Lieberman is not a Democrat! We need to contact all news

[Bluzmann57]

outlets and inform them of that. Yesterday, I was in southern Wisconsin and had the pleasure of listening to the progressive radio station in Madison. Well, at the top and bottom of each hour they have news updates from CNN. That's not a bad thing, we need to know what's going on, but in a story about the Iraq war and the possible cutting of funding, they brought up "Democrat" Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. He ran as an independent and should be identified as such. So I believe we here at DU need to contact CNN and all other news outlets and inform them about Lieberman. There is an (I) next to his name, not a (D). He chose to run as an Independent, so honor his choice, so to speak, and call him an independent.

[NewJeffCT]

1. Unfortunately

Lieberman ran as a "petitioning Democrat" or an "independent Democrat"

[izzie]

2. I think he is a Dem. but he likes this war.

--

[Swamp Rat]

3. Here ya go:

[mod mom]

4. He needs to be stripped of his chairmanship of Homeland Security & Gov Affairs!

[MessiahRp]

5. I agree

But I think the powers that be in the Democratic caucus want to wait until we have a stronger majority after 2008 to marginalize him. I think they know he will switch, it's just a matter of when not if. But they keep him in the fold for the mere appearance of a majority and the chairmanship rights that go with that. I think that some believe we can still get him to vote with Dems on certain issues but I think Holy Joe has sold his soul to the Right so I have no belief in that oncesoever.

Either way, won't happen for a while, for strategic reasons at the very least.

Rp

[William769]

6. That would also strip all Democrats of chairmanships.

And Harry Reid of his position. I know it sucks, but thats the way it is.

[mod mom]

7. Why can't he be replaced with a true Dem?

[William769]

8. Because if we replace him, he would probably bolt from the Democratic caucus

Causing us to lose the majority in the Senate.

[LynneSin]

11. You really do want the republicans running the senate

Please do NOT fuck with my Judiciary committee - DO NOT MESS WITH IT!!!! I'll tolerate Lieberman for 2 years knowing that Patrick Leahy and the rest of the pro-choice, anti-activist senators are running that Judiciary committee.

DO NOT FUCK WITH IT!!!

[LynneSin]

10. Oh Goodie - while we're at it Lieberman will strip the democrats of their chairs

I mean, I really want Hatch running the Judiciary Committee and Inhofe running the Environment Committee along with all those other neo-con fundies getting their chair seats back.

You can kiss any hopes of the impeachment goodbye along with all the other investigation going on. Like the Feingold bill - kiss that goodbye too.

You want to get rid of Lieberman then help us get rid of a few more democrats in 2008 so we can nullify the guy!

[SarahB]

9. Lieberman "promised" to caucus with the Democrats.

He hasn't done that either (not consistently anyway), so I'd agree. He's no Democrat.

I voted for Lamont. :(

[LynneSin]

13. If Lieberman wasn't caucusing with the dems then McConnell would be Senate Majority Leader

The fact that Lieberman does not agree with the rest of the democrats on the war does NOT mean he is not caucusing with the democrats. But he is the reason we have the majority and control of those valuable committees.

I wish Lamont had won but for right now I'll tolerate Lieberman until we can get about 2-3 more democrats in the senate.

[SarahB]

15. I guess if we're lucky he'll keep doing it?

That's what it comes down to.

Sorry, I've been just too disgruntled with my state's stupidity these last months. You're right though. It is about "tolerating" at this point.

[LynneSin]

16. Connecticutians are making a great sacrifice for our country

Seriously!

I wish we could get rid of him but there is just too much at stake if we hand control of the senate back to the republicans. If we had a few more democrats in the senate OR a democrat in the White House, I wouldn't care. But right now, like it or not, we need Lieberman.

[SarahB]

19. I know.

It does bite though. :mad:

p.s. :hi:

[theboss]

14. I don't think you know what "caucus" means

You should probably look it up.

[SarahB]

17. Yes, I know what it means. Thank you for your concern though.

The fact is that we have an alleged Democratic Senator who we consistently have to worry may not. This (along with the fact he ran against the party's nominee) makes many think "should this guy be called a Democrat?". I guess that's my point. If my point did not come across as intended or I didn't phrase things properly (I can see now where I did not), well, I guess I just need another morning coffee to get myself into gear a little better.

[William769]

18. I think you don't know what it means.

[theboss]

20. Well, then educate me...

This should be good.

[William769]

22. wikipedia is your friend.

[theboss]

23. I paid attention in Poltics 220

I know what it means.

Here is a list of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

http://democrats.senate.gov/members/

Hey....Joe is there!!!!

Maybe the Senators don't know what it means too. You should send them Wikipedia links and educate them. And also tell Leahy to give up his chairmanship while you are at it, because that is what you are advocating if you want Joe out.

[William769]

24. Maybe we should!

:rofl:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I hope you did learn the definition of "cacus" though.

[mwb970]

12. I saw that on CNN.

It reminded me of Fox Noise's identification of sex pervert Mark Foley as a "D". Calling Holy Joe a "D" is especially galling since he speaks and acts on every occasion as a Bushbutt-kissing "R". He's about as "I" as Dick the Prick.

[Pachamama]

21. CNN showed a "D" behind Lieberman's name and then referred to him twice as the Independent Democrat

It made me so mad....

What the hell is an "Independent Democrat"? It's as if they are setting the stage for a new party or something....