Top Lieberman Ally: He Needs To Face "Consequences"
Now even one of Joe Lieberman's leading Senate allies appears to be turning on him:
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a close ally of Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the Connecticut Independent should pay a price for his campaign attacks against President-elect Barack Obama."There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.
Carper, however, would not say whether he favors stripping Lieberman of the Homeland Security chairmanship. Still, this is noteworthy, because Carper was one of the few Senators talking to other Senators about Lieberman's fate.
That an ally like Carper is calling for "significant" consequences after talking to his fellow Senators suggests he realizes that there's a depth of anger at Lieberman within the caucus that cannot be mollified without some kind of real action against him. One lingering question is whether Harry Reid will only ask for a vote tomorrow on the chairmanship, or whether he'll also ask for votes on other, lesser punishments or on some kind of compromise.
Meanwhile, Josh Orton makes a key point that's gotten lost in all this debate: The political thing to do here is for Dem Senators to vote for Lieberman to keep the chairmanship, while the good governmental decision is to vote to give him the push.
Why do I have a feeling that a whole bunch of Democrats are taking a page out of the Arlen Specter playbook?
November 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Sen Carper's office has been flooded with phone calls and e-mails about Le Affair Lieberman and he's finding out, as he talks to other senators, that theirs are, too. Will it make a difference what constituents think???
November 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree at all that keeping him is politically smart; quite the contrary. With or without 59 others in the caucus he's simply not a reliable vote for cloture on many core Democratic issues. And the Homeland Security chair would give him an ideal platform to make trouble for the Administration (the kind of trouble he was careful NOT to give BushCo.) It should be a no-brainer to give him the boot. Unfortunately the Congressional Democrats have proved over and over again that they indeed have no brains. ;)
November 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it's not politically smart, but it's still a political decision in that they don't want Dems to be perceived as vindictive or don't want to cross Obama's supposed support for keeping him
November 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, why don't they do some proactive public relations, if this is the case? Ir they're worried about being perceived as vindictive, it sure seems that everything that has been said publicly about Joe is couched exactly in terms of being vindictive: they've all spoken about what Joe did during the campaign, rather than what Joe didn't do as chairman.
So all this discussion about unacceptable behavior, etc, seems to be limiting what they actually can do, if they are, in fact, concerned about appearing vindictive.
They're not going to do anything, are they? This is all posturing.
November 17, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This perception of being vindictive thing is a red herring.
It's a secret ballot. Each senator is gonna vote according to how s/he wants. Whatever principled or petty reasons each senator may have for HoJo keeping or losing his committee chair will trump any abstract notion of the caucus potentially suffering from that vindictive spin.
It will not be possible to identify any particular senator as having been vindictive or magnanimous. In the privacy of their secret ballot, senators will vote their own personal interests.
November 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The demcrats need to start framing their actions better. Worrying about a healthy expression of boundaries as being seen as 'vindictive' is a symptom of their overlying victim behavior. They do need to be much stronger and more pro-active in their behavior. Allowing their actions to constantly be defined for them is a demonstration of their historic weakness.
As long as they are not voting to remove him from the caucus they are honoring Senator Obama's desire to keep him in the caucus if he chooses.
Joe is a major game player and congress should put him in a position where that is revealed and he is playing the game by himself.
November 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far call for action against Lieberman's behavior have been framed as revenge or retribution. However, a caucus has to be concerned about the loyalty of it's members. Removing Lieberman from his choice chairmanships can easily be framed as a defensive move to preclude future disloyality by Lieberman. Since democrats have been given the keys to the government, voters will understand it is in their interest (democrats and the country) to preclude actions that would diminish congress's ability to act in the public's interest. Lieberman could very well act to diminish Obama's favorability among Americans. Why give Lieberman the tools he needs to advance that?
November 17, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is trying to frame it to be "politically" anything to keep him - If he's removed it's petty retribution and partisan politics and if he stays it's proof of Obama's call for bi-partisan problem solving.
November 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he stays it's proof that this election meant nothing to the Democrats, that they won't listen to the electorate or their constituents, and that they don't want change.
November 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must be missing something.
KOS has been publishing what it calls "Senatorial Steak Sauce"
This from DiFi fits the pattern...What kind of turnips do they take us for? The decision is being made NOW for the NEXT congreff
Tomorrow in fact
November 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What kind of turnips do they take us for?"
The good kind! :)
November 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leiberman is not change I can believe in.
November 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't buy it
Assumes there is some political advantage in keeping Lieberman at the helm. Question is "What?" Can't trust him. Influence other Senators? Who? He couldn't even get his buddy McCain to give him the Veep slot
Nobody trusts him...what advantage? Who outside the USS will care? Who INSIDE the USS will?
If it were the best political choice, I'd be writing my Senators asking they not dump the worm but I cannot conceive a more boneheaded political move
November 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of the Iraq War vote on a smaller scale. Many Senators knew it was bullshit, Saddam couldn't take on Iran much less the U.S. and had no role in 9-11. However, no one wanted to be the first one voting "no." The lack of courage and conviction is astounding.
November 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure that voting "no" would be seen as something dangerous or even notable since no one would know how anyone voted in the first place (unless they announced it publically): it's a secret ballot. Not much courage needed in anonymity.
November 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet they don't even have that small amount of courage.
November 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face some facts. Lieberman is fairly reasonable Democrat on all things domestic and will I am sure vote for almost everything the Dems come up with. The big sad fact is that on foreign affairs the senator is effectively the representative from Israel. He backs McCain and the repubs because he thinks the war in Iraq is all about crushing an enemy of Israel. He is a traitor to my mind on this issue as the horrible waste of lives and money on the war has weakened the US but Joe hangs in there. He has a right to his opinion but not the Chairmanship of Homeland Security. Period.
November 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman left the party when he campaigned for Republicans, not just his friend, John McCain, but others down the Republican ticket. The chairmanships are for those who share the values of the Democratic Party. Lieberman left that party. It did not leave him. If he is truly independent, then his votes will reflect that. I would rather see his deeds from his seat then from the chair.
November 17, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman left the party in 2004 when he lost in the primaries to Lamont and decided to run in the general election as the candidate for the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. During the primaries, he promised the Senate dems that he would suppport Lamont if he lost.
November 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Democrats! We need some balls and ovaries here! It is this kind of no-guts-ball that convinced me to stop contributing to the Democratic party while you all stood around and did next to nothing during the Bush administration!!!
GET OFF YOUR BUTTS and get rid of this guy! He is a traitor to the party and can't be trusted any more. If you can not unite on this then go home and tend to your gardens!!
November 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rain, if we can't act now with the majority in the Senate and Congress and with a Democratic President we can never make a decision. Pathetic.
November 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I think I know what you were trying to say, but your language referring to Josh Orton's article on Lieberman is more than a little misleading, as it makes it appear as though Orton is arguing the politically wise thing to do is to keep Lieberman. That was my initial interpretation, and apparently that of some others here, too.
In his op-ed, Orton is actually arguing strenuously that Lieberman should be stripped of his chair, and that it's Holy Joe who is trying to play a very cynical and disingenuous brand of politics.
Regardless, it's heartening that Carper is acknowledging the gravity of what Lieberman did.
And Sychronicity hits it on the head, too. What the Democrats should do is absolutely no different than a parent sending a bratty child to his room for clonking his little sister on the noggin. It's not vindictive, it's necessary boundary-setting in the context of punishment. The fact that the Dems are even allowing Lieberman to frame it as a question of unwarranted "revenge" is a sign of big-time Stockholm Syndrome.
November 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a political decision at all. It's the epitome of antipolitics - the Senate Democrats telling us quite plainly that elections and voters and such are all right in their place, but what really matters is that all their friends are comfortable and that nobody should suffer any real consequences for how they play the game. It's only a game, after all. Lieberman is the perfect poster child for this because a few churlish Democrats actually tried to *remove him from the Senate* in a *primary challenge*! And we can't have that sort of thing. Obama agreed with that at the time and apparently still does. They should just all break out their ermine capes and create themselves Lords and Ladies, stop pretending otherwise.
November 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so weak. We've got 2 far left Dem Senators and 1 inconsequential DE Senator in favor of booting Lieberman from his Cmte. Chair.
Yeah, that's gonna happen.
November 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I understand your frustration, but stop with the rightwing-speak, ok? Leahy is not a "far left" Senator any more than John Paul Stevens is a "far left" Justice.
You forgot Dorgan, besides.
Keep calling, Dorn. You never know.
November 17, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear your point about "right wing speak" and I am calling.
I only meant to point out that Sanders and Leahy, who are well know as liberals (both of whom I love, by the way) have had the balls to say something.
I applaud them for it. And the guy from DE too. For all you Delewareans, I'm sorry I called him "inconsequential". But I'm from CT, so you know I understand what it means to be inconsequential to National Politics.
November 17, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Dorgan. Good for him.
I'm just jealous because everyone else has all the cool Senators.
November 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Boot him from the chairmanship.
2. If he whines and bitches that that's vindictive, point out that it isn't but even that would obviously be justified, then boot him from the caucus.
Bad behavior deserves no less than to be punished.
November 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send emails pointing out that
1) While millions of us Democrats were living on caffeine and burning through shoe leather to get a Democratic President and a Democratic majority, Joe Lieberman was trying to stop us.
and
2) While Joe's counterpart in the House was holding hearings about the Bush administration's actions, Joe was twiddling his thumbs as Committe Chair in the Senate.
and
3) Joe's committee performs Senatorial function for the District of Columbia which voted for Obama 93% and against the candidate Joe was stumping for. They deserve someone who represents their choice.
And it helps to add that should the recipient do the right thing they can add you to their email list for contributions to future re-election. Money talks on Capital Hill.
November 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader. There would be no vote, that's for sure. If Reid is too afraid of AIPAC to discipline Joe, the netroots should receruit a democratic alternative when he comes up for reeelction.
November 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC. What a monstrosity. Bad for America. Bad for Israel.
November 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loserman must pay a price for speaking at the Repub convention, and dissing Obama on the campaign trail.
He can stay in the caucus, but just say no to Chairman Joe
November 17, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's make predictions for tomorrow's vote. I predict the Dems wimp out and let Traitor Joe keep the chairmanship.
November 17, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I predict that Joe will lose his Homeland chairmanship.
November 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree "traitor Joe". Why should we expect anything different from the current Senate? Hopefully, the new one will have more vigor! It's not going to help the country a bit if we have a strong President and weak Democrats in the Senate, no matter how many there are.
November 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you're right and they'll keep him in the chairmanship. Why else have a vote on the matter as opposed to the majority leader exercising his authority?
I don't think he should even stay in the caucus. He's well known for crossing the aisle and divulging confidential party strategy to his republican friends.
The fact is that Lieberman is one of the most powerful senators because industrial groups own the Senate and he has strong ties to AIPAC, Big Pharm, and military contractors.
November 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Joe, where you gonna run to now?
I said hey Joe, where you gonna run to now, where you gonna go?
November 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the caucus senators had parents who taught them their actions have consequences? How many of these same senators have kids of their own and taught them the same basic lesson?
Is it really so difficult to apply that same principle to Joe? The senators need to instruct Joe in a tangible way that he is part of the human family and, as such, his actions have consequences.
November 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe is clearly a Reptilian.
November 17, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Joe has reached his Remagen (A bridge too far). He has burnt too many bridges and has nowhere to go.
November 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
HuffPo has an article up now saying that Lieberman is likely going to keep his Homeland Chairmanship, but will have to give up lesser co-chairs as punishment.
Gimme an A, Gimme an I, Gimme a P, gimme an A, gimme a C...
November 17, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I see no upside to kissing Joe's posterior.
(1) Look at Evan Bayh's horrifying worst-case scenario -- Joe will be so demoralized he'll quit the Senate & the Republican governor will appoint a Republican to replace him. (a) Joe won't quit; but if he does, (b) a Connecticut Republican isn't necessarily worse than Joe the Bellicose; & (c) we won't have to listen to that whiney little ______ (fill in the blank) ever again.
(2) Bayh's second scary scenario -- Joe BECOMES a Republican. So what? He's totally unreliable now under every circumstance & cannot be counted on to follow the Democratic leader, ever, even in instances where he promises he will. Joe betrays people for fun & self-aggrandizement. Catering to him will only make him worse.
(3) Putting him in charge of Homeland Security gives him a perfect opportunity to call hearings for every vaguely-security related action the Obama Administration takes. The do-nothing Committee Chairman will suddenly be holding oversight hearings night & day. Forests will be wiped out just from the amount of paper needed for subpoenas. You'll have to watch him on TV as often as he can get airtime running down the traitors in the Administration and the Marxist President, etc. etc.
(4) Catering to Lieberman emboldens wimps like Evan Bayh to go off the reservation.
(5) Catering to Lieberman is not a demonstration of magnanimity or bipartisanship -- it's a show of moral cowardice & political desperation. The majority of the public -- who opposes the Iraq war -- will find knuckling under to Joe repugnant & will lose what little faith they might have had in Senate Democrats.
The Constant Weader at
www.RealityChex.com
November 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are the same folks that Josh Marshall would let run the US auto industry???
With our money?
November 17, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I see no upside to kissing Joe's posterior.
(1) Look at Evan Bayh's horrifying worst-case scenario -- Joe will be so demoralized he'll quit the Senate & the Republican governor will appoint a Republican to replace him. (a) Joe won't quit; but if he does, (b) a Connecticut Republican isn't necessarily worse than Joe the Bellicose; & (c) we won't have to listen to that whiney little ______ (fill in the blank) ever again.
(2) Bayh's second scary scenario -- Joe BECOMES a Republican. So what? He's totally unreliable now under every circumstance & cannot be counted on to follow the Democratic leader, ever, even in instances where he promises he will. Joe betrays people for fun & self-aggrandizement. Catering to him will only make him worse.
(3) Putting him in charge of Homeland Security gives him a perfect opportunity to call hearings for every vaguely-security related action the Obama Administration takes. The do-nothing Committee Chairman will suddenly be holding oversight hearings night & day. Forests will be wiped out just from the amount of paper needed for subpoenas. You'll have to watch him on TV as often as he can get airtime running down the traitors in the Administration and the Marxist President, etc. etc.
(4) Catering to Lieberman emboldens wimps like Evan Bayh to go off the reservation.
(5) Catering to Lieberman is not a demonstration of magnanimity or bipartisanship -- it's a show of moral cowardice & political desperation. The majority of the public -- who opposes the Iraq war -- will find knuckling under to Joe repugnant & will lose what little faith they might have had in Senate Democrats.
The Constant Weader at
www.RealityChex.com
November 17, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slimy Joe should lose his chairmanship...easy choice. He not only worked for the opposition, he never started even ONE investigation!! Where was the investigation on the Katrina Debacle? Never started,,,of course!! Let him stay in the caucus..or change to a repub. Doesn't matter. He has no integrety, no honesty, so no one knows how he will vote at any time. If he changes to a repub, this will be his LAST senate term. Remember...there are NO repubs left in New England. So, good riddence either way.
November 17, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, we're not vindictive. We just want to do the Right Thing and show that there are consequences for campaigning against our ultimately victorious presidential candidate. . .even though Obama himself has sent word that he would like to retain Lieberman in the caucus, and probably in his current position. I guess that makes Obama a DINO.
I can't wait until we start calling the senators who object to Lieberman's punishment DINOs. Only then can we become the narrow-gauge, absolutely-unaware-of-the-Big-Picture idiots we replaced with this election.
It's not like Lieberman's voting record is some murky unknown. Can anybody name a Republican senator who votes as often with the Democrats as Joe Lieberman does? If so, we should publicize that so we Democrat constituents can plead with whoever that is to vote our way on changes to the tax code, investment in clean-energy infrastructure, restoration of collective bargaining, confirming new Justices of the Supreme Court, etc. Joe Lieberman, meanwhile, is 67 years old next year, and has 20 years in the Senate; I'm unsure the threat of being unseated in 2010 is all that moving to him.
If we punish him for what he did, is it outside the realm of possibility that he'll spend his last two years obstructing us as much as he possibly can? Is it possible this is what Obama has in mind when he asks the Senate to tread lightly?
Nobody will care about the Democrats almost being able to overcome a filibuster. Regardless of what has been said here and at Kos about the ad hoc nature of seeking help to force cloture, it'll probably proceed along party lines fairly often. Mitch McConnell doesn't need to face the voters again for another six years, and if we hand him Joe Lieberman, McConnell will use him. It's that simple.
November 18, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink