Imagine there is a place called Bizarro Washington that is home to a Republican senator who supported a Democratic president’s single-payer health care plan and made frequent appearances on Keith Olbermann’s show to sanctimoniously lecture fellow Republicans. The Bizarro Republican voters did not appreciate this, so they elected to kick him out of the party via a primary in 2006. Then, although this Bizarro Republican did vote with his former party 90 percent of the time, he decided to actively campaign for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 while claiming the Republican candidate was not qualified to be president.

In which circle of Republican hell would this Bizarro senator reside? Seventh? 15th?

This Bizarro Republican is actually a real Demo … check that, Connecticut for Lieberman member, Joe Lieberman. Except instead of shunning Lieberman — who campaigned for Republican John McCain — for his Benedict Arnold schtick like a sane political party would do, the Democrats are on the verge of not only welcoming Lieberman back into the Democratic caucus but also letting him retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Lieberman’s past transgressions may have been venial, but campaigning for McCain is a mortal political offense that should not go unpunished.

Earlier this week, Barack Obama expressed a desire for Lieberman to remain in the Democratic caucus, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated he is willing to work with Lieberman and his demands. For Democrats who have had to deal with Lieberman’s constant efforts to undermine the Democratic Party both on Fox News and elsewhere, the actions of these two leaders should make one stop and say quite frankly, WTF?

I guess it’s not too surprising that the Democratic leadership would still support Lieberman. To folks in Washington, Lieberman is “The Last Honest Man,” who always puts his conscience over petty partisan politics, and thus is in a position to righteously lecture Democrats on how wrong they are. It is only a minority of deranged left-wingers and 50-plus percent of Connecticut Democrats who do not like him.

Lieberman’s cause celebr? for superciliously opposing the Democratic Party has been his support of the Iraq War. His arguments have been that the Democratic Party is borderline un-American for not supporting the war, and that its opposition to what is now clearly a really bad idea threatens to doom the party to irrelevancy. Sure, liberals dislike Lieberman because he is Bush’s BFF on Iraq, but they loathe him because of the self-righteous way with which he lectures Democrats on how wrong they supposedly are.

In 2008 Lieberman claimed he was enthusiastically supporting McCain for president because his conscience led him to conclude that Obama was not qualified to be president and that McCain could best handle national security. Which is totally noble, except when you are in an important position of leadership as head of the Homeland Security Committee, normal human decorum stipulates that you do not actively support your opponent. And if you choose to aid and abet the opposing party, you do so knowing that come Nov. 5, there should be hell to pay.

I can appreciate the necessity of appeasing Lieberman during the 111th Congress because the Democrats needed his vote to retain a majority in the Senate. After the Democrats’ glorious triumph last Tuesday, the Party holds a minimum of 56 Senate seats without Lieberman, making him about as useful as non-opposable thumbs. Instead of placating Lieberman like Obama and Reid appear to be doing, he should be left to face the consequences of his actions over the past two years.

However, for many Democrats, the Lieberman issue is about something deeper than just a vote in the Senate.

Prior to 2006 the Democratic Party was a party of losers. Instead of being proud Democrats, they followed Lieberman’s lead of constantly kowtowing to the Republicans. All that changed on an August evening in 2006 when a dorky-looking guy named Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary by campaigning against the Iraq War. The Democratic Party learned from Lamont that Democratic pride is cool, and the result has been ballot box bliss in 2006 and 2008.

Lieberman is a relic of the old Democratic Party. A loser, if you will. He lost to Bush and Cheney in 2000, his Joementum completely fell apart in the Democratic Primary in 2004, he was kicked out of the Democratic Party by a guy named Ned in 2006, he was terribly wrong on the Iraq War, and he just supported a losing presidential candidate in 2008. Only Bob Shrum and the Chicago Cubs have more loserish r?sum?s than Lieberman. After his actions over the past two years, Lieberman deserves to be stripped of his chairmanship and cast adrift in exile from a Democratic Party that has passed him by.

Zachary Schuster ([email protected]) is a graduate student studying water resources engineering.