It's Official: Full Dem Caucus Will Vote On Lieberman's Fate
The full Democratic caucus will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee at its caucus meeting next week, a leadership aide confirms to us.
Previously, Reid's office had held this possibility out but hadn't made a final decision on whether to throw Lieberman's fate to the full Dem caucus for a vote.
In the wake of Obama's statement today that he doesn't hold any "grudges" against Lieberman and his decision not to take a position on whether Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, I emailed a leadership aide to ask whether the vote would definitely go forward. His response:
"Yes -- this is a decision that will be made by the caucus next week. Absent a stunning series of events there will be a vote next week in the caucus on whether to strip Senator Lieberman of the chairmanship."
That would appear to make it official.
The news comes amid signs that Lieberman is losing support among his fellow Senators. The Huffington Post reports, for instance, that the Clintons are not making any calls on Lieberman's behalf. And Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are reported to be hoping that Lieberman is given the push.
Now it looks as if these Senators will have an opportunity to vote on his fate, though the exact mechanism of how the vote will work is as yet unclear. More when we learn it.
Late Update: Senator Ben Nelson appears to support Lieberman keeping his committee perch.
Late Late Update: Chris Bowers has a useful look at how each individual Senator is likely to vote. The key point here is that the decision to go forward with the vote offers the anti-Lieberman forces a key opportunity to ratchet up the pressure right now.
Late Late Late Update: How will Reid himself vote? Last week he was reported to be leaning towards stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship. A Senate Democratic aide now tells me that "nothing has changed since last week." This suggests he may vote to give Lieberman the push, word of which could send a signal to other Senators to do the same.
Still Later Update: Markos and Josh Orton make a key point: This isn't about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. It's about the committee chairmanship. The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as "poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals," because then it becomes solely about retribution.
Nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.
November 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, Obama and Biden are both still members of that caucus and will be until January 20th.
November 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly, Biden, even though elected has a decision to make as to when to resign his post. He could take the oath for his 6th term or he could not take the oath and vacate the election and allow the Governor to appoint his replacement, not sure the details here.
This all reminds me that elections have consequences...Lieberman made his bed, but if McCain-Graham-Lieberman are part of the moderate GOP it is smart politics----
The question is not caucus....there are always those who you have to work with that you have disagreements or bad feelings it is the chair of an important committee----Joe has to compromise---period----otherwise he is forcing the hand.
His aides who said it threatens security is bullshi//// Joe is not that unique....hell if he was what would happen if he died of a heart attack tomorrow, is the sky going to fall.....Joe is being totally self serving.....join the team and play the position you are told to Joe....
The thing is if Franken wins MN, AK and GA eventually fall picking up 59 seats then Joe is valuable even symbolic
November 11, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bring up an interesting question. This is an issue being decided by the lame duck Senators of the 110th congress, not the Senators of the incoming 111th Congress, right? If so, then Biden is already a Senator in the 110th Congress and has a vote on the issue.
The interesting question is whether the 111th Congress might change the decision, or if this lame duck session might punt the decision to the next Congress when it organizes?
There's a lot of wiggle room for the Senators if they want to avoid the controversy.
November 12, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. He has been valuable in the 110th Congress because the Democrats needed him to get 51 votes and organize as the majority. Now with 56 votes without Joe that is no longer a problem. The Senate belongs to the Democrats with or without Joe. The only issue now is the occasional cloture vote requiring 60 votes, and that has always been rather ad hoc.
The only symbol that matters is whether the Republican Senators can veto Senate business by threatening a filibuster. If the Democrats get a sweep of Franken, Begich, and Martin, then Olympia Snowe or any other moderate Republican is a perfectly adequate substitute for Joe Lieberman, and assuming that Joe really is acting on conscience and not pure narcissism, even removing him from the Chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs may not keep him from voting for cloture with the Democrats occasionally.
Even if Joe caucuses with the Republicans, he will be a moderate Republican.
The real issue is not whether he caucuses with the Democrats or even which way he votes in cloture votes. It's if he is allowed to continue to Chair the government oversight committee when he has done such an abysmal job of it for the last two years. That's going to be particularly important if Henry Waxman leaves the house Government oversight committee.
With 56 to 59 Democratic Senators, Joe Lieberman is no more valuable than any other moderate Republican Senator.
November 12, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe I read somewhere that it is a secret ballot. Either way I expect a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting and deal making.
Bayh and Dodd have both come out supporting Lieberman, and Durbin and Schumer have come out wanting him stripped.
Does Obama and Biden vote or abstain? I would guess the latter.
November 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree; staying above the fray looks so much more Executive Branch, doesn't it? :-)
November 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add Reid to the anti-Lieberman list.
November 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Dodd came out in favor of Lieberman staying in the caucus, but didn't say anything about the chairmanship...Am I wrong?
November 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought. Bayh is another story though (correct me if I'm wrong).
November 11, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure Dodd said he supported LieberSchmuck keeping his committee chair.
November 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also worth noting that Reid's leadership is on-the-line here as it would almost be a vote of non-confidence if the caucus sided with Lieberman.
I can't see most of the rank-and-file Senators at all happy with Lieberman's statements during the GE. It's one thing to back his friend and to extol his virtues but it's another to tear down a fellow Democrat.
November 11, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they're not happy about Lieberman, but also keep in mind nobody likes heavy handed management of seeing peers essentially "fired."
Also keep in mind that we're going to need to peel of many moderate Republicans for bipartisan legislation to pass with a large majority, such as HCI reform. This really isn't the time to obsess over Lieberman or enforcing party loyalty.
The best thing would be to diminish Lieberman by this public spanking. In regards to his committees, who cares? I don't honestly think he's going to screw up HLS. Nor do I see his defection during the Presidential campaign inspiring anyone else as an example.
All this is a lot to do about nothing imo.
November 11, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Joe Lieberman is not a "Democratic peer." The Connecticut Democratic Party removed him as a Democratic Senator, and he went on the defeat the the Democratic candidate for the Senate. He is in the Democratic caucus under a special negotiation required for the Democrats to organize as the Majority party.
He is no longer required to achieve a majority, and his behavior has been quite outrageous - if he is a Democrat, which is he not.
He is an ally of the Democrats, not a Democratic peer. He is also not a trustworthy ally.
November 12, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Light up those phones, peeps. Call your Senator today- make your opinion known.
November 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second this about eleventy thousand times....
November 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firedoglake is also doing an email campaign.
November 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contributed my 2c worth there; doesn't do me any good to call my dittoheads as they're both repugs. Plus Orrin loves Joe.
November 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed Dodd today and told him that many CT voters (myself included) will be paying very close attention to how he comes down on Lieberman. I noted that given his close ties to the banking industry and the flap over the preferred mortgage rates, his seat isn't a given when he comes up for reelection.
November 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow. Senatorial office seem to be closed today because of Veterans' Day.
You could leave voice-mail, but it'd be more impactful if you asked a staffer what the Senator's position is on this issue.
November 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, I keep forgetting it's a holiday, probably because I'm at work. :(
November 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only knew because I tried calling my Senator's office this morning :-)
November 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just e-mailed Bill Nelson. Hope somebody reads it.
November 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just did that myself. And you never know, Ol' Bill might have his finger to the wind on this one--it's not as if JL couldn't be given some consolation prize.
Just not his chickenhawk's Homeland Security Chair.
November 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But my Senators are Dick Durbin and Barack Obama!
November 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your senators are chicken too
November 11, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for Ben Nelson? Duh. Ben was one of the Senators who publicly supported Independent Joe instead of Democrat Ned Lamont (after the primary).
I expect Ken Salazar to be chiming in soon.
November 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems clear to me the only intelligent option is leaving LIEberman in the caucus (we need that 60-vote majority which is still within reach) but strip him of the chairmanship. And I suspect this is what Obama would support, based on his comment. And if the vote is blind, ethically, I think he and Biden should go ahead and vote that way.
November 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason to have Lieberman in the caucus would be if he was needed to achieve majority control of the Senate. Just because he's in the caucus doesn't mean that he is a vote that can be counted on to support Democratic bills. The biggest question seems to be if he is stripped of his chairmanship, which is certainly warranted given his behavior this past campaign season, does he have any weapons that will be used to stifle the Democratic agenda. If he jumps ship and joins the Republicans, it won't change majority. It won't make him any more likely to change his votes, other than spite. It isn't likely to have much of an impact on cloture votes, either because of his sentiments, caucus membership hasn't governed his voting pattern. Now do CT voters see why reelecting him as an 'independent' was such a big mistake?
November 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But hand wringing over the impact of Obama's statement was so much fun!
November 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bowers links to this piece:
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/08/dayton-supports-lamont-landrieu-and.html
Gives you some idea of who will be for and who against based on the Ned Lamont run for Senate in 2006.
November 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is a possibly a toss-up, he supported Lamont. Indiana constituents give him a call!
November 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is a neocon who is out of step with his own state. You think Indiana voted for Obama because they wanted more of the Bayh/Lieberman trillion dollar wars?
November 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Bayh fan, but it can't hurt, right? I say, give him a call, be polite, but assertive, and make him feel the pressure.
November 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. He might even have noticed that someone disproved the theory that only center right white guy southern blue dog Democrats get elected President.
November 11, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and I'd be surprised if LIEberman continues to threaten to leave the caucus if stripped from the chair. I really doubt he wants to be on the wrong sire of history. And if he does, then let him go. We really don't need to have anyone so petty in the caucus that he is willing to embrace the other party simply because he's been rightfully disciplined. Because in that case, his value in the caucus won't be worth much anyway as he's likely to vote with the other side.
November 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...wrong sire of history..." (emphasis mine)? Are you saying history is a bastard? Are you saying fuck history?
Oh...
Oh, _side_...
Oh...
Nevermind...
:-)
November 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snort! :-)
November 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, the Republicans have no chairmanships to offer him and nothing else of value. In addition, the other Republican Senators clearly aren't happy at the idea of recognizing his seniority and diluting their own.
The Republicans are the minority party. That's never as fun as being in the Majority. The Republicans would take him to give the Democrats a poke in the eye, but the Republicans don't have much other use for him except to provide a dig against the Democrats. He's no more reliable for the Republicans than he is for the Democrats.
November 12, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the Late,Late Update, Obama and Bidne won't have votes, but incoming Senators, Udall's, Warner, etc... will.
November 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the races that are still undecided?
November 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't be participating.
November 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured as much, thanks for confirming.
November 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link from Firedoglake I referenced above:
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe
November 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone reassure me that firedoglake isn't just an email and phone number collection scam. It doesn't say anywhere what they are going to do with your information and doesn't promise not to share it or resell it. There is no privacy disclaimer. Y'all ain't gettin' my info that easy!
Just call me paranoid...
November 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense that Obama and Biden will not vote. This sets a good tone for repairing the separation of powers.
In terms of the vote, it seems to me that just the mere fact of such a vote being held at all represents a huge, huge public rebuke to Lieberman. And in the meantime he's going to have to do major, major currying of favor - if he dares - to try and salvage something... if not his chairmanship, then at least a show of support, even if it's a minority position.
He may be chastened enough after this public whipping to take a very low profile in future. I hope so.
Even a narcissist can be shamed. And this should do it. Public shaming. And drawn out. Shame and anxiety about the outcome. D r a w n out.
November 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call for Madame Dufarge
November 11, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid has his votes - he's not stupid enough to push this option if he didn't. It's just going to be how split the caucus is with Lieberman hoping to show it divided.
Senators who are up for re-election in 2010 should vote along with leadership, and any blue dogs up in 2010 will have to think long and hard because if they need complete backing in their races while at the same time want to look moderate enough for their constituents. I could see something happening where the blue dogs are given cover and are "allowed" to vote to keep Lieberman as Chairman, as long as Reid has the votes otherwise secured.
November 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be prepared for conservatives to make hay out of any split in the caucus vote -- disunity, self-interest, etc. But the bottom line is how big a majority in the caucus votes to oust Lieberman from his chairmanship. The more the better.
November 11, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! In this case, Size matters. :)
November 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A dumb question...
What value is the caucus to Lieberman and vice-versa if he is stripped of his commitee chairmanship?
Is this the only way he keep any commitee assignments?
November 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, he'll keep his other committee seats, which will, it's thought, keep him placated enough to still vote with Dems and also keep him away from the Republicans. Unless of course he'd like to go the Republicans and have no seats on any committees.
November 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'd still be on committees as a Republican. But the reality is that the R's have even less use for him than the D's. McConnell is not going to give him a senior position over lifetime Republicans. And his chances for re-election in CT as a Republican are nearly zero. The threat to bolt to the Republicans is a bluff and everybody knows it.
November 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the answers!
November 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad they're saving Obama the dirtywork of ousting a defeated rival. He's trying very hard to keep out of this
November 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defeated rival? What are you talking about?
November 11, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means LIEberman bet on a job with a McSame administration and lost. I'm in the Connecticut Democratic Party and if we didn't want him why should the Senate caucus want him if he doesn't want to act like a Democrat. Who the hell is he to say that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable", a majority of one? Give it to a real Democrat and let him walk if he doesn't like it. We voted for President Obama in both the primary and the general election and in 2012 he won't make the mistake of supporting LIEberman again and we'll give him a loyal Democrat to work with in his second term.
November 12, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good question actually. I'm assuming that to caucus with the party is to make him more likely to stay in dem fold as he'll get all the memos. I doubt he wants to be a real independent.
November 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than presenting this purely as a retribution issue, constituents calling their senator might consider asking whether their senator is happy with Lieberman's total lack of oversight of Bush administration abuses. Ultimately, there are more important reasons than retribution when considering his future oversight position, and these reasons need to be voiced.
November 11, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed. One name to mention when emailing or calling: Michael Brown. Former head of FEMA. Yes, this is still a valid argument against his chairmanship- 2006 election be damned.
November 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
frak.
November 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we're at it, to show a commitment to real change, let's dump Reid and Pelosi from their leadership positions. Two more ineffective pols are hard to imagine. Dumping them would show Obama's serious about cleaning house and working to get things done. Won't happen, I know...
November 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to give them one more shot, but I want to see results. I'll buy the argument they were so ineffectual because of Republican filibusters or the threat there of, for now, anyway...
November 11, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe with Obama at the helm, Reid and Pelosi will do just fine.
November 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who else is both competent and wants the job?
Pelosi and Reid may not have made you happy by the way they dealt with issues, but when herding cats you generally have to follow the herd. The job consists largely in keeping individuals from bolting. Neither leader can speak out in ways that cause members of their caucus to bolt or that causes their power in the caucus to be diluted.
They are Congressional cat-herders and representatives of their respective houses of Congress, not national policy leaders. They don't even represent their own district/state very well, but exchange that for the power to direct pork to their constituents. The pork keeps getting them reelected.
November 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as "poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals," because then it becomes solely about retribution."
This doesn't have to be about retribution, although I could see why Lieberman, the press and TPM readers might consider it to be. If we were to limit the reasons for Lieberman's removal to his election season behavior, then issues of judgment, credibility and even loyalty are reason enough.
Additionally, Lieberman as chairman acting as a foil against Democrats attempts to bring Bush to task for his unconstitutional behavior should serve as overkill.
November 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarification:
This doesn't have to be about retribution, although I could see why Lieberman might want to frame it that way, and the press and TPM readers might consider it to be.
November 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to suspect he'll survive. A vote is certainly the best way to do it as it confirms the widespread sentiment. Regardless, he'll be enormously diminished by this public spanking. He's heading towards complete irrelevancy.
November 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it's clearly a whole host of things. LIEberman is a turn coat in every sense of the word. That's the point. He should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. And this vote of no confidence is as close as we can get to that.
November 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone clarify something for me? If the senators vote down Joe's chairmanship, has he agreed to accept his fate, or is there a risk that he will simply leave the caucus?
November 11, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Risk that he will leave caucus. Has already intimated as such...
November 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought. Thank you.
November 11, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's threatened, but it's mostly empty threats. What could McConnell offer him? He's sure as hell not going to give him any favored status over lifetime Republicans. The R's have even less use for him than the D's. Reid could make him chairman of the pizza committee and that would still be more than McConnell could offer. Plus, running as a Republican in CT, Lieberman can kiss re-election goodbye. Joe's not going anywhere.
November 11, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's actions and statements during the campaign notwithstanding, his work as chairman of the Homeland Security (God, I hate name) Committee is awful. DHS is the worse run cabinet department in the history of this country. They should take his chairmanship away just for that alone. And his work on the government oversight committee .... well speaks for itself.
Maybe he can caucus with Ted Stevens when the Repubs kick him out.
November 11, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no feelings for retribution against Lieberman at this point. Campaigns are rough things, and to go on a sort of purge would be pointless and counter to the entire framing of this election.
But in all honesty I can't think of one thing constructive Lieberman has done with his chairmanship. I work at DOJ, and I work with a lot of DHS agencies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a mess. U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services is a mess. FEMA is a mess.
And honestly, Lieberman's done nothing to help clean the mess, and is not likely to, it seems.
This is a period of change that will manifest itself, in large measure, in repair and restoration.
Lieberman is not a repair and restoration kind of guy.
Give him a committee where oversight is not a high priority, and where his talents are useful. Let him caucus with the Dems.
But he just can't be allowed to continue as chairman, not with the way he jellydicked everything when he ran it in the past.
Forget the shit he said on that stage and after and before. I don't care. But I do want someone who is on board with the general, you know, Democraticness of things now, and not some grandstanding do-nothing.
These are serious times and we have some serious fucking work ahead of us. And Joe Lieberman just isn't a serious person.
November 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he bolts the caucus and goes to the dark side. Also, I cant wait to see if Lieberman will try to get reelected as a Republican in CT. Screw that traitor, PERIOD!
November 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Lieberman needs to be stripped of his chairmanship for both political and performance issues. I think I was stripped of my avatar for unrelated issues. Maybe I no longer have THE math. However, in Joe's case, the math is simple.
Once you get past 50 in the new BNiden presiding Senate, Joe is useless to the Dem's except ass an individual vote on individual issues. Being number 60 is meaningless if 60 is an untrustowrthy often off the reservation rodentia.
November 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see my avatar survived. And Joe is still a rat.
November 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman left the Democratic Party in 2006 when he lost the Party's nomination for re-election and then ran as an Independent, defeating the Democratic candidate.
He campaigned tirelessly at McCain's side and vehemently denounced the Democratic Party's candidate for President.
Lieberman addressed the Republican National Convention in St. Paul and claimed to be a Democrat, even though he was elected as an Independent.
It would be both insulting and dangerous to have this man chair the Homeland Security Committee which has oversight responsibility of the Executive Branch. Think of the damage Lieberman could do to President Obama's agenda -- even though he has not held a single hearing to look into the Bush-Cheney regime's malfeasance and misadministration.
This is not about retribution. It is about keeping Lieberman from torpedoing the Obama administration's efforts to reverse the damage done by Bush and the Republicans.
November 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, Don.
November 11, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman strongly opposed most of what Obama proposed, and as you point out, supported Obama's opponent for the Presidency.
Does it really make sense for the Democrats to leave Lieberman in charge of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs? Forget Homeland Security. This is the Senate committee with oversight over all expenditures in Executive Departments.
Joe has clearly demonstrated that he considers his own conscience - however that is determined - as being more important than any political loyalties. He has also demonstrated in the recent election campaign that his own conscience frequently requires him to oppose the policies of the Democratic Party and in particular, of Barack Obama as President.
Lieberman cannot be trusted and he appears to have a grudge against Obama. Should the Democrats give a man who defeated the Democratic candidate for his Senate seat the Chairmanship of the Senate oversight committee that has all Executive Department Expenditures as its jurisdiction?
I don't think so. For all his alleged qualities as a good man who mostly votes with Democrats, he cannot be trusted. When Henry Waxman in the House was investigating the Bush administration and opposing Cheney's unitary executive ideas, Joe was passive, doing nothing. Joe is clearly the Senator from Israel, giving Israeli security greater priority than American security. Joe has also made his dislike for President-elect Obama quite clear in the Presidential election campaign. He is also NOT a Democrat. He defeated the Democratic candidate for Senate and only negotiated his membership in the Democratic caucus because the Democrats had to have him to have a majority and control the Senate.
Lieberman's power as the key vote achieving the majority in the Senate is gone, and his unwillingness to support the goals of the Democratic party have been made clear. He does not belong as the Chair of the committee that has oversight over all Executive Department Expenditures. His alleged expertise in homeland security is quite irrelevant.
It's time for him to be removed from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Besides. I just don't like him or trust him.
November 12, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems the right plan of action. Leaves Obama out of it and doesn't raise as much of a specter of partisanship as if they booted his dumb ass out, which I'd like to see but it isn't the smart thing to do. Even after all this POS has done he still holds a lot of power in the situation. Wish we'd gotten just another couple seats and we could axe him without a worry.
November 11, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
God I am tired of Harry Reid. He is spineless. I want Hillary to run but it doesn't look like she's going to.
November 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prediction: Lieberman will keep his chairmanship. They will vote, and before they do, they will humiliate him, excoriate him and call him a traitorous piece of human crap. But they'll let him keep his committee.
November 11, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is my first time writing a comment but I believe those senators eligible to vote are the members of the Senate Steering Committee not the complete Democratic Caucus. I am copying their names and numbers below.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Michigan, Chair
(202) 224-4822
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada
(202) 224-3542
Senator John Kerry, Massachusetts
(202) 224-2742
Senator Daniel Inouye, West Virginia
(202) 224-3934
Senator Robert Byrd
(202) 224-3954
Senator Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts
(202) 224-4543
Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware
(202) 224-5042
Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont
(202) 224-4242
Senator Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
(202) 224-2823
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa
(202) 224-3254
Senator Max Baucus, Montana
(202) 224-2651
Senator Richard Durbin, Illinois
(202) 224-2152
Senator Kent Conrad, North Dakota
(202) 224-2043
Senator Carl Levin, Michigan
(202) 224-6221
Senator Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin
(202) 224-5653
Senator Barbara Boxer, California
(202) 224-3553
Senator Hillary Clinton, New York
(202) 224-4451
Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
(202) 224-5521
Senator Mark Pryor, Arkansas
(202) 224-2353
Hope this helps.
November 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think some of you are overestimating Lieberman's political demise. We do have a Republican governor who is very popular. I don't think its a big deal if Lieberman stays on with his chair intact to keep him happy. There really is nothing to gain by kicking him out.
November 11, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow - thanks for all the insight people - makes me feel secure that this democracy is in good hands
maybe we could decapitate lieberman - probably would be kinder than to have you dogs trying to tear him to pieces
November 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel soooooooooo sorry for the two faced slime throwing war monger you wouldn't beleive it.
November 12, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best thing would be to remove him from chairing Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
The gain would be in giving the chair to someone who'd do some good.
The point isn't so much to punish Lieberman (although I like that idea, the bastard), as it is to strengthen an important committee.
November 11, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tide may be turning in Liebermans's favor. On Olberman tonight, Howard Fineman reported that Dick Durbin has changed his position and now wants to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship. Fineman says Durbin shifted his position after hearing Obama's remarks about holding no grudge against Lieberman.
November 11, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just faxed this letter to the Senators listed at the bottom. This is a good time to contact Senators if you are concerned about Joe Lieberman's fate in the Democratic Caucus - Don
Dear Senator:
We write you regarding Senator Lieberman�s behavior during the general election.
� Senator Lieberman participated in full measure in the derisive, divisive tone of the Republican National Convention.
� Senator Lieberman participated in full measure in the deceptive and often hateful rhetoric and tone of the campaign.
Forget about his betrayal of the Democratic Party, of his pledges to Senator Obama or others, of any semblance of honesty. Senator Lieberman betrayed the American people with his attempts to distract and deceive us, with his attempts to undermine our confidence in our next president, with his self-serving hateful speeches.
It doesn�t matter if he honestly believes that Senator McCain would make the better president. What matters is how he behaved towards the American people.
His appeals to ignorance and fear and hate were a disgrace to the stature of his office. I�m ashamed of him as a fellow Jew. I�m ashamed of him as a fellow American that he participated in the rabble rousing and hateful speech
� Which led to the hate expressed particularly at the Sarah Palin rallies,
� Which led to secret service investigation of threats shouted at those rallies,
� Which led to John Lewis� public statement of concern at the direction being taken and his subsequent support of Senator McCain�s deceptive and race baiting attack on John Lewis.
What he did was unconscionable. There must be a price. It will be more than a disgrace or an act of cynicism if no price is exacted. It will be an implicit admission of the profound weakness of which the Republicans have so long accused the Democrats. You must act against him to justify and retain the confidence we have placed in you in this election.
Cc: Senators Lieberman, Schumer, Casey, Reid(Nevada), Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Byrd, Durbin, Biden, Feinstein, McCaskill, Boxer
November 11, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have written Reid, Dodd and Bayh and asked them to vote to take away the Chairmanship of Homeland Security from Lieberman. I have also written my two home Senators, Cantwell and Murray. Since it is secret ballot, perhaps the Senators will do the right thing. Lieberman does not deserve the trust or respect from the DEMs. He can't be counted on or trusted in the future. He is all about self interest and nothing else.
November 12, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since it's a secret ballot perhaps the Senators will vote what they truly believe and want.
November 12, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink