Secret Ballot To Decide Lieberman's Fate

[wordpix]

Source: Hartford Courant

THE JOE WATCH
Secret Ballot To Decide Lieberman's Fate

By JESSE A. HAMILTON | The Hartford Courant
November 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — - Senate Democrats will decide by secret ballot Tuesday whether to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — a post from which he oversees U.S. security issues, as well as the operations of a wide segment of the federal government.

The anger over Lieberman's campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate is still boiling — fueled by memories of his undercutting Barack Obama, including in a nationally televised speech at the Republican National Convention.

Majority Leader Harry Reid met with Lieberman two days after the election, telling him that his chairmanship might be on the line.

But just as it looked as if his future in the Senate could be as a political hermit, the backlash against him has faltered. So Tuesday's vote — the talk of Capitol Hill — has become as uncertain as a stock market investment.


Read more: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberman1115.artnov15,0,210681.story

---

:wtf: We need to flood the Dem senators NOW if we want Lieberman ousted from his chairmanship.
Otherwise, they'll let him keep it.

Article link includes a link to Lieberman speaking to RNC. :puke:

[LaydeeBug]

1. he'll stay in and we'll be told we have to put up with it. nt

[LynneSin]

40. So did Jeffords and the Republicans would go around him in committe to Gregg

That was one of the telling signs when Jeffords realize he was a committee chair but they were going around him to get their agenda pushed thru.

[othermeans]

47. How did you know that? Reid just announced that the Democrats wanted to keep him

[beyurslf]

2. I hope they play a video of his RNC speech just before the vote.

[yellowcanine]

3. I agree with this approach. Let his fellow Democratic Senators decide democratically.

Seems fair to me.

[aquart]

8. Me, too.

They can be gutless or vengeful in secret and no one has to know which. I'd be voting vengeful, myself.

[pokercat999]

30. With their record, are you nuts? I make it 47-1 gutless. Hell they'll

probably give him a second Chairmanship.

[acmavm]

18. Why let them decide. They work for us. He shit all over us, the party, and

our candidate.

It's time for Joe to go!

[yellowcanine]

46. Because WE are not his senate colleagues. They are. I want our elected reps to think for

themselves and vote their conscience. Having Lieberman in the caucus may be better than having him outside the caucus. They are in a better position to make that judgement than us.

[acmavm]

48. Yeah, you might want them thinking for THEMSELVES. But that's not what

they're there for. They are there to represent OUR interests. And that is something that they rarely do. So, if you want your rep to just sit there drawing a paycheck and soaking you for every fucking thing from his dry cleaning to his postage stamps, well go on ahead with yourself. But I want a rep who will support my interests and the interests of the democratic party. Not to mention doing what is only right and necessary for the betterment for all of us. And that ain't how it goes when these fucks try thinking 'for themselves'.

[yellowcanine]

49. Representing us means voting the national interest according to their conscience.

And please don't speak for me as to what I want or don't want. Thanks.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. Lieberman can NEVER be trusted to caucus with us....his loyality lies with the Repukes

I hiope that the Dems know this and do the right thing tomorrow.

[On the Road]

5. The Odds of Booting Him Just Went UP

I doubt the other Dems like feeling betrayed any more than DU. JMO.

[David__77]

6. I agree.

Secret ballot works against him.

[On the Road]

9. All That Collegiality

doesn't mean a thing in the voting booth.

But who knows? Maybe it's more than skin deep. Politicians can overlook a LOT of words.

[Libertyfirst]

7. Another thread says Sen. Carper of Delaware says there must be consequences for his actions.

Carper, a centralist and moderate, supported Lieberman in his 2004 bid for the democratic presidential nomination. He has a reputation as a peacemaker. For him to go public this way is a very strong indication that Lieberman will not keep the Chairmanship of Homeland Security.

[Wickerman]

10. Giving up a chair of a committee in which you were ineffective is hardly due punishment

for the sins Joe committed. He should take the loss of the chair and move on knowing he gambled, betrayed, and lost. Time to pay the piper.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

11. Gutless leadership in the Senate.

But that's nothing new. Without 60 in the Senate, I am starting to expect little to get done there - we know Reid is too scared of the minority party's *threat* of a filabuster to do force the Senate Republicans to actually vote on bills important to the country.

[russspeakeasy]

12. Why is it a secret vote...because

there are plenty of cowards on both sides of the
aisle....Nancy and Harry are just two Please name  somebody in
the house or the senate that you trust to do what is right and
sign their name to it.....Obama's fight was a hard fought
battle, but we can't settle for chickenshit for 8 more
years...This is the first test and it looks like it might
fail...  

[jeff30997]

19. "name somebody in the house or the senate that you trust to do what is right and sign their name..."

I can think of only one name: Dennis John Kucinich.

[tavalon]

26. And he's not even in the senate, so I think we're screwed

[jeff30997]

28. Lol.Well I know but I answered the question:

"...Name someone in the house or the senate..." But yeah screwed we are.

[Stand and Fight]

13. I have no faith that Senate Democrats will do what MUST be done.

That is, Lieberman MUST lose his chairmanship AND seniority. It is disgusting how spineless they can be... :puke:

[mbperrin]

14. Joe would be tombstoned on DU for what he's done.

OUT NOW!

[Maryland Liberal]

15. The larger question is - do we still need him?

60 votes might be tough with out him. Piss him off - and he might bolt. Its a bad situation - but he still has power.

[bvar22]

21. The Republicans NEVER had a 60 vote margin in the Senate....

...and they managed to ram through everything they wanted. :shrug:

[tomp]

32. that's because dems were complicit.

and they will be now also, with or without the 60 votes.

still waiting for change.

[roody]

16. Just emailed Boxer. Now to do Feinstein, she is enough DINO for

the Senate, without Lieberman.

[Dover]

17. Cowards! Is MORE SECRECY from our reps going to be status quo?

Where is the government transparency? WE should know who voted which way on this.

Are they going to hide behind secrecy everytime they have a controversial decision to make?

[jeff30997]

20. I can't wait to see...

if the fact that it's a Secret Ballot will give them guts.I'm not holding my breath.

[kaygore]

22. Good grief but the Democrats are cowards. LIEberman needs to be kicked to the corner.

I swear that we need to get rid of more of the DLCers next election, and next, and next...until they are all gone!

[struggle4progress]

23. 2 Democrats to Submit Compromise on Lieberman

Connecticut Senator Would Be Sanctioned for Backing GOP Ticket but Could Keep Key Committee Post TOOLBOX
By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 18, 2008; Page A13

A pair of Senate Democrats will offer a compromise plan today to sanction Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) for his support of the Republican presidential ticket but allow him to keep a key committee chairmanship and remain in the party caucus.

Senators and aides said yesterday that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) will present a plan at a caucus meeting that would strip Lieberman of a low-profile subcommittee chairmanship, possibly one on global warming. But Lieberman would retain the gavel of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

"There are going to be options," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), chairman of the Democratic steering committee that oversees the selection of chairmen ...

"There's a reasonable way to provide accountability" on Lieberman without stricter punishment, Stabenow said. But she predicted a "spirited debate" because some senators have advocated revoking Lieberman's chairmanship regardless of the consequences ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703217.html

[Buns_of_Fire]

33. In other words, "Bailiff! Whack his pee-pee!" (old Cheech and Chong reference)

Personally, I see no need to squash him squishy, but stripping him of his chairmanship, and making him a pariah to BOTH parties if he dares to bolt because of it, seems fitting.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

24. Please, please, please...

Get him the hell out of there.

[Hulk]

25. I'm not writing the Democratic Senators off until they have earned it....

..but there is NO REASON in the world why this slimy sleaze ball should be the chair of a committee that he is responsible for choking to death to cover the frat boys' crimes in the past.

I say, strip him of his chair positions. There are other, far more qualified senators to take his place. Should he decide to go whine on the neocon/fascist side, he'll be serving his LAST TERM as an "independent" senator...to be sure. He'll be finished in CT.

Toss him out!!! Get some balls Democrats!

[Demeter]

27. First Test of the New Senate

Even if the new members aren't there....proof that you shouldn't burn your bridges to nowhere.

[HereSince1628]

31. Why does anyone expect this test result to show any change?

I expect not one of them to suddenly have a vote-changing epiphany.

[jeff30997]

29. I believe the guy truly earned his place on the chair and should keep it.

:evilgrin:

[bdamomma]

34. well if the Congress does not reprimand Joe.

His constitutents will in 2012, they will throw his a$$ out.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

36. Strategically, what is best for Democrats? I don't know the answer, but that should be the only

question, not desire for revenge. I hate Lieberman, but I love Democrats more than I hate him.

[w4rma]

38. I know the answer. Remove all of that SOB's seniority, not just the chair of a very important

committee that he did absolutely nothing on the entire time he chaired it.

[yurbud]

43. the reality is, even if Dems get to 60, many will still be corporate-owned and block

filibuster on crucial legislation.

Lieberman is simply the head of a zit that has a lot of pus behind it.

[yurbud]

37. LINK to CONTACT your SENATORS:

http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Joe Bacon]

39. Is it too much to ask Democrats to get a backbone?

I guess so, I resigned myself to another wimp-out :puke:

[indepat]

41. Not stripping LIEbermanless of his chairmanship would seem almost as criminal as taking impeachment

off the table. :P

[yurbud]

42. PIC to fax to your senators:

[russspeakeasy]

44. Here we go again Democrats

The same gutless secret voting...cover your ass and to hell
with what the public wants...My sugar high with the Obama
victory is over ...all Obama had to do was NOT endorse Joe
Liarman....

[qwlauren35]

45. On What Constitutional Grounds is Ousting Lieberman Justified?

Was his chairmanship a partisan or non-partisan appointment?

If it's non-partisan, then what does it have to do with him switching sides?

And if we judged him based on things he said about Obama, would any and every other negative campaigner in public office have his or her responsibilities placed on the line?

I understand the incredible hostility against Lieberman. But I'm concerned about the precedent that would be set with his ouster.