Democratic Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate

[Lunar]

I expect a lot of abstentions

[Lunar]

It's too bad that I think Connecticut doesn't have one of those "appoint someone of the same party" laws because that's the ideal situation - give him a cabinet spot and let Lamont or whoever take over.  Too bad. 

I wonder how much of his decision to campaign for McCain was based on his "principles," how much was bitterness towards his own party that rejected him for Lamont, and how much was his desire for a cabinet spot/VP slot as an alternative to running for reelection.

This is a lose-lose situation for Democrats.  If they let him keep his spot, the blogosphere erupts.  If they kick him off, then the GOP gains more senate votes and the Democrats just "put revenge over national security."

I dislike Lieberman on policy positions - he's pro-censorship and pro-war.  But I think the Dems should let him keep his spot but remove his other committee assignments.

[Lunar]

Actually, it still wouldn't be awful.  She'd appoint someone like Shays, no?  I think I'd prefer him over Lieberman.

[Lunar]

I don't think CT has any laws that dictate who the governor has to appoint, so a moot issue.

[Lunar]

They can remove him from his chairmanship at any time, any day they want to.  Why not give him a chance?

[Lunar]

Why give him a chance?

Because establishing a good report with the American people, not losing a critical Cloture vote,  and all-around not appearing vengeful during your first two minutes of power is more important than satisfying the DailyKos?

I detest Lieberman, but strategically it's a stupid move.

[Lunar]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

[Lunar]

Whatever, I've had to read it for work, I've read every post in the last month or so.    It's not as radical as it's perceived and has strict quality-control standards.

But the fact remains that the Daily Kos is attempting to force the Democrats into adopting a less-than-politically-ideal strategy regarding Lieberman in exchange for ideological purity.

[Lunar]

Yo, I agree with you.  Lieberman is not the person the Democrats want in charge of Homeland Security, regardless of his RNC speech or attacks on Obama.  The latter only make it all the more justified to remove him.

The Democrats would be 180% justified in removing him and I personally find Liebrerman an unlikable, whiny character even before we talk about his "betrayal."

But I think it is strategically better for the Democrats to project the image of an inclusive, non-vengeful party.  Besides, if Lieberman does more anti-Obama behavior in the coming session, the Democrats can remove him from his chairmanship at any second, any day, thus he'll be a better boy than he was when he was the critical component to the 51-49 majority.

It's a tough decision, I don't deny that.  If everything was in a political vacuum, I would advocate Lieberman losing everything but being allowed to caucus with the Dems.  But the Democrats benefit from being seen as merciful and big-tent-y, while they get hurt by being seen as the opposite.

We'll see, but don't treat it like it's a black and white issue and don't pretend like the Daily Kos might not be trying to force the Democrats' hand regarding this.

[Lunar]

I mean, that's how you an I will see it.

But the cable news networks?  The gossip that goes from neighbor to neighbor?  Think again sir.

[Lunar]

Then no, perhaps one or two talking heads will realize reality, but the centrist and center-right leaning talking heads will view this as corrupt back-stabbing of someone who is 1% disloyal to you.

The whole Lieberman situation is so much more sexy portrayed as a betrayal-revenge story than anything else, why would any news station worth its money portray it as anything else?

[Lunar]

Ideologically you are 100% right.

This is politics, my friend.  The Democrats will do what's right for them as far as pushing their message forward.  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate despite how you, I, and perhaps even the Daily Kos would like to reframe the debate.


The debate is not over whether Lieberman deserves the spot, the left-wing blogosphere does not depict how the rest of the world will see it.  If Lieberman gets removed, it will be perceived as revenge.

The Democrats' decision would be so easy if it weren't for the left-wing ideologues threatening them from the blogs.  They could make the tactically right decision, but now they have to balance competing concerns against Democratic self-interest.

Hell, if the blogosphere wasn't so pressuring, the Democrats, should they remove Lieberman, would have been less susceptible to accusations of caving into their far-left internet constituents.  The very fact that the Daily Kos is pushing this so hard makes it even more painful for the Democrats to move against Lieberman (although it makes it more likely).

Lunar, with all due respect, I have given reasons for this which are manifestly not about "revenge."

I'm talking about how it APPEARS

How it appears!

I myself said I support his removal for reasons that have nothing to do with his attacks on Obama, thus I agree there are legitimate reasons besides revenge.


how it appears...

[Lunar]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/source_dem_caucus_wont_vote_to.php

When Senate Dems caucus tomorrow, the Democratic leadership is likely to propose that he keep his homeland security chairmanship but lose a lesser sub-committee chairmanship instead, according to a source familiar with the situation.

If it happens that way, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been a disaster at the post, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.

According to the source, the Dem leadership is expected to propose instead that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship of the lesser Environment and Public Works subcommittee, a comparatively meaningless punitive action.

The move, which is not un-expected and was reported earlier in Roll Call, comes despite the fact that Lieberman had lost momentum in recent days, with Senators Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Byron Dorgan all expressing strong opposition to him keeping the chairmanship. Even a Lieberman ally, Senator Tom Carper, said today that Lieberman should face consequences that are not "insignificant."

It remains to be seen whether stripping Lieberman of his environmental committee role will be seen as "significant "by people who think that Lieberman's actions show him to be completely out of sync with the values and ideas of the Democratic Party on some of the most pressing issues facing us.

Many Democrats believe that effort to oust Lieberman from the Homeland Security chairmanship were dealt a death knell last week, when Barack Obama said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Though Obama said he wouldn't "referee" the question over the chairmanship, Obama's statement had the practical effect of allowing Lieberman's allies to claim Obama's support and giving cover to those who want to do nothing about Lieberman's transgressions.

[Lunar]

I know someone else who voted against Lieberman but I can't say

...  The message of "revenge before national security" isn't going to resonate

Where did you come up with this message?

The news media that doesn't regularly read the DailyKos and today's amazing aneurysm.  I wonder if he's going to attempt to punish the people who supported Lieberman the most in 4-6 years.

[Lunar]

I know someone else who voted against Lieberman but I can't say

Tell us the state this person is from

If I did, it would give it away totally and I could get in trouble.  But it's not someone juicy or anything like Blanche Lincoln would be.

Did Lieberman get to vote for himself?

[Lunar]

I guess Senate Chairman is the job you get if you want absolutely zero accountability. The rest of us are accountable for our actions.

Lieberman would be out of the job in a heartbeat if the MSM and Lieberman/the GOP didn't reframe the entire issue to be about "revenge."

Democrats have removed various senators and congressmen in the past from their chairmanships for endorsing  Wallace and Goldwater, it's a common precedent.  The Democrats just don't want to start off their first fifteen minutes of rule by what will appear to most people as an act of revenge (even though it's not).

Everyone is thinking about this too logically.