Is anyone "torn" on whether Reid should bring the Hammer Down on Lieberman?

KoKo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-06-08 06:11 PM
Original message

Is anyone "torn" on whether Reid should bring the Hammer Down on Lieberman?

Edited on Thu Nov-06-08 06:12 PM by KoKo01

Reid seems to be popular in many places on DU because he's soft-spoken and avoids giving an impression that he isn't anything but fair. Yet, some of us feel in the case of Lieberman a Hammer Blow would teach any like him who exhibit duplicit behavior a big message.

I know we needed him to caucus with us...but what good did that do? Where did the investigations of Bush/Cheney ever go...and who has ever been held accountable. Reid followed "soft-spoken" Tom Daschle who allowed all of Bush's appointments to go through when brave Repug Jim Jeffords switched to Dem to help us after the Stolen Election of 2000. We Dems had a window when some of Bush's most aggregious appointments could have been shot down or hindered with a majority...but Daschle was always said to be "keeping his powder dry" as he constantly dithered over everything.

IMHO Reid has been as bad as Daschle ...but maybe he really is better than I think and his slow, deliberative methods have helped us in some way. :shrug:

Anyway, here's an interesting read about what is going on in the Senate's Dealings with Lieberman after his candidate went down on Tuesday:

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

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/11/6/152735/419

Don't Misread The Lieberman Tea Leaves

by Josh Orton, Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST

As Jonathan notes below, Reid wouldn't find himself out on a limb if he stripped Lieberman of his chairmanship.

Stoller and Sargent are skeptical about this statement from Reid following today's meeting with Lieberman:

"No decisions have been made," Reid said, in a statement sent to us by his office. "While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our Caucus."

"I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come," Reid continued, "and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our Caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."

But to understand what's in motion, we've got to read carefully.

Earlier in the year, when asked about Lieberman's position in the caucus, Reid made statements like this (from June 5th):

"I think everybody should understand that Joe Lieberman has made a decision on issues relating to the war. And he's decided to back John McCain. But Joe Lieberman is an important vote for this caucus."

Then as Lieberman's attacks on Obama increased (and after Lieberman spoke at the GOP convention), Reid and his people started to indicate that consequences for Lieberman were possible, but wouldn't be examined until after the election:

Jim Manley, another Reid aide, told The Hill newspaper that "it's likely" the Democratic caucus will gather after the elections to determine a course on Lieberman.

But where Reid's statements about Lieberman used to imply no coming consequences, i.e. 'Joe's gone off the reservations sometimes, but...' - today's statement runs in the opposite direction: 'Joe's with us on some things, but....' Reid is obviously implying that Lieberman will be punished; just because the details weren't announced today doesn't mean nothing will happen. Rather, Reid is likely working through the Senate mechanisms behind-the-scenes: walking through the complex process of Chairmanship 'musical chairs' that Ari describes here, estimating how many Dems we'll actually have in our caucus, and speaking with all of Lieberman's allies in the Dem caucus so no one goes off the reservation when a decision is announced.

So don't misread the reality - Lieberman has very little leverage in this situation and nowhere to go. He angered Obama and Reid during the campaign, and his presidential candidate lost. So Reid is taking his time, but that shouldn't be misread as indecisiveness or inaction. It just proves how little power Lieberman now has.