Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NOTHING. NOT EVEN THE FEE FOR THE GAMING LICENSE.
I swear this is a "verbatim", not a "shorter":
According to the aide, Lieberman's met with Harry Reid and discussions were very friendly. Reid wanted him to step down from his post as chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in exchange for heading a lesser committee. Lieberman reminded Reid of how loyal he's been to the Democrats in myriad of ways despite the obvious disagreements, and indicated that would be unnacceptable.Oh, yes, well if you just make an exception for such trivialities as "supporting the Republican candidate," "speaking at the Republican convention in support of said candidate," and "grotesquely smearing the Democratic candidate," he's been very loyal!
Reid's choice is obvious: let Lieberman join the Republican conference with no seniority or chairmanships. I completely understand that broad party coalitions inevitably involve making peace with wankers. People who actively support the other party are a different matter. He has no leverage and won't be a reliable cloture vote in any circumstances. Let him walk.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (10)
Agreed!
Posted by: GM | November 7, 2008 3:30 PM
Everyone needs to remember that is he moves over, that will give the GOP one more vote then they have now. This may or may not be an issue but you can bet that Joe will want to get back at the DEMs once he is removed. So expect anything from here on out and since he was against Obama, his revenge will be to try and challenge the new Prez. at every turn.....so be prepared.
Posted by: jc | November 7, 2008 3:36 PM
And trivialities like refusing to use his committee chairmanship to investigate the Bush Administration's response to Katrina, reneging on a campaign promise.
The real problem with a turncoat like Lieberman chairing a committee is the possibility of his using his authority to investigate much, much smaller matters than Katrina, and turn those molehills into mountains that Drudge and the MSM can then play up.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 7, 2008 3:41 PM
Lieberman's treachery went miles beyond acceptable disagreement. Obama should show him the door, and will.
Posted by: Gerald Scorse | November 7, 2008 5:12 PM
My offer is this: Nothing.
Posted by: M. Corleone | November 7, 2008 7:05 PM
Mr. Lieberman has made his neo-con bed, now he can sleep in it. The great LBJ said it best: you dance with the one that brung ya. The Democrats needed Lieberman when the split was 51-49. With an expanded Democratic majority, there's only one thing to do with Lieberman: fuck him over.
Posted by: Chris Tharrington | November 7, 2008 9:31 PM
Lieberman will always play games no matter which caucus he's in. Better he does it from their side. Treachery, as GS uses it above, is a perfect word to describe Joe's work.
Posted by: dennisS | November 7, 2008 10:52 PM
Leiberman made his bones by being sanctimonious scold at the Democratic president. He will continue to do so but with him on the "other side" it will just been seen as partisan politics instead of independent truth telling.
Posted by: watch out for the door | November 7, 2008 11:44 PM
Taking the revenge factor out of the equation (and I know it's hard), I think the way to look at this is where will he provide the greatest net benefit to the Dems; i.e., where will he do the best good or the least harm. He may provide some measure of good by remaining in the Dem caucus, but I think that good is somewhat speculative and risky. He's proven that he can't be counted on to go in the right direction, especially when it matters most. If the price of keeping him in the caucus is to keep his current chairmanship, this is especially problematic, since the harm that could result from him going rogue is amplified.
On the other hand, if he leaves to join the GOP, it is certain that he will provide zero benefit, but his ability to do harm is also limited. Moreover, we know (or at least expect) that he will be a vote for the other side, so there is no uncertainty or drama surrounding him. That uncertainty has a cost as well.
On balance, I say- if he wants to stay on our terms (ie, he can be chair of the committee on kittens and puppies)- he's welcome to do so. If not, he shouldn't let the door hit him in the ass.
Posted by: bucky | November 8, 2008 12:47 PM
He deserves no committee chairmanship. If he wants to act like a Republican, let him join their conference. It's not like he is going to get re-elected in 2012 anyway. (He only won with 35% of the Dem votes in 2006. If Ned Lamont holds him to the 10% that a Republican would probably win anyway, he is the junior Senator from Connecticut.) It is time to send Lieberman to the curb. He deserves no chairmanship at all.
Posted by: SteveWV | November 9, 2008 10:46 PM