Reid grows testicles, kicks Joe the Lieberman off DHS

[ArcturusMengsk]

Video from Raw Story

About goddamned time. And I hope that the good people of Connecticut find the wherewithal to bounce him out of office in two years for being such a worthless chump.

[Flagg]

Good. I've been waiting for this for 2 years. I'm almost glad the Democrats didn't get close enough to the 60 seat super majority for this rancid cunt to stick around stinking up the DHS chair.

[Durandal]

Good fucking riddance.

[CmdrWilkens]

Ploease note this is Reid offering an ultimatum, Lieberman is still the chairman and will be until the Democratic caucus meets after Jan 6th and after the Democratic Steering and Outreach committee puts its recommendations before the caucus.

[Fire Fly]

First of all, Reid hasn't done anything yet. Second of all, Lieberman was re-elected into office in 2006, meaning his re-election is in 2012. Nothing is going to happen in two years time. And lastly, I wouldn't be so quick to bounce Lieberman out of the Dem caucus; assuming that Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota go to the GOP, it still better to have a Dem caucus of 57 than 56.

[Knife]

Not really Firefly, I'm sure the Dems can get better help from moderates like Snow on various issues than Liberman. Ontop of that, there are reports the GOP is courting Joe pretty damn heavily for party realignment. If Liberman takes it, I'm no so sure what Connecticut will do in 2012.

[RedImperator]

First of all, Reid hasn't done anything yet. Second of all, Lieberman was re-elected into office in 2006, meaning his re-election is in 2012. Nothing is going to happen in two years time. And lastly, I wouldn't be so quick to bounce Lieberman out of the Dem caucus; assuming that Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota go to the GOP, it still better to have a Dem caucus of 57 than 56.

Reid doesn't want to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, just strip him of his committee chair. Frankly, if you not only endorse and campaign for the other party's presidential nominee, but you trash your own party's nominee and campaign for down-ticket Republicans, you deserve to be demoted to backbencher. And as someone on DailyKos pointed out, letting keep the Homeland Security chair gives him a perfect platform to take pot-shots at the Obama administration.

As far as breaking filibusters, if Lieberman supports Republican filibusters on Obama's domestic policy, he'll be voting against everything he's ever stood for out of spite (and guaranteeing he'll lose the next time he's up for reelection, if he even lasts that long; does Connecticut have a recall mechanism?). Iraq policy will be out of Congress's hands on January 20, so he won't be needed on that issue. And if you do need cloture and Lieberman is being a bitch, there's Grassley, Snowe, Collins, and Specter to court.

[Fire Fly]

Lieberman has already made it clear that no chairmanship means no caucusing, so both sides know that if Reid pulls Lieberman's chairmanships, he's kicking him out. My only big question or worry is whether kicking Lieberman out worth the costs? I don't expect McConnell will be easing up on the filibustering any time soon.

[Havok]

If Joe does switch sides, are there any viable replacements from the Republican party that could or would switch? I know there are several worth courting on certain issues to get votes, but any that will actually jump teams as well?

[Fire Fly]

Reading on what has been stated at present, I guess it isn't so clear where both sides lay currently. For all we know, Lieberman could be bluffing to keep his positions of power.

If Joe does switch sides, are there any viable replacements from the Republican party that could or would switch? I know there are several worth courting on certain issues to get votes, but any that will actually jump teams as well?

There's been speculation that Obama could tap Snow or Specter into a cabinet position and then those seats would be decided by the Democratic governors as to who becomes the new senators.

[SirNitram]

Lieberman's demands are that he keep THIS CHAIRMANSHIP. No other will do, as Reid has offered them. Now, hrm, why would be want to head up the Homeland Security Oversight Panel. He's not done anything with in the last two years he had it..

It's also the comittee that investigates the Executive Branch.

Gee. I wonder why he insists on keeping THAT COMMITTEE.

[CmdrWilkens]

The thing is the Leiberman has ZERO leverage. The Democratic caucus as a whole know how much Obama helped down ballot Democrats, her probably pulled Merkley across the line and he certainly did an excellent job during the Special Election season. Simply put the caucus as a whole is empowered to strip him of his chairmanship and he has nothing to offer in return. He has no patronage machine, no money raised for the other Senator's re-election, no money into the DSCC, and no help with down ballot Democrats.

The funniest thing is that McConnell is trying to tempt him over to the Republican side but has too many senior Republicans that already sit as ranking member on a number of committees to be able to offer Lieberman anything other than backbencher status if he switches sides.

Long story short nothing has happened yet but I fully expect that Lieberman will be reduced to a one man joke without any committee chair at all since he is playing a high stakes game of chicken with Reid. Only problem is that Reid is in a tank and Lieberman is pedalling a tricycle.

[Elfdart]

I was amused while watching Bill Maher's show that the token right-winger, Joe Queenan, kept referring to LIE-berman as a "rat" like Elia Kazan or Judas Iscariot. But then, why would they have any use for him? He was eager to knife Kerry and Obama in the back, so a clever Republitard would reason that he can't trust Holy Joe either.

[SirNitram]

I was amused while watching Bill Maher's show that the token right-winger, Joe Queenan, kept referring to LIE-berman as a "rat" like Elia Kazan or Judas Iscariot. But then, why would they have any use for him? He was eager to knife Kerry and Obama in the back, so a clever Republitard would reason that he can't trust Holy Joe either.

The clever ones are being driven out of the party by deranged wingnuts who think Jindal and Palin will save them all.

[Gil Hamilton]

There's been speculation that Obama could tap Snow or Specter into a cabinet position and then those seats would be decided by the Democratic governors as to who becomes the new senators.

I don't know about Snowe, but I think Specter is probably not going to take it, if only because he's probably going to retire soon. The man is not exactly in good health and I'm starting to think he's not going to do the "Senator Till He Drops Dead" thing, which, unfortunately, is a possibility.

[Xenophobe3691]

I don't know about Snowe, but I think Specter is probably not going to take it, if only because he's probably going to retire soon. The man is not exactly in good health and I'm starting to think he's not going to do the "Senator Till He Drops Dead" thing, which, unfortunately, is a possibility.

Depending on his health and prospects for re-election, do you think he'd go along with Obama's agenda out of simple practicality and, dare I say it, an honest human heart?

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't know about Snowe, but I think Specter is probably not going to take it, if only because he's probably going to retire soon. The man is not exactly in good health and I'm starting to think he's not going to do the "Senator Till He Drops Dead" thing, which, unfortunately, is a possibility.

Depending on his health and prospects for re-election, do you think he'd go along with Obama's agenda out of simple practicality and, dare I say it, an honest human heart?

He'll go along with whatever he feels like voting for on his legacy. For sure and certain he will be behind the expansion of stem-cell research, likely he will also get behind SCHIP, closing out Guantanamo and a few of the worst of the Bush abuses of the legal system. Not sure how it will translate to the rest.

[Illuminatus Primus]

First of all, Reid hasn't done anything yet. Second of all, Lieberman was re-elected into office in 2006, meaning his re-election is in 2012. Nothing is going to happen in two years time. And lastly, I wouldn't be so quick to bounce Lieberman out of the Dem caucus; assuming that Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota go to the GOP, it still better to have a Dem caucus of 57 than 56.

Reid doesn't want to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, just strip him of his committee chair. Frankly, if you not only endorse and campaign for the other party's presidential nominee, but you trash your own party's nominee and campaign for down-ticket Republicans, you deserve to be demoted to backbencher. And as someone on DailyKos pointed out, letting keep the Homeland Security chair gives him a perfect platform to take pot-shots at the Obama administration.

As far as breaking filibusters, if Lieberman supports Republican filibusters on Obama's domestic policy, he'll be voting against everything he's ever stood for out of spite (and guaranteeing he'll lose the next time he's up for reelection, if he even lasts that long; does Connecticut have a recall mechanism?). Iraq policy will be out of Congress's hands on January 20, so he won't be needed on that issue. And if you do need cloture and Lieberman is being a bitch, there's Grassley, Snowe, Collins, and Specter to court.

So you're of the "fuck'em" opinion?

[CmdrWilkens]

I would suppose Red, or at the least myself, is of the opinion that Lieberman is fine remaining in the caucus. I seriously doubt, and would be immensely suprised, by any vote to actually kick him out. That just isn't going to happen. What is far mroe likely is, as is now the speculation, teh caucus will meet in session during the lame duck Congress and hold a secret ballot vote for whether or not to allow Lieberman to retina his chairmanship. At that time if the vote strips him then all the moves are in Lieberman's court. Reid is already putting aides on "off the record" conversations discussing giving the Small Business advisory Committee (currently headed by Kerry) to Lieberman while Kerry moves up in the world. So the groundwork is all in place to offer Lieberman a less prestigious but still expansive chairmanship where he can wield influence in the caucus if he chooses to remain a member. If Lieberman decides to jump ship that will be his call but nobody is going to force him to do so.

[SirNitram]

What's this about kicking him out? Reid's never signalled he'll do it. Just that next Tuesday, secret ballot on his chairmanship.

One person is bringing up throwing him up, and that's Lieberman. He's hyping this into the Most Awful Thing Possible to try and win some support, and he's being a dishonest little shithead about it.

[FSTargetDrone]

What's this about kicking him out? Reid's never signalled he'll do it. Just that next Tuesday, secret ballot on his chairmanship.

One person is bringing up throwing him up, and that's Lieberman. He's hyping this into the Most Awful Thing Possible to try and win some support, and he's being a dishonest little shithead about it.

The Vote is in and Lieberman stays:

Lieberman to keep committee chairmanship

Vote on expelling Stevens from GOP caucus postponed until January

Lieberman to keep committee chairmanship

updated 12:48 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 18, 2008

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.

The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.

Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday to approve a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel. He will leave the Environment and Public Works panel, however.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."

Added Reid: "This was not a time for retribution, it was a time for moving forward on the problems of this country."

Lieberman's grasp on his chairmanship had gotten stronger since President-elect Barack Obama signaled to Democratic leaders that he's not interested in punishing Lieberman for boosting McCain and criticizing Obama during the long campaign.

"This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," Lieberman said after the vote.

Anger toward Lieberman seems to have softened since Election Day, and Democrats didn't want to drive him from the Democratic caucus by taking away his chairmanship and send the wrong signals as Obama takes office on a pledge to unite the country. Lieberman had indicated it would be unacceptable for him to lose his chairmanship.

Lieberman, who was Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's running mate in 2000, was re-elected in 2006 as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary. He remains a registered Democrat and aligns with the party inside the Senate.

"There are some (statements) that I made that I wish I had not," Lieberman told reporters. "In the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that. And now it's time to move on."

"It's time to unite our country," said Lieberman supporter Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said entering the meeting.

Salazar added afterwards: "It was very clear people want Senator Lieberman to be part of the caucus."

On the other side were senators who feel that one requirement to be installed in a leadership position is party loyalty.

Some, like Iowan Tom Harkin, still harbor hard feelings for statements Lieberman made during the campaign. Harkin took particular offense when Lieberman said a vote against funding the war in Iraq without a deadline for a troop withdrawal meant Obama had voted to cut off funding for troops in harm's way.

"That's outrageous what he said," Harkin said.

Separately, a GOP foe of convicted Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, held off Tuesday on a move to expel him from the Senate's Republican conference pending the outcome of his re-election bid.

Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he'll delay until January a move to oust Stevens from the GOP conference and strip him of plum committee assignments. He says some of his colleagues want to see whether Stevens, who's trailing in his re-election tally against Democratic opponent Mark Begich, wins another term before voting to sanction him.

Stevens is the longest-serving Republican senator ever but was convicted of seven felony counts last month for lying on his financial disclosure forms to conceal more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations from an oil field services company.

So he's still there, for a price.

Oh, perhaps a mod or someone might update the topic? It seemed silly to make a new thread.

[CmdrWilkens]

So Liebermann basically loses his EPA oversight position while remaining in a White House oversight position.

[Pelranius]

I wonder if this included mailing in an undated resignation letter to the authorities on Lieberman's part?

I believe that practice is standard with the Cabinet, but I don't know if it could be done with Senators and governors (I presume that is who the former hand their resignations into, am I correct)?

[Durandal]

The Senate Democrats have sent a forceful message that, if you cross them and campaign for the Republican presidential candidate while slinging mud at your own party's candidate, something mildly worse than a harshly-worded letter awaits you.

[Dominus Atheos]

The Senate Democrats have sent a forceful message that, if you cross them and campaign for the Republican presidential candidate while slinging mud at your own party's candidate, something mildly worse than a harshly-worded letter awaits you.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously on national defense. I know I'm concerned tat if Bin Laden showed up in Washington DC and demanded the country surrendered to him, the Congressional Democrats would just roll over and give him anything he wanted. That seems to be their response to everything nowadays: FISA, SCHIP, patriot act, ending the Iraq war, investigating the Bush administration, Bush's treasury secretary asking for $700 billion dollars to give away to big business as free money with no strings attached (they rolled over so much on that, it actually ended up costing that American tax payers $800 billion, despite Paulson only asking for 700)...

Actually it would probably take less time to list the things they actually stood up for when the Republicans made a fuss about it:

...

I can't think of anything.