But Ezra, no matter how you choose to imagine it, that's not what is happening.

If Joe was a moderate Republican who was moving to our side in fits and starts, that would be one thing. But he's not -- the optics of this thing are clearly "moderate Dem disgusted with his party, works with Republicans." That is just 180 degrees from "moderate Rep, considering party change." The two just can't be compared.

AND, if Lieberman were really a Chris Shays clone, would Reid REALLY give him such a huge plum as Gov't Oversight? I mean that would be a helluva chair to get as a newbie Democrat. Especially since a new convert would be nice, but it isn't exactly necessary to accomplish anything, like the Jeffords switch in '01.

Overall I think you are working way too hard to excuse Joe. He knows exactly what he's doing -- getting the max perks and attention by being a rogue Democrat.

if Lieberman were really a Chris Shays clone, would Reid REALLY give him such a huge plum as Gov't Oversight?

This is the key aspect. All other considerations re Lieberman pale next to the fact that we can't have Congressional oversight if we don't have Congressional oversight! Effectively, Lieberman is complicit in the unconscionable shenanigans that have gone on while he did nothing.

It's Obama's prerogative to say "yeah, he was a dick to me personally, but I'm ready to overlook that in order to get his vote on various things" and it's the Democratic Senate's prerogative to say "well, Obama says it's cool, so I guess maybe it is" -- but not on oversight. Maybe we can have a Waxman-replacing-Dingell moment?

That metaphor is BS. If someone were thinking of switching to the Dems, but telling Reid, "in the future, I'm going to continue to vote with the Republicans, endorse them and give them my money," then I'm not sure anyone would consider it a coup. Part of what would be expected would be some measure of loyalty.

And as others have said, that person would not get a major chairmanship.

Now maybe cold hard pragmatism was the right move here, but lets not treat it as anything more than that. Lieberman is a wretched human being that hopefully will be out of the Senate in 4 years. The Dems made a major miscalculation in not totally turning against him in 2006 - I hope they aren't making a similar miscalculation in not punishing someone for gross disloyalty. It might be the right move, but lets not act like it isn't a risk. They could be setting a dangerous precedent, Lieberman could use his position on gov oversight to do some damage to Obama and furthermore, he could jump ship to the Republicans later anyways.

Lieberman is an untrustworthy snake who deserves personal and professional ruin. Not punishing him sets a dangerous precedent.

He could also easily end up being the/a critical vote on, say, comprehensive health care reform. Or on confirming any number of liberal judges and justices. Or on cap and trade legislation.

Keeping him is the smart move, because the agenda is important and personalities are trivial. Reid can always knife him in the back later.

Ezra,

Incorrect, because of the incredible damage Lieberman was able to by referring to himself as a Democrat.

Lieberman's whole routine is dependent on the "D" label. When he attacks Democrats (like Clinton), it makes their behavior look especially egregious because "even" a Democrat is attacking. When he takes Republican positions, they appear more reasonable because "even" a Democrat likes them.

The guy (or girl) in your scenario--the generic Republican--couldn't have done any of that.

The claim that Democrats would not give a moderate Republican who became an Independent affiliated with the Democratic Caucus would not get a chairmanship in a Democratic-organized Senate, was disproven in 2001, when Jim Jeffords, a moderate Republican who became an Independent affiliated with the Democratic Caucus, became Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee in a Democratic-organized Senate.

Look, I agree that he deserves to have been stripped of his chairmanship, but now that that is no longer an option, let's see how he behaves for the next two years. If he supports President Obama's program and does not launch harassing investigations over nothing, it might be worth it.

Correction: Jeffords chaired Environment & Public Works, not HELP. Sorry for that. That is what I get for posting in a hurry.

This was never about 'spinelessness" it was about corruption. A corrupt, ruling elite lying to us by omission before the election, and then bending over backwards to refuse to hold one of their own accountable afterwards.

Ezra doesn't pay attention to the real reasons: Joe Lieberman is the soul of the Democratic Party. He was the Democratic candidate for vice-president in 2000. His views are similar to those of the rest of the elected Democrats. And they haven't changed significantly in the last eight years. Obama just kept him in his position because a) Obama feels a debt of personal gratitude to his former mentor and b) Obama substantially agrees with Joe Lieberman on most issues.

Of course he has offended party discipline. But he's said nothing - not one word - that a significant part of his party doesn't agree with. The Democrats are pro-war, pro-Israel, and, frankly, a great many of them are anti-Democrat and pro-Republican. If Lieberman had gone off-message in a way that actually offended the sensibilities of many other Democrats ("NAMBLA is great!") then he'd have been ousted. But he's gone off-message in a way that had a lot of support from his peers, and that's why he hasn't and won't be ousted.

During the 2010 elections, look for Joe to vocally support assorted Republicans. Look for no punishment to occur.

Ezra -

What's the difference between a girl breaking up with another guy to go out with you, and your wife cheating on you without remorse?

That is exactly the difference between your imaginary scenario and the real one.

It seems that for Obama, the most important thing is getting his major agenda through the Senate as soon as possible after he takes office. Everything else, including punishing Lieberman, is relatively unimportant. If we punish him now, he'll still be smarting in January and therefore less inclined to cooperate. We can deal with him later.

My head hurts. The imagination required to understand a viewpoint of Lieberman other than as he actually is slaps my head. Sometimes a putz is just a putz.

The decision has been made. The only hope now is that Lieberman actually plans to run for reelection rather than lining up a lucrative lobbying job. If he wants to be reelected, he actually will have a large incentive to cooperate with Obama, who won Connecticut 61%-38%.

If he has other plans (and his reelection prospects aren't looking so good at the moment), he'll continue the "independent Democrat" shtick and stab Obama in the back repeatedly, and there won't be much Democrats can do about it.

How many "bipartisan initiatives" over the past four years were the Republicans plus Lieberman?

Ezra, I'm sorry, but yout hypothetical situation is irrelevant. Of course your hypothetical scenario would be considered a coup for Democrats - they get someone from the other side to cross over, why wouldn't they be happy?

The real question is, what would the Republicans feel and do in your hypothetical situation? They would feel betrayed, as a lot of Democrats are feeling now. And unlike our wimpy Democratic Senators, they would kick Lieberman's ass to eternity, coming out with all sorts of oppo research to undermine Lieberman's credibility. Fox News would go into 24-hour smear-Lieberman mode, Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership would be repeating a series of talking points about what a despicable, horrible human being Lieberman is.

Now that is the actual comparison. Comparing a situation where Democrats are betrayed and screwed over, with a situation where Democrats get another vote, is false equivalency. Didn't you major in philosophy in college? How could you not know that?

Oops, sorry, wrong blogger. Yglesias was the one who studied philosophy.

The one thing your alternative reality leaves out is the element of betrayal. That means a lot, both morally and pragmatically. It means Joe can't be trusted.

Ezra Klein,

As I have done several times in the last few weeks when people have tried to put a nice shiny coat of paint on the bullsh!t that is Lieberman keeping his Homeland Security chairmanship I will direct you to the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog. When Lieberman stabs Harry Reid and or Barack Obama the first of many times to come just remember these words

"I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

I think Steve Benen himself has the best response to Ezra hypothetical scenario:

"Of course, this helps underscore the one aspect of Lieberman's conduct that offends Democrats most: betrayal. If he was a Republican who's now prepared to join the Democratic caucus, there'd at least be some consistency to his decision making -- he would have spent 2008 doing what other Republicans were doing in support of the GOP ticket and down-ballot candidates. That's irritating, but it's not treachery.

Except, Lieberman wasn't an actual Republican, and the context matters. He led "Democrats for McCain" after promising his own constituents to help elect a Democratic president. Just as importantly, he used his role as a "Democrat" to lend credibility to the Republican message and its candidate slate. Had Lieberman been a genuine Republican, this dynamic wouldn't have existed."

The thing is, why did Lieberman leave the Democratic party in the first place? Not on principle, because he got fed up (as Zell Miller did, for example). He left because he lost the Democratic primary; the registered Democrats in Connecticut did not want him to represent them anymore. Why did they change their mind, after having nominated him so many times in the past? Because he was supporting policies they didn't like, especially as regards the ongoing war in Iraq and a potential war with Iran. They did not want to be represented by someone with those policies, they did not want those policies enacted, and moreover, Lieberman's disproportional influence in the Senate gave them the opportunity to really effect some change by ejecting him. He left the party and ran as an independent because that was the only way he could remain in the Senate.

However, this really does not explain why he supported McCain in the general election. That John McCain is his friend might do so. Then again, it still does not really explain why he supported other Republicans. Etc. Now, as Ezra points out, Barack Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership have decided, in effect, that the reasons don't matter. It's difficult, from this vantage point, to see why, but Ezra's explanation is plausible enough.

There are some Republicans that (I hope) we can agree are just 'beyond the pale' as potential conversion to Dems. Take John Coryn, for instance, or Saxbee. I don't want them as Dems even if that makes filibuster-override votes easier to obtain. The Dem caucas room stinks enough as it is, and their loyalty is impossible to believe in.

I don't care what Joe does in the spring on voting. He was a Dem. VP candidate, and that makes his behavior since he became an indy into Benedict Arnold material. Treason is capital punishment material in the Constitution, for good reason.

Ezra,

2 separate issues, both affirmative. Yes a good move by the astute Senate Majority Leader. And yes a candidate could stay in his/her party and make a case for why they represent both sides. Didn't we just have an election that proved that?

What Left Blogistan needs to do is figure out what ways they can influence Lieberman to vote with the Democrats on the most pressing issues, and figuring out what issues to give him a pass on in spite of not being in total agreement with the caucus. No one expects him to become a Feingold or Wellstone in the new senate, so maybe it is enough is he can be effectively pressed on the 6 or 7 issues that matter most. Figure out what those issues are, and come up with an effective means of getting him to side with the progressive view on those issues. Then let him be "the independent" on the other issues.

Ok I have decided to come back and totally blow up Ezra's scenario. Here is the deal Ezra. In your scenario the moderate Republican decides to cross the aisle. But what if he still votes the same way as he always has? What would lead you to believe that even though he never voted party line with the Republicans that he will now vote party line with the Democrats? And if he isn't going to vote party line what benefit exactly comes to the Democratic party by having him in it? I can think of several benefits to the republican.

1. The Dems are in power so he gets a plum chairmanship

2. His home state loves to vote for people with a D beside their names

3. He can still vote however he wants to vote and nobody will question him because supposedly thats why they invited him to switch sides in the first place.

4. He can be as mediocre or even vindictive as he wants to be in his chairmanships because the Democrats can't afford the pr hit they would take by stripping him after having invited him to cross over in the first place.

I will be waiting for you to tell all of us what the benefit to the Democratic party is by having Lieberman or a fictional moderate Republican caucus with the Democrats while still voting however they want to.

According to the rankings at voteview.com, Lieberman's Senate voting record places him squarely in the Democratic camp. No actual Republican has a voting record like Lieberman's. On the other hand, his rehtoric has been terrible. For example, he voted to preserve Social Security, but only after using a Republican talking point to attack the program. This allowed Bush to cite Lieberman in support of a bogus attack on Social Security.

Perhaps Senators pay more attention to Senate votes and less attention to rehtoric than the rest of us do. If Democrats expect Lieberman to stop giving rehtorical aid and comfort to the Republicans, they are likely to be disappointed. But if their main concern is getting Lieberman to vote for Obama's programs, I expect them to be fairly pleased with how things turn out.

This discussion irritates me. If you strip Leiberman of his chairmanship now, what will you use to threaten him in the future? Leiberman being Leiberman, he will, inevitably, try to buck the Democrats on something important. If you let him keep his chairmanship, you have something you can hold over his head. If you take it away, you guarantee that he makes every effort to undermine the Democratic party. The notion that, right now, Leiberman does everything he can to undermine the Democratic party is just false.

I don't like Leiberman, either -- in fact, I am on record not liking him long before it was cool -- but the fact remains that he's a famous, powerful Senator. You don't have to like that, but you have to live with it. ("But I wish the world were such that people I think are bad never got any political power!" is not a good response.) Right now, this just isn't a fight worth picking. Better to have Leiberman as a quasi-friend who you can punish later than to make him an irreconcilable enemy.

Hate Leiberman, always have. His voice alone gives me cramps.

That said, now he is a bug. He can be sqaushed at any time. While some politicians may be noble, party politics is usually a dark pursuit. Both sides are saying what needs to be said to serve their very short term interests. And both sides must know this.

But it's Lieberman who will be on the bubble. His membership in the caucus can be yanked in a moment if he does not do what is needed.

So, what's the hurry? If we need his vote and get it - great. If not, bring out the fly swatter then.

If you strip Leiberman of his chairmanship now, what will you use to threaten him in the future? ... If you let him keep his chairmanship, you have something you can hold over his head.

This is plausible enough in theory, but do any of us believe that the Dem. leadership will ever actually drop the hammer on Lieberman?

It's useful to remember that Lieberman was first elected to the Senate in 1988 when conservative Republicans turned on GOP Sen. Lowell Weicker for being too liberal and critical of the Reagan administration.

Right-wingers have been invested in Lieberman ever since, as they were in Henry Jackson, Pat Moynihan, Zell Miller and other Democrats who've diverged from prevailing party opinion.

Liberal Democrats have been comparably indulgent of GOP apostates such as Christie Whitman, Mike Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- and conservative Republicans have reacted predictably.

The value of keeping Lieberman in the Senate Democratic caucus is not ideological but arithmetical: The larger their numbers vs. the GOP, the more committee slots they are due. That was probably the motive of incoming freshmen, such as Udall and Merkley, who voted in Lieberman's favor.

Newsflash: The Democrats can not strip Lieberman of his chairmanship after the next session of Congress starts in January for at least two years. The only way he could be stripped is by a vote of the full Senate including all the Republicans and that vote would be subject to filibuster. The Democrats are stuck with him as chairman of HSC for the next two years come hell or high water so they have NO leverage now by giving him the chairmanship. Oh and by the way I would just LOVE to see the headlines if the Democrats were to try to strip him of his chairmanship because he spoke out against Barack Obama again, spoke out against Senate Democrats or started some kind of ridiculous investigation into PEOTUS Obama's administration. The wing nuts would have a FIELD DAY with that one.

By the way this isn't his first time he has held them hostage. After he lost the primary in 2006 and then won as an independent he said if the Dems didnt allow him to keep his senority and give him a chairmanship he would "consider" switching parties and thus allowing the Republicans to stay in the majority. Here is Cenk Uygur on The Young Turks having the same discussion two years ago that we are having now and we see that he didnt change except for the worst for the last two years after the Dems captiulated in 2006

One more thing about Lieberman. Only 33% of registered Democrats who did vote in CT voted for him in 2006. That means he was voted in largely by Republicans. That should tell people something.

If you strip Leiberman of his chairmanship now, what will you use to threaten him in the future?

Now that Lieberman has repeatedly reinforced Republican ideas in the media, campaigned for John McCain, and given money to Republican congressional candidates, then escaped with no consequences, how exactly will Democrats threaten him credibly in the future, especially since there's no way to strip him of his chair now.

The notion that the Republicans would stage a filibuster to stop the Democrats from amending the organizing resolution naming Leiberman chairman doesn't strike me as very plausible. Yes, yes, the resolutions! The Legislative Reorganization Act! But legislative procedure never, ever determines the outcome in this sort of fight. Case in point: the chairmanships switched after Jeffords defected in May 2001, with Jeffords getting Reid's gavel over environment and public works. Does anyone seriously think a Republican filibuster would have stopped that from happening? Made it more or a hassle, sure. But stop it? All this pains me greatly to writes -- legislative proceure is awesome! -- but it's true. And I don't see the horse-trading working out in Leiberman's favor. And if I'm wrong, why, then, what a perfect opportunity to (i) scrap the filibuster or (ii) amend some of the more onerous rules governing the committee system, both of which need doing. Also, in the unlikely event it's impossible to give him the boot, there are many, many other ways of making him irrelevant. The point is that starting a fight with him now doesn't serve any purpose other than signaling that the party doesn't like him. Emotionally satisfying, yes, but coutnerproductive.

"more or a hassle" = "more of a hassle"

"writes" = "write"

If you strip Leiberman of his chairmanship now, what will you use to threaten him in the future? Leiberman being Leiberman, he will, inevitably, try to buck the Democrats on something important. If you let him keep his chairmanship, you have something you can hold over his head.

This is incorrect for reasons that other have already pointed out. Their chance to punish Lieberman has been, for all practical purposes, lost. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the way the Senate works and ignores that the political cost would be much higher to punish him in the future when compared to punishing him two weeks ago in the wake of the election.

But in my opinion, your comment also misses the point. The point of punishing Lieberman was really about establishing the basic principle, a principle that applies to every other single organization on the planet Earth that I can think of, that you don't get to act against the interests of your group, organization, party, caucus, etc. without penalty. I don't know where you work, but I feel quite certain that betrayal has a very real cost there and that there wouldn't be much discussion or even a vote if you did to your group what Lieberman did to the Democrats. You would probably be summarily fired but, at the very least, you would be severely punished.

Ezra's fanciful fantasy scenario aside, there is a reason why organizations work that way. There is a reason that they act to disincentivize disloyalty and that is simply because if you don't have at least that minimal degree of organizational discipline then you are very likely to severely limit your effectiveness as a group.

Steve M

Your post misses a critical point. Why exactly would the Democrats try to strip Lieberman? The answer would probably fall some where on the side of him supporting a Republican cause, whichever one it might be. So what makes you think the Republicans wouldn't filibuster to support him when he would be facing punishment for having supported them? See it goes like this, Lieberman can chance to a Republican in mid stream but the Dems can't strip him of his chairmanship mid stream. By the way there is historical precedent for the use of the threat of filibuster by one party to support a chairman from another party. I will have to find the article that talked about it but it has happened before.

brent

Actually the precedent had already been set. There were some Democrats in Congress who supported Barry Goldwater for president and they got sh1tcanned summarily because of it. By not punishing Lieberman the Democrats actually went against historical precendent.

This continues to baffle me.

(1) It's not as if I don't know how committee chairs are selected. But if the Democrats want to throw Leiberman overboard in January 2010, I don't see how Leiberman gets to keep his chairmanship in the teeth of the party's opposition. 57 Senators is a lot of Senators. I guess the Republicans could make a circus of the thing and pick a fight over it, but they won't. And even if they do, it won't matter. Rules of legislative procedure just don't determine outocmes like that. Pace democratic grumbling, the filibuster persists because most Senators see it as being in their interest, not because the authors of Rule XXII were so awesomely clever that they wrote a rule that cannot be changed.

(2) The question sgwhiteinfla invites is, I think, the right one: will actually be willing and able to use a filibuster threat to save Leiberman. I doubt they'll be willing to do it, but that's just a guess. We have no real way of knowing until it happens. But I doubt they'll even be able to do it. The Republicans won't be able to stop three Senators from defecting, especially given the sort of issue on which Leiberman is likely to defect.

(3) sgwhiteinfla, I won't guess at which incident you're thinking of, but I'd be curious to know.

(4) On the omerta issue -- that is, the desirability of punishing Leiberman now. Eh. All sorts of effective organizations tolerate dissent and treachery from members all the time. I guess armies can't, and the mafia can't. But not so with political parties -- and especially not so with legislative caucuses, the famed (and frequently fictional) discipline of Westminster-system backbenchers notwithstanding. Sometimes a political party does have to pick a fight over loyalty, but this isn't one of those times. Whether to punish Leiberman is, and should remain, a practical judgment about costs and benefits. I don't think getting back at Leiberman, right this very minute, is worth it. Apparently, Obama doesn't either -- and it bears repeating that, thus far, Obama has shown excellent judgment when it comes to matters of practical politics.

I've got the willies thinking about Lieberman's vp run. In one reality (or more), he could have been president. We really have to be more careful about the running mates. See: Palin '08.

Steve M writes,

Apparently, Obama doesn't either -- and it bears repeating that, thus far, Obama has shown excellent judgment when it comes to matters of practical politics.

Did he show excellent judgment in keeping Rev. Wright as a spiritual advisor after the youtube clips came out?

Did he show excellent judgement in speaking in San Francisco about people in the midwest clinging to their guns or religion?

Did he show excellent judgement in selecting former head of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson to run his VP search team?

Did he show excellent judgement by promising to support a filibuster against FISA and then totally flip flopping and voting FOR FISA?

I am a big time Obama supporter but I don't think we should equate his ability to over come political missteps with him not ever having made any.

All sorts of effective organizations tolerate dissent and treachery from members all the time... But not so with political parties -- and especially not so with legislative caucuses, the famed (and frequently fictional) discipline of Westminster-system backbenchers notwithstanding.

Dissent is one thing. Treachery another. I have never heard of any organization, political or otherwise, that would tolerate a member deliberately and publicly attempting to undermine their entire agenda with no penalty. Lets keep in mind here that Lieberman acted in a way that, if he had succeeded, would have made every single item on the progressive agenda more difficult, if not close to impossible, to achieve. If McCain had become President, there is nothing in the Democratic platform that would not have been, at the very least, severely compromised by that reality. And we all know that Lieberman would have been right there by his side had things turned out differently. Can there really be any doubt of that?

Do you have examples of what you mean by political organizations, or indeed any organizations, allowing that sort of activity to proceed with no punishment at all?

Here is the incident I was talking about re filibustering by the opposing party a move to strip a chairmanship based on the chairman voting in manner that might be seen against his/her party

"But former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone suggested Bayh is under-educated on this matter. Paone, who became as the "secretary to the majority" in the Senate starting in 2001, notes that Republicans harbored similar desires in the past, but never executed them due to the threat of a filibuster.
.
It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama.
.
Paone noted that a similar game of political chess played out in the Senate's recent history. "We had a similar situation in the past with a Republican moderate senator, Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who voted the wrong way in the eyes of [former Sen. Rick] Santorum and others on the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget," Paone said. "There were rumblings they wanted to take his chairmanship away. But the ranking member on the committee was [Democratic] Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote Hatfield a nice note saying, 'if they ever try to take your chairmanship away, I'll make sure we [Democrats] will filibuster such a resolution."

The fact that Lieberman is, for most intents and purposes, a Democrat actually makes it worse, not better.

Lieberman has a lifetime ACU rating of 16. McCain has a rating of 83. Last year, the height of his apostasy, Lieberman got a 70 rating from ADA; in 2001, the height of HIS apostasy, McCain got 40. (Last year, he got 10.) Lieberman votes with Democrats 87% of the time; McCain votes with Republicans 88% of the time. (Even in 2001, the height of 'centrist McCain bucks his party and the two-party system!' fever, he still voted with Republicans on three of every four votes.)

So, Lieberman's endorsement of McCain makes sense in only two ways:

1) The war is SO important for Lieberman, so overridingly, majorly important in every way, that he's willing to endorse a candidate who disagrees with him on absolutely everything else. In which case, he's so invested in the war that he can't be trusted in an anti-war caucus.

2) Lieberman's a vengeful, spiteful prick. In which case, he shouldn't be trusted with cutlery, much less an important committee.

See, if he were a REPUBLICAN, at least you could explain his actions some other way.

And the Washington circle jerk continues without pause...

I can't believe how people say Lieberman is a core Democrat on most issues.

He supported the unquestionably non progressive John McCain in the presidential election. What do you all, and he, think would happen if McCain won? Progressive values would somehow take hold of McCain? One's history only matters to the point that one decides to completely disregard that entire history by going in a different direction. This isn't about punishing Lieberman. Its about pushing for progressive values.