# Should the Dems boot Lieberman? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433 "2008-11-06T11:27:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/121 "2008-11-12T13:14:40Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > This part is IMO for the voters of Connecticut to decide. As long as they persist in making the error of electing this asshole to the US Senate, then the leadership can’t (again IMO) punish him for holding unpopular positions. Why? Senate committee positions are based on allotments to the majority and minority party, who then get to award positions which are customarily deeply deferential to seniority, but still maintained discretion. You can’t take the view that any particular state is owed anything in the way of committee privileges, that’s not how the system works. Voters get to reward or punish politicians for what they accomplish but they don’t have any direct claims on procedural integrity of legislative bodies. Fact is, the party has been extremely lenient to him in allowing him to keep his chair position - and they needn’t apologist to CT voters for offering Joe an alternative chair or committee role. If Joe finds that unacceptable - he can live with it and try his chances in the future or defect to the GOP who can’t offer him much. It’s just tough luck - he backed the wrong horse. Besides, any appeal to the Democratic sovereignty of CT voters runs in the opposite direction. CT-4-Lieberman was explicitly premised as IINO (independent in name only) based around his claim to being a better alternative than Lamont in positioning the Democrats for an presidential victory, which had his support. If you want to argue deference to CT voters, he is acting ultra vires of his electoral platform. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/122 "2008-11-13T20:25:40Z")
[Bayh: Lieberman should apologize](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bayh-lieberman-should-apologize-keep-chairmanship-2008-11-12.html) > [@](#): > > Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) called on Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to apologize for his attacks on Barack Obama, saying doing so would temporarily let him retain a key chairmanship position next Congress. > > Bayh warned that stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship position on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee could prompt the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee to side with the GOP on close votes next Congress or resign his Senate seat… > > Bayh said that Lieberman must first issue a “sincere apology” for campaign attacks warning of the perils of an Obama presidency and a large Democratic majority in Congress. He said Democrats should allow him to keep his chairmanship on the condition that he would not use his subpoena power and influence as chairman to undermine Obama’s presidency. Otherwise, Democrats would take away his gavel at any point next Congress, Bayh warned… Oh, yeah, rolling over for him now will definitely send the message that he had damn well better toe the line from now on… :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/123 "2008-11-13T21:25:42Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > [Bayh: Lieberman should apologize](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bayh-lieberman-should-apologize-keep-chairmanship-2008-11-12.html) > > Oh, yeah, rolling over for him now will definitely send the message that he had damn well better toe the line from now on… :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to remove a chair once the session is, well, in session. Bayh makes it sound like the split second Lieberman goes wrong, the caucus can remove him. Unless I’m misunderstanding the rules. From the Standing Rules of the Senate: [http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/](http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/) [/QUOTE] RULE XXIV APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES 1. In the appointment of the standing committees, or to fill vacancies thereon, the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, shall by resolution appoint the chairman of each such committee and the other members thereof. On demand of any Senator, a separate vote shall be had on the appointment of the chairman of any such committee and on the appointment of the other members thereof. Each such resolution shall be subject to amendment and to division of the question. 2. On demand of one-fifth of the Senators present, a quorum being present, any vote taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be by ballot. 3. Except as otherwise provided or unless otherwise ordered, all other committees, and the chairmen thereof, shall be appointed in the same manner as standing committees. 4. When a chairman of a committee shall resign or cease to serve on a committee, action by the Senate to fill the vacancy in such committee, unless specially otherwise ordered, shall be only to fill up the number of members of the committee, and the election of a new chairman. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/124 "2008-11-13T21:34:38Z")
[quote=“Katriona, post:123, topic:471433”] I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to remove a chair once the session is, well, in session. Bayh makes it sound like the split second Lieberman goes wrong, the caucus can remove him. [quote=“Katriona, post:123, topic:471433”] MIssed the edit window - that should have said, “I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to REPLACE a chair, once the session is, well, in session.” Not remove. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/125 "2008-11-13T21:38:56Z")
**IClaudius** , you’re being generous. This was not a race where it was difficult to pick the winning horse. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/126 "2008-11-14T18:39:39Z")
Woot! [PNAC is back](http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html), and it’s got lots of [historic Liebermanalia:](http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_026.htm) > [@](#): > > In May he wrote Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that he was “deeply concerned that only a small percentage of the resources made available by the Congress for anti-Saddam activities . . . have been tapped by the administration.” The man’s been off reservation for a _long_ time. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/127 "2008-11-14T19:12:42Z")
Look, let’s get a few things straight here: Joe Lieberman loses his primary for not being enough of a Democrat. That’s really the only way to look at it. He’s to the right of the Democratic party in Connecticut. Then he runs as an independent and wins. That’s okay, but it doesn’t entitle him to anything. Yet the Democratic Leadership gives him a position of great power (undoubtedly due to Lieberman playing hardball when the Democrats were weak). Does he use this significant oversight power to reign in the Bush administration on various wrongdoings? Of course not. Secondly, remember how Joe mentioned during the campaign how he was afraid of what would happen if Obama became President? Yes he said it numerous times. He even tried to help out downticket Senate Republicans. Who is to say that Joe won’t use his power to have a change of heart and start investigating President Obama? Lieberman is clearly only out to serve himself politically. The really interesting thing here is that we need to wait on the outcome of two more Senate races to determine if Joe has any real bargaining power. If AK, MN, and GA all go to the Dems we get a supermajority with Joementum. But really this shouldn’t be a concern. I say that Obama appoints Olympia Snowe to some cabinet post and have the Democratic governor of Maine appoint a democrat to replace her. Then nobody will need Joementum, and he can go cry with the Republicans if he wants. Joe’s only way to get a position of any power is to caucus with the Democrats. The Republicans can’t offer him anything. It is up to Harry Reid to see this and if he can’t figure it out, he needs to go too. If Harry Reid let’s Joe Lieberman stay in his position of power, and if Joementum uses this power to hinder the Obama administration, Reid will easily go down as one of the worst Senate leaders in a long time. The risk of losing Joe are far less serious than the risks of keeping him in his current place. It’s irresponsible to not take action here. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/128 "2008-11-14T19:25:48Z")
> [@Merkwurdigliebe](#): > > Secondly, remember how Joe mentioned during the campaign how he was afraid of what would happen if Obama became President? Yes he said it numerous times. He even tried to help out downticket Senate Republicans. And to that list, you can add the fact that he was very close to being the Republican candidate for Vice President. Many sources have reported that he was the one McCain really wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/129 "2008-11-14T21:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I say that Obama appoints Olympia Snowe to some cabinet post and have the Democratic governor of Maine appoint a democrat to replace her. That’s not even necessary. If Snowe (or any other moderate Republican, for that matter) can be convinced to take a position in Obama’s cabinet and be replaced by a Democrat, then she can also be convinced to vote with the Democrats on reasonable clotures herself. And cloture votes are, so far as I understand it, the only issue for which the 60-seat supermajority is relevant: It’s not like we’d be asking her to take the Democratic side on bills. In fact, it might even be better to _not_ have 60, since it seems to me that we’re almost as likely to defeat a filibuster with 59 as with 60 (given that both Republicans and Democrats can vote for the “other” side of any given issue), but the magic number 60 would lead to complaints about the Democrats forcing legislation through and utterly silencing their opponents, which might cause backlash among the voters. If we can get things done with less than that, then there’s clear evidence that we had to reach across the aisle, at least to some extent, to get things done. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/130 "2008-11-14T22:51:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In fact, it might even be better to _not_ have 60, since it seems to me that we’re almost as likely to defeat a filibuster with 59 as with 60 (given that both Republicans and Democrats can vote for the “other” side of any given issue), but the magic number 60 would lead to complaints about the Democrats forcing legislation through and utterly silencing their opponents, which might cause backlash among the voters. If we can get things done with less than that, then there’s clear evidence that we had to reach across the aisle, at least to some extent, to get things done. Aside from that, having Lieberman in the caucus doesn’t automatically give the Dems 60 votes - he still has to vote on each question for it to count. Anybody who think he’s just going to fall in line behind the party leadership on every filibuster-prone issue is crazy. Leaving Lieberman in his position not only gives him what he wants now, but it also assures him of more opportunities to hold the party over a barrel in the future. It’s like pulling a band aid off of a hairy arm. You can do it a few millimeters at a time, or you can just rip the sucker loose, wince, let loose a few expletives, and then go about your business. Cut him loose. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/131 "2008-11-14T23:32:06Z")
Is there anything preventing CT from passing a law allowing Lieberman to be removed from office, or would it require an ammendment to the CT constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/132 "2008-11-15T01:08:12Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Is there anything preventing CT from passing a law allowing Lieberman to be removed from office, or would it require an ammendment to the CT constitution? It would require an amendment to the U.S. constitution. There is no provision for a recall of a sitting Senator. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/133 "2008-11-15T01:11:39Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > It would require an amendment to the U.S. constitution. There is no provision for a recall of a sitting Senator. That’s not true. 18 states allow recalling a senator. CT is nor among them. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/134 "2008-11-15T01:26:39Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > That’s not true. 18 states allow recalling a senator. CT is nor among them. Most of the state laws regarding recalls, as least as far as a [quick perusal](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm) tells me, apply only to state or lower officials. Insofar as any state attempts to apply their law to Senators and Congressmen, that is unconstitutional, just as the attempt by states to apply term limits was. In 1967, the State of Idaho refused to accept petitions for a recall of [Frank Church](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church). > [@](#): > > A recall campaign was waged against Church in 1967 by N. Idaho Republican Kootenai County Commissioner Ron Rankin. Rankin unsuccessfully sued Idaho’s Secretary of State to accept recall petitions for then-U.S. Sen. Frank Church. > > The Idaho district court ruled that the recall laws of Idaho do not apply to U.S. senators and they would violate the U.S. Constitution. The Idaho Attorney General at the time, Allan Shepard, agreed with the court’s decision. > > “It must be pointed out that a United States senator is not a state officer but a federal officer whose position is created by Article I, Section I of the United States Constitution,” Shepard wrote in a June 17, 1967, opinion for the Secretary of State. “There seems to be no provision for canvassing the votes of a recall election of a United States senator.” ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433/135 "2008-11-15T01:37:24Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Most of the state laws regarding recalls, as least as far as a [quick perusal](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm) tells me, apply only to state or lower officials. Insofar as any state attempts to apply their law to Senators and Congressmen, that is unconstitutional, just as the attempt by states to apply term limits was. > > In 1967, the State of Idaho refused to accept petitions for a recall of [Frank Church](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church). And this is how ignorance is fought. Thanks for the correction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-dems-boot-lieberman/471433.md?page=6)