When, in the course of political events, it becomes necessary for one party to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them to a particular member, and to assume among the powers of the government the separate and equal station to which the constitution of the nation and the rules of the Senate entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of their colleagues and constituents requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Senators are created equal, that they are endowed by the Constitution with certain unalienable rights, that among these are germane debate, good-faith compromise, and the pursuit of sound policy. That to secure these rights, procedures are instituted among Senators, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of parliamentary manipulation becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the Senators discipline its members, and to institute new procedures and criteria, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their effectiveness and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that colleagues long entrenched should not be expelled for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by expelling those members which prove to be a hindrance. But when a long train of betrayals and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under the tyranny of the minority, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such colleague, and to provide new guards for their future ability to govern. —
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Senators; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former relations with said colleague. The history of the present junior Senator from the State of Connecticut is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over this Senate. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid country.
He has used his chairmanship to thwart goals of the party to which he claims to belong.
He has endorsed and campaigned for the Republican nominee for President of the United States, going so far as to consider joining him on the Republican ticket as nominee for Vice President.
He addressed the Republican National Convention and in so doing publicly subjected the policies of the Democratic Party to criticism and ridicule.
He did not accept the results of the Democratic Party primary for United States Senate in 2006, opting instead to run in the general election as an independent, to the detriment of the Democratic nominee.
He has publicly stated that he will oppose any health reform which includes a public option, a key priority for many Democrats.
He whole-heartedly embraced the foreign and military policy of the previous Republican administration despite its obvious flaws.
He has displayed a patronizing and cavalier attitude toward the activist base of the Democratic Party.
He has received campaign contributions from interests decidedly opposed to the Democratic agenda.
He has already indicated that he does not feel ideologically comfortable in the Democratic Party.
In every stage of these transgressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Senator, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a turncoat, is unfit to be a member of the Democratic Party.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Connecticut brethren. Democrats in that state nominated a different candidate to be United States Senator, but said candidate was not elected. They have not been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity and we pray that at the next opportunity they will be successful in electing a true Democrat. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold said Senator, as we hold the rest of our colleagues, an opponent when we disagree, an ally when we agree.
We, therefore, the Democratic members of the United States Senate, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people who elected us, solemnly publish and declare, that Joseph I. Lieberman, junior Senator from the State of Connecticut, is and of right ought to be expelled from the Senate Democratic Caucus; that he is hereby deprived of all committee chairmanships vested in him by this Caucus, and that all political connection between him and the Democratic Party, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that the Caucus shall have full power to assign chairmanships, pass legislation, and other things which a majority party may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our endorsements, our financial assistance, and our sacred honor.
In all seriousness Lieberman’s Republican convention speech was much better than the one Miller gave on so many levels. Miller’s left me thinking, “Yikes – what has John Kerry ever done to you!?” It was a hateful vendetta whereas Lieberman’s was more of a matter-of-fact, “Here’s why I favor McCain this year.” speech.
at least Zell Miller was so crazy he was funny (not intentionally so, of course).
it’s not the public option he’s against, he’s trying to kill the bill …per Countdown video
Are we really suppose to believe the regular Rachel Maddow guest is not a Democrat in sheep’s clothing?
…and the only avowed Socialist in the Senate. He is in many ways the opposite of Lieberman and might as well call himself a Democrat.
That you don’t follow Vermont politics?
are you’re skeptical of him being the latter of two people.
Sorry guys, but you don’t all seriously believe Bernie Sanders would identify with such a corrupt, corporate agenda driven party that has so consistently betrayed its base time and time again? No, Bernie sees the party for what it is —
<
p>and understands the party to be structurally very much at fundamental odds with anything even remotely resembling a progressive agenda. Would that more people understood that.
He caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Democrats more often than some with D’s after their name. He is an example to the party even if he doesn’t want the label, so yes, I stand by my uberDemocrat comment above.
In which case both of you are correct. He is above the Democrats, more progressive than most of them.
in 2012 …unless he’s selected as VP candidate for the Libertarian party …this time around. God I hate Joe Leiberman and the only one who can make be feel better about it is Jon Stewart.
Things Not to Be Thankful for
(Lieberman-free)
I don’t care what he calls himself, I like his views on issues.
<
p>Anybody who would betray my party to join yours would likely betray yours as well. Send him all the checks you want, but you’ll never be able to trust him…
To many people sync up with a party instead of the issues and “that” is why noting ever gets done!
<
p>The sentiment remains in force: anybody who would likely champion your issues in order to betray mine, would likely end up betraying yours as well. Have a care.
<
p>From where I sit, failure to get anything done rests upon your shoulders as much, if not more, as your so-called ‘party loyalists’. If it is a party, that is to say a coalition of like-minded voters seeking forward progress on issues you care about, then it’s your duty to make loyalty a two way street. If you don’t like the the fact that ‘not[h]ing ever gets done!’, then opting out of the process by which things get done, and turning around and sniping at those who stay, seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: Exiting a party in that manner leaves the party at the mercy of people who can’t think for themselves and for whom ‘loyalty’ = ‘let the leaders do all the thinking’ or for whom a party is merely a tool for the gaining and wielding of power.
<
p>It’s an interesting paradox that you are never so completely an individual as when you are deeply enmeshed in a community… And you are never so far from being an individual as when you refuse the interdependence of community.
<
p>Maybe my problem is the substitution of political parties into your above phrase. I could support a group of conservative and liberal people far more than I do the membership in groups by name only who vote along those party lines. Surely Republicans and Democrats should not vote against something which is clearly “good” for the country simply because their “party” tells them not to. There will always be some subjectiveness concerning what “good” is but when this happens then a wish a pox on the house of whomever goes against the country’s best interests.
His desire to play games and grandstand have made his so called ‘stance on issues’ utter incoherent and in advocating for his ‘stances on issues’ he’s turned to outright dissembling.
<
p>Benen:
<
p>Ezra:
<
p>Ezra again:
<
p>Sorry, but there’s nothing ‘there’ for policy arguments. You may like his policy perscriptions, but his views are utterly incoherent.
Wide?
<
p>(Sorry, I couldn’t resist….)
Senator Lieberman may very well have been the first “Democrat” in my lifetime who campaigned unapologetically to the right of the Republican who preceded him (very far to the right). Indeed, William F. Buckley, Jr. backed him for precisely that reason – and Lieberman has had solid right-wing Republican support ever since.
<
p>I wondered then, as I wonder now, why Connecticut Democrats ever supported a candidate such as Lieberman – and if you want to know why Lieberman has not “become a Republican already!”, my best guess is that it is in large part because the Democratic Party has consistently backed him throughout all this while, having abandoned reason, common sense, and anything remotely resembling a conscience, long ago.
The only issue where Joe Lieberman hasn’t flip flopped to the Republican side is an abortion, probably the one issue where I actually prefer their position to the Democratic one. If I lived CT I would see no reason to keep electing the two buffoons they have representing it. Where is Blumenthal to finally run for something? How about some of the Dem congressmen? Hell even Chris Shays is to the left of Lieberman and at least he has integrity backing his views.
…even of people of whom I’m not a big fan.
“Dreams of my Rabbi: The Audacity of Droop.”
video at :59