by Damozel | And they can have him.
After all is said and done, I am astonished that he expected, or so it seems, that there should be no consequences to the things he said and did to stop people from voting for Obama. But apparently he did expect it---if one is to believe the New York Daily News.
Sen. Joe Lieberman pleaded with Democratic bosses Thursday to keep his job as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee after stumping ceaselessly for GOPer John McCain.
Oh, Joe Lieberman: Really? Because you didn't just insult nominee Barack Obama with the intention of benefiting the Republican contender: you insulted the integrity and good faith of all your colleagues in the entire party and the humble constituents who selected them.
"You don't run around the country campaigning for McCain and saying you're afraid the Democrats will get a 60-seat [filibuster-proof] majority, and then beg to keep your chairmanship," said a senior Democratic source. (NYD)
I can respect someone standing by his principles, even if I don't agree with the principles, but not when he thereafter pleads to be exempt from the consequences. That's not courageous; it's the sign of someone refusing to take responsibility either for his principles or his choices. It reflects arrogance and a sense of entitlement to take a stand on principle---to be a "maverick"---and expect (nay, demand) that there be no consequences.
A Senate Democratic source...tells CNN that one of options Reid gave Lieberman in a private meeting Thursday is Chairman of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee.
But the aide to Lieberman says the Connecticut senator made clear that was “not acceptable” to him, and reminded Reid that he was one of the Senators who wrote the legislation creating the Homeland Security Department, and that’s where he wants to stay....(CNN)
Yes, thanks for that Joe. Really, thanks so much. Now go away.
Apparently Lieberman reminded Reid that he mainly votes with Democrats. As a man of principle, he did so doubtless because he thought that (1) the Dems were right; and (2) doing so represents the interests and concerns of his constituents.
But now he's evidently considering realigning himself with Republicans. (CNN) Oh, Joe---what price your principles now?
Or what price Reid's? Because according to Politico:
A Lieberman aide cautioned that “Sen. Lieberman’s preference is to stay in the caucus, but he’s going to keep all his options open. McConnell has reached out to him, and at this stage, his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable.”
A Republican Senate aide said Friday morning that there was little McConnell could offer in terms of high-ranking committee slots, which is why Lieberman is resisting overtures from the Republican side....Reid is waffling over whether to revoke Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and may instead hold a secret vote among Democratic members on whether to kick Lieberman out of the caucus.
Senate aides from both parties caution that Lieberman’s state is still truly up in the air and Reid could still craft a scenario where Lieberman keeps his chairmanship.
So let me get this straight. Lieberman, who has no bargaining position whatever, is giving the Senate majority leader an ultimatum? And Harry Reid wants to make him chair of the Veteran's Affair's Committee? Because Jane Hamsher has complied a list of reasons why Lieberman isn't a good fit to hold that chair. "[I]t's beyond the pale that Lieberman should have a gavel at all. But particularly in light of his record on veteran's issues," she says. See her list of reasons here.
And the most wondrous part of the story is that Lieberman wants no part of it. Either Reid lets him keep his current chair or he...or he...or he what? What? What is this powerful bargaining chip that he's holding?
Steve Benen says:
Look, Reid is offering Lieberman a very sweet deal. By some counts, much too sweet. Lieberman betrayed the Democratic Party and broke his word to his own Democratic constituents. Reid is nevertheless willing to a) let him stay in the Democratic caucus; b) keep his seniority; and c) give him the chairmanship of something else. That, by any reasonable measure, is ridiculously gracious of Reid. It's certainly more generosity than Lieberman deserves or has earned.
And yet, Lieberman thinks that's "unacceptable."
What possible incentive could Reid and Senate Democrats have to offer Lieberman an even better deal? The message is, or at least should be, surprisingly straightforward: "If you don't like the generous offer, join the minority party." It must drive Lieberman crazy, but the fact remains that Democrats don't really need him. He has no leverage.
According to TPM, Reid really is planning to turn the question over to Lieberman's colleagues by allowing them to vote on his fate in a full caucus meeting.
Evan Bayh (D-IN) is petitioning the public to forgive Lieberman.
Bayh said he disagreed with stripping Lieberman of his chair. “No, I don’t think there should be retribution,” he said. “I think reconciliation is in order, not revenge or retribution.” ...Bayh said Lieberman may have “perhaps crossed the line” in questioning Obama’s patriotism. ...Presented with some of Lieberman’s more notorious comments, Bayh countered, saying Lieberman “votes with the majority of Democrats, a vast majority of the time.” (Think Progress; emphasis added)
Okay, first of all how is "forgiveness" inconsistent with requiring someone to take the consequences of his actions? I don't have any problem forgiving him. He thought he was right---fine. But to let him go on as before is to imply that perhaps he might have been. Given the sort of campaign McCain ran, and that Lieberman tacitly endorsed, no Dem ought to be required to let bygones be bygones. He wanted McCain--and Palin--to win. Why should we have to pretend that he's on our side?
Furthermore, when has Lieberman acknowledged that it was a mistake to campaign for McCain or to say the things he said about Obama? I don't think he has. Apparently, he wants the Dems to treat his betrayal as entirely appropriate and for Dems to go on as if it doesn't, and didn't, matter.....Hands up anyone who believes that he would even be willing to take the step suggested by Bayh of apologizing?
It seems that one of Lieberman's arguments in putting his case to Reid is that he's generally been loyal to the party. He's evidently got an Orwellian definition of loyalty, one which overlooks---in the words of Scott Lemieux---"trivialities as "supporting the Republican candidate," "speaking at the Republican convention in support of said candidate," and "grotesquely smearing the Democratic candidate..." Other than that, perhaps Lieberman's been 100% loyal and reliable. I don't care.
Anyway, other Democrats aren't buying it.
Lemieux points out the obvious--and some would argue, the only--choice.
[L]et Lieberman join the Republican conference with no seniority or chairmanships. I completely understand that broad party coalitions inevitable involve making peace with wankers. People who actively support the other party are a different matter. He has no leverage and won't be a reliable cloture vote in any circumstances. Let him walk.
So here's an action alert:
Top liberal bloggers -- among them John Aravosis, Josh Orton and Steve Benen -- are already mounting a pressure campaign, calling on their readers to contact Senators and get them to pledge to vote against Lieberman keeping his committee slot.
Others are urging readers to sign a petition calling on Reid to give Lieberman the push.
And here, courtesy of Princess Sparkle Pony, are Joe Lieberman Hand Turkeys (Yay!)
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Update on Al Franken and Norm Coleman's Senate Race
Cutting Executive Pay Would Save Jobs
Execs Made Millions While Driving Companies into Ditch
.Are Bailout Funds Being Misused?
Colbert Report: What Part of 'Barack Hussein Obama' Doesn't Scare You?
Al Franken v. Norm Coleman: Recount Continues for Minnesota Senate Race
Just Say: "No Joe": Lieberman Watch
Schaden-Bloggen-Freude: "Circular Firing Squad"
Grace in Victory Goes Only so Far: Impeachment Should go Back on the Table
The anger against Joe Lieberman goes back to 2006. He was not the only Senator who continued to support a forever occupation.
But even then he was unique as a Democrat in going out of his way to taunt those whose support he demanded: http://www.FairAndUnbalanced.com?http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2008/11/07/joltin-joe-may-leave-and-go-away
Posted by: Burr Deming | November 08, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I'm kicking it up a notch.
I asked Harry Reid to step aside as Senate Leader and wrote to his colleagues to make it so.
Posted by: Charles | November 08, 2008 at 01:06 PM
BTW, that's a great link to Princess Sparkle Pony, Damozel!
Posted by: Charles | November 08, 2008 at 01:28 PM
Why does Lieberman want his current chairmanship so badly? Could he finally be getting a hankering for some real oversight? Oversight of an Obama administration of course.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015577.php
Posted by: pluky | November 08, 2008 at 04:44 PM
What Americans told Harry Reid to say to Joe Lieberman....
Lieberman expresses fears of Dem majority in Senate
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday November 4, 2008
Update at bottom: Thursday is Lieberman’s 'day of reckoning'
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) expressed fears to radio host Glenn Beck of a Democratic majority in the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed his optimism on Sunday for a number of Democratic Senate seats reaching near 60, but wasn't as confident about the filibuster-proof supermajority. The story was reported Tuesday by ThinkProgress.
"Senator Hatch said to me that if we don't at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate, that in many ways, America will not survive," said Beck on Tuesday.
"I hope it's not like that, but I fear," the Senator said. "I think the filibuster is key...It was really put there...somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, '[to] stop the passions of a moment' among the people of America from sweeping across the Congress, the House, through the Senate, to a like-minded president and having us do things that will change America for a long time."
Thursday is Lieberman’s 'day of reckoning'
Thursday will be Senator Lieberman's "day of reckoning," according to a Capitol Hill paper.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is scheduled to meet with Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) on Thursday to discuss his future in the Senate Democratic Conference, according to a Democratic Senate source," Tim Taylor reports for Roll Call.
Taylor notes that "a growing number of Senate Democrats have been pressuring Reid to penalize Lieberman for aggressively backing Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in this year’s presidential contest," and that his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and his place in the Democratic Conference are both "at stake."
"It remains unclear what Reid will say in his upcoming meeting with Lieberman, but Democrats believe he is inching toward at least wresting the Homeland Security gavel from him. Lieberman, who sides with Democrats on most issues except the war in Iraq, became one of McCain’s most ardent allies and one of President-elect Obama’s vocal critics this presidential season," the report continues.
Lieberman released a statement on Wednesday congratulating Obama.
"I sincerely congratulate President-elect Obama for his historic and impressive victory. America remains a nation of extraordinary opportunity and the American people are a people of extraordinary fairness," Lieberman wrote. "Now that the election is over, it is time to put partisan considerations aside and come together as a nation to solve the difficult challenges we face and make our blessed land stronger and safer. I pledge to work with President-elect Obama and his incoming administration in their efforts to reinvigorate our economy and keep our nation secure and free."
Read the comments from readers to this site
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/12686/?a=48153
Posted by: FreedomOfInformationAct | November 08, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Why Sen. Joseph Lieberman should be cut lose from the Democratic cacaus.
1. Member and founder of many NEOCON organizations.
Below are some of Sen. Joseph Lieberman's NEOCON affiliations
Committee on the Present Danger: Co-chair http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/OurMembers/tabid/364/Default.aspx
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Distinguished Adviser and Leader http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_fddbios&Itemid=326
American Council of Trustees and Alumni: Cofounder http://www.goacta.org/
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Co-chair http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Liberation_of_Iraq
2. Alignment with Republicans on many matters.
3. Working with the Republican party to undermine democrats.
4. Behavior during the 2008 Presidential election.
He needs go where his heart is and it most certainly is not with the democrats.
Posted by: Marc | November 14, 2008 at 09:15 AM