Skip Nav
Women
Our Favorite Books of the Year (So Far) — You Won't Be Able to Put Them Down!
Relationships
43 Signs You've Got Yourself a Keeper For Life
Relationships
9 Ways to Be Better in Bed

Democrats Vote to Let Joe Liberman Keep Homeland Security Chairmanship

Democrats Keep Former Enemy Lieberman Close

Joe Lieberman used up another one of his political lives, after Senate Democrats voted today to let him keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. The 2004 Democratic VP nominee, turned defeated primary candidate, turned independent senator delivered some hard punches against Barack Obama during the presidential campaign, on behalf of his Republican friend John McCain.

Instead of truly punishing Lieberman by stripping him of the crucial post, the Democratic caucus, including newly elected senators, voted to remove him from chair of the less-important Environmental Public Works Committee, a symbolic gesture.

The 42-13 vote for Lieberman today proved that independence from the party won't cost you power. Do you think the decision to keep Lieberman in power was a signal of a postpartisan era to come, or a rejection of the American people who voted for change?

Source

Join The Conversation
True-Song True-Song 8 years
Even if they had stripped him of that chairmanship, he wouldn't have been "punished for daring to stand up for what he believed." It's not like 50 lashes for voting for McCain! It's much more like if you own a pizza place and one your employees keeps telling people they should go to Pizza Hut. If you fire him, you're not punishing him for daring to stand up for what he believed, you're removing him because he's not good for your business.
nadiap nadiap 8 years
Well I know a lot about Lieberman and he is a turncoat. There's no problem vs anyone voting their beliefs or whatever. Leiberman as far I am concerned represents Lieberman. When he was in trouble of losing guess who he got to come to campaign for him? that's right Obama. Of course you should hear his glorious comments about him then. It's on tape. I'm sure he was eying a post in a McCain's presidency and figured McCain had a better chance. (Let's be real a lot of people didn't believe Obama could really pull it off including myself. This is America afterall). So he threw his hat in the ring with McCain, which is fine. However, when he started talking about how Obama could not be trusted and questioning Obama's patriotism, he went over the line. I mean he stands there while Obama is being called an "arab muslim terroris/socialist etc nodding smiling. The theme of McCain's campaign was Republicans are the real Americans, the godly Americans and the patriotic Americans. The rest of us are ungodly unpatriotic fake americans. That point was implied over and over and over and over. Lieberman was on a radio station and was asked is Obama a Marxist? His response was "That's a fair question." I thought since republicans has been playing the guilty by assocition thing to death, Mr. Lieberman YOU'VE BEEN PALLING AROUNG WITH THE ARAB/MUSLIM/SOCIALIST MARXIST TERRORIST that whole time? You know THE ONE THAT CAMPAIGNED FOR YOU. DOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU A TERRORIST ALSO?
piper23 piper23 8 years
Ditto, pop!
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
Well given that the tone of Obama's campaign was to work together - "no more politics as usual" - I'm extremely glad that he didn't punish Lieberman for stepping out of line. I also don't understand it when people say they aren't sure they can trust Lieberman anymore. Does voting against your party make you a turncoat? It's not like he pledged support for Obama and then spent the rest of the campaign leaking secrets to McCain. I don't know jack shit about Lieberman or his voting record, but I admire on principle anyone willing to stick their neck out about something they believe strongly in.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
"my problem wasn't that he supported McCain, but that in doing so, he participated in many of the smears and spread of misinformation against Obama. You can support one candidate without engaging in that kind of divisiveness to tear down the other" Good point.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
The only consolation you can have Stephley is McCain isn't exactely a typical Republican. He was much more liberal than I preferred.
stephley stephley 8 years
He presents a problem for rank and file Democrats I think. I want progressive Democratic policies supported and that's how I vote. It makes me wonder how supportive I should be of the party as a whole if they'll let such a staunch McCain supporter wield power over committees - especially Homeland Security. Maybe I'd be safer shifting my support to the Green Party, so that their most right-wing members still are within my comfort range.
janneth janneth 8 years
That picture just killed my lunch.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
:ROTFL: I like Jon Stewart's Droopy impersonation of him. Personally, my problem wasn't that he supported McCain, but that in doing so, he participated in many of the smears and spread of misinformation against Obama. You can support one candidate without engaging in that kind of divisiveness to tear down the other.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
:rotfl: Ahhh! That picture is crazy funny, Cat!
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 8 years
he always looks like a hairless mouse to me.
janneth janneth 8 years
Roarman, I agree with you. And I did not care for him when he was a Demo either.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
I think that it was ok that he supported another party's candidate, and I think it is important that we don't punish people for dissent. I don't think the "your with us or you are against us" mentality is productive in our government. Me personally, I profoundly disagree with Lieberman in his views on foreign policy and I do think that his support of McCain had a lot to do with what role he thought he would play in a McCain adminstration. I am perplexed as to how you could endorse someone based on foreign policy when you have to whisper the correct answers to them in press conferences and interviews, repeatedly. But I guess if you think the candidate will follow your lead with out question, I could see why you would support them. I don't agree with Lieberman in areas, but I don't think he should have been kicked out.
stephley stephley 8 years
There's being bipartisan, which is being able to see the other party's side and arguing and supporting the valid points of their argument. Then there's not only supporting the other sides presidential candidate against your own party's person, but rallying the other side to beat your party's candidate. There's a reason you can't do that in sports and it should apply to politics as well. If McCain had won, his policies would not have been in line with the major concerns of Democrats so now, how can Democrats feel certain that Lieberman will work to support those concerns?
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
#17 was in response to #15.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
He is, he just caucuses with the Democrats, which makes total sense, considering his voting record. (Even since becoming an Independent, he votes with the Democrats most of the time.)
Roarman Roarman 8 years
I would agree with those that say Lieberman should not be punished for standing up for what he believes in. I personally think he's a douche bag, but he is entitled to his beliefs and to punish him for that is immature. But I also agree that he should step down as a democrat. As long as we have this two party system, you can't be a top, leading democrat and campaign for a republican, presidential candidate and still call yourself a democrat. Not in his position of authority for that specific party.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
He only ran as an Independent in his Senate race because he had been defeated by someone else in the Democratic primary. He's still a registered Democrat.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
Also, I thought Lieberman was already an independent. No?
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
I'm happy about this decision.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
Jude - I can't disagree with you there. I was kind of reserving my prognosis until after the cabinet is assembled. He had talked about having Dems and Repubs on board, and I anxiousily waiting to hear who he asks, and who accepts.
piper23 piper23 8 years
If Obama did have a hand in it then I'm hopeful he's not all talk. As for punishing Lieberman, I think a politician who does what he feels is right, regardless of their party affiliations, is someone who should be respected. Politicians have their hands in too many pockets as it is. Make it simple. Politicians should vote based on their integrity and beliefs and what they think will be good for their constituents. As far as I'm concerned Joe proved that he is not "yes" man and I like that.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
I aim to please :)
bellaressa bellaressa 8 years
:lol: Jude you slay me. I love your comments.
Jude-C Jude-C 8 years
Well, Dave, if Obama did have a hand in helping Lieberman keep his position, then that "bipartisan junk" isn't really "junk" at all, is it? ;)
Cecil the Lion's Son Dead
AHCA and Special Education
Transgender Military Members Suing Donald Trump
Transgender Texas Woman Posts About Bathroom Bill
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds