Should the Democrats Kick Joe Lieberman Out of the Caucus?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
October 21, 2009 5:52pm CST
That was The Ed Show's text survey question tonight. He asks a different question each night on his show and those who wish to vote can text their answer, usually "A for Yes and B for No". Now, Ed Schultz is unabashedly liberal so I KNOW most of you here won't like him but I do. I honestly don't agree with him quite 100% of the time but he usually tells it like it is, in MY opinion...lol...which means it's wrong, or in other words NOT RIGHT here in myLot-Land...lol!
Just for fun, I'd really appreciate it if you would try to answer this question as if you were a Democrat and as if you were in favor of a public option in the health care reform bill. I know it will be a stretch, but please try to play along! For those of you who don't know, Lieberman has said he'll vote against a public option and FOR the insurance companies of Connecticut.
Shouldn't he be for the PEOPLE of his state first and foremost...?
Annie
1 person likes this
8 responses
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
22 Oct 09
Hi, Annie!
Joe Lieberman seems ready to change his party and any other affiliations regularly. I would definitely want him removed from the Dems' list since he is so very GOP on this issue!
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Oct 09
He's never made any attempt to change his party. Even when the republicans offered him the chance to caucus with them after the last election he turned them down as he waited for a decision from the democrats. The only reason he's an independent right now is because he lost the democratic primary in the last election and had to run as an independent.
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
22 Oct 09
That's the party change I referred to, but this time he seems to be taking the GOP stance!
1 person likes this
@evanslf (484)
•
23 Oct 09
Lieberman has an independent streak and massively annoyed Democrats with his support for Bush and the Iraq war. He therefore lost the Dem nomination. He now opposes the public option. That said, the Dems need that 60th vote in the senate and he votes with the Dems at least 75% of the time. The Dems would therefore be foolish to throw him out of their caucus as they will need his vote if they want to break a republican filibuster
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Oct 09
"The Dems would therefore be foolish to throw him out of their caucus as they will need his vote if they want to break a republican filibuster."
THAT'S the problem, he's said he's going to go along with the filibuster. He's got every right to vote against the bill itself if it comes to a vote but to prevent it to even come to a vote is wrong, in my opinion. He's said straight out he's going to vote with the insurance companies of Connecticut. Do you think he represents the insurers or the PEOPLE of his state? I thought it was supposed to be the people!
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
26 Oct 09
"Wow Annie, if you don't like filibusters than how can you still be a democrat after the way they used so many filibusters throughout Bush's presidency?"
And your point it...? Are you implying that the GOP wouldn't have stopped the filibusters had they had the numbers to do so?
"...They even used filibusters to keep judges off the bench."
...the Republicans, on the other hand, have NEVER done such a thing...lol!
Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Oct 09
Why not, the DNC, the criminal Harry Ried and the Democrat caucus has made it clear that anyone who doesn't goose step to the party line is not welcome.
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
22 Oct 09
One thing I admired about America is that a man who joins a political party has the right to his own opinion and is not like here in Canada, where you have to vote and agree with what the political leader of the party wants. It is all right if the party leader says lower taxes, but bad if the leader wants to soak the middle class. So I figure Joe Lieberman has a right to his opinion.
You are right, it is a stretch that public option bit. But I figure they have to fix the insurance, get rid of that part where they will not pay your claim if you forgot getting your toe nail fixed or some ridiculous thing like that.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
26 Oct 09
I was reading about an opt out of public medical insurance but to me that seems like a whole lot of paperwork and I am sure that some States do not want to go to the trouble of filling out a form and saying that they will stay with private insurance. It would be easier to have an opt in for public insurance rather then an opt out, because then people and the State would read to find out not only what they would gain, or what they would lose out.
I also wonder whether it costs more to get another private insurance co. for the states that have none. That would poor states at a disadvantage. I would think having regional sections of public insurance because well up north, the greatest danger would be frost bite and stroke and heart conditions while the greatest danger down south would be from snake bites, heat stroke, and infections so the payment for the victims would reflect this difference.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Oct 09
I agree that he has a right to his opinion and he has a right to vote however he chooses to vote. It's the idea that he's planning on voting to prevent a vote that's the issue. As for the insurance companies, they're not going to change their practices without some real competition. If they're kept from denying people due to preexisting conditions they'll simply raise the premiums even higher than they would have otherwise and without a public option people will have no choice. There are some states that have only one or two insurance companies to choose from in their state.
Annie
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
22 Oct 09
"Just for fun, I'd really appreciate it if you would try to answer this question as if you were a Democrat and as if you were in favor of a public option in the health care reform bill"
Um, ok......
*turns on mechanical voice*
Yes - Joe - Lieberman - is - noncompliant. He - should - be - exiled. Public - option - good. Government - loves - us. All - is - well.
Like that?
SO lets look at some voting records shall we? If we are going to use this standard on one, we may as well apply it to all senators right? So, your homework annie, is to go and find the voting records of all independant and democrat senators and represenatives. If they voted with the democrats less than 75%, they should be thrown out of the Democrat's caucus.
You have got one day to complete this assignment.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Oct 09
Lol! That was hilarious!
I know blogs like DailyKOS may take time for Annie to comb through so I'll supply her with the best sites to check liberal and conservative voting records.
: http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php
: http://www.acuratings.org/
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Oct 09
Liberman needs to just declare himself an independent and get it over with. The democrats and the republicans in congress only want party creatures. YOu vote and back the party no matter what....to heck with what the people of the state that elected you want. Because of that neither side in congress like him or really want him.
Sad. But that is the true state of things up there and have been for a while. It is all about the "party". Not your state, not people who elected you.
In my opinion that is the biggest problem with 95% of the people currently in an elected office and we the voters are the only ones who can change it.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Oct 09
He IS an independent and has been since 2006. With Lieberman it's not about the party or the people who elected him, but the insurance companies. It think that's a problem!
Taskr, you're certainly misrepresenting the facts here. The Democratic voters in his state "abandoned" him in the 2006 primary because he went against them on the Iraq War. To say he was "punished him for not supporting their messiah" is totally false. Can't someone "not support" someone without attacking his patriotism and loyalty to his country? I don't know what the Democratic leadership thought personally but publicly they'd said they had no problem with Lieberman speaking at the RNC Convention or campaigning for McCain but Lieberman himself admitted he'd made mistakes and crossed the line. Do you really think he's "properly representing his constituents"? Are the insurers the only constituents that count?
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Oct 09
Well technically he is independent, but he caucuses with the democrats who first abandoned him, then punished him for not supporting their messiah. I agree that too many reps and senators are concerned with this bogus "party loyalty" more than they are with properly representing their constituents.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Oct 09
If I were a democrat I'd say he1l no. He votes with Democrats 75% of the time. Sure, that's less than the supposed Republican Olympia Snowe from Maine, but it's still a vast majority of the time. He even voted with them on the crap stimulus so that should count for something. If they don't want a guy just because he votes against them 25% of the time then they should also oust Byrd, and should have never accepted Specter as a Democrat.
Every senator and representative should be for the people they represent. I firmly believe he is doing what he feels is best for his constituents.
@snowy22315 (209208)
• United States
22 Oct 09
I think all of the political parties need members of every type in the party. I think whether Joe L. stays a democrat or turns his affiliation to the republican party is up to him. I just think he is entitld to his opinions and should be able to do what he wants to do in terms of his political party.
