Lieberman (I - Ct) Help decide his committee status right here.

[LincolnMcGrath]

Should this be the immediate response by National Democrats ?

[AngryAmish]

1. That is really disturbing

Did someone really do that to a guy? or is it a TV prank or something?

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. Hell hath no fury...

[OregonBlue]

5. Why is it disturbing? Someone wants to cheat in private, I say make

their behavior public. Why pussyfoot around? Why not just let everyone know that he's a two timing s.o.b.!

[AngryAmish]

30. Vandalism, ruin his clothing

Is it funny when a scorned husband slashes his wifes' tires and spraypaints "whore" at her place of work? It isn't. And neither is this. it would be considered an act of vandalism and intimidation.

[OregonBlue]

38. I guess I didn't see vandalism. Just that they were thrown out. If she

trashed them, it's different.

[AngryAmish]

41. Did you see the boat?

[OregonBlue]

42. Yah, can be removed pretty easily with tuolene or some such.

Maybe you're right, I just know that my first reaction was a big laugh. It's stuff, property, she didn't shoot him. We are all pretty attached to our stuff but it would have been serious if she had cut off his nuts while he was sleeping! I really don't see what is so disturbing about someone "outing" her cheating husband.

[AngryAmish]

43. What would you think if he did that to her?

I'm guessing you would think he was a dangerous psycho. And you would be right. Most people think violence by women (especially against a man) is somehow funny. I reject that paternalistic notion.

[OregonBlue]

44. If she was cheating on him I guess I would have the same reaction.

I'm not really sure. Like I said, you may be right but, it is stuff, not physical violence.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. No, it shouldn't. Not even close.

There's still a very good chance Lieberman might win the GE, in which case we absolutely cannot afford to lose CT to him not wanting to caucus with us. It'd be foolish to do something so meaningless as to strip him of committee assignments for the three or so weeks left in this session of Congress before the elections.

[truebrit71]

4. Whilst he campaigns AGAINST the Democratic Nominee? I don't think so...

He is no longer a Democrat..

How can he possibly act as a representative of the party that he will be attacking? The Democrats in CT picked someon else. He needs to be removed, IMMEDIATELY.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. You're willing to risk obtaining majority status over such pettiness?

For what? Three or four weeks? Are you high?

[truebrit71]

12. Majority status where? In the Senate? That's a long haul...

He needs to be removed if he campaigns AGAINST the party he is supposed to represent. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Am I high? No, are you stupid?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

14. You are the one that is smoking something if you think we're going...

...to pick all of those up....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. But if we did, you'd be willing to piss away that miracle just to do what?

Prove a puerile point?

[truebrit71]

19. There is nothing 'puerile' about removing a person that is ATTACKING your

..party's nominee?

He was NOT selected by the voters, and instead of gracefully bowing out (and thereby holding onto his committee positions as a member of the Democratic Party) he has chosen to be a whiny little sore loser, create his own party, and run AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

That means he needs to be removed.

NOW!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I don't like him one fucking bit either.

But I am absolutely not giving Republicans at least 2 more years of rule over a pissing contest, and fortunately, it appears our party leadership is smart enough to at least take some time to weigh the situation before doing anything stupid.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. You think he will ever have anything but utter hatred for Democrats?

I disagree whole heartedly. His whole key to political survival from this point forward is his claim that he is not one of us.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. He's said he'll caucus with Democrats.

Why risk that?

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. And you believe him?

Sorry, I won't risk my party on your hunch.

Remove him immediately.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. But that's the point - we don't risk a single goddamn thing.

The only point to doing so would be to act as a petulent child who demands to have their way. It makes zero, absolutely ZERO pragmatic sense to do this.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. We risk everything. He has left the party.

It makes zero, absolutely ZERO pragmatic sense to leave him in the way of Democratic Party progress.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. "We risk everything"?

:rofl:

Since when did three weeks of having committee positions become "everything"?

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. He is no longer a Democrat.

He is in the way of the Democratic Party.

He is in the way of the Democratic Nominee from Ct.


He needs to be removed immediately.


We would no more than let Zell Miller play in our Reindeer games.


Joe needs to be removed immediately.

[Bretttido]

18. He only has a CHANCE if democrats dance around him

If top ranking national democrats unite together without wobbling on the issue, Lieberman has no chance. In which case the prospect of him coming back next year are no longer relevant.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. We've pretty well coalesced already.

Why bother to do something that so few will even understand when it risks our majority?

[Bretttido]

26. Principle

[beaconess]

33. Agree - it's a useless gesture

Not to mention counterproductive - stripping him of his committees also means stripping his staff of their roles - which means completely upsetting the committee structure - pulling out the people with the most experience and throwing other folks into positions they are completely unprepared for - just to make a point in the final weeks of the Congressional session.

Such a move might make the left happy, but it's a dumb thing to do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. 100% agreement on this! It is good to see Dems united!

:yoiks:

[The_Counsel]

15. The Solution Seems Easy Enough To Me...

Do nothing in the way of committee assignments until the new Congress starts.

If you're welcoming Mr. Lamont, the junior Senator from Connecticut, fine. Let merit prevail.

If you're getting Mr. Schlessinger, the junior Senator from Connecticut... well... you're probably still recovering from the shock. But then, you won't be concerned with a committee assignment for him, either.

If you're getting back Senator Lieberman, you wait until after the caucus picks the (hopefully new) Majority Leader, then strip Lieberman of all committee seniority. If he gets all pissy and switches to the GOPukes, oh well. He's been VOTING with them on the most important issues anyway. No real loss there...

[mopinko]

23. perfect.

eom

[KingFlorez]

25. This is not a good idea

You can't cause the citizens of Connecticut to lose their vote in important committees to get political revenge.

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Or...

You can't allow Joe to sabotage the will of the voters in Ct Primary.

He is no longer a democrat.

[KingFlorez]

31. It's not about that

The political parties do not own the congressional committees. He is still a Senator, we can't expect him to lose anything as long as he holds that title. The state of CT needs representation.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. "The political parties do not own the congressional committees"

They most certainly do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. Lieberman files to run as independent

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1864617&mesg_id=1864617

[Dr Fate]

29. Only loyal DEMOCRATS should be on DEMOCRATIC commitees.

If the New Independent Party wants commitee positions, then they can build up their membership in the senate, fair & square like everyone else.

[beaconess]

34. WHAT Democratic Committees?

[Dr Fate]

36. Each commitee has Democratic members- we are the minority.

So you are correct, of course. Please excuse my poor use of semantics.

I should say that the Democratic Party should only appoint DEMOCRATS to commitee postions.

[beaconess]

39. I agree.

But I don't think it makes much sense to pull Lieberman off of any committees at this point. There are only 15 or so legislative days left before the end of the term, committees will do very little and stripping him of his committee position will require a tremendous amount of upheaval amongst staff, office space, etc. Plus, it would appear overly vindictive and might make Lieberman look like a victim.

Now, if Lieberman wins as an independent, what happens in the next session of Congress is an entirely different matter.

[KingFlorez]

35. That makes no sense

There are no Democratic commitees, because commitees in the Senate have members of both parties.

[Dr Fate]

37. Democrats should appoint Loyal Democrats to those positions.

I agree with you that my post was worded incorrectly and misleading- it was unintentional.

[unkachuck]

40. if we throw....

....Joes' belongings out onto the Capitol lawn could we not be charged with littering?....or illegal dumping?....

....I voted yes, but a cautious yes....