Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

    I've about had it. The Democrats just won their second sweeping election in a row. In 2006, the anti-war, anti Bush message decapitated the GOP, sweeping them straight out of power in both houses of Congress. Not one, BOTH!! Two years later, we solidified the party's hold on Congress and kicked the GOP out of their most prized office, the Presidency.

   After all this, after the American people made clear that it's the Democratic Party's agenda, led by President-elect Obama, that they trust, our party leaders in the Senate are acting like chickenshit cowards over what should be a remarkably simple situation.

  Joe Lieberman actively campaigned against Obama. Not only did he campaign against him, he smeared him personally. He mocked him before a national television audience. This, two years after he literally begged Obama to come help him in CT, which Obama did. Lieberman has claimed that Obama doesn't care about his country, only about his political ideology. He all but said that terrorists would welcome an Obama administration, while fearing a McCain one. He up and told us that lunatic sick Sarah Palin would be a phenomenal Vice President.

  On top of that, Joe Lieberman actively campaigned AGAINST a Democratic majority in the United States Senate. Has Reid forgotten about his endorsement and campaign activities on behalf of Susan Collins? What in the hell is going on here?

  Harry Reid, you are the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER!! There isn't a Senate Majority Committee. These decisions are YOURS. What in God's name are you thinking, even contemplating that Lieberma should be rewarded with a committee chairmanship after his actions?

   This man has crapped on your party, your President-elect, and yes Harry, your leadership. He does what he wants, and cannot be trusted. He didn't even use his chairmanship to do anything of value while he had the gavel.

   Folks, why is this not a no brainer? It shouldn't be negotiable. Not at all. That meeting with Lieberman should have lasted 10 mins. 1 minute to tell Lieberman that he would no longer have the gavel, and nine minutes listening to the man bitch and moan about how unfair the world is.

   If he wants to leave the caucus, let him. We have a solid majority now, and 60 votes won't help one bit if he is one of the 60 we'll be regularly counting on.

   If Harry Reid allows this to happen, then it should be a no brainer that we start a movement to replace him as majority leader. He can give us the "gentleman's club" excuse, the way he did Landrieu, Salazar and others who supported Lieberman over Lamont in 2006. Let him give that excuse.

   Reid, your time is now. This is a remarkably simple situation. And messing it up b/c you are afraid of hurting Lieberman's feelings is, to put it frankly, pathetic and proves that you are a wimp. You stood up to mob bosses Harry. Where is your spine? What happened to that resolve?

  Remove Lieberman! Now! There is no excuse! We don't need him for a majority. We don't need his ego, he won't bring any money to the caucus, and he will routinely bad-mouth you, your leadership and your colleagues on Fox News, on a regular basis.

  Harry, the greatest ideas in life are simple. The actions that have most moved this country in the right direction have been simple. This is a simple action. It requires nothing more than common sense! I hope you haven't lost yours.

Tags: 2008, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, US Senate (all tags)

Comments

46 Comments

Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Looks like the campaign for revenge has hit a headwind.  From Politico:

Several top Democratic senators have launched a behind-the-scenes effort to save Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship, despite calls from a Democratic base seeking retribution for Lieberman's vocal support of John McCain's presidential campaign.

Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) are all involved in the effort, according to top Senate Democratic aides. These four senators -- along with other Lieberman allies -- are reaching out to the rest of the Democratic Senate caucus to try to ensure Lieberman survives a secret ballot vote on whether to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

This effort, along with kind words from Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) last night about Lieberman, is giving the Connecticut senator some serious momentum heading into next week's secret vote. Dodd's involvement in saving his home-state senator is an extraordinary turn because Dodd backed Democratic candidate Ned Lamont in 2006 against Lieberman, who won the Connecticut Senate race as an independent. Dodd, however, had backed Lieberman in the Democratic primary and only switched support to Lamont when he became the Democratic nominee.

by psychodrew 2008-11-12 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Wrong. Lieberman has 4 yrs left on his term. We need him to stay in the democratic caucus.  Keeping him in the caucus is more important than hurt feelings.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-11-12 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains


   Why do we need him to stay in the caucus? What for? What purpose does it serve? What does that say to the rest of the caucus? That you can bad-mouth your party's leader, question his loyalty to the country and yet still be rewarded with a committee chairmanship?

  Are you serious? You still think we have to kiss Lieberman's butt? Why? What purpose does it serve to have him remain in the caucus?

  If he wants to stay in the caucus, fine. Let him. But the committee chairmanship should be gone. That's common sense.

by southernman 2008-11-12 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Being in the caucus doesnt automatically guarantee his vote for the 60 vote majority. He has gone on record as supporting filibusters against a Democratic majority.

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

and also on the record as opposing some of the ones that Democrats do. It's all about "Bi partisanship"

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-12 12:21PM | 0 recs
It's unbelievable


   the Democratic Party just won a sweeping mandate, and we have Senators still running around like chickenshit cowards, afraid of "offending" a "centrist."

  It's truly pathetic. We don't deserve to have a majority, let alone a 60 vote margin, if that's the type of "leadership" we can expect.

 

by southernman 2008-11-12 09:31AM | 0 recs
Switch to decaf, maybe?

Do you always need to be blaming people and sowing division in the party?  I look at your diaries, and they seem to all be about calling people out about various things.

We won, we're winning.  Relax.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Switch to decaf, maybe?

 
    Yes, we won! Which means we reward those who helped us win. Joe Lieberman is not one of them. Therefore, he should not be rewarded.

   I'm just asking that common sense be utilized. The man slammed Obama's patriotism, his ideals and his candidacy.

   Sorry, but the demands that we just let stuff like that go is one reason why liberals are viewed as wimps. Fair or not, that is an image liberals have. And, if Lieberman is allowed to keep his committee chairmanship, that view will be well founded when it comes to members of the United States Senate.

by southernman 2008-11-12 09:52AM | 0 recs
The reward IS winning.

The "winning lets me fix things for my friends" ideology is exactly what was wrong with Bush.  I'd rather not be that way.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The reward IS winning.

Actually it is the  whole "friends" are bigger than the country which is compelling senators to save his chairmanship. If the DEmocrats cared about their base, they would get rid of this guy who is an obstacle to the Democratic agenda in the war on terror and has helped cover up Bush's mistakes during Katrina. Why would you reward someone like that?

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:20PM | 0 recs
I wouldn't

Who said anything about rewards?

I'm just saying that we don't have to drum him out and give him no reason not to throw in with the Republicans fully.

There's a time for the carrot and a time for the stick.  I think this is a time for one whack of the stick and a whitholding of the carrot to an unobtainable, but still visible location.

Give the guy a path to selling out his old Republican friends and be our tool, he'll probably take it.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Kos and friends won't stop with Lieberman.

Remember how they threatened those who didn't support Obama in the primary?

That and the long standing tradition of senators being statesmen able to speak their own minds without any fear is why Lieberman has support.

This really was something the Kos Crowd started.

Who will they try and primary next?

Its not that I support Lieberman its that I oppose the Kos wing.

by dtaylor2 2008-11-12 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Guess it will be reid they go after next...

Like the nazis you have to stop them while they are still going after people you don't love or they will be too strong when they come after the people you do love.

by dtaylor2 2008-11-12 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains


   That's nice dtaylor. Compare those you disagree with with the Nazis.

  That's good.

by southernman 2008-11-12 10:10AM | 0 recs
Excellent.

You Godwinned the diary, dtaylor2!

Nice work!

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

The Lieberman of MYDD speaks.

by mikeinsf 2008-11-12 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Idiot, the Lieberman issue is not even analogous to the Obama primary thing. The Lieberman issue has brought out the revenge feelings among us, but that is only one of many factors we have put out as wanting lieberman out. Last time I checked, there is no ongoing movement to get rid of Obama's opponents in Kos/. However people are serious about Lieberman because there are longstanding reasons to get rid of him.

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:22PM | 0 recs
I'm down with ousting Reid and all, but...

I think you're overstating the situation, here.  Democrats still don't have the 60 vote majority necessary to prevent filibusters, and, even if all three of the up-for-grabs Senate races come down in our favor, we'd need Joe Lieberman for that 60th vote.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm down with ousting Reid and all, but...


   I'm not overstating anything. As I point out, Lieberman will likely not be with us to give us that 60th vote.

 

by southernman 2008-11-12 10:09AM | 0 recs
He definitely won't if you have your way

You really think Lieberman is lurking in the corner, twirling his moustache and waiting to stab Obama in the back, don't you?

The reality is that he's a politician, and one that was soundly thumped, and recently.  He'll play ball if it means that he gets to keep some power and respect.

He's not evil for evil's sake.  Christ.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: He definitely won't if you have your way

 I don't think he's evil. But I think he looks out for himself and himself only. And to have a man like that in charge of a committee with the power of investigating the President, that's a risk we need not have to take.

  He's an attention starved ego-maniac. You don't reward someone like that with a committee chairmanship.

  that's common sense.

by southernman 2008-11-12 10:27AM | 0 recs
That's my point

Lieberman should get one pass, and one pass only now that Obama's beaten him.

If he starts using his chairmanship to undermine a very popular president whose word has great power in Joe's caucus, he's out.  That's all there is to it.  It doesn't have to be now, setting the tone of "my way or the highway" at the beginning of the Age of Obama.

Just like with Wright: Obama forgave him, then Wright shanked him, Obama cut him off and was hailed as being both properly Christian and for politically setting an adult tone.

Lieberman would have to be suicidal to go after Obama now, in any capacity.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: That's my point


   He got his pass. Harry Reid has kow-towed to Lieberman ever since his defeat by Lamont in the Democratic primary over two years ago.

  Lieberman got a pass for endorsing and campaigning for Susan Collins.

  Lieberman got a pass for saying that Obama cares more about partisanship than he does his country.

  Lieberman got a pass for speaking at the RNC.

  Lieberman got a pass for going on Fox News and repeatedly bashing anti-war Democrats.

  Lieberman got a pass for standing at a Sarah Palin rally and saying nothing as some attendants of said rally hurled racial epithets and threats towards Barack Obama.

  Lieberman has received MANY passes from the Democratic Party that REWARDED him in 2000 when Al Gore tapped him to be the V.P. nominee.

  Due respect, he's used up his passes.

by southernman 2008-11-12 10:46AM | 0 recs
Er, what?

Your logic doesn't make any sense.  He was the vice presidential candidate in 2000 and he campaigned for the other guys for 2008.  What's your point?  Does it change the fact that Obama is a guy who represents new politics, or the fact that we still need as many votes as we can get to hit 60 in the Senate?  Does it change the fact that Lieberman is a 19 year Senate veteran and half of the Senatorial representatives from Connecticut?

You hate the guy, I get it.  I'm not fond of him, either.  Let's not let emotion cloud our judgement, here.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Er, what?


   Yes, he campaigned for the other guys. He questioned the patriotism of the same man that he asked to campaign for him in 2006.

  Lieberman will not be a reliable vote in the Senate, so we shouldn't count him as one of the 60. It doesn't matter how long he's been there.

  When he had the chairmanship, he did nothing with it. Even if he didn't want to investigate the President on the war, what about the disastrous response to Katrina? That was on Bush's watch. Lieberman did.........wait for it.............................nothing.

  You said he deserved a pass. I listed several passes that he's been given already. He doesn't deserve another one.

by southernman 2008-11-12 11:18AM | 0 recs
"Deserved?" no...

He deserves a swift kick in the ass.  I said that he "should" get one pass, because there are bigger issues at stake.

The "several passes" you listed before were all part of the same larger issue: He sided with the other guys on foreign policy issues.  You just like to go into painful detail about it.  Like baptism, though, one pass should be enough to take care of everything that came before.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: He definitely won't if you have your way

He has OPENLY said that he fears a 60 seat Democratic majority because it would quell filibusters. What more do you need?

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:23PM | 0 recs
C'mon.

That was campaign bullshit.  He didn't mean that.  The Democrats get 59 without him, he'd sell out that particular rhetoric in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying the guy isn't sleazy.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm down with ousting Reid and all, but...

I see your point, but what are the odds like Lieberman would help sustain the filibuster anyway? He's all about "bi partisanship" and what that apparently means is the he helps the GOP whenver possible.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-12 12:06PM | 0 recs
What's the angle in it for him?

Seriously.  Where's the margin in pissing off the Democrats more now?

George Bush had the most unitary power of any executive in modern memory and was more than happy to do favors for friends.  Joe was able to do favors for him, and got support in return (how many Republicans voted for him in 2006, I wonder?  Did the Republican in that race even register as a threat?)

Now the guy he threw in with is on his way out; he needs to find a way to suck up to the new guy.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-12 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Fair points.  Now instead of a diary he and his staff will never see, why not write it in a letter and send to Reid, the other Dem Senators and to the editorial pages of some of the major Newspapers.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-12 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

   I have. Though more politely and professional than in this posting.
by southernman 2008-11-12 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

I wrote letters, too.

by Lolis 2008-11-12 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

I want Lieberman gone from the Chairmanship but this diary is, ah, Palinesque in two regards.

First off, it's a decision for a secret vote of the Democratic caucus to make, not Reid's.  I think that vote is going to happen.  How that vote is going to go I can't say.

Secondly, some Democrats have a positively Maoist attitude about wanting to purge their own for one transgression (in their view) or another.   In the Senate, pretty soon we'd be left with...Barbara Boxer?

Everyone needs to suck it up and accept the fact that people whom we support and love or like will often vote the other way on something.  Life in the big city...move on.   (Staffers learn to deal with disappointments like this all the time...you have to look at the big picture, not agonize over some of the details.)

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-12 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Oh god, we still got people like this poster perpetuating talking points that are false. Did you even read the many diaries we put out? It is not ONE transgression. I am not going to list thenm all again. It is a series of incidents over the last four years.

Why don't you ever wonder why Lieberman continues to be pissed about ONE transgression on our part - our so called traitorous opposition to the Iraq war. He seems to have a hard time forgetting that.

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

You misread.  Lieberman is guilty of multiple transgressions.  But wanting to get rid of Reid, Pelosi, or whomever the Netroots Reign of Terror designates as a target if they don't get their way is just plain Palinesquely stuuuuupid.

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-13 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

This Lieberman thing is a total waste of time and energy! Much like the back and forth on who is to blame for Proposition 8.

We should be focused on getting president elect Obama's program- whatever it may be- passed. That is what its all about. We are now in charge of governing. Tearing ourselves apart because we don't like Lieberman (and I don't) or because a proposition that should not have passed did so- albeit narrowly- is counterproductive.

The way I see it Obama was elected to govern not Dailykos or MyDD and if Obama thinks he can use Lieberman's vote and wishes to let bygones be bygones then thats the way its going to be.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Do you think right wingers will bash their base? It took a lot of incompetence on Bush's part for the Republicans to lose power. They didn't lose it be insulting their base.

by Pravin 2008-11-12 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Pravin, its hard to understand what you mean. Could you put it in plain english? If its something about how the republicans do business I could care less. I am not a republican.

But I repeat my point: lets focus on getting health care passed, creating jobs, etc.. This tit for tat Lieberman did bad so now we are going to punish him but wait a minute how come we are not going to punish him the horror! This is a waste of time! We are giving Lieberman far more attention than he deserves. Lets take his votes and move on. Even if we disagree with this approach its not our decision to make. The president elect has already made clear his thinking. Move on.

Come on there has to be more important stuff than this or the black vote on proposition 8. If we are going to focus on this sort of stuff we're not getting anything done.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

It is a matter of principle and respect.

by Pravin 2008-11-12 01:53PM | 0 recs
And replace him with Feingold

Come to think of it, replace him with Feingold even if Liebermann is kicked out.

by ann0nymous 2008-11-12 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Better to recruit a Republican senator that would switch to Democratic.

Then we don't need Lie-berman for nothin' at all.  

Cast him adrift with a keg o' water and a pound o' hard tack I says.

by wblynch 2008-11-12 02:08PM | 0 recs
by Pravin 2008-11-12 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Leave it alone. Let Lieberman caucus with the Democrats if he wants to. What, are we trying to send a statement here? Be loyal or get kicked out of the caucus/party? Give me a break. This is a waste of time. What Lieberman said about Obama was unacceptable, but guess what, he was an Independent who happened to caucus with the Democratic Party.

Now, Reid should go for other reasons.

by RJEvans 2008-11-12 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains


   I don't care if he stays in the caucus.

  I want him to lose his committee chairmanship. There is absolutely no excuse for letting him keep that. None!!

by southernman 2008-11-12 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Remove Reid if Lieberman Remains

Reid has always done the most pragmatic things, and not the best things in the interest of the party go back to the funding issue on Iraq, go back the gang of 14 fillibuster compromise, go back to the Roberts nomination. It was apparent that Reid didn't want to block Roberts that's why he allowed substantial members to vote for him in such away. We need a better leader in the Dem caucus.

by olawakandi 2008-11-14 07:31AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads