As a non member of the Democratic party, my understanding is this: Lieberman ran against the Democratic candidate in Connecticut. He said he was the "real" Democrat and called on leading party members, including Barack Obama, to support him, which they did. He was given the chairmanship of an important committee. He did nothing with it - although it was within his purview to investigate the Hurrican Katrina "response", warrantless wiretapping, etc., and although he was requested to do so, he refused, siding with the Bush administration. He voted against the Democratic caucus on key issues such as improving veteran's benefits, emergency contraception for rape victims (Liberman callously said women can just go from hospital to hospital until they find one who will provide emergency contraception, no need to require it) and other issues. In the 2008 presidential election, he said he would endorse McCain based on longtime friendship and respect but would not campaign explicitly against the Democratic ticket, and then proceeded to do just that, saying Obama was naive, repeating the false statement that Obama voted to cut off funding for the troops, saying that he feared for the country if Obama was elected, etc. When asked if Obama was a Muslim, he did not say no, and it doesn't matter, like Colin Powell did, he said he did not "think" so. When asked if Obama was a Marxist, he said "that's a real good question". He also said he would not campaign for other Republican candidates and proceeded to do just that, on the stated grounds that a Democratic majority would be bad for the country. Some people, not just Maddow and Oberman, feel that if left as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, he will do to Obama what he refused to do to Bush. Every time Obama makes a controversial or disputed decision, and he will make them, Lieberman could be launching investigations, hearings, etc. against Obama. While Sen. Evin Bayh has said that if Lieberman uses his position in such a way the Democratic caucus can revoke his chairmanship, this would, politically, be tough to do as it would be construed, and depicted as, a cover-up (i.e. Lieberman investigates Obama and loses his position). Perhaps Democrats on the board can add to this. I think this sums it up. And it is far from "far left" who have concerns about Lieberman, not to mention the fact that Maddow and Olberman are only "far left" if you use that term for everyone who does not support George Bush from centrist Democrats to Marxists (as Talkhard used to).
I suppose it's how one wants to view things. I read great things about him and I read lousy things about him. So it's up to one's personal perspective of politics. As for me, all I know is that he's an independent. He has voted both yes & no on various abortion issues, consistently supported farmers issues, consistently voted yes on civil rights issues, supports the death penalty, consistently votes for veterans rights, with the exception os same sex marriage has consistently voted for gay rights, believes in stem cell research. Why do the lefties hate him so much. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53278&type=category&category=2&go.x=11&go.y=12
Reid's majority is based on Obama's coattails. To reuse Rachel Maddow's phrase, you couldn't put a piece of paper between President-Elect Obama's policy prescriptions and Sen. Reid's. So, what exactly would he have to give up? On which issues do they disagree?
So much for the idea of the big tent. It's nice to know that either you tow the party line, or you end up in a gulag. I can hardly wait for the first Five-Year Plan.
No it isn't. Reid had a majority before the election. Keeping Lieberman, according to the hypothetical we are discussing here. Besides, I thought you had no idea what Obama stands for? So how can you say he's a carbon copy of Reid? barfo
He didn't actually. It was 49/49, but Lieberman and Sanders caucused with the Democrats. We're discussing a hypothetical? I'm pretty sure Lieberman thinks it's real. I said I couldn't jibe his voting record in the Illinois State Senate or the US Senate with his rhetoric and that based on it people had no idea what he stood for. He voted with the Democratic Leadership 97% of the time as a member of the US Senate, so one could easily conclude that he and Reid are pretty close in terms of ideology.
Ok, I should have said working majority. Lieberman thinks it's real that Obama wants to keep him in the chair, and Reid doesn't? Maybe, I don't think you or I have any real way to know. barfo
Yep. It's precisely because the Dems have a majority all on their own that they're hanging ol' Joe out to dry. Of course, while there remains the specter of getting a caucus of 60 votes, they'll kiss his ass. I was just saying that it's clear the Dems wish to punish Lieberman for his independence--although they think Hegel is a visionary--and President-Elect Obama is the head of his Party. He could help to set a new tone by letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship. My guess is that he won't unless they can get close to a filibusterproof majority (Snowe and Collins will likely side with the Democrats on a number of important issues).
Considering that there are three Senate races in Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota still going on, and considering that they'd need Joe Lieberman to get to 60 if they take all three races, it wouldn't be smart for the Democrats to be talking about removing him from his chairmanship or having him leave the caucus.
I think this is pretty overstated. Lieberman isn't going to change how he votes based on who he caucuses with. He's pretty clear in his beliefs. If he opposes the Democrats on an issue, he'll vote against them even if he's part of their caucus. He's shown that (I don't begrudge him that...everyone should vote their principles). 60 is really not a magical number. All senators don't vote uniform party line every time out. Being close to 60 means that Democrats stand a good chance of persuading a couple of independents/Republicans to vote with them on a particular issue, if they require a cloture vote. I don't think the 60-seat majority will have much bearing on how Reid and the Democrats deal with Leiberman.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEaS-K3j3M8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEaS-K3j3M8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
You say that Joe Lieberman won't vote based on who he caucuses with. I say that none of us really know Joe Lieberman, and neither do his colleagues in the Senate, Nobody thought two and a half years ago that he would return to the Senate as an Independent and speak at the Republican convention. He could theoretically flip the bird to Reid. I wouldn't risk pissing Joe off...that's all I'm saying.
Ha. Democrats, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Mark my words, the 40 (41? 42?) Republicans will absolutely dominate the US Senate, even from their diminished minority. Congressional Dems will roll over and take it from *anyone*. Also, I guarantee that Lieberman, who never once thought it was worth his while to use his Homeland Security committee to investigate one single act of malfeasance by the Bush Administration, will suddenly rediscover his zeal for the Legislative Branch's investigative powers, and will try to take down Obama for some dubious transgression. Just watch. SR
One point is to remember is a lot of the Democrats coming in are what you would call "Moderate" Democrats, which lean towards the center. Lieberman is more like them then the folks on the left. If you alienate him, you might alienate some of them. You never know how that might work out.
