Lieberman pondering 'options' after Reid meeting

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

Yeah, fuck principles.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

Yeah, fuck principles.

OMG. Then the Dems would be like.......Republicans.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

Yeah, fuck principles.

OMG. Then the Dems would be like.......Bush.

fixed

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

Yeah, fuck principles.

OMG. Then the Dems would be like.......Bush.

fixed

Lest we forget gingrich's strategy which was to screw clinton to the wall for screwing around while he himself was screwing around. Last I heard, he's a republican - one of the greatest republicans after reagan.

 

[CaptnKirk]

He won his seat last time by running as a Democrat, then after being beat in the Primary switched from Democrat to Independent for a run-off.

He pissed off a lot of his constituents, but the were not so angered that they were interested in totally crushing him.

Now should he again switch to, or even caucus with the GOP, that may trigger a response by the voters to seek a recall,
but most likely he will be left to serve out the rest of his remaining term, and probably retire upon completion of the term.
I cannot imagine that the voting public from his districts will allow him to represent them after he has twice betrayed them.

Should he be so arrogant that he tries to run again in that part of the country as either an Independent or a Republican,
all I see in his political future is a crushing defeat . . . if he doesn't in fact face a recall attempt.


In hind sight, there also may have been enough baggage with him that he actually may have cost Gore more than we really know.


*NOTE TO nobodyknows: I was updating and correcting as you replied.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The main issue is not that Lieberman campaigned for McCain, but rather that he campaigned against Obama, purposefully mischaracterizing his position on Israel in order to inflame Jewish-American suspicions. If he had limited himself to simply serving as a character witness for John McCain, he'd be fine now. Its ironic that exit polls show Obama got 78% of the jewish vote anyway

* * *

A close friend of mine, who is the quintessential New York City Jew (I mean that purely in a descriptive way) told me she was at a Jewish function this fall where they were showing a documentary and Lieberman came on the screen. The audience began hissing at him. Also, they had a proxy debate at a synagoge near Hartford. The man who was arguing McCain's positions positively mentioned Lieberman and was roundly booed.

I think Lieberman's stock has gone way, way down with his natural base. The CT GOP loves him but they are becoming an orphan party, all moderates so the nationals hate them. CT Secretary of State reports that of all the new voter regristrations in 2008, 48% were independent, 40% Democrat and 11% GOP. If the Dem Party here could field a decent candidate for governor (they have fielded total losers for the last decade) the GOP would effectively cease to exist except at the local level.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
He won his seat last time by running as a Democrat, then after being elected switched from Democrat to Independent.

He pissed off a lot of his constituents, but the were not so angered that they were interested in recalling him.

Now should he again switch to, or even caucus with the GOP, that may trigger a response by the voters to seek a recall,
but most likely he will be left to serve out the rest of his remaining term, and probably retire upon completion of the term.
I cannot imagine that the voting public from his districts will allow him to represent them after he has twice betrayed them.

Should he be so arrogant that he tries to run again in that part of the country as either an Independent or a Republican,
all I see in his political future is a crushing defeat . . . if he doesn't in fact face a recall attempt.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election, but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman is now officially listed in Senate records for the 110th Congress as an "Independent Democrat"

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The Democrats as a party are better off knowing where they stand with Lieberman, rather than constantly looking over our shoulder to see whether he will support them or undermine them. Put him in the GOP and let them deal with him. The Dems. know they are not going to achieve 60 seats anyway, which means they are going to have to reach across the aisle to Collins, Snowe and Specter regardless. Removing Lieberman from around their necks doesn't change that dynamic one iota.

They need all the votes they can get, so throw one of them overboard?

That is contradictory.

Yeah, fuck principles.

OMG. Then the Dems would be like.......Bush.

fixed

Lest we forget gingrich's strategy which was to screw clinton to the wall for screwing around while he himself was screwing around. Last I heard, he's a republican - one of the greatest republicans after reagan.

LOL, your pathetic.

http://www.courant.com/news/po...tnov08,0,1521405.story

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd said Friday that President-elect Obama would not want one of his party's first major post-election issues to be a messy fight over Joseph Lieberman's status as a Democrat.

Lieberman's political future is uncertain because some Democrats want to punish him for supporting Republican John McCain in the race against Obama. But Lieberman and Obama have been Democratic colleagues in the U.S. Senate for four years, Dodd noted, and Obama generally resists confrontations if a compromise can be reached.

"What does Barack Obama want?" Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday in Hartford. "He's talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."

 

[Thump553]

Ironically Lieberman let the registration for the "Connecticut for Lieberman" lapse, and it is now held by enemies of his. If he runs again I would lay great odds that there will be a line on the ballot for the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party, but it will be endorsing the Democratic candidate. All they will have to do is get the requisite number of signatures on petitions.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd said Friday that President-elect Obama would not want one of his party's first major post-election issues to be a messy fight over Joseph Lieberman's status as a Democrat.

It's not going to be a major issue. It's simply someone who got out line being slapped around a bit. He'll lose any perceived prestige and will probably remain in the caucus. But he'll probably spend most of his time hangin' with his bud mccain. It's his choice and his right.

He gambled with mccain and lost. I don't understand why you're defending him - unless you're really not - unless you're really just trying get some pokes in.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only messy part of what's in store for Lieberman might be his reaction to it. He'll undoubtedly be stripped of his chairmanship, probably offered some lesser post. If that's not good enough, should he refuse- oh, well, then- he'll get nothing beyond his choice of caucus and whatever comes with that. He gets to start over.

The enlarged Dem majority in the Senate will roll on, with him or without him. That's currently 55, and could go as high as 58, not counting Lieberman or Sanders. They'll reach out to him and moderate repubs regularly to avoid gridlock and filibuster, but other than that, he'll be shuffled way down in the deck. Rightfully so.

Sorry, Joe. You screwed up, bigtime, and there's a price for that.

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The only messy part of what's in store for Lieberman might be his reaction to it. He'll undoubtedly be stripped of his chairmanship, probably offered some lesser post. If that's not good enough, should he refuse- oh, well, then- he'll get nothing beyond his choice of caucus and whatever comes with that. He gets to start over.

The enlarged Dem majority in the Senate will roll on, with him or without him. That's currently 55, and could go as high as 58, not counting Lieberman or Sanders. They'll reach out to him and moderate repubs regularly to avoid gridlock and filibuster, but other than that, he'll be shuffled way down in the deck. Rightfully so.

Sorry, Joe. You screwed up, bigtime, and there's a price for that.

Apparently not TOO BIG of a price. :lips:

Lieberman get to keep his Homeland Security Senate Chair

WASHINGTON ? Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.

The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.

Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel. He loses an Environment and Public Works panel subcommittee chairmanship, however.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."

Added Reid: "Is this a time when we walk out of here and say, 'Boy, did we get even?'" said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Lieberman's grasp on his chairmanship has gotten stronger since President-elect Barack Obama signaled to Democratic leaders that he's not interested in punishing Lieberman for boosting McCain and criticizing Obama during the long campaign.

"This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," Lieberman said after the vote.

Anger toward Lieberman seems to have softened since Election Day, and Democrats didn't want to drive him from the Democratic caucus by taking away his chairmanship and send the wrong signals as Obama takes office on a pledge to unite the country. Lieberman had indicated it would be unacceptable for him to lose his chairmanship.

Lieberman, who was Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's running mate in 2000, was re-elected in 2006 as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary. He remains a registered Democrat and aligns with the party inside the Senate.

"It's time to unite our country," said Lieberman supporter Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

On the other side were senators who feel that one requirement to be installed in a leadership position is party loyalty.

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement Friday. "Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.'"

 

[Thump553]

One of the main reasons the Dems didn't strip Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship was his threat to jump to the GOP. That would have made the GOP the majority party in the Senate for the balance of this lame duck Congress. All the chairs and control would have switched to the GOP (for the balance of this session). Can you imagine the havoc a lame duck GOP controlled Senate and White House could have done?

It's worth it, I suppose, to put up with Elmer Fudd for another four years.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Thump553
One of the main reasons the Dems didn't strip Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship was his threat to jump to the GOP. That would have made the GOP the majority party in the Senate for the balance of this lame duck Congress. All the chairs and control would have switched to the GOP (for the balance of this session). Can you imagine the havoc a lame duck GOP controlled Senate and White House could have done?

It's worth it, I suppose, to put up with Elmer Fudd for another four years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree with thump553 on the much of the Lieberman reasoning, but I do not think Senate control can switch to the GOP for the duration of the lame duck session.

After all, Obama resigned his seat effective Sunday , Biden will very soon, that already puts the Dems minus two when their lead is only one. And if the GOP tried to pull that, I am sure Cheney would reappear to cast the deciding vote. Mean while a democratic House could grid lock anything the GOP could do if it came to that.

Its the wrong signal for the GOP to send right now. Not when three Senate races hang in the balance, I think the GOP is basically resigned to losing in Alaska,
Minnesota is going to be court cases and rising public anger, and with the Chambliss Martin runoff looming Dec 2, which will be partly the first Obama era public referendum, the last thing the GOP needs is to have the GOP making monkey business in the Senate.

As for Lieberman, he only only gets to wear maxi clout panties if the dems pull off
the trifecta, and seat democratic Senators in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia. If nothing else, Georgia is most likely to be the stopper, and even then, the Lieberman clout and ever present threat to turn rouge republican will not materialize until the Biden and Obama seats are filled. Then the other final shape of the Senate joker will be how many more Senators resign to take Obama cabinet positions.

The way to get rid of Lieberman may be to give him an offer he can't refuse, something like Ambassador to Israel early on. Lieberman and everyone else knows, after 2012, he has no political future anyway. Its the Peter Principle way.

 

[Bitek]

Fucking gay, they should have booted Lieberdouche. Really should have booted him in 2000 (never let be VP.)

That rat has more than 9 lives.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm sure rank and file Dems are as disappointed as I am. It's hard to tell what went on behind the scenes, and I suppose bipartisanship starts close to home. I hope he had to suck a mile of dick to keep his chairmanship, however, with many more miles yet to come...

He deserves it all, and more.

Dems could have done what repubs did wrt Stevens- postpone, offer him some hope, give him the axe the last day of this lame duck session...

Oh, well. Win a few, lose a few. Lieberman is small potatoes in the greater scheme of things, and it's time for more important stuff...

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with the Jhhnn conclusion, as Liberman, in all his future committee chairmanships will face nothing but unpopularity. Maybe it goes with the territory being a dem chairman dealing with unhappy GOP members, but when his subordinate democratic also tend to undermine him, its sucks all the joy out of being committee chairman.

One of those be careful of what you wish for, while Fieberman faces four remaining years of friendless contempt.

 

[Thump553]

What worries me the most is the next election (2012). The CT GOP doesn't have anyone to run against Lieberman (except perhaps the governor) and they wouldn't run a candidate against him anyway-they love him (before the 2006 Dem primary fight there was serious talk of the CT GOP cross-endorsing Lieberman).

The Dems don't have anyone with sufficient stature to run against him, except perhaps our Attorney General, and he won't because (1) he is Lieberman's prodigy and (2) he will never run in any election he has the slightest chance of losing.

It is not inconceivable (by a long shot) that Lieberman runs again and is relected, despite being depised by the vast majority of CT Dems.