Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Lieberman vote...what it will tell us

What happens today will demonstrate who is truly in charge of the Senate when it comes to the Democratic Party. Those more to the left who have wanted something done about Lieberman since he decided to run as an "Independent" or the Washington insider politics as usual members of the Democratic Party.

Lieberman openly supported John McCain, while I do believe he has the right to make that decision and was acting upon what he believed in, there are consequences that come with standing up to what you believe in. Unless the reality is closer to what I believe it is, the rules only apply to those who have no power, if you have power? The rules will be re-written as they go along.

It also means that the left has no power in the Senate, because they have pushed for the removal of Lieberman. Which should really be of concern to those who felt that electing Obama would guarantee that many of the ideas he proposed that they supported, will actually get congressional approval...

This one decision by the Senate Democrats will give a very good look into who holds the power and what we can expect.

13 comments:

Lisa Renee said...

As expected, not much happened to Lieberman, he lost one chair but kept the one that he really wanted.

Also as expected, many on the left who wanted Lieberman gone are feeling a bit unhappy.

The News Writer said...

I'm a little different from most on the left on this one m'self. While I would have been delighted to see Lieberman lose his chairmanship and be kicked out of the Democratic caucus, it seems to me that it would serve no good purpose other than to please those on the left intent on holding a grudge. Frankly, if he was gonna be booted and lose his chairmanship, it should have been when he circumvented Connecticut's Democratic primary so he could let the Connecticut Republicans send him back to the Senate. If he'd stayed out of the race after losing, Ned Lamont would be the senator from Connecticut. At this point, to my way of thinking, it would be too little-too late and would cause more disgruntlement than is necessary.

Lieberman doesn't have any real power anyway other than that chairmanship, which kinda watches out over the most useless cabinet department ever created. And he does vote with the Dems most of the time.

So, while I'd love to see him gone, he shoulda been gone two years ago. There are other, more important things to think about, and I think the left is wrong to put so much into this.

Lisa Renee said...

I agree, I think you have to pick your battles and picking ones that it's clear you are going to loose on doesn't make sense. The reality however that some don't want to face is that even with a Democratic president and with an almost Democratic majority in Congress, most of what they felt would happen, isn't going to. Not under the current leadership and it does not appear that's going to change either.

My husband's from CT, so I watched the whole Lieberman/Lamont race closely, the reality there was many Democrats did not support Lamont for a variety of reasons. I don't fault Lieberman for running, if the residents of CT would have wanted Lamont who was clearly the Democrat, Lamont would have won. Though I do feel that if Lieberman really was an "independent" he should not be considered a Democrat when it's convenient for him and/or for the party.

Barga said...

He is a registered democrat, so he should be considered one. remember, this man gave the Dems power in the senate for two years, he deserves their support

Jason R. said...

I find it interesting that an independent can caucus with one party or the other.

Barga said...

he is a registered democrat, so he is not an independent

Lisa Renee said...

He may be registered to vote as a Democrat but he is considered to be an Independent. He did not receive the Democratic nomination nor did he run as a Democrat. That is why he is considered, "Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who is now an Independent" by the media and by Congress.

Lisa Renee said...

During the primary he opted to not vote:

"I won’t vote in the Democratic primary because I’m supporting John, but I can't vote in the Republican primary," Lieberman said. "I’m blocked."

Jason R. said...

He was elected as an independent, not a democrat.

Barga said...

He is not considered a independent per say, it just means that he is more likely to switch parties

Lisa Renee said...

In 2006, Senator Lieberman was elected to a fourth term as an Independent, because of the strength of his record and his accomplishments for the state. He won the general election by more than 100,000 votes. He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT).

From his own bio

There is no ID party designation in Congress, there is R, D, and I, so he calls himself an Independent Democrat but as far as his classification in DC, he's listed as an Independent.

Barga said...

Hmm, what happens when we elect a third part in there

Lisa Renee said...

If it was a party they would be listed, as an example if a Libertarian were elected, it would be an "L". Independents no matter who they caucus with or how they are personally registered to vote are listed by an "I". As it stands right now we only have the three, R, D, and I.