Obama steering clear of Dems battle over Lieberman

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Obama is steering clear of getting involved in one fight on Capitol Hill: whether Senate Democrats should remove Joe Lieberman as chairman of an important committee.

Lieberman's affiliation with Democrats is in question after the Connecticut independent's high-profile support of Republican John McCain for president.

Lieberman has met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, but there has been no word on whether Reid intends to try to oust Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

"What happens on the House and Senate, on chairmanship is their business," Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said Sunday. "But the business of what we have to do when we get sworn in is focusing on what the American people care about. Priority one is the economy."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDuXte5q_Mq4U0JKrcPRUJppvHVQD94BJ6K00

Probably wise on his part.

[DireStrike]

1. Yeah, he kinda has to

Which means we have to push Reid and the rest of the senate to toss him out on his ear.

[oberliner]

3. What about getting him to eat crow and toe the line?

Maybe he can get a slap on the wrist and stay on our side of the aisle.

Wouldn't it hurt us to have him cross over officially?

[DireStrike]

6. I doubt it severely.

How could it hurt us more? He already acts against us on almost every front.

Stay on our side? He hasn't been there for years.

Also, if he moves further to the right he will not be re-elected in CT. He has no choice.

Nonetheless I think he will still be allowed to keep some power, because I have no faith in the D leadership to make rational decisions in the interest of the public or even the party, especially if Obama is not going to be a factor.

[oberliner]

12. Lieberman almost always votes with the Democrats except on Iraq/military issues according to Reid

Here is what Reid said:

Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn't support us on military stuff and he didn't support us on Iraq stuff. You look at his record, it's pretty good.

[DireStrike]

13. There is again the question of his being re-elected.

He must vote in pretty much that way. We gain not much from appeasing or forgiving him.

[saigon68]

5. See Traitor Joe Go

[DireStrike]

7. God, I hope so. -nt-

[liberalmuse]

2. He is trying to honor The Constitution.

For too long, the Bush administration has tried to horn in on and strong arm the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. It is quite refreshing and a huge relief to know that President-Elect Obama intends to honor our Constitution.

[crossroads]

4. A wise move on Obamas part imo...

There's really no need to get embroiled in business that others can handle!
CR

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. I agree wholeheartedly. I think this portends well for the future. Having...

a president who respects the separation of powers will be a welcome change. Now as for Reid and other Senate Dems, I don't even understand why there's a question as to whether Joe should get the boot. I'm glad that Obama is taking a hands-off approach on this issue, because the rightwing punditry has already geared up to make Obama the villain in this instance. I'm hoping that "we the people" will have a say in Joe's future with the Dem caucus.

[DJ13]

9. This is one of those times when neutrality speaks volumes

Even if claiming no comment about a Senate matter, not defending Lieberman's actions says all we need to know.

[Hokie]

10. Obama will handle this under the radar

Don't think he isn't in on the decision, however. Lieberman personally betrayed Obama. Obama supported him in 2006.

[No Elephants]

11. Obama has much bigger fish to fry. the Senate will handle this.