Lieberman Retains His Position - UPDATED

I am not the least bit surprised.

The secret-ballot vote was 42-13.
Lieberman is losing his chairmanship on an environmental subcommittee.

A slap on the wrist. He'll be gone in 2012 anyway - they don't like him too much in Connecticut anymore. We'll see what transpires before then.


UPDATE (4:20pm): I'm torn on this one. Those of you who have read my previous posts probably already know that.

No one wanted to see Lieberman's balls cut off more than I did. Hell, if they'd asked I would've sharpened my knife and gone down to DC to do it myself - and paid for my own airline ticket for the pleasure. But we have to look at a few things:

1 - Obama's perceived power would have been undercut tremendously if the Senate had gone against his wishes even before he gets into office. Remember that Obama was the first one to say he hoped Lieberman would remain in the caucus.

2 - Lieberman is on thin ice and according to Evan Bayh, he can be removed from his Committee chairs at any time. So one wrong move, and they gut him like a gefilta fish.

3 - Lieberman is a man without a state. He'll be gone in 2012 if not before due to defection or some other such shit. He betrayed his constituents and they're not going to want him back. In the meantime, the Democrats have four years to prop up and back someone to run against Holy Joe in 2012.

Lieberman's job approval was down to 36 percent. With numbers like that, Lieberman only has one choice for the next four years. He has to move to the left, and he has to do it fast. Given his vulnerability with the Connecticut voters, it wouldn't surprise me if Joe Lieberman turns out to be among the strongest allies Barack Obama has in the U.S. Senate.

I think he'll die a slow, painful, insignificant death in the Senate soon enough (metaphorically speaking of course, for those reading this post from the NSA - Hi guys!).

Is Lieberman In Or Out?

Today is the day that the Senate votes by secret ballot to determine the fate of Holy Joe Lieberman and his Democratic Committtee Chairmanships.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Every senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should. I am one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. I never ask people, well you must vote for this person or that person. Everybody has to make up their mind. But I felt that some of his attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama -- whom I did support... I was one of the very first in the Congress to support him -- I thought they went way beyond the pale. I thought they were not fair, I thought that they were not legitimate. I thought that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama. I would feel that had I done something similar that I would not be chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "As a chairman of one of our significant committees in the Senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. The question is, is that acceptable? The answer is no."

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ): "He was on the wrong side of the rope line. It is a decision that is hard to comprehend."

Howard Fineman: "Interestingly, people like Dick Durbin who is the first Democrat in the Senate -- the first Senator, and from Illinois, to support Barack Obama -- is really loaded for bear about Lieberman, he wants to kick Lieberman off that Chairmanship. Chuck Schumer, the head of the Campaign Committee likewise."

It's time to put up or shut up. I've been disappointed so often by the Democratic Party's bluster but lack of action that I'm really not expecting anything different this time. The 60 vote filibuster proof majority is a red herring - Lieberman has shown his colors and I tend to believe that he will lean toward the right side of the issues, and by "right" I don't mean "correct." He'll keep his chairmanships and continue to piss off the Democrats in the Senate and everyone else that wanted him gone.

But I do hope Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is right: "...if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.
So I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of an embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be with us any of the time.
...You've got to remember, we have the right to change chairmen at any time during the session, and you know, we would expect him to conduct himself in that capacity, as someone who was supportive of the administration..."

Perhaps for fear of actually losing his position in the caucus, Lieberman will play nice, in which case keeping him on with the threat of throwing him to the curb if he gets out of line may work in the Democrats' favor. What's that saying? Keep your friends close and your meshugenahs closer.

Joe Lieberman Must Go

I know that President-elect Obama has suggested that Lieberman remain in caucus with the Democrats and retain his chair positions, and in the spirit of bipartisanship I tried to go along with it, but I can't bring myself to agreeing with Obama on this one. Not after the way Lieberman treated the Democratic party like a doormat, not after the way he spoke about Barack Obama after saying he wouldn't be negative towards Obama, just positive toward McCain.

Brave New Films has produced another great video. Call your Senators. Joe Lieberman must go.

I Don't Like This

President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

Obama's decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.

It shows you the type of leader Barack Obama is, putting differences aside in order to work together, but I'm not so sure it's the best move. What's the point of keeping Lieberman's vote if he doesn't vote with you? It's not like he's shown any loyalty to the party, first running as an Independent after losing his Connecticut primary to Ned Lamont and then endorsing McCain and not being too kind to Obama in the process.

Lieberman was hedging his bets by running with McCain every chance he got, going so far as to saying Obama voted against troop funding and therefore was against the troops. When you gamble there should be consequences. For Lieberman to get away with spitting in the face of the Democratic Party time after time with no repercussions is not a good thing for the party. Don't get me wrong, we don't have to march in lockstep like the Republicans do, but Lieberman's actions are beyond the pale.

ADDING (11/11/08 8:50am) - What really pisses me off is that Lieberman is the one who's finding all this "unacceptable." Shut the fuck up, Joe, you made your bed. Unfortunately, Obama has made a suggestion, recommendation, whatever you want to call it, and that should weigh heavily in the Senators' decision on what to do with Lieberman in deference to Obama. I don't like it but should they consider keeping Lieberman on, they should make it clear he's on the tightest of leashes and if he keeps tacking to the right with the fear mongering and acting as if Israel is more important than the country he was elected to represent, he's done.