig. (to save hearing rooms in the Capital Bldg, they would meet in the 2nd floor Men's Room........3rd stall!

Richard S. wrote:

stockingfull wrote:It's only "merit" if you agree with him!

Fine but what does that have to do with throwing him out because he supported a candidate you didn't like? I know both sides of the aisle pull the same crap but as I said that's half the problem. They do the same thing all through governement, new majority comes in and people start losing their political appointed jobs not because of the job they are doing but because of who they supported for election. That don't make sense, hence the reason things should be done on merit.

Doing a good job = Keep it.
Doing a bad job = Lose it.

Government should be run like a small business, no dead weight there because they can't afford it. You either perform or get the boot.

Just another way of saying the same thing you said before. The faulty assumption is that there are always "right" and "wrong" answers and that some people actually intentionally vote for the "wrong" ones.

Of course, it doesn't work that way. There are different philosophies of governing and neither has all the right answers all the time. As a consequence, politics has come to imply that people support and are supported by a team -- their party -- some of the collective advantages of which come in exchange for reciprocal loyalty. And that's what was at stake with Joe and where he went astray.

But for Obama's (quite practical) generosity today, Joe's stones would have been surgically removed this morning. And, by being magnanimous with McCain and Lieberman, Obama helps expand the group of fence-sitters and those who owe him, so that, when he needs a vote later, they'll be more likely to lean his way. Smart.

I know how the system works Stockingfull, my point is that it's wrong. It breeds corruption, wasteful spending and poor legislation. For example if we have 10 bills and if voted on at face value they would fail but instead they are all passed because of the "You scratch my back I'll scratch your back" politics. End result is we have 10 bad bills usually benefiting a special interest group...

It's the same thing if you want to throw Lieberman out because of who he supported for President.

When you put a group of people together to govern at almost any level, it's a fact of life that some things are more important to some people (and presumably their constituents) and other things to others (and theirs).

And, if everybody voted against everything that didn't benefit their constituents directly (military installations are an excellent example) nothing ever would get done, because there would never be enough people whose constituents all benefited from a piece of legislation to pass it.

You may see that as a good thing but, when people get sent to Congress, they need to show their voters that they're "doing something" or they won't get re-elected. (You've heard of Truman's famous campaign against the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948.) Not many people are proud of it, John McCain won the GOP nomination in spite of it and then campaigned against it, but it's the way gov't groups work at all levels, and it has evolved that way for a reason. As the old Capitol Hill saying goes, "to get along, go along."

Parties were formed and continue to exist so that lawmakers who share basically similar beliefs can form such groups and pass legislation that is generally easier for them to defend later. In that context, the difference between a "maverick" and a "turncoat" can be critical.

It's one thing not to agree with your caucus; it's another to campaign against them.

The label Democrat or Republican is nothing but a tag you stick on your shirt when you start a career as a politician .
Once your elected to the Senate your One of the "Chosen Few" One of the "Elite"
This little wrist slap proves they are all a bunch of Goddamn Crooks looking out for each other and only there to perpetuate their own interests and once your a "Good Old Boy" your always one!!