I don't know if anyone else has already had this idea, but wouldn't it be cool if Obama were to appoint Lieberman to some office that he'd have a hard time turning down, so that he would give up his Senate seat, and then Obama could fire him? Wouldn't that be cool?

I really have to support Josh Marshall and Scott Lemieux's 'Here's my offer: Nothing.' approach to Lieberman. Lieberman made promises about supporting the Democratic nominee, promises that he broke with no apparent second thoughts. He can't be trusted to keep any agreements he makes to Reid. And stripping him of his seniority sends a fine message to everybody else.

If Lieberman's behavior during the election don't get him kicked from the caucus, what behavior would rise to that level?

in my opinion, lieberman is a man of such poor judgement, he should no longer be holding or seeking political office.
this country deserves better representation than joe lieberman.

he tacitly stood by smiling, defending and supporting the unpatriotic and utterly reckless choices of john mccain and not speaking out against the loschen hora of sarah palin and those around him.
sadly, he has lost all hope of becoming an elder statesman.....
there is more to becoming a tzaddick than observing the sabbath.

This debate has been raging for 24 hours at talkingpoints
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/reid_spokesperson_democratic_s.php

I think Reid is playing this perfectly. Lieberman must lose his current chairmanships. However, Lieberman will still be useful on other domestic issues and a role on less important committees that do not involve investigations of prior Bush actions may be a worthwhile trade. Bush/Cheney/DeLay made loyalty a primary goal. I prefer getting effective legislation passed.

Lieberman loves to get attention from the media, and a great way to get attention is to go against the grain, to betray your party (i.e., "transcend partisanship"), and do your own thing. Being the most prominent former Democrat to support McCain got Lieberman onto a lot of news programs. I imagine that those same news programs will give Lieberman many invitations if he hold investigative hearings about actions of the Obama administration, and that is another reason why he must lose his chairman's gavel.

I'm an Obama supporter who doesn't want an Obama toady in charge of oversight. Aggressive oversight is good, even of your own side.

OTOH, Eric's right that Lieberman wouldn't support the Bush investigations that will come. He should go, and a fair minded chair, who's still willing to ruffle feathers, should replace him.

Brian, I agree that tough, conscientious oversight is a good thing. But Lieberman would be offering nasty, vindictive oversight.

I want that chairmanship held by an ethical senator with the seniority and independence to do the job thoroughly but fairly.

I've believed since LIEberman lost the Dem. primary in CT that he's now all about retribution.

He could have supported McCain in a positive way without the scurilous attacks on Obama.

He didn't follow that wisdom. So fuck him.

He didn't need to speak at the Repub convention (doing McCain very little good), but he did. So fuck him twice as hard.

He didn't need to refrain from doing ANY investigations of the Bush admin in his committee. But he didn't do shit.

I'd give him only one choice now: stay in the Dem. caucas or jump ship. If his performance improves over the next two years, then give him a shot at some sub-committee chair - but no promises. No trust, but surely verify.

Make him eat sh*t in the GOP caucus if he wants to. They really can't grant him seniority in their ranking minority positions without a rebellion from those who remain in their rump caucus.

And prepare for revenge in 2012 if he's dump enough to try to run in CT again.

Ya, I feel vindictive too.

Oh, and let's not forget that Lieberman was awful in overseeing the Bush administration. Luckily Waxman in the House was terrific.

Look, I'm ok with giving Lieberman a subcommittee. Lots of good work can be done in subcommittee, if the Senator is diligent. But if Lieberman turns it down, I wouldn't make a significantly better offer.

On Herschel's point, the job to offer Lieberman is Ambassador to Israel ! The downside is the Republican governor of Connecticut gets to appoint the replacement.

It would be better to kick him out of the Democratic caucus and watch him fade into obscurity. He really can't help the Republicans and it's better for the Democrats not spending time to keep him placated.

We do need oversight of the executive branch, but not petty nitpicking over whatever Lieberman would make the new millennium's version of Monica, the Clintons killing Fost or Whitewater, meaning drummed up bullshit that gets a lot of smoke blown without fire. How about someone who endorsed Clinton early on and has seniority, like Inouye?

The downside is the Republican governor of Connecticut gets to appoint the replacement.

A Republican in the Republican caucus is better than Joe Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, by a long mile. I don't know what the law is in CT, but I imagine there would be a special election in 2010, which unless things change a lot I imagine would be won by a decent Democratic candidate.

Even if only for the fact that hes basically a double agent its obvious that he can think about 2 things at once. He probably wants to keep the chair for both of the stated reasons, and likely more.

Yes there should be oversight. Even with the good guys, it helps keep them good.

However just because the Bush administration leaves office doesnt mean they can be investigated, and tried for criminal wrong-doings. Keeping an ineffectual watchdog in office guarantees that wont happen even under a new administration.

TPM's link to a Colin McEnroe post, pointing out that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chair, so why should Lieberman get one, clarified the whole issue for me. The key point is that this has nothing to do with "punishing" Lieberman, or "taking revenge" on Lieberman. According to Wikipedia, there are only 17 chairmanships for all the US Senate, meaning 17 Democratic Senators will get one, and 40 will not. And of the 17, Homeland Security is in the top ten in terms of prestige.

To argue that Lieberman should be one of the favored 17 is horribly, ridiculously, ludicrously unfair to the 40 Democratic Senators who will not get chairmanships.

If Lieberman decides to caucus with Dems, there are 70 subcommittee chairmanships. He should get one, but not two. I don't think Lieberman should be expelled from the caucus, because he was legitimately elected. I just think that Democrat Senators should have the spine to treat Lieberman as what he is, as Democrat #57, and not as one of the top ten Democrats of the Senate.

Making an analogy from British politics, if a Labor MP endorsed a Tory for PM, the Labor party might allow the MP to sit in the backbenches, but to reward that MP with a Cabinet Ministry? Unthinkable.

Lieberman is trying to bluff his way into keeping his chairmanship. But even apolitical people I've talked to agree that if Lieberman gets to be chairman, it would represent completely spineless behavior on the part of the Senate Democrats.

Maybe the Senate Dems should watch this scene from Yes, Prime Minister first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VOvhs6W7Fc&feature=related

I don't think Lieberman should be expelled from the caucus, because he was legitimately elected.

He was elected when he ran AGAINST THE CANDIDATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Then he campaigned AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. What part of this is hard to understand?

Lieberman sealed his fate when he said losing the committee chair was "unacceptable." That was a bluff Reid will have to call if he hopes to exercise any leadership over the caucus.

Lieberman knew the risks of his decisions in recent years. I am not generally a partisan, but it seems to me unthinkable for Lieberman's flirtations with the Republicans to go unanswered by Dems. He should be stripped of his power but given opportunity for redemption.

He is not a Democrat. He, thus, has no reason to represent the party's interests on committees, and the party has no reason to believe they can trust him to do so.

I'm amazed this is even a debate. He bet on McCain. He lost. He goes. Period.

yeah joe's gotta go .. he's committed political treason .. he's bit the hand what fed him .. and he's not deserving of trust imo ..

thumbs down ...

To argue that Lieberman should be one of the favored 17 is horribly, ridiculously, ludicrously unfair to the 40 Democratic Senators who will not get chairmanships.

Ambassador to Israel is a funny idea, but it might be dangerous to have an ambassador to Israel who's more loyal to Israel than to the US. Israel is a nominal ally but their constant attempts to jerk us into supporting their treaty-breaking illegal act of the week have got to stop, and I don't think Lieberman as ambassador would support that goal or achieve it effectively.

I can't believe that after Joe stood on tens, if not hundreds of stages with McCain, grinning like the Grinch who stole Christmas ( BEFORE his conversion), that he could retain any position of power in the Democratic Party.

Lieberman can cross the aisle if he likes, but his chances at national office (if he still has any) are gone forever. Not only because he's burned his bridges with the Democrats, but also because he won't pass the faith test with today's GOP, which is really the Radical Right-Wing Christian Nut-Job Party. They'll trot him out when it's convenient for them, but he'll be just as much a token as the Wonder Woman From Wasilla was. (You didn't think they would really give her any real power if they got into office, did you? She would really have become America's Cocktail Waitress, because that's what they think women should be.)

Either he'll vote with whatever integrity he has as regardless of his caucus status, or he won't. In neither case does the caucus need him.

BUT the last thing the Dems and the new Administration need is a so-called Democrat trashing the president.

Since '06 he's been the media's go-to guy when they wanted to do the "Democrats in Disarray" show (like every Sunday). That show needs to be canceled. They're better off cutting him loose now than waiting for the next blow-up, unless there is something to be gained by the delay, like the possibility that at that point nobody would want him.

You nailed it, dude. That's the endgame. The twerp needs to be kicked to the curb. No, he needs to eat the curb, and then be kicked in the head.

Josh Marshall's evocation of Michael Corleone was exactly the right tone that the various Dems with an interest in this matter (Obama and Reid at the forefront) should take. Furthermore, although I suppose it won't happen this way, Rahm would be perfect as the ax man, the Clemenza if you will, to settle this little affair.

I agree completely. January 21st, 2009 should be Lieberman's first day as a Republican Senator. Good riddance!

Reward those who work, cut loose those who don't.
There will be much to pay if Joe doens't Go.

Not going to happen because of seniority issues and all, but if you want someone in Lieberman's chair who is a genuine liberal, has proven himself unafraid to oppose the current administration, and is willing to engage in real oversight regardless of partisan agendas, then put Russ Feingold in charge.

Lieberman can cross the aisle if he likes, but his chances at national office (if he still has any) are gone forever

I don't feel the least bit sorry for the guy. His wife is a successful lobbyists, and once he leaves the Senate, he can make big bucks doing speaking engagements and doing corporate PR gigs. Plus, he, like Harold Ford, will have regular appearances on cable news to provide his political insight while Sean Hannity drools over him. Not such a bad life, all things considered.

Please let Joe stay; give him anything he wants, but please don't condemn us Joe the cable-show-man. Anything but that pleeeeeease!

So much for bipartisan harmony. And the call to support the new administration that promised such. Fill your hand you son of a bitch.

No, Jim, this is a call *for* bi-partisanship. Lieberman should be allowed, nay, encouraged to become a Republican, and then the Democrats can reach across the aisle to him. With Lieberman out of the caucus, there will truly be harmony for all concerned.

He had a job as the chairman of SCHSGA (?), and HE DIDN'T DO IT. Out.

I agree with Herschel's first post...it's what I've been saying for days. One key overlooked point is that unless the Dems get 59 other seats and thus need Joe in their caucus to overcome filibuster threats, they don't need him at all. So Reid is right to take his time, see what happens in Alaska, Georgia and MInnesota and then decide what to do. But in any event, he should be off the Homeland Security committee.

Joe's family in Brooklyn don't even like him - he's a rotten pol and an even worse Jew. He hasn't been frum in ages, if he ever was. Stop and think about it: the Code of Jewish Law doesn't look kindly on those who betray the trust of others - he has the same "merit" as a Kapo, which is worse than no merit at all. The man isn't trustworthy: the Democrats should give him the boot, and the Republicans would be unbelievably foolish to think that if they invited him to join their caucus that he wouldn't find sooner or later find a way to betray them too. Yup, Joe Lieberman is just another Kapo who eagerly trades his life in the world to come for a stale piece of bred and the opportunity to brutalize someone else.

How quickly we forget. If it weren't for Joe the republicans would have controlled the senate for the last two years. His choice to organize with the democrats put them in the majority. Although I agree with stripping him of the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, he still deserves to chair a subcommittee or even two in an area he has an interest and where he can function as a democrat. If he chooses to leave it is his choice.

A leader who cannot punish a rat is weak. A leader who lets a rat who has already betrayed him once snivel his way back into a position where he can betray him again is stupid. So what is on like here is the credibility of Obama and the Democratic leadership.

The world is watching.

I say " FUCK HIM WHERE HE BREATHES " Once a rat, always a rat. He can become a Hannity drool queen, the perfect gutter alley for him.

With Byrd retiring as chair of Appropriations and Lieberman losing his chair of Homeland Security, there will be two vacancies in chairmanships of Senate committees. I suggest that Lieberman be named to chair the Senate District (of Columbia) Committee, the one with perhaps the least cachet of any of the committees. Joe does favor D.C. voting rights in the Congress, so he couldn't do any harm there.

At least Lieberman voted against Bush's bankruptcy bill, unlike Joe MBNA Biden.

Lieberman was a democrat until his own party mounted an opposition to him because of his stance on Iraq. He won the challenge to his senate seat and went on to continue cacausing with the democrats giving them the majority by 1 seat. He didn't walk out on the democrats, they tried to oust him.

If sh!t got Joe Lieberman on it, sh!t would wipe him off.

No more quislings.

You guys all seem to forget it was Lieberman who gave the Dems a majority when he did not have to. In the most important decision of all he sided with the Dems. Now that they dont need him any mor they want to discard him because he is not a puppet who supports an openly Socialist nominee for President.

It will be so funny if the only thing stopping Dems from getting 60 is kicking Old Joementum to the curb.

So Lieberman loses the Dem primary in CT and Waaahhh. So he takes his pail and shovel and sets up camp in another sandbox.
Don't get me wrong, the Dem party has there own set of issues, however, Liebs shouldn't expect nor enjoy ANY cover from the party he "played with" for so long and then deserted. Furthermore, as an "indpendent", as he calls himself, he should have refrained from taking sides to protect his own twisted interests.
My take, throw him out of the Dem. Caucus and leave him hanging dry. Strip him of his cahirmanship, moving forward, we need non partisan ship in dealing with governmental affairs.

I don't understand why there is any reason to hesitate or second guess before tossing Lieberman as far out of the caucus as possible. If Joe is the principled man who will vote his conscience on all issues, then whether or not he votes with Democrats on any particular issue is unaffected by his position or lack of position in the caucus and committee structure. If he's the unprincipled slimebag I suspect he is, then toss him. I've seen the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" quip misapplied here and there to the Lieberman situation -- that shouldn't be taken to mean that you should make your enemy your bodyguard.

"You guys all seem to forget it was Lieberman who gave the Dems a majority when he did not have to."

So did every other Senate Democrat. I agree that Lieberman deserves a chair more than Mitch Mcconnell does, but he doesn't deserve a chair more than Hillary Clinton, or 40 other Senate Democrats who don't have a chairmanship.

The suggestion that Joe Lieberman be appointed as Ambassador to Israel has an anti-semitic, sarcastic tone to it.
Let us remember that Joe Lieberman has sided with the Democrats on many domestic issues. If he chooses to be an Independent, let it be.
Yes, I believe that he made a mistake when he endorsed and appeared with John McCain, but I can forgive him.

http://www.cheap-lotrogold.com/