Senator Claire McCaskill (D) voted to keep Joe Lieberman as chair of Homeland Security

Intresting take from Sam Stein ... (0.00 / 0)

here on Huffington Post.  Highlights:

...What offense is more punishable, after all, than actively campaigning against one's own political party?

But the exasperation may have had hurt their cause. As one member of this community lamented: "Instead of being just critical of Lieberman, we should have made the case that another Senator could do the job at Homeland Security better."

and:

In the end, it seems, there was more willingness to punish Lieberman than the final vote (42-13) suggests. But a bevy of factors got in the way, from Obama's intercession to the quick movement of the forgive-Lieberman forces. Finally, there was the realization that, perhaps, other fights were more important.

 

---

by: WillyK @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:14:06 PM UTC

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

A lot of criticism of Lieberman included this point:

But the exasperation may have had hurt their cause. As one member of this community lamented: "Instead of being just critical of Lieberman, we should have made the case that another Senator could do the job at Homeland Security better."

---

by: Clark @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:26:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There did seem to be a lot of confusion ... (3.00 / 1)

senators and other commentators kept talking about how they didn't want to kick anyone out of the Democratic party--which I don't think was ever the issue; so far as I know it was simply the chairmanship of Homeland Security, to me a no-brainer since Lieberman's championship of McCain in the first place stemmed from the fact that he disagreed so strongly with Obama and the Democratic leadership on Homeland security questions... Oh well...  The only thing that really burned me was the fact that his blatant attempt to extort the Democratic leadership (by putting out his willingness to caucus with the Republicans) paid off so supremely well.

And I think  his term won't be over until 2012, right?  Four more years of sanctimonious rantings ... ughhh!  I think I hate he sound of his voice almost more than I dislike hearing Bush speak.

Willy

---

by: WillyK @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:43:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's it.... might have kept Talent on board (0.00 / 0)

at least I would have a logical arguement against my Senator.  She has been a major disappointment for me.  I plan on putting my $$ next election cycle in ANYONE but her.

---

by: eaddict @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:50:02 PM UTC

I've stopped being surprised by anything (0.00 / 0)

the Democrats do.

I find Lieberman annoying.  But if Obama had asked me to keep him on the committee I would have voted that way rather than start out with a difference with the new administration on such a dumb matter.  On the other hand, I think it was a dumb thing for Obama to get involved in.  The way I see it, Obama now owes the Senate.  Over something dumb.  Does this strike anyone else as the typical kind of advice someone like a Tom Daschle (his most high level advisor who is a former senator) would have given to Obama?  It does to me.

This did not make my respect for Claire drop.  It's at rock bottom already.  

---

by: maryb2004 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:58:07 PM UTC

I don't think it is a big deal either, just one more indication of the way the wind blows ... (0.00 / 0)

I suppose that Obama needs to minimize rancor as much as possible; he will need everyone he can get if he is to get anywhere with his healthcare and energy agendas.  From this point of view, perhaps Lieberman can be useful.  There will be a Democratic majority on HS committee afterall, eventhough many of those there area as bad as Lieberman (Landrieu, for instance).

---

by: WillyK @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 22:14:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I forgot ... (0.00 / 0)

that there will be several vacancies to fill on this committee and that the Democratic majority there will increase as well to reflect the increases overall--isn't that correct?

---

by: WillyK @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 22:16:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

That's a good question.  

---

by: maryb2004 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 23:17:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lieberman is marginalized (0.00 / 0)

I recommend everyone to go over and read Nate Silver.  It is clear that Obama is gearing up to propose national health care. He has just named an Attorney General appalled at Gitmo. He will begin to bring the troops home.

He is facing the collapse of the US automobile industry, and every day brings more and more bad economic news.

Lieberman is a whiny little annoyance. Lieberman knows it was Obama's decision to be magnanimous. And, look at all the good press Obama is getting.  Obama has much bigger issues in front of him than crushing Lieberman now.  Lieberman can't roam too far off the reservation because he knows many in the caucus want his head and will get it next time.

We will not go away and I know that I have money to send to Connecticut when a real Democrat challenges Lieberman in 2012.

Lieberman is now the most marginalized Democrat in the Senate to not support the Obama program.

Obama is supposed to be an excellent poker player.

Let us remain angry and be ready to pounce if Lieberman should get on Fox to attack the Obama Administration. When Obama takes office, Lieberman will learn what is like to cross someone who is from Chicago and has Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff.

Time is one our side to bring Holy Joe down.

---

by: Bob Yates @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 23:50:40 PM UTC

How much farther can Lieberman roam off the reservation? (0.00 / 0)

I mean, he just actively campaigned against his own party's nominee, wondering openly about why Hamas would want Obama as president, and going onto Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt's shows to nod and smile while they called Obama a Marxist. Besides that, he showed little interest in actually performing the job he just retained.

So what could he actually do to lose the chairmanship?

---

by: Clark @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 00:48:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He can't roam (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman can't roam off the reservation. I know of no reason why the caucus can't kick him out.

Lieberman has to know he will be facing well-organized opposition to him in 2012.

He has to know he holds he position because Obama wanted to be a gracious winner.

Does he really believe this will continue?

I think Lieberman realized he is now seriously constrained and he will not roam.

---

by: Bob Yates @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:07:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

His problem in 2012 is logistics (0.00 / 0)

since he's not likely to win a Democratic primary, or win as a Republican.. he would need to do something where he has two lines, and enough esteem from Dems to pull through.

And in a Presidential election year too.

Remember, this is the same guy who veered to the left to cut off Lamont in 2006.

(Ned Lamont is Example A for why a candidate doesn't vacation at a critical time)

Hailing from the land of milk, honey, and Democrats

---

by: RBH @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:30:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He will. (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman can't roam off the reservation.

It's in his nature.

I know of no reason why the caucus can't kick him out.

Caucus schmaucus. Who cares about that? It wasn't about being in or out of the caucus. It was about him being chair of the freaki'n Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

As for removing his chairmanship after the organizing resolition: the Great Orange Satan says otherwise.


543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Atleast he has a backbone (0.00 / 0)

It didnt bother me one bit that Lieberman campaigned against Obama even though I have been a big Obama supporter from the start. He was only doing what he thought was best for the country and he had the courage to display that. Thats called leadership. We expect it out of the R's to fight against their own party on issues such as the medicaid cuts and education funding. So we have one Demo that had an opposing view for a year.. Lets continue to cry about that because thats constructive right!? This is an issue that doesnt even deserve to be in the press. Keep the eye on the prize and help President Obama change the course of the country.  

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 00:47:46 AM UTC

Really? (0.00 / 0)

A backbone?

The Case Against Lieberman

That sanctimonious prick is and will continue to be chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

If I Ran the Zoo

...As far as I can tell if the Senators had chosen to defenestrate Lieberman, even over the pro-forma protests of Obama, that would have been the cheapest and easiest pay off ever in political history. We've had this discussion before about why the right wing religious nuts have been so reliable a focus of republican voter outreach. They are the cheapest of cheap dates. If you want the votes of capitalists you have to let them loot the treasury. Their money to you is always a quid pro quo for more money down the line. That can be expensive. But if you want the votes of religious fanatics you can buy them off with a little anti gay rhetoric, the occasional slap at feminists, and even a proposal, soon forgotten, to restore paper copies of the ten commandments to schools. Its an incredibly cost effective strategy. So what was the equivalent for the activated progressive base? We've already inured ourselves to whatever compromises Obama has to make on Gitmo, Iraq, health care etc... We're still so dizzy with surprise and gratitude that a mere few minutes looking at our gorgeous new president, his crowds and family is practically enough to keep us happy. But going forward they are going to want our votes, what are they offering us to make us keep feeling good, like what we did made a difference? That could be expensive but it doesn't have to be. We'd be satisfied with something symbolic. Everyone always is. Frankly offering us Lieberman's symbolic castration would have been just the ticket. And the truth is he would never have been missed, procedurally. While the pay off would have been huge if they had cared what the voters thought. When you look at it like that the decision to keep Lieberman at all, and certainly the decision to do it so publicly and without any kind of symbolic humiliation and assurances of good behavior was really predicated on a decision, and a sound one I'm sure, that the voters are stuck and can't ever strike back or express their anger and disgust. How very Liebermanesque of the Senate. We've got nowhere to go, as progressives, but to further support Obama and what he tries to do that we do support. But we will have to rest content, apparently, with being the crazy rich aunt in the attic, dragged out and dressed and primped for company only when the party needs us and locked up in chains and fed crusts between election cycles.

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:39:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hate and Vengeance (0.00 / 0)

Will get you no where.  
I remember you yourself saying when I switched parties that the Democratic Party offers a big tent with a wide variety of views. Practice what you preach. We do not need to stoop to the petty level that the R's constantly demonstrate. Just because we have the power to remove him from his chair does not mean that we should. Moving forward and looking ahead is much more powerful than attaining revenge.  

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:19:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The cult of the constant victim (0.00 / 0)

I ain't joining.

Hate and vengeance aren't particularly motivating (though they are attractive sidelights in this particular case) - it's about having a long memory and understanding in politics that past behaviors are an indicator of future performance.  

Politics ain't patty cake. It's a tough business and there are calculations that enter into everything, as you well know. But, there are usually consequences for bad behavior. If there weren't we'd never be able to accomplish anything because there would be no restraint on obstructionism. And obstructionism is the key here.

Yes, the Democratic Party is a big tent. The point of the tent metaphor is that you're actually supposed to be inside the tent, not standing on the outside pissing in.

What don't you get about the Supreme Court cloture votes? Or the short drive to another hospital? Or not holding the administration accountable for it's Katrina response, while promising he would? Or actively campaigning for the people that are violently opposed to almost everything you've stated and told the voters you believe in? Please don't argue that he's been an effective legislator - there's far too much evidence to the contrary.

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:45:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Never Said (0.00 / 0)

He was an effective legislator. Not only that, I think I have disagreed with most legislation he has handled since the mid 90's..

Ill let you win this argument because 1. Im tired and should be working on my homework. 2. You made a couple valid points and 3. Because you made me laugh with the tent metaphor.

See ya tomorrow night.

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 03:17:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are told that Lieberman is Ok on most issues except foreign policy ... (0.00 / 0)

although I won't swear that I know that he will join with the Democratic brethren on supreme court Cloture votes, it is likely that he will, and that he will support much of the party line on energy and healthcare.  Sure, he will be obstructionist on "homeland" security issues which is why it is craziness to give him that committee--however, I suspect that it is the price that he exacted in return for his future compliance.

On the other hand, you are absolutely right about consequences for bad behavior; it is necessary to run a tight shop if you want to be effective and in such a shop, everybody knows the rules and they pay the price when they break them.  

To me, it is not worth getting bent out of shape yet.  Give the leadership the benefit of the doubt for now that there are considerations that mandate delaying necessary payback and wait and see how things work out.  But don't forget.

---

by: WillyK @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:17:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Art (0.00 / 0)

Senate Guru sums it up perfectly:

When we root for Democrats to win Senate seats (or any office), when we volunteer our time or contribute our money, we're not just supporting "our team," the way we would a sports franchise.  We're working toward an better America.

In 2008, as in 2006, America voted for change.  One of the prominent themes of the 2008 election was "change" versus "more of the same."  But change isn't just some vague term, a longing for the greener grass on the other side.

"Change" referred to many specific items on our policy shopping list.  And one of those items was far more strenuous oversight of government affairs.  With war profiteering in the Middle East and with a financial-services-plus bail-out going on, we need the fiercest government oversight in American history.

Joe Lieberman should not be removed from his Chairmanship simply because he strayed from the pack.  He should have been removed because he was an ineffective Chair.  He did not provide the oversight that we voted for.  Lieberman did not demonstrate a commitment to this agenda - to what I was under the impression was the Senate Democratic agenda.

Lieberman supporting endless Iraq War and endorsing John McCain were symptoms of the problem - not the problem itself.  The problem is that, when it comes to what Americans want in their government (and in the need for greater oversight), Joe Lieberman isn't "change."  Joe Lieberman is "more of the same."

---

by: Clark @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:41:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

I am fully capable of understanding that. But for some reason it seems that everybody is trying to pretend that Lieberman was the only Democrat that served on this committee. Where were the other Dems? Why didnt they put more pressure on him to have more oversight? Reid? Where were the threats to remove his chairmanship before the campaign!? The point is Lieberman is an ineffective chair because the Senate Leadership and the other Dems on the committee allowed him to be. And I am willing to bet had Lieberman NOT campaigned against Obama we wouldnt even be having this conversation because Lieberman would be on everybodies good side. And we would just go on pretending that Lieberman is a good chair. But thats not the case because he did campaign against Obama now everybody wants his head.

So tell me,,, do you really believe we would be having this conversation right now had Lieberman campaigned for Obama?

Because I dont think we would be. Therefore, removing his chairmanship is based soley on the fact that Dems are [issed that he campaigned against Obama. And thats vindictive. And we are better than that.  

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 15:43:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good question (0.00 / 0)

"So tell me,,, do you really believe we would be having this conversation right now had Lieberman campaigned for Obama? "

But I think we would. There was a similar conversation after the 2006 elections, but the reason Joe got his gavel then was because he threatened to jump ship and give the GOP control of the Senate. Now that the margin in the Senate increased, we could have very well seen a discussion based solely on the merits (or lack thereof) of Joe keeping his chair if he had campaigned for Obama instead of McCain.

BTW, how do you know Senate leaders weren't pressuring Lieberman for stricter oversight? What were they supposed to do, toss him out like the GOP did with Jim Jeffords?

---

by: Clark @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:13:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

Of course there is no way for us to truly know how much or how little the pressure was on Lieberman before. But had the pressure had been high I am sure we would have heard more about it before all of this.

In addition, when we took over the senate in 2006 Sen. Reid could have easily chosen somebody else to chair that committee. He didnt have to pick Lieberman..

So if Lieberman didnt live up to their expectations the Senate leadership has nobody to blame but themselves for the lack of oversight because they picked him to be chair.  

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:24:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you're not listening (0.00 / 0)

Reid had to pick Lieberman for a chair in 2006 because if he didn't, Lieberman would jump ship, allowing Republicans to retain control of the Senate. Then Reid wouldn't be Majority Leader, and you can bet that legislation coming from a Senate led by McConnell would have been pretty terrible. Giving Lieberman the chair as a price for control of the Senate was an easy call.

As for the present day situation, you're absolutely right that Senate Dems have nobody else to blame but themselves. They know Lieberman's poor record as chair, and they didn't need him for control of the Senate or the magic 60 votes. (If Lieberman votes against cloture on a specific bill, Pryor, Landrieu, and Nelson are probably going to do the same.) They still voted for him to retain his chair.

---

by: Clark @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:40:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Senate committee chairman have... (0.00 / 0)

...absolute power.

Committee members can get a unanimous petition to hold a hearing on an issue, but the chair still controls the gavel and can shut the meeting down. Jesse Helms was a virtuoso at this:

POLITICAL NOTES: Senator Says Helms Has Killed Weld Bid

...WASHINGTON: An influential Republican senator said Sunday that he believed the nomination of William Weld as ambassador to Mexico had been successfully killed by Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

"I assume it is over," Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said on NBC-TV. Mr. Weld, a Republican, resigned as governor of Massachusetts to fight for the Mexico posting after Mr. Helms, a North Carolina Republican, refused to schedule hearings on the nomination, citing what he said was Mr. Weld's weak stance in the fight against illicit drugs. Mr. Weld's backers said Mr. Helms's real objection was to Mr. Weld's liberal views...

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:24:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Its not that I am not listening.. (0.00 / 0)

Its that I completely disagree with the fact that Reid HAD to choose Lieberman as chair. I seriosuly doubt that Lieberman would have jumped ship. What would he have gained from it!? The R's certainly were not going to make him chair of the committee.. And with how liberal connecticut is these days it would have seriously jeopardized his next re-election campaign. Connecticut hasnt had a US Senator that was an R since 1989. And remember he barely won his last re-election campaign. So I think jumping ship right after his narrow win would have been a poor move on his part. But im open to hear your disagreement.

And yes Michael I know the powers of the committee chair. Its still no excuse for not putting more pressure on Lieberman via the press or any other means.

Good politicians know how to work the system to get things done.  

---

by: Art @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:36:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]