So no one wants to take the hit for dumping Joementum. Am I reading it right? I don't believe the narrative about weak liberals not wanting to take a stand. I'm slightly out my area here. What does the room think? I don't have much of a problem with Obama punting. I wouldn't want to look vindictive if I were him either. Plus isn't it ultimately Reid's responsibility?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
But Obama isn't "punting," this is an order from Obama. (And a wise order.) And no, I don't have evidence for that claim.
I hate how people are confusing not kicking him out of the caucus with letting him stay as committee chair. Democrats are so stupid for letting Lieberman frame the issue this way - I'm not staying in the caucus unless I get to keep my position. So now when Obama says he's not in favor of Lieberman being kciked out of the caucus, people automatically assume that this means that Obama wants Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. Of course Obama would not say that he wants Lieberman to be kicked out of the caucus, that would have seem vindictive. But letting him keep the chairmanship? That's another story altogether.
Why in the world did they let Lieberman frame the issue this way? Why is he in the position to bargain in the first place? Democrats need to make this clear:
LETTING LIEBERMAN STAY IN THE CAUCUS =/ LETTING HIM KEEP HIS CHAIRMANSHIP
Until they can frame it this way clearly, Lieberman is just going to get away scott free.
Obama & Reid are smart to give him an opportunity to make his case before the caucus. Obama gets to say he would like to see Lieberman remain in the caucus as a dem (but, note that Obama made no reference to his Homeland Security Cmte. Chairmanship), burnishing his anti-partisan creds a bit, and Reid gets to look somewhat magnanimous for not reflexively kicking Joe out at the first opportunity.
Joe could switch to R if the D caucus votes to remove him from his coveted Chairmanship, but I think that would put his Senate seat in greater jeopardy as he faces re-election in CT in 2012. Political expediency should (not that it definitely will, of course) lead him to conclude that he should continue to caucus with the dems, as the Republicans don't really have much to offer him anyway.
It's ultimately the caucus's decision. Obama is removing himself from the discussion, as is Biden, because they're not going to be part of the caucus in the next session, but the newly elected Senators will get a say in the decision (which I'd have to say doesn't bode well for Lieberman).
Sarah's right, though--the framing on this is bad, because the question isn't whether or not Joe gets booted from the caucus, it's whether or not he gets to keep his chair of that committee. If it were me, Joe'd get the boot from the caucus--we can pick up a vote or two from other moderate Republicans when we need them--but I'm not a Senator.
But I doubt he'll get out of this with his committee chairmanship. He'll probably get something, but he won't stay on Homeland Security--that assignment is too plum to let him keep it.
As somebody who hated, hated, HATED what Joe Lieberman had said at the RNC and during the campaign, I think it would be unwise for the Democrats to boot him from the caucus. Not because Lieberman will get them closer to the filibuster-proof Senate, but for the simple fact that Obama ran on a platform of ending partisan rancor in Washington. Kicking Lieberman out will only fuel the fire against the next President' message before he takes office.
That said, stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship is probably a good compromise, provided that they agree to reassign him to chair a committee where he has expertise and would be more likely to play nice with the Democrats. Furthermore, I think Obama's strategy right now is a good one, because a) he has more important things to worry about at the moment and b) if he takes a stand either way, his message of bipartisanship would seem hollow.
Besides, "Joementum" really doesn't want to leave the Democratic caucus anyway, not unless he's willing to risk getting hung out to dry by the Republicans when he's up for re-election.
From a WaPo story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111101217.html?hpid=sec-politics
"One alternative would be to give Lieberman the chairmanship of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, which has one of the lowest profiles on Capitol Hill. Its current chairman, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), is set to move into a more prestigious chairmanship. Other senior members of the panel chair more powerful committees, which would allow Lieberman to become chairman if he is removed from his current post.
But a Lieberman aide said yesterday that the senator rejected Reid's overtures to chair the small-business committee and that he demanded to retain his current chairmanship. "It's unacceptable for him to be removed as chairman of the homeland security committee," the aide said. "That's the one area he's been very clear about.""
Look, how arrogant is this guy? REJECTED THE OVERTURE? DEMANDED TO RETAIN HIS CURRENT CHAIRMANSHIP? They are not only keeping him, but offering him some other chairmanship, and he is saying my way or the highway? Is this guy for real?
The vote the Democrats will take on Nov 18 is not for kicking him out of the caucus; it is for stripping him of his chairmanship. So strip him of the Homeland Security chairmanship, offer him another committe, and when he rejects and decide to caucus with Republicans, make sure that the correct story is out: this is Lieberman's choice. Democrats did not kick him out, he chose to leave over disagreement regarding committee assignment. If they can make this case strongly enough, I don't see what the problem is. Unless there are senators who actually want Lieberman to stay as Homeland Security chairman for whatever reasons. (What was that rumor about Bill CLinton calling people in support of Lieberman about? I know he denied it, but still, begs the question, what is Senator Clinton's angle on this?)
I think it makes the Dems look ridiculous, what with them not really being a fall-in-line unified party in the first place. Erebody tryna act like they are united because Obama electrified the "base" (whatever that is).
Seriously though - what does throwing Lieberman out get the Dems?
All I care about is Joe losing his Charimanship on Homeland Security. He was totally incompetent as Chairman, he should lose it on the merits. They should offer him something minor committee wise.
Apparently the Homeland Security committee has oversight over the executive branch. Maybe some Democratic Senators (naming no names) are just eager to have someone who obviously hold anti-Obama views to have oversight over the President. The principle of check-and-balance and all that, you know. How very noble of them, heh.
As a small businessman, it is very depressing to read, "One alternative would be to give Lieberman the chairmanship of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, which has one of the lowest profiles on Capitol Hill."
That's one of the major mistakes that successive administrations of both parties have made. Everyone seems to agree that small business creates many more jobs than big business, and that most innovation comes from small business. But, in spite of that, Congress and the administrations continue to ignore it, except to press more onerous paperwork requirements on it.
It's sad.
"Seriously though - what does throwing Lieberman out get the Dems?"
See, this is what people keep saying, but the issue is NOT throwing him out, it's letting him keep the Homeland Security chairmanship. I'm so mad Democrats are not framing this better. AAHhh!!! Harry Reid, please, you need better PR!
Right, Sarah. The issue is that Lieberman needs to lose his chairmanship. He didn't see fit to hold any hearings over the past two years, while Waxman was definitely on his grind in the House. No way Obama or any other Dem worth their salt wants Lieberman able to use his committee as a means for carrying out Republican revenge.
And, honestly, who cares if he caucuses with the Democrats or not? It'd be nice. But it's up to him to decide if he really thinks it'd be in his best interest to vote contrary to his actual political beliefs.
Somehow, he's under the mistaken impression that he has leverage here. Reid needs to make that fool recognize.
I'm not surprised that Obama refuses to take a position on Lieberman. It continues his campaign policy of reducing the importance of his critics by shrugging them off as irrelevant.
I'm disappointed in the Dems in the Senate for giving Lieberman the platform to make this, once again, all about Joe. They should have quietly stripped him of his committee chair, and then left him to his own devices. Making a big stink about "what to do with Lieberman" only makes it seem like what Lieberman did actually mattered. The message should be that Lieberman doesn't matter.
Is anyone else getting the sinking feeling that Lieberman is going to get off without so much as a slap on the wrist. To see that rat act as if he has all the leverage in the world, while the Dem leadership wrings its hands about what to do is patently ridiculous. He slimed your party's candidate repeatedly and shamelessly, while you just stood there and watched....man up already.
Harry Reid needs better everything.
From TPM: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/its_official_full_dem_caucus_w.php
"This isn't about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. It's about the committee chairmanship. The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as "poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals," because then it becomes solely about retribution."
You know, I blame Reid and Democrats for allowing Lieberman to frame the story this way. They should have made it crystal clear from the start. Now they are stuck between appearing vindictive on one hand, or weak and indecisive on the other.
Ok, rant over, I will not post another comment on this, promise.
It's a set-up. As soon as Lieberman doesn't go along with the Dem caucus, they will kick him out and shake their heads, muttering, "Joe, we gave you a chance, brutha, why'd you let us down?"
I've been wondering, do they have to throw him out now? I mean can't they boot him from the caucus or chairmanship anytime? I'd think the dems have more to gain from saying in no uncertain terms, you have no more rope left, you roll with us the next two years lock step or your out. I think holding that over his head has much more actual upside in terms of what they're their for, to pass legislation, than any potential benefit to be gained from retribution...
I understand the reasoning I guess behind leaving Joe alone. Mostly it has to do with keeping the caucus strong, Lieberman does vote with the dems around 90 - 95% of the time. However, he needs to have his chairmanship of homeland security taken away from him. The fact is it would be better if they kicked him out of the conference just because it would feel so damn good! There would be retribution, revenge, and that always feels good in the short term. But passing some key legislation like Universal Health Care is going to take 60 senators support, so the nuts can't filibuster and stop progress, Joe would help especially with Health Policies, as would the two senators from Maine. That does give them almost the 60 stop votes they need and I am sure they can find one more, but I do suspect this is the reason Obama wants to keep Joe in the caucus. I guess if they give him another chairmanship, energy or something, that would help to keep him in the caucus, but he shouldn't be chairing homeland security, he doesn't belong there. He is always wrong about our national security.
I've been wondering, do they have to throw him out now? I mean can't they boot him from the caucus or chairmanship anytime?
Well, I suppose they could kick him out of the caucus at any time, but they don't seem inclined to do that at all.
I think that the trouble with waiting on the chairmanship is that one likely trigger to piss the Dems off would be an over-the-top performance digging through Administration underwear on his committee.
Then if they booted him after that it would look like they were trying to aid in a cover-up.
Better to get him off that chair before he has the chance to cause any mischief.
I'm all for aggressive oversight of the Administration, but I am concerned that Lieberman would just be a Republican in sheep's clothing and hold nothing but trivial, distracting hearings (in diametric contrast to what he did with a Republican administration).
Actually, I think the Democrats are framing this brilliantly. They keep saying that they want Joe to remain in the caucus, even though this is not the real issue. Nobody is talking about his committee chairmanship, even though this is the real issue. What is the effect of all this? Political junkies (i.e. those of us who read blogs) get bent out of shape, while everyone else in America sees Obama being magnanimous and forgiving. Then, when Joe gets his committee chairmanship removed but he doesn't get "booted out" of the caucus, it looks like a compromise, even though booting him out was never actually on the table. And further, when Joe bolts over this, he looks like an ungracious jerk for rejecting a compromise, even though everyone in the Democratic caucus has been saying that they wanted him to stay. The optics here are better if Joe leaves on his own than if the Dems look retaliatory and petty. (Note: I am not saying that the Dems ARE retaliatory and petty, just discussing the optics. I want him out of the caucus, but I want him out in the way most damaging to his own political future. I think Obama's doing a fine job on that front.)
Obama really has nothing to gain by supporting Lieberman's punting.
The decision is completely up to Reid. Obama is playing 'good cop' here, which is completely appropriate. But dems need to start highlighting the other more legitimate reasons for kicking Liberman out of his position, which have absolutely nothing to do with supporting McCain this election season. A little history:
In 2002, Lieberman was the one who petitioned the formation of Dept of Homeland Security. So, surprise, he gets the chairmanship.
In 2004, Lieberman lost the connecticut primary to Ned Lamont, then petitioned to run as an Independent on the ballot, and won. This pissed off a lot of democratics. But why did Joe do this? One word: Iraq.
Also in 2004: After the Abu Gharib scandal, when Rumsfeld came before the committee and apologized for the incident, Lieberman said: "It deserves the apology that you have given today, and has been given by others in high positions in our government and our military. I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized."
"But"...?
In 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) that detainees at Guantanamo deserved certain constitutional rights, Lieberman started looking for legislation that might get around the issue. BTW, Scalia was the lone dissenter, stating that letting these detainees challenge the legality of their detention will make the war against terrorism harder to wage and will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Lieberman's response: "I'm afraid he's right."
This bit of history tells me to expect Lieberman to rage bitter battles on a whole host of issues related to drawing troops down, military base closures, air raids in Afghanistan and so on...regardless of him being on the committee or not.
The Dems need to force a public discourse about Joe's positions on things like Gitmo, torture legislation, Iraq. They need to subtly remind people how out of step Joe is with the majority. This will change the rhetoric in the MSM on why the Dems are removing him from his chair position...or the caucus (which I personally believe would be totally justified).
asb, very interesting, I never thought of it that way. My issue with it is this:
With many in the MSM now equating Obama saying Lieberman should not be kicked out of the Democratic caucus with Obama saying Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, how confident are you that they won't equate Lieberman losing his chairmanship with Lieberman being kicked out of the caucus? In other words, if the MSM are now saying that:
DON'T KICK LIEBERMAN OUT OF THE CAUCUS = DON'T STRIP LIEBERMAN OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP
where is the guarantee that once he loses his chairmanship and choose to leave on his own, the MSM meme wouldn't be this?:
DEMOCRATS STRIPPING LIEBERMAN OF HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMANSHIP = VINDICTIVE DEMOCRATS KICKING LIEBERMAN OUT OF THE CAUCUS
The first meme sort of implies the second, don't you think? At least I think that is how most MSM journalists will play it. And the MSM will be the way most people in America sees it too.
Jesus Christ, have the dems learned NOTHING from the election? Who gives a shit who wins the current news cycle about Leiberman, if indeed, kicking out a Quisling will be seen as vindictive?
Leaving a ineffective untrustable man in charge of Homeland Security, probably the most powerful committee, is a fucking nightmare.
I think I'm siding with asb--to the extent this is being reported on, all I hear is keeping him in the caucus. The chairmanship occasionally comes up from Lieberman's aides, not from the Obama/Reid/What's-Up-On-Cap-Hill reporting. (And of course in the political blogosphere we're obsessing.)
The optics presently are that Obama and Reid would like him to continue to caucus with the Democrats. Evidently a week before Christmas those Dems actually in the Senate get to vote and potentially strip him of his chairmanship, as I earnestly hope they do. (But it's not for Obama to say, or Biden except in Palin's world where Biden now runs the Senate.) Then Joe can whinily announce "I should retain my chairmanship! Even if I did diddly with it for the last 2 years! Even if I endorsed the Republican, spoke at their convention, and attacked the incoming president of my party's patriotism, those things should have no consequences!! Or else I'll go caucus with the Republicans. I will! You're forcing me!!!"
At that point I'm not sure the Republicans will view embracing Holy Joe as the best way to start rebuilding their image.
There is too much anguished strategizing here. Sometimes things should just be done because they're the right thing to do. For years Southern segregationists chaired important committees (e.g., Eastland of Mississippi on Judiciary). The argument then was that seniority had to prevail or the South would quit the party and the Democrats would lose their majority. Guess what--seniority did prevail and the same result occurred anyway. Maybe if the Dems had shown a little courage, the whole time frame would have speeded up and we'd be ahead of where we are today. Or maybe not. See, you never know, so the best thing to do is pull Joe's chair out from under him and hope for the best.
Questions for those who know more:
1. Is there anything the Senate can do now about Lieberman? Or is the effect of anything done now to be what happens in the session of congress that starts after the inauguration? If the latter, then kicking him now serves no purpose. Maybe some things could be extracted from Joe in the rump session to get him to prove how useful he can be.
2. Has Holy Joe given any examples of what he thinks would be suitable consequences for his behavior toward the party with which he claims to want to keep caucusing? So far he's come across as whiny and petulant, not an inch of contrition. As I noted above, besides the blogosphere the only ones bringing up his chairmanship of governmental affairs are Lieberman aides.
3. What have Senate Republicans been saying? I'm not getting a sense that they yearn to clutch Joe to their bosoms, with promises of much seniority and plum chairs they'll snatch from their own loyal members.
Sarah, I don't think the msm is paying much attention to Joe's feelings. Yes, if Obama's first act was to drive the quisling from the Senate caucus, the optics would be bad. Instead, Obama said he should continue to caucus, but didn't mention the chairmanship. If they continue on this path, it seems likely they could play it out just as asb suggests: vote him out of his committee chair with a simple note that all his primary actions must have a consequence, plus he wasn't using the chairmanship anyway. Then he can huff about taking his ball and going home, as he'll have been doing for weeks at that point--I don't see a powerful story there. "Lieberman, still pouting."
Henderstock and glenn, I think all the "anguished strategizing" and "worrying who wins the news cycle" around here is because most people are trying to figure out how far the Democratic Senators are willing to go. From the senators POV, the optics of the situation is important. It's deplorable, and I wish that our elected officials would display more courage and convictions, but .... them's the break, you know?
Of course I don't want Lieberman anywhere near that committee, if it is up to me, I would have stripped his chairmanship and booted him out of the caucus the moment he agreed with Scalia about Guantanamo detainees. But it's not up to us, it's up to those Senators, to whom the optics of the situation, and how the situation will be perceived in terms of being vindictive or exacting revenge etc IS important, hence all the hand-wringing around here.
Why do we think that Joe is not going to be forced from his chairmanship? Obama has not spoken on that issue, has he? That is a secret ballot of the caucus, if I am not mistaken.
A deliberate veil is being drawn over the proceedings now. I predict that there will sounds of struggle and muffled screams coming from behind the curtain. When the curtain rises, there will Joe in the caucus, not in the chair of the Homeland Security committee, blood all over the floor but none on anybody's hands.
Ah, Unity is sweet!
Fuck all this talk about framing. Actions have consequences. You don't spend months vociferously campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate, then turn around and expect the Democrats to let you keep your committee chairmanship.
Did Joe do anything whatsoever for Democrats this cycle, e.g. helping some House races in CT? (Not that is is exactly hard to elect Democrats in CT.) If not, then forget the caucus--if he had won in 2004 as a Dem but put all his effort and weight into trying to elect one or more Republicans in 2008, then he should not expect to keep any plum chairmanships.
They can't do anything about him for another month, so I don't see much harm in letting the news consist of • Obama will not demand that he be booted from the caucus; • Joe is a puddle of hurt feelings and threats and whinging.
Its amazing to me that there could even be any debate as to whether Lieberman keeps his chairmanships. I mean how hard do you have to work to damage the progressive agenda before the Democrats feel you should be discouraged from doing so? What member of any organization, public or private, could work against the goals of their organization so tirelessly and have other members of that organization out there talking about how they should face no consequences for this behavior because of what a great guy they are? Incredible really. If the Democrats let Lieberman get away with this, they might as well put him in charge. He will have shown that he basically owns them anyway.
The problem with Lieberman is not that he supported McCain. While campaigning for the GOP nominee Lieberman apparently felt duty bound to "scandalize" Obama's name, breaking even Reagan's first rule of politics "thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican," or in this case another Democrat. Another problem: there are probably a good many Democratic senators who did support, loudly and faithfully, the now President Elect who do not have committee chairmanships but really think they should. How will they vote? One more note: Obama carried Conn. by what, 20 points? In the face of that if Reid calls what I think is Lieberman's bluff to jump to the GOP how will his home state constituents react?
Does Lieberman have naked pictures of Chris Dodd or something? Because I do not understand why he is being the front man in this save-Lieberman effort. Is he angling for a Cabinet post or something and this is his way of bargaining?
I think Harry Reid is just incompetent in reining in his own people. This would not have happened in the House, see how quickly Pelosi swatted down the whole van Hollen-wants-to-leave-DCCC job-to-be-the-caucus-chairman thing: you're staying buddy, and that's it, I want someone else as the caucus chairman. Couldn't Reid have done the same thing - you're not staying as chairman, Joe, take it or leave it, end of story?
The reports I've read indicate that no democratic senators are eager to strip Joe of his current committee chair.
If Joe gets to keep his chair, which I deem likely, then I ask myself what universe do these guys live in?
They do not represent me. In fact, while I am a strong Obama supporter, if Joe represents what the democrats stand for, then I will be glad if they do not get a super majority. I'd rather have Sarah Palin then these democrats. At least she has a spine.
Overall, I agree with asb. I think Lieberman's public blustering is his attempt to disguise how weak his position really is. I think Holy Joe knows he's in a tight spot, but self-righteous bloviating is his go-to trick. He probably figures, "it's gotten me this far, maybe it will make Obama and Reid cave."
I doubt it. I'd bet a majority of the caucus wants to punish Joe, if only to move everyone up a notch in the hierarchy. IMO when it's all over Obama will seem reasonable and Lieberman will either get with the caucus/committee program or be a sad whiny baby playing with Republicans who REALLY hate him.
I think people underestimate how hard switching parties is on people. Your new party doesn't really like you, and nobody but nobody trusts a party-switcher. You've turned your back on colleagues, contacts and friends you've known for decades. It's like a big F.U. to everyone who ever supported you. Switching parties is often something you do right before you leave politics entirely.
As I typed that, I thought "geez, seems like Lieberman is going to throw a hissy fit and switch parties before leaving the Senate in 2012."
Re: Reid, I'm not thrilled with his leadership, but it is much harder to keep Senators in line than Representatives. Fewer levers of control.
Lieberman has to be removed from the chairmanship of Homeland Security, he needs to be removed from all subcommittees in any leadership position and there but on the back bench.
Kicking him out of the party would be fine by me. His Kapo a@@ to the Democratic party is going to find out there is a hell and he will be residing on the 8th level reserved for traitors.
This is all about Joe losing the chairmanship of Homeland Security, that's it. No one is looking to kick him out of the caucus, no one is looking to be vindictive, they are looking to move him out of that chair.
Harry Reid doesn't start a fight he can't finish. He just doesn't. And Obama knows the score here, he's just not going to put his fingerprints on it.
Durbin and Schumer came out against Joe. It's going to be a secret ballot. And I'm fairly clear on where it'll go in the end.
This guy can't be trusted to not be a Republican shill investigating the WH to try to create another white water.
Joe's going to get gone and everyone's working to make sure their finger prints aren't on the trigger. But the man's getting shot.
It's a done deal IMO.
Durbin and Schumer came out against Joe.
Only thing about that is that Durbin's only public statement on the matter so far, according to Politico, has been fairly supportive. It seems he was pretty angry at Joe but has softened his stance somewhat. I would love for you to be right about how this plays out but my guess, for the record, is this: Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security but he will be given some other small, token punishment so the Senate Democrats can pretend that they didn't get totally pwned on this matter. Hope I am wrong.
Tossing him out of the caucus is drama. It's drama about something that isn't about the economy, sane national security, or health care. It's drama we don't need, and that his congressional record doesn't justify.
On that, I think the President-elect is doing the right thing as usual. It's not weakness, but clear headed strength.
On the chairmanship, I'm happy to let the senators go into a closed room, decide what they're going to do, and send out a press release. There's stuff about how they work together that they have to work out.
Statesmanship is Chess, not Checkers.
Obama proved that he understands these distinctions when he fought the long war against The Clintons and then The GOP and came out victorious.
People angry over Lieberman are forgetting the forest for the trees. The goal is the Progressive Agenda, and Lieberman can play a role in that. Scalping him gets you nowhere. Take his horse and knife away and put him on a fat little pony.
Just study your American History and you'll see that the great figures understood this. Barack plays finesse.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks Lieberman would support any Democratic supermajority.
He won't vote with the Democrats on anything important. Anyone who thinks otherwise, please show us where in his recent voting record that he has sided with the Democrats on an important issue.
It ain't in him-he's the guy that campaigned for the other party! He ain't on our side! Wake up!
Ditto what zak822 said.
This guy is the political equivalent of Scott Peterson. I don't care what kind of influence he has over Bayh and Dodd, if they do NOTHING (forget about Obama, Lieberman endorsed the slimy NORM COLEMAN in MN) they will look like chickensh-ts. I know the Senate has a "go along to get along" kind of culture but this sh-t is ridiculous.
As in another post, how to contact the 19 Dem Senators on the Steering Committee:
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe/