Come on, this is an obvious strawman. Plenty of Dems in the Senate are moderate, the Senate Majority leader is pro-life for Christ’s sake (indeed, on the liberal/conservative rankings of the senate, Reid is often more conservative then Lieberman). The issue isn’t Lieberman’s “ideological purity”, its that he actively campaigned against the party’s candidates. Not just said he didn’t support the Dem candidate and preferred the GOP one, but actively put large amounts of time into campaigning against his party. Given that a large part of the purpose of a political party is to help other members get elected and then support them for leadership positions, I can’t really see how the Dems can completely let this slide.
FWIW, I’m against kicking him out of the caucus, but I think taking away his chairmanship is justified, and I think its silly to pretend this is some sort of ideological witchhunt.
Actually Lieberman has said he’d go rouge if he lost his Homeland Security seat, Obama wants him to have it, I’m expecting Harry Reid will put down the pitchfork now. So it does answer that question.
I think Obama’s looking at this long term, keep the Democratic party from chewing on itself, and Lieberman gets to count down the days he’s voted out of office when Conneticut voters express themselves for another round.
The making of unreasonable demands is a common negotiation tactic. Faced with actually making a choice, he could very well decide to stay with the majority party, even without a committee chairmanship.
Forcing him to make the choice would be a good test of his character.
Trent Lott counts. But that’s nowhere close to “questioning his patriotism.” Lott’s saying JJ was elected as one thing, changed to the other, and (in his eyes) that’s a betrayal of the voters. That’s not the same as saying he doesn’t love the country. Not even close.
I see your point, but I don’t think Obama has to test his character, I think he already has Lieberman sized up. As to the real reason Obama want’s him to keep his seats, my guess is we’ll see the full picture in about 3 years or so.
I interpret Obama’s statement as saying he doesn’t want Lieberman kicked out of the caucus, not that he doesn’t want them to take any action that might lead to Joe L. leaving of his own accord. Since that basically seems to be Reid’s stance as well, I’m not sure Obama’s statement adds anything, except maybe putting extra pressure on Senate dems not to vote to expel Lieberman outright.
I think they will vote to take away his chairmanship and offer him a less sensitive post in return. Then it will be up to Lieberman whether to move to the minority in retaliation or stay with the Dems. Personally, I think he’ll stay, the GOP doesn’t have anything to offer him while as a Dem he still gets a committee chairmanship and as someone with a lot of friends on the moderate GOP side, could still wield a lot of informal power.
No, he just doesn’t want to kick Lieberman out of the caucus. He didn’t say that Lieberman couldn’t leave of his own free will after being stripped of his chairmanship.
Then I’d say we have a difference in interpretation, as I’d consider “executing a coup of one” over “the will of the American people” by a Senator to be unpatriotic. That’s just me, and I’m willing to recognize my interpretation likely isn’t shared by all.
Incidentally, thanks for acknowledging your earlier misattribution. A lot of people would simply ignore it, as taking issue with a relative n00b’s post is easier than attacking the word of an established poster. I’m glad to see you’re able to rise above that kind of thing.
Fair enough. I’ll take it you also consider every commenter who has said of Bush that the 2000 election was a coup, or that he governed against the will of the people, or that he was violating the constitution was, ipso facto, also saying that Bush did not love America.
Lieberman will probably vote along with the dems on most issues. He always has been a bit progressive. He has cracked up a bit ,so he can not be trusted. He should be removed from important committees. He knows he deserves it.
I’d say that any politician who demostrably governs with his own best interest as his primary motivator over the good of the country and that of his constituents could not be called a patriot by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, I was engaging in irony. Attempting to at any rate. You completely blew off the second part of my post:
"And I didn’t say there were no House Republicans. Frostillicus said, and I quote: “There is not a single Republican congressman in New England.” It WAS my mistake for inferring Senate, and not including House, but please don’t accuse me of saying something I did not say. "
I thought it was intentional. If it wasn’t, my apologies.
Its true that bolting to the Pubbies offers few, if any, advantages for Fightin’ Joe, but I think you may underestimate the WATB factor. Joe is very prickly about his dignity (such as it were). He may think of a stellar welcome from the Pubbies as a more fair recognition of his value than a scolding and a spanking from the Dems. Which he wholly deserves.
The realpolitik side of me says keep him in line, but keep him, he either shapes up or ships out. Pencils have erasers, if he fucks up, he can fuck off. He can keep his chairmanships so long as he does as he’s told, nobody’s looking to him for leadership.
But I can’t deny that seeing him tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail would bring a song to my heart, and I would raise a chilled glass of schadenfruede…
Seems like the main question, from the Democrats perspective, is what can be done to ensure the maximum number of votes for Obama’s proposals. In that respect, punishing Lieberman has four effects. First, it encourages party discipline. If you don’t punish people that openly campaign against your Presidential candidate in the most negative of ways, then party discipline is pretty meaningless. Second, it appeases many in the base who want Lieberman’s head. Third, it probably causes Lieberman to vote against the Dems marginally more than he otherwise would have. And fourth, it undermines in some small degree Obama’s talk of forward-looking, big picture, bipartisan politics.
How does all that shake out? I’m not sure, but I think it’s a bit more complicated than has been acknowledged by most in this thread. In the end, I expect that no matter what action is taken, the Dems will probably get Lieberman’s vote as much as they did in the last three years–such things are determined by political conviction and getting re-elected more than membership in a given caucus. So that’s a wash either way. And I think the political theater of letting bygones be bygones probably outweighs the benefit to party discipline from the symbolism of kicking him out of his chairmanship.
If he is an uncooperative committee chair, then further action should be taken on that basis.
The long-term consequence of permitting Lieberman to keep his gavel would be that Reid might as well have “WELCOME” stenciled across the front of his suits, that being the traditional label of a doormat.
The sensible thing would be to treat Lieberman well, get him to support your agenda, and campaign very hard against him in any and all future political campaigns. But if he bolts, of course, as **Richard Parker **says, then shiv him here and now in public. The only use he has is in behaving like a loyal Democrat, and that only for the next few years.
Refraining from booting him from the caucus would be a gesture of reconciliation.
His gavel, however, must be taken away. Letting him keep it after he smeared his party’s Presidential nominee and campaigned for the opposition would be a slap in the face to everyone who stuck by the party, and would invite contempt for the party leadership.
Even putting aside all the beyond the pale aspects of Lieberman’s recent history, which go well beyond supporting his friend John McCain, he ought to be prevented from retaining any committee privileges which involve national security.
This isn’t just a question of party loyalty but of basic competence. Whether it’s been Katrina, Iraq, or any other issue of executive power and the war on terror, the guy has been a disaster. He’s been as bad as the laziest and most deferential Republican in the Bush era in terms of averring any modicum of accountability.
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.
I think you mean someone else.