What To Do About Joe the Senator?

[jerseyhoya34]

One of the interesting stories to emerge on the back pages after this historic election has been the jockeying between Joe Lieberman, who was on the wrong side of history for the second time in the 3 most recent Presidential cycles, and the Senate Majority Leader. All told, Lieberman sided with Senator McCain with the thinly veiled hope of getting a plum Cabinet position, and all he got in return was the opportunity to give what was a fairly unremarkable convention speech and to represent the people of Connecticut whose will he ignored in the name of returning to the Senate in 2006.

I would normally err on the side of welcoming him back for the purpose of unity, but I think the need for reliability and loyalty to the cause of change is more important.

[CTHoya08]

I'm curious; how did Mr. Lieberman ignore the will of the people of Connecticut? He lost in the Democratic primary, but he won the general election pretty easily. If the people of Connecticut really believed that he was ignoring our will, we would have elected Mr. Lamont instead. He may have ignored the will of the Democratic primary voters, but he was still reelected. It's not like he just got to decide to stay in the Senate without having to be elected.

www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/Senate.html

[TC]

Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats on the campaign trail while running as an independent - I don't know if that's ignoring the will of Connecticut, but it's ignoring a campaign promise.

I hope they find some compromise and move on, it's in everyone's best interest and in the interest of Lieberman's legacy.

[hoyainspirit]

I found the entire situation really strange. While I understand his desire to support his longtime friend and Senate colleague, after running as the Dem V.P. nominee, I found his biting criticism of Obama over the top. Perhaps a better strategy would have been for him to press McCain's positives rather than adopt such an attack dog role. Actions have consequences. I have no problem with him losing his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.

[The Stig]

It all depends on how many seats the Dems end up with. If the Dems win all three undecided races (unlikely), that'll give them 58 seats on their own. Add in Sanders and you get 59, meaning Lieberman would be the deciding vote on a filibuster.

So if the Dems win all the undecided races, I expect them to play very nice with Lieberman, since they may need his vote. If the GOP wins at least one of those races, then the Dems will be willing to punish Lieberman for attacking Obama.

[EasyEd]

I thought this was a new era of bipartisanship.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 8, 2008 11:45:01 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I thought this was a new era of bipartisanship.

My feelings would be quite different if I could trust Lieberman to work with the Democrats on a selfless basis, but his actions of the last several years and approach to the key issues of the day align more with the approach that Americans voted to change on Tuesday.

Obama did not actively oppose Lieberman's gamesmanship in 2006, and his support was welcomed wholeheartedly by Lieberman who, at the time, had kind words for then-Senator Obama. To have such an about-face in between election cycles does not inspire confidence that Lieberman would be a loyal participant in a working coalition for change. His recent performance confirms the issue. No sooner did his meeting with Reid end that he scurried to meet with Mitch McConnell to sweeten the pie for himself.

This is not an issue of bipartisanship. Lieberman elected to be a member of a caucus that may now seek to remove him.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 8, 2008 11:06:43 GMT -5 The Stig said:

It all depends on how many seats the Dems end up with. If the Dems win all three undecided races (unlikely), that'll give them 58 seats on their own. Add in Sanders and you get 59, meaning Lieberman would be the deciding vote on a filibuster.

So if the Dems win all the undecided races, I expect them to play very nice with Lieberman, since they may need his vote. If the GOP wins at least one of those races, then the Dems will be willing to punish Lieberman for attacking Obama.

I agree with your math, but Lieberman cannot afford politically to filibuster (or not vote for cloture) the Obama agenda. He seems to be familiar with pollsters and trust that he has this much figured out.

[EasyEd]

It's so refreshing to see someone rise above party labels to support a presidential candidate from another party. It shows character, courage and patriotism. It's putting country first regardless of the consequences.

Oh, you mean we're not talking about Colin Powell?

[TC]

Ed, that's the worst analogy I've ever seen. I think Reid needs to find a bury-the-hatchet solution with Lieberman, but the suggestion that Lieberman is putting the country first rather than Joe Lieberman first is just laughable. He campaigned as an independent because his party - one that honored him as a VP candidate - voted him out in the primary. He campaigned for McCain to try to get a choice appointment. And now he's making threats to keep himself a committee chairmanship.

If Powell gets a cabinet position maybe there's a comparison here, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.

[strummer8526]

Are there any open government positions in Israel? Maybe that's an option.

[Z]

easyed, when lieberman was in trouble, he called in barack to campaign with him in CT. not only did he endorse mccain but he broke his word by affirmatively attacking obama - that is where the real hard feelings of the demns have entered the picture.

[DanMcQ]

Ed, Lieberman is not falling into lockstep with Democrats for Change™ - ergo, he must be repudiated as a turncoat who is against the will of the people.

It's really rather simple.

[TBird41]

Nov 8, 2008 19:47:23 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It's so refreshing to see someone rise above party labels to support a presidential candidate from another party. It shows character, courage and patriotism. It's putting country first regardless of the consequences.

Oh, you mean we're not talking about Colin Powell?

I know it's completely off topic, but no one's mentioned it so far and this reminded me. Obama's big Republican endorsement came from the same man who testified for Ted Stevens at his trial.

Just thought it was worth mentioning.

[TC]

Nov 8, 2008 23:54:32 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Ed, Lieberman is not falling into lockstep with Democrats for Change™ - ergo, he must be repudiated as a turncoat who is against the will of the people.

It's really rather simple.

Which part of "if you give me my committee chair I stay, if not I go caucus with the other guys" is principled, Dan? How do you ask Obama to campaign for you and then campaign against him in the next cycle?

Lieberman is a mercenary. If you guys object to the word to turncoat, fine, but his loyalties are to the highest bidder and they don't reflect what he promised on the campaign trail.

[SirSaxa]

Nov 8, 2008 23:54:32 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Ed, Lieberman is not falling into lockstep with Democrats for Change™ - ergo, he must be repudiated as a turncoat who is against the will of the people.

It's really rather simple.

Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic party. He is an independent.
If he wants to support a Republican, that is up to him.
But trashing the Dem's candidate and platform in the process and expecting to continue to receive the benefits of a key committee chairmanship from the Dems? Lieberman knew he was risking that privilege when he was throwing Obama under the bus. He made his choice. Facing the consequences is American politics at its most basic.

[EasyEd]

Isn't it possible that Leiberman backed McCain because he considered him to be the better of the two candidates? Isn't it possible he criticized Obama because he thought he lacked the experience necessary to be President, just like Hillary and Biden did? Isn't it possible Leiberman did not conveniently change his mind on Obama like Hillary and Biden did? Isn't it possible the Democrats allowed an independent to serve a committee chairman because they needed his vote to assume Senate leadership? Isn't it possible the Democrats might be willing to remove the independent from committee chairmanship because they no longer need his vote for control of the Senate?

[TC]

The problem isn't Lieberman backing McCain at all, it's the way in which he did it. If he had spoken only positives about McCain in his convention speech and on the trail, people would have been disappointed but looked the other way. The attacks on Obama are what's an issue here.

[The Stig]

Nov 9, 2008 11:39:05 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Isn't it possible the Democrats might be willing to remove the independent from committee chairmanship because they no longer need his vote for control of the Senate?

I'd say that's probably true. Lieberman keeping his committee chairmanship despite not being a member of the majority party was an anomaly. He only kept it because of exceptional circumstances. Now that those exceptional circumstances are gone, he'll lose his chairmanship.

Lieberman isn't a Democrat. He should have lost his chairmanship in 2006, when the Dems took over. He just got lucky because the Dems still needed his vote, so they had a temporary marriage of convenience.

[jerseyhoya34]

Obama has apparently sent word through Capitol Hill channels that he would like Lieberman to caucus with the Dems. It is unclear whether this is an effort for Lieberman to stay as Chair of Homeland Security, but it does reflect the new politics that many Republicans, I think, hope to see.