PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Dems May Punish Lieberman for Being Critical Of Obama


BigCatDaddy
09-09-2008, 01:38 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/liebermans-senate-post-could-be-in-jeopardy-after-election/

Sen. Joe Lieberman could lose his chairmanship on the Homeland Security Committee, sources say, if Democrats win a few more seats in November — apparent payback for his criticism of Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention.

Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, has steadily irked members of his own party by backing John McCain for president and taking shots at Obama. Lieberman last week addressed the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on McCain’s behalf.

Two senior Democratic leadership aides told FOX News that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told their bosses Lieberman could lose his post if Democrats gain four or more seats in the Senate. The party currently holds 51 seats, counting Lieberman and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.

Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittman, however, said such claims are from “staffers who are talking about things they know nothing about.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the reports, specifically one in Politico.com that also claim Lieberman could lose his post, are “way overwritten.”

Reid’s staff has said throughout the campaign that the Senate majority leader continues to speak regularly with Lieberman and still considers him part of the Democratic fold.

However, Manley took issue with Lieberman’s attacks on Obama’s leadership credentials in St. Paul, telling reporters via e-mail, “The Democratic caucus will likely revisit Lieberman’s situation after the November elections.”

Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, the co-chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said reports that Lieberman could lose his chairmanship are “astonishing.”

“I think some of his colleagues have short memories. I’m just astonished so many (Democrats) are so hard on him when but for him they would not be called ‘chairman.’ They would not be in the majority. … He would clearly be welcomed with open arms (into the GOP),” said Collins, who denied having any conversations with Lieberman about switching parties.

Meanwhile, aides denied a report in Roll Call that said Reid had banned Lieberman from attending the Democrats’ weekly caucus lunches, as well as the chairmen’s lunches. Wittman said Lieberman has adopted “an informal policy” not to attend future lunches “when he thinks the focus will be on politics” rather than policy. He added that Lieberman would be “more than happy to attend lunches that are not about politics,” as he usually does.

“While it is no secret that the Democratic caucus is disappointed in Senator Lieberman’s attacks on Senator Obama, the irresponsible report that Senator Lieberman has been excluded from caucus meetings is completely untrue,” Manley said in a statement. “Senator Lieberman has chosen to not attend Democratic caucus lunches, and that is his choice.”

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 02:02 PM
That's what he gets for being two-faced.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OJTJbqKuDDM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OJTJbqKuDDM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:05 PM
I guess if you're a dem you need to keep your mouth shut if you don't agree with something.

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 02:09 PM
I guess if you're a dem you need to keep your mouth shut if you don't agree with something.

I didn't see Ron Paul at the Republican Convention.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-09-2008, 02:10 PM
I guess if you're a dem you need to keep your mouth shut if you don't agree with something.

The same guy who begged Obama to campaign for him in Connecticut when his political life was on the line and says he's a huge gift then campaigns directly against him 18 months later.

Yeah, that's two-faced.

ROYC75
09-09-2008, 02:11 PM
crybabies .......:deevee::deevee::deevee:

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:13 PM
I didn't see Ron Paul at the Republican Convention.

I guess he was invited but chose not to attend. Pizzy poopy pants.

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 02:17 PM
I don't have a problem with that because he is not a Dem but an independent.

Also he wouldn't be even in the Senate today without Obama's help. He is the one that saved his sinking campaign

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:20 PM
The same guy who begged Obama to campaign for him in Connecticut when his political life was on the line and says he's a huge gift then campaigns directly against him 18 months later.

Yeah, that's two-faced.

I know you'll find this hard to believe but I really do think Congressmen have other responsibilities. Like actual work.

If the dems could argue Lieberman was being removed from his chair because of incompetence rather than just not being a team player I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Unfortunately for them though he stands up for what he believes in. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad thing to do if you're a dem and you don't agree with Dean, Reid, or Pelosi.

I'm pretty sure they won't have the nads to go through with it though. They'll change their minds almost as fast as Obama did on raising taxes once they feel the backlash that would come.

ROYC75
09-09-2008, 02:26 PM
The dems have party unity in mind over the good of the country ........ :D

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 02:27 PM
I guess he was invited but chose not to attend. Pizzy poopy pants.

So you think Lieberman would've been willing to attend the Democratic Convention in support of Obama?

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:29 PM
So you think Lieberman would've been willing to attend the Democratic Convention in support of Obama?

What does that have to do with being the chair of a comittee?

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 02:31 PM
You said it was only the Dems who would make you shut your mouth if you don't agree with something they did. The Republicans wouldn't have let Ron Paul speak at the convention if he was going to criticize the war and the direction of the party.

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:38 PM
You said it was only the Dems who would make you shut your mouth if you don't agree with something they did. The Republicans wouldn't have let Ron Paul speak at the convention if he was going to criticize the war and the direction of the party.

I'm sorry you can't differentiate between a campaign and an actual working legislative session.

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 02:41 PM
It's clear Lieberman can't, which is why he had no problem begging Obama for help when he needed to get elected, then began trashing Obama when Barack could use his help.

The Democrats can do whatever they want with Lieberman. He's not even a f*cking Democrat. He's an Independent.

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 02:45 PM
It's clear Lieberman can't, which is why he had no problem begging Obama for help when he needed to get elected, then began trashing Obama when Barack could use his help.

The Democrats can do whatever they want with Lieberman. He's not even a f*cking Democrat. He's an Independent.

Yep and I don't get the big deal. The majority party gets to decide who is the chair and if they want to remove him they can.

BucEyedPea
09-09-2008, 02:48 PM
I didn't see Ron Paul at the Republican Convention.

He would have been given a speaking spot if he caved on his principals. He refused. But his delegates were there. And the Mass delegation for Paul and one other delegation caved into the intimidation from goon squads at the convention to change their votes. Two delegations caved. Then they were applauded for behaving.

Not to mention, having their pins removed and any notebooks. Those homemade signs were made by the party and handed out. There were cheerleaders working the room telling people when to applaud and when to jump out of their seats....for a display of fake unity and public relations. What a joke!

I tell, ya' it was like a Nuremberg rally according to a delegate who wrote about his experience on the Daily Paul.

mlyonsd
09-09-2008, 02:52 PM
Yep and I don't get the big deal. The majority party gets to decide who is the chair and if they want to remove him they can.

It's no big deal when a Party's VP nominee changes parties 8 years later. Happens all the time.

Maybe if it happened more Congress's approval rating wouldn't be at 20%.

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 02:58 PM
It's no big deal when a Party's VP nominee changes parties 8 years later. Happens all the time.

Maybe if it happened more Congress's approval rating wouldn't be at 20%.

The only reason he switched was because the party wouldn't back him against Lamont.

But guess what? Obama wasn't one of them and when Lieberman called and cried to Obama to save him that is what Obama did

penchief
09-09-2008, 03:27 PM
I guess if you're a dem you need to keep your mouth shut if you don't agree with something.

No, you just don't go out of your way to lie about a fellow democrat's record.