It seems clear to me that his chairmanship is lost... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

He might get some impotent subcommittee chairmanship somewhere, but I doubt he gets anything with subpoena power.  We don't need him, and if he wants to bolt, he can bolt.


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!

---

by: lord_mike @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:24:01 PM UTC

I understand your (0.00 / 0)

concern about Lieberman and subpoena power.

But I think one of the key mistakes the GOP Congress made was simply stopping all oversight of the executive branch let the Bush bureaucrats run amuck .  That really came back to bite them (and us taxpayers) in the ass. Not that I think the Obama is going to appoint the same sort of low lifes that BUsh did, but the concept of check and balances is a very sound one.

Anyway, I pretty sure the Reid laid out Joe's options, none of which included a chairmanship, and Joe is now over with the Republicans seeing what they have to offer.  

---

by: jroyale @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:32:06 PM UTC

yes but not Lieberman (4.00 / 4)

Lieberman promised to investigate the Katrina response as Chair, but never did.  Compare what he did to his house counterpart, Waxman.  Waxman was all over the Bush administration, and got some results (eg Lorita Doan).  The Democratic investigations machine was running on 3 wheels (counting the two judiciary committees, which were also active).  How much better could it have been had Lieberman fulfilled his duty to investigate the rampant lawbreaking by the Bush Admin?  He's a disgrace.

So if Lieberman were just some general "clean government" activist, that might be ok, but he purposely avoided going after Bush and now will go after Obama for stupid shit like the Republicans used to throw at clinton like the Christmas Card list or Travel"gate"

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:10:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is Lieberman Of Any Use To Reid? (0.00 / 0)

Other than stopping a filibuster does Reid need Lieberman's vote?  We know what Lieberman has done in the campaign, has he shown vindictive tendencies since becoming an independent?

Seems like one, or both are playing an angle or two, the game is politics.

---

by: steve katz @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:38:33 PM UTC

Lieberman (4.00 / 3)

Must also be only put on committees with a 2 vote Democratic edge.  Otherwise he will side with the Republicans and overrule the Democratic chair whenever possible.

Better to kick him out of caucus all together, but if he stays in the Democratic caucus, it should be understood he will screw the party at key moments, and committee votes can be crucial.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:12:18 PM UTC

LIEberman is on a scorched earth campaign (4.00 / 2)

He especially hates US , you know the hippies who on the internet worked and donated to Lamont to oust his warmongering ass....I agree with David he is dangerous with  this power. He makes crap up. He is out to destroy the Dems as was evident in his RNC speech. Let us also not forget. He was down here in Florida, at all the big jewish centers, I was at one just to hear his crap, he went on and on about Rashid Khalidi, and Bill Ayres for 45 min. Fortunately we had Wasserman- Schultz and others  to counter it.  I called Wasserman-Schultz's office after that and informed them what LIEberman did in that speech and they were horrified. He is beyond dangerous and many of my Jewish friends here in So Florida think he is on a misson and will NOT stop. We really need to step it up and get him OUT!

---

by: JPcaster @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:19:50 PM UTC

Nice post David (0.00 / 0)

I think you added a dimension of this case I wasn't considering.

I'm torn on this and will continue to be because it is a clear case, either way.  Kick him from the caucus completely because that is what he earned with his reprehensible behavior- not just supporting McCain, I could easily live with that, but actively pushing some of the worst fear-mongering, insidious attack points of the campaign.  Or keep him in the caucus (minus his chairmanship) for political reasons (his vote, plus his necessity toward good faith in the future).

One is the ethical, if not moral thing to do.  The other is the political and expedient thing to do.  Both clear and appropiate.

But I'm with Chris, my guts says to boot him (but my mind is arguing to keep him even as I write this).

---

by: alffy @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:36:44 PM UTC

Give him the worst of both worlds. (4.00 / 2)

Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to, even let him be chair of the housekeeping committee or something, as long as he doesn't get subpoena power or an investigative staff. Let him know that he loses even that unless he toes the party line every single time it matters. He does nothing beyond being a reliable party droog unless the majority leader says he can go play for a while.

To me this is the win-win solution: he's more miserable than if he was booted from the caucus because he's essentially a hostage. At the same time he becomes a solid vote whenever it matters, like it or not.

If he doesn't like it, let him quit the caucus, the party, the Senate, who cares. Thing is, there's no reason to think the Reps will give him a better deal -- who's going to make way for him? Nobody really likes a quisling -- not even the ones he defected to.

As long as he's shuffled to a humiliating committee, not kicked out, we deprive him of his only consolation: his chance to be the poor, victimized drama queen. My guess, he'd quit the Senate within months.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:52:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm more concerned about him not using subpoena power (4.00 / 3)

than of him using subpoenas against the Obama administration.  I believe issuing a subpoena requires a committee vote, and I don't think other party members would allow him to get away with it.

I do believe, though, that he would obstruct investigations into crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration, and I believe that he is wholly untrustworthy.  I think he would use his power to further his own goals, without regard for the impact on the party or the Obama administration.

I can hardly believe anyone is even considering letting him remain in the caucus.  What good did it do for us between 2006-08?  And boy, I have to wonder what a person has to do to get kicked out of the Senate Democratic Caucus!  What does it take?

---

by: joanneleon @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:50:57 PM UTC

if Lieberman issues a dubious subpoena (0.00 / 0)

what's to stop Reid from stripping him of his chairmanship at that point?

It would look bad, but it's a losing proposition for Lieberman. I don't think he'd do it.

One benefit to bouncing Lieberman from the Dem caucus is that he'd take a seat from Republicans on committees. Or maybe they won't give him any seats either.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 23:08:09 PM UTC

To quote LBJ (4.00 / 1)

"its better to have em inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in"

Of course, Holy Joe might piss on everyone anyway and try to claim it's raining....

You are right: they key is that he not have the power to block anything in committee.  At the mininium he should not be allowed to chair a committee.  

---

by: fladem @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 23:58:08 PM UTC

Ah, but vengence is a dish best served cold. . . (0.00 / 0)

Check out this video

This is a man literally begging for his political life.  So even though Reid didn't strip him of his chairmanship today, its highly likely that the pain will come soon.  If anything, this is better than kicking him out right away - Reid's just letting him twist in the wind.

---

by: jim_treglio @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 00:56:18 AM UTC

By stripping LIEberman (4.00 / 1)

does not Reid reward someone else in the caucus who is actually loyal with a chairmanship?

Sounds like an "teachable moment".

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:32:29 AM UTC

i agree (0.00 / 0)

It isn't personal - it's politics. Joe Lieberman cannot have subpoena power. It's that simple.

It's really not that simple.  I think the argument centers around what is brought up here - whether or not the party leadership think party discipline or a big tent matters more right now in terms of moving forward an agenda and promoting whatever they want to in the party.

Of coruse, that works on the assumption that they're not braindead and have an actual agenda--I didn't really see any indication of either of these possibilities during the bailout war.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:57:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reid's Message (0.00 / 0)

I suspect Reid's Message was very clear.  He has the votes to strip Joe of his Committee.  Joe has a choice to make, take the medicine and take a lower level sub-committee and prove his caucus loyality over the next two years, or essentially get nothing more than the Republicans can give him in their conference -- and they hardly will be willing to give up ranking member positions for Joe.  We must remember holding chairs has a great many perks attached to it -- hiring committee staff for instance is a biggie.  

In the end it is better to let Joe decide what kind of medicine he wants to take -- what Reid has on offer, or what he might get out of McConnell.  

Another matter to consider, as I read the seniority lists for the Senate Democrats, it looks like Russ Feingold is next in line for a major committee Chairmanship.  I would be glad to trade Joe in for Russ any day.  (Russ is class of 92).  

But it is important for Reid to do this now...we have a huge opportunity to pass major legislation during the next two years, and to accomplish this, he needs Caucus Discipline, not a gang all shooting in different directions.  By showing Joe the way to the back row in the Democratic Caucus with a promise that small improvements might be possible if he puts in two years of loyal service, Reid says something critical to all caucus members.  They have to put accomplishment first, and personal whims and agendas in last place.  

My guess at this point, Joe takes a very minor sub-committee and keeps his mouth shut for the next few years.  

---

by: Sara @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 13:34:02 PM UTC