PDA

View Full Version : Lieberman to Keep Senate Chair


Radu
11-18-2008, 07:20 PM
From Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081118/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_lieberman)

McCain-backer Lieberman keeps Senate chairmanship

By Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan Thomas Ferraro And Richard Cowan – Tue Nov 18, 12:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democrats on Tuesday yielded to the wishes of President-elect Barack Obama and allowed Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship despite having backed Republican John McCain for the White House.

At a closed-door meeting, Senate Democrats meted out lesser punishment, passing a resolution of disapproval and stripping Lieberman of the chairmanship of an environment subcommittee.

There were fears that Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, might become a Republican if he lost the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

"This is not a time for retribution," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, adding that "we need to be unified" as the Democratic-led Congress wrestles with a host of problems, including the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

"This is all about going forward," Lieberman, flanked by a number of Senate Democrats, told reporters.

Democratic aides said Obama, shortly after winning the November 4 election for the presidency over McCain, urged Democrats to do what it takes to keep Lieberman, who represents Connecticut, in their Senate conference where he routinely votes with them.

Lieberman allowed Democrats to retain control of the Senate, 51-49, the past two years by caucusing with them. Democrats enlarged their Senate majority in the November 4 election, but many believe they could still use Lieberman's vote on a number of issues.

With newly elected Senate Democrats voting, the Democratic conference agreed on a 42-13 tally to allow Lieberman to keep the chairmanship of homeland security as well as a Senate armed services subcommittee, but lose the chairmanship of an environment subcommittee.

Lieberman backed McCain for president largely because McCain, unlike Obama, supported the unpopular Iraq war. In campaigning for McCain, Lieberman routinely ripped into Obama as misguided on what to do about the war, now in its sixth year.

The resolution approved by the Senate Democrats said their caucus "disapproves and rejects statements made by Senator Lieberman against Senator Obama during the campaign for the presidency."

Said Reid, "I defy anyone to be more angry than I was" with Lieberman's words, calling it "a period of time in Joe Lieberman's political career I will never understand or approve."

But Reid then talked about Lieberman's contributions to Senate Democrats and to the country, recounting that as a young man Lieberman traveled to the South to work in the civil rights movement. In 2000, Lieberman, a moderate, was Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's vice presidential running mate.

Lieberman won re-election to a fourth term in the Senate as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary due mostly to his support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman then served in the Senate with both presidential candidates -- McCain representing Arizona and Obama serving Illinois until he resigned on Sunday.

(Editing by David Wiessler)

Senator Lieberman is getting to keep his position after:

1) speaking out in defense of Swift Boaters
2) endorsing the Republican John McCain
3) speaking at the RNC Convention
4) "The Kiss"

What happened to your BALLS, Democrats? Can you really want 60 seats that badly that you'd let this Neocon in Liberal's clothing continue to betray your party in all but name? I guess part of this could be put down to a sort of "post partisan politics" scheme, a game where we no longer draw lines in the sand over political ideology... but I'm still waiting to be convinced on the merits of that idea, and the merit of this one. I think Rachel Maddow summarizes the whole thing nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=378KU_TZTFU&feature=related

Ergeheilalt
11-18-2008, 09:28 PM
It makes sense. They're aiming for a bipartisan government. And he's chair of the homeland security committee. Big woop! He's been there long enough to know his shit. I say leave him. They'll probably pack the committee with enough votes that he won't be able to push through conservative drek anyhow. And pundits would have a field day with it, tearing them a new asshole for being divisive already when they aren't even sworn in as a majority yet.

That said, I think Leiberman is just a brown-nosing SOB who does not owe any allegiance to any ideology other than the twisted one that allows him to believe he's on the winning side.

Name Lips
11-18-2008, 10:27 PM
Can you really want 60 seats that badly that you'd let this Neocon in Liberal's clothing continue to betray your party in all but name?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Varaj
11-18-2008, 11:00 PM
If I believed Lieberman was following what he believed to be right I would keep him. If I believed Lieberman was following who he believed would win I would can him.

Based on Lieberman's prior work with McCain I think he was following what he believed was right. I want people that are willing to go against their party for what they believe is right.

AZRogue
11-19-2008, 12:15 PM
If I believed Lieberman was following what he believed to be right I would keep him. If I believed Lieberman was following who he believed would win I would can him.

Based on Lieberman's prior work with McCain I think he was following what he believed was right. I want people that are willing to go against their party for what they believe is right.

That's what I think. The guy didn't suddenly become McCain's good friend. And, even if he is hard on national security issues, he's still a Democrat and votes more often than not with his Party. Just because he is old school on foreign policy and campaigned for his friend isn't a reason to exact revenge. The Democrats want to be bi-partisan, which is great, and I don't think they could have done that AND have canned Lieberman. It would have sent the wrong message right out the gate.

The Winslow
11-19-2008, 01:13 PM
I think ditching Lieberman because he backed the opponent would just be pettiness on the part of the victorious party.

doc
11-19-2008, 01:27 PM
Alot of the hardcore liberial Dems don't believe in Bi-partisanship, they want to punish the cons for the 8 years they were in office.

PWD
11-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Alot of the hardcore Conservative Repubs don't believe in Bi-partisanship, they want to punish the Dems for the 8 years they were in office.

Wow, flashback to 2000.

doc
11-19-2008, 01:42 PM
yep

obryn
11-19-2008, 02:35 PM
Throwing out Lieberman would basically show that all this bipartisanship stuff is a big lie.

Obama made it pretty clear he wants to lead from the center - not from the left. He asked the Senate to back him up on this, and they did. I think it sends a good message, and it's smart politics.

-O

Snatch
11-19-2008, 05:20 PM
I think it sends a good message, and it's smart politics.

-O

And how often does that happen?

Besides chocolate and lesbians?