Joe Lieberman, GOP Freshman Senator

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:46:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Remember when Joe Lieberman hated filibusters? When he helped form the Gang of 14 to stop those awful filibusters of extreme Bush judges? Now he sings a different tune:

Lieberman also hinted that next session, he would be supportive of conservative efforts to filibuster progressive legislation. Lieberman said that the filibuster is a “key” to stop such “passions of the moment” [-] LIEBERMAN: And I think the filibuster is the key. You know, it gets a bad name, but it was really put there, a 60-vote requirement, to, as somebody said to me when I first came to the Senate, stop the passions of a moment among the people of America from sweeping across the Congress, the House, through the Senate, to a like-minded President and having us do things that will change America for a long time. So the filibuster is one of the important protections we have.

If I were Harry Reid, I would put it to Lieberman this way, the moment you join a Republican filibuster is the moment you are thrown out of the caucus and stripped of all committee chairmanships. If you want to act like a GOP freshman Senator, then we will treat you like one.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Day After Morning Open Thread | Why Every Vote Matters >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Joe Lieberman, GOP Freshman Senator | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If they didn't take action. . . (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST

the moment Lieberman spoke against the Democratic nominee at the Republican convention, under what possible circumstances would Lieberman believe they'll take action in the future.

I really think Lieberman is playing the reverse game -- the moment you come after me is when you'll see me supporting Republican filibusters.

Lieberman's a lost cause. I think he should be stripped of his committee seats (certainly the chairmanship) and relegated to the back benches. If that means he jumps the caucus, fine. He'll still vote with the Dems on a reasonable number of issues.

Or maybe Obama will be clever and appoint him as an ambassador. Maybe Syria?

Very simple (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST

The reason NOT to take action against him is twofold - (1) to not give him and the Media a chance to whine about those mean overreaching Dems; (2) so that he does not act like a freshman GOP Senator voting for GOP partyline filibusters.

If he does 2, then 1 is negated.


The Homeland Security Committee (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:18:14 AM EST

is too important to an Obama Administration imo, to risk not stripping Lieberman of his chair at this point. I think they can figure out a balance and or another "big story" to counter any media fallout from marginalizing Lieberman.


Do It Now (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Spike on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:45:57 AM EST

Lieberman has already stepped over too many lines. He doesn't need to be thrown out of the caucus, but he should be stripped of all leadership authority. If he wants to caucus with the Republicans, fine. When it comes to stopping a filibuster, Reid will be better served to seek the support of Collins, Snowe, and -- unfortunately -- maybe Coleman and Smith. To provide even a small bit of leverage to Lieberman is a mistake.


: What happened to all those (none / 0) (#28)
by imhotep on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:28:36 AM EST

"let them filibuster" calls I heard during the last 4 years?
I think BO should put a word in Reid's (if he's still majority leader when this all shakes out) ear to the effect that the filibuster tactic will show the country how obstructionist the minority party is, especially McConnell.

So we're in agreement. . . (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:11:50 AM EST

that this statement of Lieberman's is public bargaining -- his ability to filibuster on one hand vs. his party standing on the other?


: Bargaining in public (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:12:52 AM EST

is unseemly. He can tell Reid to his face.

But CT (none / 0) (#3)
by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST

has a Republican governor. We don't want her to pick a conservative Republican even if it is Lieberman.


He wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST

lose his seat just his standing in the Democratic caucus.


Err. . . (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM EST

A. Lieberman can't be removed from the Senate by the Democrats, simply have whatever party-granted authority he has stripped.

B. He's not a conservative Republican, he'd instantly become the most liberal Republican were he to jump caucuses.

C. Connecticut's Republican Governor is, if anything, to the left of Lieberman.


I meant that (none / 0) (#23)
by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM EST

if Obama gave Lieberman an ambassadorship, say to Israel, then a Repub governor would pick the replacement. But if she is more liberal than Lieberman, would she really pick a liberal Republican more amenable to voting with Dems?


: No idea who. . . (none / 0) (#25)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST

Rell would pick, but it wouldn't be a doctrinaire southern Republican. I hear Chris Shays is looking for a job. . .

They could not take action against (none / 0) (#13)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST

Lieberman because it was written into the Senate rules after the 2006 election that the Dems had the majority if Joe kept his committee chair.

Now they can take action and I wouldn't even bother to negotiate with Joe at this point - I'd just throw him out on his tail now - he's going to work with the GOP regardless - might as well be realistic about his determination to be a big participant in leading the "opposition".


Yeah Joe (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM EST

like the Patriot Act, a passion of the moment that you supported.

You're putting the cart before the horse, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by scribe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:22:23 AM EST

and also overlooking the utility of progressive discipline.

Reid can strip Lieberman of his chairmanships immediately, for his actions in (a) going against the will of the Democratic primary*, (b) supporting McSame so whorishly, and (c) speaking the way he did at the campaign. Further, his expressed intent to gum up the Senate to block Obama's programs is all the more reason to not have him in charge of any committees.

This does not mean, however, that Reid needs to strip Lieberman of his seniority, of his membership in the caucus, or anything else. Those are additional sources of discipline which can be imposed upon him for each of his subsequent transgressions. Thus, he can keep his nice offices and relatively-senior status until he gets tangled up in some filibuster or other. Then, Reid can decide that the un-air-conditioned broom closet under the roof of one of the office buildings is, after all, more suitable office space.

Every time Joe kicks up his whine, he gets another smackdown.

That's how Reid should do it, because Lieberman as a disciplinary problem will not ever be a one-and-done issue. He'll be like Joe Pants described his character Ralphie in the Sopranos: "a stone in Tony's shoe".

We all know how that turned out....

*I know, an old score and a lot of others went with him, but who says we have to be consistent - Lie-berman surely isn't.

toss him out on his ass. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:09:16 AM EST

right now, this very instant. with more than 50 seats, without him, he's no longer viable. move his office to the men's room in the basement. his constituents will get the hint.

this is no time to play nice with the republicans, it's time to step on some feet, hard. if the dems don't, i guarantee the republicans will (correctly) see it as a sign of weakness, and go on the attack.

crush them now, while you have them emotionally down, starting with lieberman. take no prisoners.

Nice (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST

But then you wanted to hang, draw and quarter Rumsfeld...so maybe Joe is getting off easy..

hehe


Good to see you back, Jim (none / 0) (#32)
by scribe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST

I'm of the opinion that a little randomness - in the sense of leaving the Republicans unable to predict just what will happen if they obstruct X - is a very useful strategy to keep them in line.

Over-punish something minor. Then watch what happens.


: Oh, I've been in and out (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST

but mostly very busy doing my own blog and discovering how easy it looks and hard it is..
along with some flying and other stuff.. Us ROFs can't let ourselves stop moving... might forget how to get up.
;-)
Just wanted to see how if you guys could be graceful in victory.... heaven knows you weren't in defeat...
Actually this all makes me feel young again.. I am reminded of Carter, except I was one of those expecting change and dynamic leadership... boy was that a learning experience...

Make them do real filibusters (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST

The only reason this is even an issue is because Reid backs down to every technical filibuster. Make them really carry one out for a change.

: I agree (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:28:34 AM EST

But both sides have done it.

Nicely said BTD (none / 0) (#4)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:58:30 AM EST

Not to defend Joe very much... (none / 0) (#8)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST

... but there is a difference that Senators have often drawn between a regular legislative fillibuster and a judicial fillibuster. The GOP in general have consistently opposed the latter, and it should be interesting to see if they as a party (in addition to Joe) change their tune now that the tables are turned.

Well they have been blocking legislation (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM EST

of all types since the 2006 elections through procedural measures which were defacto filibusters. It would be nice if Harry Reid started playing some hardball.


It was distinction drawn of conveninece (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:11:24 AM EST

For the moment. There is no intellectual argument that supports that distinction. Indeed, I think the reverse is true. Filibusters for judicial nominations is absolutely defensible and proper.

For other matters, it is a rule of the Senate that could be eliminated at a moment.


: It would be very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:20:53 AM EST

since everyone agrees that the rules can be changed at the start of a new Congress, for someone to offer to formally amend the rules to get rid of judicial filibusters. I wonder what the Republicans would say.

: Eliminating it at a moment... (none / 0) (#14)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST

... would, of course, be as hypocritical by the Democrats as fillubstering judges would be for the Republicans. Not that either would shock me or particularly upset me. Both sides do what they think they need to do.

Leverage against Joe (none / 0) (#17)
by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:21:05 AM EST

Reid could cut a deal whereby if Lieberman is well behaved and follows the rules then he gets a pat on the head.

i.e. Strip his chairmanship now and seniority, but if he votes well with Democrats on the important issues, doesn't filibuster, and keeps his big mouth shut, then he gets seniority back in 2 yrs and potentially is welcomed back into the Democratic party.

Of course that would be a bitter pill to swallow for most Democrats . . . maybe better to tip him out on his ear now.

No Need to Pander to Lieberman... (none / 0) (#20)
by santarita on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST

Lieberman was important because he opted to be considered part of the Democratic Congress for determining which was the majority party. If the Dems had gotten up to 59 Senators, he would have been important for filibuster purposes. But the filibuster-proof Senate is out of reach with or without him. So there is now no need to pander. He should be removed as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. I hope Holy Joe now recedes into the obscurity that he so richly deserves.

I can certainly see the argument... (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:00:18 AM EST

... for taking away his positions. But the Democrats do still need 60 votes, and he's potentially one of them. The number of persuadable Republicans is pretty low right now (especially since I don't see McCain resuming his traditional role as one of likely targets anytime soon).


: On any given controversial vote... (none / 0) (#30)
by santarita on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:36:49 AM EST

there will always be a need to persuade, negotiate and cajole with each Senator to get the 60 votes. So Joe is like other Senators but not as special as he has been.

59 + Joe? (none / 0) (#31)
by wystler on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:16:35 AM EST

Lockstep 59 + Lieberman? Hard to imagine, with the Nelson boys, Ms. Landrieu, AR's Pryor and Lincoln.

Filibuster-proof requires rock-solid discipline.

Further, it suggests no bully-pulpit ability. To discount the new administration's ability to deal politically with an obstructionist Senate minority? Let 'em try. They'll become "make my day" moments in the court of public opinion.


Joe should have become a Repub (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST

years ago.

: Never happen. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by scribe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST

Republicans live by the idea that "you pay a hooker, but don't forgive and then marry them."