Lieberman gets his hand slapped for not sticking to party lines

United States
November 18, 2008 1:04pm CST
Today the democrats decided today to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship on the Homeland Security Committee. But he is getting his panel post on the Enviroment and Public Works committee. They also voted 42-13 to approve a resolution condemning him for his comments during election against Obama. Well this just proves that if you speak out against the party or do not stay within the party lines that you will be punished and your posts given to people who are party creatures. True they let him keep his chairmanship but was it really necessary to take the panel post? Or even have this closed door meeting?But oh no someone spoke their mind and supported who they wanted and did not stay within the party agenda, we have to make him pay for it.He spoke his mind. Every citizen is allowed to endorse, campaign for and vote for whoever we want. I personally think it was childish and immature. Don't they have more important things to think about? Is this really what we are paying them to do? Better watch out incoming freshman, let this serve as a warning, be a party creature or find yourself in no mans land.
2 people like this
3 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
18 Nov 08
They didn't take away his biggest position, but the fact that they felt the need to punish him at all just shows how they feel about people who think for themselves. Bipartisanship is clearly not what most democrats want right now. They want complete power in every part of the federal government, with no opposing points of view.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Nov 08
Yep I agree with you. This was a show of force. Either get in line or we will turn on you like a pack of wolves. I do not see any bipartisanship coming for the next four years.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Nov 08
Lil, you know I love ya and respect your opinion but this is one time when I have to respectfully disagree. I'm a Democrat, that's no secret, but I'm honestly trying to look at this objectively and put myself in the place of everyone involved and I really want to believe I'd feel the same no matter which party any of those involved happens to belong to. I've said before in other discussions that Lieberman went beyond simply "speaking his mind" or endorsing the other party's candidate. I've also said there would still have been some hard feelings within the Democratic party if that had been all Lieberman were "guilty" of but that would have been more of a personal nature and I doubt any actions would have been taken because they would have looked very immature and even vindictive. However, Lieberman went beyond that and he as much as admits it himself: "There are some (statements) that I made that I wish I had not," Lieberman told reporters. "In the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that. And now it's time to move on." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27782936/ Lieberman also said, "This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems." Nobody can say for sure what would have taken place were the situation reversed but I doubt the GOP would have been any less immature. I agree with Senator Lieberman, President Elect Obama and others who have said now is the time to move on and work on the real problems that face us. Annie
• United States
18 Nov 08
Annie you know I always value your opinion even when we do not agree. What I am saying is that he did have a right to campaign for McCain and say negative about Obama. Was it nice? No. But going so far as to hold a hearing about it and actually taking a post from him. That is going too far. What you are not allowed to critize anyone in your own party? Only the other party? Hilary did a good job of trying to trash Obama during the primary? Are they going to take posts from her too? Oh I am sure Lieberman now wishes he would not said anything at all. Neither party really wants him. He is in no mans land. It was only by a sign of charity (and wanting to look forgiving) that obama told them to not take his chairmanship. I do find it petty and childish. They do have more important things to be worrying about. Obama should have just told them to drop it. Because the fact that they had the meeting at all is shocking.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Nov 08
He certainly did have the RIGHT to say anything he wanted to say, I'm not disputing that. He even had the right to say negative things about Obama s anybody else did or does. Also, sure Hillary said some negative about Obama, it happens in the heat of any campaign, but she never went so far as to imply he was in any way anti-American. I think that was the thing that really struck a nerve with some people. I have no idea what Obama may or may not have said in private, behind closed doors, to any of his former colleagues in the Senate but he really doesn't have the power to tell them what to do, only to advise them, which he did and I'm sure his words swayed some opinions. I'm all for bipartisanship if it's based on principle and not just "going along to get along" even if you disagree but I think there can be bipartisanship without ugliness. Annie
• United States
18 Nov 08
We are living proof that both sides can get along and solve problems. I think most americans can find common ground and compromise. But for some reason congress has lost that ability. I hope they get it back. I am tired of watching them act like small kids on the playground fighting over the ball.
1 person likes this
@greysfreak (1384)
• United States
18 Nov 08
This is outrageous, and is just another thing that makes me mad at the government! The great thing about this country is we have a right to make our own decisions. And you are right, they are acting childish and immature! I am a registered democrat, but after the way these people have acted this election cycle I have really had to rethink my ideas. I decided a while back that I am changing to Independent, and this is just one of the reasons. I think that Lieberman was very brave for standing up and endorsing the person he thought was the right person for the job, and if it was me, if I was him--I would strongly consider completely leaving the democrats after what they have done. Although being that he is chairman of such a major committee, I can understand why he just kinda has to deal with it. Anyway, I am glad that I'm not the only person bothered by this. Seriously, things are said on the campaign trail, they really need to be left there! Actually, I'm still fuming over the way Obama acted towards Hillary, during the primaries--and that is a tiny part of what sent me running, then the media's bandwagon turned me off more, and then most importantly--the issues, all of this stuff made me look into the facts--not the hype, not what the media wanted me to think or know. I think that the two part system should be done away with and just choose candidates based on the issues and then vote for the person you agree with the most. Then maybe we could get out of this habit of voting for the "lesser of the evils", as some people say. I'll be straight out, I have voted for Pres. twice, and my candidate lost both times, I don't care about popularity, I vote for the person I think would be best, and not what the media tells me. On a side note, I was telling my dad about this situation with Lieberman and how they are like wanting to "punish" him for not being a "good little democrat", and he joked and was like yea, next they'll probably make it so you don't have to go vote--you just register with a party and whatever party you are registered with is who your vote goes for. I doubt that would ever actually happen, but it certainly seems like the democrats would love to see this happen, considering they are acting like babies over someone "daring" to support someone who isn't their own party. Anyway, yes--we have much bigger problems than this, and I think this is just another way for them to avoid doing anything serious. Ok, I could say so much more... but I told myself I'd try not to do as many political responses now that the election is over. I doubt if that will happen, but I will try.
• United States
18 Nov 08
I know what you mean. That simple fact that they took time out of their big three bail out meeting to do this just unreal. It definately shows they are going to be anywhere near bipartisan and it set an example to the rest of what happens if you step out line.
1 person likes this