TBOGG, at home nursing himself back to health after having surgery on his junk, must have pricks on the mind because he brings us this video of Joe Lieberman’s greatest hits:
We aren’t talking about a little friendly disagreement during the course of an election- Lieberman was parroting all the poison and nonsense that got so old so quick this election. Hell, he was a featured speaker at the Republican Convention.
Glenn has a good read up (and some of you need definitely need to read it, because he makes clear some things that seem to confuse people- mainly, it makes no sense to flame Obama for things he hasn’t done, but that doesn’t mean he is beyond criticism. Without naming names, some of the dimmer bulbs out there simply can not grasp that.) about the Lieberman situation, and amazingly enough it looks like he is going to survive:
Joe Lieberman didn’t merely campaign against Barack Obama and several other Democrats. That’s the least of his sins. He was not only among the most vocal supporters of the Iraq War, but at least as bad, has endorsed and supported every last radical Bush policy to expand executive power and surveillance activities while destroying core constitutional liberties and checks and balances. He used his Chairmanship for only one purpose: to block oversight into Bush scandals and corruption. He has spouted the most defamatory attacks, not only against Barack Obama, but against war opponents generally. More significantly still, Democrats in his own state — his own constituents — booted him out of the party, no longer wanting to be represented by him.
That is who Senate Democrats appear well on their way to selecting to serve as their Chairman of Homeland Security, of all committees. That’s because nothing that Lieberman has done really bothers them. Endorsing the Iraq War and the full panoply of radical Bush policies isn’t disqualifying in the least because so many of them also endorsed that and support it, or, at the very least, it’s not a priority for them. They care even less what their “base” thinks, what the so-called “Left” wants. Few things in this world are less likely than them ever taking even a mild stand — such as stripping Lieberman of his Chair — in order to defend some sort of political principle, or to punish ineptitude, or to announce that there are certain lines to the Right that can’t be crossed. They don’t do that. They never have. And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they won’t now.
If he does, then this will have been accomplished with an assist from Obama, who signaled he wanted no drama before having surrogates state they were staying out of the issue. While I can understand why Obama does not feel the need to stir up things and speculated (probably incorrectly, yet again) he was saying one thing publicly while letting the Senate Dems do the bloodletting, the simple fact of the matter is that Lieberman should have to pay a hefty price for his sins, although really, there is no reason why Obama should need to get his hands messy. There should be a price to pay for what Lieberman has done, and his former colleagues in the Democratic Party should do the right thing and take away his chairmanship.
Having said all that, I doubt they will. But then again, I came to the Democrats pre-disillusioned and completely aware what and who they are, so it will be no great surprise if they cave once again. In fact, the only surprise outcome for me would be if they actually do strip Lieberman of his Chairmanship.
Polish the Guillotines
Thing is, it’s not about Obama. It’s 100% about HARRY REID. He’s the senate majority leader, and if he doesn’t have the TBoggs to strip Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship, then someone needs to challenge Harry for the leadership.
Obama is right and correct to stay out of it, not the least reason being he apparently gives a shit about separation of powers. He ran on it, and I damn sure want him to govern by it.
Comrade Stuck
Obama is playing this right. It’s hard to say for sure what Reid and the dem caucus will do. Senator Bayh was saying the other day that dems should have forgiveness in their hearts for Lieberman. What a crock. But this is the party where Senator Inouye campaigns for a freshly convicted felon wingnut to be reelected. I guess fellow porking appropriators inhabit a special realm in politics.
JGabriel
John Cole:
True, but honestly, we don’t even have to make it about punishing Lieberman.
Lieberman should be removed from the chairmanship of Homeland Security and for two reasons:
1) As someone who actively campaigned against Obama, even going so far as to accuse Obama of being unpatriotic and a terrorist enabler, Lieberman should not be left in a position that excercises so much oversight over the executive branch – it’s simply inviting him to abuse it.
2) Lieberman sucked at the chairmanship over the last several years, failing to hold any oversight hearings with respect to Katrina or corruption in DHS.
So before we even get to an issue as partisan and potentially divisive as punishing Joe, we can argue that he should be dismissed from his charimanship on the much stronger grounds of legislative tactics and incompetence.
.
Polish the Guillotines
@JGabriel: I’d say your second point is more salient than the first, and frankly grounds enough. The Katrina hearings were a fucking white-wash.
Xanthippas
For me anyway, that phrase detracts somewhat from the larger point you’re trying to make.
ploeg
Y’know, we have one powerful ally in all of this, and that is Lieberman’s monumental ego.
It would be tons more emotionally satisfying for the Dems to tar and feather Joe and run him out on a rail. Practically speaking, the ideal outcome would be for Joe to leave the Dems on his own, which allows you to attend to other things and avoid raising the ire of the blue dog Dems that Joe leaves behind. From what I can tell, Harry Reid has figured out Joe’s price for staying, and deliberately bid just under. Now, a rational person might look at what Joe’s being offered and think that it’s a lot of stuff and it’s a hell of a lot better than what Joe deserves, and a rational person would be right. However, all indications are that Joe disagrees. And I think that we have better than even odds that Joe will pack up and cross the aisle. The Democrats can offer Joe a lot more than the Republicans can, but the Republicans are willing to stroke Joe’s ego and the Democrats aren’t, and that should be enough.
JGabriel
Polish the Guillotines:
To be fair, PtG, that’s not a particularly compelling argument, given that Obama is still a member of the Senate until January 20.
Also, since Obama recently refused an invitation to Bush’s latest economics summit on the grounds that he isn’t president yet, I think it’s fair to assume he can still partake of his Senate duties, time and transition planning permitting.
.
libarbarian
Why can I just not seem to get all pissed off at Lieberman?
Maybe because I see his support of McCain a a case of personal friendship trumping party loyalty … which I really don’t have a problem with.
Didn’t this whole thing start with Democrats trying to unseat him because of his vote on the Iraq war? Or was it more than that? Frankly, I didn’t care much at the time so I don’t know much about it other than that the netroots were wailing on Liberman long before this.
Rick Taylor
I agree entirely. It ought to be a no-brainer. It’s not even a matter of "punishment" Why would you want someone like that as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee? He’s proven he’s completely untrustworthy, and I’m afraid if Democrats give him this plum they will regret it. Steve Benen at Watshington Monthly has more.
JGabriel
Polish the Guillotines:
Thanks, PtG. They weren’t in any order, so agreement with either is encouraging. I expect some people will find the first point more persuasive, while others will be more convinced by the latter, as you were.
Either way, the main point is that kicking Lieberman out of the HS chairmanship doesn’t have to be about punishing him (much as he deserves it) – there are less vindictive but equally compelling reasons to kick him out.
.
John Cole
@libarbarian: My real problem is twofold. First, the personal loyalty. When the chips were down, Obama came to his aid in 2006, and in return, Lieberman shat all over him.
Second, the rhetoric he used was over the top. There is making the case for McCain, and then there is what Joe did.
Polish the Guillotines
@JGabriel:
Sure, I can see your point. However, the most Obama can really do is vote if a vote is taken. He’s a junior senator, and in that capacity, he doesn’t get to tell Reid what to do. Any influence he exerts on this matter — implied or inferred — is purely on account of his president-elect status.
Reid tried to pass the buck to Obama, and Obama passed it right back. It’s really more about Reid needing to show some spine and control. If he doesn’t, what the hell good is he in a leadership position?
Absolutely right. There are compromise positions that keep him "in the fold" but with a different committee chair. Make him the offer. If he dumps on it, then go nukulur.
demkat620
Yup. Just say no to Holy Joe.
ploeg
This didn’t start with McCain, and it didn’t start this year, or in 2006. For at least ten years now, Joe has pushed whatever bullshit line the Republicans wanted pushed, adding credibility to the attack because it was a Democrat saying it. He undermined the ideals he supposedly stands for because he figured out that doing so would get on the Sunday blab shows on a regular basis. That’s why he got challenged in 2006, and that’s why he lost the 2006 Democratic primary. If anything, the Dem leadership has been much too patient with Joe’s shenanigans.
Jennifer
@JGabriel:
There was an excellent post by Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly on this very topic just a few days ago.
Lieberman was never interested in exercising the powers of this committee since he became the chair; the only reason he’s desperate to hold on to it now is that it offers the best position from which to throw rocks from on high at the new president.
Lieberman’s a rat; he’s proven he’s a rat; and no reasonable person should have the expectation that, given opportunity, he won’t use the powers given him to rat-fuck. Let him stay in the caucus, but boot his ass from the chairmanship of this committee. There’s no reason why in a Democratic-majority Senate we should allow a Republican to hold the gavel on the one committee with the power to incessantly harass the new president.
MelodyMaker
@Polish the Guillotines:
Yup.
One of these Senators is not like the others.
One of these freaks just doesn’t belong.
I think it will work itself out. But I wonder, because Lieberman was one of the most sanctimonious scolds when Clinton was being impeached. He then went on the D presidential ticket with Al Gore. What kinda mojo does this shitwit have? It’s the CLUB, I know, but . egh.
DrDave
Steve Clemens (of the Washington Note) on Rachel’s show on Monday made a good suggestion about what to do about Lieberman: take away his defense and security committee assignments (where he went to war with the Democratic Party) while allowing him to maintain his assignments in areas where he is more strongly Democratic, such as education and technology.
John O
Count me in as a Lieberman-indifferent. I think Obama is being very politically savvy (duh?) about leaving this up to the Senate, and Joe’s a dead man walking either way.
Homeland Security Chair? I’d just as much hope they do nothing. See, "airport ‘security’" which John himself has noted in no uncertain terms.
What I’d really like to see is the Dems tell Joe, "we don’t care."
That would signify progress to me.
qwerty42
based on recent reports, TPM reports that Begich is ahead of Stevens by 3. No telling what will happen in Minnesota, though I tend not to think Martin will win in GA. So another member of the Democratic caucus is (probably) not necessary. Unless it is. I also understand the Senate members view each other differently, and Lieberman and McCain are friends. But you don’t backstab your party’s nominee (a nominee who supported you in your race) . Joe cannot seriously think he can get away with this. He needs to be off his current committee; he can be offered something else (there may yet be a need for him), but he knows the rules too.
Jennifer
@John O: The problem is that the Committee is "Homeland Security and GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT". It’s the Senate committee responsible for watchdogging the Executive branch.
Ever notice Lieberman taking advantage of the super-powers of the committee of which he is chair anytime in the past two years, despite numerous issues which cried out for investigation? (see: Waxman in the House, chair of the committee analogous to Lieberman’s) I didn’t think so.
Lieberman has never done anything with his committee chairmanship so it’s curious as to why he’s so desperate to hold on to it now.
p.a.
I second this wholeheartedly. Remember the story of the fox and the scorpion crossing the river. It’s just his nature.
JGabriel
Jennifer:
Thanks, Jen, that’s a good link.
I especially liked this bit from Steve:
.
John O
I get that, Jennifer, but does anyone really think Obama would want oversight? *smirk*
He is a politician who needs all the chips he can get on the table. I like him an awful lot, but Power does not relinquish Power. And I also trust Obama, at least more than most, not to abuse it. (And boy will I be pissed and loud if he does. It’s just a personality judgement so far, but I’m historically great at those.)
Noting also that ZERO Congressional committees did jack-all-squat about the Bush Administration’s abuses. Including Waxman. It isn’t just Joe. He’s just the most prominent example.
Ed Marshall
First thing on my to do list right after the election was to go yell at the PUMA’s and tell them they are the biggest retards on the planet and most full of fail pack of filth ever to visit the American landscape.
Then I did it, and was incredibly unsatisfying. I *wanted* to do it because if McCain had pulled off a win they would have proclaimed themselves king-makers and been WAY more ungenerous to me the day after. The problem is they *couldn’t* do it, which just makes them the worst sort of losers. Traitors that utterly and completely failed.
JGabriel
@John O:
Ah. Well it would signal progress to me if we heard the Dems tell Joe:
.
p.a.
Typed this before I went to the TBogg link. His is the frog and the scorpion, but the plot is the same.
Jennifer
@John O: You seem to be forgetting the endless "-gates" of the Clinton era, none of which, other than Blowjob-gate, amounted to a hill of beans…all they accomplished was throwing up hurdles to the president in enacting his agenda.
As the Republicans like to say, "Mission accomplished". Lieberman never has to have any real dirt; all he has to do is raise a never-ended stream of objections over essentially non-objectionable actions to keep the Limbaughs, Hannitys and O’Reillys in high cotton, and stymie administration progress.
Boot. His. Ass. OUT!
John O
Adding that I’ll be thrilled to a minor degree if Joe loses his Chair. Nor will it upset me at all if he goes all in and switches parties. It isn’t like he hasn’t done it before.
I have two old, dear friends in CT. I begged them to vote for Lamont. "We like Joe!," was what I got.
Thankfully, now they hate him. They’re very smart, but they’re not junkies like us.
John O
JGabriel,
I was brought up with a mother who said to me once, and I’m sure she doesn’t remember, "What if the Nazi’s held a march and no one showed up?"
It stuck with *me*.
That being said, I’m fine with what you say, too. Like I posted earlier, I’m Joe-indifferent, because that what I think he is, and that’s what I think he deserves.
Leo
And of course, the dim bulb that you choose not to name has a post up quoting Glenn and claiming vindication. When in fact, all Glenn’s piece shows is that if he had actually made a reality based argument, instead of hooting and hollering for attention like a goddamn idiot, he might have actually persuaded someone of something.
Anon
libarbarian: quit trolling, or at least, use a different name than the one you use at Sadly, No! .
John O
Lovely Jennfier, I’m good with that, too. I just can’t get worked up about him either way.
I suppose it’s one of the reasons I’m a bad blogger. Some things are just too self-evident for me to bother explaining or defending, and Joe’s relevance is one of them, at least to me.
I have no faith in bureaucracy. Beware The Man, be Him/Her of either party.
Rick Taylor
@pa
That’s funny, I didn’t write it, but I was thinking of that very same parable when I wrote my last message.
TenguPhule
I believe I speak for the majority when I say I hope like hell you’re surprised in the near future.
Polish the Guillotines
@Jennifer:
The best way to advance that proposition is to contact your senators and tell them what you think. Unless they’re Repubs (or Joe himself), in which case you’re SOL.
I’ve got Feinstein and Boxer, so it’s probably a wash.
low-tech cyclist
I’m thinking what we need is civil disobedience.
Suppose, the first time Joe Lieberman opened a session of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, dozens of people flooded into the middle of the committee room, and refused to leave until the cops hauled them away, and then more kept coming.
I’ll be 55 in the spring, and you’d think I’d be past the point in life for this sort of thing. But I’m thinking it might be worth it – I think I’d do it if four or five dozen other people were willing to.
Michael Gass
Will or will not Joe "The Traitor" keep his chairmanship?
He will IF: HIS is the 60th vote needed to break the 60 vote standard.
He won’t IF: the Democratic Party comes up short of 60 votes in the caucus.
Right now, they are holding out hope that the last 3 races go Democratic. If that falls through, look for Lieberman to get the boot.
robertdsc
I have this funny idea that in some future time, Obama’s going to maneuver Joe into some kind of self-hanging situation. That’s why he wants Joe to stick around.
The Pale Scot
I sort of get the feeling that Obama has plan to neutralize Joe in someway, if he goes to the other side of the aisle he makes himself completely irrelevant for the 4 years before he gets replaced. Even if he kept his chairmanship if he goes against the dems there are many different ways to slight the well being of Conn., Dodd or no, Joe may find himself sitting in the big chair and being told to SDSTFU.
Rick Taylor
Once again, it’s not a matter of punishment, it’s a matter of common sense. The thing about Liebermann is he just loves playing the sanctimonius holier than though man of principal who turns on his own party because it’s right. He just loves it. He did it to Clinton, he did it to Obama, and he’ll do it again given the opportunity. And with Repubilcans looking for anything they can throw at the new administration, he will have that opportunity. It just doesn’t make sense to put someone like that in charge of oversight of the executive branch, it’s completley bonkers, and if they do it I’m afraid they’ll come to regret it.
Geeno
Any democratic senator who supports Lieberman should be voted out of office. Even if it gives the R’s a majority. If Obama lets this happen, he deserves the hell his the second half of his only term will end up being.
Ed Marshall
And with Repubilcans looking for anything they can throw at the new administration, he will have that opportunity.
If this situation happened, Democrats have the power to close the Senate and turn the lights out on Joe while he’s talking. I’m not sure people realize this. That’s how little what he or Republicans think about anything matters.
Tsulagi
And that has worked out so well for them.
Certainly agree it’s stupid to blame, flame, or diss Obama for what he hasn’t done before he even sits in the big chair. Or for what “a source” has said Obama is thinking then that going through a tea leaves and between-the-lines spin cycle.
In the previous thread on this said I thought Lieberman is a pissant issue. He is. No way Obama should publicly be involved in it. Let Emanuel privately advance his position to Senate leadership.
But come next February if Lieberman is banging the gavel in the Homeland Security committee, Dems have told the other guys and their own Blue Dogs their sternly-worded-resolution spinelessness is still the order of the day. That would make their own jobs and Obama’s more difficult.
And if they continue to be Party of Bush rubberstamping pool boys as they were after the 06 midterms and continue to be led around by the nose after gaining the presidency and substantial majorities in Congress, then just nuke the fuckers to end that worthless gene pool. But, I’d wait to see if they actually go down that path before calling for them to be lit up.
John O
Two good points up there. One, don’t underestimate Obama’s political savvy, or toughness.
He’s from Chicago.
The other is that I forgot Holy Joe’s sanctimonious criticism of Clinton’s infidelities, while a large percentage (by Joe’s reckoning) of Joe’s colleagues were participating in precisely the same behavior, except usually worse.
So, in the spirit of keeping our powder dry until Obama, you know, actually takes office, why don’t we just "hope" Obama is setting Joe up for some epic fail?
That would make me happiest of all.
Dennis - SGMM
The sixty votes notion is a chimera. Sixty Republicans might vote in lockstep but sixty Dems never will. Lieberman has done an atrocious job as committee chair. That’s sufficient reason in itself to remove him.
Geeno
@Dennis – SGMM:
especially not if one of those dems is Lieberman
burnspbesq
Greenwald’s descent into self-parody continues. He’s in danger of becoming the Hewitt of the left. His picture is next to the definition of "sanctimonious" in my dictionary. He really needs to calm down, get over himself, and go back to the way he was in 2005.
qwerty42
I gotta say that the a committee chair with a popular President from his (former) party (whom he backstabbed), in a Senate strongly controlled by this party, could not imagine he would be allowed to get away with subverting the President and party unless he were insane. It is an interesting idea, but Joe cut a lot of ties and cannot think his old friends would cover for him. Harry can let him hang in the breeze for a few days (actually, he seems to be doing just that) then offer him another committee or let him go altogether. Joe does have other areas he has worked in and is in sync with his colleagues in these. But there has to be a payback of some kind and everyone knows it.
Dennis - SGMM
@Geeno:
Yep, relying on a self-seeking, backstabbing sanctimonious little bastard to help pass legislation is bound to be a winning strategy. The more I see the more I believe that the real crying need is to replace Pelosi and Reid in the leadership. Most Republicans become amenable to reason after being kicked in the nuts, not before.
Ed Marshall
You can challenge committee seats at any time. If Joe was to act up at all, at any point he can be thrown out. I don’t really think it matters at all either way, but I can see how throwing him a bone on this and giving him the skunk-eye and letting him know in no uncertain terms if he opens his stupid ass mouth he gets to go beg the republicans for one of the pissant seats they have left (and their answer might very well be nothing) would be better than throwing him out.
John O
Right. Let Joe hang himself. He seems not to care anymore, so the odds are good.
Why not wait until even people like me say he’s gotta go?
And another thing to remember: Everyone, even Republicans, hate a traitor. Joe won’t exactly be the King of the GOP caucus.
Comrade Stuck
Straight out of Funhouse Textbook of Differential Republicanology. You are a wise man sir, and deserve your very own honorary diploma. Let me xerox it and send it on it’s way.(for only a nominal charge of course) :)
Polish the Guillotines
@Geeno:
Again, how is this Obama’s pooch to screw? Lieberman is Harry Reid’s problem. Period.
Look, I want Joe at the very least stripped of Homeland Security. He just plain sucked at his job. But Obama doesn’t run the senate.
John O
My bad. I should have said, with respect to people’s feelings about "traitors," is that the GOP ESPECIALLY hates traitors.
They need their daddy’s, and have to be able to trust them. At least in the modern and completely retarded GOP incarnate.
Jennifer
@Dennis – SGMM: We find your ideas interesting, sir, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Ed Marshall
I’ve got some good inside gossip that Tammy Duckworth is taking Obama’s seat in the Senate. It’s gossip, but the source is pretty good.
Gaucho Politico
Its a matter of self respect. Apparently senate democrats take no pride in actually being democrats or standing for any principles. He spoke at the RNC. He is a republican on matters of national security, defense, and civil liberties. He did nothing to contribute to the election of democrats, nothing to advance democrat’s ideals or plans. He worked against the party. why would you reward the behavior? his vote is meaningless because whether he is a dem or not is not going to affect a cloture vote. Senate Dems really are a joke for the most part. the phrase, "thank you sir, may i have another?" pretty much epitomizes them.
As for Obama, i dont think he particularly cares about the dem congress growing a spine anytime soon. He is the man in charge and would be more than happy for them to roll over on anything he says. He has a plan and stuff he wants to get done and if he can use congress like little puppets to do it i am sure he will.
John Cole
Tammy Duckworth is one tough broad and won’t take shit from anyone.
Charity
Well, it’s not like they have to keep him in forever, right? I mean, if he legitimately screws up again — badmouths Obama or the party — they can say, "We gave you a chance and this is what you did with it."
I say take away his chairmanship, leave him in the caucus, and let the Connecticutians have their way with him in 2010.
John O
Right on, John.
She’s been there. I can’t imagine anyone impugning her judgement on such trivial issues like "war."
Uh, wait…I forgot who the GOP was for a second.
Artificial legs just aren’t going to be enough for our wonderful modern Republican party.
All you have to do is remember, "Max Cleland."
Palin-Joe Plumber 2012!
Clio
The thing that i dislike most about leaving Joe in charge of the homeland security committee until he steps out of line is this: once he steps out of line and starts investigating or cock blocking Obama for some bs reason and the dems strip him of his chairmanship, he and the gop can go to the media and start screaming about how he had his chairmanship taken away because he was trying to hold Obama "accountable". It would look a lot worse for the Dems politically if they waited. Plus he is one slimy bastard who took a lousy gamble. Time to pay up.
Comrade Darkness
And John Murtha…
John Kerry…
Dear John…
Ed Marshall
Obama’s district is hopelessly democratic now. It’s almost weird the way demographics have done this. It’s my district. Up until 2000 we were going to elect moderate Republicans. It’s a done deal now and Obama could select Wavy Gravy to be his replacement and he would be there four terms later.
Comrade Scrutinizer
Meanwhile, the GOS is going nuts about everything Obama. Seems as if he’s already caving in on Lieberman, Gates, false calls for bipartisanship, the evil that is Larry Summers, blah, blah, blah. It’s been a week and a day since election day, but apparently that’s enough to form the firing squad.
My comment in the latest "Obama’s gonna fuck up if he doesn’t listen to us" column:
Forgot to include snark tags. Think they’ll notice I’m taking the piss?
There are days, many days, when I think that the GOS is just as pretentious as Armando, if not quite as bugfuck crazy.
John O
:-)
I didn’t mean to be all-inclusive, Comrade.
And Murtha has some problems I have trouble getting past…
p.a.
It’s O’s pooch because as President-elect he is also now defacto head of the Democratic Party. Every lever of power at play is now his to use to 1) attempt to govern successfully, 2) attempt to get reelected (see 1), 3) attempt to get as many Dems. as possible elected at the national, state, and local levels to allow 1 and 2.
Do even the ‘Joe’s no big deal’ posters here think HolyJoe will advance 1, 2, or 3?
Ed Marshall
We are in a post-modern world here, where Obama already got elected and made Rahm Emmanuel his chief of staff (see Josh Lyman) in fantasy land. If you have never seen this watch whatever season that was and imagine what happens to Joe Lieberman.
Ed Marshall
I meant to put a reference to West Wing in there.
Comrade Kevin
@Comrade Stuck:
Bayh was on Rachel Maddow’s show this evening, and said some of the same things, but interestingly, I thought there was an implied threat to Lieberman in the way he said some of it.
Basically, the implication was that Lieberman would be on a very short leash, and he’d better watch what he does.
Cassidy
Maybe Obama is actually exercising that transparency thing he talked about. Sure, he could work some backroom deal and have Joe dismissed, or he could work above board and let the Senate do its job. Maybe we’ve forgotten how our gov’t is supposed to work.
Comrade Stuck
@Comrade Kevin:
I really don’t care if he stays in the caucus or not. There needs to be a penalty for the depth of his douchebaggery however. That means no Chairmanship on the important HS committee. If they have a committee, or sub comm, for something like say, Diaper Recycling or Midget Porno then he can chair that. David Vitter could be Ranking Member(rim shot).
sublime33
Consider that:
– Retroactive immunity for telecoms for illegal wiretapping was virtually non-negotiable for Republicans
– Numerous sources cannot wait to talk to Sy Hersh after January 20th, allegedly as wiretap whistleblowers
– Joe Lieberman and refused to call any Republican in the administration to testify about anything, including Katrina
– Joe Lieberman has almost a Stockholm Syndrome in defending Republicans
My theory is that the Gore/Lieberman campaign was spied upon, and they found something really embarassing about Lieberman. And Lieberman is being blackmailed to protect Republicans at all costs.
clussman
60 votes is not a chimera. Democrats don’t have to vote in lockstep on legislation, just to end any filibusters so legislation can have up and down votes. Keeping him around–at least until the last three senate races are decided–is pure political calculus. And smart.
What would be more effective overall: a) getting a responsible chairmanship for one committee, even an important one like Homeland Security, or b) having two years of a filibuster proof supermajority to enact progressive legislation? Under that scenario I’ll take Lieberman for Homeland Security Chairman for 1000 Alex.
jcricket
Isn’t the problem for Joe that the minute he becomes a Republican, he’ll lose the next election?
He could be a "thorn" in Democrats sides for another couple of years, but CT would vote his ass out in 2010 if Joe was caucusing with the GOP.
So if Dems get Joe to stay, and he continues voting 90%+ with the Dems (maybe even more out of fear for his own seat), we get most of what we want anyway.
Basically, I call it the "Let us appear to have comity, but really Joe’s now our bitch" strategy.
Either that or it’s just more crappy leadership from Reid. Can we replace him with Hillary? We need someone with balls.
oh really
If he weren’t the most boring SOB on the planet with the most annoying voice this side of Wasilla, he might have been the featured speaker, but with McCain himself still to come there was only so much Crank the GOP conventioneers could have been expected to take. As it was, they probably enlisted Joe to make McCain sound/seem dynamic.
Sleeper
Not to go overboard, but I can’t help but be reminded of Kim Philby, the MI6 agent who spent decades secretly working for the KGB. After doing his best to sabotage British intelligence from within, he finally got nosed out and fled to the Soviet Union. But when he got there, he found out that he wasn’t a high-ranking KGB officer, as he’d been told he was; his only value had been as a member of the British intelligence apparatus, and when that came to an end, so did his usefulness to Moscow. No parades, no access to the halls of power, no public acknowledgment of his value.
Joe Lieberman knows this. Now, Zell Miller, the Southern-fried Lieberman from the last cycle, I think was genuinely a Republican trapped in a Dixiecrat’s body. I don’t think he was ever comfortable in the party of Kennedy. But Lieberman, besides having a churlish scold’s sensibilities about nonsense issues like violence in videogames, doesn’t seem to have much in the way of deep principles, or shallow ones for that matter. All he’s about is being seen as a Deeply Serious politician, as painstakingly denoted by the furrowed brow and the thoughtful expression as he buries the party colleagues who went out of their way to save his ass even after his state party booted him out. Yes, Obama campaigned for him when he was on the ropes, and he returned the favor by questioning Obama’s competence and loyalty to the country, and yes, he wholly endorsed Bush’s Iraq disaster and gave the GOP political coverage by being their pet Democrat, but, you see, he was so clearly pained by it. Such a grave sacrifice, this burden of statesmanship. But it’s what Serious Men of Integrity do. If Lieberman joined the Republicans, that heavy sense of duty and sacrifice that he flaunts and highlights for all to see like a prized fencing scar down the cheek would be erased. He’d be just another GOP jerkoff. And worse, a GOP jerkoff starting off at the bottom rung when it comes to seniority.
No wonder McCain hearts him. I remember when McCain was supposed to be mulling jumping ship in 2001, because of
his rage at being beaten by an even bigger spoiled bratdeep and sincere philosophical differences of opinion with Bush. But Jim Jeffords from Vermont beat him to the punch and got to be the one to throw the 50-50 Senate over to the Democrats. No point in defecting if it won’t make headlines, right John? Better to be the maverick within the GOP hegemony. Better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.Reid should paraphrase Lincoln and tell Joe, if you don’t want to use that oversight committee we should like to borrow it for a while, and give him Natural Resources or Small Business or some other committee as a parting gift. Lieberman has nowhere else to go. He’ll take what he can get.
Sleeper
And another thing: we should all forget the 60 seat thing. There are enough Blue Dog Demi-Crats in the Senate that shutting down filibusters that way is not a feasible reality. Instead, Reid needs to, again, call the Republicans’ bluff, and make them go ahead and filibuster, instead of just threatening to. Let Inhofe or Bunning or any of those other oxygen thieves stand up and denounce health care for children or homeowners’ assistance on camera. Let those clips bounce around the Internet a few million times. We saw a lot of political ads cut this time that were never intended to be aired on television, but were made just to be released and subsequently broadcast on pundit shows in order to dissect and critique them. Why not keep that up? Dare them to filibuster, then sic the blogosphere on them to watch the follies on C-SPAN and wait for the inevitable insertion of a foot into a mouth, then email the highlights to Olbermann or Matthews. Enough of this supermajority shit. 51 is all we need, and we have that to spare. If they want to filibuster then we should let them, and then ram it right down their fucking throat so that they choke on it. People haven’t forgiven the Republicans for being Republicans just because the election is over. And tolerating Lieberman’s ineptitude for the sake of maintaining some gossamer notion of invulnerability is foolhardy.
Oh, speaking for myself only, of course.
Comrade Scrutinizer
You mean 2012, right? He was elected to the 2006 Senate.
Marshall
I wouldn’t give much for his chances (in 2012) either way. I think this is his last term.
Rick Taylor
Via Washington Monthly, Rachel Madow gave a great sum up of the situation with Joe Lieberman, and asked the perfect question of Evan Bayh: "You have been outspoken of Senator Lieberman keeping his role as chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Why do you think he’s the best Democrat for that job at this point?" Evan Bayh didn’t answer that question, but made it clear it’s all about buying Lieberman off so he doesn’t bolt the caucus or feel embittered. It was painful to watch; the distilled essence of a spineless Democrat. Ugh. He didn’t even try to argue that Lieberman would be a strong or able candidate for the position it was pure politics. If I wanted people appointed to positions of power based purely on politics, I would have voted Republican.
Evan Bayh did say Lieberman in return should give a sincere apology for the remarks he made about Obama during the campaign. Fat chance of that.
I will say, if it’s true that Obama encouraged Reid to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, it was a mistake. No one that I know of in the congress has called for Lieberman to be expelled from the caucus, and doing that muddied the waters.
Marshall
I think that people should remember, too, that the correlation of forces is different now. Before, the Republicans had their president (and Rove) as the ultimate source of enforcement, so defections were rare. Now, that is gone and Obama can push things the other way. I would expect to see Republican Senators start to peel off when necessary to pass cloture votes – maybe not all such votes, but a lot of them. All you will need will be a one or two, and Presidents have a lot of tools to twist arms (or to make a deal).
mike in dc
At a bare minimum, a very public (and probably repeated) apology is in order, to the caucus and to President-elect Obama, along with a private pledge to back the Dems on all cloture votes.
If he won’t do either, I don’t see any reason why he should keep his chairmanship. I know Bayh was on tv the other day arguing that losing his chairmanship would either cause him to leave the caucus, or to take out his grudge later in supporting GOP filibusters. But, honestly, if he won’t even apologize for some of his more outrageous behavior and statements, why should they even trust this guy to not do something like that anyway?
Hopefully, we only have to put up with his crap for 2-4 more years (2 years, if we get more seats next time, and 4 if we can knock him out entirely).
clussman
I like this hypothesis
qwerty42
@John Cole: She’d be great. But there are a lot of folks in the land of Lincoln who want that job as well.
Fog
Lyndon Johnson once said, "I don’t trust a man until I have his pecker in my pocket." Holy Joe has lost control of his junk. My guess is that he will be very well behaved in the future. He still has his uses. Or do you folks still think Obama is soft?
Phoebe
A huge reason lots of people like Obama is that he is not a vindictive, emotionally driven loyalist, like, say James Carville. I’m one of those people [even while resembling sometimes the Carville type].
I agree that Joe should go, but his incompetence at the job is more than enough of a reason why, and because Obama values competence – another reason people like him – that should be the reason put forth, even if it’s by Reid. You can’t outsource your dirty work and expect to stay clean.
sheiler
Prove to me that Obama wants no drama. According to David Corn, Rahm Emmanual is making sure that Howard Dean steps down from his position as chair for the DNC because, "Rahm hates Dean."
Dean has done more for the Democratic Party and for the country in general, including laying out the 50 state strategy that made it possible for Obama to get elected, than Lieberman has. And yet Dean’s leaving and Lieberman’s staying? Lieberman’s staying because he’s creating drama by talking up and throwing tantrums and getting other big Dems to play behind the scenes and …. Obama’s buying into it because….he wants no drama?
I really and truly hope that this is another instance where Obama fakes right to go to the left.
gwangung
Um, I thought Dean had previously said he wanted a limited time to be DNC chair? And now, if any, is the time to step down.
Don
Rachel Madow gave a great sum up of the situation with Joe Lieberman, and asked the perfect question of Evan Bayh: "You have been outspoken of Senator Lieberman keeping his role as chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Why do you think he’s the best Democrat for that job at this point?" Evan Bayh didn’t answer that question, but made it clear it’s all about buying Lieberman off so he doesn’t bolt the caucus or feel embittered. It was painful to watch; the distilled essence of a spineless Democrat.
Eh, that’s one way to read it. I think Bayh’s repeated statement that they can change chairs at any moment might also be code to the people waving their pitchforks that, given that there’s several seats still being counted, maybe now isn’t the time to have a big public fight over this.
Why kick this bozo around during a slow news period when it’s all Obama speculation all the time and the news can run it all over the place? Obama has a bunch of stuff he wants to accomplish in his first days and I’m pretty sure a public pissing match with a tofu democrat isn’t part of that.
If Lieberman plays along during that period it’s a help. If he doesn’t it’s easy enough to remove him then when the cause is clear and present.
tavella
Once again, it’s not a matter of punishment, it’s a matter of common sense. The thing about Liebermann is he just loves playing the sanctimonius holier than though man of principal who turns on his own party because it’s right. He just loves it. He did it to Clinton, he did it to Obama, and he’ll do it again given the opportunity.
Yup. That’s exactly it. I’m quite indifferent to whether he stays in the caucus or not, and I’m fine with whatever political maneuvering that might go on in terms of alternate chairmanships; if they think he’s tactically useful enough to give him some chairmanship, whatever. I don’t really care if he’s *punished*, per se. But leaving him as chair of Government Oversight is nuts for exactly the reasons stated above.
And I think all the little fantasy scenarios about Reid having Leiberman’s pecker in his pocket are just that, fantasy. Reid met with Lieberman and said he wanted him out of Homeland Security, but that Lieberman could have Small Business. Lieberman refused and said that was unacceptable. Now not only is Reid not enforcing that deal, his lieutenants are running around helping Lieberman keep the job.
Who owns whose balls in that scenario? Hint… not Reid.
Mr Furious
@sheiler:
Bullshit. DNC Chair is a four-year term, and Dean’s term is up. He always said he would only do it for one term. Even Terry McAwful was only there for 4 years (though it seemed like forever.)
sheiler
Have either of you got a link to prove your points or are you just going to rant?