AGREED!!..Under the bus with the creep!!
Posted by Goyo at November 14, 2008 01:38 PM"...Evan Bayh argued that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanships, suggesting that the posts could be taken away at a later date if he misbehaves. But a Senate rules expert who spoke to the Huffington Post said this could prove more difficult than is presently assumed."
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/bayhs-defense-of-lieberma_n_143863.html
Posted by gail at November 14, 2008 01:39 PMI'll admit. Maddow made a good case.
I have no love for Lieberman. And I'm certainly not hung up on the 60 seat filibuster issue. My biggest concern with stripping him right now is that the Republicans, and more importantly the media, will beat the hell out of it to plant the "Obama is just playing partisan politics as usual" meme. And I think this specific case will make it really easy for it to get firm roots in the ground. He was the Dems VP candidate 2 cycles ago. He does vote with the Dems on numerous issues. ( I know, not on the really important shit blah blah blah...) I just really really fear this will open a media door that we really don't want to open before Obama is even in office.
Posted by snark at November 14, 2008 01:47 PMwhat I find interesting is all the years past when both political parties fought to get 51 votes. Then, in 2006, all of a sudden you need 60. The reason, I guess, is simple: when one party refuses to allow the other party to successfully implement policy, even with the clear support of the nation, they can impede for solely political partisan reasons, not national service. The old 51 vote years assumed that both parties actually were there to serve the nation, not screw it. One more legacy of the Bush years....
Posted by T2 at November 14, 2008 01:47 PMSo here's an idea... let him remain a Democrat and poof, then you do have got 60!
You must not understand that the goal is to have as many members caucus WITH you as you can, not to reduce the number through selectivity. Being allowed in the caucus is no reward unto itself, it only means that you will be asked to vote along party lines sometimes. You don't get 2 votes if your a Dem or anything like that. So if you would like Joe to vote with the Dems, you should allow him in the caucus, not expell him from it.
I think the goal IS to get as many votes as possible, isn't it? Or is it to be able to kick people out and gloat over it like when the mean kids didn't let someone sit with them in middle school?
Posted by GreenVTster at November 14, 2008 01:51 PMI say give him a chance. He owes Obama his political life if he's saved by the Dems.
If the smarmy fuck doesn't play ball... throw the POS under the bus.
Ditto, SoS.
And I agree that Maddow made a great case, but I am not a Senator and I do not know how things really work in the club that is the Senate.
I do know that it is a whole lot different than the House, where it is more like dueling gangs. In the Senate everyone is their "good friend from Connecticut" and the "Gentleman from California" and shit.
Posted by Anjha at November 14, 2008 03:16 PMLoserman was living proof that McSame pals around with dems and losers.
I think he cost McSame votes.
I would leave him alone for now, but hold a gun to his head and pull the hair-trigger if he doesn't hop, skip, jump and turn the music box crank on command.
How's that Katrina investigation coming along, Joe?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 14, 2008 03:20 PMCould Obama move the number back to 51 after taking office? That's what the Republicans would do, if possible.
Posted by Judith at November 14, 2008 03:38 PMI meant the Senate not Obama.
Posted by Judith at November 14, 2008 03:45 PMWell, a good healthy discussion of the issue, with an emphasis on the idea that the Dems are giving Lieberman one more chance, is a good thing for the Dems. Such an airing will deflate the ability of the Repugs to label his ultimate sacking as the Dems trying to gag him. If the groundwork is laid that he's on double super secret probation the media will be more inclined to play nice. So more like Bayh please. And Leahy.
Posted by snark at November 14, 2008 03:46 PMAs much as I want to get rid of this jerk, I am glad that level heads are prevailing.
Posted by angryman at November 14, 2008 04:00 PMMy initial reaction was to boot him and his swarmy butt out of the leadership post and the caucus...especially with his history....but now I dunno....maybe there's something to the keep your enemies closer (and on a very short leash)line ...but then otoh after reading Glennzilla I'm not so certain. (obviously I'm ambivalent)
To be honest I pretty much convinced myself that the current Democratic leadership is so bad that nothing would happen anyway..you know they gotta preserve their "keep their powder dry" reputations and all. But don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing him and his party of one (Connecticut for Lieberman-how egomaniacal can you get) humiliated by his "Democratic colleagues in the Senate" but that good ole boys club and the spineless faction is a hard one to crack...so maybe its just that I've resigned myself to the fact that nothing was ever going to happen to him. Even if he would have made it the 60, it would be meaningless based on his past history during the most pressing and important issues. Never mind we still got the Nelsons, Landrieu, Lincoln, crew (and whoever else was on the Dem part of the gang of 14).
BTD over at Talk left had the best idea I think to deal with Lieberman...promise never to side with the repukes over a filibuster vote and he could retain the chairmanship.
Posted by emal at November 14, 2008 04:02 PMYou'all did notice that it won't be so easy to remove Lieberman from his committee chair positions later? It will require a vote of the Senate and the Republicans can filibuster, which I assume they would do. The Dems can remove or keep Lieberman on those committees now, but to remove him later they will need the Republicans.
Posted by gail at November 14, 2008 04:03 PMHuffpo and BTD reporting that Democratic officials are saying that Hillary was offered SoS and she wanted some time to think it over. Hmmmmmmm very interesting (if true) and I'm okay with it if that is what Obama and she want.
Posted by emal at November 14, 2008 04:20 PMI'm so fookin' sick of talking about Honest Joe. Really. The guy's more like Uriah Heep than Wormtongue, a petty figure that's gonna take the side most advantageous to himself, but also slimy enough to cause damage just out of spite. Blech.
emal, on Olberman, it didn't sound like it could be confirmed that Obama offered the spot to Hillary. I think they're going on the premise that if it were totally untrue, Obama would swat down the story. Not good enough evidence for me just yet. They also brought up the point that Obama may be thinking he'd be taking a dissenting voice out of the Senate - he'd have more control over her as SoS than as a senator.
The thing is, at most, SoS is a 4 year job. What's she going to do after that? Run for president? I really don't think she wants it any more. And if she's totally serious about healthcare, she'll stay where she can continue working on it, rather than sidetrack to a job that I believe she'd be good at. I really haven't seen much of an outcry for or against online. Trial balloons require feedback, don't they? Seems like everyone kinda yawned when the scoop came out yesterday and today.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 14, 2008 05:27 PMSpeaking of Al Franken, here is an interesting piece. The MSM is at it again. I hope to hell Franken finds those 200 votes.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140014?f=h_latest
Posted by Judith at November 14, 2008 05:55 PMLieberman's primary loyalty is to Israel. As far as I'm concerned he another politician who is responsible for the Israel-centric MI policy and should be held accountable for his lack of judgement and loyalty.
Hold this weasel up as an example...he'll stab the Dems in the back if he relies "on his own better judgement" when asked to cooperate.
Then again, with Rham Emanuel as Chief of Staff, perhaps Lieberman will have a home with this administration after all. Same tribal loyalties, don'tcha know.
Posted by brisa at November 14, 2008 06:11 PMA simple way to understand Joe L.: He's an orthodox Jew.
Will I be awarded the BIG LABEL if I state the obvious? So be it. Regular-style Jews voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers. Orthodox Jews voted for McCain in equally lopsided numbers. The reason: they LIVE the hawkish Old Testament. An eye for an eye, and all that. They are also ultra Zionists. To the orthodox, the protection and continuation of Israel transcends every other goal. Along with his orthodox brethren, Joe believes hit-'em again-harder-harder, is the only way to deal with foes of Israel and he fears Obama would take a much more reasoned approach.
That explains everything, folks, including Joe's early and continued cheerleading for the Iraq war. Saddam was an enemy of Israel and that's all you need to know. The orthodox, like Bush, do not do nuance.
I hope to hell Franken finds those 200 votes.
Judith, I've been crossing fingers and toes. I so want Franken to win.
I also want Ted Stevens to lose, and it's looking better for Mark Begich every day. I'm really hoping on that one because it will put paid to She Who Will Not Be Named's national political ambitions... for the time being.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 14, 2008 06:57 PMGuys ... with this discussion of 51 versus 60 you are missing how the Senate actually operates. And mixing apples and oranges!
It was a big deal back in 2006 when the Dems had 51 members of their caucus (counting Sanders and Lieberman) because that cost the GOP control of the Senate. But since the Dems did not have a "fillibuster-proof majority" -- meaning 60 or more Dems who could vote for cloture -- the 'wingers could still block the majority's moves.
Cloture is a means of cutting off debate. It was introduced in 1917 when the Senate adopted Rule 22. At that time, a cloture vote required a 2/3 majority. During the 70s, the threshold was reduced to 3/5 -- in other words, 60.
Without the cloture device, it would have been nearly impossible to pass some of the most significant legislation in our nation's history. For example, southern senators used the threat of fillibuster to kill civil rights legislation for decades.
For our present circumstances, a fillibuster proof majority would have made it difficult for the 'wingers to block pro-choice judicial nominees or even progressive appointees to cabinet and sub-cabinet posts.
And Judith ... Obama has no control over the cloture requirement. The president does not make the rules of the Senate. Only the Senators themselves can vote to change the body's rules or order.
Now that we have cleared that up ... I agree with both Maddow and Turkana on this point. Even if the last three Senate races are decided in the Dems' favor, the only way we could get to 60 is with Lieberman actually voting with the Dems and Bernie Sanders ... but I am not convinced that the jerk actually would fall in line.
I hope the leadership is waving a big stick at Joe's head out of camera view. Something along the lines of play nice and we won't start fundraising to defeat you immediately.
Posted by The World's Turned Upside Down at November 14, 2008 06:59 PMDidn't the Rs make news four years ago about ending the 60 vote requirement?
Can someone dig up some of the media or media reports on the issue to share with us?
Didn't the Rs make news four years ago about ending the 60 vote requirement?
Not four years ago ... three. And they weren't trying to change the cloture threshold. They were trying to use a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver to get around a Dem fillibuster of 10 Bush judicial nominees (out of 200+).
Bill Frist, then Senate Majority Leader, threatened the Dems with the "nuclear option" -- basically suggesting that he would ask for a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer (Dick Cheney) that filibusters against judicial nominees were unconstitutional.
Under Senate rules, it would then have required only a simple majority to uphold such a ruling, and thus Frist would have needed only 51 votes to confirm a nominee. Given that the GOP held a 55-45 edge in 2005, that would probably have guaranteed that all of Bush's judicial nominees would be approved.
That's when the Gang of 14 stepped into the picture. Seven Republicans and seven Dems ... all supposed moderates. The Republicans agreed to not support the "nuclear option" while the Dems agreed that they would not participate in efforts to block all but two of Bush's existing nominees. The Dems further agreed that they would not help fillibuster any future nominees barring "extraordinary circumstances" or some such thing.
To provide some context to all of this there are two things to recall.
The whole "nuclear option" fight wasn't just about the 10 existing nominees. Frist was trying to beat the Dems into submission because everyone expected then Chief Justice Rehnquist to retire. Frist and the 'wingers were laying the groundwork to get themselves an ultra-conservative chief justice.
And also ... once the Republicans found themselves in the minority after the 2006 elections, they rediscovered their own love of the fillibuster. Go back and review just the first month or so of the 110th Congress. The GOP fillibustered a minimum wage increase, a resolution opposing the surge in Iraq, ethics reform, etc.
Posted by The World's Turned Upside Down at November 16, 2008 07:54 AMI say give him a chance. He owes Obama his political life if he's saved by the Dems.
There is something to this, 7of6.
The Senate is a funny place. The "rule of 60" is oversimplified and misunderstood by the MSM.
Without going into a long history of the filibuster and the rules created to address it, let's understand two things. First, the 60 vote majority is not an absolute -- it is something that is set by Senate rules and can be changed by a majority. Exceptions to the cloiture rule exist and more can be added, especially if the situation is seen as "dire".
Second, whether your party has 55, 60, or 65 senators you still have to build a cloiture-proof coalition with each new vote, because Senators are not nearly in lock-step with their leadership as Represenatives are. (Senators aren't as dependent as Representatives on the goodwill of their leadership for re-election funds, plus the 6 year terms make 2/3rds of them somewhat immune to re-election threats.)
So, what this means for Obama is that first, he will try to generate a lot of good will with the so-called "moderates" in both parties so that he has flexibility in creating different 60-senator coalitions for different issues. And that second, in a few critical cases he may have Biden lean on Senate leadership to change rules to get things through.
So, this is where Lieberman comes in. Obama is going to be very nice to all the "moderates" -- McCain, Specter, Collins -- and even those on the hard right who are willing to work with him (Lugar, for example). I can certainly see Obama working some kind of deal to give Lyingman some help in exchange for his cooperation.
My only concern is that once Lyingman retains his committee chairmanship he'll use that to start hammering at an Obama administration. Thus, there needs to be some teeth to the agreement that allows the Democratic leadership to replace the chairman in mid-term. That would probably be sufficient.
Posted by Anonny at November 17, 2008 11:13 AMFirst, the 60 vote majority is not an absolute -- it is something that is set by Senate rules and can be changed by a majority.,/i
Senate rules can only be changed by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Senate ... an even higher threshold level than established for cloture in general.
No one should be all that happy at the notion of changing the rules especially when you are in the majority ... it is far too easy in those kind of times to forget that things change. I am sure that none of the 'wingers thought that their party would be in such disarray three years ago. But as I said in an earlier post, they were quick to re-discover their affection for the fillibuster when they lost power after the 2006 mid-terms.
Thus, there needs to be some teeth to the agreement that allows the Democratic leadership to replace the chairman in mid-term.
There is no procedure to remove a chairman against his will during a given congress. The rules would have to be changed to allow senators to kick out a chair.
Posted by The World's Turned Upside Down at November 17, 2008 10:22 PM