What should we do about Lieberman?

Published on November 13th, 2008

http://www.bartcop.com/kissyface-knife.jpg

Do we let him stay as chairman of Homeland Security? Do the Dems oust him? Do the Republicans adopt him? Or should he wander the halls of the Senate caucusing with himself?

58 users responded in " What should we do about Lieberman? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Improbus said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

The worst think you can do to a politician is take way his power and privileges. I say strip him of the chairmanship unless he gives the democratic leadership you one hell of a quid pro quo and a public mea culpa.

# 2 Eric said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

You appoint him as the Ambasitor to Isreal, CTFD for them, and open up a seat in the Senate to appoint the Dem of your choice to fill it.

# 3 Icenfs46 said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Lieberman acts like such a little kid. He always wants it his way. He is a traitor to his party and even America at that. He should definitely be out.

# 4 chuck said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Thank him.

His endorsement of McCain helped Obama get elected.

# 5 OvenMaster said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I say make him choose a party, subject to Democratic or Republican (or even Green Party) caucus approval. If they all reject him, then he should be (and stay) an Independent.

# 6 iamanasshole said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Make him decipher this sentence:

“You should he wonder the halls of the Senate caucusing with himself?”

[Fixed. - ed.]

# 7 Gonster said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Can we bring back the Guillotine? I have a list.

# 8 sargasso said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

The Bedouin reserved their cruelest justice for turn-coats. They gave them, to the women.

# 9 Jetfire said, on November 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

The Democratics would be shooting themselves in the foot(head) if they oust Lieberman. The only thing he really disagreed with them on is the Iraq war. He’s point on Obama not being ready was a valid one. If the Dems want to be Bipartisan like they say. How do you kick out someone who agrees with you 95+% of the time.

Also what will happen if the Senate goes the other way in 2-4 years and they need his 1 vote to be a Majority?

# 10 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on November 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

He was also great friends with McCain. Leave him alone, let him keep his committee assignments.

# 11 becagle said, on November 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I believe that the knife in the Democrat’s back, is the one the Democrats stuck in Leiberman’s back first.

# 12 Cursor_ said, on November 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Make him the Secretary of the Interior.

There is a dead end job.

Cursor_

# 13 Dallas said, on November 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

He’s demonstrated to be untrustworthy, so dump the little fucker. But that’s me.

However, since Obama prefers to overlook Lieberman’s flirt with the dark side, I salute that decision. Obama is always right.

# 14 Chris said, on November 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Perhaps Obama is just using the old wisdom which says: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’

Chris

# 15 hhopper said, on November 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Let him go back to work with Penn.

# 16 MikeN said, on November 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Why not oust him, so you can win his seat in 4 years?

# 17 Dude said, on November 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

MikeN – They can’t oust him from the Senate. But they can say he isn’t a Democrat. That removes him from his Chairmanship, and takes away other perks he has in the Senate. He would have to do something really wrong (not just political wrong) to oust him from the Senate itself.

# 18 BillM said, on November 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

I say throw him out of the party. A guy who sticks to his principles, means what he says and doesn’t flip like a wet fish doesn’t live up to the standards set by the Democrat leadership.

# 19 dusan maletic said, on November 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

@2, 18:

“and open up a seat in the Senate to appoint the Dem of your choice to fill it.” – You forgot that he have NOT been elected as a Democrat but Independent. If you remove him from the Senate replacement can’t be Democrat (or Republican).

“I say throw him out of the party.” – Again, forgetting that he have quit the party already. He is Independent for some time now. Question is can Democrats tolerate Independent people? From all these comments, apparently NOT. In other words: Democrats are intolerant.

# 20 Jims said, on November 13th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

F- him! Set him on fire and have a wiener roast. Traitor.

# 21 chudez said, on November 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

IANAA (i am not an american), so it isn’t really my business, but i’m wondering why there’s such a big fuss to get Lieberman because he decided to back McCain but there doesn’t seem to be a fuss on the republican side to get the republicans who backed Obama.

can anyone explain to me why? i’m not being sarcastic or anything … i just want to know.

# 22 dws said, on November 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Geez, he sticks to his principles. That’s not a bad thing, even though I disagree with him on the war. That said, I hope they remove him as chairperson of Homeland Security because of those views.

# 23 jamespgagnon said, on November 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

The idea of making him Ambassador to Israel is genius!

# 24 Carcarius said, on November 13th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Drop him like a bad habit.

# 25 Phydeau said, on November 13th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

The guy worked against the Democrats, trying to get a Republican elected president. And he has the balls to ask the Democrats (who rule the Senate) if he can keep his chairmanship.

The wingnuts here tut-tut the Democrats for being “intolerant”, but if he’d f*cked over the Republican party like that, they’d cut him off at the knees.

I wish the Democrats would show some guts and discipline and do the same to Lieberman. But they’re such wimps, I doubt they would.

# 26 hmmm said, on November 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

I predict that if he stays on, his day to day interactions with other Democrats will become really untenable. It’ll work on him like drips of water one second at a time on his forehead. Now, the thing is, how does he handle this moderated, saturated hatred toward him? Only his closest friends will know that but I dare to say that this can only come to one end eventually. He’s out.

# 27 Alfred1 said, on November 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Let the civilian defense force deal with him…

No doubt he wouldn’t attend morning prostration anyway…

Its unlikely he will ever compose a poem detailing his love for our Dear Leader

Nor will he ever testify about the great things the One has done for him…

A bipartisan committee should meet to decide how to dispose of him.

# 28 Libertican said, on November 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Because this discussion has turned into juvenile Student Council-like politics, they should assign him to the Clean Up committee for the Winter Inaugural Dance.

# 29 Li said, on November 13th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Does Bernie Sanders have a chairmanship? He is an independent, and he should be treated like one

# 30 icaro said, on November 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Lieberman should have resigned his chairmanship immediately if he was serious about reconciliation with the Democrats. It shows he feels no responsibility or remorse for his actions. A revelation into his true nature…

# 31 Buzz said, on November 14th, 2008 at 1:08 am

I like #4. But…

Fricassee might bring closure.

# 32 Mr. Fusion said, on November 14th, 2008 at 2:42 am

He didn’t earn his chairmanship. he got it as a sop so they could have his vote. He showed his appreciation by working against the Democrats; not only Obama, but other Senators and Congressmen.

Drop him and tell him he may earn his place back in the Democrat Caucus by his actions. If he votes consistently with the opposition then he will never be a Democrat again. If he shows allegiance to the Democrat cause then welcome him back. The status quo should not be accepted.

# 33 Alfred1 said, on November 14th, 2008 at 3:46 am

If Obama’s disciples can’t reach across the isle to McCain and Liberman, then their stated desire for bipartisanship—insincere rhetoric.

Liberman did a good job…job performance should count for something…

56 million people voted for McCain, far too many for Obama’s civilian defense force to lock up.

And many of us are armed.

# 34 SnotLikeBlasterpoop said, on November 14th, 2008 at 5:10 am

His stance on the war proves there still is at least one Democrat that believes in America and has some kind of honor.

# 35 Cursor_ said, on November 14th, 2008 at 5:21 am

#34,

An illegal acton to promote regime change is honourable?

I see you are a TR American.

Cursor_

# 36 Rabble Rouser said, on November 14th, 2008 at 6:22 am

Tar and feathers sounds appropriate.

# 37 MikeN said, on November 14th, 2008 at 7:06 am

Please explain where he voted consistently with the opposition? I see a vote for McCain and supporting the Iraq War, the latter done by many Democrats.

# 38 Mr. Fusion said, on November 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am

#34, iSnotAir,

You remind me of a screen door on a submarine. Funny until some Republican Assistant Under Secretary in the Defense Department orders them and they are installed.

Lieberman’s stand shows he is NOT a true American. True Americans don’t send their sons off to die overseas in a stupid war so his friends can reap windfall profits.

# 39 TonyB said, on November 14th, 2008 at 8:29 am

I say put him in charge of lawns and grounds.

# 40 turbo said, on November 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am

I would hate to be in Lieberman’s shoes. I honor the fact that he stood by McCain during the election, it showed me that he has integrity. How can you let a friend down? McCain needed Lieberman. He needed everyone.

Lieberman may be a little different than most Dems, but I appreciate his open mind on all issues. Although I might not agree with all of his ideas on the issues (mostly the war issue), I commend him for having our country’s best interest at heart.

# 41 James Hill said, on November 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Marc couldn’t even run a 7-11, but he thinks he’s part of the left wing decision making. How cute.

# 42 KwadGuy said, on November 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am

You could count on one hand the Democratic members of congress with Lieberman’s integrity. I disagree with on many things, but I respect him–which is more than I can say for most of them.

If the Democrats demote him, he will most likely cross the aisle to the Republicans–whose tent is actually big enough to admit him. And by doing so, the Dems will guarantee themselves to not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (since even if they steal all three remaining close elections, that will still bring them JUST to 60/40).

Time for the Dems to make up and be friendly.

# 43 Mark said, on November 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Let’s demonize Joe. He’s an terrible independent thinker that is not 100% partisan. That’s terrible.

We need more people that mindlessly follow their party’s line.

Oh wait, we have 99 other senators that already do that. Maybe it’s a good idea to respect a guy that has a backbone and shred of integrity.

# 44 Li said, on November 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am

No, we have 98, don’t forget Bernie Sanders! What could be more principled than openly standing for Swedish style socialism in this country? That’s so radioactive that D’s won’t even touch him.

Other than having the courage to essentially be a sitting representative for a foreign country (israel) I can see very little consistency or loyalty to those that have helped him in Lieberman’s record. Remember, Obama worked to keep him in his committee position after he won as an independent, and he rewarded him by calling him a terrorist sympathizer on national radio. . .

# 45 turbo said, on November 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

@38-
“Lieberman’s stand shows he is NOT a true American. True Americans don’t send their sons off to die overseas in a stupid war so his friends can reap windfall profits.”

Yeah that’s it.
The fact that Lieberman’s kids actually signed up shows that even though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do, they believed in serving their country so much that they put their lives on the line for it. And I really don’t think the kids or Lieberman were thinking about their Dad’s friends profits when they enlisted. To each his own, I disagree with the war also, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

# 46 Selvy said, on November 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Funny, if McCain’s position was in trouble with the Reps because he supported Leiberman with an endorsement of some sort he’d be lauded for being independent, blah blah blah…oh wait, Mc is a bit like Leiberman. Both are a bit independent, they’ll tell their own party they’re a bit ‘off’, occasionally even poke an eye out in the process. But MC can do that yet Leiberman’s a traitor for not walking in lockstep. It’s not like he tried to set party to the Dems. Hell, the Dems were the first to substantially pull one. They chose not to support his incumbancy with DNC $$ so he wound up going indie.

Obama overlooking Leiberman’s ‘waywardness’ is the smartest thing. He appears magnanamous, and if the DNC does oust him it isn’t BO’s fault. He (Leiberman) never struck me as a bad sort, what a rip if they throw the book at him while true crooks/zealots–Dodd, Frank, Waxman–continue to stay in place. Without a few moderates on either side, though, there will be less cover politically. So let them do it at their own risk.

# 47 Mister Mustard said, on November 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

#45 – Turbo

>>Yeah that’s it. The fact that Lieberman’s
>>kids actually signed up shows that even
>>though it wasn’t the easiest thing to do,
>>they believed in serving their country so
>>much that they put their lives on the line
>>for it.

wtf???

“Matt Lieberman graduated from Yale University in 1989, and from Yale Law School in 1994. He is the Head of School of Greenfield Hebrew Academy in Atlanta, GA. Rebecca Lieberman graduated from Barnard College in 1991, and from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1997. She is married to Jacob Wisse.“.

# 48 Mister Mustard said, on November 14th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

#46 – Selvy

>>Hell, the Dems were the first to substantially
>>pull one. They chose not to support his
>>incumbancy with DNC $$ so he wound up going
>>indie.

wtf?? Is this April Fools’ Day or something? Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman was forced to “go indie”, or find a new line of work.

# 49 KwadGuy said, on November 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

#48: The Democratic party and MoveOn.org put all their support (money) behind the guy who ran unsuccessfully to unseat Lieberman. Prominent members of the Democratic party also came out to support the other guy (e.g. John Kerry).

Basically, the Dems threw him under the bus, thinking they could replace him with a basically unqualified one issue candidate.

Well, despite all the money and endorsements, their candidate lost.

Then they tried to pretend that “no, we never wanted Lieberman out of the party”. No, not as long as it was 50/50 in the Senate and they needed him.

But bottom line is: Karma is a bitch and Lieberman emerged more powerful after the whole mess than he was before.

# 50 SnotLikeBlasterpoop said, on November 14th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

#35,38 – nothing at all illegal or out of line about the war. We pulled out the first time under certain conditions. The conditions were violated and we went back in. Period.

Lieberman has more integrity than most of the rest of Congress combined. Especially the necrophiliac Reid and Cannibal Pelosi.

# 51 Mister Mustard said, on November 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

#49 – Kwadwo

Lamont funded most of the campaign costs (>$13,000,000)out of his own pocket. Moveon dot org gave him about $250,000 (1.9%).

Polls since the 2006 election have shown that Lamont would pound Lieberman to bits, if the election were held at the time of the poll. The most recent one, taken after Lieberman was pimping for McBush, shows he’d lose by 59% – 34%.

Lieberman is a loser.

# 52 Mister Mustard said, on November 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

#50 – Booger

>>nothing at all illegal or out of line about
>>the war.

I guess that depends on your definition of “illegal”. It’s certainly immoral.

>>We pulled out the first time under certain
>>conditions. The conditions were violated and
>>we went back in. Period.

Oh, didn’t you get the memo? We “went back in” because Iraqis were the 9/11 hijackers, they had WMDs, etc.

You should be watching more of Faux Spews.

# 53 KwadGuy said, on November 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

#51

Patently untrue. The DNC withdrew their funding from Lieberman and backed Lamont. After Lamont lost, they rewrote history to make it look like they hadn’t backed a losing loser horse, but that isn’t what happened.

It’s nice that polls showed Lamont could beat Lieberman at some point. Polls last year also said that Hillary would pound Obama.

The only loser here is the myopic small tent Democratic party who has no room for anyone who doesn’t tread the party line 100%. ‘My way or the highway’ meets a swift kick to the balls. Fortunately the swift kick won.

# 54 Mister Mustard said, on November 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

#53 – Kwadwo

Not just would Lamont beat Lieberman “at some point in time”, but at every point in time since residents of the Nutmeg State realized what a loser they’d put in office.

With every loving stroke his tongue applied to Dumbya’s ass, the margin got wider and wider, until now Lamont would beat Lieberman almost 2:1.

As to the size of the tent, I wouldn’t go bragging about the size of the Republicans’. The only reason that there’s any diversity at all is because they have to pander to both the snaggle-toothed cross-eyed inbred mutants who want hang all the niggers on one hand, and the $100,000,000.00/yr business titans who have been milking middle American for far too long on the other.

In any case, Lieberman made his bed, now he’s got to lie in it. It’s one thing not to “tread the party line 100%”, it’s quite another slavishly support a war based on dishonesty, and to become the national champion for a presidential candidate from the opposing party.

TFB, Joe.

# 55 Mr. Fusion said, on November 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Oh my how some people have such short memories.

Lamont won the primary over Lieberman. In our democratic system that means the party now supports Lamont. Lieberman then ran as an “Independent Democrat”. The Republicans then dropped support for their official guy so the wing nuts could now support Lieberman. Lieberman narrowly won in the end because of Republican support and the Democrats that still supported him.

The Democrats might have needed Lieberman before but they certainly don’t need him now. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats then he better start showing some loyalty and earn his way back into their good graces.

# 56 qsabe said, on November 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am

He comes from a state with a republican governor. Remove him and replace his seat with a republican. I think not a good idea.

# 57 Mr. Fusion said, on November 16th, 2008 at 5:08 am

#56,qs,

Then so be it. If the Republicans want to be portrayed to the American public as obstructionists, they do so at their own peril.

# 58 pepe said, on November 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

my comment is in the form of a cartoon:http://theangrygene.tumblr.com/

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!