Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Could Democrats hold any confidential member-to-member discussion on anything without Lieberman delightedly supplying his Republican friends with information?

Look up the word "caucus" in the dictionary.  I found two definitions, one that was general and related to a meeting of individuals of the same party.  This alone is a stretch for Lieberman given his activities in the recently concluded election.  

The second definition refers to a meeting of individuals relating to certain principles held in common.

No matter what the Democratic Party's "let bygones be bygones" Lieberman advocates say, his recent conduct violates even the most expansive view of party discipline, and without achieving a minimal level of it no senator should remain within a party's caucus.

Lieberman, who can reportedly sound very sincere and congenial when pushing his own case, assured Democrats before the Republican Convention that he was going to St. Paul to say nice things about a long time friend and senatorial colleague who happened to be the other party's nominee.  He would not, in the process, be speaking ill of Democratic nominee Obama.

Lieberman's speech referred to McCain as qualified to serve as president while Obama was not.  Lieberman exclaimed that McCain was a senator of compromise who would extend himself across party lines while Obama would not.

The convention speech was a prelude to what would follow in the fall campaign.  The effort to say good words about a cherished friend extended to a major effort to help Republicans running for other offices as well.  

While Obama was, according to Lieberman, unqualified to be president, he had no hesitation in touting Sarah Palin's qualifications to serve as vice president or, if by historical necessity, as chief executive.

When Palin launched into a diatribe against Obama about his past association with former Weatherman Underground radical Willam Ayers, Lieberman stood calmly behind her as she spoke.  At no point did he ever stand up for Obama and repudiate her comments concerning Ayers and Obama.

There was also a radio interview when the subject of Marxism was discussed concerning Obama.  Talking in his usual soft spoken way, that belies the venom he so frequently spews, Lieberman conceded that there might well be truth in the charge linking the Democratic nominee of the party he caucused with to the philosophy of Karl Marx.

Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois are correct on this point while Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, if their position has been reported correctly, are dead wrong.

In order for the Senate Democratic Caucus to stand for anything meaningful a minimal standard must be enforced.  Crossing that line should bring immediate expulsion.  

Democrats pleading Lieberman's case argue that there should be no "vindictiveness" employed against the Connecticut senator.

Was Lieberman not only being vindictive but deceitful in telling Democrats one thing and doing another?  He did far more than speak out for a good friend at the Republican Convention.  

Lieberman became a Republican surrogate who at his worst sounded indistinguishable from the party's designated attacker Sarah Palin.

After doing all that he should remain in the Democratic Caucus?  Should Democrats agree to establishing a Republican pipeline?  If Lieberman remains, do they not have such a pipeline?