Harry Reid: We're Watching Lieberman's Conduct In Prez Race "Very Closely"
Is there anything at all Joe Lieberman could do in the presidential race to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take punitive action against him?
Or will Lieberman, who supports McCain, be free to lodge all the gutter attacks against Obama he pleases, without facing any consequences in terms of his committee chairmanships?
The question is one that many Dems are asking right now -- particularly in light of attacks such as this one from Lieberman in which he claimed that Obama's alleged endorsement by Hamas reveals a "difference" with McCain.
It turns out that Harry Reid himself answered this question the other day: He claimed that, yes, Lieberman could go too far. Reid was asked by Keith Olbermann late Friday night whether there's anything Lieberman could do to get his Homeland Security committee chairmanship stripped. His answer (via Nexis):
SEN. REID: Yeah, of course. Understand, Keith, that our margin of being a majority has been pretty slim....Our majority is 50 to 49. And with Joe voting with the Republicans on the war, we didn't have a majority...But I think the facts are that we're going to watch very closely.
We trust Reid will forgive us in advance for being skeptical of this.
Nonetheless, this dynamic bears watching. Keep in mind that if Dems expand their majority, as expected, Lieberman's leverage will evaporate. So the question of what Reid will do will only grow more relevant if and when Lieberman starts giving voice to the most scurrilous of GOP attacks on Obama.
Hah! Count me in the skeptical camp, as well.
More and better Democrats, please.
May 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's highly unlikely that he'll do anything. it would be interesting to see if he even says anything privately to him
May 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously this is mere speculation, but if Democrats gain 6 seats in the Senate, why not bust Joe's chops? Do we really need him in a leadership position if the democratic majority is exapnded?
May 12, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, no, we don't! On November 5th he needs to go!
May 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The worst that can happen is that Lieberman formally changes parties. Since he's voting Republican and backing McCain anyway, it won't make much practical difference if Dems pick up some other seats.
Joe must go sit on the other side of the aisle with his soul mates, and let the voters of Connecticut decide next time if they want to keep him there at all.
May 12, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to say this, but I just don't think that's the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen, even after Nov. 5th, I fear, is that Dems will lose the majority, and thereby lose the ability to set the agenda in the Senate and lose all the committee chairmanships. Can you say Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? Can you say Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Can you say Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chris Bond? I'm not on Reid side, but I just don't see what the alternatives are at this time. We still have plenty to lose!
June 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not the worst thing that could happen. The Democrats could lose every single Senate race. That would truly be awful!!!!1!
Of course, it's not going to happen. Just like your doomsday scenario is not going to happen. The Republicans are currently hoping not to lose more than eight Senate seats, which would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority.
I don't know what's causing you to be so fearful in your prognostications, but it's not based in reality.
June 10, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only a fool would try to do anything with the rules resolution in the remaining months of the 110th Congress. The committee assignments were locked in by the rules voted on in Jan. 04 2007 so as to keep the Senate form changing hand should he defect.
Voting on changing the rules now would mean Holy Joe could flip the Senate right now, vs. not stripping him now and we retain the Senate for the remainder of the 110th Congress.
If we net a +1 or better improvement in our margin in Nov., Lieberman will be sent to the doghouse and stripped of everything meaningful as far as committee assignments.
May 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, just kick him out of the caucus and leave it at that. Just disown him and shun him.
Let him keep his chairmanship. Just don't let him criticize the nominee as a member of the caucus. Make him do it as an outsider.
June 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of Harry's promises of getting tough have we seen any follow through on? My recollection is that it is a very round number: 0
Why would we expect anything to change here?
May 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to be tough with only 49 dems and 2 independents. One should not judge Harry too harshly since he does not have a working majority.
Hopefully, this next session will provide him more leverage. ( I am not a big Reid fan but will give him the benefit of the doubt for now )
May 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of being sued by J K Rowling:
Expelliarmus Joe!
May 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me skeptical as well - Harry Reid is all talk and no action.
But - on November 5th, when we have more than a "slim" majority, toss his sorry ass out of the Democratic party and strip him of his seniority and his chair posts (he's done nothing as Chair of Homeland Security, anyway - he's an absolute joke). Let him go lick his wounds with his buddy McCain. He's a disgrace and he needs to go.
May 12, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and that's why he's been an ineffective Senate majority leader.
May 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does JL has incriminating pics of HR or something? But lets not forget, HR is fighting for his own seat so he may be a bit preoccupied at the moment.
May 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats might as well resign themselves to the fact that Lieberman is NO longer a Democrat.
May 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I resigned myself to that a long time ago. He is a snake, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he needs to be expelled from the party once November comes.
May 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He left the party in 2006 when he ran for re-election as an Independent against the Democratic Party nominee. He can't be expelled from the party, because he no longer belongs to it.
The question is whether he will be allowed to retain his committee chairmanship when he is becoming increasingly flagrant about his support for the Republicans. The only reason he has it now is that he agreed to caucus with the Democrats in return for it. And he did caucus with them at the beginning of the session, which gave the Democrats the ability to control committee assignments and establish the rules to be observed during the duration of the session.
But does his promise to "caucus with the Democrats" extend further than that? If it does, then he has almost certainly violated it, and he definitely deserves to be booted from his chair. If all that was really asked of him, though, was to allow the Democrats to control the initial organization, then yes, he's being a turd, but he may still be within the letter of the law of his agreement with Reid.
But all bets are off when the 111th Congress convenes, and if the Democrats will for once decide to lead, Ol' Joe should see his day of reckoning then.
May 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it important that he's removed sooner rather than later so that when he says something else, which he surely will, he doesn't get to pretend he's a Democrat as he's saying it. The sooner and more public the split with Lieberman, the better.
May 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A big reason Lieberman is effective as a surrogate for McCain is that he's seen by regular voters as "independent." I think it's very important that we (Democrats) take that away from him and in so doing disarm one of McCain's weapons against Obama. Make Lieberman a partisan figure before it's too late.
May 12, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make Lieberman a partisan figure before it's too late
Absolutely. Joe still is described as a Democrat, and in the minds of the talking hairdoes, this means that John McCain really is a maverick--he's got Democratic support!
Dems need to push back, hard, on this.
And Harry Reid isn't doing so. At least not publicly.
May 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry is probably concerned about that Joe-mentum.
May 12, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
JL knows that when the democrats have a stronger majority in the senate that he will lose his chairmanship. He is now auditioning for a new job with the not-to-be president McCain. And if he were to run again in CT he will not win. There is lots of buyer remorse in CT.
May 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's how I see this as well. Other than his ethics (if he still had any), Joe has nothing to lose and a lot to possibly gain with his current behavior.
This needs to be dealt with now and not only when we're sure we'll have 50+ seats without him.
May 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. I've been trying to figure out what Lieberman was hoping to gain by sucking up to the Republicans and burning bridges with the Democrats when it seems pretty certain his new best friends are going to lose seats in the next election.
Your take on that makes perfect sense. His only hope for a future in politics is with a cabinet appointment in a Republican administration.
May 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is such a wuss. He and Pelosi are presiding over a Congress with lower approval ratings than GWB.
Is there any hope for this pathetic Congress?
May 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Reid and Lieberman need new assignments in November. How about Dick Durbin for Majority Leader? And Lieberman - just move him over to the minority Republicans.
May 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid will write Liberman a Stern Letter
May 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, I bet is Joe is scared now.
What a pathetic joke.
Senators stick together, it is bs.
May 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your troll-y trollness makes my head hurt, but I've got to give it up for the avatar.
Nice work, Troll-y McTrollalot.
May 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just goes to show how stellar Obama's judgment and pattern of uniting us was when he gave a glowing speech in favor of Joe in the Democratic Primary in Connecticut.
If you start looking at facts -- about what Obama has actually done rather than what Obama has actually said -- your picture of Obama changes abruptly.
May 12, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, ace. Lieberman had major Democratic support for the primary. (I got about 7 robocalls from Bill Clinton in the week leading up to it.)
After the primary results? Obama supported Lamont, as did Hillary Clinton (Bill's declaration that Lieberman and Lamont weren't different didn't help Lamont's campaign, but whatever).
You want to train you fire on Democrats who didn't support Lamont in the general election? Be my guest. Obama wasn't one of them.
Try the likes of Ken Salazar.
May 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Hillary and Barack supported Lieberman in the primary.
And nice generalization about what Obama has "said" vs. what he has "done"...I prefer more specifics, though.
I suppose one could make the same statement about Hillary's position on the Iraq War, or Nafta, or sniper fire.
May 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Hillary Clinton would make a kick-ass Senate Majority Leader. She doesn't have the seniority strictly in terms of time served, but given her showing in the presidential nomination race, I think they could easily justify leap-frogging her over some other folks.
I hope Obama shows better judgment in choosing a VP than Gore, Dukakis, and Kerry did. IMO, Lieberman, Bentson, and Edwards brought little if anything to their respective tickets.
May 12, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making Hillary senate majority leader wont sit well with some of those Dem senators. a junior senator as majority leader? i think not. The clinton influence is already wanning in the party so people know they dont have to take their crap.
If BO becomes president he wants people who he knows have his back and people he can trust. Reid and Hillary aint BO supporters. There will be a new senate majority leader if BO wins the presidency.
May 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
More importantly, CT needs to enact legislation allowing mid-term removal of Congresspersons.
Then use it to send him packing.
No need to wait until his term expires ...
May 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The states have no legal authority over their congressmen. Those are federal offices, not state offices.
May 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And since the federal Constitution has no provisions for Recall, Referendum, or Initiative, states cannot recall senators.
June 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope Lieberman creates more of a problem for himself than he does for Obama.
May 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read that if Lieberman decides to stop caucusing (I believe that is the term) with the Democrats, and throws his lot in with the Republicans, the Dems no longer have the majority in the Senate. Reid becomes the minority leader, and Dick Cheney becomes the tiebreaker on legislation. Reid can take no action on Lieberman because of this, unless the Dems want to give up control of the Senate.
Correct me if I have this wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is the deal.
May 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may no longer have the majority, but my understanding is that they'll still control the committee chairmanships, and hence, the agenda.
So it would be a mixed bag.
May 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. The rules that were put into place at the beginning of the 110th Congress said that the Senate would not be reorganized if another Jeffers-like switch threw the majority of seats to the other party. The rules said just the opposite in 2000, but they were drawn up when there was a true 50-50 split, and Al Gore was still VP and would have had the tie-breaking vote if the Republicans had not made that concession.
May 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought. Do you know why the Republicans didn't try to implement the same rules?
May 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, but the question is (for me, at least), how much practical difference will that make between now and January 20th? (As in, how much is actually getting done now, and how much will get done if it shifts in their favor in the meantime?)
May 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legislatively, not much difference; I agree.
However, investigatively having control of the committees is a huge deal. Then there is is control of the nominations process (FEC, judges, etc.). We may be frustrated that the investigations haven't produced a lot of concrete results, but the alternative is a total lack of accountability for the Bush Administration in these last months of their reign. Democratic control of Congress hasn't been able to stop the abuses of power, but it's about the only brake we have right now.
May 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct Opus.
Which of course sucks for us given what a piece of shite Lieberman has become. It is one thing to believe a candidate on the other side will be a better president - it is quite another to bash the candidate of your own (mostly) party and worse yet to spread dishonest smears.
Thats okay, we won't need him after Jan and
there will be no place for him in the Obama administration. Polls already show he is toast if Lamont runs again so then his career is done.
May 12, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Currently the Republicans and Democrats are tied with 49 Senators each. There are two Independents caucusing with the Democrats, giving them the majority and thus control of Committee Chairmanships etc.
If Lieberman were to start caucusing with the Republicans, the two caucuses would be tied 50-50. In that case the Majority status would go to the party that the Vice President is affiliated with.
So yeah, Lieberman does have the Democrats over a barrel for the rest of this congress - but as soon as the new crop of Senators is sworn in, that influence will completely evaporate, and he knows it. At that point, having burned his bridges with his former party, he's going to be better off, in terms of personal power and influence, with the Republicans, even though they will be the Minority Party.
May 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So as long as Reid wants to keep that gavel in his hand, and maintain control over what legislation is brought to the floor, he has to put up with Lieberman. I guess we all have to suffer through it, and I don't blame Reid for the position that Lieberman has put us in.
By the way, did anyone see Reid on the Daliy Show the other night? He has a new book out, so he's been making the rounds. I saw him on another news program, too, but can't remember which one.
May 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse, in the Senate, you need 60 votes to get anything done, so even with a clean majority without Joe, he can (and probably will) horse things up if we dump him into the minority. We need a recall petition in CT. Still, it might be worth it to once and for all put the elephant on him.
May 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say fuck him. Now.
The Senate doesn't get anything done anyway, due to the veto, the obstruction of the Republicans, and the inability of the Democrats to stand up to the obstruction of the Republicans by actually forcing them to really filibuster instead of just immediately giving in (or, in the one farcical case of a real filibuster, giving in after twelve hours or whatever).
So the only real purpose that the Senate is serving, at this point, is to prevent the Republicans from doing their crap.
Which the House can do by itself.
So fuck Joe. Kick him out, now.
May 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House could prevent legislation from passing, but a majority there won't have any effect on the powers that are unique to the Senate, naming confirmation of appointments (judges, FEC Commissioners, and so on).
The *only* thing stopping Bush from making recess appointments is the fact that Democrats control the Senate calendar.
May 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I forgot about lone Senatorial powers. Thanks.
May 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would kick Joe's butt from here to Jerusalem since he seems to be the senator from Israel rather than Connecticut.
May 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to deal with Lieberman after the election is to give him a cabinet post - DHS would be a good choice. Get him out of the Senate and replace him with a real Democrat.
May 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry, I think it's time to sit down at lunch with Lieberman and tell him that it's one thing to support McCain, it's another thing to be working for McCain's election, and it's still another thing to be the point man/surrogate for scurrilous attacks on Obama. In other words, Joe, you can tell everybody how great a guy McCain is, but
someone with an (R) after his name needs to be the swiftboater.
Then order dessert...
May 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue for Reid isn't can the Senate get anything passed - not with the 60 votes and 66 for veto override. The reason Reid doesn't want Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans is that it would give the Republicans at least a split in the leadership, if not outright leadership of the Senate. And goodbye to things such as setting committee agendas, oversight investigations, control over amendments, control over when Bills come to the floor etc. In other words, the day to day operations. So, you dance with devil to avoid getting stuck in Hell (i.e. Mitch McConnell).
May 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. But the really big prize is the ability to allow or prevent recess appointments - which, if made before the end of this year, would remain in effect until the end of the next session. That's December 2009. Unless, of course, someone is nominated and confirmed by the Senate to that office or judgeship, which isn't going to happen if the Republicans want to filibuster, even if they lose the White House and are badly beaten in the Senate races this November.
One other point: in case of a tie, the leadership of committees isn't split between the parties; majority status goes to the party of the Vice President.
May 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that any extra motivation is needed, but surely this is another important reason -- and perhaps the most satisfying -- for getting a six to 10 seat margin in the Senate this fall.
Then we can shtup schmucko Lieberman real good.
May 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink