No more party lunches for Lieberman

[SMM]

From Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/28144-1.html?type=printer_friendly):



September 9, 2008, 12:47 p.m.
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) have agreed that Lieberman will no longer attend Democrats’ weekly caucus lunches or the biweekly chairmen’s lunches used to formulate policy, senior Democratic aides said Tuesday.
Aides said the agreement came out of a meeting between the two, initiated by Lieberman, that occurred prior to the August recess.

A spokesman for Lieberman denied there have been any recent discussions between the Senator and Reid about his attendance at the policy luncheons and stressed that Lieberman “totally, completely of his own volition” decided he would skip certain sessions.

“Sen. Lieberman has voluntarily decided not to attend luncheons when he believes it’s likely there would be discussions of presidential politics,” spokesman Marshall Whitman said, adding that Lieberman has never been told to stay away from the luncheons.

The decision comes in the wake of Lieberman’s attacks on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the GOP convention last week, and essentially formalizes a deal Reid and Lieberman had cut earlier this year under which Lieberman would not attend meetings that included discussions of sensitive campaign or political issues.

Lieberman for weeks has voluntarily forgone the weekly caucus lunches and weekly policy lunches on Thursdays.

A Reid spokesman angrily denied that the Majority Leader had booted Lieberman from lunches.

Although Lieberman caucuses with Democrats — thus giving Reid control of the Senate — his role in the McCain campaign has increasingly marginalized his standing with his Democratic colleagues.

Lieberman’s legislative director, Joe Goffman, announced his resignation Monday. Although Goffman gave no reason for his departure, Democratic aides familiar with his decision said once work was completed on Lieberman’s climate change bill, combined with Lieberman’s convention speech, Goffman felt that it was time to move on.

Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and other top Democrats have been increasingly vocal in their criticisms of Lieberman in recent weeks, issuing not-so-veiled threats that he could be ousted from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the 111th Congress.



It is way past time to show this Israeli Right-Wing Extremist the door. Adios Jose, you will be missed (like a fart in a space suit).

[leekohler]

I agree. It's time for this fool to be kicked out of the party.

[nbs2]

Here's what I don't get - when did the Democratic party become a single issue party?

Lieberman has generally stuck to the Democratic platform - except for Iraq. His BFF McCain runs for POTUS, and he does and says whatever he needs to, to help out. He hasn't left the rest of the platform at the wayside, and is thusly not all that loved in uberconservative circles.

Why toss out a guy that clearly has stuck with Dem ideals for so long over one issue? I mean the guy had all the power when it came time to caucus, and he clearly felt more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans, or we would have watched Dick Cheney break tie after tie.

Appropriate for him not to be there for presidential discussion? Yes. To kick him out of the caucus? No.

As an aside - I don't care for him either.

[leekohler]

Here's what I don't get - when did the Democratic party become a single issue party?

Lieberman has generally stuck to the Democratic platform - except for Iraq. His BFF McCain runs for POTUS, and he does and says whatever he needs to, to help out. He hasn't left the rest of the platform at the wayside, and is thusly not all that loved in uberconservative circles.

Why toss out a guy that clearly has stuck with Dem ideals for so long over one issue? I mean the guy had all the power when it came time to caucus, and he clearly felt more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans, or we would have watched Dick Cheney break tie after tie.

Appropriate for him not to be there for presidential discussion? Yes. To kick him out of the caucus? No.

As an aside - I don't care for him either.

I'm sorry but- when you lose your party's nomination for congress and then turn around, run as an independent, win, then decide you're a member of the party again, then speak at the RNC, you lose pal.

[atszyman]

I'm sorry but- when you lose your party's nomination for congress and then turn around, run as an independent, win, then decide you're a member of the party again, then speak at the RNC, you lose pal.

Let's not forget that Obama campaigned for Lieberman (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/) in CT and may very well be responsible for him winning his seat in 2006.

[iShater]

2-faced war monger out. No loss here. :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

2-faced war monger out. Not loss here. :rolleyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Senate a 49-49 split with 2 independents? If Joe decides to align with the GOP Cheney's tie breaker puts the Senate back in GOP control does it not?

[iShater]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Senate a 49-49 split with 2 independents? If Joe decides to align with the GOP Cheney's tie breaker puts the Senate back in GOP control does it not?

I believe you might be correct, I haven't checked that, but that is why he caucused with the dems. I am sure he has to be careful to keep his seat though.

[atszyman]

I believe you might be correct, I haven't checked that, but that is why he caucused with the dems. I am sure he has to be careful to keep his seat though.

I think he's already lost his seat in 2012. I think he's already been promised a cabinet position if McCain wins. I doubt the voters of CT will put up with him for much longer after some of the stuff he's pulled since 2006.

[nbs2]

I'm sorry but- when you lose your party's nomination for congress and then turn around, run as an independent, win, then decide you're a member of the party again, then speak at the RNC, you lose pal.

So no credit for choosing to caucus with the Dems for the last two years, giving Reid and friends control of the Senate?

As for speaking at the RNC, why wasn't Zell Miller tossed a few years ago? I suppose the GOP should have villified Jim Leech as well.

Reading atszyman's linked article, it was nice to see Obama support another Democrat in the primary, but if he was campaigning for Lieberman rather than the man in the blue suit, where was he for the generals?

And iShater has simply reaffirmed my assertion that the Democrats are turning into a single issue party. The man has a long history of supporting the party, and yet this one issue seems to be enough to undo everything. If anything, tossing him will only further establish his Independent bona fides, as I don't see him wanting to join the GOP.

[leekohler]

So no credit for choosing to caucus with the Dems for the last two years, giving Reid and friends control of the Senate?

As for speaking at the RNC, why wasn't Zell Miller tossed a few years ago? I suppose the GOP should have villified Jim Leech as well.

Reading atszyman's linked article, it was nice to see Obama support another Democrat in the primary, but if he was campaigning for Lieberman rather than the man in the blue suit, where was he for the generals?

And iShater has simply reaffirmed my assertion that the Democrats are turning into a single issue party. The man has a long history of supporting the party, and yet this one issue seems to be enough to undo everything. If anything, tossing him will only further establish his Independent bona fides, as I don't see him wanting to join the GOP.

If he doesn't want to be part of the Republican Party, then why speak at the convention slamming the Dem nominee? If he votes alongside Democrats and then slams them at the RNC, what are people supposed to think?

Lieberman behaves like a spoiled brat constantly. How much are people supposed to put up with?

[iShater]

And iShater has simply reaffirmed my assertion that the Democrats are turning into a single issue party. The man has a long history of supporting the party, and yet this one issue seems to be enough to undo everything. If anything, tossing him will only further establish his Independent bona fides, as I don't see him wanting to join the GOP.

Please, I am not a democrat, so don't use me to reaffirm any assertion. I refer you back to my description of him.

[Ntombi]

He had to agree to caucus with the Democrats to A) get elected and B) get other Democrats like Obama to campaign for him.

I can't stand the man, but he is a Democrat in all but name. Or at least, he was until this election season. I have no problem with people voting and speaking their conscience, but some of what he's said about Obama (and Clinton when due was running) go too far, IMO.

I don't believe in throwing him out of the party, so to speak, but in these two months before the election, everything is too sensitive, and I think they reached a good compromise.

As for his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, I think it's time to revisit that as well, only because he holds views on that particular issue that are diametrically opposed to almost all the rest of the party Senators. Why have him chair that committe and push it in a direction that they don't agree with? Especially when it looks like they'll have a clear majority next year.

[Macky-Mac]

From Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/28144-1.html?type=printer_friendly):



It is way past time to show this Israeli Right-Wing Extremist the door. Adios Jose, you will be missed (like a fart in a space suit).

actually he's an American citizen, not an Israeli :rolleyes: or was that a slam against him for being jewish?

[Delta608]

Perhaps because he puts his country ahead of party politics the Dems dont like him anymore.....

[leekohler]

Perhaps because he puts his country ahead of party politics the Dems dont like him anymore.....

Or maybe it's because he puts himself before anything else.

[Delta608]

Or maybe it's because he puts himself before anything else.


Perhaps you should actually read the transcripts of his speech along with Zell Millers from the past Convention(s)..The truth comes out when one is no longer seeking approval and votes....They are both Democrats from a by-gone era, not the modern socialists the Democratic Party has turned into today...:o:o

[nbs2]

If he doesn't want to be part of the Republican Party, then why speak at the convention slamming the Dem nominee? If he votes alongside Democrats and then slams them at the RNC, what are people supposed to think?

Perhaps that he believes in this particular candidate. Again, I refer you to Miller. And Leech. And any of the multitude of Republicans that are trotted out as supporters of Obama as an example of how "out of touch" McCain is.

Please, I am not a democrat, so don't use me to reaffirm any assertion. I refer you back to my description of him.

My apologies. Your summarization of him as a war-monger is the same issue that the Democrats have clung to in turning a solid Democrat into a neoconservative role model for Messrs. Rove and Cheney.

He had to agree to caucus with the Democrats to A) get elected and B) get other Democrats like Obama to campaign for him.

The former is dubious and the latter untrue. Because of his support for the war many Democrats abandoned him and after the loss in the primary all his so-called close friends in the party were suddenly too busy to RSVP to his e-vites. I've seen no commentary, especially through reliable channels, to support your claim that his election was contingent on caucusing, but I have seen nothing to refute it. However, I doubt it was - he is too solidly blue to have needed to make such a compromise.

[leekohler]

Perhaps you should actually read the transcripts of his speech along with Zell Millers from the past Convention(s)..The truth comes out when one is no longer seeking approval and votes....They are both Democrats from a by-gone era, not the modern socialists the Democratic Party has turned into today...:o:o

The only problem for you is- the Democrats are far from socialist. What a ridiculous talking point! Perhaps we should start referring to all Republicans as fascists. It's no more ignorant.

[Delta608]

The only problem for you is- the Democrats are far from socialist. What a ridiculous talking point! Perhaps we should start referring to all Republicans as fascists. It's no more ignorant.


Nice try...Lets see, socialized medicine, welfare, wealth redistribution, earned income credit, windfall tax, death tax.....I am sure there are more, but these are the main ones I can think of before running off to work, and help those who refuse to help themselves..

Websters - Fascism" tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

(Argue as you may, it dont work)

Socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Its your present democratic party, not the party of the past.....

[leekohler]

Nice try...Lets see, socialized medicine, welfare, wealth redistribution, earned income credit, windfall tax, death tax.....I am sure there are more, but these are the main ones I can think of before running off to work, and help those who refuse to help themselves..

Websters - Fascism" tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

One answer-George Bush. Has any one man ever demonstrated such a lack of respect for democracy and rule of law? And talk about a demagogue. My God! Do you live under a rock? Calling people who disagree with him unpatriotic and terrorist sympathizers? Wow- you do have your blinders on.



Socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Its your present democratic party, not the party of the past.....

Really? How is that? Sorry but all your little taxes you mention (and your "death tax" term is ridiculous. It's called the estate tax. Your neocon bias is showing) have been around far longer than the present day Democrats. The universal health plan they're talking about is far from "socialized" either. BTW- the police and fire departments definitely are "socialized". Would you like to change that too?

So you're now saying that the Democrats are advocating for all businesses to be taken over by the government? Are you kidding? Sorry, that's just not true and you'll have to prove that it is.

As for wealth redistribution- please, both parties advocate that.

[atszyman]

BTW- the police and fire departments definitely are "socialized". Would you like to change that too?

Don't forget the military. If our healthcare system is the best in the world and leads to such great innovations shouldn't the same be true of our national defense?

After all both healthcare and national defense protect the well-being of our citizens, why should they not both be market driven if it yields superior results?

[mactastic]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/jedisentinal/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg