Kimber to Dems: Demote Lieberman

by Paul Bass | November 6, 2008 3:25 PM | | Comments (48)

kimber.JPGAs Joe Lieberman’s future with his former party hangs in the balance, Democrats in his former home city offered different views on how to deal with a prodigal son.

Lieberman, Connecticut’s four-term U.S. senator, met Thursday afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to begin the first of a series of chess moves riveting Democrats nationwide: Will the Reid’s Senate Democrats allow Lieberman to hold onto his post as chairman of the powerful Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee? Or will the party punish him for his central, Obama-slashing support for John McCain’s presidential campaign — and send him once and for all into the arms of the Republcans?

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano advises keeping Lieberman in the tent.

Acting “in his capacity as President of the Connecticut State Missionary Baptist Convention,” New Haven’s Rev. Boise Kimber (pictured above) issued a release urging Lieberman’s removal from his powerful post as chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

“During his re-election campaign of 2006, Senator Lieberman promised to investigate the White House response to Hurricane Katrina. But last year he quietly backed away from that promise, saying that assigning blame would be a waste of Congress’ time, and he repeated the Bush White House mantra of not wanting to engage in the ‘blame game,’” Kimber’s release stated.

“His lack of concern for the victims of Katrina, and his disinterest in holding the Bush Administration responsible for the crimes of Katrina were a slap in the face to all decent citizens, and also demonstrate that Lieberman does not reflect Connecticut Democratic values.”

In 2000, Kimber led a counter-rally in support of Lieberman when he was running for vice-president and critics demonstrated outside his home on the Jewish sabbath. (Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew.) Kimber has been a leading vote-puller in New Haven’s black community, often for the Democratic machine, for decades. He supported Lamont in 2006.

In his release, issued late Wednesday, Kimber urged people to contact U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid’s office to seek Lieberman’s demotion. Click here to read the release.

Rev. Kimber joins legions of Democrats across the state and country in seeking Lieberman’s removal in the wake of Lieberman’s aggressive support of Republican John McCain’s presidential bid. What irked people wasn’t just that Lieberman supported his friend McCain, but his leadership in impugning Democrat Barack Obama. Lieberman, for instance, was the first prominent McCain supporter to suggest on national TV that Obama may be a Marxist. He delivered a prime-time speech at the Republican Convention, declaring vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as experienced and qualified enough for the job, unlike (in his view) Barack Obama.

There’s no love lost between Lieberman and Democrats in the city where he lived and built a base for four decades. New Haven Democrats largely abandoned Lieberman in 2006 and supported Ned Lamont, the liberal who defeated the third-term U.S. senator in a party primary but then lost to him in the general election. Lieberman was reelected as an independent. He drifted further into the arms of the Republican right, especially on the Iraq war, and he continued to publicly question Democrats’ patriotism. Lieberman was known to be bitter at New Haven Democrats (not to mention Democrats in general) for abandoning him; he moved to Stamford and hasn’t been seen much in the Elm City since.

But even in New Haven, there’s no one view of whether it makes sense for the Democrats to strip Lieberman’s chairmanship and send him officially into the arms of the Republican Party. Lieberman caucused with the Democrats for the past two years, giving them a one-vote majority in the Senate in return for his chairmanship. That calculus changed in Tuesday’s elections; Democrats will now have a safe 50-plus majority, but not a [filibuster]-proof 60-vote majority.

Realpolitik


IMG_0002.jpgMayor John DeStefano (pictured), on the other hand, said Thursday that New Haven benefits from having a Connecticut senator chairing a committee like Homeland Security. He advised that the Democrats keep Lieberman in the fold as long as Lieberman agrees to remain in the party caucus.

“The election’s over now,” DeStefano said. “He’s going to be senator for four more years.

“I’d rather have a Connecticut senator who we have a working relationship with in that position.”

DeStefano was asked if Lieberman has been helpful to New Haven since the city spurned him the 2006 election. Lieberman lost his home city in both the primary and the general election.

“Joe’s office has been reasonably supportive on issues we care about,” DeStefano responded.

DSCN1734.JPGSusie Voigt (at right in photo), who chairs New Haven’s Democratic Party, counseled a cautious approach: talk now, act later on.

“As unhappy as I am with Joe Lieberman — and embarrassed to have him be the senator of our state — I have mixed feelings,” Voigt said.

“I certainly don’t want to diminish the strong feelings that so many of us have about his actions, in particular this presidential election. But I think Reid has a tough decision to make. It isn’t as though the Democrats have a veto-proof Senate.”

Voigt noted that President-Elect Obama is seeking to set a “reaching-out” tone to opponents now. So rather than make a decision now on Lieberman, Reid & Co. should continue speaking with him about what “common ground” might exist and open include party members in a public debate over the senator’s future.

“If Obama is extending his hand across the aisle, it’s not the right time to pick a fight,” Voigt counseled. “But it might be the right time to start a dialogue” on Lieberman’s future and open it to the public.

State Censure Looms

The Democratic State Central Committee could vote as early as Dec. 17 on a resolution to censure Lieberman. Click here to read the full text of the resolution.

Lieberman’s office didn’t respond to calls for comment Thursday. Lieberman issued a statement after the election seeking to mend fences with Obama, whom he regularly derided as experienced, unfit to be commander-as-chief, and possibly un-American and a “Marxist” during the campaign.

“I sincerely congratulate President-elect Obama for his historic and impressive victory,” Lieberman said. “America remains a nation of extraordinary opportunity and the American people are a people of extraordinary fairness. Now that the election is over, it is time to put partisan considerations aside and come together as a nation to solve the difficult challenges we face and make our blessed land stronger and safer.”

After their closed-door meeting on Thursday afternoon, Harry Reid was quoted as saying talks will continue between Lieberman and Democratic leaders. Lieberman told reporters he seeks an end to “partisanship.” He said he’s weighing his “options” — i.e., whether to stick with the Democrats or make his long-running dalliance with the Republicans a formal declaration. For an initial account of today’s events from Talking Points Memo, click here.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: BALLS | November 6, 2008 3:51 PM

I'm with Kimber. Dems dump Joe, after city dumps kimber.

Posted by: TFC | November 6, 2008 4:05 PM

Hey Paul:

All of a sudden Kimber is a legitimate voice? I thought you never referred to him without the appellation of "the Mayor's Favorite Felon"? I guess you dislike Joe more then Kimber...

Posted by: Charlie [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 6, 2008 4:14 PM

Lieberman has spit in everyone's face long enough. He's used that one vote and held it over everyone's head and it's time to end that. DeStefano and Voight say to "keep him in the tent"! Imagine if that were a black politician doing that to a white candidate? His ass would have been run out of the party a long time ago. But since it's Lieberman, "let's think about it". He's a Republican at heart anyway. He hasn't done a damn thing for people of color his whole career and gotten away with it.

Posted by: zorg | November 6, 2008 4:19 PM

As a compromise, how about having Lieberman undergo a legal name change to Benedict Arnold? Also, he could write a hundred times on a blackboard that the President of the United States is not a Marxist.

Who needs a majority that includes someone who despises us????

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 6, 2008 4:21 PM

I have mixed feelings about this; on one hand, I think Senator Lieberman's been dead wrong about Iraq, the McCain campaign (especially the suitability of Governor Palin) and other things (like the campaign against supposed indecency on TV). His embracing of the McCain-Palin campaign smacks of nothing more than petty revenge for his ouster in the Democratic primary.

But then there's the other hand. Lieberman's had a good record of working across the aisle, his alliance with McCain doesn't seem entirely opportunistic (they co-sponsored that climate bill in 2003) and he does have a good record on domestic issues like education and the environment.

At any rate, I don't think it's a veto-proof majority they need to maintain (they need 67 votes for that, anyway) but a filibuster-proof 60. But I'm not so sure that eliminating the ability of the minority party to filibuster is such a great idea. Where would the country have gone during the Bush administration without it?

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 6, 2008 4:36 PM

Listen Charlie for now we may need to keep him. I don't think it is a matter of wanting to. I may be a bad move on the Dem's part to get rid of him. We need the numbers. Let's face it when he runs again he will not get re-elected, even if he runs as a republican. He is looking for a fall back job right now is my guess.

Posted by: kurt | November 6, 2008 4:39 PM

It's time to kick Droopy Dog to the curb. He has talked out both sides of his mouth long enough. Strip him of the Chair. Under no circumstances should the Democrats REWARD him for his despicable, traitorous behavior throughout the election. (And at the first sign he doesn't support the Obama campaign boot him from the caucus as well.)

Posted by: Insider | November 6, 2008 5:02 PM

Wow Kimber do you ever listen to yourself before you speak? Let me ask did your congragation throw you out when you stole money from those people?

people in glass houses my friend should not throw stones, or better yet Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.....

Posted by: James | November 6, 2008 5:06 PM

Sorry, the content of this article may hold interest and even enlighten me. But unless the name "Kimber" is next to the word "Arrested," "Indicted," or "Pandering, Race-Baiting, Political Hack," I'm not reading. NHI, try to lend some credibility to your articles by not quoting Kimber. The man is as irrelevant as he is arrogant and crooked.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | November 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Lieberman is a disgrace to himself, this state, this country. He should resign and move abroad. He will not be able to run on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" line as the "party" is now controlled by those who see him for the manipulative [person] he is. The Rethugs would be fools to take him because he'll backstab them too...

Posted by: robn | November 6, 2008 5:37 PM

Fellow Democrats may or may not disagree with the war, but its very clear that Sen Lieberman stabbed his party in the back twice...first running against his party's choice for Senator and second, supporting John McCain for president. Even if the Dems had an even 60 in Congress, I would advocate dumping Lieberman. Its not worth selling your soul for a filibuster proof majority.

Posted by: Walt [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 6, 2008 5:50 PM

Well said James, and also Cedar Hill

Joe, whom I have known since he was in the State Senate, although he talks often middle of the road , he almost 100% votes the Dem party line.

Exceptions were the Iraq War, and McCain, but he is a solid Dem at heart. Look up his voting record

The leftist defeatist Dems tried to knock him off,but you are going to need him in the future.

He is a man of principle.

Posted by: Walt [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 6, 2008 5:51 PM

.....Plus Kimber is a bum.

Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2008 5:55 PM

Lieberman should be stripped of his chairmanship. Period. The fact that there is even serious discussion of letting this nasty turncoat opportunist hold onto the post is incredulous. Why should he continue to be rewarded? Beats me. Forget his lousy vote. Don't think it will really matter. And you can't trust him anyway. Besides, he claims to want to get beyond partisanship. He can do that without heading Homeland Security. Get rid of [him].

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 6, 2008 6:00 PM

robn I agree. But maybe we can finally get this country on the right track. Lets face it he is gone soon enough. And by the comment above he also may even choose to change party's on his own. I think that this is not just a choose for CT to make. The national democratic party has some input on this now. If they choose to get rid of Turncoat Joe I will not shed a tear, but I think this is bigger than our anger for him. If he stays he will know it is on a "we are using you" term. The shame he has brought upon himself and the fact that he has ended this part of his career is fact now. If asked to make the majority possible and he turns his back yet again on us, is my biggest fear. And may be the one thing making me kinda want to get rid of him

Posted by: politico | November 6, 2008 6:12 PM

Voight and DeSteafano coming to Liebermans defense. I cant figure the angle here. Is it to keep Kimber in line? I doubt it. Do they reaaly support Lieberman. Unlikely. What then?

Come on folks. Dont get angry at whose saying what. Try to work out whats going on. We are all being manipulated big time here. Post youre theorys.

Posted by: BALLS | November 6, 2008 6:36 PM

To my fruitcake friends who have knocked Pres. Bush. He may have not been the best person for the job but he did have a set on him. We have not been attacked in this country for the last 7 years. Hmmmm, I wonder if the westville folks would stand up to the nuts on bikes with fake guns what would happen. Just a thought. I look forward to our new President in 2009, but I hope he knows he is a male. When someone wants to mug,shoot,kill or rape you or your citizens you must stand up to that evil. Do nothing and they will return. Remember people, we voted without any military at our poles, no ink on our fingers, and most of all no violence. Freedom is not free and will never be free if we dont fight for it. Mr. Obama could sit and talk with any leaders of the world, just as long as when he leaves them they know he means business.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | November 6, 2008 6:41 PM

Hey, no one was more anti-Joe than me.

But if he wants to round-up some moderates and play a constructive role in passing legislation for the Obama administration, I'm ready to give him a break.

However, I doubt Joe will change course. He's spite-driven, and I think the most likely outcome is that he steps down and allows Rell to appoint a Republican in his place.

Posted by: anon | November 6, 2008 8:09 PM

Exactly what I was going to say, William Kurtz.

Posted by: That Guy | November 6, 2008 8:16 PM

A felon, and a political opportunist who hides behind the cloth...I'm sure Mr. Reid will take his letter serious...

Note to Harry you should google the good Rev.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 6, 2008 9:11 PM

If I am to believe what I am reading in the above posts, it's "totalitarianism", here we come! You folks can't tolerate a dissenting voice, much less a dissenting vote. (Bipartisan, schmipartisan --what hypocrisy.) One would think you all would be happy enough with a Democrat President, House, Senate, and most likely Supreme Court, but no-o-o-o.
You didn't want an election, you wanted a PURGE (hello, USSR!)--and you darn near got it, thanks to the abysmally low educational standards of America (e.g. the re-election of John Murtha & the almost-win of AL FRANKEN, fer cryin' out loud)---btw, have any of you noticed the stock market lately? (Hint: duh---the market doesn't like new taxes.)
As for ROBN's commment: "Its not worth selling your soul..." --- let's hang that one on Gen. Colin Powell. Talk about an ingrate and a "turncoat" ---- pa-leese!
Sen. Lieberman doesn't happen to want Israeli blood on his hands or terrorists palling around with his president----unlike most of you over-the-hill hippie/anarchists out there.
Come what may, though, my conscience is clear, as I voted McCain.
(Am also planning a retirement move to some other state--with low taxes---can't take this relentless, incessant intolerance masquerading as enlightened "moral superiority" anymore and then taxing/robbing me blind for the privilege of it.)
PS---had a phone conversation with Voigt once---the very definition of a political hack.
New Haven politics are so "yesterday" it isn't even funny anymore. Think I'll give "The Independent" bookmark on my computer a good long vacation----again. 'bye 'bye

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 6, 2008 9:12 PM

A judas is a judas,Ask you self if John Gotti was alive today,Could He trust Sammy the bull after what he did? Get Rid Of Joe!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAMB | November 7, 2008 1:35 AM

Lieberman has outstanding morals and ethics. He's a true democrat who happens to be a moderate NOT a left winger. Just like McCain is a moderate Republican and NOT a right wing conservative.

Lieberman has to stay and SHAME on KIMBER ...

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | November 7, 2008 1:51 AM

hey, W'ville Mom, -- don't let the door hit you on your way out!

In backing McCain-Palin, Lieberman made a mockery of all that which he had professed to believe in, as a Democrat. (and one who actually was a V-P on our presidential ticket.)

PS- Al Franken is a great American. And not one who would stoop to accusing a President-elect of "palling around with terrorists". Shame on you, and enjoy the Deep South.

Posted by: godhelptheusa | November 7, 2008 8:17 AM

Westville Mom - Thank you for being a voice of reason here. Unfortunately, moving to another state may provide a break in some taxes but it will still not get you out from under the totalitarianism that is coming to our government in 2009.

Just think - A democrat with a 90+% liberal voting record isn't liberal enough now. Anyone who dares take exception with any of the leftist ideas being implemented must be silenced and punished. Is this the USA?

The only solcae here is that each time the liberals have gotten control of all gov't branches (1992, 1976, 1964), they get too greedy and lose that control in the next mid-term elections.

Once people relaizes that tax breaks for 95% of the population was a bold faced lie, the wheels will be set in motion for bringing back logical government again. We can only hope that the damage to our economy, our security, and our future are not too substantial in the interim.

Posted by: robn | November 7, 2008 9:21 AM

BALLS,

Iraq didn't attack our country on 911...the war is a total fraud and GWB deserves to be tried for it.

WVM,

I'm with you on not trusting Colin Powell. He knew that the information on Iraq that he presented to the UN was fraudulent but he did it anyway.


Posted by: FannieMaeFrank | November 7, 2008 10:42 AM

Lieberman stood up for his personal choice at our dime. Where does he get off flying all over the country or should I say world trying to get McCain elected when h could have been in CT representing us?
McCain was once a maverick, but sold his soul to the devil for the chance to be the President. The guy I saw campaigning with that Alaskian cheerleader was not the McCain I could have supported.
Back to our boy Joe, it's time for him and Dodd to get out and let someone less corrupt take their seats.

Posted by: ctkeith | November 7, 2008 11:09 AM

For Destefano and Voight this is all about MONEY.I don't blame them for wanting Lieberman to retain his ability to send pork New Havens way but it's too late for that now.

Reid informed Lieberman yesterday that his Chairmanship and all his partisan seniority rights are gone.

Joe professes his independent run freed him from patisanship.Harry Reid just freed him a little more.

Posted by: Kirsten | November 7, 2008 11:36 AM

While I agree with Westville Mom's sentiments regarding Lieberman and his relationship with the Democratic party, I do not agree with her assertion that the drop in Wall Street is associated with the election of Senator Obama and his tax policy, but likely more due to the release this week of earnings reports of GM and Ford, and the announcement from the Labor Department the 1 million jobs were lost in 2008.

To see an analysis of the differences between Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's tax policies:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

Peace.

Posted by: Bill | November 7, 2008 11:37 AM

It was the democrat party that stabbed Lieberman in the back by nominating what's his name to run for senator. Gore who picked Lieberman as a running mate even went against him. The dems don't have any loyalty. Time has shown that Lieberman was right about sticking it out in Iraq and what's his name was wrong along with Obama. This country will be an abomination under Obama.

Posted by: Kirsten | November 7, 2008 11:57 AM

I am sorry you feel that way Bill.

As I recall, Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Democratic primary, prompting Lieberman to run and win as an Independent. Obama campaigned for Lieberman, but was not happy about later comments from Lieberman:

http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-confronts-lieberman-mccain-advocacy

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | November 7, 2008 1:05 PM

WAIT

Lieberdude said he COMPLETELY SUPPORTS OBAMA.

You see how he completely supported McCain. Surely he can be trusted to do the same with the victor!

Posted by: June | November 7, 2008 3:28 PM

KAMB,you are wrong Lieberman does not have outstanding morals and ethics. Someone wiht the above attributes does not lie nor does he call another person malicious names for his own gain. In addition he does not promise to do one thing and do another. He did promise not to bash Obama at ther RNC but he did not keep that promise. When you are getting paid by one party with a prestigious chairmanship you do not raise money for a Senator in the other party. All of the above actions, and more could be listed, depict a man without either morals or ethics.

Posted by: LTMike | November 7, 2008 3:57 PM

Where are the comments on Dodd not reflecting the Democratic values for the citizens of Ct? Dodd has done much more harm at least "Joe" is bi-partisan!

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2008 4:40 PM

ok now I know what was bugging me

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/-i-fear-that-america-will_n_141104.html

hmmmm

Posted by: tom gogola | November 7, 2008 7:48 PM

I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't believe that actions have consequences, and Fuddy Duddy's actions during this campaign ought to have some consequence within the party. If i am reading between the lines correctly, Fud-Dud has been offered a choice--stay with the Democratic caucus but minus your chairmanships, or ship out and go caucus with the Republicans. His call. Seems to me a pretty fair way to treat a guy who flat out said he was going to support the Democratic nominee in 2008, and then did the exact opposite. Lieberman's justification for supporting McCain was that the Democratic Party had been taken over by its left wing, which is pure, self-serving nonsense. The Democratic Party was taken over by the center-right DLC, the so-called New Democrats of Clintonian America of which Fuddy Freaking Duddy is avatar and architect. Whatever self-justifying 'slippage' that has occurred since the end of Clinton is in part the fault of those self-defeating Bush Blew Up the WTC imbeciles and their assorted Free Mumia pals who gave Joe Lieberman the exact rationale he was looking for to decry this alleged 'shift' to the left by the Democrats, despite the fact that this "wing" of the party probably voted for the homophobe Al Sharpton in any case. There is no other way that Lieberman's claim makes any sense, and it helps us understand why he and Sean Hannity are such bosom buddies these days--since it's Hannity and Company who proffered this notion that Bush Blew Up the WTC = Left Wing Democrat = Lieberman is My Hero For Bailing Out on Obama. Fact is, the majority of actual Democrats supported Bush's war, economic populists like Joe Biden included. They all, nearly to a man and woman, engaged in a collective act of self-delusion to justify a war that now has helped bankrupt this country across the board. That is not a Democratic Party that is moving away from its core DLC values, but rather a return and retrenchment to old school Cold War Liberalism with an Al Qaeda update. A Democratic Party that had truly moved away from its core DLC mandate could never have elected a man like Barack Obama president. In order to secure this victory, Barack Obama obviously took a page from the DLC playbook when he opposed gay marriage rights, a signal civil rights issue of this era, not to mention when he supported the new corporate welfare state. Or when he says scary things about what he might or might not do in Pakistan. Or when he steadfastly avoided putting the words "death" and "penalty" together at any point during this campaign. That is textbook DLC strategy, and it's the only way Democrats can win elections: Avoid the culture-war pitfalls, express your support for blowing something up, forget about opposing the death penalty, and make sure any critique of corporate excesses is mitigated by a bazillion dollar bailout. Don't get me wrong: I am just as thrilled as any Obama supporter that he was elected president and proudly cast my vote for the man. The positives far, far, FAR outweigh the negatives. This was in no way a 'lesser of two evils vote,' and Obama has a great opportunity before him to reclaim the true mantle of progressive populism for the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman or no Joe Lieberman.


Posted by: strangerthanfiction | November 8, 2008 1:08 AM

Of course local officials don't want to diss Joe -- he still has 4 years left to his term and he is one of the two CT Senators. There will be many times when they will need help from Joe so they've got to publicly boost him. But he has been a disgrace. It's really sad to see his career sink so low. He gave the keynote address at the GOP Convention! He said that Sarah Palin was qualified and had the experience to be on a national ticket but that Obama did not! He has sold his soul to the devil for his ambition. And yes there must be consequences. Offer him some seniority perks but absolutely no chairmanships. Those go to officials who have worked for a Dem majority and he has actively opposed that. If he wishes to end his career as a Republican so be it. If he becomes a Republican because he doesn't get a chairmanship doesn't that show ever more clearly how it's all about Joe?

Posted by: MichaelD | November 8, 2008 8:19 AM

The issue with Lieberman is simply this: he doesn't respect the Democratic party. The Democrats in Connecticut (hi, remember us? we're his constituency) voted him out in 2006 and rather than accept our decision he relied on the state's Republicans to get elected as an independent. Joe clings to power - he seems to think he knows better than the voters what's good for us. If he wants to vote with Republicans, campaign for Republicans, and rely on Republicans to get elected, that tells me there's really only one party for him. And it isn't the Democratic party.

(Think about it - why are his biggest defenders Republicans?)

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2008 9:26 AM

TG,

I'm as worried as you about neo-DLC-centrism but to write, as you did, that most Democrats "supported" the war is disingenuous. Most Democratic congresspeople "voted" in 2002 for the war becuase they were presented with false information from the white house. If you'd like to point out the Democrats centrist sin, its not their 2002 vote for the war, but their failure, after winning a majority in 2006, to take action on the now iunarguable evidence that the war was fraudulently promoted by the white house....

just to give credit where credit is due...147 Democrats, 7 Republicans and 2 independents smaelled a rat in 2002 and voted "NAY"...

may you rest in peace Senator Wellstone.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Ok here is a question to the more savvy posters. What about a recall? Really. You would without a doubt have enough voters to sign a petion to recall him. So the question I am asking is if we could recall him would we have a new election for that position, would it be empty or would it be appointed and if so by whom?

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2008 2:46 PM

CHR,

I've pondered that question over and over again. As far as I can tell, becuase it is a federal position, there is no mechanism by which the voters can recall a congressperson other than waiting for the next election. Even Congress itself has very limited opportunity to remove a sitting congressperson (impeachments, which requires high crimes or misdemeanors)

Posted by: Alan Felder | November 9, 2008 7:54 AM

How could Joe Lieberman support a campaing with a racial over-tone, calling President Elect Barack Obama a terorist, socialist, marxist, and being un-American?

Posted by: robn | November 9, 2008 9:10 AM

CHR,

whaddayaknow...Google and yee shall find...an article entitled, "Can Senator Lieberman Be Recalled." Before you get your hopes up though, the general consensus is NO.

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2008/07/11/can-senator-lieberman-be-recalled/

Posted by: Anthony | November 10, 2008 12:28 AM

Ya know what...the way I see it, many of you who are posting about getting rid of Joe are all a bunch of Hypocrits. There are many of us who are Loyal democrats that respect the fact that Joe has his own opinions about the war and national security. I for one, do not like Obama and think hes a scham. I was a Hillary Cinton Supporter. But it seems ike you wanna kick out all democrats who dont like obama and who think that puling out the troops immediately is not in the best interests of the country or Iraq. I espect joe lieberman for supporting John Mccain. He is doing exacty what he should be doing as the "Independant" Senator from our state. What all of this whining and complaining is gonna do is push him over to the republican side. Ask yourselves a question. Is it worth getting rid of an independant senator who is 90% democrat just becasue he didnt jump on the "Obama Bandwagon," wear a tie dye, and start singing we are the world.

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 10, 2008 8:41 AM

Robn thanks! As always I guess we just to hang in their.

Anthony
FIRST OF ALL he was NOT ELECTED to have his own opinions to some point!!! He was ELECTED to represent his constituent's options!!!!!!!! He has every right to want to stand by his friend...BUT NOT ON OUR DIME!!!!! That is the problem!!!!

Posted by: localteacher | November 10, 2008 10:33 PM

Joe Lieberman has always been a politician in the worst sense. He betrays anyone to get what he wants. The Democrats should let him go and join the Republicans. They're the ones who got him in the senate in the first place, when they supported him against their own true maverick, Lowell Weicker. The Republicans then kept him in the senate in '06, when Ned Lamont beat him in the Democratic primary and he went on to form that ludicrous independent party (what was it called? The Joe Party, or something like that) because he knew the Republicans could kick him over the top.

Posted by: Walt [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 11, 2008 6:20 AM

Lieberman was definitely not elected on the Democrat dime.

The Dem lefties tossed him out and fought hard against him even though he had voted almost 100% for the Dem line

He was nevertheless re-elected by the people of Connecticut, the independent voters like me, together with many Dems and many Repubs

That said, his joining the Repubs wouldn't make any sense because he votes against the Repubs on almost every topic and would not fit there either

No recall. You are stuck with him as your Senator the same as I am stuck with Obama as President until 2012. The people spoke and that settles it.

As lousy a choice as I think Obama was, or as lousy a choice you think Joe was, it makes sense for each of us to hope those campaign winners succeed with their main responsibilities, or we are in for really bad times.

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 11, 2008 9:55 AM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/p/S/2/lieberman-forgive-lk1107bd.jpg

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35