Democratic Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate

[Lief 🗽]

Why give him a chance?

[Brittain33]

They can remove him from his chairmanship at any time, any day they want to.  Why not give him a chance?

Because if he started to go all Dan Burton/Richard Mellon Scaife on Obama, it would look like a cover-up and vindicate him if they tried to remove him.

He also demonstrated over the last term that he didn't take the oversight responsibilities seriously when they conflict with his political goals. He was see-no-evil, hear-no-evil even for the worst Bush scandals.

[Lunar]

Why give him a chance?

Because establishing a good report with the American people, not losing a critical Cloture vote,  and all-around not appearing vengeful during your first two minutes of power is more important than satisfying the DailyKos?

I detest Lieberman, but strategically it's a stupid move.

[Bacon King]

Lieberman should be removed from his committee for the reasons brittain33 stated. Give him a different committee on some subject matter where he agrees with the party and can't try any stunts.

Of course he should be welcome to stay in the caucus, but even if there's a chance he leaves after his chairmanship is recinded it isn't exactly a horrible move for the Democrats to do.

59 Democratic Senators - Lieberman and Ben Nelson + Collins, Snowe, and Specter = cloture.

His vote may not even be neccesary, and even if Franken or Begich end up losing I really doubt Lieberman would vote against his principles on most things.

[Brittain33]

Lieberman called Obama to congratulate him and talk. Obama didn't take the call but handed it off to Biden. Meanwhile, Obama has spoken with Dick Lugar three times since the election.

[Gustaf]

I like Lieberman so I personally disagree with kicking him out. It also seems like a very dumb move strategically from Obama's perspective.

[Brittain33]

I like Lieberman so I personally disagree with kicking him out. It also seems like a very dumb move strategically from Obama's perspective.

We need to distinguish between "kicking him out of the caucus," which everyone agrees is needless and no senator supports or is voting on, and not rewarding him with the chairmanship of the committee that conducts oversight of the executive branch.

[Ogre Mage]

I like Lieberman so I personally disagree with kicking him out. It also seems like a very dumb move strategically from Obama's perspective.

We need to distinguish between "kicking him out of the caucus," which everyone agrees is needless and no senator supports or is voting on, and not rewarding him with the chairmanship of the committee that conducts oversight of the executive branch.

Yes.  If Lieberman were chairman of, say, the Agriculture Committee or the Banking & Housing Committee I would shrug my shoulders and move on.  But him running the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is courting disaster.  I would feel the same if he were in charge of the Judiciary Committee.

[TheresNoMoney]

Lieberman should not be allowed to be Chair of any major committee. I hope Dems do the right thing, but I don't expect them to.

[Lunar]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

Dude, DailyKos is not far left.

[Lunar]

Whatever, I've had to read it for work, I've read every post in the last month or so.    It's not as radical as it's perceived and has strict quality-control standards.

But the fact remains that the Daily Kos is attempting to force the Democrats into adopting a less-than-politically-ideal strategy regarding Lieberman in exchange for ideological purity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Whatever, I've had to read it for work, I've read every post in the last month or so.    It's not as radical as it's perceived and has strict quality-control standards.

But the fact remains that the Daily Kos is attempting to force the Democrats into adopting a less-than-politically-ideal strategy regarding Lieberman in exchange for ideological purity.

People on Daily Kos have a variety of view points. Their dislike of Lieberman has to do with more than ideological purity reasons, the people who are purity trolls didn't vote for Obama, anyways. There's a lot of ideological impurity in the Democratic party, unlike the Republican party. The problem with Lieberman is not that he deviates from the party line, but that he undercuts the oarty. I think his actions of this year spoke very loudly.

Now, specifically for the matter at hand. He has been an absolutely terrible Chair of the Homeland Security committee. He should absolutely be stripped of that position, and someone capable should take his place. If there's some issue that he actually doesn't suck ass at, he  could perhaps have some position of authority there, but in any case, this is about having a reasonable Homeland Security Chairman. I don't care whether he caucuses with the Democrats or not, but strip him of his Chairmanship already.

I mean seriously, if the Republicans retake the House, would they have Dennis Kucinch as the House Homeland Security Committee? That would be about equivalent here.

[Lunar]

Yo, I agree with you.  Lieberman is not the person the Democrats want in charge of Homeland Security, regardless of his RNC speech or attacks on Obama.  The latter only make it all the more justified to remove him.

The Democrats would be 180% justified in removing him and I personally find Liebrerman an unlikable, whiny character even before we talk about his "betrayal."

But I think it is strategically better for the Democrats to project the image of an inclusive, non-vengeful party.  Besides, if Lieberman does more anti-Obama behavior in the coming session, the Democrats can remove him from his chairmanship at any second, any day, thus he'll be a better boy than he was when he was the critical component to the 51-49 majority.

It's a tough decision, I don't deny that.  If everything was in a political vacuum, I would advocate Lieberman losing everything but being allowed to caucus with the Dems.  But the Democrats benefit from being seen as merciful and big-tent-y, while they get hurt by being seen as the opposite.

We'll see, but don't treat it like it's a black and white issue and don't pretend like the Daily Kos might not be trying to force the Democrats' hand regarding this.

[minionofmidas]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

Not just as an inevitable conclusion to an already too long drawn out divorce?

[Lunar]

I mean, that's how you an I will see it.

But the cable news networks?  The gossip that goes from neighbor to neighbor?  Think again sir.

[minionofmidas]

I mean, that's how you an I will see it.

But the cable news networks?  The gossip that goes from neighbor to neighbor?  Think again sir.

Yeah, I was more like asking (about the "gossip" thing that is - the cable news networks are going to do whatever they like.)

[Lunar]

Then no, perhaps one or two talking heads will realize reality, but the centrist and center-right leaning talking heads will view this as corrupt back-stabbing of someone who is 1% disloyal to you.

The whole Lieberman situation is so much more sexy portrayed as a betrayal-revenge story than anything else, why would any news station worth its money portray it as anything else?

[J. J.]

Why give him a chance?

Because establishing a good report with the American people, not losing a critical Cloture vote,  and all-around not appearing vengeful during your first two minutes of power is more important than satisfying the DailyKos?

I detest Lieberman, but strategically it's a stupid move.

I like Lieberman, but both points are correct.

Even with 58 Senators, cloture may be possible in some cases.  Honking off one of those votes is no a good idea.  There is also 2010, and, barring something unexpected, Lieberman will be there.

After the appointment of Emmanuel, who is (unfairly, perhaps) regarded as an uber-partisan, it will sent the wrong message.

[Brittain33]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

Lunar, with all due respect, I have given reasons for this which are manifestly not about "revenge."

[Brittain33]

someone who is 1% disloyal to you.

That is not a supportable characterization of Lieberman's behavior. He covered up the Bush Administration's scandals for two years, campaigned for the opposing party's candidate for President, and bashed his own party's candidate in negative and substance-free terms. He stopped attending Democratic caucus lunches because of his views on the war, which we should all agree is more than "1%", even if motivated by the purest of principle. If he retains his chairmanship of the Oversight committee in the Senate, he has the option to open up the kind of bogus investigations we saw too much of in the 1990s. Read what he said about Obama during the campaign and what kind of threat Lieberman thinks he poses to American, our national security, and our allies.

If he were "1% disloyal," this wouldn't be a problem.

Daily Kos loves and respects Ben Nelson. They are the opposite of ideological purists. They are partisans who accept a diversity of views within the party in light of political needs. When the political needs are a protracted spite trip and promoting one's own career on Fox News as the new Zell Miller, there's less tolerance for that.

[TheresNoMoney]

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

Ridiculous.

[Lunar]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

Lunar, with all due respect, I have given reasons for this which are manifestly not about "revenge."

I'm talking about how it APPEARS

How it appears!

I myself said I support his removal for reasons that have nothing to do with his attacks on Obama, thus I agree there are legitimate reasons besides revenge.


how it appears...

[Brittain33]

Ok, good. I get concerned if I find myself strongly at odds with what you write.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

When will the vote be?