Senator Dorgan: Lieberman Remaining As Homeland Security Chair Is Not "Acceptable"
We now have a third Senator stepping up and strongly condemning the idea of Joe Lieberman remaining as Homeland Security chair: Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota...
Dorgan hammered Lieberman for his criticism of Barack Obama and his work against several Dem Senate candidates, and asked whether it was okay for the chair of one of the Dems' "significant committees" to have done this.
"The question is, Is that acceptable," Dorgan continued. "And the answer is no." Dorgan's quotes come after Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders came out and called on Dems to give Lieberman the push.
Dorgan, however, didn't quite go as far as Leahy and Sanders, leaving the door open to the Dem caucus not voting to strip Lieberman of the chairmanship by saying: "I'll decide and I think our caucus will decide that on Tuesday."
It's unclear what to make of this. If it's not "acceptable" for a senior committee chair to have done what Lieberman did, as Dorgan says, then surely he'll vote to strip Lieberman of the chairmanship if given the opportunity, right?
Still, as of now, it's still not precisely clear what exactly Reid will throw over to his caucus to vote on tomorrow. Last week leadership aides were adamant that the vote would be over his committee chairmanship. But it's now unclear whether Reid will follow through on this specific vote or whether he'll ask the Dem caucus to vote on a compromise or a lesser punishment.
I think his circumspection is purely a formalism, customary to the secret-ballot tradition of caucus votes.
November 17, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it looks better if they go into the meeting saying, "Hey, we'll listen to what Joe has to say for himself before we make a decision."
November 17, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Senators have big egos. They don't like being told how to vote. Or, for that matter, being showed up by another Senator announcing, Well I'm gonna vote against him. It might seem like indirect pressure to forego their secret-ballot privilege.
November 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...customary to the secret-ballot tradition of caucus votes."
I thought they were getting rid of the secret ballot...oh, that's just "our" secret ballots...not theirs.
November 17, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.StealBackYourVote.com
November 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
...except "Card check" is real...not a BS comic.
November 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl: "people in both caucuses love Joe." Bleagh. Somehow I find that very hard to believe.
I'm sending a note to my Senator right now. Joe must go! (from the chairmanship). Kos is right, there is no way Joe will flee altogether, he's way too weak politically.
November 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too would dearly love to see Senator Narcissus booted from ALL positions of power. He does not represent anybody but himself and his neoconnish visions of Holy Israel.
Another blogger has posited that, if Joe wanted to be supremely venal and vindictive, both natural descriptors the Sanctimonious Senator, he might just bolt the Caucus and (openly) go back to the Dark Side. The question is, would he be able to throw the upcoming lame duck session into turmoil by voting with the Republicans to steal the Majority leadership from Reid?
I'm not a Senate parliamentarian, but it seems to me, assuming (BIG assumption!) that all Democrats and Bernie Sanders would vote Democratic and Joe and all his buddies voted Republican, then we could possibly end up with a 50/50 split. It was my belief that as VP, DICK "Undisclosed" Cheney could NOT vote on organizational issues in the Senate.
Up to now, I have believed that he could only break ties and not vote to organize majorities. Does anyone know if this is correct?
If he CAN vote to make Republicans the majority, even if only for the next month or two, the Republicans would have their very last opportunity to screw the pooch before they are all flushed out next year. That may be one of the lines of reasoning under consideration in apparently, letting slimy Joes Lie.
Another twist I have not seen fully answered; if you have an organizational vote and it ends in a tie, then wouldn't the status quo, (Dem majority leadership) simply remain unchanged? I'd be happy to hear from anyone who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the Senator from Lieberman and what it means.
November 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to the majority vs minority issue, I believe that for anything to substantively change (e.g. committee chairmanships and committee composition) were Joe to bolt and go Republican, an agreement at the start of the current session would have had to have been in place.
There was such an agreement in 2001 (hence, the impact of the Jeffords switch). There is no such agreement in place now. At least that's my understanding of it.
November 17, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like it's time for some public groveling if you want to play with the big boys there Joe
November 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
dorgan's clearly one of those far left out-of-the-mainstream liberals pandering to the socialist latte-drinking trust fund babies of -- where's he from again?
November 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
That Marxist loving pinko commie! From North Dakota!
November 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is a town called New England, North Dakota 58647. That must be the liberal bastion whence he hails.
November 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Him and his damn limousine ranch.
November 17, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
you people are cracking me up.
November 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dorgan, one of the more admirable Senators, proving why he is so once again.
Thank you, Senator Dorgan, I respect you for maintaining your strong liberal values in such a deep red state. You are proof one does not need to be a SELL-OUT like Leiberman to gain the respect of your constituents.
Are the rest of Democrats in red states paying attention?
November 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Joe shamed himself during the election is a side issue to the shame he brought on himself from his failed chairmanship of the Homeland Committee. He did nothing substantive when there were multiple reasons to initiate investigations into the Bush administration. The Democratic caucus has the opportunity now to give Americans greater assurance by selecting someone other than Lieberman for the chairmanship.
November 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but that kind of argument doesn't hold much sway in the Senate's seniority-oriented system. Trashing the party that gave him his chair does.
November 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. This needs to be repeated, again and again and again. Otherwise, any action against Lieberman will be framed as "vindictive", "petty", "angry" actions by crazy whacked out liberals who fail to realize this is a "center-right" country.
(Personally, if Republicans and pundits want to keep talking about how this is a center-right country, I say, "Have at it, kids!" It's part of the same conversation as "Obama's woman problem. Obama's Catholic problem. Obama's Latino problem". Delusional, all.)
I just have to take one exception to your statement above. Joe did try to get YouTube to censor stuff.
November 17, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, YouTube -- well, we see how effective he was there!!
I rest my case.
November 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, but is it too late to frame it as a performance issue? I've heard over and over again about 'retaliation' for supporting McCain in the MSN. If he is removed, they need to do a better job on the why I think.
November 17, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I can't stand traitor joe. However, I bet nothing happens to him. No drama obama in action. Why get in a food fight right now when the country is going down the tubes and so many things need to be done? It would be a total distraction that the dems and obama don't need right now. Revenge is a dish best served cold. There are other ways for payback. At this juncture it is better to let the traitor keep his chairmanship and move on. Obama needs every vote that he can get in the Senate. Bottom line, he needs traitor joe's vote, so nothing happens to him at the end of the day.
November 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he doesn't need Joe's vote. He can get votes from Republicans. Joe is only important if people believe the myth that he's somehow necessary to get to that mythical 60 seat majority.
November 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe is a media whore and he's getting boring. Once a decision's made, we'll see how important he really is. My thinking is that he's going to be sitting on the sidelines, no matter what side he ends up in.
November 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi CT Voter,
True he can get the two senators from maine and that's about it from the republican side. The problem is that he needs to deal with the Ben Nelson types on the dem side. I believe that he will need every vote that he can muster, so why risk it.
Also, you know I can't stand traitor joe and wanted him dumped long ago; however, with this economic implosion and all the other disasters blowing up, why bother with traitor joe. It's totally not worth it.
I'll bet you a lunch that traitor joe keeps his chairmanship. Obama doesn't need traitor joe whining all over the place. The condition will be that traitor joe keeps his mouth shut. If he doesn't it will get yanked.
November 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that it is much more difficult to get 'yanked' unless you've done something completely moronic. I think the best time for this is at the beginning of a congressional cycle when positions are being negotiated.
November 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that. I think that the chairmanships are based on the caucus vote at any time. They were talking about yanking his chairmanship over the last couple of months due to his conduct and didn't. If they were going to do it, it would have been better to do it months ago.
I still bet that he stays. It's totally not worth the drama right now.
November 17, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of us commenters were, but they who are in charge seemed to be talking about doing it after November. And the fact is that the Dems didn't have enough votes to do it.
My guess is that LieberSchmuck gets the boot (from his committee chair, not the caucus). BigO is not gonna have much influence -- not in a secret ballot -- and Obama seems like he wants to detach himself from the process.
But I am worried that I'm setting myself up for a disappointment.
November 17, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to Dems having cojones, we're all worried.
November 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take that bet, but I think you're going to win, although for different reasons. I think Obama signalled that he wants nothing to do with this process, and that it's entirely Reid's baby.
Given how systematically spineless Democrats have shown themselves to be in the past, I am not optimistic that Joe will pay any consequences for his shockingly bad tenure as chair of that committee. I also predit that Joe will be remorseful tomorrow, that he's making the rounds today, and mouthing all the words that the aforementioned spineless Democrats want to hear, that he'll keep his chair, that there will be lots of talk about how Joe has learned his lesson, and when the dust has settled, and Obama has taken the oath of office, Joe will start investigating his Administration.
Perhaps I'm unduly biased against Joe because I live in CT, and I remember his crocodile tears about the Iraq war. He isn't to be trusted. That much is clear. But in the Senate, it appears to be all about saying the right thing, but not necessarily doing it.
I'd love to be proven wrong, and I've done what I can do by writing and calling Dodd, but I'm not optimistic.
November 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The only thing is that traitor joe won't be doing any out of line investigations. The majority leader and the caucus can control him and limit him. However, I do want the senate dems to keep the obama administration's feet to the fire. It's their responsibility and will keep the obama people in line. I'm not worried about obama, just some of the clintonites that are getting appointed and will get appointed. A little oversight is a good thing and keeps people honest.
Also, I still believe that obama has weighed in. We just don't have any info on his weighing in. I guess we'll see.
November 17, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, Joe simultaneously confounds me and pisses me off. If he's dismissed, he's going to turn it into a freaking whining extravaganza, with helium balloons to boot. If he makes me crazy, I can't imagine what having him as my state's Senator would do.
November 17, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's obnoxious. The "In Connecticut, another hospital is just a cab ride away" comment about how it wasn't so bad that Catholic hospitals were allowed to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims made me want to vomit. And don't get me started on his behavior during the primary in 2006 and the general election. He's duplicitous and dishonorable.
Which means, I guess, that there aren't going to be any consequences for his behavior.
I'd love to be proven differently.
Heck, I'll buy everyone a magnum of Champagne if Joe gets stripped of his committee chairmanship tomorrow.
November 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope for a bit of physics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
November 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, due to senate procedure and protocol, if the Caucus doesn't act now, it loses some of its options going forward.
We're not necessarily talking revenge here. It's about the new tone that Obama is setting -- what's best for the country. It's not just about what's most expedient for senators.
November 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I would have liked to see is a chorus of Democratic Senators insisting that Joe be dumped from the Caucus.
Then, as a compromise, they could vote to strip of the Homeland Security/Government Affairs chair. My interest isn't in dumping from the Caucus. Frankly, if he wants to be the poster boy for the Caucus, let him.
I just don't want him in a position where he can try to conduct oversight of the Obama Administration. A position that would translate into a loud megaphone for Fox News, evidently his favorite network.
November 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a surprise, Dodd has not responded to any one of the 5 or 6 messages I have sent in the past week demanding he listen to his constituents and stop his support of the incompetent traitor, Lieberman.
November 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's too busy listening to the insurance and banking lobbyists.
November 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hartford's TV station used to be WTIC-TV (a long time ago). They still have an AM station WTIC.
That was for Travellers' Insurance Company.
November 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to bet McCain (and Graham) will try to lobby for Lieberman when he meets with Obama today.
November 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
They'll try, but Obama will stay above the fray. Plus, he can always use the line: "but I'm not in the Senate anymore and I believe in separation of powers".
November 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this- Obama appoints Olympia Snowe to his cabinet, Dem Gov. of Maine appoints a Democrat as the new Senator of Maine, the Dems get an extra vote, they throw Leiberman out.
Sound good?
November 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Snowe would not accept the Cabinet spot without an agreement that the Dem Governor would appoint Snowe's handpicked successor.
I think that would be only fair anyways.
November 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you base that on what? Your close personal friendship with Snowe?
November 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, common sense.
November 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your common sense is neither common nor sensible.
November 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it exists in the real world. Not some fantasy land of post-partisan politics.
I mean it seems you want it both ways here - you're playing politics by saying Obama should give Snowe a Cabinet post in order to be able to replace her in the Senate with a Dem and then want to ridicule me for saying that Snowe wouldn't take the post due to partisan politics.
November 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama has the luxury to make that offer which is in the spirit of bipartisanship. Snowe has the right to take it or refuse it. I've never heard of anyone being made an offer then making a demand before they take that offer, especially making a demand of the POTUS. That seems silly. Finally, what diff does it make if its a Republican from a state with a blue or red governor? Asking a Republican is asking a Republican. Choosing a Republican with a Dem gov. is just smart politics, it certainly doesn't make the offer somehow less bipartisan. And no I'm not ridiculing you, I just don't understand your position, and am being snarky, as the intertubes are at times. No offense intended.
November 17, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably because such demands are negotiated privately, not publicly.
FWIW, I have a hard time imagining Olympia Snowe giving up her Senate seat for a second-tier cabinet position.
November 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ridicule" was a bad choice of word. I should have broken out my thesaurus to find something less pointed. I certainly didn't mean to suggest anything unbecoming by it.
November 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, a Snowe appointment would be the type of politcal ninjitsu I would expect from Obama.
November 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze's logic is correct here.
November 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if she refuses to accept such an invitation, she'll be viewed as putting petty partisan politics against the unity offered by the Obama campaign. And any future opponents of Snowe would be sure to use that in a primary fight.
November 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was my thought. Who makes demands when they are offered a cabinet position? Who would make partisan demands when being offered a position in a bi-partisan cabinet?
November 17, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama isn't factoring in choosing Governors with Republican Lt. Governors and Senators with Republican Governors?
November 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he isn't- that was one of Bill Clinton's big mistakes.
November 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That rings a faint bell. I kinda remember thinking at the time that was a pretty stupid thing to do. I guess I could look it up, but I'm too lazy :-)
November 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anything, Bush II demonstrates the fallacy that cabinet members have policy control within their respective spheres, vide Christie Todd Whitman.
November 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually this wouldn't be so bad, what you suggest. However, he'd better not be picking an Dem Senators for his cabinet with a Republican Gov.- we'd better not lose any seats- that was Bill's mistake.
November 17, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kick that M*ther F*cker to the curb.
Traitor Joe can rot in in the republican caucus!
November 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink