I don't have any love for Joe Lieberman. I want to be clear about that. I think he grandstands and covers for rank ambition with bullshit talk of bipartisanship. His attacks on Obama were disgusting, especially given that Obama supported him in his losing primary effort. His support of McCain seemed to be much more about his wounded ego than anything else, and in typical self-centered fashion, he's now waffling between the Dems and the GOP.
But here's the thing--in terms of pushing forward a progressive agenda, is booting a dude who votes with Dems on every issue except Iraq really the best move? Lemme add one other thing: What impressed me most about Obama's run is that when so many of us wanted Obama to bring the battle-axe, he held back. People scorned him as weak, but really he was smart and knew when to unload and when to be magnanimous. I strongly believe that talk of "anger" and "respect" won't be the keys to our future. This is business. And is booting Lieberman the best business move? I am willing to be convinced here. I'm seriously just asking.
UPDATE: I'm convinced. The comments on subpoena power got me.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hard to see the downside here. Lieberman presumably has the same convictions as always, whatever those might be, so his vote won't change on any given issue. And his vote is no longer necessary to organize the Senate.
His history shows that somebody else would be more useful as a committee chair. If Lieberman wants to hang around without his chairmanship, then sure, let him. Otherwise, he can hang with his new pals.
I'm with football there: if he wants to hang around without his chairmanship, let him. But he should lose the chairmanship. There can't be no consequences for endorsing the other party's nominee, playing wing for him all through the campaign, and slandering the Dem nominee's patriotism.
I may hit a profanity filter here but so be it. Have you ever heard the expression "Its better to have somebody inside a tent pissing out of it rather than standing outside your tent pissing into it."? Having Joe Lieberman in the caucus would be like have someone standing in your tent pissing in the tent on your sleeping bag. I fail to see the benefit.
As a few people around the blogosphere have pointed out, the key issue here is that Joe Lieberman cannot, absolutely cannot be trusted with oversight authority over the Obama administration. He was against Obama's election, he will (presumably) be against many of the administration's policies, especially on foreign policy and security questions, his incentives are entirely in favor of trying to make the administration look bad, and his committee's utter lack of oversight over the Bush administration belies any claim that he would handle oversight in a principled way. It doesn't matter much to me whether he stays in the caucus or not, but oversight authority is a line in the sand.
The fact that Lieberman is using the threat of switching caucuses is all the reason to boot him out. In 2006, the chairmanship for the caucusing was a fair quid pro quo since it gave the Dems the committees. But the deal was always upheld under coercion, and Joe's actions during the campaign were of the "you can't touch me because I'll pull the trigger" variety.
Now the threat is empty, and it's time to call his bluff. You might learn to live with someone holding a knife to your throat, but you escape as soon as possible, and never imagine that you've built a good relationship because he didn't cut your throat when he had the chance.
Give this boob some far-flung ambassadorship, preferably in a minor central Asian Republic or better yet, some less-than-cushy backwater Arab nation, say Yemen.
I don't care if he remains in the caucus. But he can not have subpoena power over President Obama. Man has proven he'll shank Pres. Obama with no thought.
He must lose his chairmanship. What happens beyond that is simply his decision. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on; he'll never get re-elected in the Conneticut that threw out Shays as a Republican.
"I don't care if he remains in the caucus. But he can not have subpoena power over President Obama. Man has proven he'll shank Pres. Obama with no thought."
Yes, let's insulate President Obama from anyone who might use subpoena power to ask him some tough questions. History has taught us that that's a great thing.
Call the bluff.
I actually have no problem with him endorsing McCain for president - that certainly is a matter for each individual person to decide who they think would be best in the role. But, I do have a problem with some of the stuff that came out of his mouth in the process. You can support someone without tearing down the guy who had your back when you asked him for help.
He can lose his chairmanship (in particular THAT chairmanship) and be given a subcommittee as a consolation prize. Then it is up to his conscience how he chooses to vote and how he chooses to act between now and 2012 when he and BHO are up for re-election at the same time.
Actions have consequences. That's what I try to teach my sons every day.
Let's try and think about this about this like a politician, rather than taking Lieberman's execrable behavior personally.
If Obama were to save Lieberman's hide now, when Joe is at the point of maximum danger in losing his position, Lieberman would owe Barack. Big time. That kind of "chit" could come in useful later.
At the end of the day, my guess is that Obama would rather have the chit to save for later (delayed gratification) than the fleeting pleasure of sticking the boot in Lieberman's ass.
Lieberman needs to be taken to task for his actions in the past two years. He can remain in the Democratic caucus without his leadership role, he abdicated that already. We don't need him. If he joins the Republican caucus and changes all his votes, he'll lose his seat. Further, after reading Boehner's letter of intent to re-run for House minority leader yesterday, I believe it would behoove Democrats to take a stand now. The Republicans failed to hear the populace Tuesday, it is obviously going to take a show of force to get them to turn the hearing aids on.
The thing is, the committee he's chair of - Homeland Security- deals with matters where he is opposed to a progressive agenda. Regardless, failing to endorse the party's candidate for president (hell, he actively underminded him) is grounds for being stripped of his chairmanship.
If Joe wants to get re-elected in Connecticut, he's got no choice but to vote like a Democrat anyway.
Ambassador to Israel
Booting him *is* a business move. Politics can be an art and science, but it is about relationships as well. Sure, it's a rough game with shifting alliances. But a lot of times, your word and your words are all you have. Will the caucus trust him? Why continue to reward bad behavior, esp. if you have members who are team players?
Also, he has not been an effective chairman. We've got too much to do to coddle his foolishness.
Look, Lieberman is flaming narcissist who absolutely lusts after his own self-importance. And Reid knows that. Instead of acting with a face-saving gesture, he stomps off with the grand gesture? That is just dumb: as I've raised elsewhere, why would Lieberman be so hot to join a party that would not accept him as VP? What does he think his media value would be?
Finally, if Reid acquieces to Lieberman's temper tantrum, then it's Reid who looks feeble and weak.
It's a tricky business, but he is more trouble than he's worth. Sack him.
I think jbentley is onto the right idea -- give him a prominent role within the administration:
1) It's a clear gesture to McCain and his more moderate supporters that he's interested in having their voice represented in his administration. This fits with his persona as a post-partisan politician.
2) It's a clear signal that he's ready to move on after the election and represent all Americans as President, not just those who voted for him and agree with him. The contrast with the existing administration will be striking.
3) It makes the paranoia of the radical voices on the right sound even more unhinged
4) Coupled with the Rahm Emmanuel appointment, it puts immediately to rest any lingering questions about Obama in the Jewish community, though that's a minor issue at the point anyway.
5) The Connecticut legislature will appoint a more solidly partisan Democrat to Lieberman's seat. This eliminates Lieberman's swing vote from the Senate.
Too obvious? Obama was seen reading Doris Kearn Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" a few months ago.
If you look at Lieberman's actions over the past 16 years or so, every one has been with the aim of finding himself in the White House. Moralizing against Clintonism made him Gore's VP choice; going hard on national security looked smart after 9/11; going right looked like a winning strategy for getting on the GOP ticket after he eeked out a win against his party in '06.
Strip him of his committee assignment, and I'll bet you he retires before he takes the ranking member spot in the minority on Homeland Security. Retiring will be an even bigger fuck you to the Dems than switching parties since we'll wind up with a GOP appointed replacement who's probably more conservative.
No matter what happens, a bona fide Democrat is practically a lock for that seat in 2012. Lieberman's broken every promise he made to the state in '06 to get his squeaker victory, and Shays' fate shows us that even the most moderate voice in the GOP won't have a chance.
What Christopher and Rhoda say. He can't have the subpoena power. The incentives are all wrong:
1. Last two years, while Waxman went full bore into all the wrongs committed by the Bush administration - Lieberman did nothing.
2. He is ambitious, wants to get noticed, get attention.
3. He has shown to "shank" Obama, when the whim suits him.
4. This would be a perfect situation, where all of the B.S. investigations of the Clinton administration, as done by the Republicans from 95-00, would be imitated by Lieberman. All the incentives for Lieberman would be to act as a Gingrich mini-me.
It's totally obvious - he can't have that particular Chairmanship.
The Team of Rivals thing to do would be to give McCain himself some sort of role, or at least to seek and respect his counsel. As I said regarding Lieberman, send him to the end of the world, ship him out of town, make him ambassador Tajikistan or Chad or something.
Regrettably, a recall is out of the question. Strip him of the chairmanship, offer him something small, but more than the GOP can offer. Couple that with requirements for some sort of public retraction of misguided comments. If he scurries off to join the Republicans, let him see how he enjoys being the token water-carrier for extremism. He's doomed to extinction anyway - pseudo-republicanus dodoensis lieberman is the sole survivor of its species after the passing of pseudo-republicanus dodensis miller.
@Troy
The problem with incorporating Lieberman into the administration is that he's shown every inclination to grandstand and no inclination to work hard and stand up to anyone on anything unless it suits his current plans to grab national attention. What's he accomplished in the Senate lately? He presided over slow-rolling the 9/11 commission recommendations, didn't hold the administration responsible on that score, and the last thing I recall him having a leading role in was the fucking V-Chip.
All indications are that Obama's fine with dissension in his administration so long as it's to the same end of getting things done. Lieberman's the antithesis of that even if he does send the right message on Israel or bipartisanship or whatever. For the same reason, appointing McCain to the cabinet would be a ridiculous idea since the campaign showed him to be, above all else, a lazy and incompetent manager and campaigner.
I think demoting someone is different than firing them. And I think a demotion is a very good punishment for disloyalty.
Lieberman has proved that the party can't trust him; the party will not trust him with the same level of responsibility from now on. QED.
Christopher M's point about oversight is a good one. The main point is that Lieberman has attempted to derail Obama, and he's made it strictly about muscle. You don't give him another chance to do that, especially not with Homeland Security
It's strictly business, as the Corleones say. And if Lieberman wants a better deal, he needs to bring something more to the table.
Screw that "chit." Obama helped him out in 2006 and look what he got in return. No chairmanship, so significant subcommittee chairmanship. He's toast in '12 anyway.
I like the ambassadorship idea, but he wouldn't ... too great a sense of self importance.
I think I agree with you, TNC. It really comes down to which late-republican Roman figure you think Lieberman most resembles.
If you think he's a Brutus, then you gotta be careful, but if you think he's more of a Cicero, which if you know your history you should, then clemency is probably the way to go in this situation. That's what Caesar did, and while it didn't exactly work out for him in the end (Brutus among the recipients), it CERTAINLY worked much to his political advantage in the short term.
If Obama's calling the shots in this game, then I'm absolutely certain that Lieberman will get some sort of pardon. If it's Harry Reid, who's in charge here, it could get very ugly
There may be more ways of killing a cat than choking it with cream, but if cream is all you have.. pander to his massive vanity, make him feel loved and cherished, and in four years time, cram the bowl down his throat.
If Lieberman was to be the difference between a majority and a super-majority, then there's an obvious upside to keeping him on. Since that's not the case, I don't see why the Dems have any reason to let him hold a position of authority. They shouldn't kick him out, but neither should they concede anything to get him to stay.
As for McCain getting a cabinet post: it won't happen. Obama will not give an important post to an ideological opponent, and I McCain would never accept a minor one.
Questions:
If Lieberman is stripped of his chairmanship or kicked out of the caucus, how can he hurt the Obama administration?
If Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, how can he hurt the Obama administration?
Where is he more likely to be a problem? I say he's a bigger problem as chairman.
JL should be stripped of his chairmanship for simple pragmatic reasons. Chairman affect the agenda of the committee. They can do a lot of damage if their behavior is in question. JL is a proven turncoat and should not be trusted with such a position. His record be damned. Anything other punishment for the campaign is just unnecessary and counterproductive spitefulness.
RE: Kevin McNamara
I understand and largely share your attitude- if it were up to me, Lieberman would be cleaning up elephant shit at the National Zoo rather than helping to shovel more of it into our discourse.
My point is simply that Obama has never struck me as a punitive person. I find it much more likely that Obama will look at the situation and say, "How can I use this to advance my goals?" rather than "How can I best punish Joe Lieberman?"
I agree. Giving Lieberman a position in the administration -- head of Homeland Security might be a good idea -- would symbolically raise his status while seriously constraining his discretion. Considering that Lieberman is going to get shit on in the Senate by one side or the other, this might be his best bet to hold on to power while putting a real liberal in Lieberman's Senate seat.
Yes power of the subpoena is important. Most telling is that he did not use this posistion of power at any point during this recent session. (Wouldn't want to roil the opposition would we.) To think that he would not now 'find religion' would be extremely naive.
Barack needs no chits from this man. He had his day and now is the time to usher in new blood. Perhaps give Ms. Clinton a shot at a committee.
To Nikkos:
Your point makes sense in theory. Except Lieberman has already shown that he will flush that chit you think you have right down the toilet. Remember that he already owed Obama for trying to help him survive his primary. His repayment of Obama's support was to endorse McCain. I say throw his ass to the wolves. He has more than demonstrated that you cannot count on him.
I'm not entirely sure his "chit" is worth much now, and certainly won't be worth much in the coming years. He barely held on to his seat after losing in the Democratic primary in '06; his performance over the course of the campaign will have repercussions in left-leaning Connecticut. I don't think he gets reelected, and the Dems can send a message by taking his stripes.
Jazmen-
I hear ya. However, it is quite possible that Lieberman's calculations- and perhaps his behavior- will change, now that Obama is the PRESIDENT (elect) rather than a mere Senator or (lesser yet) candidate.
Anyways, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to handle this, or what they should think of the issue. I'm just guessing what he'll do based on how I perceive Barack's approach to politics.
Google Peter Fitzgerald.
Sometimes getting rid of a principled someone who is mostly on your side in an effort to get someone who is totally on your side (who may or may not be principled) comes back and bites you in the butt.
Big Time.
I think it would be one thing of JL had simply supported McCain. But this is a man who was basically McCain's shadow VP nominee throughout the campaign. Letting people stick to their principles and stay in the Big Tent is one thing; rewarding people while their knife is still in your back is another. (Not that Lieberman's knife is very sharp, but still.)
I think it's funny that the best thing that could have happened to Lieberman is the Dems getting two of the three GA, AK, and KY Senate seats. His value is as either the 51st Dem Senator or as the 60th. Pretty useless after that.
"But he can not have subpoena power over President Obama."
"I'm convinced. The comments on subpoena power got me."
I thought this was a bit paranoid at first, because what subpeonas would he likely issue? Seems like most subpeonas are used to force the release of documents, etc, so what's the big deal. But then I read what investigations the committee is permitted to conduct. Holy Guacamole. Yeah, they need someone else in that chair.
So what kind of chairman do you all want? Take the FISA issue. It's a little-known fact that not only did FISA give telecoms immunity, it gave the President drastically expanded surveillance powers. So suppose for a moment that, inconceivable as this might seem to you, these powers are abused by folks in an Obama NSA, an Obama Department of Homeland Security. Who would you prefer to have subpoena power? Maybe a close ally of Obama's, who wouldn't dare to conduct any damaging investigations? Someone with backbone, like Feingold, who would? Do you really not want whoever's in that chair to be somewhat skeptical of the administration?
dwhite cuts to the essence: Where does Lieberman do more harm? And reading the comments, I'm convinced it's at the head of the Homeland Security committee, rather than powerpouting without his chairmanship, even if he opts to powerpout as a Republican.
I like the idea of stashing him somewhere in the administration, but couldn't think of where I would trust him--which gets at the whole problem. Plus the CT gov is a Republican.
Last thought on this: the ironic thing is that if anyone thought Lieberman were, say, remotely principled, it wouldn't matter if he caucused with the Dems or not when it comes to breaking filibuster. That we're concerned that Lieberman would act out of spite rather than out of principle or out of the interest of his constituents when it comes to just about anything is reason enough to take away the keys.
TN's take on Obama's wisdom is spot on. But, if it were me, here's what I'd do:
1) Boot Lieberman from the chairmanship. He can't be trusted. He is a loser. He will contribute nothing positive. And he bloody well better be toast in 2012 when re-election must denied to him.
2) Let him switch to the Repubs, where he'd stand out like a sore thumb for his voting record, and all the more so because the rump that is left of the Repubs is more right-wing than ever before.
3)For reasons of bi-partisanship and also to rub salt in Lieberman's wound, I would break from convention and benevolently bestow a lesser chairpersonship on a decent Republican, like Snow or Collins or . . . well, all the other decent ones are gone now (Hagel, Smith) and Lugar needs to be on the Foreign Relations committee as ranking minority member.
To my eyes, Lieberman's greatest crime was his remark that only one candidate had put country first. That was worse than his BS at the RNC.
Lieberman is a serial betrayer. He betrayed his first wife (he dumped her because she wasn't "pious enough"); he betrayed Al Gore when he started freelancing in the Florida recount debacle & made it worse; he betrayed his party when he ran as an Independent against a Democrat who could easily have beat the nonsensical Republican candidate; he betrayed his country time & again as a do-nothing chairman of the Homeland Security Commission, & he betrayed common sense when he campaigned for McCain (before a Democratic nominee was even decided -- that is, NO Democrat would do); and he'll betray the party again & again if he's reinstalled in a powerful position. Betrayal is what Lieberman does -- it makes him "special"; he always has some obnoxious, "high-minded," self-serving excuse for his loathsome behavior.
It's time to let Soulless Joe betray Mitch McConnell for a while. The good guys have taken enough.
I suggest that Rahm Emanuel should simply send Joe Loserman a large tube of lube. No need for a note. Sometimes the medium is the message.
Asher, point taken. But: wanting someone in that chair who's skeptical and independent doesn't mean wanting Lieberman to retain it. From the Dems point of view, he's made statements that undermine the President & the Party's agenda. From our point of view, he's made statements that advance a ridicuously hawkish and dangerous agenda, AND done so likely out of personal vanity and ambition. So, keeping him in there doesn't serve either the interests of the party or of "us" by which I mean progressive minded constituents.
If you want to give it to someone who's willing to be independenta dn skeptical, then I think Feingold's a fine choice, or Clinton.
From our point of view, he's made statements that advance a ridicuously hawkish and dangerous agenda
But being hawkish doesn't have much to do with that committee's area of oversight. I mean, you definitely don't want him as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. (Who's going to take that over, by the way? Kerry?) But it's not like he's in a position to make a ton of hawkish noise in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I just think whoever it is shouldn't be such a great friend of Obama's. Carl Levin, the next most senior Dem member of the committee, actually would fall into that category (he, as you may recall, at one point promised a floor fight over seating the Michigan delegation).
It's not vindictive to take away his chairmanship. You can't criticize the national security policy of the President-Elect and then expect to be trusted to implement it.
Asher, point taken. But: wanting someone in that chair who's skeptical and independent doesn't mean wanting Lieberman to retain it.
I agree and would add another point. As an American I want somebody skeptical and independent, but not somebody who is out to get the president.
It's not the subpoenas Lieberman would issue that worry me, it's the ones that he won't. Look, I want that committee to be doing it's job and overseeing the Obama White House. But I also want it to do it's job and investigate past abuses in the Bush White House. And Lieberman, given two years to do so, has shown that he has no interest in doing that. So he's got to go, if only for that reason.
The chairmanship is gone. No reason to keep him there. The question is whether you boot him from the caucus entirely, or let him keep committee appointments of some sort.
Lieberman is posturing, plain and simple. He's got nowhere else to go. He's not going to actually VOTE with the Republicans with any sort of regularity, and his vote does very little for them (43 as opposed to 42 votes?), so what incentive to they have to give him a plum ranking member appointment?
The ranking GOP Senator on the Homeland Security Committe? Susan Collins (Maine). Is Cochran going to bump her - a REAL moderate Republican in a shaky seat - to throw a bone to Ol' Joe? I doubt it.
(That said, the GOP roster on HSGA is almost entirely wiped out: Domenici and Warner retired, Sununu lost, and Stevens and Coleman have a foot out the door. It's Collins, Coburn, and Voinovich.)
Stevens, Colam
We can keep Lieberman happy and isolate him at the same time. Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. It's an expensive, impotent, Bush-era boondoggle anyway. Send it's responsibilities back to Defense where they belong. (What is Defense supposed to be defending, anyway?) Then Lieberman can keep his chairmanship and bang his gavel all day long overseeing a Department that no longer exists.
Kevin, I'm all for eliminating the department, right on. But I read the link by Tessa at 4:31- it's the committe on homeland security and governmental affairs. Homeland security was tacked onto the front by the 108th congress - onto the front of a committee that appears to oversee everything domestic. Homeland security is not the important part of it. Government affairs is. It's way too powerful a position for a man who stands for nothing but his own standing.
Off with his head....
It's one thing to go for McCain, it's another to openly bash the nominee of your own party. Even Repubs who came out for Obama didn't bash McCain serially the way Lieberman did. Also to stand by the guy as he was employing the most xenophobic tactics possible was just beyond the pale.
We dont need his vote, and he aint stupid enough to caucus with the Republicans as the Senator from a Democratic state. Remove that chairmanship and dare him to leave, telling him Obama will throw his full weight behind his primary challenger. Watch how fast he falls in line.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Ambition? Grandstanding?
The guy is seriously following his conscience He's probably one of the few Senators I respect even though I disagree with a LOT of what he does.
He backed a Republican he agreed with in a time when no Republican could win. Sure the Republicans made a good effort (well not really) of things this time around, but what did you want them to do, admit they couldn't win from the outset? They had to compete, but everyone knew they would loose, short of a miracle.
Eight years of Bush bashing, following by Bush not helping things too much on his own tends to stack the deck against the guy running in Bush's own party.
But Joe knowingly walked into the fire and took a hit for something he believed in and knew wasn't popular.
You can disagree with the guy and hate his policy stances, but it's strange that you can contort this into grandstanding acts that are filled with ambition. He had little to gain (unless he hoped for a miracle) and everything to lose and he did it anyway.
Out. O--U--T. Done for. Kaput.
I cannot stress this enough. He cannot have that power over that committee. He must not be allowed to keep his chairmanship; he will continue to be a problem for the Dems especially for Obama. He, like McCain, disdain Obama; they think he is an upstart, naive, ignorant young man who should not have this level of power and should 'pay' his dues. He is untrustworthy as we have seen during this campaign season.
I, too, have no problem with someone choosing the candidate he/she feels for strongly. I understand. But, he went on national television and the campaign trail to attack Obama personally, using rumors and lies to back up his claims. He cannot be allowed to have any power.
And for the person who wrote about not having anyone around to ask Obama the 'hard' questions--that will come soon enough from the MSM.
He must not be allowed to keep his chairmanship; he will continue to be a problem for the Dems especially for Obama.
Wouldn't want anyone to be a problem for Obama! This is where I feel liberal sentiment goes way over the line. Government isn't supposed to be a team sport. Obviously you don't want someone in that chair who will waste the White House's time with spurious investigations, a la Whitewater, but you do want someone in that chair who's a little adversarial. All administrations have their corrupt episodes. You want someone chairing the Governmental Affairs Committee who won't use his power to push those episodes under the rug.
@Sam
I'm not so sure Joe acted out of commitment to principles. I think he had convinced himself that Obama (and maybe any democrat) could not win. He mistakenly read his 2006 re-election as a public validation of his pro-war stance. By the time it was clear that Obama would win, Lieberman had already permanantly hitched himself to the McCain trainwreck.
Don't forget party discipline. If you can endorse the other guy, appear as the headline speaker at the other team's convention, and STILL keep your high-profile committee chairmanships--- how the hell do you keep the rest of the senate in line on a tough vote?
Banish the sucker. Let him caucus with the GOP if he chooses.
I seem to recall reading that when shortly after the invasion of France in 1940, neighboring Italy abandoned its former neutrality and joined the war on the side of the Third Reich, Churchill said something to the effect of (I paraphrase very broadly here) "It's only fair. After all, we were stuck with them last time."
if the dems boot him, will he suddenly vote republican on every issue he used to vote with the dems?
i doubt it.
we needed him to be in the majority. we don't need him anymore.
you don't have to kick him outta the caucus, but you MUST strip him of his chairmanship.
elections have consequences. Holy Joe backed the wrong horse, but not only that, he shanked a guy in the back who came to his rescue in 06.
Government isn't supposed to be a team sport.
Nope, but you'd better fucking believe party affiliation is.
@JB
extending on his...
If Joe does caucus with the GOP, all he's shown is that his vote is for sale. Then he is who we thought he was.
And he does need to lose his chair. Why wouldn't a strong Democratic Senate want someone who agreed with their views to have the chair? Wouldn't it be poor government to snub the people who voted for this strong Democratic Senate by placing someone who doesn't share their positions?
Give it to somebody who wants to advance the agenda the people voted for. I don't think there's any need to read power politics into this at all.
if the dems boot him, will he suddenly vote republican on every issue he used to vote with the dems?
i doubt it.
The guy's a very petty person. I think you all are missing a really important point (not the same one I've repeated ad nauseam, so read on). Every President in the modern era, with the exceptions of FDR, TR, and first-term George W. Bush, has lost seats in his first mid-term election. Bush's wins were caused by 9/11; FDR's wins came thanks to the New Deal. We're not getting hit by terrorists again, and Obama's no FDR. Oh, and in 2010 the economy will probably still suck. So you're going to lose seats. If Stevens' and Coleman's margins hold, you'll have a 57-43 margin. That isn't enough to cavalierly boot people out of the party when the reality is that you have very good chances of losing Senators in two years.
I cannot imagine anyone actually wasting a brain cell on this issue. Trust a Republican (and that is what JL has chosen to be with his actions) on that particular committee? You must be kidding.
Reid is playing nice with his buddies in the caucus. I would hope he knows the outcome of the vote and that it will be removal. If not, he is an idiot. If Lieberman stays he screws everyone below him in seniority as well as potentially threatens Obama, the guy who whipped his BFF.
So you're going to lose seats. If Stevens' and Coleman's margins hold, you'll have a 57-43 margin.
That's more than enough to make Lieberman irrelevant. I don't think that the Senate Democrats are in that much danger of losing seats in 2010 (the House is another story). The 2010 class is a whole lot of safe seats on the blue side. The only ones that might be in trouble are Lincoln's seat in Arkansas and Inouye's in Hawaii if he retires and the Republican governor runs for his seat. And the Republicans will have several vulnerable seats themselves.
The Dem's Senate majority will be solid through 2012, at which point Lieberman will have to worry about losing his own seat.
Are we all forgetting something here??
The snake is not ready to retire. And since it's at least 4 years until a Republican administration --- GOD FORBID --- Joe's only chance at staying in public life is to get reelected to his Senate seat by the CT electorate.
His own self-interest will keep him voting with the Democratic caucus because he would lose reelection otherwise in the dark blue state of CT.
Why is Reid acting like this clown still has leverage??? He has NO CHOICE but to behave... even after he is stripped of his chairmanship.
Also, why are the Dems not trying to court Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to their caucus??? They are RINOs through and through in the solidly blue state of Maine. Much more palpable route to a supermajority than this Joe "The Bastard" Lieberman.
Who is Joe Lieberman?
This thing with Joementum is like a bad relationship. I say strip him. If he decides to bolt the Democratic caucus for the stinking, sinking, shrinking GOP, that's more his loss than ours. He needs to figure out what he believes in.
Now what can the moribund GOP really offer Lieberman? In my mind I see a political bumper sticker. At the top, Palin, Romney or Jindal, but I can't quite make it out. At the bottom, Lieberman, '12.
Hey, we all need a good laugh, right?
Vindication - the all-knowing Sanford Levinson, famed professor at UT Law, zany liberal that he is, makes just the point I was making about why you DO want Liebie in that chair.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/11/worst-reason-in-world-to-deny-joe.html
Lieberman should be stripped of the chair for substantive reasons. Remember back in 2003, when Gov. Ryan of Illinois found that the capital punishment system was so badly broken that he commuted all of the standing death sentences just before he left office? Lieberman's comment: "Governor Ryan's action was shockingly wrong...It did terrible damage to the credibility of our system of justice." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5D71730F93AA25752C0A9659C8B63)
Is this the kind of person you want running the committee?
There's no reason to keep him as chair of the committee. None. You don't need to look past the fact that he basically forsake his duties for the past two years when he could have done a lot of good providing actual oversight over the Bush administration. I don't know why you are still arguing to keep him in the position Asher, even without his utter betrayal of people who have helped him repeatedly throughout his career, his record shows that he won't use his position for anything but his own benefit. Rewarding your enemies with a weapon to hurt you with is just idiotic, although entirely keeping with Democratic party traditions.
Also if you look at the crop of Senate 2010 races, the Dems are actually in a fairly good position to minimize losses or even pick up a seat or two. I'm sure they will lose seats in the house, but they are what, 80 seats ahead there anyway? Dems are positioned to hold onto the senate for a while. Not to mention, what will the Republicans run on? Contract with America? hah. The only thing they will be able to run on is against Obama, and if Obama maintains popularity and credibility, that will fall flat for them.
See Godfather II. Lieberman is Fredo Corleone and Obama is Michael. Bush is Hyman Roth, McCain is Johnny Ola. Papa Corleone was Bill Clinton, and Al Gore was Sonny. It's time to take Fredo fishing!!
PS yes, I realize the characters don't quite match up perfectly (ie- where's Hillary). If someone has a better scenario, I'm all ears, as I believe everything should be viewed through a prism of Godfather II.
I guess gloating doesn't make it past the moderator, so I won't. As I'm sure y'all have heard, HuffPost is reporting that Obama is going to keep Lieberman alive for a little longer, which is what I suggested he would do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-wants-lieberman-to_n_142731.html