Purgatory, Not Exile, for Lieberman

by publius

I expect the Dems to get 59 Senate seats -- MN will break for Franken, but they'll lose all three Southern races. Even if the Dems ultimately fall short of 59, it will be pretty close. And that raises the ever-annoying question -- What to do with Lieberman? Obviously, he could very well be the all-important 60th vote on some issues. But he's also gone "all in" for McCain. What to do?

Here's my proposal -- a two-year "probationary" period. In short, purgatory. He should be exiled for two years. But... if he votes right during that time, then he could potentially get his seniority back in the 2010 session before his next election.

Here's my thinking -- First, there has to be consequences for his over-the-top McCain support. A party cannot allow those actions to happen with impunity. For that reason, Lieberman should be forced to resign from his committee chair and lose any other leadership or seniority rights.

The risk of booting him, though, is that Lieberman may decide to be a full-blown Republican with no interest in re-election (and he'll be on every TV station everywhere). There needs to be some sort of incentive for him to vote correctly.

Enter Step #2. I think Reid should approach Lieberman and basically say that he can regain all his seniority in the next session if he becomes a Democrat again. I wouldn't necessarily hold him to Iraq votes -- but he does have to vote correctly on health care, budget, energy, and labor laws. If he does -- and if he stops bashing Dems on Meet the Press, etc. -- then his seniority, etc. would be restored in two years.

This plan has the added benefit of giving Joe hope that he might be re-elected in 2012. He could basically run on the idea that he's back as a Dem, that he has real authority again to help Connecticut, etc.

I dislike Lieberman as much as the next guy. But I care more about taking advantage of this brief historical window to get some truly significant legislation passed. If the cost is giving Lieberman a committee back, so be it.

Comments

[Andrew]

I am worried about that strategy for the same reason I am worried about the Democratic gains in 2006 and tomorrow.

Emmanuel ran a bunch of 'Blue Dogs' against Republicans because 'real' Democrats couldn't get elected in those districts. We see the same thing happening now. The Republicans getting pushed out of office tend to be the more Moderate sort, leaving the worst sort in office.

Net result is a hardcore Republican opposition unwilling to give an inch to the Dems, and a bunch of center-right Democrats teaming up with the right on key issues and ensuring that the Democratic party gets a bad rap.

[malraux]

If Lieberman ends up as the 60th democrat, I would think the most important issue is not his vote on any issue. Its his vote for cloture, which should be mandatory for him to have any position on the democratic side. Any vote against the democratic party's vote for cloture should result in him losing all his committee positions.

[Joel]

Might want to doublecheck fivethirtyeight:

Franken winning without any of the southerners is 59 *with* Lieberman. To get to 60, they have to win one of Georgia, Kentucky, or Mississippi.

[mason]

Where does NC figure in? Dole seems very likely to lose there.

[malraux]

Also, the other advantage of letting lieberman vote however he wants on issues, while forcing him to vote with the party on procedural votes, is that it still leaves him with rope to hang himself. His votes on actual issues will affect his re-election chances far more than the procedural ones, but as the 60th "D", its really the procedural ones that matter.

[publius]

i'm counting lieberman and sanders in the 59.

basically if they win everything but GA, KY, and MS, it's 59 (counting joe). that includes NC.

personally i think 57 is lock. 58 (NC) is very likely. 59 is tossup (MN). and 60 aint' gonna happen

[Carleton Wu]

I say dump Joe, for two reasons:
1)It is the right thing to do; backstabbing ought not be rewarded.
2)I do not want anyone to promise Joe any support in 2010- we should be committed to replacing him with an actual Dem. Also, anything that allows him to symbolically repair his bridges will strengthen his position in 2010 regardless of whether any support is promised or delivered. Out him as the Republican that he is, and get the seat back in 2 years.
That seat plus the others that are in play give us a good shot at 60 in 2010 if we don't get over the hump this year.

[wonkie]

Th Republicans who lost in 06 were, for the most [art, moderates. Or at least several were moderates and the R party spun their losses as being a repudiatioon of R's who were not conservative enoough.

However this election is different. The Repubicans who are losing this year are by no stretch of the imagination moderate. On the other hand the three Demos who are likely to lose are Bush Dogs.

[mis en place]

Carleton is right. On principle alone, Lieberman should be excommunicated. It's an extremely bad precedent to set.

Pragmatically, Lieberman is a dead man walking in 2010.

[freelunch]

Lieberman left the Democrats. They don't owe him anything. It was unwise but necessary to allow him to maintain his seniority over the past two years. Letting him go on, after he endorsed the candidate of the opposing party, is evidence of profound weakness in Senate leadership. Lieberman should be treated like all other freshman senators who want to caucus with the Democrats.

[Incertus]

Sheldon Whitehouse, I believe, pointed out that getting to 60 in the party, while nice, isn't necessary. The key is to reduce the number of Republicans you need to sway on any given issue, and then peel off individuals based on their personal likes and dislikes. The Democratic caucus, even with 60 votes, isn't going to march in lockstep to Reid's tune (assuming we like the beat in the first place), so the key is to give him as much wiggle room as possible.

Purgatory for Lieberman is a decent idea, I suppose, though I'd just as soon make him start over from scratch for what he's pulled in the last eight years, and then support whoever the CT Dems nominate in 2010.

[slaney black]

Current senate: 49 dems + Lieberman + Sanders = 51
Fairly certain pickups: AK, OR, NM, CO, MN, VA, NC, NH = 8

With Lieberman, that's 59.
You need KY, MS or GA to get to 60.

I think GA is more likely than you do, but we'll see tomorrow.

[nick]

Publius -

I normally appreciate some good ole political pragmatism as much as the next guy, and I am very mindful that successful political action requires the art of compromise to be executed with a deft skill and an open mind. But Lieberman is, IMHO, deserving of an extremely thorough shunning on the part of the Congressional DEmocratic Caucus.

I say this because the transgressions that you mention here (shilling for McCain, his insults to Democrats along the way, etc.), while certainly deserving rebuke, are nothing compared to his dereliction of duty as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

He is responsible for Senate oversight of the most incomprehensibly inefficient, bloated, and incompetent federal bureaucracy EVER, and has been completely derelict in his duties in oversight of the boondoggle that is the Department of Homeland Security.

I provide one example here, just for some color, but there are thousands to be had with just a little research.

There is a program underway to redesign, consolidate, and upgrade the data management systems that the government is using to ensure Homeland Security in light of the Terrorist Threat. Worth as much as $500 million, the project, known as Railhead, well, read for yourself...

The Railhead initiative would significantly downgrade the NCTC Online's capabilities by preventing access to any intelligence community Web sites or data resources, such as sites for the CIA, DIA, or FBI.

The project is not only flawed but also behind schedule. Thirty-four of Railhead's 72 "action items" are past due, and two are behind schedule. Ten more tasks--five of them costing more than $92 million--are "significantly off-task."

If you search the Senate Committe of which Lieberman is chair, which has oversight responsibility for this project which is: (a) crucial to Homeland Security, (b) no small potatoes even by federal government budget standards, and (c) hopelessly mired in bureaucratic snafus and inefficiency, you will find zero (0) mentions of this program.

I can tell you that, while there are certainly issues of not only enormous importance and sensitivity but also complexity, the amount of money that this is costing the government is un-fucking fathomable for the product that they are seeking as a result. If ever a project was crying out for oversight, this is it.

He should lose his chairmanship of this committee because his backing of President Bush's Foreign Policy objective in re: Iraq has prevented him from meeting minimal obligations for checks and balances in performing his mandated oversight roles as a member of congress and an opposition party. The whole point of checks and balances is to keep the other guy honest. This is why, in general, I am more pissed off at Congressional Democrats than I am at Republicans. How can you get mad at someone for taking your lunch money when you leave it in their locker every morning?

His campaigning for a Republican candidate for president is completely secondary in my opinion of the man's performance and worthiness of his positions of leadership and reponsibility.

[nick]

Publius -

I normally appreciate some good ole political pragmatism as much as the next guy, and I am very mindful that successful political action requires the art of compromise to be executed with a deft skill and an open mind. But Lieberman is, IMHO, deserving of an extremely thorough shunning on the part of the Congressional DEmocratic Caucus.

I say this because the transgressions that you mention here (shilling for McCain, his insults to Democrats along the way, etc.), while certainly deserving rebuke, are nothing compared to his dereliction of duty as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

He is responsible for Senate oversight of the most incomprehensibly inefficient, bloated, and incompetent federal bureaucracy EVER, and has been completely derelict in his duties in oversight of the boondoggle that is the Department of Homeland Security.

I provide one example here, just for some color, but there are thousands to be had with just a little research.

There is a program underway to redesign, consolidate, and upgrade the data management systems that the government is using to ensure Homeland Security in light of the Terrorist Threat. Worth as much as $500 million, the project, known as Railhead, well, read for yourself...

The Railhead initiative would significantly downgrade the NCTC Online's capabilities by preventing access to any intelligence community Web sites or data resources, such as sites for the CIA, DIA, or FBI.

The project is not only flawed but also behind schedule. Thirty-four of Railhead's 72 "action items" are past due, and two are behind schedule. Ten more tasks--five of them costing more than $92 million--are "significantly off-task."

If you search the Senate Committe of which Lieberman is chair, which has oversight responsibility for this project which is: (a) crucial to Homeland Security, (b) no small potatoes even by federal government budget standards, and (c) hopelessly mired in bureaucratic snafus and inefficiency, you will find zero (0) mentions of this program.

I can tell you that, while there are certainly issues of not only enormous importance and sensitivity but also complexity, the amount of money that this is costing the government is un-fucking fathomable for the product that they are seeking as a result. If ever a project was crying out for oversight, this is it.

He should lose his chairmanship of this committee because his backing of President Bush's Foreign Policy objective in re: Iraq has prevented him from meeting minimal obligations for checks and balances in performing his mandated oversight roles as a member of congress and an opposition party. The whole point of checks and balances is to keep the other guy honest. This is why, in general, I am more pissed off at Congressional Democrats than I am at Republicans. How can you get mad at someone for taking your lunch money when you leave it in their locker every morning?

His campaigning for a Republican candidate for president is completely secondary in my opinion of the man's performance and worthiness of his positions of leadership and reponsibility.

[bayesian]

Uhh, people (Carleton, mis en place, Incertus), I think Lieberman isn't up for reelection until 2012. Or please explain what I'm missing there. Are y'all saying the CT Dems will nominate two years before the election? Seems a bit excessive.

[nick]

sorry for double post - typepad issue

[Praedor Atrebates]

Counter proposal for less than 59.

OK, your position vis a vis Liarman makes sense in the event of a 59 seat Dem senate. If, however, the Dems fall short of 59 then the proper action is outright expulsion of Liarman. The Dems gain nothing by kissing his ass if they cannot get to 60 WITH Liarman.

Now, on your idea, there still must be a hardcore aspect to it. The offer you suggest should be made but I posit that Liarman would be irresistably drawn to making a play off his perceived position of strength. If HE is the man who determines whether of not there are 60 solid Dem votes, then he WILL play off this. He wont be able to help himself. If (when) he does AND if he fails to blink when it doesn't work, then EXPEL HIS ASS and move on to the few remaining "moderate" GOPers (Snowe, etc) and put upon them to switch parties instead of kissing Joe's ass.

[publius]

@slaney -- i think MN is a pure tossup. i'm also skeptical of GA b/c martin needs not only to win but to top 50%.

i'm very skeptical of his ability to win a runoff without obama upticket

[Bernard Yomtov]

Carleton Wu,

Lieberman runs again in 2012, not 2010.

That makes a difference. Any deal Reid makes with him should extend until then. And it should include be pretty demanding - cloture votes certainly, and probably some other things as well.

[Ron E.]

I have a better idea. The Democratic majority can vote to eliminate filibusters in January as part of the rules package for the new Senate. Then they can turn around say "thanks but no thanks" to Lieberman.

[tomeck]

Lieberman should be left to caucas by himself. Outside of Iraq, he'd be more of a liberal than many Republicans would want in their caucas, especially if the moderates are going to leave/get kicked out by the Palin faction of the GOP.

The risk of booting him, though, is that Lieberman may decide to be a full-blown Republican with no interest in re-election (and he'll be on every TV station everywhere). Lieberman was good TV for the networks during the campaign, he becomes useless after the election.

There are going to be many critical votes coming up in the next two years about Iraq and the economy. If what's left of the Republican Party in the Senate tries to impose gridlock with the filibuster, the Dems should wait them out. They'll win another 5-10 in 2010.

[human]

I belong to my county's Democratic Committee. I am the elected representative for my precinct.

If I were to publicly support a Republican, I would get kicked off the committee.

Please note this does not mean I am obligated to support any particular Democrat I may not care for. But I cannot endorse or otherwise express public support for any non-Democrat who is running against a Democrat. Or else I get kicked out of the party.

I don't see why the rules should be any different for Lieberman.

[Joshua Whalen]

Guys, I hate to spoil vengence-fest, but Sore Loserman isn't up for re-election until 2012. Senators serve SIX year terms, not 4 year terms, and unless my memory is very bad, Holy Joe was elected last in 2006. His next at-bat is 2012. So sorry.

[Incertus]

You're right--I got the date wrong. But the rest of the argument holds, I think. Lieberman, at the very least, has to lose his chairmanship of his committee.

One other thing to note here. Lieberman gets off on being catered to. He loves having power and attention, more than your average politician, I think, and if he held the crucial 60th vote on any piece of legislation, he'd demand a full range of ass-kissing before he made the vote, and even then he might double-cross us. Better to chuck him out and find a different Republican who is willing to cross his or her caucus than have to grovel to Lieberman.

[John]

What's wrong with Ron E.'s idea of killing the filibuster? There's already plenty of checks and balances, and the Founders didn't include a 60 vote requirement in their original design (did they?). Given that new laws are often required to enable progress, surely progressives would want to eliminate the filibuster? And yes, I am aware that this would have had unpleasant effects back in 2002-2006, but frankly the American people would have been getting what they voted for and deserved. The only potential place for a filibuster-type arrangement might be judicial selections, given the fact that judges (esp Justices) have such a big role and remain in office for so long.

If the Democrats have a solid House majority, 58 Senate seats and the Presidency they shouldn't have to go grovelling to a complete turncoat like Lieberman to pass laws

[aimai]

Purgatory? No. He's not catholic. Exile? No, he's no Greek. How about Hell? That works for me.

aimai

[Daniel Baxter]

If you're right and the Dems get 59, then an alternate solution is to appoint reasonable Republican Senators who are in Democratically governed states to cabinet positions. Olympia Snowe? Then the Democratic Governor can appoint a (Democratic)Senator to replace them, and we don't need to deal with Lieberman. Problem solved, AND we get the added bi-partisan, reach-across-the-aisle kudos.

[Incertus]

John,
Personally, I like the idea of killing the filibuster, or at the very least requiring that filibusters actually take place as opposed to simply announcing a desire to potentially filibuster at some unknown point in the future, but I can understand why Senators with some time in would be leery of getting rid of it. If you're in power, you hate the filibuster, but if you're in the minority, you love it, and as we've seen in recent years, a party's fortunes can swing pretty quickly.

[she reads]

I'm going along with the other commenters above. From what I understand from the polls, they count Lieberman as one of the two Independents along with Mr. Sanders who caucus with Democrats. So wouldn't he be part of that projected 59 anyway?

[cleek]

How about Hell? That works for me.

Orthodox Jews don't really do Hell, either.

they do have a pugatory-like place though, Gehinnom, where souls go to be cleansed before entering Heaven.

[Anarch]

I think, and if he held the crucial 60th vote on any piece of legislation, he'd demand a full range of ass-kissing before he made the vote, and even then he might double-cross us.

This, right here, is why Lieberman needs to be excommunicated. Like any drama queen or troll, he gets stronger when he's fed, and weaker when he's ignored -- so let's starve the motherf***er out.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

One wrinkle: I think it's very difficult to change committee chairs once the term has started; it's a motion that can be easily delayed or stopped on procedural grounds.

So any "vote on cloture or suffer the consquences" has problems delivering "consequences". Perhaps if Reid got an undated letter of resignation signed by Lieberman it might work.

Better to make Lieberman #2 on a committee, with the understanding that the chair is "pro-forma"..as long as Lieberman toes the line. Senators are famously go-it-alone, so requiring Lieberman to vote as directed (whether 'domestic only' or 'procedural only' or 'all votes') would be very much a punishment. Even if we get up to 60+ in the election, it can still be hard to make the numbers, so having a 'controlled' vote is worthwhile.

[Incertus]

The other problem with making a deal with Lieberman contingent on his votes is that the deal will be "leaked" and decried by all the right people as undemocratic--and it would be, to be quite honest. Better to just boot him and be done with it, find our votes where we can.

[Jeff]

Lieberman should be left to caucas by himself. Outside of Iraq

This was incortrectly punctuated. It should read:

Lieberman should be left to caucas by himself, outside of Iraq.

Much better!

[BD]

This is of course with the assumption that Lieberman will not do what he always done, and that is do what is best for Lieberman.

If it comes down to 59 Dems, Lieberman will switch over to the GOP so that he can maintain his "independent" label with the real reason being his ability to stop the Dems ability to end Filibusters....just like he has done the past 8 years.

[bperk]

If the Dems want to have some power to push through legislation, they have to get rid of Lieberman. There has to be severe consequences for selling your party down the river. A better idea would be to pick off moderate Republicans issue by issue. That is why earmarks will never go away.

[RobW]

Ok, let me see if I got this straight. The same guy who led the Blue Dogs in the impeachment of Clinton was given the VP slot on the 2000 ticket. He pays back that favor by voting with Bush for years. His own voters in his own state (you know, Democratic voters, the ones the Democratic party ought to care about) reject him in the 2006 primary and he leaves the party to run as an independent. He retains his seat by a nose, with the help of Republican voters in CT, so now he can honestly claim a GOP constituency. He promises to vote with the Dems, but breaks that promise. Then he very actively campaigns against the Democratic nominee for President.

And anyone in the party is even considering offering this guy a deal? You've got to be kidding. The party's single biggest failure is its failure to oppose the Republican president's agenda, even when we have a majority, and Lieberman himself is a big part of that failure. And you want the party to keep rewarding him? Keep trusting him to eventually come around?

Here, hold this football, Lucy.

Oh, and I agree with Incertus at least on requiring a filibuster to take place. Call their bluff and make them do it.

[Bernard Yomtov]

One wrinkle: I think it's very difficult to change committee chairs once the term has started; it's a motion that can be easily delayed or stopped on procedural grounds.

So any "vote on cloture or suffer the consquences" has problems delivering "consequences". Perhaps if Reid got an undated letter of resignation signed by Lieberman it might work.

It's true that you have to have something that's unquestionably enforceable. That argues in favor of Publius' approach. Take the chair away now, and give it back if Lieberman behaves. You definitely have to tie him up past 2010, though. Relying on the outcome of elections two years away is very foolish strategy.

[Gary Farber]

"He pays back that favor by voting with Bush for years."

I hate to be forced to keep saying not-negative things about a guy I despise, but it really is true that Lieberman has been a reliable Democratic vote on almost everything but Iraq. And then he went and campaigned for McCain. That doesn't change that the above statement is simply false.

Debate the merits of chewing Lieberman up and grinding him into the ground, but please don't blatantly misstate and wildly distort the facts.

[Z. Mulls]

And what do you think McCain is going to do? Hated by the Republicans, eager to regain his bipartisan creds and maverick reputation, what do you think he does?

Do you envision McCain blindly going along with repeated obstructionist filibuster attempts? Or do you see him making lofty speeches about letting democracy work, most of the time?

And if McCain is a "centrist, no filibuster" sort of vote, what does BFF Leiberman do? Stick with McCain, or go with the Republicans on cloture?

And Lindsey Graham might stick with the Repubs most of the time, but if McCain and Leiberman are voting for cloture, might he not join them?

Do you think Arlen Specter is going to go along with every filibuster request?

I think if the Democrats get to 58 or even 59, without Leiberman, you will not have a situation where there are 41 or 40 or 39 votes against cloture on an ongoing basis.

Especially with a President Obama making it an issue whenever possible.

[Incertus]

And what do you think McCain is going to do? Hated by the Republicans, eager to regain his bipartisan creds and maverick reputation, what do you think he does?

Honestly, I think he'll become a very low-profile Senator until his term ends, and then he'll retire rather than run for re-election. I don't see him sticking around for another term.

[Z. Mulls]

Incertus, I agree -- which leads me to think that the Republicans can't count on him to repeatedly vote against cloture just to stick it to the Democrats.

[bperk]

Lieberman could become a reliable cloture vote for Republicans. If Repubs offer him seniority in exchange for voting with them on all procedural votes, Lieberman becomes more of a problem for Dems. It's worth the risk though because Lieberman still won't have a chairmanship.

[RD]

MSNBC has announced that Obama's grandmother has died.

[tomeck]

Jeff

I approve your edit 100%. Thanks.

[russell]

The Democratic candidate in 2006 was Lamont. In spite of losing the Democratic primary, Lieberman ran as an independent, costing the Democrats that Senate seat.

Lieberman has campaigned publicly and vocally for the Republican presidential candidate. I will guarantee you that if the social conservatives had allowed it, he would be the Republican VPOTUS right now.

What difference would his becoming a "full blown Republican" make?

I don't see Lieberman being worth a tinker's damn as the 60th vote in a fillibuster-proof Democratic caucus. What makes anyone think he would reliably vote with the Democrats?

Why the hell should the Democrats give him anything at all?

They should take away anything it is within their power to take away. In 2012, they should support Lamont with everything they can put on the table.

I have nothing personal against Lieberman, I just don't see how he has any standing whatsoever as a Democrat, and I don't see what he brings to the table that would merit throwing him the tiniest bone. On the contrary.

I don't see why it's even a question.

Thanks -

[bedtimeforbonzo]

I'm with Carleton, nick and Anarch: Let's not make Lieberman any more powerful than he already thinks he is. No deals with the McCain suck-up.

No deals with the man who was NO help to Gore in 2000.

Let the GOP have him.

Let principle win out for a change.

---

Responding to RD's news that Obama's grandmother has died: How terribly sad it must be for him to know she won't be here to see him win the presidency tomorrow. At least she died knowing he was on the precipice of history. At least they had a few days together last month. God rest her soul.

[El Cid]

Lieberman would do what Phil Gramm did -- he will agree to be loyal and all, and will instead be using his position to support hearings demanded by the right and to share any secret information with his Republican colleagues.

You fundamentally cannot trust him. He will be dishonest, deceitful, and backstabbing.

Whatever deal Reid thinks he made.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Or what russell said.

[Jeff]

it really is true that Lieberman has been a reliable Democratic vote on almost everything but Iraq

I seem to recall him voting for the bankruptcy bill, and for a bill that would allow hospitals the right to refuse women seeking abortions (wasn't there something about "they can call a cab"?)

I wouldn't call either of those "voting with the Democrats".

[Catsy]

I echo the many good reasons put forth by others as to why Lieberman needs to not only be booted from the Democratic Caucus but be publicly and comprehensively made an example of. With the gains we will make in the Senate this year, he is /not/ essential in any way. He's just not. Having his vote might make it easier to defeat a filibuster, assuming you could count on it, but frankly I think we'll have more consistent luck peeling off moderate R's.

There simply is no precedent for the way the Democratic Party has continued to kowtow to Lieberman after his lengthy record of screwing said party at every possible juncture of political convenience. Allowing him to caucus with the Democrats and keep his seniority and positions was only tenable when his vote was literally the only thing standing between us and a Republican Congress with the tie-breaking vote cast by Cheney. That is no longer the case. We will have a Democratic Congress with a working majority with or without Lieberman. At this point he's just padding the margin, and that's not worth the price of admission.

Any other Senator, any other party, and other circumstances, and Lieberman would be out on his ass faster than you could sign the papers making it so. His career in Democratic politics should be at an end, shunned by every left-leaning institution. And this would be the right thing to do, because you cannot allow people to consistently and reliably screw over your own party, to the point of endorsing and campaigning for the opposing Presidential candidate in one of the most critical elections in decades, without the expectation of consequences.

As I wrote on PA not long ago, this isn't about whether or not we have a big tent. This is about whether or not having a tent has any meaning at all.

[Samuel Hellman]

F*** Lieberman

And if that is not within the posting rules it should be.

[yoyo]

Everyone is talking revenge. He betrayed us! FUCK HIM!

Really, who cares. I'd wash his feet with my tongue if it would get us the legislation we need. And he does 2 things - neocon foreign policy, and gloryhounding. voting for that bankrupcty bill is not that ununsual for 'democrats' and besides he represents a rich state with a large banking/insurance industry. of course he voted for it. Divas need to be treated with occasional firmness, but most of the time with flattery. So strip his chair, and then tell him how important he is. Hell, just getting the netroots pissed at the fact he's still in the caucus is probably enough joy to him to make him go along most of the time.

So don't share your super secret strategy with him, and don't give him important chair. but 'sticking it' to him isn't an option. we lost in 2006.

[Gus]

Coleman will win in MN.

[russell]

Everyone is talking revenge. He betrayed us! FUCK HIM!

I'm sure there are some folks who'd just like to louse Lieberman up. Understandable but probably not worth the effort.

There are other folks who simply don't see Lieberman as a reliable Democratic ally, and would rather see whatever privileges the Democrats have to hand out given to, you know, DEMOCRATS.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He lost the Democratic primary in 2006, and responded by leaving the party and losing the Democrats that Senate seat. He has campaigned quite vocally for the Republican presidential candidate this year, and would likely have been the Republican VP candidate if the religious hard-asses in the Republican party would have allowed it.

In what remotely meaningful sense is he a Democrat, or even aligned with Democratic interests?

Why should any committee position or other entitlement of office that *could* go to a Democrat go to Lieberman?

Can anyone give me any example of a significant piece liberal or progressive legislation that has been passed since 2006 that couldn't have been passed without Lieberman's support?

I have no particular animus toward Lieberman. But the man left the Democratic party of his own free will, cost the Democrats a Senate seat, has campaigned for the Republican ticket, and would have willingly been the Republican VP candidate.

WTF do the Democrats owe him? Why is this even a question?

I must be missing something.

If the Democrats have any sense whatsoever, they will strip Lieberman of anything that it is in their power to strip him of, and give those things to someone who will further their legislative program.

If Lieberman wants to rejoin the party, he's free to declare himself a Democrat in 2012 and then run against whoever else wants to take a shot at his seat in the Democratic primary.

Seriously, why the hell should the Democrats let him keep anything that might be useful to them? He is not a Democrat.

Thanks -

[yoyo]

becuase he supports them on 80% of the issues that will come up.

[Anne E]

If I were Harry Reid, I would be looking hard at a degrading rather than eliminating the power to filibuster. Remember, the filibuster originally required 67% of the whole senate to overcome, then was reduced to 67% of the senators who happened to be present for the vote, then was reduced to 60% of the whole senate. I strongly suspect that changing to "60% of the senators present for the vote" or "55% of the whole senate" is doable.

Right now, the antidemocratic structure of the senate (Wyoming gets the same number of senators as New York or California) means that the Republicans will virtually always have 40 seats.

Lieberman's got to go. If he's still chairing the government oversight committee, he will try to tie down the Obama administration in non-stop Whitewater-type frivolous investigations. And phony investigations from Lieberman would be particularly convincing- voters would thing "gosh, even Obama's fellow Democrats think that he is a crook!"

Plus, if the Democratic leadership lets Lieberman slap them around it makes them look weak.

[Sebastian]

"I seem to recall him voting for the bankruptcy bill..."

I don't care what you do with Lieberman. I don't like him at all. But the bankruptcy bill passed the Senate with 75 votes, so if that is your criteria for "voting with Democrats" you have a lot more serious problem than just Lieberman.