Ok, I’ll be the lone voice; I think this was the right decision. AND I think it goes perfectly well with Obama’s message of change. He ran on a platform of changing the TONE and how things work in Washington. For the past 16 years or more, the tone has been hatred, partisanship and retaliation. I, for one, am damn glad we have a President who won’t sink to those playground games. And clearly he believes this strategy has some benefit to him and the Dems in the Senate, so why don’t we just wait and see how it plays out.
Besides, they can still remove him from his chairmanship at any time. If he proves not to be a team player, I suspect they’ll do so.
Because Obama is the one who’s letting him keep his leadership. I think that if Obama had given the word, the Dems would have cut him like that.
I suspect that there was some dealmaking going on behind the scenes. While Lieberman probably won’t be required to go along with everything the Dems want, I’m betting that the deal was for him to hang with the Dems on things like judicial appointments and probably a pre-negotiated list of legislative items that Obama really wants passed.
Why trust him to adhere to a deal again, when he broke his word last time, and nothing happened to him? And what can Lieberman realistically do if they stripped his chairmanship?
And besides, any party member who says “giev chairmanship or I leave!” should be told to get fucked. They shouldn’t be held to ransom. The Democrats are spineless pussies as usual though, so I guess they can.
I’m willing to give them the benefit of a doubt re: trying to keep the caucus as strong as possible. For now.
However, I’ve never made a political contribution in my life, but I will be writing checks to whomever opposes that smarmy fuckfaced troll, if it’s allowed by CT law.
If you read what he said, he made it very plain that he would have left the caucus if stripped of that chairmanship. He helped create the Homeland Security Department and did not want to give up that post.
I believe they already offered him a spot in their caucus. They don’t have chairmanships to offer but unlike Democrats, they wouldn’t have been kicking him in the ass.
By the way, I’m in that group over here that thinks the “magic 60” issue has been blown way out of proportion. Obama’s the popular one right now, the Republicans have their own moderates, and they’re not going to be uniform in standing up to him anyway.
A spot in the Republican Caucus is worth less than a spot in the Democratic, and no chairmanship in the Republican caucus is worth less than a shittier one in the Democratic. Had Reid decided to strip him of his committee he’d have gotten a wose one for the Democrats or nothing from the Republicans which he is less like anyway.
Why would he leave the Democrats? He was bluffing. The Republicans couldn’t offer him anything. Plus he doesn’t even vote like a Republican
A. Unless Senate rules change next session, once the resolution declaring him to be chairman of the committee is passed, that’s it. No removal.
B. Jesus Christ, he campaigned for McCain and constantly slammed Obama! What the fuck does he have to do for you to declare him not to be a team player?!
If this is some plan by Obama to have Lieberman be the new pet dog for the White House I can understand it, but it seems like an awful idea from a party discipline standpoint. Surely this makes it very difficult to get those Democrats in iffy states to not think about their re-election on every bill…
You’re not the lone voice. I agree with you. If the Dems pick up all three seats that are in the air then Joe Lieberman will give them 60 votes. That is huge. Additionally I have heard many rail against the Republican strong arm tactics to keep members in line. You might say the Democrats are proving themselves better than the Republicans behaved.
If Obama asked the Senate to make it work and they made it work then they did the right thing.
Because they were telling him “fuck you, we don’t want you around.” Why would he stay exactly? There wouldn’t be anything in it for him, and the GOP actually appeared to want him while the Democrats didn’t.
If you want to argue he’s a rat, you don’t need to convince me. This is a guy who sucks up to whoever he can and ran for re-election in 2000 while running for VP, even though, had he won, the seat would’ve flipped to a Republican and the Republicans would’ve taken control of the Senate. So yes, I do think he would have left. Republicans put him over the top in his last election anyway.
For one thing, investigating the Bush Administration response to Katrina. During the 2006 campaign, he said he’d do that if the Dems took control of the Senate, but afterwards, he said it was time to let bygones be bygones.
I disagree. The GOP wasn’t going to give him much in the way of committee assignments, and no actual chairmanships. If the Dems had taken away his Homeland Security & Government Affairs gavel, he’d still have had some pretty good committee assignments, and a couple of subcommittee chairs.
And, let’s face it, once in the GOP caucus, he wouldn’t have been particularly popular there. He really isn’t One Of Them enough for them to like.
And campaigned for Norm Coleman, too - can’t forget that.
Shayna: I’ve got a world of faith in Obama’s judgment, but I’ll believe that Lieberman’s not going to throw multiple monkeywrenches in Dem legislation, or spend his time investigating Obama over stuff that would make Travelgate look like a big deal, when we get through a year or so of his not doing so.
His guns have always been aimed left (that’s his schtick - a Democrat who loves to slam Democrats), and I have a hard time believing he’ll break that habit now.
He caucuses with them, meaning he is considered one of the Democrats for purposes of things like determining who the majority party is. The Senate’s other independent (Sanders) also caucuses with the Democrats. So when the networks talk about the 60-vote majority, for example, Lieberman and Sanders are included because it’s assumed they’ll vote with the Democrats.
Because he caucuses with Democrats and calls himself one.
Interesting bit of trivia: Lieberman will be unable to get the nomination of the Connecticut for Lieberman party in 2012, since it’s been taken over by people who don’t want him in office. He also never bothered to join it.
Obama helped save his Senate seat in 2006 after his own party’s voters rejected him. Lieberman paid him back by campaigning for his opponent and publicly sliming him. (Evidently Joe’s version of Orthodox Judaisim considers the commandment against bearing false witness to be a mere suggestion.)