Should the Dems boot Lieberman?

Great Debates
21

In this Congress, it meant that he voted with the Dems in January 2007 to organize the Senate, giving them the 51st vote they needed to be the party that assigned committee and subcommittee chairmanships. (Including the chairmanships that Lieberman currently has.)

Next Congress, it’ll be pretty meaningless, AFAICT. I suppose he might feel more favorably disposed to vote with the Dems if they make nice to him, but that’s the extent of it.

I’m more inclined to say that if the Dems keep making nice to him at this point, then the appropriate conclusion for Lieberman to draw would be that there will be no consequences for being a bad actor, so why do the Dems any favors?

There’s a time for the carrot, and a time for the stick. Now’s the time to stick it to Joe. Strip him of his committee assignments, and let him caucus wherever he wants. If he wants to go over to the GOP, then they can give up some of their slots to give Joe some committee assignments.

22

Mainly due to his statement that while he may have run as an Independent, he was still a Democrat and the Dems could count on his vote. That didn’t happen obviously. In fact Lieberman has been playing both sides against the middle since the 2006 election when he stopped attending caucus lunches and letting both parties know there was a “slim possibility” he could cross party lines to the GOP. He even identified himself as a Dem at the GOP convention, something that was seen by a lot of Dems as the last straw. I interpreted it as Joe Liberman looking out for Joe Lieberman. His voting record over the past two years has alienated him from the Democrats. Pandering to the GOP as McCain’s pet Dem is the only way he’s getting re-elected. After all that, it shouldn’t even be a question.

He’s supposed to meet with Dean today and there’s a rumor that his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee is going to be stripped.

23

Well - from here, it appears that Joe thinks a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate would be a bad thing for the country. I just don’t see how the Party can give him any credence or any authority, when he is so clearly opposed to Party itself.

24

Well, technically, CT democratic voters rejected him. Then he ran, (with, IIRC, obama’s backing), on a platform that included supporting the democratic candidate for president in 08. So he was trying pretty hard to belong when he was running for the senate. I thought he should have resigned and stood for re-election when he went back on his promise to support the democrat in 08-I know many people who voted for him who wouldn’t have done so had he said he’d support the republican.

Further, I’d be OK with saying the democrats should actually treat Lieberman like an independent. That would be rejecting him-as Lieberman gets his committee posts through the democratic caucus. I don’t see why the caucus should give some independent who supported the other guy for president any committee posts over an actual democratic senator.

25

So to sum up:

  1. When we desperately needed Joe to keep control, Joe was our friend.
  1. Now we don’t need Joe, let’s screw him over.
  1. The reason Joe isn’t a full Dem is because we screwed him over when he wanted to be re-elected…but he won anyway.

4)The reason for #3 and why we hate Joe overall is because he was being nonpartisan (or post-partisan) and voting the way he thought was right and not lockstepping with the party blindly.

Is that about it so far?

26

I’m not getting this. The reason Joe isn’t a full Dem is because the voters of CT rejected him in the primary. And the reason they did that isn’t that Joe was being nonpartisan, but specifically because of his support for the war. Joe is of course free to vote his conscience on any issue he cares to, but the voters of CT are entirely entitled to pass judgement on those votes come election time.

27

And the reason the party is most interested in getting rid of him is that he supported John McCain for president, including speaking at the RNC (going back on his campaign promises, among other things). I wouldn’t much like him, but I wouldn’t press for his removal absent that-and I think the democrats would have let him keep his committee posts in return for his vote, and his caucusing but for that.

28

No, he wasn’t.
[/quote]

How is giving Democratic committee positions from someone who actually represents the Democratic party screwing anyone over?

Nominating someone else was not screwing him over. You seem to be arguing from the position that he’s *entitled * to hold office and sit on committees, voters and party leadership be damned.

Republicans and Independents also vote the way they think is right. They don’t occupy Democratic committee seats.

Is that about it so far?
[/QUOTE]

29

Here are some basic facts:

Lieberman would not have won the CT general election if he had openly declared he would support the GOP presidential candidate over the Democratic. Ok? It was an explicit part of his platform that he then betrayed. And neither would he endeared himself to voters, after disparately assuring them that he would solidly support the Democratic Congress, when he turned around and openly threaten to caucus with the GOP. That is simply indisputable.

The party has gone out of its way to support Lieberman’s commitment to the Democratic Party, and their values, despite all the evidence he has become invested in attacked the party based on know-nothing, Israel first, anti-“Islamofacism” single-issue voting. I mean, Harry Reid has defended him at every opportunity, despite all the incredibly overblown rhetoric he’s thrown at the party and his continual, beyond the pale sanctimony on Fox News. Obama himself came and supported him at the height of the CT primary. Through all this, he’s been allowed to retain full committee privileges as a ranking of the majority party he does not support.

So try to get something straight here. The Democratic Party is very accommodating to AIPAC-supporting foreign policy hawks who are strongly pro-Israel, and have more sympathetic views on the need to aggressively push back Middle Eastern tyrannies and defend Israel. Ok, no amount of false equivalencies and poorly-founded allegations of partisan purging changes that.

Ramh Emmanuel - a DLC-centrist anti-liberal of the Clinton years, son of a bloody Irgun member, and supporter of the Iraq war, is now being offered chief of staff in the Obama Administration for Christ’s sake. Obama’s has run with Joe Biden, who supported the AUMF. Obama is offering Republicans like Powell and Hagel, prominent positions in his administration.

So don’t, for the love of god, try to pretending this has anything to do with being overly narrow and prescriptive.

I really can’t believe some of the nonsensical hang-wringing that comes from these centrist Republicans, who’ve at best been late-comers, or at worst completely indifferent, to some of the most rigid partisanship ever seen in the Congressional and Presidential approach over the last 8 years under Bush, Delay and Hassert. People who probably cheered when Bush said he had earned political capital in 2004, after a narrow victory, are now trying to imply that a completely post-partisan campaign is now someone running a night of the long knifes. Honestly it’s a bad, bad joke.

These are basic game theoretic principles: you play up as an obstructionist, self-important douche-bag, and keep betraying people, then the principle of tit-for-tat applies and don’t be surprised if it bites you on the ass.

30

The Carrot and Stick strategy isn’t either/or. You use both at the same time. You promise some benefit and threaten some punishment. If you kick Lieberman out of the caucus then there is no carrot and no stick. You aren’t promising him anything and have nothing further to threaten him with.

I think the best option is to get Lieberman out of the Senate altogether by offering him an important Cabinet post. This puts a solid Dem in the seat and has the added benefit of casting Obama in the Lincoln “Team of Rivals” role. (Thanks to Surgoshan for this idea.) If Joe can’t cut the mustard then you can fire him and he doesn’t get his Senate seat back.

If Lieberman won’t take a Cabinet post then I’d say let him keep his committee assignments (with the understanding that he, like every other committee chair, would be expected to push the Democratic agenda). Then you have leverage over him when you are looking for votes.

The Democratic Party didn’t screw Lieberman over. He was defeated in the primary and instead of falling in behind the nominee, as his former Democratic opponents had done for him, he chose to leave the party and strike out on his own. It is perfectly understandable why many Democrats view him as a traitor. He used their party when it was convenient for him and ditched it when it was in his interest to do so.

31

I don’t understand why this is even a debate.

Lieberman’s overt support for McCain clinched it. How the hell can he hold his head up in caucus?

As far as needing Joe Lieberman, I expect he’ll still side with the Democrats on all the issues except the war.

32

Lieberman keeps committee for now

33

Perhaps if his apologies are abject enough, I may soften. Right now, I want him stripped of all insignia and his sword broken. I want a whoopie cushion permanently attached to his Senate seat.

Of course, I’m not even a Democrat. So its really none of my beeswax. I don’t care, fuck him!

34

What is to be gained, practically and operationally, by booting him? I know it would make a lot of people feel better, but does it actually do any good? I ask that as an honest question, as I sincerely don’t know.

35

It would put someone the Democrats could trust in charge of the Homeland Security committee.

36

Well, let’s wait and see what happens. I don’t think having one extra vote is worth it if the party simply rolls over for his aberrant behaviour. But maybe they can come up with a foul/warning system for future conduct.

I would love to be a fly on the wall and hear those conversations.

37

Presumably the Dems don’t want their members supporting opposition candidates, so stripping him of his commitee chair or tossing him out of the caucus will discourage other members of the caucus from doing similar things.

38

Well, it’s about game-theoretic behaviour. There are plenty of Blue Dogs and pro-graft members of Congress, for example, who will looking at this to get an indication of how the new Administration and the Democratic Leadership in the Senate deals with and accommodates defection. If they can’t even lay a simple smack down on a pugnacious little independent tit like Lieberman, who has done so many things that really are beyond the pale, then it’s on for young and old - and the Obama agenda can be hostage to anyone.

39

A public repudiation of the Iraq conquest as a deranged Republican Boondoggle; like the Palin nomination?

40

Among other things, there’s a bunch of new Democrats in the Senate who could use experience and exposure. Giving them Lieberman’s spots on the committees (or promoting someone else and giving them junior spots) helps the newcomers grow in their new jobs and strengthens their inevitable reelection efforts.