The full Democratic caucus will meet next week to vote on whether or not Joe gets to keep his chairmanship. My gut is that this won’t go Joe’s way, and that he’ll bolt the caucus in a huff. Door. Ass. Bang.
The full Democratic caucus will meet next week to vote on whether or not Joe gets to keep his chairmanship. My gut is that this won’t go Joe’s way, and that he’ll bolt the caucus in a huff. Door. Ass. Bang.
something un-democratic about punishing a Congressman for voting his mind. Must be all that change going around….
No. This isn’t undemocratic at all. Lieberman actively worked against his party’s candidate in the election. He only holds this chair because a Party holds together and is able to put legislators in plum assignments when they’re in the majority.
He can’t have it both ways. Frankly, I might be more inclined to leave it alone if he’d just endorsed McCain — but instead JL actively campaigned for him and engaged in personal attacks against the Democratic candidate.
A Senator is of course free to endorse anyone they want, or campaign for anyone they want, or attack anyone they want, but you can’t do those things against a candidate from your own party and expect to remain a member in good standing OF that party.
Remember, too, that he’s not really a Democrat anymore. He lost his primary largely because of his ongoing support of Bush’s absurd policies, and ran as an indepenent in the general to keep his seat. He caucuses with the Democrats, and they let him keep his appointments largely because he was the 51st vote back then. Since then he’s worked to move even further from the party, and the Dems have picked up enough seats that he doesn’t matter anymore. I say fuck him.
Yeah fuck him , he is disloyal. However, does this not show the worst aspects of partisan politics at a time when your party is supposed to be unifying the country? I’m all about consequences, I am just surprised the dems would take that tact at this juncture. It’s like stomping on the Gator…
Well, the party itself isn’t really voting here; just the Democratic caucus. I don’t think it’s inappropriately partisan to say that you can’t materially aid the only other party — which, by definition, comes at the expense of the party that has afforded you your leadership positions — and not expect consequences. That’s not partisanship run wild; it’s just good party governance. If he wants to truly be an independent, let him! But that status, inconveniently for Mr L, does not come with the perks that years of party loyalty deliver.