Lieberdem

The President-elect apparently wants to send conciliatory signals. Good for him. Good for us, too.
-
I disagree, Joe. He won reelection by claiming that he wanted to end the occupation of Iraq; we haven’t heard anything of that opinion of late. Also, he has done absolutely nothing as chair of the committee in the past 2 years.
-
Ideas have consequences. Actions do, too. Good bye, Sen. Lieberman. Allowing him to keep a chairmanship, given his do-nothing record and his eagerness to tar occupation opponents as traitors, would be a mistake.

Alright, but he should pantsed. You know I’m right.

This is entirely symbolic, IMO. Yes, Lieberman sucks. Yes, Lieberman has undermined the party. Yes, Lieberman stood with McCain against his presidential candidate. Yes, Lieberman rejected the will of the voters of his party in CT. Yes, Lieberman sucks.
.
But it doesn’t matter who heads his committee. Especially if Obama has a big honkin’ marker.
.
I really think it’s a mistake to second guess Obama on Senate relations. We may want our revenge. He’s actually been in the caucus, including those sessions with no staff.

Right Ho. Pourme. Pants the effer.

Ha! To the right of, or to the institution over principle side over elvis. That doesn’t happen every day for me.
.
I get that point. And if the PresElect were a governor, I might feel differently. But he knows the deal in the Senate.
.

Yes, imagine the somber next day: “Lieberman Pantsed.” That is clearly the solution.

Perhaps revenge might feel better in the immediate, but God I ma proud because it take a powerful leader to exercise mercy. Not to mention that Lieberman will be completely beholden to President-elect Obama for his job.

Linked without further comment:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/243586.php

Forget the headline! I just got a mental image of Joe with his eyes bugging out and crossed with my mental version of pourme grinning behind him, pants in hand. THAT would be priceless.

Joe Lieberman questioned the patriotism of all Democrats, the people who voted Obama into office. Does Obama favor Lieberman over them? It would be the second big mistake Obama has made, if Lieberman stays in power.

I definitely think we Dems need to be magnanimous to Lieberman. This case is a high profile affair and Obama’s sending the signal that Lieberman that Lieberman is to be welcomed back into the fold earns Obama, and the Dems in general, a lot of goodwill from the public.

Sooner or later there will be a fight between the parties that gets nasty, that’s just politics, but to start out on a generous note is a good thing. Especiall when it’s pointed out that Obama campaigned for Lieberman when it looked like he might lose in CT.

No way Lieberman should say at Homeland Security.

Jane Hamsher has the full indictment; in brief, Lieberman never did a lick of investigation into Katrina, which was his responsibility.

And a pinkbelly…a *serious* pinkbelly…one that makes him wince when he coughs for about a week.

I could go with a pinkbelly, only because what if the pantsing revealed boxers with “JUICY” written on them? That couldn’t be unseen.

This speaks volumes about how serious Obama is about setting a new tone.

Lieberman hasn’t had a good thing to say about the Democrats in years and he never has a bad thing to say about Republicans. He is a right-wing propagandist dressed up as some sort of bipartisan, who supposedly walks around with a set of balances in his briefcase. He is probably hated more by Democrats than Bush is. However, maybe that is what the Bush dogs and the DLC like about him.

Jay; The only marker that Lieberman would have any respect for would be a big private investigator’s file (with art) tracking his marital infidelities with young Arab boys.

He’ll blow off Obama doing him this favor just like he blew off Obama campaigning for him against Ned in the 2006 Democratic primary. He’s a scorpion, and you don’t let a scorpion ride you.

Not that my opinion matters but thats BULLSH!T!!! Joe Lieberman should be run out of the caucus on a rail. This will just prove once again that the Democrats are spineless cowards who can’t even keep a guy in line who doesnt have a D beside his name anymore. Seriously if he keeps his chairmanships then Harry Reid should be voted out of leadership. The way I look at it is one of them has to give up something. Either Lieberman’s charimanship of Homeland Security or Reids status as Senate majority leader.

Well, we’ll see what Reid does with Senator Droopy. An interesting take on this, is that while Lieberman may keep Chair over HomeSec, what if the UberDepartment that is Homeland Security gets revamped and streamlined in an Obama administration?
.
Right now, HomeSec is literally most of the federal government. Most 3-letter agencies fall under it, and it ties into the military strongly. Ergo, its a choice position. But what happens if its authority is reduced, or if it is specialized to emergency response only?
.
The dems would look great for being nice to the Droopster, while yanking the rug out on the sly.

I just saw on MSNBC that whoever came up with the Sarah Palin doesnt know Africa is a continent leak is coming forward. I can’t wait to hear what they have to say. What if they come out, stick to the story, and then make her look even worse? Ill update as it happens

SG — is it possible to make her look any worse?

Obama was elected as much on competency as anything else. Has Lieberman evidenced competency as Chair of Homeland Security?
.
It really shouldn’t be ALL about bruised egos.

But he knows the deal in the Senate.
-
Very good point, Jay. We’re talking Bill Belichick or Theo Epstein territory here. “Nomar for WHO?” “We took a TE in the first round AGAIN?” But suspension of disbelief has been earned.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_11_09_archive.html#4799065803735997402
.
See atrios, Tom..
.
I do think that we can’t know what has happened inside the Senate.

Obama might be thinking of 2010. Dems might be at 60ish, and Lieberman will have to be a good boy because he will be facing the voters.

On the narrow issue of politics within the Senate, Elvis, I think that’s true. What we see is very far removed from what happens.
.

Dee in C…I thought we were on the same page? Lieberman has an 76% dissaproval rating from Conn Dems and an 71% approval rating from Conn Republicans. I don’t care what letter you have next to your name, you play to the people on whom you rely for re-election. I think this is in large part why Lieberman has had no interest in investigating scandals over the last few years…it just wouldn’t play w/ Republicans at home. Lieberman cannot be trusted. How many times does a guy have to lie to your face?
.
I agree that something has to give, either Traitor Joe has to go, or we need a majority leader w/ the balls to keep him in line, and Reid ain’t it.
.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-connecticutpoll1028.artoct28,0,1851441.story?page=2

Dee
.
They are walking it back now saying they arent sure its the real advisor’s statement. However if its confirmed to be true then yeah the statement was about to make her look even worse. The word diva was featured in the opening line

Obama might be thinking of 2010. Dems might be at 60ish, and Lieberman will have to be a good boy because he will be facing the voters.

2012.

Ned was up in 06.

Idiots. They’ll regret it, and badly. I’d rather see Lugar at State and Hagel at defense as gestures of “post-partisanship”. Lieberman will only feel more arrogant and self-righteous, and he thinks his vindictiveness is high principle. I’m half ready to ask for my money back.

Jim–I’d say let it play out. We’re just finishing with the most obstructionist Minority Senate party; if we can avoid this whole cloture idiocy and actually get bills passed by throwing Lieberman a bone of debatable worth, then its worth it.
.
One thing is certain: no one wins if the Senate keeps roadblocking legislation.

Mod-bot strikes again.
Jim–I’d say let it play out. We’re just finishing with the most obstructionist Minority Senate party; if we can avoid this whole cloture idiocy and actually get bills pas5ed by throwing Lieberman a bone of debatable worth, then its worth it.
.
One thing is certain: no one wins if the Senate keeps roadblocking legislation.

Cincy–
.
He’s in office. He’s not winning reelection. Obama wants to govern. there are plenty of principled stands you are gonna want him to make. Every one of those is gonna cost capital. You want him to spend that capital on minimizing Lieberman? For what in return?

on the question of keeping Lieberman for 60 vote I want everyone to think about this. There are not going to be total solidarity in the Democratic caucus 100 percent of the time and Lieberman has already shown that he won’t vote with us on military issues anyway which might be the biggest issues that Obama and the congress faces. On the other hand there are republicans that don’t vote blindly with their party all of the time either. To make a long story short even with out Lieberman we are close enough to 60 now that on most major issues Reid should be able to come up with 1 or 2 or 3 republicans to stand with us and push the legislation through with a filabuster proof margin. Bigger than that how about we FORCE the republicans to try a filabuster instead of standing down just on the threat of one anyway. The few republicans they have left will be drummed out in 2010 if they try that filabuster bullsh!t against bills that the American people want to go through. Lieberman has to lose his chairmanship PERIOD. Anything less is as he put it “unnacceptable”.

on the question of keeping Lieberman for 60 vote I want everyone to think about this. There are not going to be total solidarity in the Democratic caucus 100 percent of the time and Lieberman has already shown that he won’t vote with us on military issues anyway which might be the biggest issues that Obama and the congress faces. On the other hand there are republicans that don’t vote blindly with their party all of the time either. To make a long story short even with out Lieberman we are close enough to 60 now that on most major issues Reid should be able to come up with 1 or 2 or 3 republicans to stand with us and push the legislation through with a filabuster proof margin. Bigger than that how about we FORCE the republicans to try a filabuster instead of standing down just on the threat of one anyway. The few republicans they have left will be drummed out in 2010 if they try that filabuster bullsh!t against bills that the American people want to go through. Lieberman has to lose his chairmanship PERIOD. Anything less is as he put it “unnacceptable”.

on the question of keeping Lieberman for 60 vote I want everyone to think about this. There are not going to be total solidarity in the Democratic caucus 100 percent of the time and Lieberman has already shown that he won’t vote with us on military issues anyway which might be the biggest issues that Obama and the congress faces. On the other hand there are republicans that don’t vote blindly with their party all of the time either. To make a long story short even with out Lieberman we are close enough to 60 now that on most major issues Reid should be able to come up with 1 or 2 or 3 republicans to stand with us and push the legislation through with a filabuster proof margin. Bigger than that how about we FORCE the republicans to try a filabuster instead of standing down just on the threat of one anyway. The few republicans they have left will be drummed out in 2010 if they try that filabuster bullsh!t against bills that the American people want to go through. Lieberman has to lose his chairmanship PERIOD. Anything less is as he put it “unnacceptable”.

That is what I meant Jay. If we get to 60 votes in 2010, Holy Joe would have to behave the next 2 years because he faces voters in 2012.

I’d rather see Lugar at State and Hagel at defense as gestures of “post-partisanship”. Lieberman will only feel more arrogant and self-righteous, and he thinks his vindictiveness is high principle. I’m half ready to ask for my money back.
.
I’m exactly the opposite. I want H Clinton or some other democrat at Defense and Kerry or some other democrat at State. If the price for that is Lieberman heading a meaningless committee, that’s a cheap price.

I’ve been wavering back and forth on this one. On one hand, I want to slap him silly, and on the other hand, I’m learning from Obama the value of tolerance.
.
As chair of the Homeland Security committee, I’m not sure what damage he can do. I’m hoping that one of the upsides is that he can help get rid of Chertoff. After his conduct during the Katrina debacle, there is no question that he’s gotta go.
.
We do get the benefit of 58 on most things, and we’ll have to do with 57 on some others. I can live with that.
.
Just hope it doesn’t keep our wagon hitched to Israel, come what may.

Dang that was some bad english I just posted. lol try to overlook it please

Thanks trifecta.
.
Reid’s point is that Lieberman DOES obey when it counts. On votes. I really think we should let this one go. It’s not important.

If Lieberman wasn’t so sanctimonious it would be easier to let go. You do get the sense with him, that he thinks everything he does is out of piety.

When he agreed that Obama might be a Marxist, that was about the last straw with me. Lieberman has some sorta weird gift though. He is hugely unpopular with the democratic base, the people of Connecticut. He was a lousy chair at Homeland Security, and he campaigned for McCain, did a fundraiser for Susan Collins, and wrote an editorial for Norm Coleman.

He expects no consequences whatsoever. He is going to get it too. Amazing.

I don’t know what to think. My personal feeling is that I’d be ready to tie Lieberman to a stake and let the ants get him. But I recognize that I’m still too close to the campaign to start turning the other cheek. But I am trying to listen to my better angels because that is what my President-elect has asked of me.
.
But if it turns out that Obama isn’t interested in saving Traitor-Joe than I say light the fires baby.

Conciliation is terrific, but Lieberman’s been behaving like an @sshole. He’s “considering his options.” Oh really. Is this by any chance an effort to marginalize Lieberman by giving him an offer he has to refuse, making Obama look magnanimous?
.
In truth, it doesn’t really matter to me. Obama and Emanuel know what they want and need, and neither is weak-kneed, so I’ll trust them to deal with Lieberman.

I understand Kerry really wants State, I’d rather see him at the Pentagon. I can’t put my finger on why, but SoS Kerry leaves me cold, and I liked him in ’04 and like him still. That just seems like a bad set up. And foreign policy was the reason I didn’t support HRC in the primaries, I’d rather she stay in the Senate.

But Lieberman is poison. He will never recognize any debt to Obama or the Democrats. He will constantly use the threat of jumping sides to keep media attention on himself and keep nervous Democrats wringing their hands, and to empower people like Bayh and Pryor, and probably ultimately do so at the first sign of weakness for Democrats anyway. Give it the Broder test: If Broder thinks it’s a good idea, it’s a really bad one, and I’d bet a kidney Broder thinks this is the best idea this side of a bipartisan commission of blue ribbon elder statesmen.

This. Is. Simply. Stupid.

“Obama might be thinking of 2010. Dems might be at 60ish, and Lieberman will have to be a good boy because he will be facing the voters.”

The voters that elected him in ’06? Those are Republican voters…what actions would he have to take to be seen as a ‘good boy’ by Republicans? I shudder to think what the answer might be.

“He’s in office. He’s not winning reelection”
.
Not if he pisses off Republicans at home he’s not. I wonder what would make Republicans at home happy? Obstructionism?
.
sgwhiteinfla, is correct, there are enough moderate REpublicans to do business, and if Traitor Joe really is as independent as he says he is, then he’ll vote issue by issue anyway.

“Obama might be thinking of 2010. Dems might be at 60ish, and Lieberman will have to be a good boy because he will be facing the voters.”

The voters that elected him in ’06? Those are Republican voters…what actions would he have to take to be seen as a ‘good boy’ by Republicans? I shudder to think what the answer might be.

“He’s in office. He’s not winning reelection”
.
Not if he p!sses off Republicans at home he’s not. I wonder what would make Republicans at home happy? Obstructionism?
.
sgwhiteinfla, is correct, there are enough moderate REpublicans to do business, and if Traitor Joe really is as independent as he says he is, then he’ll vote issue by issue anyway.

Dee
I agree completely. As I’ve said before, I realized as soon as I threw my lot in with Obama I was going to have to give up wanting vengeance. I find it’s easier to forgive Republicans than Lieberman though.
.
Ironically, it will be very, very hard to claim Obama isn’t being “bipartisan” if he reaches out to Lieberman.

I totally disagree Jay. It DOES matter. If it didnt matter than anybody from any party could get any chairmanship. The fact that the party in majority gets to pick the chairmanship obviously means something and Joe Lieberman is not a democrat anymore. Now he can be allowed to caucus with the Dems which is all I think Obama was advocating but as for his chairmanship its got to go. For probably the same reason YOU don’t want a republican at State or Defense is the same thing I dont want a dino in a homeland security chairmanship. To leave him there plays into the “Dems are weak” meme as would putting Hagel or Lugar at State or Defense. Lieberman has given the Dems his azz to kiss and he went as far as to imply that he was the only one who could keep the country safe as the chairman of Homeland Sec. If they don’t punish him you are going to see a lot of rogue Dems and everyone will start doing their own thing especially the newer members of Congress. Its like the whole “you dont negotiate with terrorists” creed. The reasoning behind that creed is that if you DO negotiate with terrorists once then you can believe that it will be expected to become SOP and you will see more hijackings and kidnappings. If Lieberman gets away with keeping his chairmanship just for the sake of getting 60 votes what will Harry Reid have to do for say Heath Shuler to get HIM to vote with the party? We simply can not start down that road.

Another link to a get rid of Joe website
.
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe

sgwhite: Lieberman doesn’t “get away with” keeping his chairmanship if it’s offered to him.
.
Besides, this may just be the old LBJ maxim put to good effect, that “it’s better to have your enemies on the inside of the tent pi$$ing out than on the outside of the tent pi$$ing in.”

I told Rockefeller’s office that he should vote to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship and also that they should waive seniority precedents and give Clinton a chairmanship. She has earned it, and it would be good politics as well.
.
No on Kerry at the Pentagon. Too many people in the military still have the long knives out for him for the winter soldier hearings. Even though he was right on the merits.

Hey Dee in C….wanna listen to your better angels? See, the thing is, I’m a Nigerian business man, and I have consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the Nigerian Chambers Of Commerce And Industry, I have the privilege to request your assistance to transfer the sum of $47,500,000.00 (forty seven million, five hundred thousand United States dollars) into your accounts. I just need to to pay a small transfer fee which will be fully reimbursed in due time and all pertinent information about you bank account(s). Sound good?

Hey Dee in C….wanna listen to your better angels? See, the thing is, I’m a Nigerian business man, and I have consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the Nigerian Chambers Of Commerce And Industry, I have the privilege to request your @ssistance to transfer the sum of $47,500,000.00 (forty seven million, five hundred thousand United States dollars) into your accounts. I just need to to pay a small transfer fee which will be fully reimbursed in due time and all pertinent information about you bank account(s). Sound good?

Steven Benen suggested the other day that Lieberman could use Homeland Security to lead repub insurgencies against Obama. Since Lieberman has shown he cannot be trusted, I think it is reasonable to assume the worst about him.

“I dont want a dino in a homeland security chairmanship.”
.
Can he block the dismissal of Chertoff?
.
Like some Republicans, I certainly don’t want to see dinosaurs above the extinction horizon, either…

sgwhite: You have to @ssume that Obama and Emanuel and Reid have figured out where Lieberman can do the least harm. How are we going to trust them to run the country if we can’t trust them to run Lieberman???

Lieberman will stand just inside the tent, pi$$ing on everyone else in it, and thanks to this breath-taking stupidity, all the Dems will be able to say is, “it’s good that Joe did that!”
*
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

cincy, what about me? Why does Dee get all the opportunities?

wvng, cuz me and Dee were in agreement 3 days ago and now all of a sudden……

Kathy
.
As I recall LBJ was willing to lose the whole south in order to do the right thing and p@ss the civil rights act. He could have put it on the back burner because he knew it would cost him but instead he went right ahead and did the right thing losing votes be d@mned. Lieberman has to lose his chairmanship period. I see no other way for Dems to come out of this looking credible. Otherwise you can get ready for a pork fest in the Dem caucus because Harry Reid will have to buy off every vote and we will be branded with the label of appeasers for the next 4 years. And I for one am not with all that

Joe The Plumber
2212 Lost Ave
Phoenix AZZ 88381

Pay to the order of:____ Cincy_____________|$_1500.00|
__One_Thousand_Five_Hundred_00/100_________|Dollars

:32560760:0001445644:0:

Wish we had preview!
.
That woulda looked really GOOD on the old Swampland…

…and JTP would cut me a check because of what exactly?

…oh, I get it.

Have to admit it, I like the old Swampland better than the new one, Cincy!

Kathy
.
I have yet to see a press release from Obama on this subject and I will tell you that if he does come out and says explicitly that he is for Lieberman keeping his chairmanshp I will oppose him fiercely on that. Just like I said over the weekend I will not trust Obama blindly. I will give him the benefit of the doubt but when he takes actions I will judge it for myself and decide if in my opinion its a good move or a bad move. As for right now the only person I am focused on is Harry Reid who is looking more and more spineless as each day p@sses with no action being taken. Caucusing is acceptable but remember that Lieberman told Reid he could phuck off if that was all he was offering as if HE has the upper hand. No CEO of any company would keep a high level manager who opposed him in his same position after a merger goes through. Its just not good business in that situation and it wouldnt be good business in this situation

Not to put too fine a point on this, kicking Joe Lieberman out is exactly the way people do politics in Washington.
.
Did none of you listen to Barack Obama over the last 21 months????
.
He said he wanted to change the way politics is done in Washington, and he meant it. None of us was the butt of the outrageous things Lieberman said. The person who was the butt of those things is large enough to say, “let bygones be bygones, let’s move the country forward.” This is a rare thing in politics. Choosing Emanuel means that no one (in Washington, at least – apparently this is not true in Swampland) thinks that Obama’s afraid to enforce punishment.
.
This will be seen for what it is – a sign of strength on Obama’s part, and a signal that people had better watch their step because he’s not going to do politics as usual. Like he said.
.
He has signaled he can’t be manipulated through pique.

Yeah, this sux. I just hope Michael Scherer is one of the guys who agrees to voluntarily quit.

I know most of the people here have been to prison so maybe you’ll understand it like this: Remember the first time you went to chow hall? How you had to take one guy out, for whatever reason, to earn the respect you knew was necessary to function in the prison milieu? It’s like THAT. If Reid won’t shank him in the shower, then we need to find someone who will. The other side will deal with us better once they know whats what, it’s the fuzzy lines that get you in trouble.

Not to put too fine a point on this, kicking Joe Lieberman out is exactly the way people do politics in Washington.
.
Did none of you listen to Barack Obama over the last 21 months????
.
He said he wanted to change the way politics is done in Washington, and he meant it. None of us was the object of the outrageous things Lieberman said. The person who was the object of those things is large enough to say, “let bygones be bygones, let’s move the country forward.” This is a rare thing in politics. Choosing Emanuel means that no one (in Washington, at least – apparently this is not true in Swampland) thinks that Obama’s afraid to enforce punishment.
.
This will be seen for what it is – a sign of strength on Obama’s part, and a signal that people had better watch their step because he’s not going to do politics as usual. Like he said.
.
He has signaled he can’t be manipulated through pique

sgwhite – these guys know their psychology. This is not a stupid move, even though I would prefer they make their points another way.

Okay cincy you think I’m being naive. I get it. My first is to strip him of the ability to caucus with Democrats and dare him to join the GOP knowing he will lose his next election in CT. But my president is asking me to be nice what is a good little voter to do? I suppose at smoe point he will hold less sway but for now I’m an Obama girl.

kathy
.
So as John McCain would say are we “all Democrats now”? How do you kick someone out of a party that he isnt in? He lost the Democratic primary and ran as an independent. He has caucused with the Dems but campaigned with the Republicans. He fought tooth and nail to keep the Dems from having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate by campaigning for down ballot Republicans. Common sense needs to rule the day here. This has nothing to do with the way politics is done in Washington because when was the last time you EVER heard of someone pulling the bullsh!t that Lieberman pulled and then trying to go back to his own party. Ill save you the keystrokes on google and tell you it has NEVER happened. Because nobody had the audacity to pull this cr@p and then expect to be allowed back into their old caucus. If this is the new politics then I am sorry but Ill take a serving of old politics to go!

Dee, I’m an Obama guy, that’s why I’m screaming at the movie screen for Obama to NOT GO INTO THE BASEMENT WITH THAT GUY…HE’S HIDING A KNIFE BEHIND HIS BACK!

cincinnatus est exterminata! Says:
Monday, November 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Dee, I’m an Obama guy, that’s why I’m screaming at the movie screen for Obama to NOT GO INTO THE BASEMENT WITH THAT GUY…HE’S HIDING A KNIFE BEHIND HIS BACK!
*************************************
.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even across the pond they know the score:

“I believe Reid has little choice but to bounce Lieberman from his committee chair. Lieberman crossed a line you don’t cross in politics without expecting that there will be repercussions. But he needs to keep him in the fold, too, if it’s possible. Tricky.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/barackobama-harryreid-joelieberman

Even across the pond they know the score:

“I believe Reid has little choice but to bounce Lieberman from his committee chair. Lieberman crossed a line you don’t cross in politics without expecting that there will be repercussions. But he needs to keep him in the fold, too, if it’s possible. Tricky.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/barackobama-harryreid-joelieberman
.
.

I can’t believe that the Senate Dems are for even one second thinking about letting Lieberman keep the chairmanship of Homeland Security AND GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, or seniority at Armed Services and Environment. Yes, he’s done nothing to hold Bush accountable as head of that committee, but that’s because Bush was doing what he wanted in the Middle East. Obama will not, and Lieberman will use the committee and its oversight powers, including subpoena and investigative powers, to obstruct and punish Obama. Lieberman wants war with Iran, and he’ll use his committee against Obama if Obama is not aggressive towards Iran.
.
I’m still wondering why people trust Lieberman in any way. He’s already shown that he doesn’t care that Obama saved his political life in CT. His only allegiance is to Israel. And the fact that he knows he won’t be re-elected in 2012 only makes him more dangerous. He’s not accountable to anyone, and will use the 4 years to do whatever he can to further his bellicose policies in the Middle East. He can’t be trusted.

Sorry, folks: I am not buying Obama’s signals. Remember how we were so tough on Hillary and Bill, insisting on this and that. Lieberman is a class ! a**hole and he opposed the President elect. Now I have no objection to the President-elect being magnanimous. But he loses me (and I don’t count). Why doesn’t anyone recall that Lieberman was DEFEATED in a Democratic primary, won with Republican votes and as an independent paid no price. If Democrats want this bipartisan bs to be ” let’s go with the flow” ok. But don’t ask me to overlook the fact that Lieberman never held a hearing of the DHS Committee and never held Bush to account. If the Democrats in the Senate don’t have the courage of their convictions: ok. But I just am going to opt out – and I know I don’t count.

cincy–

as for MS, I assume he is on contract and not a union guy.
.
as for everyone else on Lieberman–
.
all you guys are doing for me is reinforcing that this is a shiny object. He doesn’t matter. He keep his committee chair, he doesn’t. It doesn’t matter. It’s a distraction. It ticks us off. It may actually be good for Obama, with the blue dogs, that he stands up to us.
.
And, as far as markers go, when the time comes to withdraw troops from Iraq, do you want Lieberman inside or outside the tent? Humiliated and cast aside, or given an opportunity to express a view to party leadership?
.
I reiterate that I have no effin’ idea of what really goes on. But this seems cheap to me. In my corporate consultant life, I don’t try to win the meeting. I try to succeed at the project. Here, humiliating Lieberman feels like winning the meeting.
.

I’m still wondering why people trust Lieberman in any way.

Who says they do? This isn’t about trust. Do you think JFK trusted LBJ?

I do believe JFK trusted LBJ. But I also think Bobby Kennedy HATED LBJ

Obama isn’t asking “what does Lieberman deserve?” Obama is asking, “what is the best outcome?” He is likely answering himself, “Lieberman’s vote and strong party identification, plus a consequence that serves as a public disincentive for future disloyalty.” So, that’s what we’ll get. Obama is a pragmatist. He will get what he wants: a vote and another player on the chess board that is motivated to move with his attack. The rest is all drama.

Even across the pond they know the score:

“I believe Reid has little choice but to bounce Lieberman from his committee chair. Lieberman crossed a line you don’t cross in politics without expecting that there will be repercussions. But he needs to keep him in the fold, too, if it’s possible. Tricky.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/barackobama-harryreid-joelieberman
…

test

pourme,
.
And what is that consequence?

Even across the pond they know the score:

“I believe Reid has little choice but to bounce Lieberman from his committee chair. Lieberman crossed a line you don’t cross in politics without expecting that there will be repercussions. But he needs to keep him in the fold, too, if it’s possible. Tricky.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/barackobama-harryreid-joelieberman

Pmcoffee.
.
Thanks. that’s what I was trying to say, I think.

Even across the pond they know the score:

“I believe Reid has little choice but to bounce Lieberman from his committee chair. Lieberman crossed a line you don’t cross in politics without expecting that there will be repercussions. But he needs to keep him in the fold, too, if it’s possible. Tricky.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/barackobama-harryreid-joelieberman

NO!NO!NO!

Joe has GOT to go!

Starting off weak is NOT a good idea!

This is not new politics – this is the weak, spineless, namby-pamby Democratic Party the Republicans know and love to exploit so much.

If we can’t even handle Joe Lieberman, how is anyone going to have confidence in our toughness when things get big?

President Obama needs to step up NOW, right off the bat, and pull some Chicago politics out of his pocket and strip Traitor Joe of everything possibly strippable – there HAVE to be consequences for his blatant, repeated backstabbing!

The consequence is controlled by what Lieberman considers saving face. So, if Lieberman will sign on behind the scenes with a switch to another committee, then that. If not, then it’ll be taking away from the bottom of the seniority deck. Imagine everything as a card on they are all on the table – seniority, committees, chairmanship, other things I don’t know about. There will be a shuffle that results in two plausible stories: 1) “We disciplined him.” and 2) “We still value him.” Both sides will be dissatisfied. The parade moves on.

Barack Obama is the man who, when confronted with a tape of his pastor saying “G-d D–n America!,” refused to cut him loose at first, preferring to provide context. It was only later he acted when subsequent behavior sealed his fate. So too will it be with Lieberman.

So what you are saying is that some consequence that NOBODY knows about will somehow be a deterrent as he sits in his catbird seat as the chairman of the homeland security committee???!!! Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. So in my opinion THATS BULLSH!T!!! But thats just me
.
Question though. Since he has already said that Harry Reid can kiss his azz if he tries to strip him of his chairmanship then what happens if he won’t even allow some invisible punishment that nobody knows about? What would you advocate then? Somehow once Reid caves on taking the chairmanship away and basically gets punked for all the world to see I dont see that making Lieberman more likely to allow some other kind of punishment. So whats your plan B?

pourme
.
Now havent we talked about false equivalencies? Joe Lieberman said the equivalent of GD America, Phuck the Democrats, Screw Obama, and everyone else can KISS. MY. AZZ! Besides as the newsweek story points out Obama knew that Rev Wright was retiring from the church anyway so he figured he would never have to deal with him again. Thats the ONLY reason he didnt throw him under the bus to begin with. AND it turns out that if the Obama team had actually vetted Rev Wright’s sermons as he asked them to we might not have EVER had to deal with that kinda stuff. But I digress. Joe has to go!

I don’t think the consequences to Lieberman are a sideshow. I think the natural incentives already in place far outweigh this blip on the screen and completely control the likelihood of future Joe Liebermans. I look at this like a father: I don’t get caught up in a meta-analysis of exactly how many days I take away the cell phone for a punishment. I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

Demwoman, I don’t see that Obama is calling for him to keep his chairmanship. Trust this man for a bit, he seems to understand how to play this game. And, if you watched 60 minutes last night, you know that he has absolute clarity on where he wants to take us.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4586892n
.
But, on the merits concerning Lieberman, I agree with your arrrrgggghhhhh!

I too am thoroughly dissapointed that Leiberman may get a free p@$$ for his traitorous behavior. That said, I think Obama & team must have good reason to allow it. …and please, no talk of pantsing or pink-bellying him – the mental picture is not good – he’s droopy enough with his clothes on!

@sgw – There will be a statement. It will be agreed upon by all sides. Then, it’ll be over. The only air in this story is the uncertainty of the outcome. The millisecond that is over, the story is over.

Thanks dunedweller. I had successfully removed that image from my brain and then you went and . . . .

I think there’s supposed to be a level of “friction” between the various parties of government. Checks and balances. Yeah, I’d like to accomplish things – but those things should stand on their merits, rather than because our reps are voting for everything that each other wants, just so they can get what they want.
‘
So, while I understand Obama’s pragmatism, and desire to “rise above” petty politics, achieving 100% completely smooth sailing isn’t always a good thing. Like on the boards, here: we’re not in total agreement – which makes the conversation interesting – and we haven’t even brought in the recalcitrant, intractable obstructionists like Rusty.

On to a more important point. From a Sully reader this afternoon:
.
“I laughed when I read the post this morning about having our lives back. I have been an insomniac for eight years. I gave birth to my first child right after W took office. I always assumed my insomnia was caused by my kids. I have been sleeping like a rock for the last week.”
.
as for me, I started playing music again after basically stopping in November 2004, right after the election. More importantly, I’m feeling joy in music again.
.
This is good. Don’t sweat the droopy dog.

I’m not comparing Lieberman to Wright: I’m comparing Obama to Obama. He will look past the temporal dispute to the underlying root. He did it with Wright; He will do it with Lieberman. As he should.

pourme
.
I am playing devils advocate today. Otherwise known as Im being an azzhole. But again what happens if there is NO joint statement put out? What if Harry Reid just gets up and says he decided against taking the chairmanship away with no explanation? How will you feel about THAT? Maybe some people don’t think its an issue but Ill bet people didnt think who the AG was made a difference until we had Al Gonzales. Ill bet people didnt think the Sec Def was so important until we had Rummy. Ill bet most folks thought the VP was just a stooge until we got Cheney. Ill bet most folks thought head of FEMA wasnt a big deal until we got Brown. I could go on and on but I think I have been enough of an azzhole in this one post.

It doesn’t even have to be a joint statement, as long as everyone has their stories straight. Two cups need to get filled: 1) plausible consequence, 2) party bonding. Once that happens, class dismissed. It will be ancient history, with a flood of staff and cabinet positions coming ashore to obliterate even it’s footprints in the sand.

It doesn’t even have to be a joint statement, as long as everyone has their stories straight. Two cups need to get filled: 1) plausible consequence, 2) party bonding. Once that happens, cla$$ dismissed. It will be ancient history, with a flood of staff and cabinet positions coming ashore to obliterate even its footprints in the sand.

pourme
.
And what happens when Lieberman speaks out about Obama bringing the troops home on a timetable? Should they let that go too? I am just wondering exactly how much this guy can get away with before he needs to be dealt with severely in your opinion. I can’t imagine him doing anything any more disloyal than what he has already done. So maybe if you could give me an idea of an act egregious enough for retribution

My opinion? If his vote percentages remain the same as in his long career, I would be fine with him. If he says something in opposition to an Obama policy, well Obama can put it in the huge file he’ll need to keep all other such statements. I’d do exactly as Obama is doing. It’s a pure percentage play. Odds are Lieberman’s a net plus for the team. The rest is drama.

Lieberman can NOT remain chair this committee. What is wrong with Reid and now Obama?
.
Lieberman punked you. He basically slapped you across your face in public, tried to kiss your girlfriend, and asked you what you’re going to do about it. Act like men and go for his throat, for crissakes! My God, dems are such total pushies sometimes, it’s ridiculous.
.
MAN UP!!!

> And what happens when Lieberman speaks out about Obama bringing the troops home on a timetable?
‘
He should – if that’s the way he feels. His constituents didn’t vote him in there to be a compliant, mindless droid, a slave of the President or the party. It doesn’t matter what side it’s on – R or D – unquestioning subservience is not good for the country.

Mr. Nice Guy
.
I agree. And thats why I feel he should be stripped of his chairmanship so he can say WHATEVER he wants. Let me give out a quote.
.
“The eight Clinton years were good years, but the Democratic Party is not where it was eight years ago on a lot of issues,” Lieberman said, citing trade and “government reform,” without specifying exactly what that is. Addressing McCain, he continued: “You are more in that tradition on those issues than a lot of the Democrats are today.”
.
Thats not a guy who I would want representing the Democratic party as a chairman ESPECIALLY on a committee where he has subpoena power. But hey maybe he was just joking….

Don’t overlook the leverage taking the high road gives Obama. Biden: “Look, we went to bat for you and it wasn’t easy. We had the Daily Kos crowd filling up our inboxes. You didn’t make things easy. Now, we need your vote.”

bbpdx – you sure you haven’t been punked by 8 years of Rove and Bush saying “bring it on”? We are not trying to be like Bush and Rove.
.

Obama’s made clear that he wants people in his cabinet and among his advisors who disagree with him. He is not going to demand compliance with what he thinks.

Notice that we aren’t saying that Bush should have kept Obama out of the White House until January 20 considering the things Obama said about him.

kathy
.
Are you really trying to compare Obama going to see Bush today to Lieberman campaigning AGAINST the Democrats whom he caucuses with and keeping his chairmanship. Not just Obama but also Franken and others. Talk about your false equivalencies. All I can say is WOW.

Every ruler needs a court jester. I nominate Traitor Joe he could serve solely at the pleasure of the presidency.

Kathy, I’m sorry to be gender-centric, but there are certain codes in the man world. These codes apply to men of all ages, classes, professions, etc.
.
If someone treats a man like Lieberman has been very publicly treating Obama, and the target doesn’t do something about it, that target is a weakling. Period. If I see a man treated like a punk for the world to see and he doesn’t respond, other men can’t respect him. It’s just the way it is.
.
Democrats wonder why they consistently lose the votes of white men. This is why. No man respects a pushy.

TPM reports that President Clinton, in addition to Obama, have signaled support for Lieberman. If you were making a list of knowledgeable opinions about the value of Sen. Lieberman to a Democratic President, who would top that list?

On a more serious note. Personally I feel Traitor Joe’s behavior is equivalent to cannibalism — He is the Jeffrey Dahmer of politics. However, I am trying to not indulge my desire for payback because my leader has asked this of me. Now my sincere hope is that Obama will hear everything being said and he will not ask this of me and I will get to indulge in dismemberment fantasies a little longer but I digress. Of course, if I have to learn to stomach Joe than I have to figure there is a plan that I can’t yet see — I don’t think he would just let this p@ss unless there was a greater gain because accountability is also a big thing with my President.

Relevant votes against the Democratic party for Joe Lieberman from the 110th congress
.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/votes/against-party/

sgwhite – nope, I’m just trying to say that when you refuse to forgive someone you let them take up space in your head rent free. Obama doesn’t have time for that, and although I love a discussion about whether lieberman should be chair of any committee, I don’t want him taking up space in my head. And I certainly don’t want this issue to keep me from appreciating what will be true the instant Obama takes office: at least 200 Bush executive orders reversed, a commitment to take Gitmo down, an Attorney General who respects the law, 14 Federal judges to appoint, federal funding for stem cell research made possible, family planning in developing countries made possible even if they get funds from us, a serious initiative to rescue a planet at risk, the restoration of respect from so much of the world. Joe Lieberman’s pretty small potatoes next to that.

pourme
.
lets be specific. On TPM they report that Clinton has signaled his support for Lieberman CAUCUSING with the Dems nothing more and nothing less. And just under that headline is the one where Lieberman is starring in another one of those Jihad movies that the fear mongerers put in Sunday newspapers which may have lead to a school full of muslim children getting pepper sprayed.
.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/lieberman.php
.
Stay Classy Joe Lieberman

pourme
.
lets be specific. On TPM they report that Clinton has signaled his support for Lieberman CAUCUSING with the Dems nothing more and nothing less. And just under that headline is the one where Lieberman is starring in another one of those Jihad movies that the fear mongerers put in Sunday newspapers which may have lead to a school full of muslim children getting pepper sprayed.
.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/lieberman.php
.
Stay Cl@ssy Joe Lieberman

kathy
.
You do realize that Obama isnt the one who should be deciding this right? Its Harry Reid who is being a coward about it. Again it might seem like a little thing now. Until Joe Lieberman starts handing out subpoenas. It will be a little late to try to think it through then

@sgw – C’mon, don’t be naive. President Clinton publicly signaling support for Lieberman while his fate is being decided has a clear meaning, just as Obama’s statement did. There is no mistaking the meaning: find a way.

None of us was the butt of the outrageous things Lieberman said..

Baloney!. Every American who feels that bombs and cruise missles should always be a last resort rather than a standard operating procedure was the butt of everything Lieberman said. I proudly count myself among those Americans. I have a feeling that we represent a significant chunk of all Americans. Recent events seem to support that notion.

None of us was the butt of the outrageous things Lieberman said..

Nonsense! Every American who feels that bombs and cruise missles should always be a last resort rather than a standard operating procedure was the butt of everything Lieberman said. I proudly count myself among those Americans. I have a feeling that we represent a significant fraction of all Americans. Recent events seem to support that notion.

pourme
.
I am not being naive but I am also not being presumptuous. Again I wouldn’t care of JFK came back in a vision and said Lieberman should caucus with the Dems, if they let him keep his chairmanships they are reinforcing the belief that they are cowards with no back bones and it WILL come back to haunt them. And the truth is if they allow him to keep the chairmanship I hope he stabs them in the back with all the ruthlessness he can muster because they will DESERVE it!

“And the truth is if they allow him to keep the chairmanship I hope he stabs them in the back with all the ruthlessness he can muster because they will DESERVE it!”
.
My point exactly.

None of us was the bu^t of the outrageous things Lieberman said.

Nonsense! Every American who feels that b0mbs and cruise miss1es should always be a last resort rather than a standard operating procedure was the bu^t of everything Lieberman said. I proudly count myself among those Americans. I have a feeling that we represent a significant fraction of all Americans. Recent events seem to support that notion.

Is it possible that Renegade is fostering this debate so he can comment later and solve the imp@ss so once again it looks like he is in complete control — the great magnanimous decider.

Lieberman is among the 25 most liberal Senators on economic issues (and in the bottom group for social and foreign affairs). The Obama administration will be focusing on economic issues out of the gate, with the necessity/opportunity to set aggressive policy. There is plenty of help on the Republican side for Obama’s less hawkish foreign policy position, but scarce little for his economic ones. I don’t care if Lieberman gets what he deserves. I want him up at the podium and pushing hard when the economic plan is rolled out. Hillary was “right” about health care. That doesn’t insure children. The first fight is a progressive economic policy to replace trickle-down economics. Lieberman can help us win it. He’s in.

pourme
.
Where do you get that statistic?

> when you refuse to forgive someone you let them take up space in your head rent free
‘
To a degree, I concur. But, at the same time, if you, as a leader, refuse to impart discipline and hold people accountable for their behavior, you invite anarchy. That doesn’t help us, as a country, either. You can disagree with your president and your party, but there must still be discipline. To maintain that discipline, a leader has two real choices: carrot or stick. Simple behavior modification stuff. I’ll let Obama figure out his approach, but to tacitly ignore the matter is not what I would consider an example of leading.

Liberal rankings:
http://snipurl.com/5avjs

I went to the site pourme but I just wasnt all that impressed. Only 6 Dems have a worse liberal rating than him and the thing they all have in common is none of them campaigned for McCain or any other Republicans. Joe gotta go!

As I was careful to note, he is in the Top 25 most liberal for economic issues, which is Obama’s top priority. It’s also worth pasting in this quote from the post above this one: “As Marty Nesbitt, one of Obama’s best friends, once told me, when the president-elect finds someone isn’t playing up to his game on the basketball court he doesn’t pitch a fit or yell. “He strategically figures out how not to get you the ball without hurting your feelings,” Nesbitt said.”

The thing is that Lieberman doesn’t have a leg to stand on anymore. Before, his caucussing with the Dems was important; it determined majority, and therefore, committee chairmanships. But now, what does it matter what his label is or whom he caucuses with?
.
The assumption is that if he bolts to the Republicans, he’ll vote with them out of spite. Not going to happen. He will vote exactly the same on almost everything. He’ll oppose Obama on foreign relations and vote with Dems on social issues. So take the chairmanships away, and it won’t matter. That’s the thing, he won’t have any leverage…unless you give it to him now by letting him keep the chairmanship and seniority.
.
This isn’t about vindictiveness or revenge, or at least it shouldn’t be. It’s about the future, not the past. Let him keep Homeland Security and he’ll use it against Obama. Take it away and he can’t. And if he doesn’t like it, what’s he gonna do about it? My guess: nothing.

Do people seriously not get what’s going on here? It’s blatantly obvious. He’s making Lieberman his bi@tch, keep your enemies under your thumb.

Please explain, for those of us that are slow, how is Lieberman under Obama’s thumb?

I think this is wisdom on President Obama’s part. Why start things off with unnecessary drama? The Democratic umbrella is broad covering people from varying backgrounds and opinions.

Going into the election I mentioned to my brother how much I wanted Coleman to go down. He said “Coleman’s a nobody. He was a nobody before and if he wins he will be a bigger nobody. I’d rather have Chambliss gone”
.
I think my brother was right. And it may apply to Joe too.

Again lets not get confused here. President elect has NO actual power to control what happens with Lieberman. Thats why we have separation of powers. Its Harry Reid that has the power to strip Lieberman of his chairmanships AND THATS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. The people bringing Obama into this situation are using him as a straw man so they can make a case for letting Lieberman keep his chairmanships. Why would anybody invite a traitor into their midst? This should really be a no brainer in my opinion. Joe needs to go!

I’m a bit confused about the Clinton thing- why would Clinton speak out on account of Lieberman? Wasn’t Holy Joe’s big claim to fame, the reason Gore picked him, that he was the biggest scold against Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal? Wasn’t Joe picked to emphasize Al Gore’s distance from the Clinton Administration by bringing on the Democratic senator who had been the most outspoken against the outgooing president?
.
And no, it does not at all appear that Lieberman is under Obama’s thumb. If anything it looks like the same old wimpiness.

I’m a bit confused about the Clinton thing- why would Clinton speak out on account of Lieberman? Wasn’t Holy Joe’s big claim to fame, the reason Gore picked him, that he was the biggest scold against Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal? Wasn’t Joe picked to emphasize Al Gore’s distance from the Clinton Administration by bringing on the Democratic senator who had been the most outspoken against the outgoing president?
.
And no, it does not at all appear that Lieberman is under Obama’s thumb. If anything it looks like the same old wimpiness.

I’ve decided I would like Lieberman and Reid to come out and absolutely crush this duet, after which they would amend the Constitution and gay-marry.

I’ve decided I would like Lieberman and Reid to come out and absolutely crush this duet, after which they would amend the Constitution and same-sex-marry.

I’ve decided I would like Lieberman and Reid to come out and absolutely crush this duet, after which they would amend the Constitution and marry.

Although I may be biased as a gamer, as we were one of the firsts to suffer His High Holiness’ righteous douchebaggery, Lieberman I feel is getting off way too easy. There at least needs to be an added dash of humiliation to the proceedings, like coercing him into some sort of public contrition or flip-flop if he wants to keep the HomeSec position. Otherwise, the more corrupt and reckless in our Congress, particularly amongst Dems, will just learn from this only a moral hazard.

A blogwhoring thought experiment. http://kroydblog.blogspot.com/

If Snowe or Collins offered to switch parties, would those who want to punish Lieberman refuse to reward either of them?

Howard Fineman last night was confirming that Lieberman will make his case to the Senate Dems, who will then vote by secret ballot to determine what happens to him. So Obama may just be preserving his own image of conciliation without actually affecting the outcome. We’ll know by the end of the week.

Why all this agonising? The Senate is an independent part of Congress. Harry Reid is the leader. He has to lead. Neither Obama, Clinton, or anyone else should be sending signals (if they are doing so – and I am reluctant to accept the word of Hill staffers because they may well be Joe’s surrogates muddying the waters). If the Dems don’t have the stomach for clear positions on issues of loyalty during a campaign then they will show, once again, that they value Senatorial independence ( cowardice?) and personal loyalty more than principle. I look forward to Chairman Lieberman calling officials before his committee. He never did that during the Bush years. Only then will Democrats realise that all this shilly-shallying is the reason they have spent so much time in opposition.

Don’t blame Obama or look to him for guidance. This is senatorial business. Just look at Ben Nelson’s voting record. Lieberman can follow that outside the chairmanship.

I’m curious sevenoaks.
.
Suppose Snowe said she wanted to switch parties. Would you say no, that would be wrong?

You have got me wrong, Jay. If Snowe wanted to switch parties it would be for her to explain her reasons for doing so, and for the Democrats to respond. I have known Snowe to vote against her party. What one cannot say about Snowe is that she campaigned right alongside Obama, went with him his tour abroad and helped him out with information and corrected his mistakes. When it comes to Lieberman I saw him denounce Obama as someone who threatens our nation’s security. I saw him standing by while Palin accused Obama as palling around with terrorists. The examples of his attacks are legion. If Obama wants to forget that it is his call. I just don’t want to see Lieberman as chair of the DHS committee issuing subpoenas and hauling Democrats yp before his committee. He can remain the party: he has that choice. But he has to pay a price for his role in the elections.

I just don’t want to see Lieberman as chair of the DHS committee issuing subpoenas and hauling Democrats yp before his committee. He can remain the party:

No disagreement there.

What should be done in the House with Cynthia McKinney?

.. should have, I should say. My point being: is thought police a good idea?

Moderation sucks. I still have a comment in limbo from 12 hours ago.

I should give up on this, but overall I just favor lowering the heat on payback for rhetoric. I am going cold turkey on Lieberman for my own health now.

pourme
.
I know you mean well but these people arent private citizens. They are elected officials and many times they are elected not because of their particular policy stances but because of their party affiliation. Thats why some polling places have the option where you can just vote strictly along party lines without having to go through and mark each ballot box. We can’t act as if this is not the reality of the situation. Joe Lieberman is free to say and think whatever he wants to say and think…..as long as he does it without his chairmanships. The same way you can tell your boss he is an incompetent azzhole. But I would suggest you update your resume before hand.

pourme: we don’t need thought police. Agreed. Do we also abide by election results? If a candidate loses a primary election should he/she accept that result and move on?

Props to thinkprogress.org. Read this case against Lieberman and see if you still think he deserves to keep his chairmanships
.
http://thinkprogress.org/lieberman-not-progressive/

I just had to check in on the fate of Joe Lieberman.
.
Latest score:Swampland 151 Lieberman 0.
.
I resisted posting yesterday. I think Joe is going to switch parties. I think Obama gave Joe some rope by saying “I’d like to Joe have a place in the Dem caucus and keep his chair.”
.
Of course, that’s up to the dem caucus and Reid. If they go in a different direction and strip Lieberman of his chair, Obama’s hands are clean. FDR was really brilliant at this stuff BTW.
.
I hold Senator Lieberman in mimimum high regard. It up to the voters of CT to provide the ultimate punishment.
.
Let’s hope the Hamlet of the nutmeg state makes his decision and we can move on from this.
.
Many of you have a lot of energy on this subject.

Again, strategy over drama. Accept it.

pourme
.
Notice one thing. Obama specifically said he wanted Lieberman to caucus with the Dems but he specifically WON’T weigh in on whether he should keep his chairmanships. Hmmmm I wonder why….
.
“President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward,” Cutter continued. “We’d be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don’t hold any grudges.”
.
“We aren’t going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair,” Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama’s stance on Lieberman’s future.

@Andy, As sgwhite points out, Obama said nothing about Lieberman keeping the chairmanship. That is not going to happen. That post is too powerful.

Yes, it’s very appropriate for Obama to extend an olive branch to Liberman. However, it’s also very appropriate for the Senate Democratic Caucus to strip him of his committee chairmanship at the very least. They can’t allow somebody who did what he has done over the past 6 or 8 months, and especially what he has done since the GOP convention, to go by unpunished.

What’s more, Lieberman CLEARLY doesn’t share Obama’s or the electorate’s objectives about Iraq. He has made it obvious that he will stop at nothing to have his way on this. For that reason, he needs to be booted from the caucus. In the caucus, he would be privy to “inside baseball” knowledge about Dem tactics and strategies regarding legislation, and from where I sit there’s no doubt he’d use that information to sabotage the president’s initiatives in that area.

Lieberman obviously was counting on John McCain winning to rescue him from the Senate with a plum cabinet post. He backed the wrong guy, and elections have consequences. He can stay independent and get whatever the Dems decide he can do the less damage with, or he can join the GOP, be a back-bencher, have zero influence, and lose his next election. And like I said, elections have consequences.