Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

After his meeting with Senator Reid, during which Reid offered him a subcommittee chairmanship in return for stepping down as chair of Homeland Security Committee but remaining in the Democratic caucus, an offer Lieberman did not accept, Joe held a press conference:

Did you catch that "...those are the standards I will use in considering my options that I have before me..." line?

I agree with Jane:

We've watched for years as Joe called us traitors, lied his face off, stabbed Democrats in the back and did everything he could to keep Barack Obama out of the white house.  Lieberman laundered smears that even McCain wasn't willing to launch himself.

No way.

Make no mistake about it -- Lieberman was openingly threatening the Democratic caucus in his press conference today.  Enough is enough.

It's time for Joe to go:

Please sign the letter to the 19 Senators on the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee  who determine committee chairs -- and ask them to relieve Joe Lieberman of his gavel before the start of the next Congress.

Sign HERE.

Tags: Joe Lieberman (all tags)



Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance
What good is Lieberman caucusing with us even if get 58 seats plus Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders deserves a chairmanship over this fool.
Even if Liebverman caucuses with us, there is nothing stopping him from voting the way he feels like. The number that really counts is the 51. not the 60. Isnt the 60 based on actual votes on whatever issue? Plus since he is already on record of being opposed to 60 seats for the Dems, what makes people here think he will help Dems with the fillibuster proof majority on every issue?
by Pravin 2008-11-06 02:08PM | 0 recs

He's taken one too many liberties based on his pivotal status since the '06 elections. There's no good reason to indulge this closet neocon any longer.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-07 08:52AM | 0 recs
what leverage does he think he has?

And why do some Democrats want to keep appeasing him?

Here's Tom Harkin making no sense to me:

"[Whether or not Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats] is something to be decided later on," Harkin said. "I don't want to get into that right now, although it is something that will need to be decided. ... But, you know, sometimes it is better to forgive and forget. Quit dwelling in the past. Leave the past behind us. Let's look to the future. And, in that case, maybe Joe will stay with us in the Democratic caucus. We just don't know yet."

by desmoinesdem 2008-11-06 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: what leverage does he think he has?

According to that wimp Harkin's logic, we must forgive Cheney too then. These people are ridiculous.

by Pravin 2008-11-06 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

Signed.  Sealed.  Delivered.  With some (respectful) extra comments thrown in at the end.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-11-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
by Pravin 2008-11-06 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

Is it just me or does that image say Harry Reid is from Vermont or Utah instead of Nevada?

by TheUnknown285 2008-11-06 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

I think Reid's offer was reasonable.  Lieberman might well vote with us on some cloture votes even if kicked out of the caucus, like on judges.  (We also have Specter, Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich for those.  All come from Obama states.  Specter seems a likely 2010 retirement, and Voinovich should be vulnerable then--I hope to Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman.)

Lieberman doesn't deserve to chair a full committee (Sanders is far too low in seniority to chair one).  Let Homeland Security go to Akaka, and my senator Patty Murray becomes the first woman ever to chair Veterans Affairs.

We're at 57 right now counting Sanders and Lieberman.  Franken could well be 58th.  Begich or Jim Martin could be 59th, but I find both unlikely.  If Lugar goes into Obama's cabinet, we might have a shot at his seat.  Reid has to triangluate a bit as we figure out who besides Obama and Biden is leaving the Senate and the results of AK, MN, and GA.  If Lieberman gives us 60, there could be a marriage of inconvenience.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-11-06 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

Can someone explain to me. If Lieberman is #60, does it automatically mean he will be forced to prevent filibustering on every issue? I don;t understand how it works. Wouldn't it matter what Lieberman thinks of each individual issue? Isn't the filibuster issue more about the numbers on a case by case basis? So how is that going to help us with issues like the Iraq war?

Can somoene provide examples where a kicked out Lieberman would behave differently ona specific issue if he is with the Republicans?

by Pravin 2008-11-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

We don't have a parliamentary system; there is little party discipline.  You need 60 votes to invoke cloture, but it doesn't matter which party the senators belong to.  In general, senators tend to vote more often with the party they caucus with.  You can see this by examining the records of those who switched caucuses before and after they did so: Dick Shelby in 1995, Ben Campbell in 1995, Jim Jeffords in 2001.  (Lincoln Chafee, despite publicly not voting for Bush in 04, leaving the GOP after he lost his seat in 06, and endorsing Obama early in 08; still voted often with his party while a Republican senator, 1999-2007)  In all cases, they bucked their party sometimes, but suddenly switched on many minor or procedural votes to vote with their new caucus once they switched.  Kicking Lieberman out doesn't keep him from voting with us on cloture votes, but it may make it less likely.  If Franken and Begich win, we're at 59.  Then kick Lieberman out and we're at 58.  All Dems + Collins and Snowe = 60.  We'd be able to get variations of that on a lot of things, but not all.  The Republicans would still be able to block some things, but less with 42 senators than they could with 49.  Apparently the Employee Free Choice Act has been a strict party line vote.

I was thinking of doing a post on this, though I'm sure someone else has already, but the 2010 Senate races also favor us (we won a minority of the seats up in 04).  We should be able to get to 60+ then.  Specter (likely retirement), Bond (likely retirement), Vitter (prostitution), Martinez (narrow win in swing state), Gregg (Gov. Lynch?), Grassley (30 years; Tom Vilsack?), Bunning (old and crazy), and Voinovich (getting old, Dem trending state) are up among others.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-11-07 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

But hasn't Lieberman gone on the record of saying that he is opposed to the Dems having 60 votes to prevent a filibuster? So if he becomes the 60th vote for the sake of caucus unity, won't he hear it from the Republicans?

by Pravin 2008-11-07 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

Maybe.  Does it matter?  As an independent caucusing with the Republicans (you have to caucus with one of the parties to get committee assignments), he could still vote for cloture on some things and against it on others.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-11-07 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance
I'm not even watching the clip. Lieberman makes me physically ill. Why not just ask Mitch McConnell if he'll chair a Committee for the Democrats? Or Chambliss if he loses?
by Jeter 2008-11-06 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman Scrambling For Relevance

He's attacked Clinton and undermined Kerry and the Democratic message on Iraq long before betraying Obama.  

Kick his ass out of the caucus altogether.  It isn't like it will really change his voting pattern much.  We don't need him to maintain a majority either.  Besides, the fine folks in CT might even wage a recall against his ass!

by nintendofanboy 2008-11-06 04:16PM | 0 recs
Oh Joe, elections have consequences

I say kick him to the curb.

by activatedbybush 2008-11-06 05:28PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads