I forgot that this mess plays out today, too.
At any rate, I am busy getting some last minute stuff done in preparation to leave. The weather here, by the way, finally feels like November, although it was really weird how quickly it changed. A week or so ago, it was warm enough for shorts and t-shirts, and now it is in the 30’s with snow on the ground. At any rate, I have really been slacking on the pet pics, so here are two, and I will throw up some dogs, later:
I will bbl.
*** Update ***
And that drama is over:
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman’s fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the “vast majority” of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
“This was not a time for retribution,” Reid said, quoting an unnamed Senator. We’re “moving forward,” Reid added.
Not that this was an unpredictable outcome or anything:
If recent history is any guide, I think we can safely say that this issue has been settled and that Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship is… safe. Every time Leahy and Feingold get in a vulcan mindmeld with the progressive wing, we can almost bet that the beltway wing/GOP lite/business as usual crowd of the Democratic caucus are about to send them down the river.
We will see how this plays out.
Svensker
OMG. What have you been doing to the DOGS??!!!
J.
Throwing up dogs. Sounds painful, John. I’d stick with hairballs. Messy, but less painful.
LOVE the cat pix.
As for my Senator (though I did not vote for him and would very much like for him to be b***c-slapped by the Dems), Obama and fellow CT Senator Chris Dodd are smart, politically savvy guys, who will say "bygones" and let Lieberman keep some of his pride/committeeships. Though I sincerely hope my fellow Nutmeg Staters vote the bum (i.e., Lieberman, though I know Dodd, too, has his detractors) out for good next election.
garage mahal
Is that Hillary on the top scheming some sort of all out coup on our fresh as driven snow President Elect?
Don’t do it Barack, remember what happened to Vince Foster!
LOL.
greynoldsct00
I just can’t believe they are not going to kick Leiberman out of that chairmanship. What could possibly be the reasoning? He questioned his patriotism among so many other things. That’s way over the line from policy differences.
Cap'n Phealy
You should see a doctor. Dog is relatively mild. If you can’t keep it down, you must really be ill.
greynoldsct00
and thanks for the pet fix John!
gbear
I was on the verge of getting my undies in a bundle over this stuff with Lieberman but I decided that, in the interest of keeping my sanity over the next four years, this particular battle wasn’t worth giving a rat’s pitutie about. My desire to see Lieberman get shredded by karma is as high as anyones (I called Senator Klobuchar to voice my opinion), but it just looks like it’s not going to happen right now. He’s made his bed. Someday he’s going to have to lie in it.
Krista
You have snow already? Jeez…how can you live in that barren wasteland?
Shinobi
We have snow here too. It was 60 last weekend. I call shenanigans.
Seriously, how am I supposed to rake my leaves now?
Gus
Jesus, we don’t even have snow in Minneapolis yet.
Svensker
And now The Corner FTW! Obama has picked lots of peeps who were involved with Lewinsky OMG.
Plus, I want to kick Lieberman in the junk, also.
greynoldsct00
Snowed in Connecticut too this morning…
TheHatOnMyCat
Liberman is a dog bites man, slow news day story.
Six months from now nobody on earth will give a rat’s ass about Lieberman’s past. We’ll be in the thick of an economic crisis, we will be fighting with the obstructionist Republicans in congress, and if Joe gives us a vote, then we have one more vote. Period.
Joe Lieberman is on track to become a hangnail on a footnote to history. Obama will be making the history.
TheHatOnMyCat
Aren’t you supposed to be picking the reindeer hair off your green outfit and getting Santa’s sleigh ready?
Pixie
I especially like the second pic as you can see the kitteh’s little shiny lower lip. omg cat pout! /cute
thomas
Why are they making the decision on Lieberschmuck now? There are three seats, two most likely D and a third a distinct possibility, yet to be determined. Shouldn’t all the members of the coming caucus be there for the decisions on its construction?
Is Harry afraid his buddy in spinelessness wont make the cut if he waits?
I’ve been an active D for almost 40 years and this – hard to imagine – is a new low in ignoring the desires of the rank and file. This is not leadership it’s capitulation. They’ve seen my last $$.
Krista
Hope you like lumps of coal, sweetpea.
gbear
@Gus:
Yea, but my birdbaths in St. Paul have been frozen for most of the last two weeks. This is way too early for this much cold.
Tsulagi
I look forward to the sternly-worded warning to Lieberman. And hope Dem leadership that passes out from the resulting testosterone rush wakes up in time for Thanksgiving.
Just Some Fuckhead
The bastard got to keep all his perks. Fuckhead scores another correct hit.
Balconesfault
This isn’t about revenge.
This is about making sure that Joe Lieberman can’t do more damage to the Democratic Party.
Leave him where he is, and the attention whore named Joe will at some point respond to wingnut cries for an investigation on some really stupid scale … and we’re going to be treated to Joe taking the lead in trying to tie the hands of the Obama administration.
Remember … once the term starts, the safest position for Lieberman is going to be chairing a committee that’s currently investigating the Obama White House. That makes it politically dangerous for the Dems to remove him from his seat.
And Joe is the guy who has been going around telling people that a filibuster-proof Democratic majority is dangerous for the country.
So … first chance Joe gets, he starts an investigation based on some right wing hackitude (Obama’s "fraudulent" draft registration, anyone?). Then he can start voting against cloture anytime he wants, knowing that the Harry Reid Senate will cower in fear instead of following through and yanking his Committee chair.
Do it now, and the Dems will look petty to some. But wait until later, and they’re going to be framed as being corrupt.
Train wreck coming. Trusting Lieberman at this point is about as stupid a decision as anyone could make.
thomas
Comrads
see 16 above. I forgot that there will be even more new D’s in the coming senate that have no ‘friendships’ with Joe the schmuck, with O’s replacement and Biden’s and apparently Hillary’s and maybe even more.
WTF is happening when these members of the caucus are cut out of the decisions on how it will be organized for the coming congress?
If Reid keeps leadership something is very wrong.
Comrade Stuck
Just keep the sonofabitch off the teevee, and I can manage to swallow this decision by senate democrats. It makes Obama look Magnanimous and bigger than wingnuts. As my Granny used to say when administering her periodic doses of Castor Oil, just close your eyes and you won’t hardly notice it.
**We all at the Funhouse feel safe and snug with Holy Joe at the helm of Homeland Security. Bwaa Haa!
Eric U.
historically, questioning someone’s patriotism was grounds for a duel. Nowadays, you get to keep your chairmanship.
This decision may be a mistake on the scale of appointing Ken Starr as special prosecutor. Many people said that would reduce the effect of any investigation since he was a well known political hack. Well, he spent $110 million to prove those people right, but legitimacy was never a big criterion for republicans. They exonerated Clinton for Whitewater a couple of times, they just wanted an investigation to run.
South of I-10
Cute kitties! What the heck is snow?
Dennis - SGMM
Much as I’d like to see Reid out of the Majority Leader spot it occurs to me that Joe Biden could actually start calling the shots in the Senate with Reid as a pliant (Okay; very pliant) front man.
As for Lieberman, revenge is a dish best served cold. Obama plays a long game when that’s appropriate so he may just wait out Lieberman until 2010 and then campaign for his Democratic opponent. Lieberman can start all of the investigations that he wants to. At this point all they will uncover is evidence of Bushco wrong doing.
bago
Who threw the dogs up? Who!? Who!? Who!?
Tsulagi
Yep, pretty much figured that would happen. So Holy Joe is canonized again by those he called evildoers. Looks like Dem Classic is still the drink of the day in Congress.
Tymannosourus
The force is strong with this one. The call to lay off Lieberman came from on high, I guarantee it. The O knows what he’s doing.
Jimmy Jazz
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Likudnik??
greynoldsct00
That’s the stuff that closes down schools, etc. in cities like Baton Rouge because it "might" happen. At least that’s how it worked out when I lived there. As a born Yankee from CT, that seemed pretty surreal.
Deborah
Bah. Can’t assemble enough Democratic senators to form a spine. Democrats, He Is Just Not That Into You.
South of I-10
@greynoldsct00: The schools and government offices close if it is supposed to be below freezing and raining. Flurries cause widespread panic.
Wayne
4 and out. This is the start of it. If they can’t protect Obama like the Repubs did to Bush then its over.
But what do we really expect with Reed. Stupid is as stupid does. Truly a non-leader. There must be a lot of skeletons in the Dem closet.
MattF
The Lieberman Exculpation is a case of DFH’s colliding with the Institutional Prerogatives of teh Senate of teh United States. No contest.
Poopyman
John is just down the road from here, so he’s getting off fairly easily, snow-wise.
As far as Lieberman, I said somewhere that the Dems are not going to have a filibusterproof majority even with 60 dems because there will be no unity, and now every dem senator sees the cost of going against the party is nuthin.
ImJohnGalt
I’m so frickin’ disheartened right now. My wife and I are still going to Washington for the inauguration, but the sheer spinelessness of the Senate Dems leaves me queasy. It has sucked 30-40% of our excitement about the next 4 years right outta us.
In what companay would someone who actively worked for the competition be allowed to keep their job? Perhaps they got him to commit to (finally) investigating some of the more egregious Bush crimes, but if he either sits on his hands or djinns up an Obama scandal in the next two years, I’m going to personally go to Nevada and kick Harry Reid in the junk. Seriously, I don’t know how he walks upright.
Scott H
Who is this unnamed Senator, so vastly more powerful than Harry Reid, whose fiat it is that "now is not the time for retribution?"
Whoever it is, making the large leap that it is an actual person and not a theatrical device, should be the majority leader.
Svensker
@Jimmy Jazz:
POTD
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
@Dennis – SGMM: "I’m President now, so I really don’t have much sway in Senate matters anymore, Joe. Still, this really is a nice office you’ve got here. Shame if anything happened to it."
Granted, I can also see AIPAC yanking some short and curlies on top of the Senate circling the wagons around one of their own. We’ll have to wait and see.
Brick Oven Bill
The cat pictures are much better. Cats are clean. Skip the dogs. We have discussed this.
And peace be with you Mr. Cole.
TheHatOnMyCat
Just riffing on the "Chill Out — The Big O Has This One" theme …..
If I am Barack, and I am looking at the giant heap of debris that GWB is leaving me, and the serious problems facing the country, I want every single thing I can control lined up in my favor for the next two years. No advantage is too small to be useful.
Lieberman is a vote in the Senate. Nothing else matters. Once I have my successful first term and save the country, there will be plenty of time for fucking over Joe if he is still around.
If that’s what Obama is thinking, all I can say is, that’s why I voted for him. To think like that. That’s my idea of "country first."
Svensker
What KIND of vote in the Senate? He’ll vote down anything approaching peace in the Middle East. He’ll slime anyone who isn’t on the JoeFest express. He voted for Alito and Roberts. What is Joe going to vote on that will help anyone or anything, except the Repubs & Israel?
BombIranForChrist
This is the kind of thing that annoys the crap out of me, but I can deal with it. It’s small potatoes compared to other things.
However, I will go ahead and predict that Lieberman will continue to shit all over the Democrats, and they will lick it up. It’s what Democrats do. No matter how many elections they win, they will still be spineless, and so we can go ahead and start the countdown to the next Republican insurgence. Not because letting Lieberman stay will result in Republican re-elections but because the spinelessness of letting him stay will also result in Republicans getting the upper hand.
Democrats = Simpering cowards
Republicans = Corrupt hypocrites.
Who do you support?
fledermaus
I just hope Leiberman makes life a nightmare for Obama and the dems as chairman. With hearing after hearing on how we’re losing the central front in Iraq and surrendering to the terrorists and St. Petreaus saying how much better the war was run under Bush and neocon after neocon talking about ZMOG we gotta bomb Iran right now!!!!!!
It would serve them right
TheHatOnMyCat
Who knows? But he is going to vote whether we have him in our caucus or not. Better to have him at least huddling with our team than to huddle with their team.
The Senate is a zero-sum game. Take all the players you can get. That would be my strategy. Two years from now, the whole thing can be refactored. It’s going to be a tumultuous two years. This story is boring.
The Other Steve
This is a very Mavricky move on the part of Harry Reid.
Ash Can
While I too believe that justice was not really served by giving Lieberman a pass, I’m not convinced that this was simply a case of spinelessness on the part of the Senate Dems. Thinking back to my days of studying the ins and outs of federal politics in DC ("Byzantine" only begins to describe that mess), I recall that interpersonal relationships are essential in the functioning of representative government. Favors rendered and owed can make for significant leverage. In this case, a few months down the road, when it’s first-100-days time and the Obama Administration is establishing itself and looking to get things accomplished — which will involve in no small way getting legislation passed — the Dems in the Senate (and in the White House, if Obama has in fact been on the lay-off-Joe side, and I wouldn’t doubt that he has) will be able to say to Lieberman, "Ooh, Joe, remember how nice we were to you? You’re still our buddy, right? Makes you want to vote for our bill, doesn’t it?" And if he doesn’t, then he all but hangs a huge sandwich board on himself with "I’m an ingrateful schmuck" painted on it. And neither side of the aisle likes an ingrate. Moreover, if the Senate Dems treat him nicely (read: more nicely than he deserves), that precludes the Senate Republicans from saying, "Hey, Joe, they don’t want you but we do; we’re your real buddies." On top of that, if it does turn out that he’s the 60th (i.e., filibuster-proof) vote in the Senate, the leverage that the Senate Dems now presumably have over him with this nicey-nice treatment could ensure that something huge — think on the order of the repeal of the Patriot Act, or the passage of universal health care — gets passed, and all the Republican apoplexy in the world can’t stop it.
Now, whether or not any or all of this actually comes to pass is a different story. But I see possibilities.
Svensker
Already happened and didn’t work. Obama supported Joe in his Senate campaign — look how beautifully Joe paid back that "you owe me". And look what a big mean sandwich board the Dems just hung around Joe’s neck.
Maybe Obama has his reasons. I certainly hope so. All I see is no consequences for Joe being a huge schmuck.
TheHatOnMyCat
The really important thing is that in 2009, a schmuck-free caucus is by far the most important thing we will all have to worry about.
We might lose the economy, and end up with bread lines, but at least the caucus will be schmuck-free!
(rolls eyes)
Zifnab
@fledermaus: Cheers to that. May Lieberman bestow four more years of obstructionism, bad press, and backstabbing douchebagger that the Democratic Caucus so richly deserves.
Zifnab
@TheHatOnMyCat:
The last thing you want is Holy Joe Lieberman backstabbing you from across the aisle. Stretching his arm that far would inconvenience him terribly.
Svensker
@TheHatOnMyCat:
You can roll your eyes all you want. What great votes is Joe going to give us? Pray tell?
Rick Taylor
It sure seems like a bad move to me. Libermann campaigned by toning down his rhetoric on Iraq and telling voters they needed to support moderate Democrats if they wanted to win the white house. Then with the election safely over, he did everything he could to elect a Republican President. I hope I’m wrong, but it looks to me Democrats are just begging to be stabbed in the back, again.
Ed in NJ
The most disappointing thing in all this drama is that despite knowing that Reid and his merry band of appeasers weren’t going to do anything, bloggers all over the left made this such a high profile issue that Lieberman is now even more empowered.
I’m so tired of all the attention being paid to someone who is worthless. He should be ignored, yet here we are all writing about him.
Punchy
Not very environmentally conscious of you…
Objective Scrutator
Obama did the wrong thing in turning the matter over to Reid. He should have taken care of matters himself. Biden’s refusal to act on Liebermann was even worse, since that particularly mocks the unitary executive theory that has been so effective in running our country these past few years.
Fortunately, I must commend Senator Reid for not stripping Joe Liebermann of his chairmanship. If Liebermann were to lose it, the MSM would have made a mockery of him, and, more importantly, the last strident voice in the War on Terror will have left us. I think that Michelle Malkin may have helped change his mind.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
One of the things that seems to me to be missing from this analysis is that as far as his actual voting record in the Senate is concerned Lieberman has been a sort of schizo half-GOP, half-Democrat Senator, voting with one side or the other on different issues. He votes red on security and foreign policy issues, and blue on most domestic issues.
If Obama wants to focus on domestic issues and keep foreign policy on the back burner, it makes sense to get Lieberman on board. If it is the other way around then not so much. So if Obama weighed in on this decision to help Joe keep his perks, that is a tipoff as to where the priorities of the O-administration are going to be. For example an economic stimulus package appears to be the top priority right now, and we may have a SCOTUS nomination to get through the Senate sooner rather than later.
Also, if the recently negotiated Iraq SOFA goes through between now and Jan 1 then much of what Lieberman wants with regard to our Iraq war policy will have already been taken off the board, and by the Bush administration at that. Take away Iraq as an issue and much of the sturm-und-drang about Lieberman’s "treason" towards the Democrats is no longer relevant, at least not for the next several months.
If Obama can get his short list of domestic priorities taken care of in the next 6 months, his popularity will be high enough to withstand whatever petty sniping Joe can dish up from the Senate regardless. On the other hand if his first 6 months are a bust, Joe Lieberman will be the least of Obama’s problems.
So it looks to me like "keeping Joe" = "It’s the economy, stupid 2.0"
Balconesfault
Let’s see … in the coming years, how does Lieberman guarantee he gets the maximum amount of time in front of a microphone?
a) supporting President Obama’s agenda.
b) opposing President Obama’s agenda.
Answer that question, and you’ve already figured out how Joe will act. It’s like asking what side of a decision would George Bush come down on … which side would make the most money for rich people?
Tony J
Snark on –
Surely this is a non-issue. Why on earth would anyone cognizant of his record and character presume that Joe Lieberman, that most loyal and trustworthy of souls, would ever consider using the shiny and untouched powers of his Homeland Security Commitee to fuck with the Presidency of a man he campaigned against?
Why, that’s like saying that Senate Democrats knowingly chose, by a large majority, to de-facto grant an important Senate oversight commitee to the GOP just because Joe Lieberman has used his role as Chaiman of that commitee in the past to shield a GOP Administration from investigation, and supported the GOP in the recent election. Which is ludicrous, isn’t it? Why would they do something like that when all they had to do was vote in secret to remove him and appoint a Democrat to the post?
Snark off –
Shorter – WTF?
TheHatOnMyCat
This is truly a great country.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
Apparently fixing the country takes a back seat to schadenfreude and fixing Holy Joe.
Xanthippas
I wouldn’t give lefty blogs that much credit. They couldn’t take him down, but neither are they building him up with their opposition. Getting your face in the news for being a putz does not necessarily mean you have more power.
Is it possible that Senate Dems just don’t really think anything Lieberman did is all that bad. That maybe they just don’t give a shit?
kwAwk
I’m not sure what the calculus was for keeping Lieberman in the caucus. Lieberman will be 70 years old by the time his Senate Seat comes up again in 2012, and most likely a candidate for retirement, and leaving him in the caucus means putting up with him for all 4 years of the Obama administration.
What I wish is if just 1 Senator who voted against leaving Lieberman with his chairmanship would have the balls to say that they were leaving the Democratic caucus as a protest. Dems keep 1 seat by keeping Lieberman and lose one seat for one real Dem leaving the caucus because of it.
Wishful thinking I know.
Xanthippas
Oh, don’t do feel that way. Now that Obama is elected, we hardly have to look to Senate Dems to defend our interests in D.C. Thanks to Obama House and Senate Dems are now less relevant, and that’s a good thing.
liberal
@Balconesfault:
Exactly right: do it now, ‘cuz doing it later is going to seem crooked.
Why the f*cking guys in the Senate are too dim to understand this is beyond me.
Abe Fucking Lincoln
What a bunch of fucking pussies! Change my tampon!
liberal
@Svensker:
I agree, but it works the other way, too: Would Lieberman suddenly go all flippety-floppety on past issues he’s been "blue" on, just because the Dems crapped on him? I seriously doubt it.
I see this move as all downside and no upside. What a bunch of pussies.
I think the right thing to do at this point is email the Senate campaign committee and say while we might support individual Senators with $$, we can’t stomach supporting the generic Democratic Senate.
liberal
BTW, is there a breakdown in the vote? Or was it a secret ballot?
kwAwk
Kos should have his readers do the same thing they did a while back when some anonymous Senator had a hold on one of the bills. Have his readers start calling every Senator’s office to ask them how they voted on the issue and ran a running tally.
Lets see who the 13 Senators were who had a spine and who the 42 were who didn’t have a spine.
Seriously though talk about a way of demotivating the base right after a big win. I have to wonder if the Senate Dems and the Obama folks have thought about that and aren’t already showing signs of being a little to big for their britches.
I mean it isn’t just about him endorsing McCain as people make it out to be, it is about Lieberman feeling free to insult just about everybody on the left for the past 3 years without any regard for the consequences. It is almost as if the majority of the Senate caucus shares Liberman’s disdain for the base of the party but only Lieberman has the guts to come out and say it.
Just Some Fuckhead
Fixed.
kwAwk
and BTW…. remeber a few months ago when you guys were calling me a moron, a right wing shill and a bunch of other nasty things for saying that Obama has an appeasment streak in him and didn’t really have much fight in him.
Ha ha!
LanceThruster
This is the sort of abuse and humiliation that I like in my porn but NOT in my government.
Comrade Peter J
A chairmanship can’t be removed from a Senator after it has been given unless 60 senators vote to remove it.
So, Lieberman would be able to keep it even if he later would join the GOP caucus. The democrats would be unable to remove it, and the republicans could use it to wreck havoc on the Obama administration.
Fuck those spinless democrats.
Comrade Stuck
@kwAwk:
Yes Kwak, I remember, and your still a moron if your comparing a droopy face dem Senator saying dumb things about Obama to say Iran or AQ, which I believe was the topic at hand back then.
And Obama, for his purposes at least, rightly sees Lieberman as only another vote in the Senate, more likely to vote yea on Obama’s initiatives, now that he owes Obama. It’s called being smart, although it gives me a personal case of heartburn.
kwAwk
@ Comrade Stuck
You should take some memory enhancement pills or something. Actually the topic of conversation on my end was that Obama’s healthcare plan having no mandates was an appeasment in advance of the Right Wing with the hopes that it would make his healthcare plan more palitable to them without a fight.
Sounds just like what you are talking about with Lieberman. If I pre-emptively surrender to him, it will hopefully make my time in office go easier because I’ll have Smoken’ Joe Lieberman on my side. :)
Comrade Stuck
Well, I’m not going to spend my time rummaging through the archives, to reread your nonsense from then, especially since this part of my comment was not the main point. And to pre-emptively surrender to someone, they first have to be a threat, and Lieberman and pal Mccain got their ass whooped if you remember. Lieberman is already defeated, he is a party traitor attack dog now muzzled and on a leash. Obama can take him for a walk now, pretty much anytime he wants. Lieberman comes up for reelection soon and he knows if he doesn’t act like a dem the next two years, he has no chance to win.
kwAwk
You need a math lesson too. Lieberman isn’t up for re-election until 2012. Senate terms are 6 years long, remember?
If Lieberman is so muzzled then it would have made sense to have made the base happy and gotten rid of Lieberman. Obviously Obama felt some kind of threat from Lieberman or he wouldn’t have been so keen on keeping him in the caucus.
TenguPhule
This is going to come back to bite the Democrats.
Lieberman is not another vote they can count on.
When the chips are down, look for him to be the shoe in the gears.
Comrade Stuck
@kwAwk:
His campaign will start in two years and by then it would be to late to start acting like a loyal democrat.
Lieberman is a sitting US Senator and the only threat he poses to Obama is his single vote. If he stays in the dem caucus, most of those votes will be to Obama’s favor, By making me and other base dems happy by booting Joe from his HS committee, that vote would be in doubt if Joe switched parties, or even if he didn’t, not to mention giving repubs the majority for the rest of Bush’s term. Obama is showing what he’s about, cold, pragmatic shrewdness toward achieving what matters, winning his legislative initiatives. No drama, no sentiment, no personal. Nothing more or less.
liberal
@Comrade Stuck:
But as committee chair he has power of subpoena. I suppose that he alone doesn’t have that power, but I’m sure all the Rethuglicans on the committee will vote with him if he decides to go on a witchhunt.
liberal
@liberal:
But it’s not smart.
One reason we humans evolved to despise traitors is that they can’t be trusted.
Joe Lieberman is a traitor, ergo, he can’t be trusted.
Yes, in the short run, taking Lieberman’s chairmanship away would have caused some drama. But trying to take it away after he starts on some kind of witchhunt in his position as committee chair is going to be one hundred times as much drama.
Comrade Stuck
@liberal:
I do not like the idea of Joe being a committee chairman of any committee, as it does pose some risk of modest mischief. But for the reasons I stated, I think that risk is small. But I agree that he does retain the capability at least, of more backstabbing.
Comrade Stuck
@liberal:
Whatever dude.
So far, Obama has shown himself to be smarter than you or me. You can second guess that if you want, not me. At least for now.
slammin' sammy
this is a perfect example of why I no longer call myself a Democrat.
Comrade Stuck
Well, whoever is chairman of that committee, I would hope they perform rigorous oversight because that is what we elected them to do. We’ve been rightly catterwalling at the GOP for not doing oversight on Bush, and that should also apply to a dem admin IMO. As for witchhunts, sounds like your breathing the same air as that big fuzzy brained BTD. Not going to happen.
Zifnab
@Comrade Peter J:
He doesn’t even have to join the opposition caucus. He just has to not vote with the Democrats. Period. It’s that easy.
I can give you one and only one reason why Lieberman might be sparred the wrath of his constituency. He voted for Harry Reid as Majority Leader in 2006.
Here he was a critical swing vote. I don’t know how much control of the Senate for the last two years was worth, but it was preferable to lack of control. Without Lieberman’s key organizing vote, Democrats would have had zero committee chairmanships and it would have been House versus Senate with more than a few conservative Democrats (Nelson, Feinstien, Laundrie leap to mind) willing to break ranks.
So, for that at least, I can see giving him some slack. Still, it would be nice if the Senate leadership came out and said, "We are cutting Lieberman slack because he gave us a critical vote. We aren’t just pussies." That would – at least – make me feel better.
atari age
Why the FUCK aren’t you as pissed about this as you are at the mere possibility of a C****on in the cabinet???
Exactly what are the priorities here? A complete traitor to the Democrats (and to most American values) vs someone who gave you the heebies when you were a Republican.
It’s Lieberman that’s the "Wait and see" one???
Seriously.
What the hell?
Matt
Downtown was beautiful tonight. Lots of cute couple walking around. They have even put up the Christmas lights already.
Comrade Jake
I really hated Lieberman’s guts during the election, but this doesn’t piss me off. If Obama wanted him to keep his chairmanship, that’s enough for me. I trust that Joe will be a good boy from now on, and that Obama has bigger fish he wants to fry.
Yes, HRC would’ve had his nuts roasted over the fire. And we would’ve been hearing from Independent Joe Lieberman on the Sunday news shows for the next four years. No thanks. I’ve had enough of that sort of bullshit.
jcricket
Look – I hate holy joe and the sanctimonies (his backing singers) as much as anyone. I think they should have stripped him of his chairmanship. That said, there’s going to be little negative consequence here to the Dems.
Joe votes 90% of the time (and on some important stuff) with the Dems, even in the past couple of years. He’s not gonna get in the way when healthcare and other stuff comes up, and he’s not magically empowered now any more than he was.
Obama’s just saying, "this will be treated as a non-issue" and my bet is Joe plays nice because he likes the spotlight which being on the winning team will give him. Obama will destroy Joe the minute Joe becomes a Republican caucus member.
Either that or he’ll leave the caucus out of spite at some point and be a pariah across the Senate.
I’m not worried.
TheHatOnMyCat
Good lord, the stupid.
First, as has already been stated, Lieberman is in the Senate, and votes, no matter what the Dem caucus decides.
Second, the Senate is a club of people who are playing a baroque game with each other according to their own rules. He cannot pledge a vote and then reneg. Without credibility in the day to day operation of the club, he has no standing with anyone and can’t do anything but show up and vote as an independent. If that’s what he wanted to do, he could do so. Clearly that is not what he wants to do, and clearly the club wants him to play their game with him. All the real power in the Senate is in interaction with one’s caucus.
He plays with them at their pleasure. On the day that he breaks their rules, they can throw him out of the caucus.
Meanwhile, the alternative is to have him be a de facto Republican. That serves no purpose whatever, does it?
Arrghh.
TheWesson
> Meanwhile, the alternative is to have him be a de facto Republican. That serves no purpose whatever, does it?
That serves "pour encourager les autres."
‘In england, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others’ – Voltaire
Strip him of his privileges to make an example, to demonstrate that Democrats will not be messed with and that any D’s thinking about disloyalty will know there are some consequences.
He can then leave the caucus if he so desires.
However, as other commenters have pointed out, there is definitely something byzantine going on in (a) the Senate Democratic caucus and (b) Obama’s brain.
So whatever. I can’t imagine that being publically spineless and unconcerned with loyalty is a good thing in general, in the long run, though.
Marshall
What a load of steaming donkey dung.
I predict that Mr. Lieberman will use his subpoena power to embarrass our new President, and will claim, when he is eventually stripped of his chairmanship, that it is part of a cover-up.
atari age
@TheHatOnMyCat:
Perhaps they can throw him out of the caucus, but they can’t throw him out of his chairmanship, which is the problem everyone’s mad about – if you hadn’t realized it.
The vote to remove can be filibustered. Even if he becomes the magic #60, you think he’ll break the filibuster of his own removal?
No. He and 40 Republicans will keep him in the chairmanship to the detriment of all Dems and, most likely, the President.
That’s the concern.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Just in to say– the laughing cat in the top photo is my particular friend, Fritz "Zeke" Katt. He is simply the one coolest cat in the world.
Sorry, Tunch.
mclaren
Pragmatic adults are in charge. If (and it doesn’t seem like a big if) the other 2 senatorial elections still being recounted and contested swing toward the Demos, that will give the Democrats 60 votes. That’s enough to vote cloture on Repub filibusters and push through a progressive agenda — provided they don’t get any defections.
That means they need Lieberman. Pragmatic adults make the calculation that getting Lieberman on board to shut down Republican filibusters is worth forgoing pointless revenge.
This is the kind of pragmatic grown-up thinking that has been completely absent from the Republican-dominated congress over the last 8 years. Indeed, for the last 14 years, since that swirling vortex of what-the-fuckery named Newt Gingrich slithered into power and then got puked back out like a bad burrito.
PattyK
The pass that the Dems gave Lieberman was actually a hilarious put-down. It said in effect that he was counter-effective, an absolute joke of a turncoat. Just what the electorate wanted: another angry little old man to go alongside McCain. I wonder how many voters Lieberman turned Obama’s way. Had he been an effective campaigner for McCain his fate in the caucus would have been different but as it is the Dems owe him for a job well done!
kwAwk
atari age – I think that the charimanships can be changed at the beginning of a new congress without a 60 vote total. If I am right then once the charimanship is given to Lieberman for this Congress then it can’t be taken away from him until the next Congress convenes witout a vote of 60.
Marshall
As I read this, Appointments, being a resolution, are subject to debate and cloture. However, if the initial resolution is filibustered, there will be no Committees, and I can’t imagine that that would stand. On the other hand, a resolution to appoint a new Chair during the term would not be so disruptive, and so might be successfully filibustered.