Lieberman says he’ll bolt if he loses his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. I say let him go — we don’t need him.
Lieberman is still bargaining with Democratic leaders to keep his chairmanship, according to Senate aides in both parties.
“Sen. Lieberman’s preference is to stay in the caucus, but he’s going to keep all his options open,” a Lieberman aide said. “McConnell has reached out to him, and at this stage, his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable.”
Reid’s position should be that Lieberman’s keeping the chairmanship is “unacceptable.” He actively campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, for God’s sake. We are not going to get to 60 Democratic votes even if Lieberman stays in the caucus. But even if we did, so what? Having 60 “Democrats” is no guarantee that all 60 will vote for cloture when it’s necessary. Indeed, you can be damn sure that Lieberman in particular will vote against when it suits him (he’s done so many times in the past). There is no magic number of Dems in the caucus that matters, other than 51 (so that we elect the majority leader), and we’ve got that without Lieberman.
He lost the Democratic Primary of his state.
<
p>He continued to run anyway, as an independent.
<
p>He won because of the Republicans in his state.
<
p>And he very enthusiastically backed Senator McSame for President, all the while insulting our Democratic standard bearer.
<
p>Heck, he spoke at the Republican convention!
<
p>If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck… it’s probably a duck.
<
p>If he wants to stay in the caucus, whatever, but under no circumstance should he get that chairmanship over Kerry or Feingold (should Kerry go to Obama’s administration, where I think he’ll do very well).
Rye,
I thought we were starting out anew. He is just a conservative democrat, not a republican. (like me)
on which he votes with Democrats.
<
p>I believe he is pro-choice. There’s one.
s-chip, minimum wage. that makes 3.
Support abortion rights and voted to repeal Bush restrictions on stem-cell research. That’s 5.
I already said abortion rights.
<
p>And what did he exactly do to push any of these through in the last 8 years?
<
p>And again, my point stands. So what, he’s good on 5 issues. And bad on 20 more very essential ones at the core of the Democratic platform. And terrible, terrible on the war.
<
p>Buh-bye, Joe!
Voted no on DOMA.
<
p>Received an “F” from NRA with respect to his record on gun control.
<
p>Opposed the Bush privatize Social Security plan
<
p>Opposed the flag burning/desegration amendment in 2006
<
p>Opposed drilling in Arctic Reserve and so voted in 2003.
I don’t see anyone asking Reid to make him a chair!
<
p>Joe chose his bed. Now he has to lie in it.
Lieberman voted YES on DOMA.
HRC has rated Lieberman at least in the 80s and a few times gave him the full 100% score.
Abortion Rights – check
Animal Rights – check
Civil Rights/Liberties – seems to depend on the year
Conservative – NO
Education – check
Environment – check
Familes and Children – check
Gun Control – check
Immigration – check
Labor – check
Women’s Issues – check
<
p>There are other categories I did not include because they were not as easy to interpret quickly. I used Project Vote Smart as my source.
<
p>I say let’s find him a different chairmanship where the committee has jurisdiction over matters of greater agreement between Lieberman and the Democrats. I’m also quite dismayed by calling for partisan purity. One of the reasons I chose the Democratic Party over the GOP for myself is that I found them more tolerant of dissent. Let the Republicans be the narrow purists; I’d rather both win and effectively govern, both of which are nearly impossible when we insist on ideological purity.
he gets NO chairmanship. He’s lucky we don’t universally tar and feather him.
<
p>Why in the world should a set of rules exist for everyone and a separate set of rules exist for Joe Lieberman? He decided to be a defacto Republican, he doesn’t get to have the same privileges as the party that the American people now put in power. He won’t even be reelected to his state in 2012 – and he only got elected last time based on a lie (‘no one wants to get out of Iraq more than I do.’)
Meanwhile, let’s be magnanimous winners and not be quite so quick to burn bridges. As long as he himself continues to say that overall he is more comfortable with us than the GOP that’s good enough for me. He could be of use to us down the road as a respected independent. I don’t know what rules you refer to as being different, especially when its the circumstances that seem unique. What has Joe Lieberman ever done to you? Your contempt for him almost seems personal.
That’s the question of the moment.
… committee, preferably something inconsequential that he can’t wield as a weapon to ‘defend’ himself with.
I have said that he should at least chair a committee that has jurisdiction over policies about which he agrees with us.
…below.
Lieberman doesn’t strike me as a vindictive person, however. If your concern is that he would use his chairmanship to harass the Obama administration, that is a concern I do not share. Besides believing that he doesn’t work that away, I would also point out that the Senate as a whole and the majority of the committee itself probably wouldn’t let him.
he’s moderate on climate change, at best. He worked with McCain to undermine real progress on climate change with a half-assed bill.
<
p>Is Lieberman a caveman w.r.t. climate change? Nope. Progressive? Nope.
<
p>
<
p>I disagree with Rye — I don’t think Lieberman is conservative. But, he’s also not a Democrat.
…his ratings are mostly high. For example, most recent League of Conservation voters ranking is 93% and the Sierra Club has given him 100% I didn’t see an organization that specifically ranks on climate change. I don’t know the details of the legislation to which you refer. McCain has a record of reaching across the aisle to get some decent bills drafted and passed. Was there a realistic chance of getting something better at the time? Compromise and incrementalism are NOT dirty words in my book.
but you can’t both call yourself progressive on an issue and put forth the compromise bill initially. If you’ve got to compromise that’s one thing, but if you start in the centrist position — when the liberal party has the majority — you can’t also stake claim to being progressive on the issue IMO.
<
p>Besides — there was also a more aggressive climate change bill which John Kerry had worked on among others. Lieberman could have pushed on that one if he was interested in being progressive.
You can lose your seat on a Democratic Town Committee or be thrown out of a convention for supporting a Republican in any way (lawn sign, endorsement, etc). That’s according to pretty typical (for both sides) party rules.
<
p>LIEberman actively campaigned for A REPUBLICAN.
<
p>Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, Joe. On second thought…scratch that, I’d love to see you sprawled out on the floor.
Do the Republicans hace similar rules? I know of a situation in which a member of an RTC campaigned for a Dem, who had a Republican opponent. I know that the Dem party rules essentially preclude public support of an opponent of the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Article II, Section 2 of the Mass. GOP bylaws:
<
p>”No Regular Member of the State Committee, nor a Regular or Associate member of a ward or town committee, shall in any way serve the interests of any political party or sponsor or endorse any candidate of a political party other than the Republican Party in connection with any partisan election or primary in which there is a Republican candidate. Failure of a Regular Member of the State Committee or of a Regular or Associate member ward or town committee to comply with the foregoing standard shall subject such person to such sanctions as may be imposed by the Committee involved, which may include a request for the resignation of that Regular or Associate Member or a vote of censure.”
<
p>What I don’t see here is enforced removal.
the Democrats of his state chose Ned Lamont. He decided that he was more important than the Democrats of his state. He’s a Republican.
<
p>I’m not saying we should never work with him ever again, but chairmanships are given to the party in charge of Government. No one would ask Reid to name Specter a chair because he’s a liberal Republican. Neither should we give Lieberman one for being a liberal Republican. He chose his bed when he was democratically and fairly ousted by the Democrats of his state. He chose the sheets on his bed when he campaigned for the Republican presidential candidate and bashed our standard bearer. Now he must lie in that bed.
<
p>This is basic accountability.
…Specter chairing an appropriate committee, IF the Dem. conference thinks he’s best for the job. Have we already forgotten the message of our presidential nominee, now President-elect, that governing isn’t about being Democrats and Republicans, but Americans? If we’re really lucky, maybe dangling a chairmanship in front of Specter (or either Maine Senator) could get them to flip completely.
I believe in voting for the candidate, not the party. I could not be a Republican, I believe it is nobody’s business but the mommy and the daddy to have or not have a child. I cannot be a Democrat because I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man amd a woman. But unenrolled has a negative sounding connotation. But I am.
I probably would be too if the only political thing I ever did was vote. However, to be as involved as I want to be pretty much gives me two realistic choices and since I agree with the Democratic positions much more than the Republican ones that is the party I have chosen. For the record you could easily be a pro-choice Republican or a Democrat (like our next President) that reserves marriage for man-woman. In fact you would probably find very few people in either party that agree with each and every detail of their respective party’s platform.
Later hater!
<
p>
<
p>If you include CT and VT, we’re at 57. MN could go our way. GA has a runoff which is pure wildcard due to turnout considerations [will Obama help?]. Alaska elected a senator who will be immediately kicked out of the senate, and they’re still in re-count land.
<
p>60 is an unlikely but possible outcome.
<
p>
<
p>This, however, is spot on. 60 is a magical number per vote, but having 60 Democrats doesn’t necessarily mean getting 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62 votes on any issue.
Wonder if either of them have the stomach for filibuster these days…
She just thrashed a sitting Democratic Congressman during a very Democratic year.
<
p>Snowe, however, I don’t know. George “Up for Re-Election” Voinovich and Judd “I’m Screwed in 2010” Gregg may be more amenable to reason, however.
Part of me wants to watch Lieberman humiliated. Pre-2006, he was the TeeVee’s favorite Democratic talking head. He could be counted on to give his amazing unDemocrat Democrat views. The TeeVee loves that as John McCain discovered during his Maverick Period. After his protestations of his deep Democraticness in the 2006 general election, his behavior in the 2008 is repugnant and has gone so far as giving more help to Republican Senatorial candidates than Democratic ones.
<
p>May many cream pies await him. (Figuratively, of course. I want to keep it non-violent.)
<
p>That said, the items on the Congressional agenda for 2008 are very important and it’s very important to get a lot of legislation passed. If that requires some surrender to the petulant ego of Joe Lieberman, I can accept that. I trust Senator Reid to navigate this. What is very clear to me is that I don’t want to see the Joe and Sue Show armed with subpoena power exercising “oversight” after they failed to exercise oversight the previous six years.
If he wants to stay in the caucus, fine, whatever. But keeping him as chair, especially of Homeland Security (or pretty much any other committee), is more damaging to this country and to the Democrats than losing one number on the mythical filibuster proof 60 member majority… which is probably on its way out the door anyway, after the republicans resort to constant obstructionism.
Due to seniority, Hillary Clinton chairs no Senate committee as JMM points out. I’d say she deserves one much more than Joe Lieberman.
Who thinks we are better served with Lieberman heading a committee over someone like Hillary?
Mitch McConnell?
On the one hand, no one likes a sore winner, and I’m not sure that the Democratic Party needs to be doing the same type of things that caused Jim Jeffords to bolt the Republican party back in 2001. “With malice towards none, with charity for all” and such.
On the other hand, the guy has clearly “gone rogue” and shouldn’t be rewarded with a leadership position within the Democratic Senate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and ideals- but actively advocating against a group with which one purports to identify with, and then expecting to remain in a leadership position in that group is ridiculous.
and disloyalty needs to be not rewarded.
he’s not a democrat. We’re not losing anything if he quasi doubly bolts. What possible damage could he do if he bolts? Campaign for Republicans? He already does that.
<
p>He’ll still vote pretty much the same way – because if he didn’t, he’d have an even harder time winning in 2012… which is quickly seeming like an impossible task.
… with his chairmanship before. The danger is that now his guy lost, he’ll find new uses that overreach.
<
p>
To allow Lieberman to retain an important position after he campaigned for McCain is the kind of thing the wishy washy loser Democrats — the kind who voted, for example, for the Iraq war — might do. To combat that kind of patheticness is one of the reasons this blog — and others — was started. Lieberman can vote with the Democrats if he wants to. (Really, one imagines he would vote on the issues as he thinks best, not as a matter of partisan positioning). But he definitely should lose his chairmanship. I’ll be worried about the Democrats if they let him keep it.
Personally fuck Joe. He was really stupid to endorse McCain and put his chips in with a losing candidacy.
<
p>He has two choices-be a pariah within his own caucus with no power, no influence, no invites to caucus strategy meetings, no chairmanship, no committee assignments, nothing
<
p>OR
<
p>Cross the floor to the weakest Senate Minority in a decade (weaker still if Stevens, Coleman and/or Chambliss lose their recounts and runoffs) and basically be a freshmen Republican Senator at the worst time to be one.
<
p>Nice job Joe your stuck between a rock and a hard place and its all your own fault.
<
p>Well I say the best thing he can do for his legacy, for the great people of Connecticut, and just his own sense of pride and dignity is resign. Oh wait I just remembered that pride and dignity are adjectives we’ve long learned not to associate with Joe looks like Connecticut will keep losing. Sure Lamont would’ve been a weak freshmen and a one term loser-but thats basically what Lieberman is now as well. Nice job Joe just resign so Blumenthal can take your place-or at least a genuine Republican. Im sure Shays and Rell would work with President Obama a lot better than you anyway.
In the last weeks of the campaign I never saw John McCain without seeing Joe Lieberman standing right behind him smiling.
<
p>How humiliating for Al Gore that this man ran with him for Vice President on the Democratic ticket.
<
p>He has done everything possible to disgrace the Democratic Party.
<
p>I’d rather make John McCain a committee chair than Lieberman.
<
p>
Party of one?
<
p>The restaurant call for Joe that we so fondly remember from ’06 will once again be heard throughout the land. The people of Connecticut should be making his life miserable right about now.
<
p>I think we can honestly say that Joementum is simply a force of nature that will ensure Lieberman lands in an appropriate place.