Is Joe Lieberman a Democrat?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@An_Arky

I hope he gets his weaselly butt kicked to the curb. I’m willing for there to be one less “Democrat” in the senate just to see him gone.

I certainly don’t see why someone who turned against his own party due to his own selfish interests should be trusted to be loyal to his country, either, so If I was Harry Reid (or whomever does these things), I’d boot him off of every committee, especially Armed Services.

Have we fallen so far in this country that someone asserting an opinion different than what he’s told to say by some other predictable automaton is worthy of contempt?

Do we elect people who will do what they think is right or do we elect people that are so completely inflexible and uncompromising that we need not bother electing them?

I suppose this should not come as surprise to me. Naturally robots that can’t do anything but pull the (D) or ® lever can’t stand people that think for themselves because they are incapable of doing so.

[Marley23]

@Simplicio

He did say during his re-election race that he would support whomever the Dem candidate was in '08

He was also quite effusive in praising Obama back then. I agree that the CT Democrats who supported him are probably not happy.

I don’t see why the 60 vote mark makes a difference to Lieberman’s position. If Lieberman is in the Caucus, he can still vote with the GOP to filibuster.

It depends on the issue, though. If the GOP is filibustering on a Supreme Court appointment, for example, it’s unlikely he’ll vote with them.

Right now it looks like the Democrats won’t get to 60 votes, though. So they would probably take away his committee chairmanships, which is the same as kicking him out.

[TWDuke]

@acsenray

Yes, in this country, you get to be whatever you say you are.

@Joe Lieberman (I)

“I am genuinely an Independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy.”

Breitbart News Network

@acsenray

Ah, well then Joe Lieberman (D) and Joe Lieberman (ID) must be two other U.S. senators from Connecticut.

Or products of sloppy editing. Since (I) cites outnumber (D) and (ID) combined, looks like squink wins the Google war.

[An_Arky]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Have we fallen so far in this country that someone asserting an opinion different than what he’s told to say by some other predictable automaton is worthy of contempt?

Do we elect people who will do what they think is right or do we elect people that are so completely inflexible and uncompromising that we need not bother electing them?

I suppose this should not come as surprise to me. Naturally robots that can’t do anything but pull the (D) or ® lever can’t stand people that think for themselves because they are incapable of doing so.

It’s not about him being himself or having his own opinions; it’s about him being a weasel about it; he did it to keep himself in office, not out of some higher sense of purpose. And he did it at a time when his party really needed him, when all this Bush BS was getting rammed through. Any Democrat is welcome to vote with the Republicans if his constituents or conscience tells him to do so. But it was the way he did what he did, that he was not just thinking for himself, but only of himself, that makes him untrustworthy on a basic level, IMHO.

[Shayna]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Agreed. When there were rumors about McCain stiffing the party to become Biden’s running mate, we (lefties) all thought it was great. But Lieberman sucks up to the Republicans, and he’s a traitor? Not buying it.

I agree, too. I don’t happen to like Lieberman, but the fact that he’s chosen to endorse McCain over Obama doesn’t make him a traitor. He obviously feels McCain’s experience trumps Obama’s new-fangled ideas. He’s wrong, but he’s entitled to his opinion on the matter, just as much as all the prominent Republicans who have endorsed Obama across party lines are.

[Hawkeyeop]

It isn’t that he ran as an independent, it is how he went about it. It isn’t that he endorsed McCain, it is how he went about it. You can leave your party with dignity. You can disagree with your party and be respected. Lieberman’s actions have been consistently disgraceful.

[Acsenray]

@TWDuke

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MUDKQG1&show_article=1Or products of sloppy editing. Since (I) cites outnumber (D) and (ID) combined, looks like squink wins the Google war.

My point was that Googling proved exactly nothing.

[Acsenray]

@TWDuke

“I am genuinely an Independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy.”

I think the fact that Lieberman continues to instruct the Senate to list him as “ID” rather than as “I” is far more definitive than this quote.

[Squink]

@acsenray

My point was that Googling proved exactly nothing.

Nah, it proved that you cling to an archaic term with respect to Lieberman’s affiliation.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Squink

Nah, it proved that you cling to an archaic term with respect to Lieberman’s affiliation.

Senate says… ascenray wins!

@Senate.gov

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT) Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041

[Squink]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Senate says… ascenray wins!

Umm, ID is not D.

[Marley23]

Lieberman wanted to run in the 2006 election as an “Independent Democrat,” but the law prohibited him from using a party name that contained the name of another party. That’s where the Connecticut for Lieberman name came from. What the argument is here, exactly, I don’t know anymore.

[Acsenray]

@Squink

Umm, ID is not D.

Care to read my posts again?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Is there a litmus test to determine whether or not you’re a Democrat?

[Captain_Carrot]

@Simplicio

Repeatedly? Has Lieberman endorsed Republicans other then McCain?

Yes. He endorsed Collins over Allen, for one.

I suspect he’ll lose his chairmanship, but still be allowed in caucus meetings (assuming he wants to). Regardless of how the election turns out, the Dems will always need an extra vote.

Wanting another vote is not the same as being willing to pay the price for it. Reid et al. may well decide that having Lieberman in their caucus is more trouble than he’s worth.

[Hawkeyeop]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Is there a litmus test to determine whether or not you’re a Democrat?

I would say if you run against the guy that the Democratic voters have chosen, then you are not a Democrat.

[foolsguinea]

Considering how many Blue Dog Dems are more conservative than Republicans, the only issue is that last time he wasn’t the party’s nominee.

[wonky]

@Hawkeyeop

I would say if you run against the guy that the Democratic voters have chosen, then you are not a Democrat.

gasp Hillary’s not a Democrat?

[Hawkeyeop]

@jsgoddess

gasp Hillary’s not a Democrat?

she quit… eventually.

[Chronos]

I don’t see a downside to not inviting him to caucus. With or without Lieberman, after this election, the Democrats will be the clear majority, which gets them all of the procedural things like president pro tem, committee assignments, etc., and that’s all that the caucus decides. Lieberman is probably going to vote on bills and on clotures and the like the same way whether he caucuses with the Dems or not.