Saturday, September 6, 2008

Opinion

Democrats Should Toss Joe Lieberman

July 21, 2008 10:22 AM ET | John Mashek | Permanent Link

In quashing speculation that he would be Sen. John McCain's running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman told a home-state newspaper in Connecticut: "I'm where I want to be."

Of course, the Democrat, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000, means the United States Senate. But he really belongs on the other side of the aisle with the Republicans.

Lieberman has been McCain's shirttail for months. They have traveled together at home and abroad, with Lieberman voicing strong support for McCain's views on the war in Iraq. Lieberman may even wind up speaking for his pal at the GOP convention in the Twin Cities.

On July 20, Lieberman said he would speak at the GOP convention if asked. He added that he would only praise McCain and not rip Obama. He will certainly be asked.

Lieberman is only kidding himself. His appearance alone will serve to embarrass Obama, and viewers will not be fooled about Lieberman's intentions.

That should be the final act in the Democratic caucus. His fellow Democrats should strip him of his committee assignments, thus urging him to join the Republicans.

A move by Lieberman, who calls himself an independent Democrat, would switch control of the Senate to the GOP by one vote. But what would that margin mean with only a few months left in the session? Nothing of any real consequence.

Besides, the Democrats are likely to pick up three to five seats in November, assuring them control again.

Party loyalty in Congress isn't the end-all, but it should count for something. Lieberman has already tweaked his party enough with his fawning over McCain.

The Democratic leaders in the Senate, mainly Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, should give Lieberman ample warning about possible action in the caucus. Democratic senators need not wait until after the election.

If Lieberman speaks at the convention and then supports McCain in the general election, as he has already indicated he will do, he must be happier with the Republicans.

So long, Joe, if that's your plan.

Tags: Democrats | presidential election 2008 | Joe Lieberman

Tools: Share | | Comments (35)

Reader Comments

I guess Republicans should throw Chuck Hagel overboard because he was sitting with Barack Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq. Man, you liberals have no sense of loyalty. I thought you guys were tolerant of other views and "progressive". Apparently, that's all a facade for imposing one's view on others in the name of the state.

Modern intolerant liberalism

RIght on Chris. Modern liberals have lost most of the respectable traits of the "old liberals." Old liberals although I disagreed with on many things were independant, respected others' opinions and could debate well on logic and reason.

It's pretty sad that both parties have been hijacked. It seems modern liberals are all "faith based" with idealist eutopia as the god and are every bit as intolerant, unquestionable and vindictive as the most religious conservative. They tout things with Obama like "unity and bi-partisanship" yet crucify anyone who dares defy their sacred liberal beliefs.

From this behavior I interpret modern liberals are tolerant and diverse as long as you are a left wing liberal and vote the democrat party line. Apparently bi-partisanship means hold your ground, run a PR campaign with the media to make people opposing look bad, and convince republicans your way is the only way.

modern ignorant commenters

"Apparently bi-partisanship means hold your ground, run a PR campaign with the media to make people opposing look bad, and convince republicans your way is the only way"

Sounds like the last 7 years.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

About the Capital View Blog

John MashekJohn W. Mashek covered politics in Washington for four decades with U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Boston Globe. His primary beats were Congress, the White House, and national politics. He covered every presidential election from 1960 to 1996. He was a panelist in three televised presidential debates in 1984, 1988, and 1992.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.