Let Joe Stay

Joe Lieberman talks with Katie Couric

2008-11-19T17:47:00.000-08:00

Simply put - Joe at his best.
Way to go, Joe!

Watch CBS Videos Online

And so ends the LetJoeStay Blog.

He Stays!!!

2008-11-18T08:59:00.000-08:00

In a 42-13 vote, the Senate Democrats refused to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Lieberman instead will lose his chairmanship of a global warming subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Commission as a rebuke for supporting John McCain and attacking Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.

Strip Show

2008-11-18T06:27:00.000-08:00

Later this morning, the members of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee will determine the fate of Senator Joseph Lieberman. While there is precedent for stripping a Chairman of his position, the situations in which this has occurred are rare and usually involve instances where there are accusations of corruption (e.g. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. ) or scandal (e.g. Congressman Wilbur Mills). Removing a Chairman for ideological disagreements is almost unheard of. Almost.

In 1974, House Democrats unseated Armed Services Committee Chairman F. Edward Hebert in what amounted to a revolt of the increasingly young and liberal House Democratic Caucus against the seniority system. Many of the younger Democrats were not pleased when Hebert had condescendingly addressed the new members from the Watergate Class of 1974 as “boys and girls.” More importantly, they considered him to be too amenable to the Pentagon.

Similarly today, with the recent additions to their Senate majority having flooded Congress on a wave of anti-Bush/Republican sentiment, the Democratic Party looks to unseat a senior member who they view as too amenable to the Republican Party. Specifically they claim that, as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman has been unwilling to conduct their desired investigations of the Bush administration. Endorsing Senator John McCain may have been the last straw, but Senator Lieberman’s real problems stem from the overall perception that he is part of the old system, too aligned with the Republicans and unwilling to adopt the ideology of this generation’s Watergate Class.

What will the outcome of today’s vote by the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee? If history is a guide, Senator Lieberman may find himself reading up on F. Edward Hebert.

The Dodd/Salazar Compromise: Joe Stays

2008-11-17T20:07:00.000-08:00

According to tomorrow’s Washington Post, a compromise may be in the works in which Senator Lieberman would remain Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee but lose one of his low-profile subcommittee chairmanships. The newspaper states that:

A pair of Senate Democrats will offer a compromise plan today to sanction Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) for his support of the Republican presidential ticket but allow him to keep a key committee chairmanship and remain in the party caucus.

Senators and aides said yesterday that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) would present a plan at a caucus meeting that would strip Lieberman of a low-profile subcommittee chairmanship, possibly one on global warming issues. But Lieberman would retain the gavel of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

I’m glad to see cooler heads are prevailing. I’m sure the “base” will love that.

Update: Tuesday 11.18

CNN agrees. Senator Lieberman will keep his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

One Day More

2008-11-17T06:46:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow the members of the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee will decide whether to strip Senator Lieberman of his Chairmanship positions or if they will Let Joe Stay. What can you do to help? Call your Senators and the members of the Steering and Outreach Committee and tell them that removing Senator Lieberman would be an act of extreme pettiness, unbefitting the new political environment which President-elect Obama wishes to create. Loyalty and friendship are virtues to be desired, not disparaged. Simply put, Senator Liebrman should not be punished for endorsing and campagining for his close friend, Senator John McCain.

Don't have the time? Download the official Let Joe Stay letter and fax it to Senator Harry Reid at 202-224-7327. It is our job to make our voices heard.

Crashing The Party Part II: Pataki vs. Giuliani

2008-11-15T21:02:00.000-08:00

I had recently written a post discussing that when former Secretary of State Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Senator Obama, he was hailed as a man who put country above party. But when Senator Lieberman followed his convictions and supported Senator McCain he was criticized as being a sellout, a turncoat and a traitor. The explanations I have received have been that the Republicans would have punished Powell had he still been playing an active roll in the Party, but since he’s retired, they chose to leave him alone.

But then what about Giuliani?

In 1994, New York City Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo against his Republican rival, George Pataki. In doing so, Giuliani stated that:

A moment ago I mentioned the risk we take if we fail to choose wisely. I am well aware of the risk I take as a Republican Mayor endorsing a Democratic Governor. But I have concluded that the risk is worth taking for the sake of the City of New York and the State of New York. Mario Cuomo will simply be a better Governor than George Pataki.

What was the Republican Party’s response for this treachery? Did they support a challenger against Mayor Giuliani during the 1997 primary (ala Ned Lemont)? Did the Republican Party shun Giuliani with the hope that he would quietly fade away? Of course not. As we all know, Giuliani easily won reelection and then ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 2000 before having to withdraw after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Moreover, not only did he seek his party’s nomination for the United States presidency, but early polls showed him to be the front-runner. Clearly his decision to follow his convictions and cross party lines to endorse Governor Cuomo did not cause his party to seek his ouster. So then why isn’t Senator Lieberman seeing the same consideration and understanding from the Democrats that Giuliani saw from the Republicans? Was his endorsement of Senator McCain somehow more offensive than Giuliani’s endorsement of Cuomo? No. Actually, he pretty much said the same thing:

Political Parties are important in our country, but they are not more important than what’s best for our country. They’re not more important than friendship. They’re not more important than our future and that’s why I’m proudly here.

So, I ask again: Why is it acceptable for Republican Rudy Giuliani to endorse the opposition, but Democratic/Independent Senator Lieberman cannot do the same?

Double standard anyone?

Contact Senator Harry Reid and tell him to Let Joe Stay!

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

A View From The Other Side

2008-11-14T07:23:00.000-08:00

A guest post by Ron Reagan

If you asked a Democrat what their biggest problem with the Republican party, a lot of their criticisms would come down to one word - intolerance. Democrats believe that due to the influence of the rich and the religious, the Republicans exclude anyone who doesn't buy into their world view. This criticism has many valid points, and this is coming from a Republican. But if a Democrat wants to make this argument, then the only way to have the moral authority to make it would be if the Democratic Party was a party of tolerance. A party of tolerance is one where many ideas and peoples are allowed to take part and coexist. And while the Republicans are failing at doing this, this is an opportunity for the Democrats to show national leadership and to prove that they are a party of inclusion.

What is the great sin that Senator Joe Lieberman has committed? What Senator Lieberman did was support a man that is universally respected for his service to this country, both in the military and as a legislator. He criticized Barrack Obama during the campaign. OK, I get it. But he said nothing which was not in line with the criticism levied at him by lots of Democrats, including VP-elect Joe Biden and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sure, one could argue, that was during their own campaigns, but it was wrong to do it during the general election. The problem with that logic is that it says that it is OK to criticize someone when it is for your own benefit, when you can still win, but if you really believe your criticisms, you have to sit on them and support someone you do not believe in. Isn't conviction and principles and wanting the best for your country more important then either careerism or love of the Democratic Party?

What Senator Lieberman has done is something very brave, politically speaking. Unlike all the other Democrats who critized President Obama (just wanted to write those amazing words) when it was beneficial to them, he did it when it was actually going to HURT him. Senator Lieberman knew that the Democrats were going to be mad, and he also knew that he wasn't going to be the Republican VP-nominee because the Republicans didn't support him (he has been a loyal Democrat for a long time don't forget); yet he still endorsed a man he believed would make the better president. He even continued to do so during the end of the campaign when it was obvious that McCain was going to lose. He stood by the man because those are his principles.

I don't think you have to like what those principles are. And you don't have to applaud him for what he did. But I think when you put things into context and his sins, I think you can begrudgingly give the man some respect and not hurl such vitriol at him. He's not some sort of a beast who killed someone in a drunken rage while trying to avoid his lover to whom he owed a copious amount of child support. He just stood for what he believes in.

Barrack Obama is President for one central reason - change. All of us who voted for him desperately want to see the divisiveness of our governance to change. We want something new- a place where people can actually discuss and come together and do what they think is the best for the country. Obama was not elected due to his political ideology or for policy reasons - if you think that then his presidency will not work because it will be too far to the left for what Americans want. We didn't vote to exchange the Republican hit squad for a Demortic hit squad. What we want is something else- people to rise above the pettiness and to try and unite this country. Though you might not have liked his stance, this is what Joe Lieberman tried to do this election. He had his principles and party lines be damned he stuck to them. This is the sort of voice and mindset we need in Washington. To punish and to banish him to the sidelines after a lifetime of nothing but honorable and principled service would be nothing short of showing the intemperate, imperious vindictiveness that was shown by the previous administration. If we have another administration where freedom of thought and the ability to speak one's mind and beliesf is yet again branded as unacceptable, then hope once again is defeated by humanistic greed and vitriol. That's not what we voted for, so don't let it happen again!

We’ve Been Discovered: Our Very First Interview!

2008-11-13T12:50:00.000-08:00

The Connecticut news website, CTNews Junkie, has written an article about the blog. Check it out!

Our Adoring Fans

2008-11-13T10:57:00.000-08:00

From The Washington Monthly:

Has everyone seen this? The let Joe stay website?
http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/
Spam the hell out of it
Posted by: Rick on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM

It’s good to be loved.

Keeping Lieberman Is Good For The Democrats… And The Nation: Part 2. Sam Adams Responds!

2008-11-12T19:27:00.001-08:00

A guest post by Sam Adams
(the following is a response to the comments listed under my original post)

Stefan makes the most substantive points and I'd like to address them. He asks what's special about Joe Lieberman. I'd answer: in and of himself nothing more then any of the other 99 Senators. If you look at the Senate rules (as opposed to those in the House of Representatives) Senators have a tremendous amount of power, even
acting alone. There are many possible scenarios where the Congressional Democratic leadership and/or the Obama administration would benefit from extra support. The point is to build bridges, not burn them.

And as I wrote, while you might despise Lieberman, and some commentators here clearly do, there are some - I think many - that admire and support him. So-called 'Lieberman Democrats.' They were driven to the sidelines of the party over foreign policy concerns but that argument is over. Why spit out a group over a moot issue? It may make the Democratic majority feel good but it'll also hurt them when the national mood shifts, as it inevitably will. Obama has already shown his ability to be cool under fire, and being dispassionate about what's in his own benefit (as well as for the benefit of his agenda) can only help him.

Stefan also asks how campaigning against one's own party is an 'invisible line.' My response is that the Democratic basis for Lieberman's removal from his chairmanship as publicly stated is not his support for a Republican administration but because of his public slighting of Obama. In other words had he not bashed Obama but lauded McCain and had McCain won the election, the Democratic position supposedly is that they'd not punish Lieberman (right). Even though in that scenario for all intents he campaigned (successfully)against his own party, and conceivably cost them the executive branch.

Rather then focus on an irrelevant line ... irrelevant because the Democratic Party also uses negative advertising such that it can't claim clean hands on the matter, and because no one faulted Powell for bashing McCain ... focus on self-interest. This 'reason' of the Democrats is nothing more then the victors interpreting history or a pretext. Again, hurt feelings are irrelevant.

Raymond MacDonald feels Lieberman is a lair and a con man for not reflexively backing the Democratic Party. To that I say, Congress is essentially the Board of Directors of the United States and no person should want an unthinking individual in that office overseeing the enormous issues facing our country. Lieberman is a Democrat because, other then Iraq, he votes as a Democrat and thinks as a Democrat. To him though that and certain related issues were significant enough issues to back McCain. But an old election is moot.

Mr. Mephistopheles does not trust Lieberman for various reasons that to me seem petty or forced. I respond that trust or lack thereof is irrelevant. Lieberman is in office for 4 more years at least and its best - for Democratic purposes - to work with him. Making it in Lieberman's interest to stay loyal from here on out is good politics. I would presume that Lieberman is not blind to his status amongst his
Democratic Senatorial peers and a kind hand to lift him up is classy
and not only good politics.

Jay Leno and McCain Discuss Senator Lieberman

2008-11-12T08:23:00.000-08:00

John McCain appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night and expressed his deep admiration for his friend Joe Lieberman, stating that “I have never known a finer man than Joe Lieberman.”

Keeping Lieberman Is Good For The Democrats… And The Nation

2008-11-12T06:37:00.000-08:00

A guest post by Sam Adams

Why let Joe Lieberman stay a chairman? Because it’s not about Joe Lieberman. It’s not about Barack Obama. It’s about the nation and what's good for it.

Let’s start with a few basic propositions: First, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain against Barack Obama not to be churlish or disloyal to the Democratic Party but because he honestly believed his old friend would be the best president and the one this country needed. Second, though the majority of Democrats in Congress shifted (or were elected in over the past few years on a position) against a continued U.S. occupation of Iraq years ago, and this is now a difference that persists between them and Senator Lieberman, on most issues Lieberman continues to vote as a Democrat. Third, the election is over.

This last one is key. A Democratic move to eject Lieberman is based on the proposition that it won't hurt them ... and that it gives them pleasure. First, because if he honestly holds Democratic positions he would continue to hold them even if stripped of a leadership role. Second, Lieberman is no longer a real threat to Democratic leadership in Congress, even if allied to the Republicans. Third, because they feel he stepped over some invisible line; in not only supporting John McCain but it attacking Barack Obama, especially in a prime-time speech at the Republican convention. But to focus on this is short sited and erroneous.

But ejecting Lieberman WILL hurt them. There are many, many individuals that Lieberman represents better then any other person in Congress - foreign policy hawks with a liberal domestic viewpoint - and he remains their man. Many of them also supported McCain but the election is now over, McCain is off the field, and they want to return to their party and focus on the many points of overlap between them and the Democratic majority. Spitting on Lieberman is the same as driving them into the Republican camp. And for what?

A (very) brief discussion of the late King Hussein of Jordan is worth
having and not because he shares a middle name with our President-elect. When Hussein rose to the throne, Jordan was (as now) a weak and small country, fractured internally. The monarchy was weak and many expected Hussein's reign to be brief. But instead he reigned for 46 years. How? By fighting enemies that threatened him. And buying off opponents that could be bought.

If you look at the polling, for all the ability of Barack Obama to electrify so many voters and for all that he has come to represent for many, in the swing states his victory was more due to Republicans staying home then for any great shift in the numbers towards the Democrats. The victory should be cemented, not gloated over.
Gloating was the mistake of the Gingrich led Republican Revolution. It led to arrogance, corruption and blindness to alternative viewpoints. It set the basis for the collapse of the Republican Party we are witnessing now.

Lieberman can be bought. More importantly, the large component he represents ideologically... can also be bought. And the cost is actually quite cheap.

(And its worth noting that a senator, unlike a House representative, can thwart legislation in 1001 ways, acting on his own. Or, when he supports the legislation, hold it up until he gets more of what he wants. Maintaining Lieberman's vested interest in the party prevents him from being a further irritant.)

But I said this was for the good of the nation, when I started, didn't I. And I've only focused on what's good for the Democrats. But having Joe Lieberman there backing the Democratic agenda (except Iraq), reconciled with the Democratic leadership and with close relationships amongst the Republicans is in the interests of the nation. Having honest connections to all representatives benefits all, including the majority. At least if you believe the Democratic agenda is for the good of the country and look forward to years of Democratic control.

President Clinton Proclaims: Let Joe Stay!

2008-11-11T09:59:00.000-08:00

As reported by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo:

A high-level senate Democratic source tells me former President Clinton is making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf.

I can also confirm, on the same basis, what Huffington Post has already reported, that President-elect Obama is signaling to Senate leadership and other party officials that he wants Sen. Lieberman to be in the Democratic caucus in the 111th Congress.

That doesn't mean he doesn't want him punished in some way. I have the sense -- though this is more speculation on my part -- that he's agnostic on that question. But he wants him in the caucus -- which would seem to give Lieberman some real leverage.

Obama Supports Keeping Lieberman in Democratic Caucus

2008-11-11T09:41:00.000-08:00

From today's Washington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed keeping Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in the Democratic caucus, suggesting to leadership that the two sides reach a compromise in the conflict over the former Democratic vice presidential nominee's future, sources said today.

In a phone conversation last week with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Obama said that expulsion of Lieberman for his support of the Republican presidential ticket would send the wrong signal after Obama's promises to set partisanship aside, according to a Senate Democratic aide familiar with the conversation.

Sounds like President-elect Obama reads this website.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

2008-11-10T08:23:00.001-08:00

Contact the members of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee and tell them to Let Joe Stay:

Debbie Stabenow, Michigan - Chairwoman (202) 224-4822
Harry Reid, Nevada (202) 224-3542
John Kerry, Massachusetts (202) 224-2742
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (202) 224-3934
Robert Byrd, West Virginia (202) 224-3954
Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts (202) 224-4543
Joe Biden, Delaware (202) 224-5042
Patrick Leahy, Vermont (202) 224-4242
Chris Dodd, Connecticut (202) 224-2823
Tom Harkin, Iowa (202) 224-3254
Max Baucus, Montana (202) 224-2651
Richard Durbin, Illinois (202) 224-2152
Kent Conrad, North Dakota (202) 224-2043
Carl Levin, Michigan (202) 224-6221
Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin (202) 224-5653
Barbara Boxer, California (202) 224-3553
Hillary Clinton, New York (202) 224-4451
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico (202) 224-5521
Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202) 224-2353

MoveOn: Apparently Harry Reid Cannot

2008-11-10T06:51:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times (Friday, November 8th):

Mr. Obama is apparently ready to bury the hatchet with his new fans. “President-elect Obama has made it clear that he wants to put partisanship behind and work together to solve the many challenges confronting the country,” said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team. “We’re pleased that others do as well.”

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who will help decide Mr. Lieberman’s committee assignment, sounded less ready to forgive, at least when it came Mr. Lieberman’s support for Mr. McCain. “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did,” he said on CNN Friday.

Now that’s the new spirit of bipartisanship we’ve heard so much about! Thank you Senator Reid.

Crashing The Party: Powell v. Lieberman

2008-11-10T06:38:00.000-08:00

I have heard the argument that the problem with Sen. Lieberman’s actions was not that he endorsed John McCain, but that he was critical of Senator Obama while doing it. However, when Former Secretary of State Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Senator Obama, he was hailed as a man who put country above party. What is ignored is Powell’s criticism of McCain while endorsing Obama. As the Washington Post pointed out:

Powell said he had watched both Obama and Sen. John McCain in the last “six or seven weeks,” since the national political conventions, and paid special attention to how they reacted to the nation's worsening economic situation.

“I must say, he seemed a little unsure about how to approach the problem,” Powell said of McCain.

“He didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems we have.”

Powell also expressed concerns about McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. “I don't believe she's ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of vice president,” Powell said, adding that it raised “some questions in my mind” about McCain's judgment.

Clearly Colin Powell can endorse whoever he chooses, but was his criticism of Senator McCain any harsher than Joe Lieberman’s criticism of Senator Obama? No. Moreover, Powell’s criticism can easily be seen as a veiled attack on McCain’s age. However, when Senator Lieberman endorsed his good friend and in doing so criticized Senator Obama’s perceived lack of experience, he is threatened with losing his Chairmanship positions. Why it is acceptable for Republican Colin Powell to criticizes his party’s candidate and endorse the opposition, but Democratic/Independent Senator Lieberman cannot do the same?

Double standard anyone?

Contact Senator Harry Reid and tell him to Let Joe Stay!

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

Dodd: Obama should avert Lieberman fight

2008-11-09T18:50:00.001-08:00

From the Hartford Courant's Capital Watch blog:

"What does Barack Obama want?" Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday after speaking at a childhood nutrition forum at the state Capitol complex in Hartford. "He's talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."

Amen.

"Partisanship Should Take A Backseat To Doing What is Best For This Country"

2008-11-09T18:30:00.000-08:00

Let Joe Stay (or, The Most Painful Blog Post I've Ever Written)

2008-11-07T08:26:00.000-08:00

Note: Although I do not share the author's dislike for Joe Lieberman, I believe this article show's the that allowing Sen. Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship positions would benefit the Democratic Party.

By Publius,
May 17, 2008

[Note: This article is taken from the Obsidian Wings Blog and can be found in its original form at http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/let-joe-stay-or.html]

Let me state this as clearly as I can — I don’t like Joe Lieberman. We have policy disagreements, sure, but I like lots of officials whom I disagree with. No, I dislike Fightin’ Joe because he’s driven more by petty wankerous spite than by policy or conscience. And nothing would make me happier than to see him kicked out of the caucus (and out of his committee chair) next year.

So it is with a heavy heart that I must offer this recommendation — the Dems should leave Lieberman alone and let him keep his committee chair in the next Congress.

The short explanation is that his vote is simply too valuable. For all his self-righteous preening and prancing, he does vote with Democrats on everything except national security issues. That’s a problem of course, as is his endorsement of, and campaigning for, John McCain. But even in light of these extremely bitter pills, his generally-favorable Senate vote is just too valuable to give up.

The objection to this argument, though, is that the Dems have no real need for him with the expanded majorities expected next year. Joe may well be necessary for this congressional session, but not so much come next January. That thinking, however, misses a key point.

The problem is that Joe’s vote will actually become more important the more that Democratic majorities expand. More precisely, the closer that the Dems get to the magic number (60), the more vital Joe becomes. Ironically enough, I think Lieberman is more important in a 59-41 Senate than in a 53-47 one.

As the recent Alaska numbers show (via LGM), the magic number of 60 is very doable, if still unlikely. But that said, the Dems don’t actually have to get to 60 itself. If Dems can reach the 57-59 range, then it becomes much easier to pick off stray Republican Senators (e.g., Snowe, Specter, Gregg, Voinovich — all of whom are up for reelection in 2010 except Snowe).

So if the Dems can at least approach 60, the whole game changes. With a new President and an expanded House majority, the Dems could suddenly pass some truly historic legislation — e.g., universal health care, major energy/environmental reform, an awesome Supreme Court Justice, more progressive federal judges, and so on. In short, it opens up a new window of possibilities that Democrats haven’t seen since post-1964 — and one that would likely be fleeting, if history is any guide.

So even if Joe isn’t necessary for a majority, he could easily be a swing vote on ending a key filibuster. If you let him keep his committee chairmanship (as distasteful as that may be), you retain leverage over him. It won’t stop his national security pettiness, but it will hopefully ensure that Lieberman is the not the reason that universal health care fails (or any other similarly important legislation).

If, by contrast, you kick him out, he will — because he’s a spiteful seven year old — do whatever he can to thwart Democrats. For that reason, I’ll trade vengeance for a better shot at historic progressive legislation.

It’s a bit of a hostage situation, sure. Some might even call it appeasement. And yes, Marshall Wittmann would remain employed. But the stakes are too high. Let him keep his chair and leave him to the Connecticut voters in 2012.

"You, Alright?! I Learned by Watching You!"

2008-11-06T20:03:00.000-08:00

The criticism being leveled against Senator Lieberman for his endorsement and support of his close friend, Senator John McCain reminds me of this public service announcement from the 1980s.

When Senator Lieberman announced that he was running for the Presidency in 2004, his former running mate, Al Gore, not only did not support him but instead endorsed his opponent, Howard Dean, saying “This is about all of us and all of us need to get behind the strongest candidate [Dean].” Of course when Senator Lieberman endorses John McCain rather than his party’s nominee he is threatened to be stripped of his Chairmanship positions. Double standard, anyone?

Senator Lieberman: A Democrat’s Democrat

2008-11-06T20:00:00.000-08:00

Career

· Lieberman was elected as a “reform Democrat” to the Connecticut Senate in 1970, where he served for 10 years, including the last six as Majority Leader. From 1982 to 1988, he served as Connecticut Attorney General and emphasized consumer protection and environmental enforcement.

· In 1988, Lieberman defeated Republican Lowell Weicker to win election to the United States Senate. He was re-elected in 1994, 2000 and 2006.

· In August 2000, Lieberman was selected as the nominee for Vice President of the United States by Al Gore.

Policy

· Overall Lieberman has a pro-choice voting record, and in 2007 he received a grade of 100 from the abortion rights organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.

· Lieberman has stated that “I support affirmative action programs, including in appropriate instances consideration of race and gender in government contracting decisions, when the affirmative action program is designed to remedy the effects of past discrimination.”

· Lieberman co-sponsored the 1990 Clean Air Act, introduced legislation in 1991 to give consumers more information about the dangers of pesticides, and has addressed the need to limit global warming. Lieberman has stated that the US population has to accept responsibility for global warming, and voted “yes” on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

· ‘‘Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008’’ proposed to ration/cap carbon emissions in the U.S., and tax or purchase Carbon credits on the global market for greater U.S. alignment with the Kyoto protocol standards and goals.

· On May 23, 2005, Lieberman was one of fourteen senators, dubbed the “Gang of 14,” who forged a compromise on the Democrats’ use of the judicial filibuster, thus avoiding the Republican leadership's implementation of the so-called “nuclear option.”

· In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign, one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees as spouses currently have. In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

· Lieberman received an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association and a 90% from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

· Lieberman has been critical of Bush’s Medicare plan, arguing that, in its current state, it does not provide sufficiently for the elderly.

· During his 2004 campaign, Lieberman said, “[t]he day I walk into the Oval Office, the first thing I'm going to do is rescind the Bush administration restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.”

· Lieberman cosponsored a resolution urging the Congress to reject the Bush Administration Social Security Commission’s report.

Why We're Here

2008-11-06T19:19:00.000-08:00

Senator Joe Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier today to discuss Lieberman's future with the Democratic caucus. After the meeting, Senator Reid stated that "[w]hile I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus."

What “actions” is Senator Reid referring to? Certainly it is not the Democratic members of the Senate abandoning Lieberman and supporting his opponent, Ned Lemont, in the 2006 election. Certainly it is not Senator Lieberman, upon winning the election as an Independent, deciding to still caucus with the party that had left him for dead, thereby giving them a slim majority in the Senate. No, the “actions” Reid is referring to is Lieberman’s support of his close friend, Senator John McCain, in his bid for the United States Presidency. What are the repercussions for Lieberman’s loyalty to Senator McCain? The potential loss of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and possibly his other committee assignments as well.

In sum, the Democratic Party showed Senator Lieberman a lack of loyalty in the 2006 election and yet he decided to support them and caucus with the party. This summer Joseph Lieberman showed his loyalty to a longtime friend John McCain and the Democratic Party wants to expel him.

Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished.

But we can stop this injustice from occurring. Removing Joseph Lieberman from the Chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would be an act of extreme pettiness, unbefitting the new political environment which President-elect Obama wishes to create. Loyalty and friendship are virtues to be desired, not disparaged.

Contact Senator Harry Reid and tell him to Let Joe Stay!

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327