BREAKING: Lieberman to keep Committee Chair [UPDATED x2]

Chitty chitty bang bang ! (0.00 / 0)

What does he have to do to go to far ?Can't they just show him the door .I suppose there must be some reason to put up with him,but it sure is a well kept secret to those unfamiliar with the strange ways Senate Democrats.

---

by: BP @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM CST

Reason? (4.00 / 6)

Spinelessness.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Front Page On Kos (4.00 / 2)

Congrats...  

---

by: AQ @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM CST

Yep (4.00 / 3)

Over 3900 hits at GMD today, 220 in the last hour.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So when's Harry Reid up for re-election? (0.00 / 0)

We need a good Dem from Neveda to run against him. This is bad.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM CST

Indeed. (4.00 / 2)

But he loves us, you know.....

Not.
Fuck him right back.

Attn. Cathy Resmer: My real name is Eddie Garcia, and I live in St. J.

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:05:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Spineless Wonders (4.00 / 2)

Made even worse by the fact that Lieberman is doing a disasterously bad job at chairing the Homeland Security Committee. Heck of a job, Senate Dems.

---

by: Anne @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM CST

Well (0.00 / 0)

Heck, didn't you notice that Americans love tossing their tax dollars around like confetti?  Americans don't want to know where those dollars or going, or if they're going to actually achieve the goal of security! That's why Joe's perfect for the job. He'll do everything he can to make sure that no one ever finds out where those dollars are going.

Oh, and he's such an advocate of open government, he's all for making sure that the republicans know everything that happens in the democratic caucus.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:16:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

JD... (0.00 / 0)

Ben Cardin was elected with the help of the blogs. He even spoke at The Big Tent thanking bloggers for their help. I bet Markos et al are pulling hair out of their heads now.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:06:16 PM CST

Boys' Club (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it's spinelessness as much as the fact that the Senate is the world's most exclusive club. It's kinda like the priesthood, or the Mafia: once you're in, you're in. Y'know, Joe, he's kinda quirky, but he's one of us!

Just check out the average age/tenure on these dodos. Great argument for term limits.  

---

by: jvwalt @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:50:41 PM CST

and so it begins... (4.00 / 1)

Just part of the Obama change, folks. It will drive many partisans crazy but I think it's worth a try given what a collosal clusterfrack we have gotten into with the previous approach. I bet Obama will be able to get more done this way than any lefty progressive ever could.

Plus, it's one more vote on most issues in the senate.

---

by: greenvtster @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:59:17 PM CST

What change? (4.00 / 2)

How is the Democratic caucus rolling over like a trained dog any kind of "change?" Seriously.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:09:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not so much them (0.00 / 0)

but this is part of Obama's plan as signaled by the supporters in the caucus.

Dean explains better here:

Dean Defends Lieberman Decision, Speaks of "Mandate for Reconciliation"

from FiveThirtyEight.com:(Nate Silver)

---

by: greenvtster @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:12:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More Howard-bell... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well," he said. "And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies."

The Democratic Party chair, who will be leaving his post this January, went on to applaud Barack Obama for putting hurt feelings aside and welcoming the Connecticut Independent back into the party fray. He also predicted that the caucus would benefit from keeping Lieberman, who spent the past year campaigning alongside John McCain, often criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party.

"My point of view is that Barack won," Dean said. "He can afford to be magnanimous. And if we happen to win both recounts and Georgia, Joe is the 60th vote. And the truth is -- and I certainly don't have to defend Joe Lieberman because, you know, we have an interesting history -- but the fact is, he does vote 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. And no, he shouldn't have said all those things. But why not clean the slate? Why not start all over again? Why not allow him to vote with us on the 90 percent of the stuff? He will be a good vote on climate change -- and this matters. He may be a good vote on election reform, which I hope we will get to. So, you know, he may end up - though it is a little against the odds -- he may end up being the vote that allows us to conduct business when Mitch McConnell decides we shouldn't."

 

---

by: Vermonter @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:20:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dean is doing his job (4.00 / 2)

What do you expect him to say?

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On What Howard Says (0.00 / 0)

Dean actually suprised me by starting this line of talk the day after the election. He went into the reasons why Obama appealed to young voters, a new generation who want to move beyond partisanship, which was different than how people like him felt, but would be the way of the future and the change we needed.

With that context, I don't see this as Dean spewing the party line.

---

by: greenvtster @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Change was also part of his plan. (0.00 / 0)

And this is the opposite of change. This is doing things in Washington precisely the way they've been done in Washington, with the same faces.

Sometimes those perceived mandates ("change" and "lets all be buddies and give everybody up here in the hallowed halls what they want) are gonna be in direct conflict. I would say the far clearer, more broadly sanctioned mandate was "change", but maybe that's just me...

In any event, its not gonna work if he tries to go this as the "all things to all people" president. That's a mistake generally borne out of... dare I say it...inexperience. I'm willing to chalk this up to the learning curve, but let's hope we move on from that phase as soon as possible.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:10:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

this is better and clearer (0.00 / 0)

What Hunter said at dKos:

People voted for change. Again -- just like in 2006. If they don't get it, the mood in the country is going to turn south in a hurry. There's still a war, a recession, an economic crisis, a whole bunch of government incompetence and, oh yeah, a second war out there. Things are grim, and the Democrats are in charge of all of it, now -- the whole thing. The implication here, that they still consider their precious collegiality and seniority games to outstrip all of it, and are willing to keep sabotaging a very, very important legislative committee in order to maintain a steady, peaceful ship of state... it smacks of an enforced weakness, and of self-indulgence that nears the point of corruption.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:22:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Comity isn't pretty (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman's retention on DHS is the face of comity not tragedy.

---

by: BP @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:42:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

exactly (0.00 / 0)

You've got it right.  (the New Left & Old Left) could fuck-up an ambush.  With Alaska today, and maybe Al Franken today, and maybe Georgia in Jan., Lieberman makes it #60.  They've got to pander to the fucker.  Just think about it as a "deal we can't refuse."  It would be nice if Obama didn't have to do some of the shit he has to do, but things just ain't that 'nice' yet.  The Left is showing the first symptoms of George Bush Withdrawal.  There's a Support Group for this somewhere.  

---

by: PeteySweety @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's an interesting counter argument in support of keeping Joe (4.00 / 1)

This was made by John Nichols of "The Nation" of all people. Check it out.

"It strikes me that purging members from caucuses never looks very good and never has the desired effect of achieving the ever-illusive goal of ideological purity.

After Oregon Republican Sen. Wayne Morse announced before the 1952 presidential election that he would be voting for Democrat Adlai Stevenson - the GOP caucus stripped Morse of his committee assignments and effectively forced him across the aisle to a Democratic caucus that Lyndon Johnson was slowly but surely turning into a political powerhouse. Morse was actually strengthened politically and won re-election as a Democrat in what had been a solidly Republican state.

Lieberman is neither so principled nor so politically viable as Morse. This is likely to be the Connecticut senator's last term.

The question is whether he will serve it as a titular member of a Democratic caucus, which might benefit from his experience and his votes on some issues, or as a member of a Republican caucus that would be thrilled to have him.

My sense is that Democrats would be wiser to keep Lieberman in the Democratic circle for so long as he sides with the caucus on cloture votes. After all, if Al Franken prevails in the Minnesota recount and Jim Martin wins the Georgia run-off - both serious prospects - a Democratic caucus that includes Lieberman will have 59 Senate seats. And if Alaska's Mark Begich comes from behind as that state counts the last of its ballots - a more remote prospect - a Democratic caucus that includes Lieberman will have the 60 seats needed to block a Republican filibuster. Without Lieberman, it is tough to see how Democrats get to the filibuster-proof position that is the last piece of the puzzle of a governing majority.

If Democrats did somehow get to 60 in the Senate, and if Lieberman then betrayed the party on a critical vote, that would be the point at which to debate expelling him from the caucus."

Interesting. What do people think?

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:44:44 PM CST

Nichols and Dean... (0.00 / 0)

... seem to agree.

---

by: Vermonter @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For the record: (0.00 / 0)

I can't stand Joe Lieberman. Never, ever, ever liked him. Ever.

---

by: Vermonter @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:52:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have no problem keeping him in the caucus (4.00 / 1)

(ok, maybe a little proble), but they should have swapped the committees he kept:

Keep him on the Environment committee where he was actually useful, and dump him from Homeland Security where he seemed to be little more than a Bush puppet.

The leadership seems almost entirely unable to grasp that sometimes there are more than 2 alternatives in a given situation.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:22:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Every Cloture (0.00 / 0)

I've never liked JL - even when he was VP nominee.  He always struck me as a total tool.

On the other hand, if they've extracted an ironclad promise that he will tow the line on every cloture vote, I can live with this for now.  

---

by: SPS @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:30:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Imagine if Gore was elected in 2000... (0.00 / 0)

... and having to deal with "Likud" Joe for the next four/eight years. Just a thought.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:56:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Er..."Likud" Joe? (4.00 / 1)

What's yer point? Will you refer to the (hopefully) new Senator from Minnesota as "Labor" Franken?

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 16:08:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

asdf (0.00 / 0)

IMO,

Lieberman=The Likud Party of Israel. Same difference.

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 16:17:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, I get that... (4.00 / 1)

But, as I said, will you be referring to Al Franken as "Labor" Al? Why not "Tory" Joe instead of "Likud" Joe for Lieberman?

The point is, it feels as though you're invoking his jewishness in putting him down, and I don't see why you would want to do that. I wouldn't blame people if they thought you were trying to get away with speaking in some sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge code. And I don't think you want people thinking that.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:03:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm more or less.. (0.00 / 0)

... invoking his hardline policy beliefs for Palestinian oppression, like the Likud Party. That's what ticks me off the most. Perhaps AIPAC Joe would be more accurate.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about accuracy (0.00 / 0)

I'm talking about you potentially sending a message that you don't want to send.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right. (0.00 / 0)

I DEFINITELY get that. That is NOT the message I want to send. My fault was that I picked the wrong description to explain his hardline policies. AIPAC Joe is better.

---

by: Christian Avard @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think... (0.00 / 0)

2 possibilities...

1) Leiberman finally realizes Republicans are about as popular as dogshit right now, and kind of fades into the background.

2) The GOP still has his ear, and will try hard to get him to start baseless investigations against Obama.

I'm hoping that he chooses the former.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 20:28:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think this is a good point to make. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for sharing, Christian.

I'm very much in favor of keeping Lieberman in the caucus  and while I'm disappointed and confused about today's vote on his position as chair, I think I can see some logic in the mayhem.

My position on keeping him in the caucus refers back to the adage, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."  If you kick him out of the Dem tent, you have no influence over him and less ability to affect JL inflicted damage control.

There may be other tactical logic yet to emerge in keeping him as chair.  First, it may prove to offer political leverage on him if 60 votes are required.  Second, who's to say how influential Homeland Security will remain in an Obama Administration?  It's a bureaucratic nightmare created in a knee-jerk response to 9-11, and the Senate majority might isolate legislation coming from his committee and put his work right under a microscope.  

Whatever is going on, it's a tough call to make the leap of faith that either a whole lotta bridge building is going on, which is what appears to be happening, or a whole lotta reckless compromise.  

Ultimately, Connecticut voters are going to have to figure this one out in what, 2012?  

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 22:57:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but (4.00 / 1)

judging from Lieberman's behavior over the last year, what "influence" did the Dems have on him? Not much, possibly becuse he knew they'd cave.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do I have (4.00 / 2)

The sinking feeling that this is the milquetoast shit we're gonna hear for the next 4 years?

I'm disgusted and repulsed. Just another load of "fuck yous" we're supposed to be allright with? Not me. I thought we just worked our asses off to get rid of this kind of douchebaggery.

We should buy up a bunch of spine models and send them to Captital Hill.

I give up. I'm sick at this. Goddamn two-faced bastards.  

---

by: annikee @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:55:43 PM CST

Spineless Citations (4.00 / 1)

Dowload the file for free, print it, fill it out, and send it along. Make as many as you want.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:20:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BREAKING: Wind (0.00 / 0)

He can keep the chair, but he can't sit at the table.

-M

---

by: Mike Eldred @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:01:08 PM CST

I will say... (4.00 / 1)

Obama was pretty damn gracious to support Lieberman after all that crap in the 2008 election. When was the last time you saw a major politician basically forgive and forget what Lieberman did/said? Is this an example of the  transformational politics he's been touting the entire time? If so, let's hope it works.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 16:24:27 PM CST

The High Road in DC? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe this kind of Real Christianity (classic cheekturning) treatment is the secret weapon to destroying the neoconchurchianity.

But my unfed, twisted gut tells me it's what I prayed wouldn't happen- more of the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.......  

---

by: annikee @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:48:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe it's just me... (4.00 / 1)

but I think that behavior is somewhat foolhardy. Forgiveness is one thing, rewarding bad behavior another.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 20:29:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Give me some names. (4.00 / 1)

So Lieberman's got his committee.  I'm upset, but life moves on.  However, I'd like to hear the names of the thirteen who voted for him to lose the chair.  It's comforting to know Leahy (I'm assuming) and Sanders did, but I want to see the other 11.

keepereusc@gmail.com

---

by: Matthew Breuer @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:09:33 PM CST

Stevens loses - it's final (0.00 / 0)

Mark Begich has defeated Ted Stevens for the Senate seat from Alaska, becoming the first Dem from that state to win in 30 years.  Nice to see that Alaska didn't try to send a felon back to DC.

And, Matthew, I believe both Leahy and Bernie opposed Lieberman, as Leahy  was the first Senator to announce his opposition and Bernie followed shortly thereafter.

---

by: politico @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 20:10:32 PM CST

Once again (4.00 / 1)

Vermont's delegation is right.

Our entire congressional delegation voted against the Iraq War, and now our entire senatorial delegation has voted against giving this turncoat a committee chair.

People who think this will guarantee his loyalty are kidding themselves.

The only question is whether he should have been horsewhipped before he was tarred and feathered and dragged over to the Republican side of the senate.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 23:10:12 PM CST

Here's my take (0.00 / 0)

I don't give a damn about whether or not Lieberman's punished for what he did during the campaign.  Doesn't interest me in the slightest.  

I do care about whether or not we reward someone who's basically incompetent as a committee chair in order to prove that we're not punishing him, which, I think, is exactly what just happened.  

Anyway, so yeah, this is screwed up.  Fortunately, he's not long for the Senate and Ned Lamont's going to cream him in two years.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:47:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

longer than you think (0.00 / 0)

Try 4 years.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:58:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Aw hell. (0.00 / 0)

I suck at math (not really, but I was having a bad day yesterday).  

Now I'm depressed.  

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:08:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]