Lieberman’s antics do not go by unnoticed by Dem leadership

About a month ago, Joe Lieberman explained that he’s open to delivering the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in September. “If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman told The Hill. (His remarks came just days after Lieberman praised Rush Limbaugh for his “love for our country and support for our troops,” adding, “Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.”)

At the time, the Democratic Senate leadership didn’t seem prepared to do anything about Lieberman’s antics. Asked whether Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk in the next Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid said succinctly, “No.” Majority Whip Dick Durbin added, “We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman. As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him.”

Democratic discontent, however, seems to be on the rise.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee after the next election, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said.

Speaking to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann on Friday, Reid suggested the former Democrat, who lost to a left-wing primary challenger in 2006 and has now endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the presidency, is not guaranteed to keep his prestigious chairmanship.

Olbermann asked Reid if there was “anything that he could do that would make you move to take his leadership position away on Homeland Security.” The majority leader responded: “Yes, of course,” but did not elaborate.

Earlier on Friday, Reid added, “I think it’s wrong what he’s done [campaigning for McCain], and I told him that.”

A Lieberman aide told The Hill, “Sen. Reid has made it clear that the chairmanship is absolutely not in jeopardy.” A month ago, I’d say that sounded right. Now, I’m not sure.

The Guardian added this item yesterday, suggesting the Republican convention may be the line Lieberman cannot cross, as far as the Democratic leadership is concerned.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a stalwart backer of John McCain who calls himself an “independent Democrat”, could face punishment from the Democratic party if he is asked to speak at this summer’s Republican convention. […]

Reid today left the door open to sanctioning Lieberman if he speaks in favour of McCain’s nomination.

“I’ll consider anything,” Reid said at a breakfast with reporters today, adding that the Democratic presidential nominee, likely Barack Obama, would want to weigh in on Lieberman’s future role.

Hmm. A month ago, Reid suggested Lieberman is safe. Yesterday, he’s open to possible consequences.

I suppose the obvious question, then, is why Reid balked at the notion of punishing Lieberman when asked about this a month ago. My suspicion is that Reid, at least at the time, didn’t want to spark a controversy or show his cards — he abruptly said “no” when asked whether Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk, tamping down speculation.

But over the last several weeks, my bet is that Reid has grown increasingly frustrated, and has probably heard an earful from some members of the Senate Democratic caucus. Perhaps the talk we’ve heard from Reid over the last five days is an effort to lay the groundwork for the punishment to come? At this point, I get the sense it’s a distinct possibility.

I was annoyed a month ago by Reid’s position, and I would like to think the change in tone is responsive to getting an earful from the grassroots, either directly or through their own Senators talking to Reid.

  • I tend to agree. What will really cinch the deal is how much the Senate shifts in November.

  • What Mark Pencil said. Very glad to see Reid does have a treachery limit re Lieberman.

  • The Senate Democratic Leadership Offices have been declared a “ball free” zone.

    Reid has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have a pair. What is needed for the leadership in the House and Senate to act like they are Democrats and not Rethugnican-lites.

    The entire Democratic leadership in the House and Senate should go and be replaced with actual Progressives who are not afraid to assert leadership. While it may be too late to have Democratic Leadership that will stand up to the Bush Criminal Enterprise, it would be worthwhile to replace them next year.

    Suggested Senate Leadership does NOT include Hillary. A quality Senate Democratic Leader would be Dick Durbin of Illinois.

  • Seriously? You mean Dick “I break down in a teary apology whenever a Republican claims I hurt their feelings” Durbin? Carville’s comment about testicular counts applies to most of the Senate Dems, unfortunately including Durbin.

    If we look at the last year as a field test of who is willing to fight for the cause, about the only one that has shown any grit at all is Dodd on the Telecom Immunity issue (I wont try and push Clinton on you, although I think she has shown fight in continually getting back off the mat in NH, Ohio, etc). Dodd also used a lot of campaign time to preach the gospel of restoring the Constitution. Granted, over the length of his career, Telecom Immunity is about the only real Profile in Courage moment I can point to; that still puts him one ahead of nearly all of his disappointing colleagues.

    At this point, I’d back Dodd to replace Reid. Let Durbin be deputy for a few years to see if he can show a spine, and have Clinton be whip until it is clear she can fit back in the team and work on a Senate career instead of other ambitions.

  • Agreed: JoeLie is a smug prick.

    But Reid has to be very careful about setting precedent for stripping people of their chairs. (Pulling their chairs out from under them?)

    The next election will probably make JL irrelevant.

  • Dumb question time.

    If the electoral college is 269-269 which is a not absurd possibility then Lieberman might vote for McCain’s VP but his vote won’t matter as long as the Democrats pick up at least one seat. Luckily, he can’t swing the Presidential election.

    However, who would win in the House? I know the Democrats will probably pick up seats but, if the House stayed the same, would Obama be able to get 26 votes or might we have McCain as President and a Democrat as VP?

  • I just want to see that whiny putz hanging by a rope from the light pole on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Senate.

    Goddmaned traitor.

  • tAiO, in general I think that is correct, but here the precedent is pretty narrow: if you were not elected as the Democratic candidate, but vote with us on the organizing resolution, you may have a chair at our pleasure, so long as you act in a manner consistent with how other members of the caucus who were elected as the Democratic Party representative act.

    the odds of there again being an Independent who caucuses with the Dems but campaigns for Repubs strikes be a insignificantly small, because it really only happens when that unique creature is also the 50 or 51st vote. but for that, JoeLie likely would not have had a chair to begin with once he ran as an “I”.

  • Joe LIEberman, the next Zel Miller. NeoCon wannabe.
    yet another reason (for me )to hate the corruption hotbed that is Connecticut.

  • Reid is a paper tiger. A wet paper tiger.

    Remember how he made it look like he was prepared to fight to see the “Phase II” report about how Bush manipulated the Iraq war intelligence? WTF ever happened to that report???

    I’ll believe him when I see some real action, not just words.

  • Just wait until the next election. When the Dems finally get a real majority in the senate, Joe will be toast and he’ll probably change parties. Right now the ONLY reason he is a chairman of anything, is because the Dems don’t have a true majority. Because SloMoJoe votes with the Dems on domestic policy, he helps, but he is a repug on foreign policy and the next election.

  • When a tenuous majority finally got the chance to change the course of our nation’s ship, we found the cabin boy Lieberman in fetal position in the former captain’s quarters. You know, the former captain who ran our ship aground looking for WMD and any other excuse to lead us into the current bloody waters we find ourselves. -Kevo

  • Lieberman has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in using his position to force even a modicum of accountability from the Bush Administration. For this reason alone he should be removed by the spineless Democratic leadership.

  • Once again, let the cry of JOE MUST GO! echo across this nation. (like back in 50’s when another joe, this time from Wisconsin, was “out of control”)

  • How did a traitor like joe ever get on the dem ticket in 2000 anyhow – an election that was stolen.

  • “…former Democrat, who lost to a left-wing primary challenger in 2006…”

    Being anti-war didn’t make Lamont “left-wing,” it made him mainstream.

    If Lieberman’s position as committee chair isn’t in jeopardy after November, Reid’s position as Majority Leader should be. One way or the other.

    neil wilson: “However, who would win in the House?”

    The delegations are currently split 27-21 in favor of Democrats, with Iowa and Kansas evenly divided.

  • (I wont try and push Clinton on you, although I think she has shown fight in continually getting back off the mat in NH, Ohio, etc)

    The problem, Mark, is that she shows fight when it’s her own ass on the line, and hasn’t done the same when it’s the Democrats’. She also has way too many enemies after this campaign to be an effective majority leader or whip.

    However, I agree with you re Dick Durbin, who really has not shown the kind of leadership as whip that I’d like to see. Besides the teary apology you mention, he deeply disappointed me with his vote for Kyl-Lieberman, and I’m not wild about his verbal support of Lieberman, either. Durbin is a decent senator but would not be a strong majority leader.

    I also am a fan of Dodd’s, and while I agree with you that his steadfastness and tenacity on the telecom immunity issue have unfortunately been an anomaly rather than a pattern, he also seems to be one of the few people in the senate who gets the whole executive overreach issue in all its facets. I’m inclined to support him for that reason alone.

  • I think Joe Lieberman should be kicked out of the Democratic Party. I can’t believe what he is doing in supporting McCain. Change your party Joe.

  • Here’s an idea: Why not strip him of his chair because he doesn’t DO anything with it? He is either incompetent or he refuses to actually use his chairmanship/committee to investigate. Either way, he has no business being a chair of anything.
    What a concept.

  • I agree that Reid has been a disappointment as Majority Leader. I do like both Durbin and Dodd (prefer Dodd). However, my favorites are Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse. They are, however, both junior Senators and I don’t know if they could get the position. I’m not a fan of Hillary being Leader either; fear a whip hand impeding President Obama. Also, isn’t she still considered a junior Senator since she’s only held office for two terms?

    Regarding Lieberman, I think the reason he hasn’t been punished is due to the extremely narrow majority in the Senate. Once our majority increases substantially in Jan. of 2009, I think it will be all over for him an “Independent Democrat” as he likes to call himself.

  • the odds of there again being an Independent who caucuses with the Dems but campaigns for Repubs strikes be a insignificantly small, because it really only happens when that unique creature is also the 50 or 51st vote. but for that, JoeLie likely would not have had a chair to begin with once he ran as an ā€œIā€.

    Mark Pencil #9

    Ah, but you’re thinking logically. Try thinking like a spoiled 12 year old … See?

    If the Democrats are mean to one of your friends then the next time any Democrat does anything that is the least bit controversial (shakes hands with Al Sharpton, laughs at a racy joke, fails to wear a flag pin) you scream blue murder if they aren’t punished because it’s not faaaair!

    By the same token, I’d hate to see ReThugs use this as a way to push the three remaining members of their party who aren’t crooks off of committees.

  • If Leiberman is banking on a VP slot or big post in a McCain administration, then I think it’s vital that the Senate make it clear he’ll have burned his career in the Senate if McCain loses. Since McCain losing is the safe bet right now, that means Leiberman has to go all in or all out, not play footsies. And right now, he’s all in McCain’s column, so there might as well be consequences. As McCain’s inevitable failure becomes clear, he’ll get the crap scared out of him and either completely tarnish his reputation by going Zell Miller, or begging forgiveness, hopefully the former.

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  • Grumpy #17 – are you talking about House delegations for each state? Because Iowa cannot be equally divided: it has 5 reps (Dems Boswell, Braley and Loesback; Repubs King and Latham). Unless you consider Blue Dog Boswell some sort or 1/2 for each party (or figure King is wackier than any other two repubs combined!)

  • Lieberman’s party treachery is bad, but his refusal to use his position as Committee Chair to proactively do any good for his national constituency is despicable. Reid should simply tell him, “You clearly are interested only in being a figurehead in this important committee. We’re going to turn it over to someone who actually gives a damn.” I understand guarding the mythical majority, but Lieberman deserves rebuke for reasons that extend beyond his choice of caucuses. Reid needs to call the bluff of this contemptible personification of craveness.

  • Grumpy:

    thanks for the info but I am a little confused. Iowa has 5 congressmen so how can they be evenly divided???

  • I may have detested Lieberman longer than any of you, because of his pro-censorship positions — to the point where I wrote letters and made calls to PFAW in 2000, castigating them for refusing to hold him to the same standards they held other candidates to. But let’s be realistic. We needed him this Congress — especially when Tim Johnson’s health made him unable to take part in the Senate.

    If he had caucused with the Republicans, this meant that Cheney would have been setting the agenda, and that ALL the Committees would have had Republican Chairmen. Giving him ONE Committee was an unfortunate necessity, but a necessity nonetheless. After next January he will be an irrelevancy.

    And all those people who blast Reid and Pelosi need to know how to count. They weren’t able to do what we all would have liked, because they never had the sure votes. (“Having balls” may be great — I enjoy my own set — but leaving them out and dangling when you walk through a pit of alligators is not the height of prudence.) Pelosi had to keep the ‘blue dogs’ in line to get anything done. (Which is why I started my comments here — way back when — arguing against impeachment, which could never have succeeded if someone found Bush in the same stall with Larry Craig AND “my pet goat.”)

    If they don’t use their new, filibuster-proof, majority in the next Congress THEN get after them, but don’t confuse prudence and cowardice.

  • Prup, I full well understand the difference, but I think you give the Dems too much of a pass here.

    Lets be honest about the record. When we were in the minority, we were not nearly as successful at impacting the agenda as the Republicans have been in the minority; indeed, they have been more successful in the minority then we have been in a majority. It is a bit of a cop-out to say “well, we didn’t have the votes” when we have more than 50%. That the Repubs have been able to require 60 to move anything in the Senate, and have been able to outmaneuver us procedurally in both chambers — both when they were in the majority and now in the minority — is not easily explained away, nor should it be easily excused.

    Yes, math is part of it. Yes, a fundamental difference in character (R’s are willing to trash the country and government, we aren’t) is part of it. But in my mind as large or larger parts are (a) the Dems still trail well behind the Repubs in messaging competancy; (b) the Dems still trail well behind the Repubs in willingness to bet or bluff big — i.e. we lack courage; (c) the Dems confuse “good governance” with being a doormat – there is nothing harmful to the country or government about making the SOBs actually filibuster, or even threatening to change the rules to require an actual filibuster (a lesser threat than the Repubs made with the “nuclear option”).

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about having the majority and I know it has done a lot of good, but it could – and should – have done much more good if we had stronger, more savvy leadership. Instead, the House and Senate were often at odds with each other, we changed message strategies sometimes weekly, and we have yet to sufficiently figure out how to take the fight to the streets back in hometowns in a way that moves the dial. Until we figure those things out, we will still have trouble advancing our agenda very well.

  • I watched Joe Lieberman head the Homeland Security Committee. 65 people had died already in confinement by the I.C.E. program. He did not even want to delve into this, and just really glossed over it. I was very concerned about what is happening to our country and the people who are being confined. His behavior of being attached at the hip with John McCain is extremely disturbing, and I think that he has done enough for the Democrats to let him go. I don’t care if our Senate count is only 55 or 56. Get him out of our party. He does not deserve membership.

  • hard to believe
    lieberman on ticket with gore,
    almost makes one glad
    they didn’t win.
    almost.

  • It is far easier for 49 Republicans to mold the agenda when the President will support the 49. It was far harder for the 45 Democrats to mold the agenda when the President supported the 55.

    In addition, there are more conservative/moderate Democrats like Nelson than liberal/moderate Republicans like Snowe.

    I guarantee that the Republicans will no longer be in favor of the ‘Nuclear Option’ next year. I would like to think that the Democrats won’t automatically decide the ‘Nuclear Option’ is a good idea.

  • My guess is that if Lieberman had spent 2001-2008 as VP he wouldn’t be anywhere near as hackishly Republican now. Much of this is payback for the voters’ humiliation of him in 2004.

    Jan 2009 is a good ways off. An Obama victory will change the landscape almost unimaginably. A Lieberman who spoke at the GOP convention in 2008 won’t be caucusing with the Dems, much less occupying an important committee chair.

  • #33 Mark:

    no point can be made
    when “lieberman” it takes three,
    five seven five done.

  • that is more like it
    your poem at thirty-five
    just say Joe Lie bites!

    šŸ™‚

  • Gosh, why the opposition to Lieberman. I thought BHO was going to “reach our to all – across the aisle included”. Bullshit. Obama will reach out to all who agree with his left wing agenda. The same is true with the Democratic party.

  • poetry police,
    now in this election time,
    it is clear we need… change.

    šŸ˜‰

  • I think the neocons have pictures of Lieberman in a dress or something, and threaten to email them to fox news should Joe think of espewing any kind of liberal thought. He’s bought and sold folks.

  • The Dems will never do anything to Lieberman. He’s a member of the club.

  • Why we always gotta be on the defensive?

    Eff Leiberman. He’s a goner.

    We should make a strong push to convert Snow and Collins in Maine. The Republicants can suck it.

  • How about Russ Feingold for majority leader? Of all Senate democrats, his analysis of the Iraq conflict has been correct since Day1. He has also taken strong positions vis-a-vis administration spying and telecom immunity, DoJ politicalization, torture among others. He has also be unafraid to severely criticize the administration for its conduct.

  • jvill#41, let’s more than just convert Collins or Snowe. Maybe Obama could select one of them as his running mate? It might help with the women whose hopes and dreams have attached themselves to Hillary for want of a better female candidate, as well as taking a Republican (if one of the better ones) out of the Senate. Granted, she’ll still be there once in a while if there are any tie votes, which let’s hope there won’t be.

  • Comments are closed.