Lieberman Get A Slap On The Wrist

Before I start, I would like to say that I am pleased that the Obama administration is starting to look a lot like the Clinton's did. Also, I hope that Hillary gets the SOS spot.


According to the Keeler Report, the democrats had a secret ballot to decide if Lieberman would keep his chairmanship or not. Over on Liberal common Sense, Lisa tells us that the vote will show us how much power the actual left has in the Senate. And over on CNN, it was shown that Lieberman would be keeping his chairmanship, while losing his seat in another committee. While most of the left believe that Lieberman should be kicked out, President-elect Obama deemed that Lieberman should stay, letting bygones be bygones, and keeping his pledge of a less partisan Washington.

So, the question becomes, should Lieberman actually have kept his position? Many on the right said yes, many moderates seemed indifferent, and many on the left said hell no. Frankly, I think that he should have, and I think that it is very obvious that he should.

1) Lieberman gave the Democrats power for two years, and made sure that they had it. By caucusing with the left, Lieberman made sure that his true party was given the power in Washington, and made sure that they could do as they wished with the country, and that they could fight Bush.
2) He is a Democrat. While he might have run as a Independent (due to his far-left party kicking him out, yet he still won handidly), he caucused and is a registered democrat. Kicking him out could cause our former veep candidate to switch parties, which would take a lot of moderates with him.
3) He appologized. Sure, he said some things while out campaigning for McCain that he shouldn't have. He made accusations, slanderous ones actually, and attacked Obama on a personal level. But, he has appologized, and seems honest about it. With this in mind, I think that he should be allowed to keep his post.
4) He votes Democrat most of the time. While he might not have been elected as a Democrat, he clearly is one. He was not elected in the primary due to the fact that he was pro-war, and that is really the only area he breaks from the party. Why should you remove a respected and aged member simply because he disagrees with you on two main issues?

So, with this in mind, I think that the punishment placed on Lieberman is exactly as it should be. Lieberman is a true democrat, but is not just voting party lines, which I like. Thus, in the end, I think that it was a good decision to keep him.