Let Joe Lieberman Stay
Find a Conversation
Let Joe Lieberman Stay
| Mon, 11-10-2008 - 4:06am |
Throw Harry Reid to the wolves.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/harry-reid-still-defending-joe-lieberman-o
| Mon, 11-10-2008 - 4:06am |
Throw Harry Reid to the wolves.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/harry-reid-still-defending-joe-lieberman-o
Pages
>"President-elect Barack Obama has expressed support for
Excellent post! A good helping of food for thought.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/10/161123/99/311/658707
I've also heard from a Senate staffer that Obama has sent word that he wants Lieberman in the caucus. Now to be clear, the word isn't "let Lieberman chair Homeland Security", it's "keep him around". The logic is pretty obvious -- it allows Obama to look like he's not vindictive. (Kind of funny for a guy who just chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.)
Why should Lieberman lose his committee?:
So functionally, Lieberman has been a Republican on the issue of National Security the past two years.
Why should Lieberman keep his committee?:
Those facts actually suggest that the best solution is to move Lieberman from a policy area in which he is a functional Republican, over to an area where his philosophy is more agreeable to the Democratic majority. Seems obvious enough.
What are Lieberman's options?
If he switches allegiances, his already-tough reelection chances in 2012 become next-to-nil. He could do that in a fit of pique, but his political obituary would be written. And a Republican caucus that is increasingly hostile to dissent wouldn't be the most welcome home for a senator who ultimately, as noted above, votes with Democrats 90 percent of the time. Are we seriously to believe that Lieberman would switch parties and suddenly would be a reliable anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-labor vote for the GOP?
The case for stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security committee chairmanship is open and shut. And not even Obama is arguing he should stay there (assuming the reports are correct).
So Democrats have three choices:
I suspect with Obama's edict (again, assuming such reports are accurate), #3 is off the table as it looks too much like retribution and for whatever bizarre reason, that's apparently bad. Democrats love playing the "battered spouse" bit. But option #2 is still available.
Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters.
So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out.
One last point: Whatever concerns the Obama administration might be making, the Senate is still run by Harry Reid. Or at least it supposedly is. If Reid can't be his own man, and run the place according to his own wishes, not only does he deserve to lose his leadership spot, but his seat when he's up for reelection in 2010.
We've seen what happened to Congress when they decided they no longer were an independent branch of government, rather an appendage of the White House. It wasn't pretty. We don't need more of the same.
Oops. Sorry. Got carried away explaining the problem, didn't I? LOL.
OK, briefly, here's what you do (assuming you're Obama, LOL):
Since Lieberman won't budge, and refuses to willingly step down from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, offer him a job inside the administration. Something "plum" enough to attract his attention and his huge ego - maybe director of Homeland Security, Chertoff's current job. Maybe something similarly prestigious. In such a case, the result would be a SOLIDLY Democratic Senator to replace Lieberman in Connecticut (a reliably blue state, if not quite so blue as, say, Vermont or Rhode Island).
Then, once in the administration, Lieberman serves "at the pleasure of the President," meaning, in decoded shorthand, that he can be kept on a short leash, and if he starts to "go rogue" (in the current parlance), he can simply be canned, no questions asked. Neat and clean. And we get a BETTER Senator in his place in CT.
Like I said, Machiavellian, but it would unquestionably work. Don't think Obama would go for it, though.
McCain LOST???
McCain LOST???
I don't think it's Machiavellian if you offer him a position in good faith. If the guy can do the job, then it's a win-win situation. It gives Lieberman a chance at redemption and it removes a thorn in the side of Congress. If
That sounds like a good idea, except what guarantee is there that Lieberman's replacement in the senate will be a Democrat?
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Well, it appears Joe will be with you for another two years ....
McCain backer Lieberman keeps committee chair
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 6 hours ago
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 panel post on the Environment and Public Works panel as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.
Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday to approve a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had been very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."
Added Reid: "This was not a time for retribution, it was a time for moving forward on the problems of this country."
Lieberman's grasp on his chairmanship had gotten stronger since President-elect Barack Obama signaled to Democratic leaders that he's not interested in punishing Lieberman for boosting McCain and criticizing Obama during the long campaign.
"This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," Lieberman said after the vote.
Anger toward Lieberman seems to have softened since Election Day, and Democrats didn't want to drive him from the Democratic caucus by taking away his chairmanship and send the wrong signals as Obama takes office on a pledge to unite the country. Lieberman had indicated it would be unacceptable for him to lose his chairmanship.
Lieberman, who was Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's running mate in 2000, was re-elected in 2006 as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont amid intense anti-war sentiment. Lieberman is a strong supporter of the war.
He remains a registered Democrat and aligns with the party inside the Senate, where he supports the party position on most issues other the war.
But Lieberman angered colleagues in signing onto McCain's campaign, touring the country on McCain's campaign plane and speaking on his behalf at the GOP convention in September. Democrats were particularly upset that he had attacked Obama rather than simply saying positive things about McCain.
"There are some (statements) that I made that I wish I had not," Lieberman told reporters. "In the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that. And now it's time to move on."
"It's time to unite our country," said Lieberman supporter Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said entering the meeting. Salazar and Lieberman's homestate colleague Christopher Dodd led
Salazar added afterwards: "It was very clear people want Senator Lieberman to be part of the caucus."
On the other side were senators who feel that one requirement to be installed in a leadership position is party loyalty.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and Senator-elect Jeff Merkeley, D-Ore., spoke against allowing Lieberman keep the Homeland Security and Government Affairs post. Reid, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Kerry, D-Mass., were among those speaking in his favor, according to a Democratic aide requiring anonymity to discuss a private meeting.
Some, like Iowan Tom Harkin, still harbor hard feelings for statements Lieberman made during the campaign. Harkin took particular offense when Lieberman said a vote against funding the war in Iraq without a deadline for a troop withdrawal meant Obama had voted to cut off funding for troops in harm's way.
"That's outrageous what he said," Harkin said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hyIW3sNdPT-eLawFnLxF9lJ9-AtAD94HIALO0
UGH! Lieberman...
I know that President-Elect Obama is a big picture thinker, and that is why
The revenge part of me wants to send him to the back of the bus, but once again, Obama is showing brilliance.
"He's been "forgiven," but don't believe what he's done will be forgotten."
That's for sure!
Pages