Harry Reid: "No Decision" on Lieberman

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 14:37


Well Harry Reid is continuing his legacy of staunch indecisiveness in the face of lying conservative traitors.

"No decisions have been made," Reid said, in a statement sent to us by his office. "While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our Caucus."

"I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come," Reid continued, "and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our Caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."

Make sure to sign the letter from Bold Progressives.

Update (Chris): In addition to signing the above petition, which you really should do, check out Jane Hamsher's take on the situation. She has been focused on this for a while, and her best guess is that Reid told Lieberman he could stay in the caucus if he stepped down from his chairmanships. I guess that would be better than nothing, but it would also be very unsatisfying. My gut says to kick him out of the caucus altogether.

Matt Stoller :: Harry Reid: "No Decision" on Lieberman

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Harry Reid: "No Decision" on Lieberman | 23 comments
Tarring and feathering would be nice, but... (4.00 / 3)
Honestly, I'd be fine with him holding his positions so long as he agreed to vote with us on all major legislation and always vote for cloture on any Repug filibuster.  Sure he is despicable but if he is the vote that passes the Employee Free Choice Act, universal healthcare, or the needed 'yes' vote on cloture that gets us more liberals on the Supreme Court I am willing to withhold my vengeance until 2012.  I am assuming, of course, there are mechanisms to relieve him of his duties should he not abide by our rules.
in a slumming economy (0.00 / 0)
all IOUs are worthless.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Agree, and yet... (4.00 / 1)
My first impulse is to jetison him to hang with his buddies in the minority caucus, or just to wander the lonly halls of Congress alone.

But I've been thinking along the lines you lay out.  His acts have been dispicable, but his vote can be of value.

Perhaps there is some middle ground.  Allow him to caucus with the Dems but strip him of his Chairmanship?  Gives him the possibility of earning back his position by good faith as oppossed to political exile (also gives leverage for those votes)?

Not sure if this is possible, rules and all, or he might reject any such bargain, but then good riddance.

[ Parent ]
and thus the first accountability battle is joined (0.00 / 0)
Reid is unqualified to be leader of the Senate; he's accomplished nothing during his tenure other than to roll over on war spending, obliterating civil rights, banker bailouts. I'd donate to and vote for a GOP opponent just to teach him a lesson, but I'm a nihilist.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
what could there be to discuss? (4.00 / 6)
I don't get it. Why does Lieberman have any leverage with Reid anymore? He actively campaigned for the other party's presidential nominee.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
It behhoves Reid to wait (4.00 / 1)
We don't even no what kind of majority we have in the Senate yet. It will be a lot easier to punish Joe if we get 3 more seats than if we don't win any of the remaining contests.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
No, it will be harder if we gain 3 more seats. (0.00 / 0)
Then Lieberman's vote would really mean something.  I don't want that shitweasel as the deciding vote.  

I would rather see us having to barter to seek 2 or 3 Republican votes (play each off against one another) than see Lieberman as the go-to guy all the time.  Lieberman can be one of the Republicans who sells his vote for some pork, no different than any of the others.

I actually hope we don't get to the point where Lieberman's vote makes the difference.

I'm fine with him staying as a Democrat, stripped of all chairs, if he wants to do that.  But the Democratic party, not Lieberman has to be calling the shots.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Deciding vote (0.00 / 0)
Lots of people can be the deciding vote. Lieberman will still be the deciding vote much of the time with 56 or 57 seats. But he won't be the only one, even with 59 (not counting Joe himself).  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Chairmanship (4.00 / 4)
I honestly don't care whether we boot Lieberman from the caucus or not. All I care about is that he lose his committee chairmanship, which he could use to antagonize the Obama administration.  
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Who cares if he is a backbencher in the caucus?  Let him have fun being an outcast.  The chairmanship gives him power and a platform so stripping him of that is the real punishment.

[ Parent ]
Depending on the outcome of the MN, AK and GA races (0.00 / 0)
we may still need him to break Republican filibusters. We should put off any decisions on Lieberman until we know what the final Senate picture is going to look like.
This is a good problem to have (4.00 / 1)
Right now, I'm just happy having a real majority that doesn't depend on us catering to Holy Joe's every desire.  I could go either way on this: on the one hand, it would be very satisfying just to tell him to go screw himself.  On the other hand, it might be even more satisfying to give him the legislative equivalent of Chinese water torture, forcing him to vote with us on every cloture motion with the understanding that with one false move, he's toast.  Ricky has a good point that the second option might be worth it, too, if it gets us a key vote on progressive legislation.
Read this before weeping... (0.00 / 0)
...it's really not as bad as it seems:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Reid's waiting on Oklahoma (0.00 / 0)
Reid wants time to figure out how much he "needs" Lieberman. Right now, not much, since there's no way Lieberman would side with the Dems on any actual votes, and they don't need him to keep a slim majority. So right now I'm sure Reid is waiting on Oklahoma, and maybe putting the screws to Lieberman to see how badly he wants to be part of the Senate Majority and how much he'll give up to stay there
Oklahoma? (0.00 / 0)
What's going on there that's relevant to this?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Caucus (0.00 / 0)
I asked this the other day, but no one answered.  What does "in the caucus" actually mean?  I understand leadership positions but don't really get being in the caucus gets anyone.

The only thing I could think of was quotas in committee membership, where X Democrats and Y Republicans designated to each committee.  Is that correct?  Anything else?

There are numerous advantages to caucusing with a party (0.00 / 0)
The obvious ones include having an active participation and vote for party leadership positions, accruing seniority within the caucus which results in assignments to committees and sub-committees, earning not just chairmanships but ranking status within committees.  

And don't underestimate the weight of committee membership and/or chairmanship.  Most of the power and influence members have is generated and exercised through the committees which are directly representative of their standing in the caucus.

Any individual with low standing in a caucus gets meaningless appointments, if they receive appointments at all.  That's the danger to Lieberman: if the Dems kick him out he either caucuses with the Repubs (effectively becoming a R in blue CT) in which case he likely loses all his standing (effectively becoming a freshman senator) or possibly the Repubs reward him for his "valient stand for integrity" (unlikely but possible- unlikely because it would downgrade an actual Repub in the caucus) and offer him a token seat on some committee, or he becomes a true independent.

No one is a true independent any longer because it means absolutely no committees and no power or influence.  All the pork drys up (for the most part, anyway) and you lose all influence except on very close floor votes (which most parties try to avoid anyway).

[ Parent ]
Certainly it would be satisfying (4.00 / 2)
to kick him out. But aside from making us feel good is it really best for our agenda? We're going to need his vote, no reason to piss him off just cause we don't like him. Strip him of his power, let him languish in obscurity for four years.
Reid needs to go (4.00 / 1)
Though I have trouble believing that Chris Dodd, who is probably our most likely alternative, is going to be more tough on his long time delegation partner.

Perhaps we can get behind a grassroots movement for Hillary as majority leader?  That would certainly be a boost for UHC.

seconded (0.00 / 0)
Reid is useless.  Get rid of him.  A wet napkin could do a better job.
[ Parent ]
"My gut says to kick him out of the caucus altogether." (0.00 / 0)
We've had 8 years of gut-driven leadership and it's led us down a sewer.

You are over-reacting to read's (admittedly) nebulous comments. But vagueness and non-committal statements are how the government, and especially the Senate functions.  Reid has to do a lot of work with the caucus to figure out the punishment that can be meted out.  And I have some measure of faith that one will be meted out.

I think you are a little harsh on Chris (0.00 / 0)
I believe Chris's comments are in referrence to his ethical nature and not to his "hunch" or instinctive nature.

By referring to his "gut says" I think Chris is indicating he finds an ethical, if not moral revulsion to retaining a caucus member that has so clearly worked in contradiction to that very caucus and is likely to do so in the future if retained, especially in his present position.

On the other hand, I agree with your referrals to "nebulous" behavior and "vagueness" by politicians and the Senate in particular, but I could also argue that your (mine and others, as well) suggested (or implied) course of subjugating our ethical or moral desires to the expediency of politics of the moment is more acurately described as similar to the last 8 years of leading "us down the sewer."

[ Parent ]
Balance (0.00 / 0)
He needs a slap-down. Stripping his chairmanships is a good start, and heads off a clear danger.

But,

He does have a senate vote, so we need something to hold over his head. Unfortunately, that means not stripping everything possible from him (even though he richly deserves it).

Am I confident Reid can find this balance ... hell no.

Harry Reid: "No Decision" on Lieberman | 23 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox