Lieberman pondering 'options' after Reid meeting

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...id-meeting/#more-29621

It's a BLOG.

From CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett


WASHINGTON (CNN) ? Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Thursday he needs a few days to ponder "the options that I have before me" after a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Lieberman did not explain what those options were when he made brief remarks to reporters, and Reid said afterward that no decisions have been made.


Lieberman, the Democratic Party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, supported Republican Sen. John McCain in Tuesday's presidential election. But after Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's victory over McCain, the Connecticut senator said it was time to unite behind the incoming president.

"I decided in that election that partisanship should take a back seat to doing what I believed was best for our country," he said. "But the election is over, and I completely agree with President-elect Obama that we must now unite to get the economy going again and keep the American people safe."

Lieberman's continued allegiance to the Democratic caucus has given the party a 51-49 majority in the Senate since 2006, and he holds the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But his support of McCain ? and sometimes-harsh criticism of Obama ? angered many of his colleagues.

When Obama returned to the Senate in June after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, he pulled Lieberman into a corner of the Senate chamber for a lengthy and animated one-on-one conversation in full view but out of earshot of reporters.

Lieberman has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, backing the Bush administration at a time when the Democratic leadership in Congress has been trying to force an end to the widely unpopular conflict. He lost his home state's Democratic primary to an anti-war challenger in 2006, only to win a fourth Senate term as an independent.

Reid, D-Nevada, was reluctant to act against Lieberman when his control of the chamber relied on the Connecticut senator's vote. But a top aide to the majority leader told reporters in September, after Lieberman spoke to the Republican National Convention, that the caucus would "reassess the situation"after the election.

With Democrats gaining at least five seats on Tuesday, Reid summoned Lieberman to discuss his future with the caucus. In a statement issued after the meeting, Reid said Thursday's meeting was "the first of what I expect to be several conversations."

"While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus," he said. "I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our
caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."


Reid could move to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or other committee seats. The full Democratic caucus would have to approve any action when it meets again in two weeks.

Lieberman said he had "a very good conversation" with Reid, but disclosed no details and took no questions.

"I want to spend some time in the next few days thinking about what Sen. Reid and I discussed and what my options are at this point," he said. "He promised me that he would do the same, and we will continue these conversations."




Well, it's from a blog by the CNN Congressional Producer and it reports on the actual statements made by the participants

So, even if Lieberman is allowed to caucus with the Dems, I don't see how you can let him chair Homeland Security. I am guessing he might be offered a different sub committee. One where his policies are completely in line with the Dems and not the Repubs.
I am liking that no precipitous action was taken by Reid.

UPDATE:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../lieberman_republicans

WASHINGTON ? Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is talking to Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman about the possibility of Lieberman caucusing with the GOP.

Lieberman's affiliation with Democrats is up in the air. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, angered by Lieberman's support of Republican John McCain for president, is considering yanking Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as punishment.

A Lieberman aide, who requested anonymity because the talks are confidential, said Friday that Lieberman and McConnell, R-Ky., have spoken in recent days about the possibility of Lieberman joining the GOP conference. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart would only confirm that the two men have had recent discussions.


Lieberman in talks about caucusing with Senate GOP
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,785
21
81
he is playing games again, but I think Reid is fed up with Lieberman after the GOP convention speech, I hope he gets a different committee. Homeland Security is too generous for a CT traitor, here in CT everyone want this guy out..
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
If the Dems want to make dramatic changes (healthcare for example) they're going to need every vote they can get. Sounds like nobody's being over-emotional about this which is good.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship would be a fine way to kick off our new bipartisan, inclusive government.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Lieberman went way too far - no matter how one tries to spin it.

He's done. He needs to admit that he's really a republican and take his toys and be on his way.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Lieberman went way too far - no matter how one tries to spin it.

He's done. He needs to admit that he's really a republican and take his toys and be on his way.

He is no republican he is a liberal who believes in the war on terror. I hope that Reid goes after him. That way Joe can get revenge by helping the republican filibuster everything Reid wants passed.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Lieberman went way too far - no matter how one tries to spin it.

He's done. He needs to admit that he's really a republican and take his toys and be on his way.

Time for you to go back to Off Topic.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

-Robert
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,385
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lieberman belongs in the Knesset and not in the Senate, in my opinion.

Ah, nothing like a little Jew-bashing to make this thread complete. It's never far from the surface is it?
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
He's basically a traitor. He deserves to be stripped of all titles for turning his back on the Democratic Party, of which he agrees with on 90+% of the issues.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The dems still need Lieberman to caucus with them, Lieberman has lost the blackmail powers he had in 2007-8 in the last congress, because during the last congress he could flipped control of the Senate to the Repubs. Now Lieberman is almost irrelevant. And will find no real welcome or GOP trust if he caucuses with the GOP.

If Obama is smart, he may offer Lieberman something like Ambassador to Israel, get him to resign his Senate seat, but as it is, Lieberman is politically a dead man walking, who has managed to alienate everyone.

Times change, Lieberman did not.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Lieberman went way too far - no matter how one tries to spin it.

He's done. He needs to admit that he's really a republican and take his toys and be on his way.

Time for you to go back to Off Topic.
And miss your vile crash and burn posts?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: colonel

... here in CT everyone want this guy out..

CT Democrats voted him off the party bus in your primary, but unfortunately, your voters didn't take advantage the opportunity to vote him out of office.

I hope The party dumps him. We're probably not going to have 60 Democratic Senators, with or without him, and his vote is unreliable, anyhow, but we have a real majority, regardless.

Originally posted by: chess9

He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

No Senator has ever been expelled for his political actions. Senate rules for expulsion]:

Expulsion and Censure

Expulsion (see below for Censure cases)

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership. Of that number, fourteen were charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint.

In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion.

Alaska's Sentor Stevens could be expelled for being convicted on seven felony counts.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: chess9
He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

-Robert

I can't believe someone is talking about expelling him from the Senate because of his political party allegiance.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: chess9
He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

-Robert

I can't believe someone is talking about expelling him from the Senate because of his political party allegiance.
I think he should serve out the rest of his life in leavenworth.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: chess9
He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

-Robert

I can't believe someone is talking about expelling him from the Senate because of his political party allegiance.

I'm not in favor of expelling him. Didn't say I was. I like Joe. He's just gotten a little out of line. Maybe a punch in the nose would bring him to his senses? ;)

-Robert
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: colonel

... here in CT everyone want this guy out..

CT Democrats voted him off the party bus in your primary, but unfortunately, your voters didn't take advantage the opportunity to vote him out of office.

I hope The party dumps him. We're probably not going to have 60 Democratic Senators, with or without him, and his vote is unreliable, anyhow, but we have a real majority, regardless.

Originally posted by: chess9

He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

No Senator has ever been expelled for his political actions. Senate rules for expulsion]:

Expulsion and Censure

Expulsion (see below for Censure cases)

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership. Of that number, fourteen were charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint.

In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion.

Alaska's Sentor Stevens could be expelled for being convicted on seven felony counts.

Stevens should be shot from a helicopter. ;)

-Robert

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,579
6,713
126
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lieberman belongs in the Knesset and not in the Senate, in my opinion.

Ah, nothing like a little Jew-bashing to make this thread complete. It's never far from the surface is it?

I don't think so. Almost all of my heroes happen to be Jews, and certainly the person most important in my life.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,621
136
Originally posted by: chess9
He could be expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators may not be impeached, per the Supremes. I doubt the Senate could muster more than 30 votes for expelling him.

-Robert

I'm from CT and I despise Lieberman for being a weasely little hypocrite, but there is abosulutely no basis for the Senate expelling him. The Democratic Party can purge him from the party, stripe him of his chairmanship, etc. Lieberman went way too far during the campaign promoting Palin, etc. when his original claim was he supported McCain because he claimed McCain was the best candidate from both parties.

Obama could solve everyone's problem and make Lieberman an offer he can't refuse-ambassadorship to Israel, and then ignore him. The only drawback would be we have a Republican governor, but it would be worth it to replace a de facto Republican with a real one. Lieberman would love it because 95% of his loyality is to Israel anyway (then 4.9% to the USA and 0.1% to Connecticut, the state he supposedly represents).
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I think he'll be stripped of his chairmanship in any event. Probably no more than that. After that, it's up to him.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Leiberman's clearly shown that he's more in favor of Israel's security interests than those of the US, and that's why he's such a rabid hawk in the senate. Hopefully the dems can completely toss him on his ass in 2010.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
give him the ambassadorship, and if he doesn't want, don't kick him out of the party. strip the chairmanship, sure.