CNN: Harry Reid is "Still trying to keep Lieberman within Democratic caucus despite anger"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Lieberman can still help Dems, Reid says

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/senate.lieberman/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."

"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, broke with the party over the war in Iraq and ran as an independent after losing the party's nomination in 2006. Since then, he has been the 51st vote that kept the Senate in Democratic hands.

[tblue]

1. Maybe we should ask if Harry Reid should caucus with the Dems.

Has he no balls?

[depakid]

2. Anyone else recognize that Harry Reid needs to be provided with

some face saving way of stepping down from a position he's proven to be unsuitable for?

[Radical Activist]

3. That's the smart thing to do.

Take Lieberman out of any leadership positions, don't let him chair committees. Fine.

If we kick Lieberman out of the caucus and he ends up being the one vote we need to break a filibuster...that's when people will regret kicking him out of the party.

[Dr Fate]

4. I agree- I'm happy with just punishing the snake- for now. n/t

n/t

[DJ13]

6. If we kick Lieberman out of the caucus and he ends up being the one vote we need

I dont get this line of thinking.

Lieberman has voted 90% of the time with Democrats.

That implies that either Joe is voting as he thinks his constituents want, or he has been voting his conscience.

Even if he is no longer a Democrat, why would his voting habits change?

[Radical Activist]

10. Bitterness.

You don't think getting kicked out of the party will change his attitude about voting with the Dems in a tough spot? How about when the Republicans offer everything they can to vote with them?

[DJ13]

16. That gets back to what his constituents want in a Senator

If they voted him back in because he votes Democratic they wont accept him voting Republican just for payback.

[Radical Activist]

23. If he really respected the wishes of his constituents

he would have accepted the results of the Democratic primary.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Unfortunately, fewer than 25% of Connecticut...

voters voted for Lamont in the primary.

Many of the other 75% went for Lieberman in the general.

So, ummm..., just who is his constituency?

[Radical Activist]

48. A majority of CT voters didn't vote for Lieberman in the general election

so that's a good question.

[onenote]

11. the reason to want him in the caucus isn't to break filibusters

its to ensure that the maximum number of Democrats sit on every Senate Committee. The allocation of seats on committees reflect the proportion of senators caucusing with the two parties. More Senators caucusing with the Democrats = more Democrats on each committee (or fewer repubs).

[DJ13]

15. I seriously doubt that 1 out of 100 would change commitee assignments

[onenote]

17. then you don't know it works

I've been around Capitol Hill for 30 years. The way the assignments work is affected by the number each party has. Its not an exact science, but every additional member caucusing with a party increases the overall representation of that party in the committee structure (or reduces the overall representation of the other party).

[DJ13]

19. So go through the numbers

What would the difference in committee assignments be between our party having 58 or 57 Senators?

[onenote]

21. let me say it again: its not an exact science

You start with the proposition that its proportional but that its ultimately the result of horsetrading by the leadership of the two parties. Not every committee has the same number of seats. Some committees may get larger, some may get smaller, some will add Democrats some will reduce repubs seats. But overall, the results with a 58/42 split in the Senate will be more advantageous to Democrats than the result from a 57/43 split.

[AlinPA]

20. Yes, this is a tough one. But for me it is impossible to accept his standing there smiling behind

Palin and McCain as they called Obama a terrorist and socialist and worse said he sided with the terrorists while their supporters screamed "kill him".

[Warpy]

8. The problem is that worm Lieberman is threatening

to quit the caucus if he loses his plum leadership position. Reid has gone so far as to offer him a lesser leadership position. If Lieberman had any brains left, he'd know this is far better than any deal the rest of the Democrats in the Senate would ever offer him and take it.

Unfortunately, he still thinks he's in a position to bargain. He's not.

[onenote]

18. which is why Reid should be calling his bluff

Make it his decision to leave.

[Marr]

22. Even if Lieberman caucuses with Democrats, you can be sure he'll

break ranks "on principle" whenever his one vote can help the GOP.

There's no point in pandering to him.

[sendero]

31. exactly..

.. Reid is a moron. Lieberman votes with us on 90% of the bullshit issues, and fucks us on the most important issue of our time, the war on terror.

Fuck Lieberman, I don't give a shit if he caucuses with Satan, he is NOT WORTH THE DOWNSIDE.

And Reid proves once again that he is a giant pussy.

[pipi_k]

38. And that is my concern as well

Because he knows that he owes his position largely due to Republican "help" in beating out the guy the people (Democrats) in CT wanted instead of him.

Will Republicans let him forget that?

Who knows...but I would bet not.

So either way, he ends up pissing off some group or another that stuck their necks out to help him further his ambitions (if not keep his job).


Seems like he doesn't really care whom he uses to get to the top, or stay there.

If Democrats keep him "because he's needed", then that gives the little shit a whole lot of power he doesn't deserve. I have a really low opinion of people who think they're indispensable....and nearly as low an opinion of those who enable these characters.

[RollWithIt]

5. There is a difference between keeping him in caucus and removing him from chairmanship....

So don't overreact.

[onenote]

7. It would be good for Democrats if Lieberman stays in the caucus

because if he caucuses with the repubs it could impact the number of seats assigned the respective parties on all of the Senate committees. That being said, I don't think he should keep his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship. He should be offered some face saving position. Its more than he'll get from the repubs.

[charlie]

13. And Government Affairs committee

After his foot-dragging on Enron and flat out refusal to keep his campaign promise to investigate Katrina, he needed to be gone from that post years ago.

[camera obscura]

14. I agree

it's not the caucusing I mind, it's his powerful position. If he wasn't any good at it and he purposefully risked it, he doesn't deserve it.

[acmavm]

9. Harry is soooooooo predictable.

[onenote]

12. as are some DUers

Keeping Lieberman as a member of the caucus benefits all Democrats. That being said, he doesn't deserve to keep his Homeland Security chairmanship. So it would appear that Reid is, in fact, trying to achieve the best possible result.

[acmavm]

33. Yeppers, you guys and Harry. No sport. No sport whatsoever in

predicting what you'll say.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Yeah - there are lots of silly answers, but fewer sensible ones, so they're easier to predict.

N.T.

[democracy1st]

24. another reason why Harry Reid should go,no vision!!!

[Edweird]

25. It's time for Reid and Lieberman to go. They can take Pelosi with them.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. And Reid is right. Lieberman would still be a great guy...

if it wasn't for that damn war in Iraq-- most of his other votes and positions are right in line.

Reid's position is not nearly as clear or easy as internet posters living in an electronic bubble would like to think-- Joe is still valuable as an ally and caucus member and could be a dangerous enemy if tossed under the bus.

(Real politics is never as easy as typing)

[pipi_k]

41. Speaking of the war in Iraq...

I just wonder how people who lost friends or family to that war he keeps hawking feel about him...


That 10% of the time he doesn't vote along with the Democrats must be real important to spouses, wives, kids, parents whose loved ones will never come home again.

Granted, Lieberman didn't start the war, but he still supports it (and, by implication, more death and destruction).


Anyone who still supports that disaster of a war is a major asswipe in my book...and that includes Joe Lieberman.

Anyway, I do wonder just how dangerous an enemy he could be if he's made mostly irrelevant by both parties because neither one can fully trust him...

:shrug:

[KoKo]

28. Well...that makes sense. Harry has always been an accomodator rather than a decider...

He's probably wringing his hands...tear from his eye and speaking more malapropisms to through off his detractors.

[Rwalsh]

29. Maybe we should wait

until all the Senate races are decided.

We may need him to have a filibuster proof Senate. We can't be sure Biden will be replaced by another Democrat.

And we don't know how many Senators we will lose to Obama's cabinet.

Too many unanswered questions to get rid of Lieberman now.

It would be a shame if kicking out Lieberman gave us only 59 Senators.

Edited to reflect new information just received.

[dansolo]

30. It wouldn't make a difference

Him caucusing with us doesn't guarantee that he will vote with us when there is a filibuster.

[Rwalsh]

32. True. He may not.

But he definitely won't if he becomes a Republican.

IMO, "he might" is better for us than "not at all".

Besides, we waited this long, we can wait a little longer

[spanone]

37. then HE'LL have us by the nuts. kick him out NOW.

[dkofos]

34. It's time for a real leader in the Senate.

[LibraLiz1973]

35. Fuck LIEberman. He is a total backstabber & completely unworthy of our party

[spanone]

36. wrong harry. lieberman is a right-wing nutcase. he's just a senator who's a right wing nutcase

[MiniMe]

39. Harry wants to remove him from the Homeland Security Chair and put him in the

Veterans Affairs chair, and Liebershit refuses. Just do it and forget about it Harry. You are the dem leader, do your job.

[theboss]

40. I don't want Lieberman chairing any committees...But

I am fine if he wants to stay in the caucus.

[bdamomma]

42. what has Harry been drinking??

progressive people??? Lieberman give me a break.

[lovuian]

45. Does he want a KISS like Lieberman gave BUSH

on his election day after he screwed Al Gore out of his election

[lovuian]

44. Harry keep smiling and laughing because you are EXPOSED

for the CRIMINAL you are for even thinking about Lieberman

Lieberman is so passe' the New World Order needs new blood

[lib2DaBone]

46. Clean House once and for all..REID, LIBERMAN AND PELOSI

[Vidar]

47. I'm still trying to decide if Reid is a traitor, or just a coward & a wimp.

The solution is the same: get rid of him!