Tuesday, November 18, 2008
2008 Lieberman Keeps His Chairmanship
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Let the blog fury begin:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.
Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel. He loses an Environment and Public Works panel subcommittee chairmanship, however.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."
Share via
1
Well, you've got to imagine that Obama's now got Lieberman's balls in a jar and can ask for damned near anything now...
2
Lieberman is a creeping poison in the Democratic Party, and he needs to go.
I agree with the need to look forward. I just think they should be looking forward without him.
I agree with the need to look forward. I just think they should be looking forward without him.
3
Well, at least we aren't waiting until January 20th to start rolling over and being pussies. Why put off 'til tomorrow what you can do today, right?
4
Without the filibuster proof majority they need all the dems they can get, even if it means a dem that disagrees with the party line on national security issues. Punishing Lieberman at this point would just push him into the arms of the Republicans.
5
Lieberman owes this to Obama, and he'll be voted out of office when he comes up for reelection. Connecticut does not like Lieberman much these days. Win/win.
6
@1. Knowing Rahm Emanuel, that might literally be true.
I'm sure the Dems at this point just can't kick him to the curb. They are just too close to 60 – if they had been solidly over or solidly under, maybe things would be different. They have 55 seats, plus Jeffords the Independent, plus in all probability Begich in Alaska. So, that’s 57 without Lieberman. Plus maybe either Minnesota or Georgia (too much to hope for for them both) and Collins & Snowe of Maine who could be potential swing voters. I just think there's too much of a possibility of the Dems needing him in critical votes...
I'm sure the Dems at this point just can't kick him to the curb. They are just too close to 60 – if they had been solidly over or solidly under, maybe things would be different. They have 55 seats, plus Jeffords the Independent, plus in all probability Begich in Alaska. So, that’s 57 without Lieberman. Plus maybe either Minnesota or Georgia (too much to hope for for them both) and Collins & Snowe of Maine who could be potential swing voters. I just think there's too much of a possibility of the Dems needing him in critical votes...
7
I'm sure they'll keep him on an awfully short leash.
Any guesses on what political party he'll decide to be in next? (my money's on the whigs)
Any guesses on what political party he'll decide to be in next? (my money's on the whigs)
8
I agree with Zephsright...and I had to overcome my own feelings to get here. We just won a great victory; Lieberman is likely plenty chastised that his own man and positions were roundly defeated in the election. He'll want to be on the winning team, part of a winning strategy. He'll want to come home, and insofar as he does, we want to welcome him and any others with wide open arms.
9
@4 - No, see, the lack of the filibuster is exactly why they DON'T need this stupid fucking Brutus-wannabe now.
Lieberman would have been crucial to getting the Democrats to a 60-plus majority. Now that they're unlikely to get it (so far), they don't fucking need him. He can go be a Republican and sit with a majority that is now lost in the desert for at least the next eight years.
They don't have the full votes, therefore they don't need him to filibuster, but they still have their majority.
Lieberman would have been crucial to getting the Democrats to a 60-plus majority. Now that they're unlikely to get it (so far), they don't fucking need him. He can go be a Republican and sit with a majority that is now lost in the desert for at least the next eight years.
They don't have the full votes, therefore they don't need him to filibuster, but they still have their majority.
12
@6. Small nit to pick: it's Sanders (I-VT), not Jeffords. Jeffords left the Republican party in '01 to caucus with the Democrats. He retired in '06 and Bernie Sanders, a self-identified socialist, ran for and won his seat.
13
Lieberman in charge of the Homeland Security. Clinton as SoS. I'm not worried about Clinton 3, I'm worried about Bush 3 at least on foreign policy. Is she going to obliterate Iran for us?
15
I can't believe the Democratic caucus are such pussies.
Lieberman has been shitting in their sandbox for a year. Not only actively campaigning for McLame and speaking at the Republican convention, but he actively campaigned for the Republican senate candidate in Minnesota too. If we loose Minnesota in the recount, you can party blame Lieberman for that.
Even if you set aside all that trivial campaigning for Republicans nonsense, he does a shitty job on his committee. Among other things, Lieberman's committee is supposedly responsible for senate oversight. We hear about hearings by Henry Waxman's House oversight committee all the time, but Lieberman hasn't held a single oversight hearing in the senate. I guess there is nothing that requires any oversight in Lieberman's mind.
Lieberman is NOT been a good democrat in everything but defense. And it isn't as if his disagreements on defense issues are trivial. He is on the wrong side of most democrats and most americans on an important core issue. They should have allowed him to stay in the caucus if he wants to, but they should have stripped him of his committee chairmanships. All of them. Keeping him on as the chair of Homeland Security was a huge mistake.
Lieberman has been shitting in their sandbox for a year. Not only actively campaigning for McLame and speaking at the Republican convention, but he actively campaigned for the Republican senate candidate in Minnesota too. If we loose Minnesota in the recount, you can party blame Lieberman for that.
Even if you set aside all that trivial campaigning for Republicans nonsense, he does a shitty job on his committee. Among other things, Lieberman's committee is supposedly responsible for senate oversight. We hear about hearings by Henry Waxman's House oversight committee all the time, but Lieberman hasn't held a single oversight hearing in the senate. I guess there is nothing that requires any oversight in Lieberman's mind.
Lieberman is NOT been a good democrat in everything but defense. And it isn't as if his disagreements on defense issues are trivial. He is on the wrong side of most democrats and most americans on an important core issue. They should have allowed him to stay in the caucus if he wants to, but they should have stripped him of his committee chairmanships. All of them. Keeping him on as the chair of Homeland Security was a huge mistake.
16
@13 wins, though he left Emanuel out of the roundup -- what a disappointment so far; so much for "change" in Washington. Dems, don't be shocked when all the kids who showed up at the ballot box disappear in 2006.
17
Well, great. Now we can get right on with doing fuck-all in the House and Senate, just like the last two years.
18
Quote from Harry Reid this morning ""Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and a member of this caucus."
Reid knows Leiberman isn't a Democrat and chose not to be a Democrat. So this is a piece of lying spin. More things change...
Sometimes one has to act on principle. This makes me doubt the core values of the higher ups in the Democratic party, Obama in particular. We'll see if they do more in the next year than give handouts to Wall Street... I hope my fears are wildly unjustified.
Reid knows Leiberman isn't a Democrat and chose not to be a Democrat. So this is a piece of lying spin. More things change...
Sometimes one has to act on principle. This makes me doubt the core values of the higher ups in the Democratic party, Obama in particular. We'll see if they do more in the next year than give handouts to Wall Street... I hope my fears are wildly unjustified.
19
Keep the powder dry for future battles. There are so many more important things to get done than to punish this little, little man. Who gives a flying fuck about Lieberman. He's toast. He'll hang himself within a year.
20
Last August, I killed my next-door-neighbor because his dog kept crapping in my yard. I mean, I THINK it was his dog. He had a dog and there was crap in my yard sometimes, so I killed him, and his relatives took the dog away before the funeral. Nobody knows for SURE it was me that killed him, even though several of my neighbors saw me do it. They have kept quiet and supported ME, not the guy I killed who was as much their neighbor as I was, or any of his grieving relatives, who don't even count. There is still dog crap in my yard on many a morning, so it must have been somebody else's dog doing it, and the next time I see any of my neighbors get a dog, I'm offing them, to get rid of the dog. They will probably not get dogs, though. They all know it was me, and that there's no telling what I might do next, but as long as they remain aware of the threat I pose should I become displeased, and they refrain from getting dogs, in order to try and keep my somewhat in line, I won't hurt them and they are willing to let bygones be bygones as regards the neighbor I killed. It's history, after all, and we are all a pretty close-knit club, my neighbors and I. Have been for decades. Will continue to be close-knit and friendly. As long as they stay in line and don't get dogs.
Smugly,
2005 Lieberman Award Winner (Anonymous)
Smugly,
2005 Lieberman Award Winner (Anonymous)
21
Correct me if I'm wrong but they can strip him of that any time they want, can't they? So if he does turn again they can boot him?
22
@18,
Obama in particular? He made transcending partisan politics a central feature of his campaign. He's simply following through on what he promised.
Obama in particular? He made transcending partisan politics a central feature of his campaign. He's simply following through on what he promised.
23
Remember when Michael Corleone told his brother-in-law Carlo Rizzi that he wasn't going to kill him for serving up Sonny to the Barzinis? But whose feet wound up going through the windshield a couple of minutes later? I have a feeling we haven't yet seen the full wrath of Obama where Lieberman is concerned.
24
Reverse Polarity:
I bet Leiberman will now fire up the committee and start doing investigations of the Obama admin and generally be a thorn in Obama's side.
And I wouldn't count on Lieberman's help in breaking any filibuster.
I wonder how our two Senators voted...?
I bet Leiberman will now fire up the committee and start doing investigations of the Obama admin and generally be a thorn in Obama's side.
And I wouldn't count on Lieberman's help in breaking any filibuster.
I wonder how our two Senators voted...?
26
@22 the Leiberman problem is not a partisan problem per se. Obama isn't going to offer a job to any of the Republicans Leiberman supported and campaigned for either, like John McCain or Norm Coleman in Minnesota. We'll see...
28
@21, 25. Committee Chairs have enourmous investigatory powers. (you wouldn't know it from the lat 2 years especially). The problem of stripping Leiberman of his Chairmanship later is that it would likely come up in the context of him running some sort of hearings investigating the Obama administration (what he should of done with Bush!). It will be politically nightmarish for the Democratic caucus to strip him of his chairmanship when he is in the middle accusing the adminstration of incompetence or malfeasence.
29
cracked@28 is right. After letting Bush and cronies skate the last two years, Lieberman going nit-pick Obama over some $10K misappropriation. This is a nightmare. About the 60, who cares? some of the 5 most conservative Democrats are vote with the Repugs every time anyways. What issue is actually going to hold all 60?
30
"Correct me if I'm wrong but they can strip him of that any time they want, can't they? So if he does turn again they can boot him?"
Evan Bayh (my number one favorite Democrat back when I used to be a gun-crazy home-schooling pious little repug, I swear to you!) says they CAN. But is that tue? I mean, a U.S. senator said it, so it's probably Kool Aid, but if they CAN, how would that look? Lieberman starts to investigate President Obama, subpeonas his stuff, and the senate majority takes away his gavel? HAHAHAH!
Isn't going to happen. But I've got so I don't care what Lieberman does to the Democrats. I was a Democrat yesterday. I think that may be...history now.
Evan Bayh (my number one favorite Democrat back when I used to be a gun-crazy home-schooling pious little repug, I swear to you!) says they CAN. But is that tue? I mean, a U.S. senator said it, so it's probably Kool Aid, but if they CAN, how would that look? Lieberman starts to investigate President Obama, subpeonas his stuff, and the senate majority takes away his gavel? HAHAHAH!
Isn't going to happen. But I've got so I don't care what Lieberman does to the Democrats. I was a Democrat yesterday. I think that may be...history now.
32
That SECRET VOTE was a cute touch, wasn't it?
My senator is Mark Pryor (AR). He habitually votes like a Blue Dog, so I'm certain he wasn't one of the 13 who voted to serve Lieberman his dessert, even though we called his office beforehand. Mark Pryor runs unopposed in every election. His father before him did the same. He can do whatever he pleases, for as long as it pleases him.
They all can! Yesterday's poll of Connecticut voters who say they will not vote for him is under 50%! He will be re-elected in 2010. You watch.
What the dems did to Ned Lamont in 2006 was sickening. Why expect any better from these people now?
My senator is Mark Pryor (AR). He habitually votes like a Blue Dog, so I'm certain he wasn't one of the 13 who voted to serve Lieberman his dessert, even though we called his office beforehand. Mark Pryor runs unopposed in every election. His father before him did the same. He can do whatever he pleases, for as long as it pleases him.
They all can! Yesterday's poll of Connecticut voters who say they will not vote for him is under 50%! He will be re-elected in 2010. You watch.
What the dems did to Ned Lamont in 2006 was sickening. Why expect any better from these people now?
33
Why give him to the Republicans? The big picture folks, the big picture! You don't have agree with him or even like him, but you can use him to further your goals. The big picture.
35
Vince, you must not be paying attention ... they have a majority WITHOUT him. They don't need him. At all.
36
It would send a terrible message about bi-partisanship is the Democrats punished a centrist independent who caucuses with them for supporting the Republican candidate.
37
Progressives had to poke their eyes out to get behind Obama, and poke their ears out too (since he was fairly well shouting his agenda at them).
Still, some of the rationalizations in this Kellerized comment thread are hilarious.
Still, some of the rationalizations in this Kellerized comment thread are hilarious.
38
I live in the former Clinton country, the Ozark mountain range, part of the scalding-red Appalachian/Ozark swath, and am in physical danger for my open support of Obama, my anti-Bush stance for the last 3 years (mostly just bumper stickers, but still!). I'm in danger from infuriated, violence-prone men all around me who believe Lieberman's lies, that Obama the Marxist voted against funding our troops on the battlefield. The "Proud Parent of a Soldier" sticker on my side window is without significance to these people. They don't support the troops, or troop families, in any way whatsoever, they only support the physical flag itself, and the "right" slogans and ribbon magnets. My ribbon mag says BRING THEM HOME. That makes me an America-hating socialist around here. Lieberman joined Sarah Palin in placing me in jeopardy that did not end November 5, indeed, it got worse and continues to grow. I have to go right on living with what Lieberman and Palin did to me. Unlike Lieberman himself, who gets to put it all behind him and stay on as a officer in his Club, and Palin, who's got a 7-figure book deal. Life is not fair. Well, I never believed it was, not REALLY.
39
"He's up for election in 2012, not 2010, Carly."
Thank you! I want to be armed with this correction the next time I see "He'll be kicked out in 2010, don't worry!" at a progressive blog.
I would say DAMN IT re. that extra 2 years, but it doesn't matter, since the Connecticut-ites who've stated they will not vote for him are under 50%.
Thank you! I want to be armed with this correction the next time I see "He'll be kicked out in 2010, don't worry!" at a progressive blog.
I would say DAMN IT re. that extra 2 years, but it doesn't matter, since the Connecticut-ites who've stated they will not vote for him are under 50%.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Breaking: Police Officers Have Shut Off Several Blocks of Leary Way Between Ballard and Fremont by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS