Why blame Rahm or Lieberman ? It starts with the POTUS

[democracy1st]

He appointed Rahm,and Obama allowed Lieberman to keep his chairmanship....



"President Obama played a very important role, he was very gracious," said Lieberman, who has since called Obama to thank him. "That obviously sealed the deal and I appreciated it a lot."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-09-lieberman_N.htm

[rasputin1952]

1. The president has nothing to do with the posts Lieberman has...

that is up to the Senate.

[DrDan]

3. and you don't think Reid checked first before appointing him?

[rasputin1952]

4. I don't know, I am not privy to that information...

as is no one else here.

All I know is that it is up to the Senate, and generally speaking, they pretty much go by seniority.

I can't see where PO had anything to do with Lieberman being appointed to his post, it doesn't work that way.

[DrDan]

10. the chairmanship had nothing to do with the PO - that is correct

but we certainly know that Reid checked with Obama before the appointment. You don't have to be privy to anything to know that would be the proper protocol for a new administration.

[rasputin1952]

15. I've never heard of that...

do you have a link, or something I can look up that shows that?

Sorry, but to be honest, I don't "know" of anything of the sort.

[cornermouse]

19. link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

"Five Democratic Senators maintained their support for Lieberman, and Lieberman also received the strong support of former Senator and Democratic stalwart Bob Kerrey, who offered to stump for him.<36> Democratic minority leader Harry Reid, while endorsing Lamont, promised Lieberman that he would retain his committee positions and seniority if he prevailed in the general election."

[rasputin1952]

20. Thanks for the link...

I don't see anything about PO in there.

For the record...I think Lieberman should be jettisoned, cast out into the darkness and cold of political oblivion. What was said during the campaign, could easily be overridden by Joe's recent actions.

[DrDan]

24. self deleted

[DrDan]

23. here are a couple

"Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped"

http://themoderatevoice.com/24253/obama-sends-message-lieberman-should-caucus-with-democrats/


"Sen. Joe Lieberman's efforts to hold onto his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairmanship may be gaining Joementum.

TPM Election Central is reporting that Stepanie Cutter, an Obama transition spokeswoman, is sending public signals suggesting that President-elect Obama would just as well let bygone be bygones with the independent senator from Connecticut who was a vocal Sen. John McCain supporter."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_camp_ok_with_lieberman.html

[pocoloco]

5. Does help getting him elected count?

[rasputin1952]

8. I think the people of CN should demand a recall...

but to be honest, I doubt that PO had much to do with getting him re-elected.

The party split did more than anything to get him back.

What can happen, if Reid and the rest of the D's have a spine, is strip him of his posts and let him flounder in oblivion. There are a few R's that can be coaxed into the fold. Not all of the R's are irrational goomers.

[styersc]

14. One of Obama's first positions as president was to embrace him.

Lieberman knows he has the weakling president under his thumb!

[rasputin1952]

17. Meh...that was then, and it was a typical move to try to get

Joe to move w/the D's. Nothing big there.

I' waiting to see what Joe will do after a meeting or two in the WH. I get the distinct impression Joe is not all that welcome there these days.

I figure the only reason he's doing this is because it gets him attention; a lot of attention. If he were cast out into the desert of the political world...he'd die.

[DrDan]

25. I would suggest it goes beyond the attention. Follow the money.

His wife has made a ton of money representing insurance and drug companies.

Look for him in a well-paid job once he leaves the senate. Joe does nothing that does not enhance him personally.

[rasputin1952]

26. I will agree on those points...

there is no love lost between he and I...there never was any in the first place. I think the man is a slug, but I want to keep things in a factual context.

I have enough problems dealing with Ben Nelson out here in NE. I fought like hell to get him re-elected, and he turns out to leave a slime trail as well...x(

[DrDan]

28. having strong ties to Nebraska (born there) - I understand

It is amazing that ANY D could get elected there.

But - keeping things in perspective - thank goodness we now have a decent coach back in Lincoln.

[rasputin1952]

29. ...

:D

It's funny out here...go to the store, and there's the on the overheads. People stop dead in theri tracks when something is happening...I've seen once where a woman dropped a gallon of milk at a Husker turnover...:rofl:

[DrDan]

32. hey - I understand - I left midway through 6th grade and have

remained a loyal Husker even though attending several other colleges - to include major football schools such as grad school at USC.

My son - never lived in Nebr - born in Kansas - a loyal Husker.

Yep - no doubt about it - life centers around the Huskers for Nebraskans.

[BzaDem]

2. Because of course if Obama didn't allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship he would vote for HCR.

:rofl:

[emulatorloo]

6. Yes, so would Nelson, Lincoln, and Snowe!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Of course it would!

Because eliminating whatever shred of leverage you may or may not have over the man is the absolute best way to pass HCR. When you have absolutely nothing left to threaten him with, that clearly makes him more likely to vote with you, because it tells him you mean business and might not each lunch with him anymore in the cafeteria.

In case it's necessary...:sarcasm:

[CTLawGuy]

7. so maybe he doesn't get his chairmanship

and becomes a republican instead. Then health care is DOA before it even begins. I ain't happy about it either, but that's the reality.

[cyclezealot]

9. I put a lot of blame on Obama for lots of stuff.

Lieberman. Not so much. No one knows how to handle Lieberman.. He's a primadona with an ego fit for royalty.. The Dems' need 61 senate seats to make the senate into a working democratic body.. Maybe more.. Since the US does not allow Stalin type control over political malcontents such as Lieberman , what can be done about the Lieberman problem.. He'd just officially defected had he lost his chairmanship.. Instead of unofficially. He's presently just toying with the Democrats..
.. The solution. Offer Lieberman a high government position in Israel , where he belongs.. Then we'll be rid of the problem..

[DrDan]

11. we would be better off with Lieberman as an R

then the general population could not say - "what wrong with the D's, they have their 60 votes"

[cyclezealot]

16. In fact, it's more like 57

at best. .Some dems' are dinos... Best solution.. Give him a seat in the Israeli Parliament . The Likud would be happy to welcome him.

[DrDan]

22. he has no redeeming qualities - time to face it

never has had.

I HATED it when the Gore campaign picked him. What an absolutely HORRIBLE choice. I would still like to believe that it was the party's choice - not Gore's.

[dionysus]

36. yeah. i'd love to hear Gore's opinion on the guy now...

[depakid]

12. On the matter of graciousness:

Seems to me that in 21st America- as in Centuries ago, the evidence over time bears this statement all too true:

"...it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”

That of course was written "better" in 15th Century Italian- though this and similar passages make a whole lot of sense on the domestic front today. Especially with regard (and in consideration to all of the evidence) -to dealing with guys like Lieberman (or "pick 'em" among Republicans).

A fair guess would be that the president knows this, too- so... what are we to conclude?

[jefferson_dem]

13. You do understand that the Congress, not the President, is responsbile for legislating.

Right?

[liberal N proud]

18. Since when was Rahm or Obama leaders in the Senate?

It is a separate body of the Democratic government with it's own rules and leadership.

If anyone is to blame, it is the Democratic leadership for pandering to LIEberman and giving him chairmanships when there are many Democrats in the Senate who do not have one.

LIEberman is not a Democrat, why does he have a chairmanship?

[dionysus]

34. "Since when was Rahm or Obama leaders in the Senate?" how this fundamental truth escapes anyone...

is beyond me :shrug:

[cornermouse]

21. Also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

"Many Democrats wanted Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs due to his support for John McCain.<57> Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached out to Lieberman, asking him to caucus with the Republicans.<58> Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted 42 to 13 to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship (although he did lose his membership for the Environment and Public Works Committee). Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats.<4> 'Lieberman credited President-elect Barack Obama for helping him keep his chairmanship. Obama had privately urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not to remove Lieberman from his position. Reid stated that Lieberman's criticism of Obama during the election angered him, but that "if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'Boy did we get even'?" Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also credited the Democrats' decision on Lieberman to Obama's support, stating that "If Barack can move on, so can we."<59><60>"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/19/lieberman/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

"But Lieberman presented a far different situation. He was McCain's constant companion on the campaign trail all year; he spoke at the GOP convention, belittled Obama, endorsed various Republicans and generally behaved like, well, a guy who was asking to be tossed out of his party. In contrast to Stevens v. GOP, there is, in fact, a fairly ravenous appetite among Democrats for kicking Lieberman in the head. It's just that that hunger exists mostly outside the walls of the U.S. Capitol. The Democratic caucus, with the blessing and at the behest of their former peer, forgiver-in-chief and president-elect Barack Obama, voted 42-13 to keep Lieberman in the fold. They left him in charge of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, though -- in a vague nod to the idea of retribution -- they did make him give up a subcommittee he ran on the Environment and Public Works panel. "It's very clear that the vast majority of the Democratic caucus wants to keep Senator Lieberman as chairman of his committee, member of the Armed Services Committee, and that was done," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters afterward. "It's all over with. Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. He's part of this caucus."

During the caucus meeting, Democrats said Lieberman had made a case for why he should get off easy, telling his colleagues he's got a history of working with both parties, and that he was moved by Obama's election (even if he wasn't sufficiently moved to actually vote for him). Allies like Chris Dodd and Ken Salazar spoke on his behalf; Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders argued for punishing him, but it was clear that Reid and his cohorts in leadership wanted to keep Lieberman in the caucus. When Reid opened talks with Lieberman immediately after the election, the apostate Democrat had said losing his committee chairmanship was "unacceptable."

[flyarm]

30. Remember Joe Lieberman was Obama’s Mentor in the Senate

Remember Joe Lieberman was Obama’s Mentor in the Senate


By: fflambeau Monday December 14, 2009 10:05 pm

Those who are up in arms over Sen. Joe Lieberman’s "veto" of the extension of Medicare should remember this. When Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Washington, D.C. in 2005, he selected as his mentor none other than: Joe Lieberman.

Here’s David Sirota writing about this, after discussing Obama’s stab in the back of the progressive Lamont in Connecticut and his stab in the back of the progressive Christine Cegelis (Obama backed Duckworth) way back in 2006:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18929

( personally..i think we are looking at one hell of a dog and pony show!! to shove down our throats the most attrocious bill possible for the American people..and a huge windfall for big pharma and the insurance boys..we are being duped into accepting a piece of shit..just to get a bill..I for one am not buying this crap!)

[NorthCarolina]

31. Obama, Rahm and Lieberman all share a common bond...the DLC (nt)

[swilton]

33. Totally Agree

Obama campaigned for Lieberman -

The entire Democratic Party (with few exceptions) went along with validating the 2000 elections, Bush's Wars and approving his Supreme Court nominees.

Making Lieberman the scapegoat is like laughing at Cheney or Palin gives them more power than they deserve and is a distraction. The blame should be placed on the Democrot Party enablers in the senate, house and executive branches of our government.

[treestar]

35. So many people seem to think this is all a soap opera

And are looking for ways to blame the President for what the Senate does.

Conn. will send a Senator who sympathizes with the insurance industry, period. Live with it.