If true, this is disappointing, though not really surprising

[Mass]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/source_kerry_durbin_strongly_d.php

Source: Kerry, Durbin Defended Lieberman Keeping Chairmanship
By Greg Sargent - November 18, 2008, 1:00PM

John Kerry and Obama-ally Dick Durbin were among four Democratic Senators in today's closed-door Dem caucus meeting who voiced support for keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, a Democratic aide who was briefed on the meeting by a Senator who was there tells us....

Two of my favorite senators advocating for Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. What the heck? I'd like to know why. (I guess that Obama had a lot to do with this, but Kerry, in his latest TV appearance, said he wanted to keep Lieberman in the caucus).

[ProSense]

1. Sigh,

I could see Kerry wanting him to remain in the caucus, but advocating that Lieberman keep his chairmanship, sigh! I'm completely disappointed.

[beachmom]

2. Of course, it's true. Kerry said it on MTP before the election.

He was quite conciliatory toward Joe that day.

[Mass]

3. I know it is true. It is just I hate these unamed aides nonsense. They know it will leak, so

why not do that publicly. This way, we will know exactly what people have said or not, not a interpretation.

This said, still very disappointing.

[beachmom]

4. I have to admit, I have been fairly agnostic on this topic.

I didn't want Joe to go to the GOP. And frankly, I am not sure how effective it was to primary him, since he won anyway, this time with Republican votes. I really think he wants to be a Democrat. He just had extremely hurt feelings when he was so thoroughly rejected by primary voters in '04. And he loves war. But he is not the only one in the caucus who does.

[ProSense]

5. Kerry said he wanted him to remain in the caucus.

All Dems did. That's completely separate from keeping his chairmanship. If Democrats couldn't figure out a way to keep Lieberman in the caucus without letting him keep Homeland Security, then they basically acquiesced to his threat to bolt if not allowed to remain the chair.

[Mass]

6. I missed this earlier

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/18/lieberman-chairmanship-2/

Every senator will be limited to one committee chairmanship and one subcommittee chairmanship

So, not only is Lieberman not punished, but other good senators are punished by having to have less subcommittee chairs. Gosh, I really do not get that.

[sandnsea]

7. Kerry stayed loyal to Imus

I'm not surprised at his loyalty to Lieberman. At least he's consistent. It does appear Obama wanted Lieberman in the position, no idea why. Oh well. It's his Presidency.

[karynnj]

8. I don't think it is mostly loyalty

as much as a real genuine core believe in reconciliation and common ground. I can't think of a single vindictive Kerry action. (Not that there likely wasn't someone glee when people against him - like Duke Cunningham were exposed.) It seems completely consistent with everything he has ever said on healing the rift and moving past the divisive politics that we've had for decades.

Other than Obama, Kerry was likely the person most attacked by Leiberman. That both wanted to move on shows they are better than manywho attacked them.

[Democrafty]

10. I think that's true. I also think, on principle,

it's not cool to punish people for speaking out. Look what happened after Kerry-Feingold. No reason to feed into that cycle.

Personally, I think Lieberman is an idiot, but if he sincerely believed he needed to go be "another Dem for McCain," he had the right to do that. (Remember, "In America, you have the right to be stupid"?) As an independent, he can't be kicked out of the party, and he's still in the Senate, where seniority rules.

[karynnj]

12. I agree -

In the past when parties were not as polarized and seperate, I think this happened more often. Imagine that the war had started in 2002 and everthing happened as it did. It would not be beyond possible for Hagel or even the very party loyal Warner or Lugar to endorse John Kerry based on the war and their respect for him as a person - realizing that the 55 Republican Senate would make it imposibble for him to do domestic things they disliked. I Leiberman's case he did agree with McCain on the war, terrorism and global warming.

It is reported that he had to appologize for some of his language in the election. I know it would feel good to say that now no one well talk to him - but the Senate depends on people working together and if there is an issue where he and Kerry are on the same page - Kerry will sign him on as a co-sponsor because doing otherwise could harm something he wants to push.

The other consideration is that RW radio has been going on about how mean the Democrats were to have this on their agenda - this takes the issue away from them, the Democrats were magnanimous.

[sandnsea]

19. loyalty, letting bygones be bygones,

however you want to describe it, it does seem to be JK's nature to me. No question about the character of Kerry or Obama. It is pretty small compared to people losing their homes and kids going to bed hungry and soldiers dying in Iraq...

[Democrafty]

9. Lieberman is a giant Drama King.

Stripping him of his Chairmanship would have gotten him even more attention and encouraged even more bad behavior.

The thing about Lieberman is that his voting record, with a few glaring exceptions, is not that bad. He's a pretty good Dem when he's doing his job. It's the extracurricular stuff and the obnoxious, "it's all about me" posturing that's bad for the party.

I'm not sure why JK voted the way he did, but I'm not sorry he did.

[beachmom]

13. You speak for me, Democrafty. nt

[Mass]

11. BTW, here is what Bridgit Rourke said about that

http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/1956/kerry-lieberman-vote-it-s-time-move

U.S. Sen. John Kerry's office said Tuesday that it is time to move past prior differences of opinion and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's efforts this year to help GOP nominee John McCain.

In a caucus meeting Tuesday morning, Democrats voted by secret ballot to allow Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government affairs committee. However, Lieberman will lose his seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

In a statement to PolitickerMA.com, Brigid O'Rourke, Kerry's spokeswoman, said the caucus decided to move forward. "The Democratic caucus voted today by secret ballot and the result of that vote was to put aside old differences," she said.

O'Rourke also highlighted President-elect Barack Obama's call for leniency toward Lieberman.

"President-elect Obama asked for forgiveness for Sen. Lieberman, the caucus has made a decision to censure his comments and strip of his membership on the EPW Committee, and it's time to move on," she said.

O'Rourke declined to comment on how Kerry voted. Politico reported, however, that Kerry spoke out in support of Lieberman.

O'Rourke did acknowledge the many differences Kerry has had with Lieberman.

"It's no secret that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman have had major differences about the war in Iraq, and it's no secret that Sen. Kerry campaigned against Sen. Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006," O'Rourke said. "Obviously they differed very strenuously about who should be commander in chief this election, and they debated those differences very forcefully on Meet the Press."

[beachmom]

14. Troll diary. Even a lot of pissed off Kossaks wouldn't go along with it.

Written by, get this: SwiftBoat McCain NOW

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/18/133649/15/212/662874

Edit: there is a poll, and it's not looking good for Kerry.

[ProSense]

15. Sigh! n/t

[Mass]

16. Actually, between the I disagree and the Move on, there are more votes than the I agree.

The OP is an idiot, but many people disagreed with him while disagreeing with supporting Lieberman, which is basically where I stand and where many people stand, I think. Not something we are going to spend a lot of time on, particularly after Dean confirmed it was what Obama wanted, but still some disappointment that the Senate in general was not harsher on him.

[ProSense]

17. Frankly, this should have been easy for Dems.

Elections have consequences, but not for Joe
Connecticut Post Staff
Article Launched: 11/14/2008 04:02:45 PM EST

If nothing else, Joe Lieberman is a survivor.

The Democratic leadership has every right to toss him to the curb. But in the name of bipartisanship, not holding grudges or maybe self-flagellation, he's likely to stay on as chairman of the Senate committee on government oversight.

Funny how when Republicans win elections they aren't expected to cater to the other party's loudest supporters.

For a year, Lieberman was maybe the most vocal backer of John McCain in Washington. And that alone wouldn't have been a big problem -- Democrats wouldn't have liked it, but if he'd simply endorsed his candidate and made a few speeches, everyone would have been able to get over it.

It didn't go that way, of course. Lieberman, who reportedly begged Barack Obama to come to his rescue in the Senate primary two years ago, proceeded to attack Obama -- in that ever-so-polite manner of his -- at every opportunity.

In April, he was asked, "Senator Lieberman, you know Barack Obama; is he a Marxist?" Responded Joe: "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question."

Isn't it, though!

In May, he said: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, 'Why?'"

Why, indeed?

In August: We have a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."

Marxism, terrorism and treason -- in Joe's world, that counts as fair criticism.

The president-elect, being a magnanimous type, has signaled he wants Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. No one has suggested kicking him out, but if he loses his committee chairmanship -- the caucus will vote on that this week -- it's widely thought he's done with the party.

It bears repeating -- if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus, it will be because he chose to do so. He will gain nothing from switching to the Republican side; they have nothing to offer. It would be the senatorial equivalent of taking his ball and going home.

And still, the best reason to remove him isn't about settling a score, or meting out punishment. It's because he's bad at his job. In charge of government oversight, he saw no reason to hold hearings into a raft of Bush administration scandals and disasters, deeming "divisive" the idea of probing the response to Hurricane Katrina.

more

It wasn't a critical issue that would impact the lives of Americans (frankly they fought harder for this than for some of those issues). I'm extremely disappointed, but not inflexible enough to think that there may not be more to this. I still think it's insulting to try to mischaracterize people's demand that Lieberman be removed as wanting revenge. Sigh.

Lieberman's disapproval rating in CT is over 60 percent

[TayTay]

18. More on this

http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/1956/kerry-lieberman-vote-it-s-time-move">Here

[Firespirit]

20. Whatever -- makes it easier to do what may end up being necessary.

Kerry and the others are right to argue that Lieberman doesn't deserve to be stripped of his chairmanship for campaigning with the Republicans. That's just petty and it really does not matter. He did, however, deserve it for being determined to cover the Bush administration's ass and refuse, single-handedly, to start an investigation into Katrina. That is a horrendous breach of homeland security, what his committee deals with. It was, IMO, worse than the Iraq war, Kerry's little pet issue. It is worse because whatever may be said about the war in Iraq and the over 4,000 American dead, they died in the line of duty, and they gave their lives for an ideal, even if it was a misplaced and impossible one, and even if that ideal was not what their Commander in Chief originally sent them out to die for. What, in God's name, did 1,800 - 2,500 people on the Coast die for?

I've ranted and raved on DU about it for several days now, and there's little more to be said. I'm not even enraged over it as I have been, but instead, I feel dead, as if I have been personally shot in the face by JK on this. I had a friend die in the aftermath, damn it! I am not in the mood to put that behind me and forgive ANYONE connected with it. Politics be damned. But I suppose it can be seen philosophically. It just makes it easier to do what is inevitable if a certain highly undesirable event regarding the Cabinet happens: cross over. The party doesn't want the South's votes anyway, or it would not chortle about the GOP being a "regional" (Southern) party. Don't want it, then you won't get it. The other side needs a greater variety of opinions anyway, and by telling Southerners the hell with you, Dems will simply create a big GOP tent again from the moderates and liberals who recognize that they are not wanted except for money. Shooting themselves in the foot is what they do best, after all.

[beachmom]

21. Hello, have you heard of Virginia and North Carolina? Heck, we've

got a kazillion Democrats descending into Georgia right now. And that is after Obama put a considerable investment in Georgia early on. Last time I looked, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia were in the South. In fact, the capital of the confederacy was in Virginia!

So when you say the "South", what you really mean is the deep South, which has refused every reach out from the Democrats and thrown it right back in their faces. Have you not see the RUMP of the Republican party, the areas that voted MORE for McCain than Bush?



That is not all of the South. That is Appalachia plus areas where similar types of demographics moved to. It is the heart of the bible belt know nothings.

The Republican party IS a regional party that is increasingly shrinking. And I certainly didn't see Democrats NOT say they didn't want to improve the margins in those areas. There was a diary by an Oklahoman, puzzling over the stubbornly red map his state always is. OTOH, Dems do have finite resources and need to fight where they have a chance.

All of this is separate from your arguments on Lieberman's chairmanship. But I really did need to correct you on the South since I live here, too. A lot of it is trending blue, especially where the better educated live.

[Firespirit]

23. Not to pick on you personally, but this kind of language is exactly what I mean

The "rump." I've seen that term somewhere else, Huffpost I believe, so I know it's not your term. But that's exactly the sort of thing that I'm referring to. And I'm aware that it probably refers to the rump of something being its end, the last part of it to go, and that is likely the analogy that's supposed to be made. However, the other definition of it is "butt," and most people are going to go with that because it is an instinctive reaction. It's not as if there is a dearth of other terms, either. You have "core," "heart," "center," etc., none of which come with that negative connotation, but when the original author says that the deep south is the "rump of the GOP," what GOP-leaning and nonpolitical southerners take from it is "liberals compared us to an ass." Coupled with the "LOL we have made the GOP a regional party," which has as its subtext "the deep south can have 'em and we don't care," what kind of outreach does this condescending talk really entail?

Some of the deep south's problem is racism. But from living in Boston, I learned that racism is not unique to my home region. The bigger reason why Democrats struggle in the South is that, due to extensive propagandizing, anyone (other than maybe a criminal) who runs with that "R" beside their name has a built-in advantage over an opponent who runs with "D" unless it is a long-term incumbent or a district has been heavily gerrymandered. Democrats have a branding problem here. What part of this is not attributable to racism can be attributed to the shenanigans of Bill Clinton, which enabled the hard right to brand the Democratic Party as the party of immorality. Fair or not, that's the real explanation for it. And what moderates and liberals there are in the south tend to be Democrats, voluntarily handicapping themselves if they run for office. The inherent advantage of the Republican brand, combined with the reluctance of anyone except fundies to run under that label, means that a lot of real wackjobs get elected. (You see where this is going.) My friend who died was a religious yet generally moderate Republican. My cousin whose house was flooded is a secular, wholly nonracist moderate Republican. My cousin's views especially are more in line with the Democratic platform, but she recognizes the disadvantage of calling herself that.

If more people like her would attempt to run for office, then fundies would stop getting elected, and they wouldn't have a platform to spout their bile about the other party being "immoral."

[beachmom]

26. Firespirit, it's a term that was used about the Tories during the '90s.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-woos-isolated-tory-europhiles-defectors-715572.html

The split in the party will be driven deeper by the disclosure that Lord Tebbit, the arch-Thatcherite, acted as go-between to secure Mr Sykes's return to the fold. "Tebbit seems to be doing his best to destroy the Tory party," Mr Taylor said.

Lord Tebbit confirmed to the Independent on Sunday his crucial role in helping to persuade the Tory leadership to accept Mr Sykes's demand for a referendum in Britain on any major constitutional changes demanded by the EU.

He also called on the hardline Eurosceptic UK Independence Party to agree a pact not to stand against Eurosceptic MPs. But, in remarks which could prove the last straw for the pro-euro Tory rump, Lord Tebbit came close to calling on the UKIP to stand against them. "If the UKIP are going to stand they should put their resources into fighting to defeat federalists - the ones who want a federal Europe," he said. "As a Conservative, I would not seek to encourage anyone to stand against Conservatives but looking from their side of the fence, it would be a waste of resources to stand against Iain Duncan Smith, Bill Cash, and Bernard Jenkin."

Lord Tebbit dismissed as "absolute balls" Tony Blair's claim that Mr Sykes had "bought" the change of policy by Mr Hague, by offering to switch the £20m for his Democracy Movement to the Tory party election campaign. "Paul has formally rejoined the Conservative Party. From my involvement, I can tell you that he had no discussions with William and William made no demands of that kind," Lord Tebbit said. "Paul has not committed himself to paying a penny to the party. It would be nice if he did.

A lot of folks in the South have a self esteem issue due to losing the civil war (as documented in the Lee Atwater Frontline episode). That resentment formed the basis for the most awful Republican party to emerge culminating in the disasterous Bush presidency. So I use a term, as has many pundits used lately, that actually has a British context (and in fact, the Tories are making a comeback led by David Cameron, but they had to spend YEARS in the wilderness to get their groove back, and they still have ways to go), and suddenly everyone is all offended. Well, only modernization is going to change things, so that people aren't so hyper sensitive.

And I live here, and I spent quite a bit of time up in Forsyth County. I can tell you why it went 80% Republican: the churches, taxes, and race. These people aren't poor. They are just racist, fundamentalist, intolerant, and greedy. I think your situation is different. People aren't hurting from where I am. They simply have a world view the exact opposite of mine. We are not on that map because we actually improved it from 16% for Kerry to 20% to Obama. But that is ONLY due to new people moving in, and getting a better turnout from our people. Now, sure there are exceptions: moderate Republican yankees who live there, maybe small business owners, and so on. But I still think a great percentage of the folks who voted that way are stuck, and will not accept that there is a brave new world out there they will not be able to escape. I mean, really: Forsyth is known as a white flight county. Now that immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and some African Americans are moving in, and it is possible gas prices will long term be much higher, they will learn that their flight is an illusion. Not only that, maybe their kids will learn that talking to people different from them is not so bad after all. But I would say they have a long way to go. Meanwhile, Northern Virginia has already made that transition.

I don't view the "rump" as knocking poor people who vote Republican. They are simply people who refuse to move on and understand the new world we live in. Many of these GOP voters KNEW this country was on the wrong track, but they simply could not push the lever for a Dem due to all these cultural issues.

[Mass]

22. I understand the feeling, even as, may be because I am from the NE, I would go in the opposite

direction.

I think what characterized those people who supported Obama in the primary was they wanted change, not only from the Bush administration, but the goold old Democratic Party (the one of triangulation and compromise without result -- a compromise that was marked by a starting negotiation position so much to the center that the result inevitably ended to make no difference with the GOP--). What is at this point the most disappointing to me is not the actions of the new administration --they have not yet started--, it is what transpires through media leaks and senate decisions.

- I am not a revengeful person, but not suing ANYBODY involved with tortures, as has been said, seems way over the board.

- Sorry, Lieberman needed more than a vague reprimand. He did not JUST campaign for McCain, he actually stated that 60 Democratic Senators was dangerous for the country, AND that Obama was a dangerous president for the country. So, they are ready to forgive him because he acknowledged (sort of) that he should have not said some things (not that he was wrong, just that he should have kept his mouth shut). Why I am not ready to put the blame on one or two people (be in Reid, Obama, or Kerry), I am sorry, 43 Democratic Senators voted for that and I seriously disagree (not that it matters, but when people come and tell me to shut up because it was Obama decision, it is offensive. Not in this group, but definitively in GDP).

- And, may be first and foremost, while I was expecting some people who served in the Clinton administration to get key posts in this administration, I continue to be bothered by the preponderance of key Clinton figures around, because they do not represent the change and the view of a new millennial that we need. I have nothing with some of them in particular and at least Holder has the decency to understand that the pardon of Marc Rick is a problem, but this is another Clinton name murmured why they were people further from him that could have been called. Add Larry Summers to the mix. Who's next. And we can start to see the lack of discipline of these people with the leaks that plague the transition process (why leak Holder that early, for example).

So, you may feel that the Dems are abandoning the South. My feeling is that they are abandoning those who made that possible. If we wanted the Clintons back in power, we would have voted for Hillary in the primary. That would have been simpler, clearer. We wanted a new millennial to start and it is until now very disappointing.

Sorry for the rant!

[JI7]

24. very disappointing but i know why it was done. it should have been taken away

during the campaign when he made some of the worst remarks or his endorsing McCain. people would have understood it then as it wasn't just his not supporting Obama but saying some outrageous comments.

but doing something now comes off as payback and it doesn't help at a time when Obama is trying to present himself as someone who will be President for all of America. we also have that georgia Senate Race we need to win.

we made a mistake of not doing something sooner.

[karynnj]

25. Interesting thought, but there were two things to consider then:

- Lieberman had more leverage as the 51st in the Democratic conference.
- The main thing the Senate worked on in September between the August recess and when the recessed again was the bailout. This was far more important and there was the need to rise above politics.

Now, Obama is the winner here and he showed a good side in forgiving Lieberman. This simultaneously took away what would have been a huge negative talking point from the rw - which had already set it up for at least a week. So, instead of Lieberman being the noble martyr of the right, he's the forgiven man, who admits (weakly) that he was wrong. The only REAL reason that they should have considered removing him was the fact that he provided little oversight over FEMA efforts on Katrina.