Reports: Lieberman Likely To Keep His Chair

The entire Democratic Senate caucus will gather tomorrow to vote on whether Joe Lieberman should keep his position as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Sources tell MSNBC the vote will go his way:

According to sources familiar with negotiations, Democrats are expected to vote in favor of letting the Connecticut senator keep his chairmanship and seniority, but give up the gavel on a subcommittee he chairs. The vote happens tomorrow morning by secret ballot.

The tide turned in Lieberman's favor, sources say, after two events in recent weeks. First, President-elect Obama told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. Later, in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman told him it would be "unacceptable" for him to give up his gavel. That was considered by some as a veiled threat that Lieberman would jump to caucus with Republicans if he was forced to give up the gavel.

Obama tipped the scales in Lieberman's favor, one source said. The source essentially explained it like this: If the wrath was directed at Obama and got over it, shouldn't the Democratic caucus do the same?

CQ Politics adds:

Despite campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman has "significant support" from the caucus, ally Ken Salazar said Monday.

"I think he will be a force of good in supporting an Obama administration," said Salazar, D-Colo. He is part of a four-member whip team tasked with talking to other members of the caucus to find out what, if any, punishment Lieberman deserves for supporting Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and campaigning against President-elect Barack Obama.

...

Some senators say they will defer to their party leaders.

Story continues below

advertisement

"I'll follow the leadership position and President-elect Obama's recommendation," said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md. "Send a message, but don't pick a big fight within the family."

On the other hand, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a close ally of Lieberman's, says the Senator should pay consequences:

"There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.

...

Carper said he and three other Senate Democrats have been making phone calls to "take the temperature of our caucus." He said the purpose of the calls was not to lobby senators for any particular action for or against Lieberman, but "just to see where people's hearts and their minds are."

Carper said that "many of my colleagues ... are very angry with his criticism of Sen. Obama," but he would not say which sanctions he prefers.

Comments

[amcg50]

Jezzzzzzzzzzz people; get over it..It isn't spinelessness it 's Politics!

Keep your enemies closer...O­bama knows what he is doing....

[WongChin]

Lieberman did not simply criticize Obama; he lied that Obama has "never" crossed party lines "to get anything done." He lied that, while John McCain loves his country, Obama does not. Along with McCain, he lied that Obama would rather lose a war than to a political campaign. He argued that it was fair to call Obama a socialist in a country where calling somebody socialist is as disparaging as calling him/her Nazi, albeit with different connotations.
Many Republicans supported Obama, but in spite of what George Bush did and John McCain during his campaign, they refrained from the sort of campaign that was characteristic of Lieberman's.

The starting should be for Lieberman to explicitly disavow the lies he told and those he supported. This is different from an apology, like "I am sorry if I offended anyone" or such inanity.

[MurrayAbraham]

Just shows how spineless these people are. They would keep him in place even if he pissed on JFK's grave.

[rasputin999]

The devil takes care of his own!!!

[soundfury]

This picture perfectly captures Joe Lieberman as the posterchild for all the lying faces in Washington.

[soundfury]

The infe-station after W's reign of te-rror is so rampant and widespread in Washington, that it's hard to recognize real Dems.

Thank God Teddy, Kucinich and Kerry are still around and a few others who always come out on the front lines.

However to the other weak, limp noodles I say, you will get what you deserve when it's time for re-election.

[researcher]

all must go

all corrupt

it is a big buddy system

they take care of each other

jefferson was right

he will keep his chair and more

demos love to be spineless

in their blood

cant help themselves.

[oldmilitant]

Someone PLEASE send an e-mail to Sen Reid that tells the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.

For you w/bad memories, the frog thought the scorpion was gonna play ball also.

[Trittydi]

Wow. It's not often that Joe LIEberman gets to tell SOMEONE ELSE to bend over and grab both ankles.
*

[jorge4u]

I guess Obama owns Joe's butt now.

[dadw5boys]

They should wait for all the election results then vote !!!!!!!

[Appleton]

Contrary to some of the comments below, a decision to remove Sen. Lieberman from his chairmanship would be neither petty nor vindictive. Permitting him to retain his position, however, will be viewed for what it is, a sign of weakness in the party leadership. Sen. Lieberman has demonstrated that he will consistently pursue a course of narrow self interest. His energetic support of Sen. McCain is only the most recent example of his disloyalty to the party. Had Sen. McCain been elected, does anyone doubt that Sen. Lieberman would have either accepted a position in a McCain administration or moved across the aisle to caucus with the Republicans? Furthermore, the president-elect has not indicated, at least publicly, that he favors rewarding Sen. Lieberman for campaigning against the party, only that he wishes that Sen. Lieberman be permitted to continue caucusing with the Democrats. If Sen. Lieberman wishes to be perceived as a mature adult, he will accept the consequences of his decision, continue to caucus with the Democrats and rebuild his reputation. If he instead carries out his threat to leave the caucus, he will breach a commitment he previously made to his Connecticut constituents and will simultaneously prove the wisdom of his colleagues' decision. In either event, the party will have emerged with some fundamental principles intact and a renewed sense of discipline, a quality which will be sorely needed in the new Congress.

[RepugsOut08]

Well said. I totally agree. If Leiberman turns on the Dems for being disciplined because of a situation he created, then let the voters in Connecticut finish the process in 2010.
I haven't cared for him since he gave his little morality speech on the Senate floor against Clinton after the Lewinski affair. The guy is out for Joe, and Joe only.

[feezie]

Obama is making mistakes.

[weatherwaxx]

Oh, mercy sakes.

A) It isn't his decision; he gave an opinion, not an edict

B) We won't know if it's a mistake until we see what happens.

I'd like to see Lieberman out on his ass, but I'm pretty sure President-Elect Obama knows more than I do. I'm damned sure he's got more patience than I do.

If you expect him, or anyone, to manage the mess this country's in without ever making a mistake, you are out of luck. The important thing is whether he learns from mistakes -- one thing Bush never did.

[huffyISaHottie]

how gracious that the losers are so willing to always move on

[2cntswrth]

I am more concerned about what he would do in the future rather than what he has done in the past. For all that he did, it had no real impact upon the results of the election. We already know he lacks a sense of loyalty to the Democratic party, is focused upon the Republican/McCain ideology concerning the Iraq war, and obviously doesn't think too highly of President Elect Obama. But rather than being punitive (which really doesn't solve anything), it just seems to make more sense to keep him in his current position on the committees, and caucusing with the Democrats. Obviously, he isn't one to be trusted. So, the Democrats need to have their feet right square in his a$$ every step he takes. But it may be better to keep him close by in order to see what he is up to, and question him on every move he makes as opposed to watching him go caucus with the Republicans (who he has less agreements with on many other issues). Most likely when he is up for re-election, he'll lose anyway. That will probably take care of the problem better than finding some punishment for him that's only going to cause resentment and backlash in other ways. Just let the voters deal with him.

[Beninn]

What this means is that Obama and Senate Democrats are as corrupt as Lieberman and Republicans.

This is about having meaningful investigations into what Bush did these past 8 years. Lieberman has been an accomplice towards covering up Bush's trail. With him in charge of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman is free to block inquiries into the secret no-bid contracts that went to corporations like Halliburton. Halliburton just got another huge contract out of the $700 billion bailout six weeks ago. We can't possibly turn this nation around and open government with these same people blocking the entrance the gates.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/11/schumer-and-durbin-want-lieberman-stripped-of-homeland-security-chair/

[herointheend]

Senate Democrats need to take a principled stand, and vote to deprive Joe Lieberman of this important chairmanship. This should not be done out of a sense of spite (although it certainly could be justified for that purpose), but rather because Lieberman has shown that he will almost certainly betray his party and President Obama at the first opportunity as Chairman. Lieberman, simply put, is a man who cannot be trusted with the Obama security agenda. Those who sleep with vipers should prepare to be bitten by morning.

[DCinFrance]

Yes, preemptive assumption, not spite. Not revenge. No, by selecting to support John, he has demonstrated blah, blah, blah.

Obama is right. It is petty to strip him of responsibilities and marginalize him--and potentially more dangerous.

Why is this so hard? To strip him of his post because he support the other side UNETHICAL? It is sooo Sarah Palin.

[jorge4u]

I think you may be missing the whole point about the anger and frustration of some people. It is not about Joe supporting McCain. It is about Joe questioning Obama's patriotism, personal attacks against Obama and so forth.

[eden4barack08]

This man did more than just "support the other side".