Why Is Harry Reid Afraid of Joe Lieberman?

by: tremayne

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 22:59


Harry Reid says Joe Lieberman "can still help Dems" by voting with them on social issues.

In addition to providing "bipartisan" cover to the Bush administration's misadventure in Iraq and other lawbreaking in the name of national security, Joe Lieberman actively worked against his party's efforts to win the White House. He didn't just support his friend John McCain, saying nice things about him, he also:

1. Trashed Barack Obama, now the President-elect, calling him unprepared for the job and guilty of not putting the country first.

2. Took a primetime speaking role at the Republican National Convention

3. Talked glowingly of Sarah Palin. Huh? How does loyalty to a friend translate into saying about Palin, someone who supposedly disagrees with you on every issue except those she knows nothing about: "She's so strong, she's so capable, she's so competent."

A theory on why Reid is nervous about Joe after the jump.

tremayne :: Why Is Harry Reid Afraid of Joe Lieberman?

More Reid:

"For those people beating up on Joe Lieberman, I've done my share," he said. "Recognize the glass being half full, not half empty."

This doesn't really speak to the issue at hand: should Lieberman remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee which many Democrats and most in the blogosphere oppose:

A Lieberman aide told CNN that the proposal was unacceptable, and that the senator has been approached by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell about switching sides.

So? Why should that matter? No one thinks Lieberman would really start voting a whole lot differently even if he chose to caucus with the Republicans. Here's an idea on what Reid is worried about: another Tom Coburn.

Coburn is a Republican Senator from Oklahoma and is nicknamed Dr. No. Coburn takes ample advantage of the rules of the Senate whereby any Senator can place a hold on any bill and prevent it from being passed quickly. By placing a hold on a bill he requires the bill's author or authors to come to him for wording changes and/or amendments so he'll release his hold. The alternative is a roll call vote or floor debate which slows things down and can even grind things to a halt.

Coburn doesn't just do this occasionally but constantly. He placed a hold on at least 90 bills in 2007 alone and continued the pattern in 2008. Some of the bills he objects to as wasteful but those are by no means the only ones. Pretty much any bill he objects to on ideological grounds or just thinks needs to be debated he'll hold.

Obviously, Harry Reid's job is, in part, to keep things moving and get stuff passed. He and Coburn have clashed. Is Reid worried about Joe Lieberman becoming another Tom Coburn? Somebody who takes advantage of the "unanimous consent" tradition in the senate? Is this a legitimate concern of Reid's or is he just being a wimp?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why Is Harry Reid Afraid of Joe Lieberman? | 43 comments
There's another problem... (4.00 / 1)
...in order to get cloture, we're going to need some republicans to cross over.  The two most likely crossovers are the two senators form Maine.  Unfortunately, they are also two of Lieberman's best friends.  It wouldn't be very hard for him to convince them NOT to vote with us on cloture...

As usual, Lieberman is trying to stick it to us every way he can...

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!

Well .. (0.00 / 0)
there is also Judd Gregg and Arlen Specter .. I know Specter is up in 2010 .. is Gregg?
[ Parent ]
Gregg is a conservative (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
But he's not hard right .. (0.00 / 0)
is he? .. or does he want to go down in 2010 like Sununu did this year?
[ Parent ]
He pretty much stays away from social issues (0.00 / 0)
but he is very much hard right on economic matters. Since Dems won't bring up a single cultural issue since they like to win elections then that means the main issues will be economic ones and thus Gregg will not vote with us on a single one. He's ranking member on the budget committee so he has to toe the party line and speak for the republican party on all thing economic in the senate. So he has very little wriggle room to help the Democrats. Which suits him fine because I don't think ideologically he's anywhere near us anyway.
[ Parent ]
That tells me .. (0.00 / 0)
depending on what happens once Obama takes office .. that Gregg could be made very vunerable
[ Parent ]
Lieberman Would Be USELESS In Any Cloture Vote! (4.00 / 5)
He's going to vote with Republicans on any controversial issue, just because he's a lying hypocritical bastard!

But, Reid has allowed the Democrats to vote on whether to strip Joe of his chairmanship. If they lack the courage to vote Joe out, then it's their own fault.

I would imagine there's some sentiment to get rid of him. Let him bolt if he wants to. The Republicans can offer him nothing but the chance to be in the minority and become the most junior Republican senator in the chamber.

At most McConnell might be able to transfer Lieberman's seniority, but that's all. He's NOT going to get a committee vice-chairmanship.

Call Lieberman's bluff. If he wants to be a Republican so bad let him get used to life in the minority where he'll be powerless to accomplish anything.

Plus, he won't be the "bi-partisan" who gets invited on Fox News to represent "the Democratic point of view." He'll be just another moderate Republican screw-head.

It will be nice to get rid of that scumbag once and for all. They should just pull the chord and let him walk in a fit of pique.  

[ Parent ]
I don't believe it's (4.00 / 1)
quite accurate to say that Lieberman would vote with the Republicans on any controversial issue.  Actually, his voting record is pretty close to impeccable on everything except national security issues and foreign policy issues.  

Of course, that takes in a lot of territory, and on the categories of issues where he's wrong, Lieberman is always wrong.

I can't disagree that he's a lying hypocritical bastard, and neither can anybody else.  His "I'm against war,"/"Kill everybody!" act is a lot like Jekyll and Hyde. Clearly, he must be busted from his committee chair.  I don't see a need to expel him from the caucus, but if it's either/or, let Lieberman go wander in the wilderness.  After another four years there, I think he will wander away.  Lieberman has played the autocrat enough.  It's time for him to understand what payback is all about.

And Reid?  Yeah, Reid is a wuss.  He is afraid of Lieberman because being afraid is part of who he is.  He was afraid of Bush, too.  He was afraid of Republicans in general.  Maybe he was right to be afraid.  But Reid lets his fear paralyze him.  He either doesn't comprehend the scope of the power that is his as Majority Leader with a large popular majority, or he is afraid to use it.  Reid is not up to the job of Majority Leader.  He hasn't got the stuff, and he hasn't got the personal integrity to step aside for leadership which would be dynamic.  Reid is a fussy old fart whose time has past.

[ Parent ]
It's A Team Sport (0.00 / 0)
     In 1995, people were shocked that Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched to the Republican Party. In 1993 and 1994, he had ratings of 12 and 25 from the American Conservative Union, and 80 and 88 from the AFL-CIO COPE. But by 2000 his rating from the ACU was 96, and from COPE it was 5.
    A similar change occurred with Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who switched parties a few months before Campbell. In 1993 and 1994 his COPE ratings were 73 and 83; in 1995 and 1996 they were zero. In the first two years his scores from the ACU were 64 and 55; in the latter two, 91 and 90.
    They don't seem to be talking about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. I would favor their doing so, but it's probably better tactics to take away his committee and see whether he leaves on his own. If he does, however, we should be prepared to see him become a typical Republican senator. The man has a strong narcissism, and his need for acceptance by his new Republican colleagues is likely to make him a strong team player for them, in a way he never was for us.
[ Parent ]
C'est la vie. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
you might be right (4.00 / 8)
in which case Harry Reid has the tactical instincts of a rabbit or possibly a small squirrel.

If Reid is concerned the Lieberman might be a pain in the ass if they take away his Chairmanship, how is it better to let him keep subpoena power?  That line of thinking makes no sense.  Lieberman has rejected the Democratic party and the Democratic party has rejected him (at least the connecticut dems).  Reid needs to stop clutching his pearls and figure this out.  

If he thinks Lieberman wants to cause trouble, how does it make any sense to let him keep his chairmanship?

I'm glad it's done

Lieberman WON'T Get a Committe Chairmanship With Republicans! (4.00 / 6)
There aren't any that McConnell can give him. Republicans have waited for years to move up to become ranking member of these committees, and they're NOT going to step aside for Joe Lieberman, especially not when it won't make any functional difference.

What really is the difference between 42 and 43 Republican votes? Nothing much.

As for the "hold" Reid doesn't have to honor it! He CHOOSES to do so! He didn't honor Chris Dodd's hold on the FISA bill! Instead he brought it to a vote and rammed it through!

This whole "any Senator can put a hold on legislation" is a lying fraud! Reid should just ignore it if Republicans continue to abuse it.

The majority can interpret the rules any way they want. Republicans never would allow Democrats to tie up the Senate, why the hell are Democrats such pathetic wimps every single damn time!

Grow a spine you useless bastards!

[ Parent ]
You know, I actually believe that (4.00 / 1)
Reid doesn't understand parliamentary procedure.  When you say, "the majority can interpret the rules any way they want," that is literally the truth.  The majority can use the Rules Committee to write whatever rules they want.  I think part of the weakness of the Senate is the split between progressives and Blue Dogs.  
[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
as explained by, IIRC, Kagro X, a "hold" is only just a sort of courtesy gesture which signals, "If you try to pass this bill, me and likely many of my friends will filibuster it and grind the Senate to a halt. Your call.". If you'll recall, that is in fact precisely what happened with FISA.

And as for the filibuster, the Republicans did try to get rid of that with the "nuclear option" back when they had a majority. I have... mixed feelings about trying that one again, this time with a Democratic majority. (I can certainly see the argument for it -- i.e., the world might fucking end if we don't act quickly enough. On the other hand, the arguments against it are obvious: it'll come back to bite our ass off the next time we're in the minority again, not to mention the massive hypocrisy.)

But anyways, yeah, it is ridiculous that when the Republicans were in control the filibuster was the powder we had to keep dry and preciously guard and barely ever actually use, whereas with the Democrats in control suddenly every single bill has a de facto threshold of needing 60 votes to pass. It's sort of pathetic.

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
as explained by, IIRC, Kagro X, a "hold" is only just a sort of courtesy gesture which signals, "If you try to pass this bill, me and likely many of my friends will filibuster it and grind the Senate to a halt. Your call.". If you'll recall, that is in fact precisely what happened with FISA.

And as for the filibuster, the Republicans did try to get rid of that with the "nuclear option" back when they had a majority. I have... mixed feelings about trying that one again, this time with a Democratic majority. (I can certainly see the argument for it -- i.e., the world might fucking end if we don't act quickly enough. On the other hand, the arguments against it are obvious: it'll come back to bite our ass off the next time we're in the minority again, not to mention the massive hypocrisy.)

But anyways, yeah, it is ridiculous that when the Republicans were in control the filibuster was the powder we had to keep dry and preciously guard and barely ever actually use, whereas with the Democrats in control suddenly every single bill has a de facto threshold of needing 60 votes to pass. It's sort of pathetic.

[ Parent ]
bah. (0.00 / 0)
sorry for the double post. stupid proxy.
[ Parent ]
This Is A Good Theory, IMHO (4.00 / 5)
And it serves to remind us that the Senate is no place for sociopaths.

Unfortunately, it's also precisely the sort of place that attracts them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Citation, please? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This is my biggest problem (4.00 / 1)
My biggest problem with all the talk from Reid and Co. is that it works from the assumption that Lieberman is capable of acting of acting in good faith, when he's proven time and time again that he's constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith.

No matter what kind of concessions they wring out of him, he will without fail use whatever power he has to be a major pain in the ass.  Seriously, how long before he uses that committee chair that never saw a single investigation of the Bush administration to start investigating Obama for anything he can think of?  Then, of course, it'll be too late to strip him of the chair because then it would be punitive and would look like a cover-up.

This is so mind-numbingly obvious I can't imagine the Senate leadership doesn't see it, so I'm just wondering what kind of other leverage Lieberman has that maybe we're not seeing.

N.B. Just to clarify, I wrote "constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith" because I figured calling him an unprincipled whore would be impolitic, and I'm trying to follow the good senator's lead in this department.

[ Parent ]
i think he's misreading joe lieberman if that's the case (4.00 / 2)
the guy is a untrustworthy and congenitally geared towards 'working together'- i don't think he's devoted enough to anything - even his own career -- to stick to a course of action like what you're saying.  Moreover, he serves in a blue state as a quasi democrat - would he really want to risk developing a reputation as "the guy that stands in obama's way in the senate"?  I doubt it.

don't buy it as a legit fear.  i think the most of democrats' lack of principled commitment to progressive ideas is more responsible here than a calculated attempt to work things out to enact some mystery agenda that we keep thinking they have but they actually don't.

Free to be what he wants (0.00 / 0)
You wrote:
Moreover, he serves in a blue state as a quasi democrat - would he really want to risk developing a reputation as "the guy that stands in obama's way in the senate"?  I doubt it.

Maybe he already knows he's a goner in another election and has no plan to run again. Therefore, he would be free to do what he wants.

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
Connecticut gave Obama a 23-point margin of victory. Lieberman campaigned hard against Obama. How many CT Dems will support Lieberman for reelection?
[ Parent ]
if he was that bright (0.00 / 0)
why would be back a republican candidate in a democratic year?  and continue to move to the right while the country is moving to the left?

granted, with Joe, it's always Joe First, but I would hesitate before writing off a politician's ambition.

[ Parent ]
Reid talks a good game (if you can stay awake) (4.00 / 4)
but doesn't walk the walk. Push comes to shove, and he can be shoved, very easily. He's been one of the worst majority leaders in recent history. He's afraid of Joe, for whatever reason. He's pretty much afraid of anyone who'll take him on. McConnell owns him, and they both know it. What I can't figure out is whether it's cowardice, or they have something on him. He is, after all, from Nevada. He's also up for reelection in '10, which must surely further make him want to avoid avoidable fights. Unfortunately, Durbin isn't much of a fighter, either.

Sad. We're going to have 56-59 seats (w/o Joe), and with Reid in charge, it'll be more like 50. Something's gotta give, and soon. Pressure needs to be applied to axe Joe and finally get over this fear of confrontation. He used to be a boxer, for Christ's sakes!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Lieberman wasted his chairmanship (4.00 / 4)
Lieberman did not use his chairmanship to provide oversight to the Bush Administration, but you can count on him to use it to trash Obama.

As LBJ once said of  J Edgar Hoover, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

I don't think this situation to with Lieberman is equivalent. Lieberman will do more harm inside the tent.

That's Because Lieberman Isn't Toilet Trained (4.00 / 7)
He'll be inside the tent pissing in.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
So change the rules (4.00 / 4)
The Senate is without a doubt the most ridiculous dysfunctional body in all of the federal government. Instead of being a "cooling saucer" it's an obstructionist's wet dream.

Fix the goddamn rules and join the 21st century. Byrd is on his way out as THE voice of the rules in the body and there needs to be some leadership on the issue of how to conduct business.

The Lieberman issue isn't actually all that big to solve and should take about 5 minutes to solve if the Senate wasn't populated by a three score of wankers plus their wankified staffs.

The DNC managed to strip him Joe Lieberman of his superdelegate status because they just followed their own rules, like new hires at McDonald's are taught to do.

Boy do I hate the Senate. Hillary Clinton should make a run for Majority Leader. At least she's got some goddamn fight in her unlike the rest of the pale flowers in her caucus.

John McCain

Agree. (4.00 / 1)
Senator Clinton is way more effective than Hillary the Candidate.  And no one can deny that she has fight.  She could be very, very powerful if she asserted leadership of the progressive caucus and ran for Majority Leader.  If it's really true that Hillary's positions on the issues were indistinguishable from those of the President-Elect, there would be a powerful synergy.  
[ Parent ]
Harry is up for re-election in 2010 (4.00 / 3)
For whatever reason, Reid is obviously committed to capitulation towards Lieberman. The only way he's going to do the right thing here is if he's scared not to. I think the threat of a primary challenge in 2010 is the best leverage that progressives have.

I doubt Reid would want to risk falling victim to another Ned Lamont type candidacy. I realize knocking him off would be unlikely, but his anti-choice position makes him somewhat more vulnerable on his left flank than he would otherwise be.  

And the perfect candidate is: (4.00 / 2)
Former U.S. Senate candidate Jon Carter.

No, he wouldn't win, but would Reid really want to have to deal with that kind of challenge?

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

[ Parent ]
That's Jack Carter (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
The past (4.00 / 1)
Lieberman's refusal to investigate "the past" as chairman meant that Bush got a free pass on Iraq and Katrina investigations.  It also means that any investigations his committe does has to be aimed squarely at Obama and only at Obama.  He simply can't chair that committee.

His buddy Chris (pro torture moderate) Shays went down in CT this cycle and there is no way a Republican Joe could convince 35% of CT Democrats to vote for him in any re-election attempt as they did in 2006.  Lieberman can either go the mea culpa route or he will be out in 2012.

Northeast Republicans on the federal level are headed for extinction being literally cut in half at the House level from 2006 to 2008 from 35 seats to 17.  In CT that was from 3 to 0 and in New England from 5 to zero.  In neighboring NY from 9 to 3. Lincoln Chaffee was at least as moderate as Joe (weaning out the procedural votes) and he's gone.

Harry's got the whip hand if he just knows it.

He doen't know how to use it. (0.00 / 0)
And he's busy quailing.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like someone got to Reid. (4.00 / 1)

There seems to be some influential Democratic Senators who got to Reid's decision making. I wonder if Evan Bayh had anything to do with it. There are still some Dem. lawmakers who still like and sympathize with the man. That's the only thing I can come up with.  
Dump Reid! (4.00 / 3)
Either he dumps Lieberman, or Reid gets dumped.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
You mean the same hold Harry Reid ignored (4.00 / 1)
when it was placed on bills by progressives?  BS.  You can't negotiate with terrorists.  It only encourages them.  He will use the same threats no matter where he sits.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
Reid Must Pull the Trigger Now (0.00 / 0)
Here's how I'd write his statement:

My distinguished colleague Senator Dodd is correct. President-Elect Obama shouldn't have to deal with Senator Lieberman's situation. Therefore, I take full and immediate responsibility.

Senator Lieberman refused to hold any meaningful hearings as committee chairman, abdicating his responsibilities to the American people. The U.S. Senate cannot tolerate nonperformance. Senator Lieberman earns an extraordinary Senate salary that would be the envy of most Americans, especially in these difficult economic times, and quite simply he has not earned his paycheck.

In order to provide serious and effective leadership to the American people, Senator (X) is replacing Senator Lieberman as chairman of that committee, effective immediately. Senator (X) will provide to you a list of activities which his/her committee will undertake as soon as possible, to put that committee back in business for the American people. We must have meaningful oversight, regardless of party or politics, and Senator Lieberman has failed to provide it.

However, Senator Lieberman has in the past expressed interest in positive contributions. Though I am profoundly disappointed in Senator Lieberman's nonperformance, I am a patient and reasonable man. I am more than happy to give him yet another opportunity to serve this nation with distinction should he feel sufficiently motivated. Therefore, I have provided Senator Lieberman with a list of 3 prime subcommittee leadership positions in a range of areas where he has previously expressed interest. He may select any one of those subcommittee posts if he chooses to associate with the Democratic Caucus.

This decision is final, not subject to negotiation, and I will have no further statement to make on this issue. This generous offer will expire in 72 hours.

i'm as far left as most (0.00 / 0)
and i believe this is a center right nation, the general elections over the decades prove it, johnson and carter were cons, kennedy certainly wasn't a lefty coming out of the senate, just because a candidate is to the left of their opponent doesn't make them left of center.

i don't know all the ramifications of lieberman and his positioning with reid, but i will leave that up to those in the know at least for now. the dems need to govern and we on the left shouldn't expect miracles and upset the cart before we allow our new leader to get his admin up and running, i certainly assume he is involved in the lieberman drama so lets see if he is as responsilble and reasonable as pres elect as we all seem to think he will be as our voting confirmed.

i wait with great anticipation the next four years and my president returning to the country i love a govt i and all citizens can respect as for all the people not just some of the people.  

Democrats have won the popular vote .. (4.00 / 2)
in 4 out of the last 5 elections ... this is not a center-right nation
[ Parent ]
But Democrats are a center-left party (0.00 / 0)
Not a leftist party.  So, some might argue that, despite Democratic gains, the legislature still has a center-right tilt.  Or at least that seemed the case after 2006.  And the media thinks that Democrats in Congress are representative of Democratic voters, which is why they don't seem to want to let hardcore progressives on the cable news shows.

Actually, though, I suspect part of what enables the media to see this as a center-right nation is the victory of Proposition 8 in California, the alleged bastion of leftism.  Given the framing of "culture war" issues as the stark dividing line between left and right, it reinforces the notion of an inherent conservative streak in the American people.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Actually, though, I suspect that (0.00 / 0)
what enables the media to see this as a center-right nation is the fact that they work for corporations, which want them to "see" it this way.
[ Parent ]
Call Your Senators NOW (4.00 / 1)
Call Your Senators NOW

John McCain is dishonest
He's just being a wimp (0.00 / 0)
How about we replace Reid with someone who would be much better at the job of Senate Majority Leader?  Say... Hillary Clinton?
Why Is Harry Reid Afraid of Joe Lieberman? | 43 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox