Democrats Strike at Lieberman

Connecticut Democrats have finally dealt with the traitor in their midst. They’ve decided to send Joe Lieberman a tersely worded letter “detailing their disappointment with his public support for Republican John McCain in the presidential race.”

That’ll teach him to mess with the likes of them.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Democrats Strike at Lieberman

  1. I’m guessing the issue is the 2012 Dem primary (if he goes there). An opponent will say Joe was censured for supporting McCain.

    And what will Lieberman do? Call his primary opponent a liar? In a general, that could probably work. But in a dem primary… Lieberman would have to think twice before suggesting such a statement would be a lie.

    I think it’s relevant if, and only if, Lieberman goes for the Dem nomination in 2012. What R is going to remind unaffiliated and R voters that Dems were upset with Lieberman?

  2. AndersonScooper

    Yeah, well, he wasn’t censured.

    That was too strong for the CT Dem Party.

    So instead they decided to “admonish” Joe, with the first couple of paragraphs of the amended resolution talking about how we need to come together in this period of economic turmoil.

    But that was also too much.

    What happened was that when it became clear to the 70% of State Central members who showed up, that they would have to vote for or against a Lieberman “admonishment”, Nancy DiNardo came prepared to rescue them.

    She opened with a counter-proposal , which was to send Joe a “letter of disappointment”, and after eighty minutes of foolish debate people became tired, and the charade ended with a vote in favor of adjourning for the holiday party.

    Frankly, I can understand why so many Dem VIP’s didn’t want to vote against Lieberman. Unlike the weak-kneed State Party, Lieberman isn’t afraid of keeping score, holding grudges, and black-listing opponents.

    My confusion was two-fold, 1) why bring in the press and announce a censure vote if you don’t have the cajones to actually admonish the McCain/Palin-lover?

    2) I can understand why our party’s emphasis was the need to move on. But it’s hard to figure why people didn’t just vote to pass the watered-down resolution. Sure, it wouldn’t mean much besides symbolism, but it would have been some small sop to the party’s activists. The world wouldn’t have ended had we decided to admonish Joe. Instead we wimped out.

    The only good thing is that it looks as if the press is being kind, and concentrating the coverage on the anti-Lieberman sentiment which was palpable in the room, cronies and all.

    PS– At the holiday party I did hear two insiders talking about how “four years is an eternity in politics.” Meaning at least some Liebercrats are hoping for Joe’s redemption.

  3. CT Dems couldn’t pull the trigger on Joe….was anyone really surprised?

    Two words: Political Convenience.

    Having Joe as a 1/2 or a 1/4 Democrat is better than NOT having a Democrat U.S. Senator period.

    And, yes, 4 years IS an enternity in politics. Never burn a bridge if you don’t have to….someday these Dem’s may have to come running back over it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s