(Sen) Reid: Lieberman could lose chairmanship

[sabra]

Source: The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested to a television interviewer late last week that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In an interview Friday night on MSNBC, host Keith Olbermann asked Reid if there was “anything that he could do that would make you move to take his leadership position away on Homeland Security.” Reid responded: “Yes, of course,” but did not elaborate.

Democratic aides cautioned not to read too closely into Reid's comments, saying stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship remained a very unlikely scenario.

“Senator Lieberman votes with Democrats 85 or 90 percent of them time, except when it comes to Iraq and some national security issues,” Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-lieberman-could-lose-chairmanship-2008-05-12.html

[Ian David]

1. Don't bother buying Harry larger underpants yet. He STILL hasn't grown any balls. n/t

[aquart]

12. Nor will he, until we count Senate heads in November.

[Bake]

38. Exactly. IF we win a solid majority, Holy Joe can then kiss our collective ass.

But not until then. Until then, we just have to tolerate him. Dammit.

Bake

[Hekate]

2. Joe Lieberman has got to be having the time of his life. He has everyone just where he wants them

It kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it? Until this coming election, when gods willing the Democrats will have a better majority in the Senate, Joe Lieberman's vote is absolutely crucial to both sides.

Holy moley, holy Joe.

Hekate

[fshrink]

18. That's because of cases like this

that having principles is difficult.
We have been hammered, at least for the last 6 years, with ideas of "reframing," of political "realism," of "electability" and such, all meaning that doing politics means having no principles, or, at best, lying about them.
Well, without them principles, any politician, regardless of his affiliation is as good as any other, so there's no reason left to vote.
Lieberman should have be kicked out the second he took a republican stance. If he wants to vote dem while being on the reps roster, fine, that's up to him.

[Truth2Tell]

30. Mostly his vote has been "critical" to the Repugs!

This nonsense about "mostly" voting with the Democrats has been debunked repeatedly now. (Not dising you Hekate, but Reid's spokesman)

Number one, the guy has already said he plans to vote for McCain. Number two, he votes with Bush on every issue related to war (Iraq, Iran, terror, you-name-it). But that's not all, here's more from another thread:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Truth2Tell/112

Here are some non-war votes from Lieberman since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006:

Bill to ban the CIA from using waterboarding:

Democrats -- 45-1

Republicans - 5-46

Lieberman- NAY

Cloture vote on bill to restore habeas corpus (which Lieberman voted to abolish in 2006):

Democrats - 50-0

Republicans - 5-42

Lieberman - NAY

Vote to strip retroactive amnesty for telecoms out of the FISA bill (h/t Matt Browner-Hamlin):

Democrats -- 31-16

Republicans - 0-48

Lieberman - NAY

Vote to specify that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the President can spy on telephone and email communications:

Democrats -- 49-1

Republicans - 9-40

Lieberman - NAY

Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

Democrats -- 6-40

Republicans - 47-0

Lieberman - YEA

Cloture vote to proceed to consideration of No-Confidence Resolution for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:

Democrats -- 47-0

Republicans - 6-37

Lieberman - NAY

[MercutioATC]

3. He should have been booted from those committees when he ran against Lamont.

Yes, I know. We have a slim majority and we don't want to piss him off...

The guy is friggin' campaigning for the Republican nominee for President, fer chrissakes!

Lieberman's time has come...and it's long overdue. Treat him like the pariah he is.

[Beregond2]

4. This is like

that thread asking if there is anything Obama could do that would cause one to stop supporting him. What possible answer to a question like that is there but "Yes, of course."

[pattmarty]

5. Good.

[nashville_brook]

6. "Yes, of course." But no, Reid won't actually do it.

[Waya]

7. I dunno why this maggot......

......doesn't just to Republican and get it over with - if he was any further up their ass he would come out their throat if they burped. The way he weasels up to McCain just makes one barf.

[saigon68]

33. He gives Maggots a bad name

His licking of McLames Privates is disgusting

[Tempest]

8. Could? He SHOULD!

He should have lost all his chairs after the 2006 election.

But Reid is such a spineless coward, nothing will be done.

[BrklynLib at work]

21. My exact thought!

[TheWraith]

23. So you'd prefer Republican control of the Senate?

Seriously, that's the alternative. It's also the reason Reid is being nice to Lieberman. If Joementum switches to caucusing with the Republicans, they gain control of the Senate for the next nine months. Whatever else you can say about him, Lieberman hasn't done that despite whatever the Republicans could offer him, making him at least marginally loyal to the party.

[Tempest]

29. What difference would it make?

The House is in Democrat's hands and that's where the majority of the bills come from.

It's not like the Repugs in the Senate have all but prevented any action from taking place now.

Personally, I don't see any change if the Senate was split 50-50. And Lieberman would continue to vote the way he always has.

[klyon]

41. fortunately the rethugs passed a law after Jeffers split in '93(?)

that the party in control doesn't lose control if a member switches party affiliation
So strip the bastard, he will be on the McCain ticket soon enough.

[LiberalFighter]

9. We all have to wait until the Senate has more Democratict seats

When that time comes then it is appropriate to challenge Reid and other Senate leaders about Lieberman keeping his chair seat.

Until it happens it is a waste of time to pursue it.

[NJSecularist]

10. I do not like Lieberman at all, but I think people are diminishing his importantance.

He is not a hardcore conservative. His vote has value, especially in the razor thin majority we have.

For example, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Flag Descration Amendment. Conservatives do not vote against those bills. Undeniably he is a hawk, but he stills votes with the liberal side of the Senate occasionally.

[lonestarnot]

11. and his "importantance" is about to imported? or deported?

[NJSecularist]

13. Yes, he should be demoted in January 2009 when we get a larger majority.

But right now his vote has some value, and he occasionally votes with our side.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Less and less though - I really think he's lost his mind

And I have to say that people I've heard from who've always liked him (I'm not one of them, for sure!) are starting to agree.

[Usrename]

40. It's cool that we will be able to burn flags in the concentration camps.

:eyes:

[lanlady]

14. we need a Lieber-proof majority in the Senate

Then we can punish this turncoat.

[Phred42]

15. THE REID SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

Reid is a phucking coward.

He & Pelosi have been the Silent partners of the Reich. They BOTH need to go, ASAP

[ToughLuck]

16. Phred42, my thoughts exactly on this. The sooner Pelosi and Reid are removed, the better

for our country, not just our party.

[Phred42]

17. agree - although I'm an Independant

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. He ENDORSED McCain.

not that I care. Anyone is entitled to vote and endorse as they choose. But when a high ranking D stabs his party establishment in the back, and switches sides, he is entitled to no favors, respect, etc.

Just watching him wax poetic over Mr. McCain this mourning was pretty revealing and reviling.

[tblue37]

24. HE will undoubtedly give the Zell Miller speech this year at

the Republican National COnvention. In fact, he is probably getting all excited just thinking about it.

[IronLionZion]

20. We need to elect more Dem Senators so we can make Lieberman less powerful.

The only reason Lieberman is chairman is because of the 49-49-2 split with the 2 indies caucusing with the Dems. Raise that majority and lower LIEberman's relevance. Then strip him of his chairmanships. Then in 4 years the great state of Connecticut can elect someone better.

[tblue37]

22. If the Dem majority gets large enough in November, Lieberman loses his chairmanship.

Those are the precise conditions that would cause him to be stripped of his position, because then we would not need him to caucus with the Dems in order to maintain control of the Senate.

[crimsonblue]

25. He won't lose his post until the Dems havea bigger majority...

then they will simply tell him to get the fuck out and join the Repug party like he is dying to (does anybody have doubts he would switch to the repugs after Obama is president?).

[Jim Lane]

26. Lieberman is a conservative Democrat but would be a very liberal Republican

You ask, "does anybody have doubts he would switch to the repugs after Obama is president?" He wouldn't be a very good fit over there, despite his endorsement of their presidential candidate.

The website electoral-vote.com compiled rankings of all the Senators as to their liberalism and conservatism. The ranking was done by averaging the ratings issued by various organizations for votes in 2007. Here are links to the resulting charts:


based on ratings by:
ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
ADA - Americans for Democratic Action
CDF - Children's Defense Fund
LCV - League of Conservation Voters
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
SEIU - Service Employees International Union


based on ratings by:
ACU - American Conservative Union
ATR - Americans for Tax Reform
CWA - Concern Women for America
Club4 - Club for Growth
Eagle - Eagle Forum
FRC - Family Research Council
RTL - Right to Life
TVC - Traditional Values Coalition

In sum, Lieberman is more liberal and less conservative than any sitting Republican Senator. He scores as more liberal than six Democrats (including Dodd and Biden), even after he takes it on the chin with a 27% from the ACLU (the lowest ACLU rating of any Democrat). Lieberman's average rating by the liberal groups is 78%; the best score among Republicans is the 75% by Olympia Snowe. The Senate's least liberal Democrat, by this measure, is Tim Johnson at 56%.

The conservatives rate Lieberman at 13%. Their top-ranked Democrat, Ben Nelson (Nebraska), gets 56%. On this scale the divide between the parties, except for Nelson, is perfect. The least conservative Republican is Snowe, at 39%, putting her just ahead of the most conservative remaining Democrat, Mary Landrieu, at 36%.

In sum, we don't have a mainstream Republican who somehow has gotten a committee chairship in a Democratic-controlled Senate. The reality is more complicated. (I write, by the way, as someone who traveled to Connecticut to volunteer for Lamont on Primary Day in 2006.) It's true that Lieberman won re-election by defeating the Democratic candidate, but of course he also defeated the Republican candidate. Furthermore, as other DUers have pointed out, if Reid hadn't cut the deal he did, the committee chairship would probably have gone to Lieberman anyway, with the difference being that all the other chairships would've gone to Republicans. An attempt to oust Lieberman would've meant ousting Leahy from Judiciary, Biden from Foreign Affairs, Boxer from Environment and Public Works (and Inhofe back in, arrrgh!), etc.

From the ratings you can see why the Freepers are so vehement in denouncing Snowe as a RINO. Would you want her as a Democrat? She's rated less liberal and more conservative than Lieberman. If we traded Lieberman for her, blood pressures might rise here and on Free Republic.

As an aside, I noted above that the liberal groups rated Dodd below Lieberman. Interestingly, so do the conservatives. In fact, the conservatives have Dodd at the very bottom of their list, rating 3%. He narrowly edges out Sheldon Whitehouse as the least conservative Senator.

[crimsonblue]

28. fuck lieberman..

yeah he may have democratic tendencies, but he chairs a committee in an area he is EXTREMELY hawkish and conservative in. Not to mention that he is a whiny baby that could not get over losing in his state's primary, so he ran as an independent, created a fake controversy by attacking his own website, blaming it on Lamont, and then not disclosing to the public nor Lamont that his own campaign has shut down his site. Fuck Lieberman, and fuck anybody that supports him. He can go straight to the Zell Miller hall of shame for all I care.

[eringer]

27. Hey Harry....Dump Loserman Now!!!

[JerseygirlCT]

31. I'm sorry, but I don't know the answer:

can the balance of power switch during this year if Joementum gets a dose of honesty and actually admits he's a neocon Republican?

If we stay in power regardless, then full speed ahead. Strip him and leave him naked on the curb. Just warn the general populace, because that would be a very scary picture, indeed.

[samsingh]

34. he should go to prison

[JCMach1]

35. Holding the Senate with this toad has helped the party how?

[sofa king]

36. Maybe not the party, but it sure as hell has helped America.

A short list: a smaller, less shitty budget; fewer assaults on our civil rights; far less independent movement for the worst President ever; far more Congressional oversight.

Lieberman is toast if the Republicans can't figure out how to steal this election. The stars are so aligned against the GOP that if I were them I'd be frightened. The GOP has to defend 23 seats this year (five of them open thanks to retiring Republican Senators), while only a dozen or so Democrats are up for reelection.

If we can pick up just one Republican seat and win the White House, Lieberman can go all the way over to the GOP and we can afford to ignore him thanks to the Vice President's tie-breaking vote.

If, on the other hand, we pick up nine seats, then Lieberman becomes important again, because if we can keep him on our side we'll have a supermajority in the Senate and be able to prevent most Republican delaying tactics by invoking cloture. Reid knows this and that's why he's playing nice right now.

So if there are one to nine pickups in the Senate, Lieberman's chair goes into the same latrine that his credibility did back in '06. We should be getting the good news around Christmas.

[dreamnightwind]

37. excellent post

A supermajority in the Senate would mean a lot.

Also, I've been surprised by how many in this thread seem to miss the importance of committee chairmanships.

this was buried near the end of another excellent post in this thread (#26):
"if Reid hadn't cut the deal he did, the committee chairship would probably have gone to Lieberman anyway, with the difference being that all the other chairships would've gone to Republicans. An attempt to oust Lieberman would've meant ousting Leahy from Judiciary, Biden from Foreign Affairs, Boxer from Environment and Public Works (and Inhofe back in, arrrgh!), etc."

That's a big deal, seriously.

Everytime I see Lieberman's swarmy face on the tube, I wanna scream. Still, we need to play nice with him until the new Senate is seated.

[Vidar]

39. The slimeball's pimping for McCain. Buy a vowel, Harry!