Joe Lieberman and Democrats are breaking up?
This video montage makes the case that Lieberman isn’t really a Democrat anymore and that he should be kicked out of the party, losing his influential committee positions in the process.
Apparently, Senate majority leader Harry Reid is feeling the same way these days:
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent and a close friend of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, still caucuses with Democrats, which allows them to control the Senate with a 51-49 majority . A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated Thursday that Lieberman may no longer be welcome.
"Lieberman went too far when he distorted Sen. Obama’s record," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "From Reid’s perspective, (Lieberman) has every right to give a partisan speech to whomever he wants. But he doesn’t have the right to distort Sen. Obama’s record like that. Sen. Reid was very disappointed in Lieberman’s speech."
Added Manley: "The Democratic caucus will likely revisit Lieberman’s situation after the November elections."
Asked if Reid was putting Lieberman on notice, Manley replied: "Without overplaying it, the answer is, yes."
Assuming the Democrats can widen their margin in the Senate, I’d expect Reid to follow through on the sentiment.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of punishing lawmakers who don’t tow the party line. I’ve always supported people who depart from their party’s ideology to follow personal principles. I don’t agree with Lieberman here, but I do wish more people would depart from the their party’s collective (lack of) wisdom. For example, if more conservatives became socially liberal or if more democrats became fiscally conservative, I might have someone I could vote for.
The “Lieberman Must Go” people are saying that Lieberman is betraying his democratic constituents. That may be true. But punishing Lieberman is best left to those constituents.
Related posts:
>if more conservatives became socially liberal or if more democrats became
> fiscally conservative, I might have someone I could vote for.
So that means you're a libertarian.
No, no. Libertarians are relatively dogmatic in their belief that government
should have almost no regulatory role in the lives of its citizens. I don't
believe that at all. I do believe in paying our bills with sensible taxes
and sensible spending. I also believe the federal government should
generally abstain from regulating the sex lives of consenting adults. Where
I differ with libertarians is my belief that some federal regulation is
required in the financial, environmental, and healthcare sections of the
American economy. I am a man in the middle, my friend.