OK, so how does Joe Leiberman get tossed out of the Democratic party?

[Brigid]

Is there an actual parliamentary procedure for this? He hasn't actually been a Democrat for years. I don't get why the party brass hasn't called him on it. :grr:

[slackmaster]

1. The Senate Democratic Caucus can limit his privileges and powers in the Senate

But nobody has the authority to kick a person out of the party.

[B Calm]

60. They're afraid to piss him off, they might need him for an important vote. .

LOL

[madokie]

71. Thats about as funny as anything I've read so far this morning

really, when has joe come through for the dems yet

[Ikonoklast]

2. He isn't in it, officially.

He caucuses with the Dems, but he isn't one.

[Barack_America]

3. By running as an Independent?

Which he has already done.

He is not a member of the Democratic Party, he has been invited to join the Democratic Caucus.

[AllieB]

4. They should strip him of his chairmanships and bounce him off committees

He is a disgrace.

[Brigid]

5. That works for me.

I don't know why that hasn't been done.

[TicketyBoo]

9. I wouldn't be surprised

if that happens. Soon.

[brooklynite]

22. It is impossible to remove him from his Chairmanships....

...without a new resolution voted on by the entire Senate, and requiring 60 votes for cloture. The Republicans will never go along with it.

[harkadog]

55. BS. The Senate Democratic caucus determines chairmanships

The Republicans have nothing to do with it.

[brooklynite]

62. Please read: S.RES.18

S.RES.18

Making majority party appointments to certain Senate committees for the 111th Congress.

Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXV, the following shall constitute the majority party's membership on the following standing committees for the 111th Congress, or until their successors are chosen:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY: Mr. Harkin (Chairman), Mr. Leahy, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey and Ms. Klobuchar, Majority Leader designee, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Inouye (Chairman), Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Tester.

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Levin (Chairman), Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Webb, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Burris.

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS: Mr. Dodd (Chairman), Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Brown, Mr. Tester, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Warner and Mr. Merkley, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION: Mr. Rockefeller (Chairman), Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Begich.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Bingaman (Chairman), Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mrs. Shaheen.

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS: Mrs. Boxer (Chairman), Mr. Baucus, Mr. Carper, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Merkley, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: Mr. Baucus (Chairman), Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Carper.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Mr. Kerry (Chairman), Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Webb, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kaufman, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS: Mr. Kennedy (Chairman), Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Hagan and Mr. Merkley, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr. Lieberman (Chairman), Mr. Levin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Carper, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Tester, Mr. Burris, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Leahy (Chairman), Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Kaufman.

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Schumer (Chairman), Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico.

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Ms. Landrieu (Chairman), Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Hagan, and Mrs. Shaheen.

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS: Mr. Akaka (Chairman), Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Webb, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Burris.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING: Mr. Kohl (Chairman), Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Casey, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. Udall of Colorado, Majority Leader designee, Majority Leader designee, and Majority Leader designee.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Conrad (Chairman), Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Merkley.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mrs. Boxer (Chairman), Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Brown.

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS: Mr. Dorgan (Chairman), Mr. Inouye, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Tester and Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Majority Leader designee.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Mrs. Feinstein (Chairman), Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Whitehouse.

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE: Mr. Schumer (Vice Chairman), Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Webb.

1/21/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

While the Democrats determine at the beginning who will be their Committee Chairs, the formal assignment is made by vote (almost always unanimous) of the enitre Senate. The Democrats then agree to vote for a similar resolution designating Repubican ("The Minority") Committee assignments. The resolutions are in force through the period of the current Congress, or until changes by a new resolution which requires a new vote by the entire Senate.

[harkadog]

64. You didn't even read it

What about "or until their successors are chosen:" don't you understand? They can be changed at any point. What if a chairman were to die? Would the Republicans be able to stop a new chairman from being picked? Of course not.

[brooklynite]

66. Yes I did...what YOU didn't read...

is S Res 130, the new organizing resolution which was passed in May to reflect the switch by Arlen Specter to the Dems. The change required a new resolution and formal vote, which the Republicans went along with because it removed him from their committee assignments. The Republicans have no incentive however, to pass a resolution to support the Democrats stripping Lieberman of his Committee assignments for working with the Republicans to block the Health Care bill. Complain all you want about how stupid the procedures are, but this -is- the way the Senate works.

[harkadog]

69. So if a committee chairman dies

and the Republicans refuse to support a new resolution Senate business in that committee will stop. Do you really want to say that?

[brooklynite]

70. Legally, yes...

But Senate "decorum" generally means the two Parties work with each other on non-controversial procedural matters. If you look at the details of each resolution, they're almost always passed by Unanimous Consent, but that means if anyone wants to cause problems (say, Joe Lieberman) they can drag things out and require a lot of procedural voting.

If you don't believe all these formal resolutions are necessary, why does the Senate pass them?

[onenote]

72. you are correct

for all of the partisan hostility and seeming lack of cooperation, many actions occur on a daily basis through unanimous consent in the Senate. Assignment of committee slots is one of those things. But it does require, technically, a vote.

I disagree, however, with the suggestion that the repubs would block an attempt by the Democrats to strip lieberman of his chairmanship or assignments, for the very reason given: on this sort of matter, there is a long history of comity.

[DungBeetle]

10. A disgrace to what?

Why is he a disgrace, other than to occasionally possess the ability to look at an issue rationally? No matter what side of the isle a Congressman is on, they have to think for themselves as much as possible.

[AllieB]

12. Welcome to DU, DungBeetle. Senator Liebermann has gone against the wishes of his constituents

who elected him to represented their interests. Apparently, you don't understand the role of an elected representative. 70% of the people of CT, who Liebermann is supposed to represent, are for a public option. CT is a heavily Democratic state. Liebermann's donations from Aetna, Cigna, and other insurance giants (Hartford CT is known as 'the insurance capital') have influenced him to go against the wishes of the people who elected him. Enjoy your stay.

[immoderate]

14. Humanity, decency, integrity, etc.

He is not looking at the issue. He is being paid to look past it.

--imm

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllieB]

17. A Liebermann defender...they must be dancing in freeperland

:eyes:

They're so giddy only 10 of them showed up to the Nancy Pelosi health plan announcement.

[DungBeetle]

25. Defending Lieberman

BS....... I defend his right to have a brain, and occasionally use it.

[AllieB]

28. You didn't address the the issue. Do you understand representative government?

It has nothing to do with 'having a brain and using it'. It has to do with why the people of CT elected him.

[DungBeetle]

23. He doesn't oppose health care

He doesn't oppose health care. He opposes making drastic changes instead of fixing a few things that have been known for a long time to be reasons that health care increases so rapidly.

1) Tort Reform - Frivolous lawsuits are the BIGGEST problem. A doctor's insurance for this is probably 10 times what most of us make in a single year. Get rid of the ambulance chasers, and health care costs will decrease.

2) Put caps on premiums where they can't increase more than the rate of inflation...... a health care COLA.

3) Eliminate pre-existing conditions.

The above 3 things have been the most called for over the last few years.

[beltanefauve]

29. Hey DungBeetle

Why is your profile hidden?
Enjoy your stay.

[DungBeetle]

35. Profile

I believe in choice, I believe in the exploration of alternative energies, I believe in peace, not war.

But any opinions of mine that seek to open rational debate, or make people actually think, seem to be frowned upon. I have voted for Reps, Dems, and Independents over the years, depends on the person, depends on the year.

Why is everyone here afraid of free thought, that doesn't lean heavily to one direction. Why call names and accuse someone of being this or that, just because a view doesn't agree with you.

Debate seems to be seriously lacking here.

:(

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. Tort Reform? Ah Geezus....

Well, you certainly live up to your name, DUNG BEETLE.

A shit eating, low life insect.

Enjoy the pizza

[DungBeetle]

42. Forum Rules

You just broke forum rules when personally attacking another forum member that does not agree with your line of thinking. :wtf:

You don't even want to debate the details of frivolous law suits. You don't have a clue.

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. you broke them

by advocating Repuke Teabagger talking points.

BTW, exactly how did I break the rules by saying you live up to the definition of a name you picked for yourself?

[DungBeetle]

44. I rest my case.

>> A shit eating, low life insect.

[DungBeetle]

46. Debate

You couldn't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag.

All you have is name calling, and no facts.

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. The facts?

You mean the bullshit you repeat from a batshit crazy, dry drunk, Mormon lunatic on FAUX Noise?? :rofl:

Seriously, enjoy your visit, coward.

[DungBeetle]

50. No idea what you are talking about

Morman..... FAUX noise??? Never heard of those terms.

Who's the coward? You fail to debate, only call names.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. You're one of BecKKK's teabagger's aren't you?

I know that's where the "tort reform" bullshit comes from.

[DungBeetle]

54. Teabagger..... NOT

Quit calling me something I'm not. Names.... nothing but names. I rarely if ever watch Beck, or Fox, or CNN, etc.

I've believed in tort reform.... long before Beck hit the air waves. Frivolous law suits have been a problem in this country for many years. What that means is...... law suits that have no merit.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. "frivolous lawsuits" aren't the problem. Corporate insurance GREED is.

Some dumbass spilling coffee on themselves at McDonalds is much more of a rare occurance than someone denied coverage because of a "preexisting condition" or someone who THOUGHT they were covered, but got screwed by a corporate shell game.

[DungBeetle]

58. Pre-existing conditions

Pre-existing conditions.... I don't disagree. That needs to be fixed. I've always known that.

But to say that frivolous law suits are not a problem, then why is it that BECAUSE of frivolous law suits, a doctors insurance is 10 times more than the average wage earner makes. How do you think John Edwards made a lot of his money?

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. So if a child gets her intestines sucked out by a swimming pool drain pump

and her family sues the manufacturer, that's frivolous to you?

Geezus, you Freepers aren't even human, are you?

[DungBeetle]

73. I am "More Human Than Human"(White Zombie)

Yes it could be frivolous because you fail to understand and accept the fact that in life....... shit happens. No rhyme, no reason....... it just happens.

You just made up a senario, and didn't present details of the accident. And based on that generality, which I haven't even been given a chance to offer an opinion, I am a Freeper(what ever that is), and also not human.

What is your IQ? Can you count it on one hand or do you need both hands?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

63. John Edwards' personal injury cases were all frivolous?

Who knew? Not the jurors, apparently.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

34. Would prefer he be on any side of any 'isle' he wishes, preferably a deserted isle

but if he wishes to continue to caucus on our side of the 'aisle' I think representing his constituents rather than those who are robbing and murdering his constituents would be a good plan.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. Joe Lieberdouche doesn't think FOR himself, He thinks OF himself.

And not of his constituents. Who voted his worthless ass out in 2006.

[DungBeetle]

45. Blue Dems

So any Democratic Congressman that doesn't cowtow to the extreme left is worthless?

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. Well, since you asked

YES.

[DungBeetle]

52. Pathetic

Any rational person should be ashamed to behave as you do..... Extreme left or nothing.

You are the poster child of intolerant.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. You're right

I have ZERO tolerance for corporate fellating cowards like your hero, Senator Droopy Dog Lieberdouche.

[smoochpooch]

61. Yeah, the extreme left: 70% of doctors and 55-65% of voters who want a PO.

How EXTREME they all are:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Obama specifically told the leadership to let him in and to give him his chairmanships, remember?

[Brigid]

8. I wonder if Obama regrets that now.

Leiberman has done nothing to earn that, and never will. :grr:

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Obama doesn't really care if there is a weak pubic option or no public option.

please think about this.

[Marr]

31. I don't understand how people can simultaneously say Obama is intelligent, *and*

let him off the hook for things like this by suggesting he's as naive as a brain damaged toddler, constantly being foiled by underlings and minor politicians.

Obama lobbied for Lieberman for the same reason he's surrounded himself with people like Geithner and Rahm Emanuel. He agrees with them.

[andym]

19. The president was probably hoping that meant that Lieberman would support his policies

A gamble that obviously DID NOT pay off.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Lieberman will still vote for the manditory coverage and for tax subsidies to the

insurance industries and that's what's really important, after all.

Obama doesn't really much care one way or the other if there is a tiny public option or no public option.

And none of the bills (5) currently have anything except teeny tiny public options.

If this were important to Obama, things would be different, but it's unimportant.

[Individualist]

7. As long as DLC calls the shots, he stays put.

[chelsea0011]

11. A primary already took care of that. But the Dems were awfully nice

to him when he won as an Independent. They could have treated him like a new member and put him at the bottom of the list for committees but the Dems gave him a big fat kiss. And now he spits back at them.

[Egnever]

68. +1

[AllieB]

13. Don't look now but there's a visitor pooping upthread.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I already alerted!

:hi:

[Ganja Ninja]

24. And lets say he does get tossed.

That's only one down and about a dozen to go and that's just the Senate.

[Karmadillo]

26. What does it tell us about the Democratic Party when the party brass hasn't called him on it?

nt

[Cleita]

27. That's probably because a lot of the party brass aren't Democrats either

other than in name. If you throw out the DLC wing of corporatists, Joe will go with them.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

30. He needs to be marginalized

To me, that means electing more real Democrats to the Senate and increasing our liberal majority. Lieberman has been shockingly treacherous to the former party that nominated him for national office in 2000, throwing his full support behind McCain/Palin in 2008. But Lieberman is not alone in his disloyalty to the Democratic Party's values. There are several other bad Democrats who should also be the object of our ire and of our future efforts to unseat them in their next election.

[RooseveltTruman]

32. Well...

By rolling out a well-funded, smart, charismatic progressive candidate in 2012.

In the short term, it makes no sense to kick him out of the caucus. At least he's voting to proceed with the latest health care bill, and having him still a Dem might make him more likely to support causes he's on the fence about.

I have no idea what Lieberman is doing. When he ran for re-election 2006 (both in the primary and in the general), he was by all means a moderate Democrat. He disagreed sharply with most Democrats (indeed, most of the country) over Iraq, but for the most part, on almost all other issues he was within the mainstream of the Democratic party.

Since then, though, he's turned his back on a lot of stands he once took (he used to be an advocate of universal health care) and has become increasingly conservative. And, of course, he endorsed Sen. John McCain in 2008,.

Make no mistake: he got elected in 2006 because people still saw him as a moderate Democrat. Now, by all means, most of Connecticut views him either as a newly-minted conservative, or as a bitter asshole who has sold out his principles in order to constantly thumb the eye of the party that denied him renomination (more likely the latter). In either event, it likely does not bear out well for Lieberman: a February poll found him losing 58-30 (!) to Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in a matchup with NO Republican candidate. Now imagine if a Repub candidate was thrown in there, siphoning off his votes.

Unless the Dems nominate a total dog of a candidate in 2012, Joey's going down, no question. I wouldn't even worry about it.

[laughingliberal]

33. Head first? nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. The Democrats threw him out in the 2006 primary

Due to the fucked up laws in Connecticut, he was able to weasel his way back in - on REPUKE votes.

Then last year, he openly campaigns for the REPUKE presidential candidate.

If he WAS a Democrat before 2006 - which is itself debatable - he DAMN sure hasn't been one since.

Fuck that sniveling piece of shit with a dull rusty chainsaw!

[spanone]

37. this is the tightest club in the world...you'd have to kill someone on live teevee to get tossed

and then it's only a maybe

[GreenArrow]

40. He doesn't.

If he leaves, it will be because he chooses it.

[Brigid]

41. OK.

So how do we make him choose it? :evilgrin:

[DearAbby]

47. Sign the petition

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6885305

[Canuckistanian]

53. Immediately. Lieberman isn't part of the Democratic party

That ship sailed in 2006.

But Lieberman DID promise to caucus with the Dems for his chairmanships. And that means NOT voting against procedural matters.

I think this "cloture vote" is a violation of that pact.

[opihimoimoi]

65. 86 the MFKR...get his sorry skinny ass OUTTA THERE..strip him of all power...he deserves crap

[bemildred]

67. I just want him out of the Senate.

Don't care what he calls himself, or has to say otherwise, as long as he has no vote in the Senate.

[conscious evolution]

74. The same way zell miller was thrown out

Oh,wait,I forgot.The man who owns a bank with william bennet(r) is still a democrat.