Sen. Lieberman on his way of the Dems' "big tent"?

[Dixie Flatline]

The New York Times seem to think so, reporting on a meeting between Sen. Lieberman and Democratic majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/an-embrace-of-lieberman-not-exactly/?hp

Sen. Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat of Connecticut at the 2006 Democratic primary but campaigned (and won) as an independent over the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont. Sen. Lieberman generally still sides with the Democrats, particularly on social issues, in the Senate votes, but professed strong support for his friend, Sen. McCain in the recent US election.

 

[DaveW]

Good riddance if so.

 

[midorigreenwood]

Its not the time for payback though.....

with the likelihood of a couple of supreme court justices retiring in the first term and a logjam of important reform on the agenda.... they need the support of moderates/faux democrats like Mccain and Liebermann.

but yeah...... from my cold dead hands (copy of Doom)

 

[carsoutback]

Lieberman went far beyond "strong support" for his friend McCain. He campaigned against Obama strongly. It was the final treacherous act and he will now receive his dues.

 

[Bomber32]

Lieberman is the Benedict Arnold of American politics.

The miserable tosser deserves everything he gets.

 

[gandaal]

Lieberman went far beyond "strong support" for his friend McCain. He campaigned against Obama strongly. It was the final treacherous act and he will now receive his dues.

Treacherous?

Lieberman is an independent. When the democrats sacked him they lost the right to demand his unconditional loyalty. He supported McCain out of friendship and because he felt he was felt he was the man for the job. It wasn't the politically smart thing to do, it wasn't the easy thing to do, but he felt it was the right thing to do. He was loyal to his own beliefs and to his friend.

How in the world is that treacherous?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Treacherous?

Lieberman is an independent. When the democrats sacked him they lost the right to demand his unconditional loyalty. He supported McCain out of friendship and because he felt he was felt he was the man for the job. It wasn't the politically smart thing to do, it wasn't the easy thing to do, but he felt it was the right thing to do. He was loyal to his own beliefs and to his friend.

How in the world is that treacherous?

He still caucuses with the Democrats, and up till now he's retained his committee chairmanship, which the Dems could have stripped from him post-2006. And I daresay, if his support for McCain hadn't been so outspoken, he would've retained his chairmanship when the new senate reconvenes. It was the Connecticut voters who kicked him out during the 06 primary, deservedly so, I might add. Many of the senate Democrats were steadfast in their support for him even after he lost the primary, offering overt or at least sotto voce support to Lieberman's independent run against Lamont. Barbara Boxer campaigned for Lieberman, I seem to recall. Obama, himself (who was mentored in the senate by Holy Joe), only gave the most tepid support to Lamont. In the circumstances, they've shown him far more loyalty than he's shown them.

Plus, it's not just the fact that he supported McCain. It was the manner in which he did so -- he stood shoulder to shoulder with people who were slandering Obama. That wasn't principled support for McCain; that was being an accomplice to the spreading of falsehoods.

 

[DaveW]

Lieberman's treachery began when he ran against the nominee of his own party in the 2006 Senate race.

Bear in mind too that after losing the primary, he styled himself as an "independent Democrat".

See also the first 20 seconds of this clip:

[youtube]W0HOKDIj5a8[/youtube]