To: thames_sider who wrote (802 ) 8/10/2006 5:52:04 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1695 Essentially, excommunication is being kicked out and told to go to hell, I think. That's pretty much what happened to Lieberman. And as usual, it was for heresy. Yes, yes, it was a democratic excommunication rather than by a party leader or officials, but an excommunication nevertheless. BTW, my early life church background was in a Baptist church and Baptist congregations vote on ALL decisions in monthly business meetings - including on very rare occasions to kick someone out of fellowship - just to show that there are churches that handle things like this by vote. (Over my lifetime, I know of 2 instances of this happening - one because a church member opened a liquor store and one because a deacon took to quarreling and rumor mongering against the church's minister.) What makes Lieberman's rejection really significant is 1) he was the party's VP candidate just 6 yrs ago and was a mainstream Democrat and 2) Lamont is a nobody politically - the people who voted for Lamont really voted for "Not Lieberman the Traitor" - Lamont could've run under "anonymous". Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with what the Dems have done. In fact, I like it. A lot. I'm delighted taht Democrats have said loud and clear that Lieberman and people who think like him definitely don't belong in today's Democratic party. I'm surprised anyone would be critical of Lieberman running as an independent, though. The voters will be as free to vote for or against him as they were in the primary. BTW I hear that Hillary has a primary opponent named Jonathan Tasini. The Clinton's and their political associates were big supporters of Lieberman. It remains to be seen if Hillary is acceptable to today's Democratic party.