Earlier this year, the Mississippi Democratic Party did something I kind of admired. Their longtime insurance commissioner, George Dale, had been a faux Democrat for quite some time. He was a bigger friend to insurance companies than consumers in Mississippi, and he had endorsed Bush in 2004 (and would eventually endorse the Republican Barbour in 2007).
The Mississippi Democrat had finally reached the limit to which they could condone such disloyalty. And so they took the extraordinary attempt of refusing to accept his application to appear on the 2007 Democratic primary ballot. While a judge eventually forced him onto the ballot (where he lost the primary to Gary Anderson), the message was sent.
On a national level, another message needs to be sent. What remains to be seen is whether or not Harry Reid has the balls to send the message.
At a minimum, the Democratic Party should vote to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments. The proper remedy: expel Lieberman from the party.
Strike ONE: His penchant for running to Fox News on a weekly basis to rip your own party in the name of bipartisanship.
Strike TWO: Endorsing Republicans for the U.S. Senate, no matter how "moderate" you make them out to be.
Strike THREE: Eschewing A HALF DOZEN legitimate Democratic candidates, including FOUR of your colleagues in the Senate, in order to endorse a Republican candidate who has a lifetime ADA rating in the teens. This is not a moderate he is endorsing. He is an economic and social conservative who is one of the most ardent advocates for Mr. Bush's war (of course, so is Lieberman. His voting record in the 109th Congress was the third most conservative in the Senate, according to Voteview.com. His American Conservative Union lifetime rating is 82.
I want all of the people who pooh-poohed our "meanness" towards Lieberman because he was such a big friend to the unions to reflect on their man's endorsement of a man whose AFSCME ratings for both 2005 and 2006 were...well...zero.
Get his ass out. Now. Every day he stays in the Democratic Party just adds exponentially to the farce that this party is becoming.
UPDATE (6:14 PM PST): There was a diary just posted which casts some doubt on the ability of the Senate to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship. The logic seems sound, but if someone knows something different, discuss in the comments.
Also, I have seen a number of commenters lamenting the recklessness of doing anything to Lieberman, because he would defect to the Republicans. Three thoughts on this, to save making fifteen separate comments:
- There is some debate as to whether a Lieberman explusion, or defection, would change the balance of power. At issue is whether or not there was an agreement in place that locked-in majority status in 2007. Anybody with knowledge on this?
Even if not...
- As we learned this year, a majority in the Senate is really sixty votes, isn't it? and...
- It has become exceedingly clear that nothing we care about will become law in the next twelve months. This is not the most temperate thought I have ever had, but even if it comes to it, I'd rather live 12 months in the minority, and then attain a REAL majority, then continue to allow the Democratic Party to be a running joke of contemptible timidity.