Great points, Matthew. I'm glad you made them.

However, it's important to remember that it was Lieberman that dropped out of the Democratic Party in 2006. He wasn't kicked out. He dropped out.

He ran as an Independent. The Dems in the Senate allowed him to continue to caucus with them because they thought he leaned more towards blue than red, AND, because, frankly, they needed his additional number in their caucus.

But, he is not a Democrat. He is not a member of the Democratic Party. He defeated a Democrat that was running against him in the general election two years ago. And, since he has been caucusing with the Dems in the Senate, he has rarely shown any solidarity with their (or our) goals.

I say, kick him out. He's more Republican than Democrat and doesn't belong in the Democratic Caucus. If he's not in the caucus, he has no right to any committee chair positions.

But, Matthew, though I disagree with you, and I imagine the majority of members of my party will disagree with you - I'm so glad you are sharing your opinions so thoughtfully with us and I hope you will continue to do so.

This blog site is made even more interesting and enriching if we disagree on some things. Smart people can and do disagree!

Matthew have you forgotten that Lieberman is not a Democrat? It is the custom for the majority party to appoint people for all the committee chair positions.

Lieberman is not a member of the majority party. And, by campaigning for the minority party in the election, he further cemented his solidarity with the Republicans.

The Democrats would be foolish to allow an Independent that fights for Republicans to occupy one of the most influential committee chair positions in the Senate.

Certainly you do know he is not a member of the Democratic Party, right? This is the Senate we are talking about... majority party gets the chairs. It's the way it should be.

Actually, yes, I aware he is not an official Democratic senator. He is actually the lone senator to be a member of the "Connecticut For Lieberman" party. Likewise, I am not questioning Senator Reid's authority in this instance, just the rationale.

The fact remains that Senator Lieberman was, until recently, a welcome member of the democratic caucus. Not only that, but he was a well respected chairman. Now, due to dissent, both of those things will be woefully stripped from him? Seems like we've returned to the playground and we have an ideological bully running amuck. Besides, didn't we just go through this unity and transcending partisanship phase?

P.S. It's my party too, I have a card to prove it.

I'm glad you are writing, too, Matthew. I hope my criticism don't keep you from writing. Write more!

I will tell you, however, that the Dems have just been biding their time until they could get them out of our caucus - because Lieberman ceased being a good fit five years ago.

His wholesale support of George Bush's preemptive war and escalation in Iraq is what has caused Dems to turn away from him. That's why in 2006 that Lieberman lost his Democratic primary and why he left the Democratic party and also why he competed against the chosen Democrat in the General Election.

The Senate Dems allowed him to caucus only because their numbers were slim. They tolerated him and tried to overlook his views on Iraq but made sure that they gave him no extra influence in war decisions.

But Lieberman can no longer be trusted. Lieberman did not engage in dissent. He engaged in unacceptable support of war. He engaged in betrayal of Democratic principles. He cannot be trusted and the Dems would indeed be foolish to ever trust him again.

Lieberman is a Republican. See - there is indeed a big difference between Democrats and Republicans and even if Lieberman tries to masquerade as a Democrat, we can see through the disguise. He is not one of us. Nor should he be treated like he is.

Matthew, good post. I used to be a big Lieberman supporter in 2004 but my feelings for him are more mixed now. I personally think there is a Good Joe Lieberman and a Bad Joe Lieberman.

The Good Joe Lieberman is very liberal in domestic issues. Lieberman has consistently scored over 90% in the National Environmental Scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters for the course of his Senate career, over 95% from NARAL for protecting a women's right to choose, over 90% from the Human Rights Campaign for his senate career in opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians, a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. In 2005 the liberal activist organization Americans for Democratic Action gave Lieberman a liberal quotient of 80 out of 100 in 2005; a 75 in 2004; a 70 in 2003; an 85 in 2002; and a 95 in 2001. He's led the effort to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fought attempts to weaken the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He's fought to protect a woman's right to choose and he's fought to protect affirmative action laws. He's fought for laws to ban discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation. He's fought to prevent hate crimes against gays, to provide the same benefits for domestic partners that are enjoyed by straight spouses. He's fought to ensure collective bargaining rights and to safeguard worker's rights. He's fought for laws to protect striking workers from losing their jobs to scabs. He voted against Alito for the Supreme Court. On these issues Lieberman has been very good.

The Bad Joe Lieberman is very bad in foreign affair issues and in loyalty to the Democrats. In spite of the fact that the Democrats haven't stripped him of his chairmanship and have gone out of their way to treat him well, he still went to talk in the Republican convention and attack Obama. His support of the war in Iraq is uncritical of George Bush. He did an article in the New York Times telling Democrats to squash dissent on Bush's policies in Iraq and to just unquestioningly support him when Bush's Iraq policies were going so badly and criticism was justified. I think he was insane to suggest that we should invade Iran when our troops are already stretched in both Iraq and Afganistan. On foreign policy he's been dead wrong.

Joe is not really a Democrat, but he's too liberal in social issues to be a Republican either. He's just an independent and we should treat him as such. On domestic issues, we should seem him as an ally. But on foreign policy we should expect him to be opposed to Obama and the Democrats.

I tend to agree with Angelo. As usual, Angelo, you have offered a reasoned explanation.

Matthew, keep writing. You also offered a reasoned argument.