Steve Benen makes a lot of sense. Chris Dodd makes none. Has he heard about the Separation of Powers?

If he is so worried about the voters of Connecticut, he should notice that they voted for Obama, and not for Lieberman's endorsement. Lieberman has no credibility left among those who voted for him.

Connecticut voters feel betrayed by Lieberman, and now, by Dodd too.

Liberman supported McCain in his bid for the presidency in spite of Obama campaigning on his behalf against Lamont, especially when it wasn't politically expedient. In my book, Liberman is a backstabber. Lieberman backstabbed Obama. Harry Reid and President-elect Obama have a number of VALID reasons to get rid of him that have nothing to do with politics, chief among them that Lieberman was TERRIBLE at his job. When you're bad at your job, you get booted.

Sen. Libermann must fall on the sword. That said, i am at all surprised by Sen. Dodd's comment, he's still mad because he was passed over for Vice President.

The real question is what justifications can Lieberman offer for keeping his chairmanship besides threatening to switch to the repug caucus?

As Reid pointed out, he's voted in step 99% with the Democrats for the last two years. If his chairmanship of his committee was so lackluster, why didn't someone address the issue sooner - kind of petty to do so now.

The Democrat caucus has ample reason for removing him unless he can offer a rationale justifying his actions - which I don't believe he can.

Wow! Lieberman really is a preening narcissist. He just can't help himself. If Reid and the rest of the Democratic caucus let Lieberman get away with this crap, they might as well turn the whole leadership over to him. They will have shown that he basically owns them anyway. Its an astonishing sign of weakness that they have even waited this long to deal with Lieberman in a forceful way. I have never been one for a lot of macho talk but if I were in Reid's position, I would have already given Lieberman his "offer" Michael Corleone style and the deadline for his answer would be well past.

For years I admired Joe as one who put principle ahead of politics.

Of all the crap he pulled over the past several years nothing is worse than backing Sarah Palin and standing up for her in Florida rallies.

That he would have us risk our nations security at this crucial moment shows that principle means nothing to Joe.

I now understand that Joe puts JOE ahead of principle.

Dump him from everything!

The Hartford Courant tosses Joe under the bus. (they endorsed him in '06 - shame on them!!)
Man Without A Party?

Truth be told, the Democrats probably don't need Mr. Lieberman as much as they did the past two years. With their election gains this week, they can comfortably control the Senate without him. A filibuster-proof majority of 60 appears out of reach even if they had his vote.

Censure at the state level and expulsion from the Senate Democratic caucus seems excessively old-school at the dawn of the new, less partisan political age promised by Mr. Obama. The loss of Mr. Lieberman's committee chairmanship — which would be a blow to Connecticut — is a more likely penalty for his heresy. Then he could decide with whom he wants to caucus.

Whatever happens, Mr. Lieberman may not be the power he once was. He is a renegade in a blue state and is at odds with the Senate majority and the Democrat who will soon be in the White House. His usefulness to Connecticut has been diminished. And it was his decision.

Sorry Joe, but just like McCain you lose the right to say "Country First" when you backed Sarah Palin.

There are certainly many signs that Joe Lieberman has one of the biggest egos and is one of the most manipulative senators to play the game, but neither of these is a reason to remove him from his chairmanship. The reason--and I mean REASON--to do so is this:

A man who is not a member of the party and has spent the last several months supporting the OPPOSING candidate oughtn't to be in a LEADERSHIP position within the party. It is not partisan (nor vindictive) to place Democrats in chairmanships when Democrats are in charge of the chamber. It's simply common practice. Partisanship would consist in an unwillingness to compromise with anyone from across the aisle without regard for policy or the common good.

Let's say it again: Lieberman is not a Democrat and should not be among those who lead the party. He is welcome to argue his INDEPENDENT point of view wherever he likes. If, as he claims, he agrees with the Democrats on a number of issues, no one will stop him from voting that way. He can caucus with either side: his independence has earned him the right.

There is, of course, nothing to the argument that he may be alienated if he is removed... unless one wishes to acknowledge that Lieberman's own policy positions are subject to change because of his hurt feelings or political advantage. It is time to limit his means of influencing the discourse (by controlling a committee).

Finally, the argument that we must worry about whether Lieberman's vote may be needed for a filibuster-proof 60 is, as many have noted, unsound. In the past that number has been reached on ad hoc basis and by a coalition of senators from both sides of the aisle. (No one really believes that 58 democrats and 2 independents will always think alike. It is easier, for example, to imagine Hagel voting with the democrats on a number of issues more often than Lieberman.)

Joe Lieberman's self-righteousness, pigheadedness, smarminess, and holier-than thou attitude may annoy the crap out of me, but none of these is at the heart of the argument to jettison him from a leadership position. Go with God, Joe. You've been convinced he's been on your side for as long as any of us can remember, and when a politician believes that, one can be sure that they are both disingenuous and dangerous.

Good riddance.

I have written both to Lieberman and Reid every day this week in order to make these points again and again. I hope that everyone takes an opportunity to fill up their inboxes with such comments.

yeah, just keep pushin' it, joe. go for it.

you're just piling on more schadenfreude for my cake when the time comes.

Liebermans been keeping us safe?

Now I'm scared shitless.

Put him on the Dance decorations commitee and let's move on.

Is Lieberman even going to be re-elected? What makes this man relevant, at all? He should be treated as a lame-duck Senator. This will further encourage those in CT to vote for someone else next time.

At least Lieberman has a spine something that jellyfish Reid has never encountered.

For months now, whenever I see Liberman, I've been reminded of Emperor Palantine from Star Wars, and shuddered anew.

In like manner, the Emperor is not only dead, but has no clothes.

Shove his nakedness out of the picture, out of our lives, and out of his chairmanship as soon as possible.

To suggest we need Liberman is beyond ridiculous, it's absolutely obscene.

I don't need to see Star Wars again, to know just how badly obscene, or just how much he needs to be removed.

For the good of the country, the moral rightness of the Democratic Party, and a mere hint of accountability, let Liberman go.

Then, proceed with all die haste to the best administration this country has ever seen.

Even after Lieberman was passed over for VP, he stood next to McCain and Palin at their rallies. He was a visual statement to voters that, despite Palin's shortcomings on foreign policy and national security, Joe was right there to cover, advise and support McCain and uphold the Bush administration policies.

That said, how can the Democrats possibly leave him in charge of the Homeland committee when he chose the Republican path during the campaign? It's not about partisanship -- it's about getting things done properly after a failed eight years of Bush & Company policies.

Is there one thing yet that hasn't been said about Lieberman and Reid?

About 500 times now? Is this going to go on and on and on? I don't find Droopy this compelling.

Ok? We all agree he needs to be stripped of his committee. We all wrote.

That's all we can do - can we please get a new post or talk about something else?

I think Reid might be playing this just right - let Lieberdouche flail, beg, and threaten as he twists in the wind of his own rancid breath. He has nothing to say of himself - nothing - that'll elide his thoroughly feckless behavior, and the stench of his very public and self-ordained decay will send as clear a message as any power move Reid could manage. In the end Lieberwimp's pathetic attempts at ingratiation and intimidation will be publicly seen as rationale enough for whatever demotion he gets. However, if Reid lets him keep his gavel...but he won't. We got a new sheriff and a new game in town.

It appears the disharmony in this thread distills down to two contrasting styles of leadership: one of building consensus through reasoned discussion and debate and the other demanding obedience, conformity, and loyalty. Those who don't conform are punished and marginalized. The Republicans did this and failed miserably.

Bob Schieffer's sign-off this morning was instructive. To paraphrase, he said he was a little disappointed in Obama's acceptance speech and the marked lack of celebration.

He went on that he read an article the next day stating that Obama had nixed fireworks and an overt display of celebration so as to avoid rubbing the noses of the losers in their defeat.

What needs to be done to cure this nation's ills will be done. It would be best if the pending solutions had as many supporters as possible.

I've also questioned Harry Reid's apparent lack of assertiveness. However, to achieve larger goals, perhaps there's a reason for it.

I can certainly think of better people than Lieberman to chair the Homeland Security Committee. There's lots of talent in the senate. Maybe Reid's days are numbered, too.

Dodd needs to STFU....Hey Chris what happened to that fillibuster for FISA.............
If it wasn't for Dodd Boxer and Clinton we wouldn't be worrying about LIEberman we would have Senator Lamont in the congress.

Lieberman should in no way be left in charge of a committee in which he disagrees with the majority party. His insulting suggestion that Democrats can't keep the country safe should seal his fate.

However, Lieberman has been a solid Democrat on Social issues, so if he elects to remain our caucus, he should be given a committee where he reflects our common values.

Lieberman ought to vote his principles...he should not be given any positions by the Democratic Party he trashes regularly...if his principles take him to fellow maverick McCain, fellow moron Palin, and to defend fellow right-winger and do-nothin-to embarrass-Bush-and-his-war Senator Coleman (Lieberman's comments defending Coleman's record on oversight were used in the attack ads on Franken), then I respect his decision to bolt the party. I do not respect the Wimpocrats, starting with old mush-head Dodd for surrendering to this shitbag. Decisions like allowing Lieberman to attack whomever and whenever he likes have consequences.

Dumping Lieberman is in the interest of national security.

Joe has already left the Democratic caucus. All that is left is the formal announcement. There is no justification - principled or strategic - to retain one who has already departed. It is time to recognize that this is long overdue. More diddling makes the Senate Democrats look ridiculous.

There's no way Democratic leadership will allow Lieberman to retain his chairmanship given the incompatibility of his agenda with national security objectives.

Would this mean no more orange, yellow, ocher or umber alerts?

Can we PLEASE just send this guy packing over to the republicans where he belongs?!

It has been obvious that he has been leaning republican for years. He just clings to the illusion of being a democratic leaning independent in order to hold onto his chairmanship.

We don't need a closet republican working against our progressive objectives. CUT HIM LOOSE NOW!

They will vote to oust his beeyotch arse. He doesn't realize he has no sway in this. He should take his demotion like the rat that he is.

That's ironic considering Joe Leiberman has been putting HIMSELF above the will of the voters, not just nationally but his own constituents.

Joe is a terrible person. IS, WAS adn WILL BE.
GET RID OF HIM ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Adios Joe, Asta La Vista Babe!

The aide is quite right. If Lieberman is removed form the committee chairmanship, Israel will get very mad. The mossad will be upset that their mole in the US has been demoted - they may order all kinds of terrorist activities in the US.

Best to leave this guy alone.

Lieberman is purely pathetic as HSC Chairman. No oversight whatsoever of an agency that needed it as much as the DOJ. His personality just doesn't lend itself to strong leadership. He is too slimy like a lounge lizard and he bends with the wind except where Israel is concerned. He denigrated the now President elect after Obama went to Ct. to help him. He is a backstabber who thinks a "my bad" is sufficient to return to the starting point. No room for collegiality here. He should be removed from his chairmanship and he can decide if he wants to leave the caucus. DO NOT!offer a sub-committee chairmanship. It doesn't matter what his aides think nor him either. This is a decision for Democratic Senators only. In my opinion he should be made irrevelant as soon as possible. After Jan. 1 it doesn't matter what he does. He has his constituents to consider if he wants to run again. If the CT. citizens dumped Chris Shays he would be walking a tightrope even if he were still caucusing with the Democrats. The Republicans aren't going to put as much money, time and effort to re-elect him in 2012.

Booting him is just dessert, fucking traitor. What did drooping dog expect after he did not keep his word and viciously attacked Obama. Fuck him

"Chris Dodd is, disappointingly, suggesting that Barack Obama doesn't want a fight over Joe Lieberman's fate."

Just because Barack Obama is signalling that HE doesn't want a fight over Joe Lieberman's fate, doesn't mean that he doesn't the Democratic caucus to clean house on its own. Obviously, the new President-elect (gosh that's cool) doesn't want to play small ball and get overly partisan over the fate of Joe Lieberman just days after his crushing, history-making victory. He'll leave that to Harry Reid, who is more than up to the task of kicking Lieberman to the curb. It's a matter for the Democratic Congressional caucus to handle, and the Executive Branch can and should stay out of it.

So Joe Lieberman is saying that without him on the committee, homeland security will somehow suffer?

Also on the committee Carl Levin, who just happens to be in his second stint as Chair of the Armed Services Committee. I suspect he might not take kindly to the notion that he wouldn't be able to look after Homeland Security as well as Lieberman.

There are a number of egregious nitwits in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, but if you're looking for the most insufferably pompous jackass in the entire Congress, look no further than Holy Joe Lieberman.

Give Loserman to the Repubs, and we'll take Snowe and Hagel!

CNN is quoting Reid saying that, with Lieberman, he sees the glass half full. I say there is no glass. I am beginning to wonder whether Reid is nearly as big a weasel as Lieberman. I think I recognize the many reasons that Reid might want to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I just do not see that they hold any water, any more than the glass does.

So there is no homeland security without Lieberman in charge? Let's take our chances.

What leverage does this "aide" imagine Lieberman has? Keeping his big yap shut and playing nice is his best bet, but his ego won't let him.

This is exaactly why I was so glad to see the Country Wide scandle knock Chris Dodd out of contention for the Vice President slot. I for one, have not forgotten how Dodd and Lieberman blocked legislation proposed by Bill Clinton that would have regulated the Accounting firms like Arthur Anderson and blocked those off the books, fuzzy math procedures that helped companies like Enron rip people off.

The GOP will be losing at least four Senators off the HS&GA Committee chaired by Lieberman (Domenici, Sununu, Stevens, and Warner) and maybe Coleman too. Collins, Coburn and Voinivich will be the last GOP standing, and they will also be losing a seat.

Does anyone think that having Daniel Akaka chairing this committee will really hurt America, after the pathetic CYA for the Bush/Cheney regime performed by Lieberman and Collins?

This fight over Lieberman's committee assignement has nothing to do with the incoming Obama administration. Since President-elect Obama is not part of the Senate leadership, this only tangentially involves him at all only due to President-elect Obama is still Senator Obama for the next couple of months. That Senator Dodd is trying to conflate a caucus fight of a Hill committee chairmanship, which is not even the correct branch of government that is President Obama's responsibility going forward, it is a bit bizarre to even bring up President-elect Obama's name if you ask me.

Is there any way that the pure electoral math, in light of demographic changes, can allow the GOP to be even close to hopeful in the foreseeable future?

I don't understand what the fuss is all about. The Democrats won the election, and Democrats should then organize the Senate. Joe ran against the Democrat, and beat him. Joe is not elgible for a seat as a Chairman, at least not as a Democrat.

There is no reason to exclude him from the Democratic caucus; allow Joe to vote his conscience. If he continues to support Democratic positions, that is fine. If not, well, that is fine also. If Joe decides to caucus with the Republicans, and vote his conscience with them, then let him.

BP

Booting LIEberman would endanger us????? What drugs is this guy taking. :snicker: He would just move over to the repugs and they "claim" to have the safety of this country as their stalwart duty. LIEberman should NEVER have been re-elected in the first place. IF he had lost, where would the country be??????

Hmmm... why would anyone in congress hesitate to bag Lieberman when he, (LIEberman), has little else to lose?
He could be threatening to 'let the cat out' on any of dozens of dirty secrets that he is privy to.
9-11?
I know this is purely speculative, but this far downthread, WTF? After 100 declarations of moral indignation may we speak metaphorically?...No! Shampoo MY crotch!...We're poking an injured sullen tiger with a stick and asking it to leave. That man is holding us hostage. He's worse than a traitor, and has been for years.