What about Joe Lieberman?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/the_final_senate_line_the_fix.html

Well it will be a real major accomplishment if the Dems wind up with 60 votes and a filibuster proof system.

Which some would argue makes it even more important for them to maintain party loyalty if they are to accomplish much.

So should they expel Lieberman from the Democrat caucus and give his plush office and committee assignments to a loyal Democrat?

And send a message what happens if you get too far off the reservation?

Yeah, don't allow any of that bipartisan shit.

Which some would argue makes it even more important for them to maintain party loyalty if they are to accomplish much.

Party loyalty? You've got to be kidding, Sodbuster.

For three decades or so elected "Democrats" have displayed about as much loyalty to Democratic Party values as a bitch dog in heat displays to a mate.

If today's Democrats had any loyalty to anything they would have impeached Bush and ended the Iraq fiasco 18 months ago.

Well then dont you think it's time to set some standards?

Well whoever is elected will inherit a nation and world fraught with tumult and near financial meltdown.

We will all need to put aside political differences and pull togethor for the sake of our country.

Look what happened to Lieberman for trying to be bipartisan.

"Look what happened to Lieberman for trying to be bipartisan."

What happened to him OC?

You threw him under the bus. He can cross the aisle and support Bush. He needs to be kicked out of the caucus. Weren't you calling for bipartisanship a while back? That was bullshit, too, wasn't it? The only kind of bipartisanship you're interested in is blindly supporting the democrats.

Well OC maybe my definition of bi-partisan is different than yours.

To me bi-partisanship means try to work togethor, get along, and be civil and maybe compromise and get things done.

It does not mean you jump ship and go campaign for the opponent and then expect to remain in the caucus and keep all the committee assignments and perks just like you were a loyal member of the caucus.

But that's just my opinion.

sodbuster wrote:Well then dont you think it's time to set some standards?

Yes. And here are some good ones:

http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml#fut

And here are some more, Sodbuster:

http://www.mtparty.org/platform/platform.html

The Mountain Party seeks:

1. Protection of our air, water and land by promoting policies which are directed toward sustainable energy, agriculture and environmentally sound economic development; a halt to mountaintop removal coal mining in order to preserve precious forest lands and streams; timber regulation that reduces flooding and erosion and eliminates clear-cutting and destruction of old growth forests; full enforcement of current environmental protection laws; and phasing out ecologically destructive sources of energy while promoting renewable sources of energy.

2. Promotion of political justice through election law reform including an independent, non-partisan election commission; full public financing of elections; free media air time and access to debates by all qualified candidates; accurate and verifiable voter roles, enhanced voter access, and same day registration; verifiable paper trail ballots; and instant runoff and other progressive voting systems.

3. Progress toward corporate accountability through enforcing laws governing corporate crime and violence; holding executives directly liable for harm resulting from their decisions; requiring corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and be responsible neighbors; and challenging corporate personhood.

4. Promotion of economic justice through small and community-based business organizations and activities; a living wage for all West Virginia workers; and the freedom to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.

5. Promotion of appropriate educational opportunities including small, community-based public schools with enforced time limits on busing; a realignment of state budgetary priorities to ensure that all citizens attain an educational level that will allow democracy to flourish; and provision of a civic education that encourages active participation in the democratic process that goes beyond voting.

6. Promotion of healthy lifestyles in order to decrease medical expenditures for preventable disease along with enactment of universal health care including medical, dental and prescription benefits as a right; promotion of patients rights; and curtailment of corporate-action-induced negative health effects.

7. Promotion of true democratic principles in government through dismantlement of oppressive political machines and replacement with politics as if people mattered; reversing the privatization of government; proportional representation in the state legislature; and transparency and sunshine laws for all government functions.

8. Promotion of a progressive tax code including elimination of the sales tax on clothing and food; tax relief for small businesses and elimination of corporate welfare; and fair assessments of mineral and other natural resource holdings.

9. Mandating citizen referendums on any gambling initiatives in the state.

10. Promotion of Fair Trade, not Free Trade through opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas Treaty (FTAA), World Trade Organization treaties (WTO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and any future global trade treaties that threaten to override state and US sovereign laws with the use of secret tribunals.

So bipartisanship is only allowed when the leaders of your party agree to it. If you go against what the party bosses, screw you, you're SOL.

Nice, really nice.

Stephanie wrote:So bipartisanship is only allowed when the leaders of your party agree to it. If you go against what the party bosses, screw you, you're SOL.

Nice, really nice.

It is the American way- enshrined in 200 years of American history. It would be un-American to oppose it.

What's all this "Party Leaders" stuff.?

Hail it's the party leaders that are letting him caucus as a Democrat and keep his committee chairmanship etc. just like he was a legitimate member of the caucus.

But the Democrat voters of Connecticut voted him out as their nominee and he ran as an independent.

So he is entitled to his Senate seat but he is not entitled to status as a Democrat.

It is the party leaders you guys criticize who are taking you all's position against the expressed will of Connecticut Democrats.

So whichever side wins I hope we can all strive to be part of the solution.

Not part of the problem.

For the sake of the country.

And send a message what happens if you get too far off the reservation?

Oh, okay. I see what you mean now.

Well good.

In a nutshell, he is entitled to his Senate seat.

But he is not entitled to caucus with the Democrats since he was defeated in the Dem. primary and he is actively campaigning for McCain solely because McCain is in favor of continuing the Iraq war/occupation.

This is not to say Dems should not try to work with him whenever possible, just like they should work with Republicans.

Well this guy suggests a compromise.

Like a slap on the wrist so to speak.

But it dodges the question of whether he should be in the caucus.

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/in-limbo-senators-lieberman-and-byrd/

This guy isn't suggesting a compromise; he's saying that if Reid no longer needs Lieberman’s vote to secure a majority, he's likely going to demote him from the powerful Homeland Security Chair to some sub committee chair. I would say the only way Reid doesn't demote him is if there is 59 democratic Senators and Reid need Lieberman for cloture.

As for Byrd, he's gone from the chair of the appropriations committee but you didn't mention this in your observations.

We will see

Yes we will. Unless Reid needs Lieberman for cloture motions, he's gone from Homeland Security and you don't have a problem with that.

So where is the getting along and working together stuff you're spouting on another thread and why isn’t it being shown here with Joe?

The Lieberman that is, not the Plummer or the Biden.

Getting along and working togethor does not mean let them join your caucus and chair your committees.

Why not Sherman? Because he didn't agree with the DNC or national democrats?

On August 9, 2006, Hillary Clinton affirmed her pledge to support the primary winner, saying "voters of Connecticut have made their decision and I think that decision should be respected", and Howard Dean called for Lieberman to quit the race, saying he was being "disrespectful of Democrats and disrespectful of the Democratic Party".

He campaigned as an independent democrat and Harry Reid promised him that he would retain his committe positions and seniority and that he could continut to caucus with the democrats should he prevail.

He's fulfilled his word. Why shouldn't national democrats, including dingy Harry, do the same?

Well just out of curiosity are there any Democrats on here who believe Lieberman should keep his plum assignments and plush offices as a senior member of the Democrat caucus.?

Even though he is not a Democrat but an Independent and worked tirelessly against the Democrat candidates this time.

I realize all the republicans want that because they want to see discord within the Democrat Party.

So Joe should have fallen on his sword for the party. Is that it?

He should have just faded away to please the party officials. To hell with what the citizens of Connecticut want, right?

Of course he won't fade away.

He really has no place to go if he is banned from the Dem caucus.

You guys get all hi and mighty on this but remember it is your party that revolted when McCain wanted him as a running mate.

You're changing the subject.....

I believe what you're implying is that Lieberman should have taken his ball and gone home after losing the primary. He did not......and for reasons that I don't even want to try to understand, the citizens of CT sent him back to the Senate when he decided to run as an independent.

You are stating he needs to be punished for that.

Lieberman is not a Republican. He is a pro-abortion, tax and spend liberal. The conservatives on this board rejected him because he is a liberal.