Senate Dems Should Make Tough Deal With Joe-Lieb: You Can Keep Your Chairmanship If You Vote to Advance Democratic Agenda

First things first--I find Joe Lieberman to be despicable. He had a right to support John McCain, just as a number of prominent Republicans had a right to support Barack Obama. But his personal attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism--after promising that he would campaign positively for John McCain but not negatively against Obama--were outrageous and unprincipled. I became all but nauseous as I repeatedly watched him and Cindy McCain flank John McCain at campaign rallies--like two praetorian guards--while they chanted "drill, baby, drill" along with the rabid crowds.

Second, Congressional Democrats must be able to exercise discipline over their caucus if they hope to bring about the change they and President-elect Obama promised the country during the election campaign. When Republicans controlled Congress, they were quite successful in maintaining discipline in their caucus and passing President Bush's agenda--Democrats should do no less. The Democratic Leadership must exact a price against nominal Democratic Senators and Representatives who vote to block key parts of theirs and Obama's legislative agenda, particularly against Democratic Senators who vote with Republicans to filibuster key pieces of legislation, thus preventing them from even coming to a vote. (Even here, however, there must be some flexibility--Democrats from conservative districts should be allowed to occasionally stray, particularly if their votes don't matter in whether or not a piece of legislation reaches the floor or passes.)

Third, I'm a political pragmatist. When it comes to Joe Lieberman, my heart yearns for political retribution. But my head says that what matters most is not what he's said in the past but how he votes in the future. If Senate Democratic leaders can trade Lieberman keeping his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship for an enforceable pledge that he not participate in blocking the Democratic and Obama agenda, then they should do so. But if Lieberman has the ability to continue to freelance and effectively ally with Republicans to block the Democratic agenda, then discipline must be enforced and he must be stripped of his Chairmanship.

So here's a possible deal. In return for being allowed for the time being to keep his Chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman would have to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an undated irrevocable letter of resignation from his Chairmanship. * Sen. Reid would have the right to date the letter, making the resignation automatically and immediately effective, if at any time Lieberman votes to uphold a Republican filibuster, or votes against legislation supported by President Obama and the Democratic Senate leaderships, if his vote is the deciding vote in determining whether the filibuster is upheld or whether the legislation is passed.

If Lieberman can be effectively handcuffed from helping block the Democratic agenda, then let the miserable SOB keep his Chairmanship. If he won't agree to that, of if the agreement isn't legally enforceable, then he should be punished for his despicable behavior and stripped of his Committee Chairmanship, both as a matter of principle, and as a matter of maintaining a disciplined Democratic caucus that will implement the change that we have believed in and voted for.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I suggest the mechanism of an undated irrevocable letter of resignation in order to insure that it would actually be possible to force Lieberman out of his Committee Chairmanship if he breaks his pledge not to block the Democratic agenda. As reported Friday in the Huffington Post, it normally takes a Senate resolution to involuntarily remove a Committee Chairman and such a resolution itself could be subject to a Republican filibuster making it impossible for Senate Democrats to remove Lieberman for siding with Republicans. Such an undated irrevocable resignation letter might be a way around this rule. Senate Democratic leaders should, however, get an opinion of counsel that such a letter would be effective before adopting this solution.

Comments

[nickwheeler]

Miles I think you are either a little naive to think that Joe will suddenly do a good job
or you're a little preemptive and scared to think dems can't get someone better.
If they somehow can't then use the contract, but don't give up in advance. Let's not let dems keep doing that spineless .

Succinctly,
set up the contract like you're gonna let him stay, then get someone better,
is that what you mean?

[fightorleave2]

Uhhhhmmmm, that's already been tried with Joe. That is why they gave him Homeland Security. Has it worked out so far?

[jbatch]

He should be history -- there's no down side to excommunicating him, and a huge upside. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Tremonius]

Reminds me of the story of the farmer come to town to find the new gunfighter. Walks right up to him in the bar, snarls: "You the one raped my old lady, shot my son, burned my barn, run off with my cattle?"

And the gunfighter spits, says, "Yep."

Farmer stares at him. "Boy, you better watch that ol' stuff!"

[CSDofNM]

I agree completely. Joe has betrayed the caucus for the last time. He provides no benefits. If he bails, then we trade for Hagel.

Stop this Democratic Lack of Spine Defect before it spreads.

[BBackSoon]

Much like a cheating spouse, how will we ever be able to trust him again? Please remind me what his platform was when he won his senate chair as an independent? I believe it was on an anti-war platform, to get us out of Iraq. He has been working tirelessly hasn"t he?

[Miles Mogulescu - Huffpost Blogger]

See Miles Mogulescu's Profile

This proposal is not based on "trusting" Lieberman. It's based on having a binding legal agreement that if he votes to thwart the Democratic agenda, he automatically loses his Chairmanship.

[BBackSoon]

Thanks, it"s nice to get a response from a Huffpo Contributor.

How fast could they move if he does cross them? On the next bill? A month later? And at some point I do want a chairman that is not just a Yes man.

Is it not also true that Lieberman would have subpoena power over Obama? That would throw one hell of a wrench into any deal. If JL got pi$$y he might file a subpoena just at the time they want him out. Even if it is BS it would make removal appear to be retribution.

[Miles Mogulescu - Huffpost Blogger]

See Miles Mogulescu's Profile

P.S. The far more dangerous, and likely scenaio, is that Senate Dems allow Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship without conditions. Better to put put golden handcuffs on him that automatically snap shut if he misbehaves.

[journey80]

Caucus with the Democrats and work behind the scenes with the Republicans. Duh.

[sixx]

Who in their right mind would trust his word?

[Sketchartist]

It is NOT about "retribution"!

It is about TRUST.

Lieberman's supporters want to FRAME this issue as being about petty vengeance. Don't buy into it for a minute, folks. It is about NATIONAL SECURITY, our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, HONESTY and COMPETENCE, among many other things.

"Vengeance"? WHO CARES? The reasons for getting rid of Lieberman are SO much more important than that.

[Spud777]

Interesting: He should be stripped of chairmanship initially. If he proves over the next year that he will support the Democratic agenda, leaders can then re-consider giving it back to him. Performance before reward ladies and gentleman.

[stevi]

What in the world does anyone think would make the LIE man vote with Democrats in a nail bitter against the Republicans? There is no way he would do that. He would vote against anything the Democrats really need him for, because he's like that. This man cannot be trusted, he is a hypocrite. Our new President wants to be generous and he is apparently much kinder than I. He knows things we don't, but the LIE man is still bad news and will never have the Democrats back.

[jazzdad51]

Joe will be stripped of his chair and he will be grateful that he is not kicked out of the caucus.

[urfree2speak]

There has to be some type of order, loyalty,discipline....Joe must go !

[karlo5]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, throw the bumb out.

[kemstone]

Forget everything you know about inside political baseball for a moment, and consider just how outrageous an idea it is that a United States senator, a public SERVANT voted into office to serve the interest of his constituents, might throw all of that aside and vote to block the president's agenda not because he disagrees with it but out of some petty resentment for being stripped of his chairmanship.

This is not a group of kindergarten students on the playground at recess. "We can't kick Joey out of our club because then he'll join the other club!" This is the United States Senate! Senators should vote for the measures that their constituents support--period. The fact that the democrats even have to worry that he'll change his votes and deliberately try to block legislation he would have otherwise supported is the biggest indicator of just how despicable a person he must be.

A senator's vote is a PRIVILEGE given to him by those who put him in office. To disregard those people and use that power, a power which you are only exercising on their behalf, as political leverage is beyond contemptible--it's practically criminal.

[DatelessNerd]

Miles, this is a fair and reasonable proposal...

...which is why Lieberman will never accept it.