Lieberman keeps Homeland Security chairmanship

[dudalb]

You think Lieberman votes according to what party he's pissed off at or happy with at the time, and not on the issues?

It might make a difference on procedurial issues, which could be very important.

 

[dudalb]

Lieberman is a jewish extremist and a zionist.

COngratulations, moon1969. This kick you are on has cost you any respect I might have had for you. You are really coming off like a Anti Semite, whether you intend to or not.

 

[dudalb]

Lieberman actually owes Obama two since Obama helped him get reelected in 2006. I'm all for mending bridges, moving forward and all that pleasant talk but how many chances does Lieberman deserve? I understand that he has serious differences with the caucus on some issues but to go out and campaign for an opponent, then expect to share in the spoils of a victory you were against seems outrageous. This had better be his last chance.

I think few in the Democratic party actually like Liberman. I think they just decided that leaving him in place is better for their program in the long run then removing him.
it is easy to scream "throw him out" if you are a blogger or posting crap at The Daily Kos. It is a lot harder when you have to actually Govern and get things done.
The Kos Kids are in for a dose of reality:they represent a pretty small portion of the voting public, and The Dems will no hesistate to go against their wishes if it wins them more public support.

 

[ZenFountain]

I think they just decided that leaving him in place is better for their program in the long run then removing him.
it is easy to scream "throw him out" if you are a blogger or posting crap at The Daily Kos. It is a lot harder when you have to actually Govern and get things done.
The Kos Kids are in for a dose of reality:they represent a pretty small portion of the voting public, and The Dems will no hesistate to go against their wishes if it wins them more public support.

I'm not one of those Kos posters that's out for mindless revenge. Lieberman has to live with what he's done and being shunned by his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, even if they say this is water under the bridge. I'm only saying this had better be the last time Lieberman breaks ranks so boldly and expects to be invited back in for the perks of being in the majority.

 

[dudalb]

I think the Democrats are in the same situation with Liberman that Jack Warner when head of Warners Brs Studios was in after a huge fight with Bette Davis..."I never want that B---h on the lot again...unless we absolutely need her!".

 

[kallsop]

Lieberman already owed Obama after Obama saved his seat in 2006.

As a resident of Connecticut, I can assure you that Obama was not a critical factor in the reelection of Lieberman. Red Lamont was Ron Paul Lite - had a lot of internet support, not so much from actual voters who ignore the primaries.

Maybe Lieberman kept his chairmanship because he is the best pick. Isn't that how it should be?

 

[WildCat]

It might make a difference on procedurial issues, which could be very important.

And if that's the case it will be Harry Reid & Co. who will have to kiss Lieberman's ass, not the other way around.

 

[gdnp]

Lieberman now owes Obama a BIG favor. Plus, keeping him in the Democratic caucus gives the Democrats some leverage over him. They need him until January to maintain their 51-49 advantage. If he bolts to the Republicans then we spend the next two months rearranging offices instead of passing bills.

After January Lieberman is on notice: cross the line, lose your chairmanship, along with the big office and staff.

I do worry that Obama is spending too much time trying to co-opt his former rivals: Hillary, McCain, now Lieberman. I like the idea of an administration filled with honorable intelligent people with different opinions. If he can herd them effectively we may have a productive 8 years. If he can't...4 years of squabbling, paralysis, and back biting, followed by a Palin/Petreus administration.

 

[boloboffin]

You seem to want to drive Liberman into the GOP's arms...which might not be a smart move in the battles ahead.

I could care less what Lieberman does caucusing as a Republican. He's utterly powerless that way. What's he going to do, vote against his stance on the issues? Lieberman votes Democratic far more and on more issues than he does Republican. He gets taken down from power because he can't be trusted and so he's going to vote out of spite against what he actually believes? I'd like to see him trying to get votes in CT after that four-year temper tantrum.

For God's sake, I'm agreeing with WILDCAT.

You think Lieberman votes according to what party he's pissed off at or happy with at the time, and not on the issues?

So you also think Lieberman will vote against his conscience because he owes Obama a favor?

Joe Lieberman is going to do what's best for Joe Lieberman, and ever since the 2000 elections, what's good for Joe Lieberman is constantly stabbing the Democratic party in the back. He screwed Al Gore over unpostmarked absentee ballots in Florida. He got re-elected promising, among other things, that he would use his HSGA committee to investigate Katrina and then turned around after getting elected and decided it would be too decisive. He hasn't held a hearing on Bush administration corruption YET as far as I know, certainly not in the past two years. Not a single thing needed oversight hearings, not even to possibly CLEAR Bush? Really?

And now he campaigned against Obama, slamming him back and forth over things like whether he's a Muslim or not, telling falsehoods about his Senate votes, saying that he was putting the troops into danger (borderline treason!), and now that Obama is elected, he's crying about his oversight committee?

Why?

Why is he fighting so hard to keep a post with which he has done nothing during a Republican administration?

Because it's another knife to plunge into the back of the Democratic party if Joe needs to. Without it, he's nothing. He's a miserable little cipher, haunting the Hannity show and being a minor irritant to the Republican whip.

He can't be trusted. THAT is why we are so upset. Are some of us wanting revenge? Yeah, sure. No doubt about it. But please stop pretending, those of you who are, that this is the only motivation out there.

Joe Lieberman cannot be trusted with this kind of power. No, it's not that. He CAN be trusted to do as much harm as possible if he decides it's necessary. And what's Joe's pet issue? The Iraq War. And what is Obama still saying he's going to do on this side of the election? End it.

I'm not one of those Kos posters that's out for mindless revenge. Lieberman has to live with what he's done and being shunned by his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, even if they say this is water under the bridge. I'm only saying this had better be the last time Lieberman breaks ranks so boldly and expects to be invited back in for the perks of being in the majority.

Shunned? Joe is their cocktail weenie buddy boy.

You know, maybe so. Maybe Carl Levin is going to be Joe's babysitter on that committee. All I know is that Joe only needs at the most two Democrats (Pryor and Landrieu come to mind) to call whatever oversight on Obama he wants or throw whatever subpoenas around. The Gang of Three I'm already calling this potential group. The Republicans have to appoint four seats next time to that committee, maybe five (assuming Coleman falls to Al Franken and the Democrats get to the magic 60). They'll be thirsting to make a name for themselves by bringing Obama down.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. That was a lot of work for the Senate Democrats to let an unhousebroken camel back into the tent.

 

[boloboffin]

After January Lieberman is on notice: cross the line, lose your chairmanship, along with the big office and staff.

Not in the 111th Congress. It will be a deal like this one -- all assignments made and frozen for the duration. Lieberman has it for these next two years. Maybe, just maybe in the 112th.

Ha, ha! Who are we kidding?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Would rather just drive him back to Connecticut, where he would not win as a Republican, no matter what his name is.

You seem to want to drive Liberman into the GOP's arms...which might not be a smart move in the battles ahead.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I knew that the hard core lefties would turn on Obama if he was sincere about a bi partisan approach. And it is happening.

I agree, it seems that some folks who will give Obama the hardest time will be some of my allies on the ideological left who think that it is now "payback time" for the last 8 years under GOP control. That kind of thinking is a mistake.

Though I am sorely tempted to agree & a baser side of me wants revenge, I think Obama is taking a longer & wiser view to move somewhat to the left, but to stop moving once he basically gets to the center (or slightly left-of-center). It would be a big mistake, imo, for Obama and the Democratic party in general to go overboard and move too far to the left. Despite the Democratic party's great electoral victories in 2006 and this year, we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that it was only the liberals that allowed us to win all those victories - we did so by showing the center of the country (the "more conservative than us liberals" center) that we can do a better job of governing than the insane & incompetent partisan-led GOP. That kind of thinking is the mistake the GOP made - they kept winning because they were winning the middle, but once they went too far to the right and showed they were more concerned about their ideology than running the government effectively, they lost their shine very quickly.

It is now about good governance folks - plain and simple. We've got too many damned problems to get caught up in too much partisan tit-for-tat type bull****. Obama realizes that he needs allies in Congress, not enemies, and this will go towards mending many fences, methinks. Sure it'll piss off some people, but then again some people need to grow up.

I cannot stand Lieberman's crap over the last few months, but I'm willing to swallow my pride on this one. Good on Obama.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Lieberman is a jewish extremist and a zionist.

 

[gdnp]

Not in the 111th Congress. It will be a deal like this one -- all assignments made and frozen for the duration. Lieberman has it for these next two years. Maybe, just maybe in the 112th.

By custom or by law?

 

[dudalb]

I agree, it seems that some folks who will give Obama the hardest time will be some of my allies on the ideological left who think that it is now "payback time" for the last 8 years under GOP control. That kind of thinking is a mistake.

It also sends a horrible message to the "Blue Dog Democrats" moderates that "We Don't Need No Stinking Moderates".
We have been through 8 freaking years of a bitterly partisan government. I do not want any more, even if the partisanship is of a different flavor.

 

[Dragoonster]

I knew that the hard core lefties would turn on Obama if he was sincere about a bi partisan approach. And it is happening.

I'm not a hardcore lefty, nor a registered Democrat, and I think it's a very dumb move. I guess it's a balance of whether Obama was serious about bi-partisanship, or serious about change. Currying favors via DC inside politicking doesn't seem much like change to me. I'm not so sure this was really his decision though, as he hasn't yet demonstrated his governing but Congress certainly has demonstrated their incompetence.

I also simply can't fathom the idea that this will make Lieberman even "owe" Obama or the democrats. The man this year wasn't refuting that Obama was a socialist, was calling him a danger to security, and spoke at the RNC. He tried to torpedo Obama's chances for becoming President. For that he's punished by...nothing. No action from the democratic party. And now you expect him to capitulate because the democrats were so kind letting him keep his seat and keep his caucusing spot? What on Earth should Lieberman fear from causing all sorts of trouble, if what he did this year is completely excused?

If anything with the Senate seats not yet counted Lieberman could have even more power, and more teflon-coating if the Dems end up with both open seats (now that Stevens lost) and 58, 60 with Lieberman and the other Independent (I think that would get them to 60). Is it better to have him as hypothetically the most powerful man in the Senate, or to be in a position where you accept a non-fillibuster majority but also don't accept that every one of your bills has to be written with a hawkish wacko in mind?

Real change is standing by principles. If a member of your party runs against another member, drops out of the party, campaigns against your party, and stands opposed to very important ideological platforms of your party, you don't allow him to be a virtual member of your caucus. And imo it's not as if his skills are irreplacable or desirable no matter his ideology, he's never struck me as a very intelligent guy.

It also sends the message that Congress is spineless, a reputation they've built up over the last couple years. They'd rather play political games and machiavellian crap than take stands. As they now control both Congress and the Presidency, this move makes it likely that their interests are not progressive, but rather traditional politicking, weaseling, trading favors, worrying about their own elections rather than doing the right thing no matter whose feelings it hurts.

If the democrats in Congress had been taking stands, strongly advocating good policy decisions, and not being run over by the minority GOP and Bush I'd feel much differently. I'd trust them to use this to better implement wise though not foolhardy liberal agendas. But they've sucked as much as Bush in the last couple years, and this move makes me less optimistic that they have, well, balls.

 

[Dragoonster]

It also sends a horrible message to the "Blue Dog Democrats" moderates that "We Don't Need No Stinking Moderates".
We have been through 8 freaking years of a bitterly partisan government. I do not want any more, even if the partisanship is of a different flavor.

The democrats can build a bridge to conservatives in much, much better ways than completely cowing to Lieberman. Kicking him out of the caucus would not be an overreaction to his actions in the past year, and would be understandable if a GOP member had done the equivalent in campaigning vociferously against McCain. Bipartisanship is good and will be necessary, but they can achieve that without being completely weak-willed. They do need to exhibit strength, and their decision on Lieberman doesn't do that.

 

[boloboffin]

By custom or by law?

This arrangement has been in play in every Congress after the Democrats flipped the Senate in 2001.

It is amusing to watch people on both sides of the issue beat a nice big "revenge" straw man. Whatever gets you through the night...

 

[gdnp]

Real change is standing by principles. If a member of your party runs against another member, drops out of the party, campaigns against your party, and stands opposed to very important ideological platforms of your party, you don't allow him to be a virtual member of your caucus. And imo it's not as if his skills are irreplacable or desirable no matter his ideology, he's never struck me as a very intelligent guy.

Well, there has been an entire thread over what "change" means to Obama. The power of this as a campaign theme is that everyone can interpret it the way they want to.

I see this as Obama having offered an olive branch to his opponents and in particular a pardon to Lieberman. Lieberman did not go entirely unpunished: he kept his homeland security chair, but lost his chairmanship of the Environment and Public works subcommittee.

The pattern in Washington as long as I have been paying attention has been for the party that takes over to replace the other side's political hacks with their own political hacks. Congress has become far less collegial. Appointees are expected to pass litmus tests. Obama has sent several signals. With the Lieberman pardon and the overtures to Clinton and McCain, he has signaled that he is willing to let bygones be bygones and work with his former adversaries and listen to opposing voices, which will be a welcome change from Bush, who surrounded himself with ideologues and insulated himself from opposing opinions. With his choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, he has signaled that this does not mean that he does not plan to play hardball politics to advance his agenda. Together, he seems to be saying "join me in moving the country forward or prepared to be run over".

Again, the pattern in Washington for several decades has been one of extreme partisanship and tit-for-tat retaliation. Not that unlike conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere. It takes a leader willing to show restraint, say "enough!" and forgo justifiable retaliation to break the cycle. "standing on principles" sounds nice, but often it ends up being translated into trading progress for ideological purity.

 

[boloboffin]

Well, there has been an entire thread over what "change" means to Obama. The power of this as a campaign theme is that everyone can interpret it the way they want to.

I see this as Obama having offered an olive branch to his opponents and in particular a pardon to Lieberman. Lieberman did not go entirely unpunished: he kept his homeland security chair, but lost his chairmanship of the Environment and Public works subcommittee.

Did you know they changed the rules so that you couldn't have as many chairs as Lieberman had? He was going to lose one of those seats anyway. He wasn't "punished" at all.

The pattern in Washington as long as I have been paying attention has been for the party that takes over to replace the other side's political hacks with their own political hacks. Congress has become far less collegial. Appointees are expected to pass litmus tests. Obama has sent several signals. With the Lieberman pardon and the overtures to Clinton and McCain, he has signaled that he is willing to let bygones be bygones and work with his former adversaries and listen to opposing voices, which will be a welcome change from Bush, who surrounded himself with ideologues and insulated himself from opposing opinions. With his choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, he has signaled that this does not mean that he does not plan to play hardball politics to advance his agenda. Together, he seems to be saying "join me in moving the country forward or prepared to be run over".

Again, the pattern in Washington for several decades has been one of extreme partisanship and tit-for-tat retaliation. Not that unlike conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere. It takes a leader willing to show restraint, say "enough!" and forgo justifiable retaliation to break the cycle. "standing on principles" sounds nice, but often it ends up being translated into trading progress for ideological purity.

So according to you, Obama is saying, it's not politics as usual but I'm playing hardball. Come join us in brotherly love or watch this home run.

Lieberman won't flip parties. That makes it easier for Pryor and Landrieu to stand with him and ponder about all those hardball tactics Obama's employing and, wow, maybe we should take a look at that, and, boy, let's throw a few subpoenas around, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

After all, you only date rape the ones you love.