Byrd and Rockefeller: if this is a Lieberman trial balloon please shoot it down

contact Senate offices today (0.00 / 0)

The vote is slated to happen today. (I'm not sure about the time.) Call today and let Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller know you care about this issue.

For handy reference: how to contact the W.Va. delegation.

Due to limited amount of time, calling the D.C. office directly is probably best bet for today.

Be sure to leave a comment if you get any kind of response.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:08:12 AM CST

Clem, it looks like we had the same idea at about the same time (4.00 / 1)

---

by: PDAWV @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:32:32 AM CST

remember what the godfather said about keeping your enemies close (4.00 / 1)

Keep Lieberman in the fold and you control his power. Make a political martyr out of him and you only increase his power and popularity.  

---

by: twilight campfighter @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:08:59 AM CST

twilight campfire (4.00 / 2)

Yeah, but think of the damage he could do continuing as chairman of Homeland Security. Keep him in the caucus, yes. I don't think anyone is saying kick him out or not let him keep a subcommittee. But he's been ineffective as chair of Homeland Security and he'll be on Faux criticizing Obama and Democrats on national security and how much do you want to bet he'll suddenly see the need for oversight hearings that he didn't conduct in the past two years? Why should he be rewarded with chairman ship of an important post? Elections have consequences.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

twilight campfigher (4.00 / 2)

I'm sorry, but this sounds like such beltway thinking.

Lieberman has no power base or popularity outside of The Village. If he made good on his threat to leave the Dem. caucus he would quickly become irrelevant with the Republicans and would seal his fate to lose re-election.

The only power that matters for Lieberman is subpoena power and the staff positions that come as a committee chairman. He can't get those anywhere else. He's not going to bolt the caucus... even if he does, so what?

Sorry if I'm over-reacting to your statement, but I'm so tired of the "keep the powder dry" mentality that it reminds me of. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to enforce consequences for bad actions.

I agree that enemies should be kept close--if they actually have any power to do harm. Lieberman is a powerless bully once we all stand up to him.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Reinforces the meme (4.00 / 2)

Reinforces the meme of spineless Dems. Whenever they get the chance, they capitulate time after time in the Senate to the Republicans, including Lieberman. To pretend he is anything other than a Republican tool is to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Key (4.00 / 3)

Aside from the pleasure of pushing Sanctimonious Joe to the side, there is a practical consideration to removing him from the HS Chair position.  If he starts "acting up" as Sirota noted above, the Dems cannot simply remove him from the position.  Removal is a full Senate affair, and is subject to filibuster.  Which means the repuglicans can poke sharp sticks into Dem eyes just for the fun of it.  Their favorite sport.

I've written and called our senators several times.  May do it again now. But it does appear that the fix is in.  Glenn Greenwald expresses it best:

"Numerous sources -- including this one and this one -- are now reporting that the Senate Democratic caucus has reached a deal with Joe Lieberman, and he will retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. The deal will be ratified in a vote tomorrow morning (and will entail his losing a totally meaningless subcommittee chair).
.
Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome. This is who they are and what they do. The silver lining is that it will once again remind people, still euphoric over the election results, of this reality.
.
And as the anger pours forth from people who raise money for Democrats and expended huge amounts of time and effort to elect Barack Obama, the more vindicated Senate Democrats will feel in what they just did. That's how they look centrist and bipartisan -- by infuriating their supporters, the perceived "Left." They don't believe in Sister Souljah moments; they believe in Sister Souljahism as an operating principle, a way of life. "
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

Sad.  

---

by: wvng @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM CST

So who is smarter? (4.00 / 2)

Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President-elect Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying. The resolution did have in it a rebuke of statements that Lieberman made against Obama. Joe reiterated this at the presser. So, Barack Hussein Obama is not Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was not out for hot revenge like I was. So who is smarter?

Senator Obama (D-Ill.) backing Senator Lieberman (Part of One-Conn.) up against the wall (still in the handshake or was it that hand on the shoulder, and speeking so that the CSPAN2 cameras did not make lip reading a possibility) and had a hombre a hombre conversation. So who is smarter?

Remember Senator Lieberman, you who took himself too seriously, that polls now show you are about as popular as a skunk at a summer wedding in Connecticut. How is Rabbi Ethan Tucker doing? Did you visit his temple over the High Holy Days? 2012 will come sooner than you think. End your career on a high note. Hadassah will thank you now that her Best Friend Laura is moving back to Texas. Your wife is a lobbyist for the drug companies. They are not very  popular right now either. So who is smarter?

Just in case I am wrong, where is Tanya Harding's old boyfriend?

But not me personally were those cheers for (1-6-7-5-2-8-3-4)--Sarah Palin

You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you--Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:35:50 PM CST

real anger (4.00 / 2)

I don't think Sen. Byrd and Sen. Rockefeller have any idea how much anger there is out here about "business as usual" in Washington, DC.

We want the new administration and the new Congress to hold those responsible for the failures of the past 8 years accountable. A slap on the wrist to Lieberman fails that test.

This is not the change so many of us have been working so hard to bring to Washington.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:07:28 PM CST

I feel your anger brother... (4.00 / 2)

Hey Clem I know what you are saying and I find all the rehashing of Sen JL's faults, misdeeds, malfeasance, lying, cowardous, sneaky behavior just as repulsive as you do I'm sure but if we have the upper hand on him he may not be so terrible.  If so then he can be replaced in a NY minute, calm down and don't be angry just be happy that Sen. L won't have free reign.

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:36:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

JBdem4usa (4.00 / 2)

But that's not how they work. the next time he pisses in their Cheerios, they'll fume and then just say, well that's just Joe. They're not going to be able to replace him when he does something awful like launch investigations into Obama on false pretenses because then they'll be "playing politics" and "shutting down a search for the truth."

They're idiots and sadly they don't even know they're idiots.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:49:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wish it were so... (4.00 / 2)

That's the problem.

Once he's appointed he can't be replaced without agreement by the Republicans, too (unless Reid somehow gets it set otherwise with the Republicans at the beginning of the term).

Where is the "upper hand" with Lieberman once he has his committee chair? In what way won't he have free reign? Senate committee chairs have a budget, have full time staff, and have enormous latitude in what they can do... esp. the one that he runs with subpoena power of the administration.

The moment of accountability just passed.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:56:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see your point (0.00 / 0)

Obama must have something else on Joe or he's planning something else for later that we aren't aware of, that's the best I can do...you win the argument but what if the answer isn't so obvious.

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 23:59:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Senate Democrats sent yet another big "Fuck you!" to the people who elected them" (4.00 / 3)

To those of us who have witnessed one capitulation after another and watched in horror as Congress continually  turned a blind eye and deaf ear to war crimes - this should not come as a surprise. That said, it is beyond belief that any Democrat would want to keep Lieberman as chair of a committee where he is a total failure.

The next time I receive another email or letter from the DSCC, DNC, etc. pleading for money, I'm responding with a big "Fuck You" along with an explanation of why. Henceforth, I will contribute to individual progressive candidates who have the backbone to stand up for what is right.

Any guess as to how our senators voted?

---

by: wv voice of reason @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:15:10 PM CST

Sums it up well (4.00 / 2)

Josh Orton gets it right in Process over Policy

First, there's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election.

I also don't agree that "Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee." Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power.

The Dem. Senators really, really blew it today. This was a bad decision on so many levels.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 18:38:26 PM CST

drunk with victory (4.00 / 1)

Its called the long view:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

---

by: twilight campfighter @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 18:52:59 PM CST

Right - keep our powder dry (4.00 / 1)

Because the Democrats in the Senate have done such a great job at taking the long view or the short view. Honestly, Lieberman and the GOP have played Lucy to the Senate Dems Charlie Brown so often it's not even funny.

Here's what is going to happen. Book mark this because I'm betting you on it.

Sometime in the next two years, Lieberman is going to begin going on Fox News and criticizing Obama on homeland security in a major way. And he'll be doing it with credibility as homeland security chairman. Then the Dems will make noise of taking the chairmanship away from him and you'll hear ever media outlet damning the Democrats for being partisan when Lieberman dared to criticize the president in a "bipartisan" fashion.

It's not even about punishing Lieberman. The Democrats rewarded him. Chairmenships go  to the party that holds the majority. Lieberman did everything he could to not only defeat Obama for his friend McCain, but to help elect Republican senators.

So we keep him? OK, let's just keep Dick Cheney as vice president and Condi Rice as secretary of state like kos said. And let's just continue every Bush policy that Lieberman supported as homeland security chairman for the past two years.

And how much else you want to bet Lieberman will suddenly discover his committee has oversight responsibilities and hold hearings on every decision made by Obama?

Here's another way to look at the long view? There's rewards for being a failure. There's rewards for not holding the Bush administration accountable for their actions.

Yeah, we'll hold the long view alright and remember that Harry Reid and the majority of Democratic senators are once again setting themselves up to fail the American people. We'll hold the long view and watch Lucy pull the ball around from them once again.

Suckers.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:24:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

understanding Obama (4.00 / 1)

Trust me, guys, I dislike Lieberman as much as the next good Dem. But to be shocked that Obama would make this decision is to not understand who he is - and how he got where he is. Also, it presumes we just won this election because American voters have finally come to embrace liberalism. The Senate is not the party, and vice versa. As soon as the goals and tactics of both begin to mesh too much, you get Bushism - which is politics at the expense of good governing.

There are 2 stories in the Nov 17th New Yorker I think are very much worth reading - they each help reveal who Obama is, and how he came to be elected. And also if you take the longview of politics they both make good case for why he will be re-elected, and why Dems can seize a new era.

One is title Battle Plans - written by Ryan Lizza. The other is George Packer's New Liberalism, which compares Obama to FDR, among others.

http://outfoxingkarlrove.wordp...

---

by: twilight campfighter @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:42:00 AM CST

"politics at expense of good governing" (4.00 / 1)

I'll check our your links and reading recommendations when I get a chance.

One aside, check the polling numbers... from what I've read, the majority of Americans do agree with the majority of liberal views. But, that's really tangential to the matter at hand... we can save that discussion for another day. :-)

And, thanks for sticking with this, I think we're starting to get to the heart of the matter.

My beef is not with Obama's stance on Lieberman--I totally "get" his approach to smothering potential rivals with love and attention. My beef is with the Senate Democrats for not living up to their role as a distinct third branch of government and seemingly not understanding the need to play "bad cop" to Obama's "good cop."

(FWIW... I think Reid got played. He should have put another option on the table publicly: giving Lieberman a different, "lower status" committee chair.)

The Senate Dems just exercised "politics at expense of good governing". Not only was it was a flawed political decision, but it was also bad governing. In my view, there is no measure by which Joe Lieberman is qualified to serve as Chair of this important committee.

They "rewarded" Lieberman with this plum position despite his incompetence as a committee chair and his incompetence as a party leader. By any objective measure, the decision totally flies in the face of the goal of "good governing".

I agree with Carnacki's previous comment.

This decision will come back to haunt the Senate Dems. They totally misread the optics of the situation, are trusting someone who has shown himself to be untrustworthy, and will regret this moment of accountability passed with hardly a slap on the wrist.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:19:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

twilight campfighter (4.00 / 1)

This wasn't about Obama. This was Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats' decision and the majority of them, particularly Reid, blew it.

It wasn't about "punishing" Lieberman. It was about holding him accountable. That is the biggest Bushism of all. Lieberman did nothing as chairman of homeland security for the past two years to hold hearings or investigations over the failures of the Bush administration and instead spent that time spouting rightwing talking points lying about Democrats.

Senate Democrats remind me of when I worked with cops and social workers on domestic violence. Often times they did help abused victims. But there were some victims who would always keep going back for more abuse even when they were provided with secure places to live and raise their children, to have a fresh start at life. And after a while the cops and social workers would begin to despise those types of victims as much as they despised the abusers.

When Lieberman abuses his position as chairman and the trust of the Senate Democrats - and he will as surely as a moth is drawn to flame and Lieberman is drawn to a microphone - don't come crying to us.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:50:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Perfect example (0.00 / 0)

Here's potential "60th" vote Joe Lieberman on the Senate Democrats, who was just rewarded by them:

BECK: But do you agree that 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?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bob Johnson has a way with words (0.00 / 0)

This is pretty funny.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:59:58 AM CST

B Johnson (4.00 / 1)

Hilarious! That was worth reading twice.

Speaking of the Senate -   I'm sticking with the premise that this was a shrewd long view political move by BHO.

(Reid has nothing to do with this - BHO is the head of the Dems now and nobody in the senate questions that, not even Reid. If he gets to remain M Leader it will be because BHO allows it - erbody knows that.)

I predict Lieberman's unwieldy, over-funded do-nothing committee will get halved (homeland security and govt oversight divided) and that little bastard will do whatever he's told to keep hold of the shards that remain. You say Lieberman has been undeservedly empowered and rewarded. I say he's just been denuded and quarantined. We'll see how it plays out. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, I hope the good people of Conn. cut his nuts off.

---

by: twilight campfighter @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM CST

twilight campfighter (4.00 / 1)

I think part of our disagreement is we're talking at cross-purposes.

Not that I speak for Clem, but I think both of us (many of us?) actually think that Harry Reid as the current Senate Majority Leader should be in charge of running the Senate - not President-elect Obama.

Though they've not acted like it for the past 8 years, the Senate is a co-equal branch of government. While yielding to Bush's will has dominated how the Senate has operated, Senators should remember they're not a rubberstamp for the executive. They wield their own power and should use it to even oppose Obama when needed.

The fact you agree that Lieberman's committee is seen as an "unwieldy, over-funded do-nothing committee" is exactly why he should not be the chairman of it. He's done a terrible job with it and should have been held accountable.

It makes no sense to me that Lieberman is rewarded with a plum assignment despite his failings in governing and in supporting the GOP candidate repudiated by the American people, but Senator Byrd was urged to step down from his committee chairmanship for having the audacity to age.


When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]