It's Official: Lieberman Keeps Homeland Security Chairmanship
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."
Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.
Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"
"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."
Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.
So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.
Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
Late Update: A source briefed on what happened at the meeting tells us that John Kerry and Dick Durbin were among the Senators who supported Lieberman staying as chair.
Late Late Update: Heres' the video of the Senate Dem press conference after the vote:
This thread may become popular before the end of the day.
November 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How hilarious! Holy Joe escapes punishment. The US Senate is friggin' joke.
Here's hoping Barack schools these jokers like the bitches they are for the next 8 years and gets everything he wants past them.
He who laughs last laughs best!
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, folks... Obama was the one who asked that they not ditch Lieberman. That they not punish him. It was his decision, the Dem leadership followed his advice.
November 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember something about separation of powers, and the Senate being part of a branch distinct from the Executive...
November 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless.
November 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares what Obama thinks? Sure, he doesn't want to waste political capital in the Senate. Why would he? However, anyone who keeps a viper in his bed because "it doesn't bite that often" deserves what he has coming. Just wait till Good Ole Joe costs the Dems a cloture vote. And, mark my words, he will. The Democrats lack of self-respect (that's exactly what McConnell will see it as) will only embolden the Republican minority.
November 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you felt the need to cut the line and post above everyone to declare your moronic conclusion?
LOL
November 18, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama simply signaled that he wanted Lieberman to say in the caucus. from that, Senate Dems could've easily said "okay then, Lieberman loses is chairmanship but we want him to stay in the caucus." Then Lieberman leaves the caucus, looking like a petty power-monger.
This falls squarely on Senate Dems, not Obama. and it's infuriating to see Obama exploited by Lieberman to explain why he's staying.
November 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lieberman is actually exploiting Obama, then Obama could end the exploitation right quick with a simple explanation of his own -- that reality ain't the way Lieberman says it is.
And for that matter, Obama could have not allowed the exploitation to happen in the first place by truly respecting separation of powers and keeping absolutely silent on the issue until after the vote (at least). And that means both privately and publicly. If it truly is the Senate's business, and Obama is no longer a Senator, then it's not his business, period.
As it stands, Obama is silent when he should be speaking and spoke when he should have kept silent.
November 19, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
first of all, all obama said was that he should stay in the caucus. he never took a position on whether or not he should keep his chair.
secondly, you may have forgotten over these last 8 yrs but the senate is a co-equal branch of govt. the president can't dictate to the senate any more than the house can dictate the the executive.
November 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
THEY KEPT Liberman BECAUSE of Obama
NOT in spite of him.
November 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How hilarious! Holy Joe escapes punishment. "
Didn't you get the memo?
It wasn't about retribution, it was about "good governance" because Leiberman is incompetent. Of course it was only discovered he was incompetent when he supported the Iraq war, and campaigned for McCain. But this had absolutely nothing to do with punishment or ideological purging...
:rolleyes:
Yes Leiberman is a jerk, but the way many have handled this has also been incredibly jerky, making it personal, and bordering on obsession.
Reid is correct. Blogs calling for Leiberman to be "punished" haven't been concerned with his competency. It's been a vendetta against him for his Iraq war stance and his support of McCain. He's become a boogyman where people just like to drop his name and pile on. Particularly at Kos.
For Greg Sargent to claim the blogosphere obsession with Leiberman is based on "good governance" is just utter BS, and Sargent knows it. Pathetic.
I disagree with Leiberman on issues and wouldn't mind seeing him go. But that's for his constituants to decide. It would have been wrong to remove Leiberman for revenge or ideological purging. If there were good governance reasons to get rid of him, the blogosphere totally buried them under rants about supporting McCain and the Iraq war.
November 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And kozmik, what exactly are your thoughts about Joe's performance as chair of HS/GA? Describe, please, in detail.
November 19, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all try a thought exercise here. Say Chuck Hagel actively campaigned for John Kerry in 2004 due to Bush's mis-handling of Iraq. Bush wins, the GOPers keep control of the Senate. What do you think THEY would have done to Hagel? Probably what Michael did to Carlo at the end of The Godfather.
November 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Carlo's was sloppy and too close to home. A bad move I always thought. He'd have done him like Sonny did Paulie. "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
November 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
nah, i think Fredo would be a more apt example. Fredo "went against the family" and actually had to face the consequences of that.
But poot joe, he goes against the familyand gets rewarded.
November 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes... right! The Democratic leadership should be taking their cues from Republicans! Heh... brilliant!
November 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying we should emulate the Republicans? Maybe the Gingrich Revolution?
How'd that work out in the long term? Tom Delay? K Street?
No thanks.
November 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate Democratic Caucus - a black whole in an empty relic of republican government. About as much use as it was when the Railroads ran the place in the 19th century
November 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice rant. (yawn)
November 18, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would've been framed politically even if there were good governmental reasons for the decision. The argument would've been, "Well, you didn't try to unseat him before he supported McCain."
That being said: what a bunch of pussies.
November 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then don't let it get framed that way. There's nothing out there that says that Democrats HAVE to roll over, and let the right frame any and all issues. We have mouths. Feel free to use them when necessary.
November 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't framed by the right. It was framed by the media. They love stories about revenge.
November 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please.
Going back to Kos campaign against Leiberman and support of Lamont, it's always been about ideological purging and a sort of Oedipal obsession with him.
I don't like Joe but this whole episode, going back to Kos and Lamont, has really demonstrated how bloggers and sometimes mob-like readers lose all perspective.
November 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to frame an open hand upside a head from time to time. But that's juvenile.
November 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they're pussies, this wasn't a fear thing. They care more about personal relationships than principles.
So this shakes my confidence in the US Senate, not Dems per se. If this were the House I'm sure he'd have been out.
November 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my take. As someone mentioned, Joe has long ago given up his intention of serving CT. He is serving the right wing of the Israeli government, the AIPAC/Neocon/Likud contingent.
By keeping him at the Senate oversight position Obama is sending a strong signal that the group who once ran Bush's entire foreign policy will be placated with some sort of proximity to power, but at the same time they are marginalized to a far less influential role than would have been if Joe were, say, VP under Gore or Sec of State under McShame.
I would have much preferred it if he was rejected outright, but this situation brings to mind the old adage:
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
November 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that it would have been "framed" that way, it's a simple fact that at DKos and such, all the people calling for his head have done so because he "betrayed" the party.
Which is just another example of how much Kos and his crowd have yet to learn and why I think they obsess over Joe in an almost Oedipean way.
Joe, jerk that he is, has at least been around long enough to probably know: you never begin a campaign to get someone fired for competency by declaring you just don't like the person for personal reasons. That's a sure way to inoculate the person from criticism and reduce your moral standing. (duh!)
November 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This infuriates me.
What can I do to make it clear to these jerks that this wasn't about retribution?
I've called Dodd's office, and e-mailed him, what now?
Threaten to withhold contributions? What can we do?
November 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Vote him out in 2012 is about all that can be done.
November 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming that he even runs again in 2012, his status as a political representative of CT is completely beside the point. That is especially the case given the fact that a very large percentage of his support, most of it in fact, is from non-Democrats. This was about the best interest of the Democratic party, not CT. The Democratic caucus abdicated their responsibility to those interests and addressing the matter through state elections in CT is not any kind of actual response to that.
November 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's likely to happen is that Leiberman begins his long, slow decline. I doubt he can run again.
Ironically, the blogosphere calling for his head for mostly personal/ideological reasons, particularly kos obsession with him, may have inoculated him from criticism.
Anyways, people are obsessing over this way too much. He's not the only person on the committee, and my bet is that Levin and Akaka boss Joe around.
November 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know the Democrats have just now made it much harder to vote him out in 2012. How important is this issue? We will see how much destruction Lieberman can do (not just as Chairman of a committee that could have been used to root out wrongdoing in the Bush administration, but also as he ruins the Democratic Party and whatever it stands for. ) What to do? I am declaring a bank holiday...for now, I will watch and see. But if they want money they will have to go to Joe.
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? I did see how that's true?
November 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, I don't understand what you are saying or asking?
November 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said, "As you know the Democrats have just now made it much harder to vote him out in 2012."
I may have misunderstood. I think this one decision makes it harder to vote Lieberman out in 2012? I don't see how. If he behaves and helps the party in substantive manner then he may deserve to be reelected. If he doesn't mend his ways, he'll be voted out.
November 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Whether or not he mends his ways, he can point to this vote and the good standing that he has maintained with Democrats to sell his candidacy in a mostly Democratic state. The fact that Democrats essentially chose to ignore his transgressions will tell Democrats in CT that they are essentially unimportant. It is unlikely, whatever Holy Joe does from here on in that the Dem Senate at least will get another chance to send a clearer signal than they could have today.
November 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demand to know how every one of them voted. The only reason for a secret ballot in this matter is to duck responsibility; any one who won't tell their constituents how they voted must be assumed to have voted in favor of Lieberman.
November 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can "demand" all we want.
It's not about us.
It was never about us.
We 66,882,230 voters are just the Useful Idiots.
November 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I think you need to round that down, way down to the number of people that are actually pissed about this. You guys are a "special" group, but do not make up the majority. Not to say that your voice doesn't matter, but these pols are thinking about the majority.
November 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Only six of us are "pissed".
The rest are just fine with this.
And I expect to hear that exact Talking Point on all the Sunday morning gasbag shows, too.
Thanks for your concern.
November 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't give a number but you guys don't represent the feelings of all of those 66 million people. I'm newer to this scene than most of you and I am still able to look at this situation from the point of view of someone who gets their news from the mainstream media. This is being framed as what revenge to take on Lieberman for the things he said on the trail. NOT on his voting record, and NOT on his incompetence. The election is over, most people have moved on and this Lieberman mess is minor shit. And I don't need proof of that, you know it's the truth. You have all commented on how Americans are disconnected from politics. I am not saying your voices aren't important but the Dems who voted to keep him in ain't thinkin' about the people at TPM, DKOS or any other left leaning media.
November 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus... when someone gets arrested for vandalism... is that arrest considered "revenge"? Or is it a righteous, legitimate response to a criminal act?
What Joe Lieberman did to his party's basic values was criminal vandalism.
And again, I fully expect there to be a fucking Amen Chorus on the Sunday morning gasbag shows, all flogging the Talking Point that only the Leftie Crazies wanted "revenge" on Joe.
Just FYI, pal: if I really wanted "revenge" on Joe, I can think of a much more immediate, direct, and final way to make that so.
It's been used in this country before. But, not to worry... in my 50+ years in this country, they've only used it on DEMOCRATS. So his little punim is safe.
November 18, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ferbissina punim, you mean.
November 18, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, ace, how about this: Joe as Chairman starts investigating the Obama Administration with the zeal he never showed for investigating the Bush Administration.
Joe's got a megaphone now. Suppose the investigation is just pure unadulterated b.s. What's Obama going to do? Object? Hmmmm. How's that going to look?
It will be a media circus, and guess how much will actually be accomplished?
Your point about the number of people caring is well taken. However, I would imagine that the people who care strongly about this are also those most likely to contribute to the Democratic Party. May seem like a trivial and minor issue to you, but it's not to those who have cared about our government for more than the Obama candidacy.
November 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the committee doesn't do that. But whatever. Yes, the sky is certainly falling.
Anywhoo...
What would actually be a good idea is for HLS to be totally reorganized and maybe dismantled altogeather.
The entire notion of HLS needs defining and coordinated with military/defense, intelligence, and law enforcement. Right now it's a mess because of how the Dept of HLS was created under Bush.
November 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
the committee doesn't do what?
Investigate the government? Forgive me, I thought the "Government Affairs" portion of the committee indicated that, for instance, the committee could investigate, for instance, the response to Katrina. But no, you say?
November 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct. I would guess that a larger portion of the 65mil are more concerned about their $500 check than what happens to Joe.
November 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly does it take to get actual punishment from the Democratic caucus? It's a good thing Zell Miller retired, or he'd be majority leader by now...
November 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
But hey, maybe they gave Joe a sternly worded something or other.
November 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be changing my registration to Independent, and resigning my position as a precinct chair.
November 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that might not be a good idea. At least when I lived in CT, you had to be a member of the party to vote in the primary, which means you give up your right to effect change at that stage of things (except by volunteering, I guess). When I was a kid there, my folks registered one Republican, one Democrat so they could have a say in both primaries.
November 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In CA you can be a registered anything to vote in the Dem primary, but the GOP wants your loyalty first or you are out of the running.
November 18, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could do more good working with other precinct chairs to find a suitable challenger to Traitor Joe for 2012.
November 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how being a precinct chair in Durham NC would help me get that done.
My precinct voted for Obama by about 5-1; Durham County overall by about 3-1. We worked a lot harder to elect Obama (and Bev Perdue, Kay Hagan, and everyone else on the ticket) than Lieberman ever did, and hell, i can't even get tickets to the inauguration.
No, someone else can step up to the plate and do this for the next 4 years. I've got other battles to fight. Not saying i'd ever work against Democrats, just that there are better uses for my time
Hope you all read Kos' report on the bloggers' conference call with Howard Dean today. Very interesting stuff.
November 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think framing it that way gave them a way out of canning him, that is, they didn't want to appear to be acting in retribution.
You got to wonder what pull Joe has on democrats in the Senate. One reader here suggests his ties to AIPAC have something to do with it.
November 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not much we can do in the short term. I faxed and emailed Dodd, arguing against his "campaign" of support for Lieberman. And I faxed and emailed the Democratic Steering Committee, as well.
The long term goal must be to make this the ultimate term for Lieberman's career. I expect him to try to submarine himself back into the good graces of the CT Dem party for a re-election bid. He needs the Dem machinery to win again, even as an independent. We must make sure at the local level that this does not happen.
Let's face it -- he would not have won last time, were it not for the support of the state machinery. That support came from long-time Lieberman compadres operating the switches. Just keep an oar in at your town committee.
Thanks.
mp
November 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He won last time, in part, because of the sheer colossal badness of the Republican candidate. Sure, Schlesinger was a hoot at the debates, but he was a terrible candidate. And Joe got his supporters.
November 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
launch an educational campaign in CT that lets voters know how much their senator has failed them. Lieberman helped propagate toxic language that only divides the nation and works against consensus.
The voters of CT need to know this. The latest poll I've seen gave Lieberman 41% approval in CT. That tells me voters haven't heard enough.
November 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not giving money to any Democrats, and if I get a request, I'll tell them to get it from Lieberman, the Republicans, and any other "rivals" who they would rather placate, as opposed to the majority who actually voted for change. I'm so pissed right now, they can return to the days of Mondale and Dukakis for all I care, because they certainly don't give a damn about the grassroots(including netroots) that put them in power.
Let's all sit back and watch the country go down the drain as effective leadership is sacrificed for the image of bipartisanship/postpartisanship.
My one Democratic Senator is Bob Casey, and I'm pretty sure he voted to keep Lieberman in the chair--so he won't be getting my money or my vote in the future either. I hated Rick Santorum, but at least he had enough self respect not to reward those who tried to defeat him.
November 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give to Democrats. Just not incumbent Democrats. And definitely not to the DSCC.
November 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't withhold donations. Redirect them.
For example, here.
Even sooner, Harry Reid will be up for re-election in 2010. Surely there is a progressive Nevadan who would like to stand up against this pussyfooter in a primary battle.
A lot of money can be collected in two or four years, especially if peoples' regular donations to, say, the DSCC, are re-directed.
November 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really gets me is that they think they can fool us with this loss of a lesser committee. My intelligence is being insulted.
November 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Talk about "They must think you are stupid." Also talk about "They are out of touch."
November 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amazing part is that they are literally kicking Lieberman off of those committees on subjects where he agrees with democrats, and keeping him on the committees on subjects where he disagrees with democrats.
November 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not an auspicious start for a new admin. I wonder how much of his agenda will Obama be able to achieve with these bunch of lily livered poltroons.
November 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nauseating.
The worst part? Seeing that jowly-faced asshole revel in his victory.
I hope that this is merely sympbolic and that the Dems do everything in their power to emasculate him.
November 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to be realistic and resolve myself to Dem weakness given how they have consistently behaved in the past. But man, could they possibly be more spineless? Just amazing really. I have said it before: there is no successful organization on Earth that would even allow the status of someone who did what Lieberman did to his own organization even be a question. They're just pathetic. Lets hope they somehow make the best of Lieberman's vote. They paid an awful lot for it.
November 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems confirm that they suck - no surprises here.
November 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's pray that we don't have another Katrina or 9/11 type event while Joe remains chairman at Homeland Security.
And what do you want to bet he's still going to be supporting Chambliss and Coleman?
November 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has his reasons. What are they?
November 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. Given that Obama has been right where my own judgment has not, it may be that having Holy Joe's testes in a coin purse will prove useful--even though the optics are appalling, at best.
On the other hand, the first time LieberPUTZ knifes Obama, the President-elect should expect a chorus of "told you so!" and a concomitant reduction in his reputation for political judgment. Not that he appears to care very much what the activist core of the Democratic Party has to say.
November 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The judgment part I don't agree with. Obama may have decided to give Joe a chance knowing full well that he could pull the same thing again. It doesn't necessarily reflect on his judgment.
November 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
We are conditioned to respond to Lieberman with spite and fury. We are allowed to forget his actual voting record, his 4 decades of service. We set aside any whiff of Statesmanship to "get even".
Or, dare I say, we used to. This move consolidates Democratic power in the Senate, and changes the polarity on the way business gets conducted. This is what I think Obama wants.
This is certainly what Obama is going to need to move his agenda. I would not be surprised if he reaches into the GOP caucus as does the same with a group of Senators he knows he is going to need.
Stop fighting each other. Let Joe go. The future has a nasty habit of arriving so let it go. There are much bigger fish to fry.
Pax,
M.
November 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... I'd be more convinced about "consolidating Democratic power in the Senate" if Lieberman were actually a Democrat. His vicious sliming of Obama and Democrats in general during the election doesn't exactly convince me that he's a team player.
Also, I'd be more convinced about "consolidating Democratic power in the Senate" if they, you know, actually used their power to accomplish something once in a while, not just circle the Beltway wagons and flip their constituents the bird.
November 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
November 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third.
November 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
>We are conditioned to respond to Lieberman with spite and fury. We are allowed to forget his actual voting record, his 4 decades of service.
But...it is precisely his voting record on national security issues that is cause for concern.
November 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not the message that is getting to media. The loudest of you are yelling about what he said on the campaign. Where was this outrage about his voting record BEFORE the election?...That is a question asked by a reasonable person. You guys have bad timing.
November 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Few are in the dark about how many folks have been aware of Joe's Republican notions for a decade or more.
November 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
anew08, the bad blood about Lieberman goes back a lot further than you seem to be aware of. Although we didn't have access to sites like TPM back then, a lot of us have been railing against Traitor Joe since he supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton ten years ago. He then went on to help drag Al Gore down to "defeat," and to wholeheartedly support Bush-Cheney on the war in Iraq, torture, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, etc. etc. The fact that he attacked a Democratic candidate's patriotism was merely the most recent drop in an already overflowing bucket.
November 19, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "polarity in the Senate," you mean how Democrats constantly have to capitulate to the Republicans, while any Democratic initiatives are scuttled by Republicans and Yellow Dog Democrats? Glenn Greenwald had a great post today at Salon.com about this absurd myth of destructive partisanship in Congress.
"Bipartisanship" means Republicans getting everything they want, which is how things have gone even with Reid and Pelosi as majority leaders. We need more of that?!
November 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are much bigger fish to fry.
We've been waiting for these Spineless Fools to to go after the bigger fish for years.
November 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any evidence that Obama actually signaled that he wanted Lieberman to keep his chairmanship? That's the pro-Lie spin but I'm not convinced. I'm actually infuriated that they'd exploit Obama's standing for their own petty purposes
November 18, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we know exactly what Obama said except "no grudges" held.
November 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is smarter than you all give him credit for. Obama and the leadership know something you all don't.
Clinton
Lieberman
Still waiting on McCain.
I'm ready to give more credit to Obama than I would have before the election. Perhaps I've misjudged him.
November 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could see being forgiving if LIEberman's opposition had been in good faith, but it never was. He repeatedly lied and adopted tendentious positions concerning the President-elect, the Democratic Party, and liberals in general, not to mention thwarting key liberal foreign policy and domestic security principles during his leadership of the committee. And apparently he also wasn't very good at managing the position.
This decision should make every decent Democrat vomit.
What will the Dems do if LIEberman continues, from this important position, to undermine the President-elect's policy preferences?
November 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They'll go before the cameras, and on to the talk shows, and say "No one could have anticipated that Joe would, after all we said to him, behave this way. We're deeply disappointed in Joe, and there have to be consequences for his behavior. We're not going to sit with Joe at lunch any longer."
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter: I completely disagree.
They will so sit with Joe at lunch.
(But that strong statement you suggest they'll make will certainly do the job! And then we can all move forward, again...)
November 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disgusting. Last week I emailed both of my California senators (Boxer and Feinstein)to oppose this. Got nothing from Boxer, and a got totally disengenous message from Feinstein saying that this should be decided by the new Congress in January (even though it in fact was decided today!).
The Senate Dems are suicidal weasels. Now Lieberman has a national security pulpit to continue to shoot at Obama.
November 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he will. Lieberman is a little weasel, but he's an opportunist. His only hope at keeping his seat is to convince the good people at CT that he's a good little Dem--after losing his only hope at a continued career, in the McCain Administration. Now he's got to jump when President Obama says jump.
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Years ago..in the 1970's I worked for 5 years in the Senate. It is a different place today. There is a reason only 15% give or take approve of the job these people do.
November 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until the Senate returns to Statesmanship, this 15% will continue.
Today was a step in the right direction.
Let it go. It's done. There are far more important issues than this.
November 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the reason nobody trusts or supports Congress look no further than today's vote. The Senate is nothing but a club of petty oligarchs, petty spineless democrats.
As if this were news...a worthless body of cowards who rip us off for contributions to keep their little club together
The only thing they do well...two actually - 1. Take care of their own 2. lull the rest of us into complacency as they fleece us for contributions
We haven't thrown enough of the bums out apparently
Let's move on indeed
November 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now he's got to jump when President Obama says jump.
Or what? People don't seem to be getting that what just happened cements the fact, more than anything else ever could, that Lieberman doesn't have to do anything to remain a member in good standing. They lost the best chance they will ever get to demonstrate that they will not accept this sort of behavior from Lieberman. Any attempt to deal with him from here on in will extract a much higher political cost.
November 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or he loses his seat. Not from the spineless senate, but from the good people of CT, who hate him.
I'm not saying this doesn't stink, but I don't think he will undermine Obama because that's not the way the political wind is blowing....
November 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said above, the people of CT's interests may overlap with those of the progressive caucus at times, but they are not the same. Most of his supporters in CT are not even Democrats. They haven't given any other Democrat leverage over Lieberman yet. But even if they do now, what happened today is entirely irrelevant to that. Lieberman's dedication to the progressive cause were going to matter exactly the same to his election in CT whether he was chairman or not. His keeping his chairmanship gives Obama exactly zero added leverage. He can't do anything to hurt him that he couldn't have done otherwise.
November 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The good people of CT may hate him, but what difference does that make now? There's no guarantee that he'll even run for re-election.
November 18, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... the good people of CT were told that Holy Joe was more of a Democrat than the Democrat who beat him in the Democratic primary, and ran as a Democrat, and lost because they thought Holy Joe was the same Democrat who marched in the civil rights movement some 35 years ago, and therefore was more of a Democrat than the Democrat, despite the fact that Holy Joe was, in fact, no longer a Democrat.
You really gotta admire that level of Stupid.
I don't trust the citizens of Connecticut (except, of course, for those in the minority who did vote for the Democrat!) to wipe their own asses, at this point.
November 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or what exactly! The worm has been thumbing his nose at this party for 5 years now and he just keeps getting rewarded for it.
Gutless wonders....
November 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm hoping too. Obama is good at strategizing 3 or 4 moves ahead, so while I'm exasperated as usual with the Senate Dems, I'll hold out hope that the recently resigned junior Senator has a plan for his former colleague. Like along the lines of Michael Corleone's plan for Fredo...
November 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
>Now he's got to jump when President Obama says jump.
Don't count on it. Traitor Joe fancies himself a "maverick," like his pal John McCain (with whom he was prepared to share the Republican ticket until Sarah Palin came along).
With Lieberman, I think the carrot would've worked better than the stick -- i.e., holding out the possibility of a future return to the chairmanship if he tows the line, as opposed to the idle threat of taking it away from him if he doesn't. Committee chairs change rarely -- in between sessions -- never in mid-session. So now that he has what he wants, I wouldn't expect Lieberman to behave any differently during the next four years than he has during the last eight.
November 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here..Feinstein answered with total BS and BoXer remained silent. I even called her office yesterday
Well next time I get a solicitation from Give Em Hell Harry or the BoXer PAC, I remove myself from their list
Let Lieberman send em money
November 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply absurd! Even as experienced and sophisticated as I am , I cannot see how this achieves anything meaningful for Senate Democrats at large. Anything at all.
We had him on the ropes, then offered him a hand. Now, we wait for the sucker punch that is sure to come…
November 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it's official: Reid is a wuss. Kick him out.
November 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may well work politically for Obama if it means Lieberman as committee chairman continues to do little in terms of executive oversight.
That Lieberman is saying he owes keeping his gavel to Obama's personal intervention is significant, too: he realizes that he owes his continued chairmanship to Obama. Obama looks magnanimous, and he also has an oversight chairman that owes him a significant debt.
By having this play out now, instead of after settling of the Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia senate races, this also locks up another caucus vote which has some small chance to get to 60.
November 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, just bullshit. I wish everyone would stop saying this. Given how Lieberman has behaved as chairman, and how he behaved for the last six months, undermining Obama at almost every turn, what on God's green earth makes you think he's suddenly going to change his behavior?
No offense, but that just sound like the most Pollyannish thinking ever.
November 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to keep belaboring this point, but this is just completely wrong. If they were going to make Lieberman suffer any consequences for his behavior, this was their chance. They cannot realistically remove him from his chairmanship if he pisses them off later. Such a move would have the stink of anti-democratic vindictiveness all over it. Lieberman knows this. So do his colleagues although they would like to pretend otherwise. No. What will happen is that Lieberman will continue to crap all over Dems and their response will be to somberly intone how disappointed they are in their good friend. Nothing has changed and, more significantly, Dems have just signaled loudly and clearly that they have no desire to make them change.
November 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only would a future act against Lieberman if (or more likely, when) he stabs Democrats in the back again seem vindictive, if will rally anti administration forces around whatever issue he chooses to defect (defecate?) over. Lieberman has been given the keys to make a major crisis out of whichever issue he chooses to in the future.
November 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right. Now was the time to address this issue, not at some point in the future. In the future, the Dems hands are tied, and Obama couldn't possibly be seen trying to intervene in a Senate committee issue.
Total fuckup by the Democrats today. Wow. What a novelty.
November 18, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has the stink of vindictiveness NOW, have you read the posts on this thread?
November 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, imagine being vindictive against a man who totally undermined American security at every opportunity!
What's next, a presidential and Democratic congressional pardon for the 9/11 attackers?
After all, we don't want to appear vindictive.
Let's just move on.
November 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Where was this uproar and call for his resignation when he was undermining national security? I cannot say this enough.......the narrative has ONLY been about what Lieberman said on the trail. The narrative is set - you've heard the news, right? So to come out of no where and say Joe hasn't done a good job....really? I can just picture the talking heads now : "just an excuse to kick him out for campaigning for McCain", "Dems get revenge on Joe for going against Obama." And all the electorate will hear is blah, blah, blah, more D.C. bull shit, nothing's changed, politicians won't grow up long enough to help save the economy, stop the war and give me the health care I was promised.
November 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have fucking got to be kidding me.
anew08, I just want to say that I'm so happy for you, that you've come so swimmingly out of the coma you were in when Lieberman was running against Lamont. I understand fully why you were unaware of any of the unhinged, Leftie criticisms against this "real" Democrat, which transpired fully years before the Dems even had a presidential candidate that Lieberman could publicly trash (or before the R's had several controversial and extreme congressional ones, that Joe could vigorously support, either!).
November 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, yeah. LIEberman's opposition to Obama was merely icing on the sh*t cake he had been serving Democrats during his 8-year love-fest with Bush foreign and national security policy. Coma, denial, delusion, or Cheney-channeling surely appears to be at play here.
November 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
anew, you are often astonishingly callow in your admonition of others and your insistence that they pay attention to the talking points floated by the Robber Baron Media. The latter is a dying icon. Even if all of America lies at the feet of the one eyed monster (except for the 3 or 4 disgruntled and well-informed voters you acknowledge), those of us here are hoping to influence and experience the next platform in the expanding, advancing universe. That ain't on TV. But it's brighter than the box.
November 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is the weakest, most ineffectual "leader" in memory. Not only that, it's incredibly insulting to have Senate Democrats feed us line after line of bullsh*t, as though we're stupid enough to believe it.
I'm going to continue contacting my Senator's office until I can get an answer to how he voted on stripping Lieberman of his chairmanships. I'm also going to let the DSCC know that, since they don't respect my opinion, they can take their requests for money, roll them up in a tight little ball, and ram it up their metaphorical *ss. Why should I give them money and help elect their stooges while they're gleefully spitting in my face by keeping a non-Democratic traitor in charge of Democratically-held committees?
Beltway-addled bastards!
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You think Reid is worse than Daschle?
Personally, I think they both suck, but Reid is a marginal improvement over Daschle.
I'd much prefer to get a majority leader from a solidly blue state next time.
November 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a huge Daschle fan (and I'm from SD), but I don't think Reid is even a marginal improvement over Daschle. Reid now has a bigger operating majority, the political wind at his back, and the benefit of hindsight. Yet despite all that, he's still running the Senate as though the Democrats are beaten dogs. I'd say that's marginally worse.
November 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that.
November 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's official. The Senate Dems are yellow-bellied, chicken-shit invertibrates - Still. Apparently it does not bother them to have a traitor in their midst. Probably seems like a brother.
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can you do? Maybe go to Change.gov and hit the "tell us your story" button & then tell the story about how you supported Obama with blood sweat & tears (& money) and that now you feel betrayed.
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, folks, it really, REALLY is time to let this one go. As they keep telling us--and rightly so--there are far bigger fish to fry. Progressives have been puffing this little mackerel into Moby Dick now for 3 years. Time to aim our harpoons elsewhere.
November 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a proud member of the angry, progressive Left, this decision brings me one step closer to tearing up my voter registraion card. This decision today is a cave. The rightwing must be laughing their asses off.
November 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for all good liberals and progressives to commit their efforts at thwarting everything Obama tries to achieve. Why I stood in the rain for an hour to vote for this gutless bastard is beyond me.
November 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes, thwarting health care, global warming, etc, that's something I want to do.
November 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! That absurd knee-jerk ignorance was way over the top. It was the Senate Dems that did this, not Obama. Hint: Obama is president-elect right, not president. Me thinks there are Repub trolls here using this as a an Obama bashng event...again. You can tell by the complete lack of logic!
November 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we wait until he takes office before we turn on him? ;-)
November 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No - I won't go that far. It just amazes me that we finally get a Dem President along with a Dem Congress and they believe they have to move to the center to get anything done! They have bought into the rightwing myths and lies and it's bullshit.
See Glenn Greenwald's excellent essay today about "bipartisanship". It sums it all up.
I'll still support Obama. It's just that if things continue like this (not following up on Bush administration prosecutions will be a big one for me) I'll simply refuse to take part in the process and just watch with mild interest from the sidelines.
It's really tragic because what these guys do in Washington really affects all of our lives.
November 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and the Dems are simply over-thinking the big-tent, focus-on-the-future, let's-not-play-partisan-politics angles. This has nothing to do with that. I don't see doing it out of revenge, that's a pathetic reason that should be rejected, but out of necessity to prevent not only LIEberman but anyone else thinking similarly from undermining core liberal foreign policy and domestic security principles with bad faith arguments at every opportunity. LIEberman didn't simply damage the Democratic Party, he damaged the country with his lies, he put our soldiers at unnecessary risk, he harmed relations with other countries, harming our foreign policy interests, and he made our citizens less safe as a result. In other words, he did the opposite of what a homeland security policymaker should have been doing, which is to make us more secure, not less.
November 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just called the DSCC and asked them to remove me from any mailing lists, especially regarding fund-raising. In the future I'm going to target my donations more carefully, and not reward the rareified Beltway Club that's more intent on rewarding Joe Lieberman than on representing their constituents.
November 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me2 Called DSCC and removed myself from their solicitation list. Another fine job from Caucus Leader Debbie Stabenow (D-Failed State)
Let Lieberman bailout GM
November 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reasons for this that I can think of are that either a) they've threatened him with the boot if he votes against the dems or b) the Obama administration is thinking of drastically retooling the DHS, leaving it with a dimished capacity -or both. DHS was a horribly bloated, and too hastily assembled blanket organization anyway. When Obama takes out his scalpel he'll likely trim DHS along with every other inefficient dept. I cant but think that Joe'll be on a pretty tight leash in any case.
November 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama administration isn't going to defund anything. Congress holds the pursestrings. They've just signaled that they have no intention of changing anything.
November 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the sound of the Republicans in the caucus room across the hall laughing at our weak-kneed Democratic "leaders." We can hear it all the way out here on the West Coast.
November 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The joke is on the GOP. They are set to lose even more seats in 2010. It's hard to imagine the grins are real. Senate Dems just consolidated their power in the Senate today.
November 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have used this phrase a couple times : "consolidated their power." In my opinion, this misunderstands this situation completely. Power in the Senate, as in any political organization, is not just about the theoretical number of votes you have. Its about how well you can sell the strength of your negotiating position.
In the first place, it means that you have to be able to count on party discipline, especially on key issues. Letting Lieberman slide hurts that. It assuredly doesn't help.
Secondly, it means that when someone in your caucus approaches you with the absurd bluff that they will undermine your entire agenda if you don't give them exactly what they want, you don't turn around and give them exactly what they want. Why would anyone take such an organization's negotiating strength seriously.
Finally, when you accommodate or worse, reward, members who undermine your position, you encourage them to continue to do so. How much does Joe's vote matter, when he is actively working to make sure the other side additional votes and using his good standing as a member of the Democratic caucus to do so? Why would he stop doing so now?
None of this strengthens your position as a negotiating caucus. It weakens it. Thats exactly what the Dems achieved today and what they gained is, maybe, one vote in return. Very poor trade.
November 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let them laugh. Just remember, he who increases his majority, laughs best.
November 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lollipop for AIPAC.
November 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually understand this now.
Joe Lieberman now belongs to Obama. I dont like it but I understand it. He's Obama's lapdog now. Either that or Joe is free and Reid and the senate dems are total cowards.
November 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. Lieberman survived by the grace of Obama, and he knows it. The big O now has his foot firmly planted on Joe's neck.
November 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think about it, what better way to have Joe? Better to have Joe at your beck and call than to have him waiting to be voted out of office. That's if Joe remains loyal - a big if. But also remember that now Obama isnt the junior member from Illinois - he is POTUS and he can call in any number of favors from people he helped down ticket to have Joe removed from his current spot anytime and without even having his name on it.
I don't know if this makes more sense or if I'm just being hopeful now that slowly but surely there aint that much "Change" emerging.
November 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that precisely is the problem. Given Lieberman's behavior in the last year, and his behavior as chair, there's no reason to expect him to remain loyal.
Refusing to recognize that is just wishful thinking.
November 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
with scumbags like these in the senate - all i got is wishful thinking
I think its a legitimate guess as to what's going on - I dont think Durbin would support him if Obama really wanted him gone. Durbin has to know what Obama wants and doesn't want. Obama is not a coward.
November 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then Obama is too naive to be President. Lieberman cannot be trusted.
November 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish it were the former. I believe it is the latter. Hope vs. experience with Joe's treachery.
November 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama "owns" Leiberman nor do I care. I don;t really like himm, but nor do I feel the need to obsess over him.
Sometimes the netroots can be so juvenile about politics. Get over it.
Here's what happened in the real world, outside the BLOG vendetta\obsession with Leiberman:
1) Leiberman has always been a pro-Israel hawk. In fact, that used to be an attractive quality for a Democrat to get the Jewish vote.
2) Otherwise, he's a fairly ordinary Democrat with support from labor, civil rights, etc.
3) The party doesn't want to enforce ideological purity. Doing so would ultimately shrink the party and create bad policies.
4) The Senate is supposed to run on rules and traditions, not vendettas and purges. The selection process for committees is supposed to be based on competency and seniority, not loyalty. Senators are ultimately responsible to their constituents not the present leadership.
4) Kos and bloggers generally have become obsessed with Leiberman, and really need to get over it. It's just making them look small and petty. Yes he's a jerk, but it's his right to be a jerk, and CT's right to elect a jerk.
November 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Where to begin?
This wasn't about ideological purity for many people (including folks like Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas, about whom more in a moment).
The problem with keeping Lieberman as chair of the HSC, as so many people have said here, is that his beliefs on the matters that committee deals with couldn't be more different than the beliefs of the incoming administration.
After Lieberman's behavior during the election, what possible incentive could he have now to play nicely? He's been handed a blank check to be as obstreperous as he likes, and he even gets a raised platform and a nice gavel to impose his will on administration initiatives that go through his committee.
Where did you get the idea about how the Senate is "supposed to run"? Please, read "Master of the Senate". However it's "supposed" to run, that book will tell you how it REALLY runs.
The selection process for committee chairmanships can be seniority-based, but it doesn't have to be. Loyalty is certainly a reasonable criteria in a multi-party system to determine who heads what committee.
As I read this thread, I think every comment but one from you includes the words "Kos", "bloggers" and "obsession". It would seem that the obsession isn't Kos's.
If you want something to change, you have to talk about it, work for it, and make people take notice of it. Perhaps your problem with the liberal bloggers is not ideology, but rather plain old timeless jealousy.
November 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
F-ing BS!
Reid is a coward.
Spineless jellyfish, all of them...
November 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Bullwinkle: "I think I shall now be sick."
November 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Democrats,
You suck and I hate you and you're terrorists and surrender monkeys.
Now, where's my posh committee assignment?
Signed,
A Guy Who Can't Understand Why He's Supposed to Take You Seriously
November 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too contacted the DSCC. Here are their numbers. One KOS poster suggested that all future requests for money should be forwarded to Joe Lieberman since they obviously believe his continued support is more important that the support of the voters.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354
There just aren't enough words for these spineless wimps. This is not the CHANGE I voted for.
November 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asinistra: Seriously, folks, it really, REALLY is time to let this one go. As they keep telling us--and rightly so--there are far bigger fish to fry. Progressives have been puffing this little mackerel into Moby Dick now for 3 years. Time to aim our harpoons elsewhere.
We cannot and should not ignore someone who is causing affirmative harm to America's national security.
We cannot and should not allow such an individual to continue to cause affirmative harm to America's national security.
And it is especially troublesome that he has done so in bad faith.
November 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so fucked, ladies and gentlemen. These people are cowards with Harry Reid at the top of the list. And I don't give a good god damn what Obama "indicated" to the leadership. As a Democrat, a GOOD Democrat, I'm outraged at the how Joe Lieberman treated our party and abdicated his duties as Chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on so many crucial issues simply for his own personal political benefit. These are issues that affected millions of citizens (we're talking Katrina folks!) and Lieberman ignored them to further his career. He is the worst of the worst. And because the leadership has chosen to ignore his behavior, they are equally culpable in having ignored these issues. They now claim Lieberman is changed man, and I have no doubt that is true. I predict that in the coming years we'll see Lieberman take great interest in his committee when he begins to "investigate" every absurd, politically motivated charge against the Obama administration that is raised by vindictive GOPers. It is only then that we'll see subpoenas start to fly out of his committee. But I'm sure you all will say I'm overreacting. After all, Lieberman did take half of his McCain bumper sticker off his car. Now, that's change we can believe in.
November 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you all will say I'm overreacting.
Indeed, of the "can't see the forest for the trees" variety.
I see this as a real test of Obama's politics, and his ability to set aside that which is not relevant to his agenda. He was able it let it go because his agenda will rely on a consolidated Dem Senate. The Senate took care of the past today to make way for Obama's future.
Now is the time to let it go.
November 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what Obama and Senate Democratic leaders think they were buying by not removing Lieberman from his chairmanship, they have done nothing but embolden one of the least trustworthy elected officials to do further harm. If Harry Reid "trusts" Lieberman, then he is a monumentally bad judge of character.
November 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should anyone be a democrat? The people who work on campaigns and vote do not seem to matter not to mention donate. What would a poll of registered democrats show regarding Senator Lieberman's status? Reward him? I doubt it.
The vote was an insult. Moving on indeed!
Do they think we are stupid?
November 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
an absolute joke. business as usual in the Senate. hey Obama, I WANT MY MONEY BACK if this is the kind of half-ass leader you are aiming to be. why is "punishment" off the table for a traitor to the party? what on earth is to be gained by this? you just made you and the Democratic party look like a bunch of pussies. America is LAUGHING AT YOU. REID OUT!
November 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did Lieberman say it was thanks to Obama? I didn't hear him mention Obama, except that some people were upset about things he said about "Senator Obama." He thanked four senators, not Obama, as far as the press conference I just saw on television.
November 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He hid behind Obama, saying his name several times to explain why his seat was spared.
He never once thanked him or apologized. This whole situation is ridiculous.
November 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worse. He's claiming that people are lying about the things that he's said.
November 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, he was upset by what people "said he said"
November 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . [maybe] the Obama administration is thinking of drastically retooling the DHS . . .
Won't that be a little hard to do with every piece of legislation dealing with DHS having to go through LIEberman's committee?