November 7, 2008 12:02 PM
Harry Reid has no right to 'punish' Joe Lieberman
Here's the long and the short of it: Eight years ago, "Honest Joe" Lieberman was the vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, having served as Connecticut's junior senator since 1989. In 2004, he unsuccessfully vied for the Democratic presidential nod; former running mate Al Gore had already dissed him by this time. In 2006, Ned Lamont, running on an anti-war platform, defeated Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary. Lieberman ran as an independent, and won the general election. Ever since, Dems have generally branded Joe a traitor and Satan, even though he caucuses with Democrats and sides with them on most issues -- and even though he won election as an independent!
Yet since he hit the campaign trail for his BFF John McCain -- bearing in mind that there's still a big "I" after his name, not "D" -- and spoke at the RNC (which was a speech all about bipartisanship), he's had a ginormous target on his back with Harry Reid aiming the crossbow.
If Reid and the DNC want to shun Lieberman, fine. It's their loss. If they never invite Joe to another D.C. tea party, fine. Whine and complain about what a goober you think he is.
But to oust an experienced senator committed to national defense as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is petty partisanship at its worst. The commitment to homeland security should know no party, and just requires the best minds on the issue. Obviously Reid and Co. thought Lieberman to be highly qualified for the post based on his experience and merit. Because he tried to help a friend win the White House, that somehow now makes him unqualified for the post? It doesn't. It's just a majority leader thinking that he has the right to "punish" an independent, and puts the best interests of the public second.
Especially when Reid's candidate won the presidential election, it only looks as if he's trying to throw his power around. The Dems also don't need Joe to hold a Senate majority anymore, so they're content with tossing him out in the cold.
Very sad. I wish independent thinking was cherished more in D.C. Brave steps could be taken and things might actually start getting done. "It shouldn't take a natural disaster to teach us that the American people don't care much if you have an 'R' or a 'D' after your name," Lieberman said in his RNC speech. "What they care about is, are we solving the problems they are up against every day?" Well, D.C. does care about the R or D, and they don't get things done, so go figure.
Yet since he hit the campaign trail for his BFF John McCain -- bearing in mind that there's still a big "I" after his name, not "D" -- and spoke at the RNC (which was a speech all about bipartisanship), he's had a ginormous target on his back with Harry Reid aiming the crossbow.
If Reid and the DNC want to shun Lieberman, fine. It's their loss. If they never invite Joe to another D.C. tea party, fine. Whine and complain about what a goober you think he is.
But to oust an experienced senator committed to national defense as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is petty partisanship at its worst. The commitment to homeland security should know no party, and just requires the best minds on the issue. Obviously Reid and Co. thought Lieberman to be highly qualified for the post based on his experience and merit. Because he tried to help a friend win the White House, that somehow now makes him unqualified for the post? It doesn't. It's just a majority leader thinking that he has the right to "punish" an independent, and puts the best interests of the public second.
Especially when Reid's candidate won the presidential election, it only looks as if he's trying to throw his power around. The Dems also don't need Joe to hold a Senate majority anymore, so they're content with tossing him out in the cold.
Very sad. I wish independent thinking was cherished more in D.C. Brave steps could be taken and things might actually start getting done. "It shouldn't take a natural disaster to teach us that the American people don't care much if you have an 'R' or a 'D' after your name," Lieberman said in his RNC speech. "What they care about is, are we solving the problems they are up against every day?" Well, D.C. does care about the R or D, and they don't get things done, so go figure.
November 7, 2008
1:32 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Joe Lieberman is finally getting his comeuppance for shilling Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq. The Democrats would be just a tad hypocritical if that were the only cause for giving him the boot. Many of them voted for the same debacle with Obama being one noteworthy exception. I agree that they're being rather vindictive about his support for McCain/Palin but that's the price that Lieberman pays for his ongoing stupidity.
Maybe now he's learned his lesson but I doubt it.
November 7, 2008
2:03 PM
SpeakEasy writes:
That isn't the whole story...you left out the little detail that he was warned not to speak at the Republican Convention. He chose to speak anyway so now he has to pay the consequences of his actions.
If he wants to "have a big I" in front of his name then he doesn't need to caucus with the Democrats nor Republicans.
November 7, 2008
2:16 PM
Bridget Johnson
writes:
Since he does have that "I" after his name, though, did the Dems have the right to "warn" him not to speak at the RNC in the first place? They may get mad and say you can't caucus with us anymore, but to remove a capable senator from the chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee is overstepping their bounds.
November 7, 2008
2:33 PM
JustSayin writes:
Joe isn't going to be punished, he's going to be (rightfully) marginalized. Joe isn't an "I", Joe's an "L" (as in Lieberman) - it's all about Joe. The reason he was re-elected in CT was because the state is full of compliant "don't change anything" " don't rock the boat" types (the reason I gladly left it years ago).
November 7, 2008
2:42 PM
Seth Lichtenstein writes:
I agree entirely with Bridget. How low can petty partisanship slink in this country? I don't understand anyone who would rather have our politicians bicker (see the bailout fiasco) than do their jobs and actually accomplish something.
As for SpeakEasy's comment, where do democrats get off "warning" Lieberman not to speak at the RNC. This is America, is it not? Give me a break. To diminish the role of a great legislator because he wanted to endorse a friend who, until this campaign, was also an independent thinker. After this historic election, senate democrats are still acting as childish as ever. Let's hope Obama's platform of change extends to politics in Congress.
November 7, 2008
2:51 PM
Waxahachie writes:
Lieberman made his choices. He made the decision to support the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate. He made the decision to criticize the Democrats to the media. He made the decision to speak at the RNC against Obama and the entire Democratic party, calling Obama naive and dangerous. He even spoke against the Democrats effort to win House and Senate races.
And now the Democrats are in control, and he thinks he should get to keep his chairmanship? Really? Taking his chairmanship away is not petty. If you spit in someone's face enough times, I think you've earned a kick in the family jewels.
I have no problem with his support for McCain. But you don't get to act like a total jackass and then keep your position.
November 7, 2008
3:44 PM
chaka419 writes:
Well, I guess that Democrat umbrella is not that big after all. Free thinking has never been part of the Demcrate doctrine. You do what they say or they punish you!! Joe will be the first casualty of the new opressive USA government. I say run for the hills Christians, Conservatives and any one else who might have differing opinion of the new government!!!!!!!!!!!! They called their crazy hatred of Bush, disent but you watch...if any one has a dissenting opinion now they might just disappear!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 7, 2008
4:20 PM
Tbone writes:
Does Lieberman serve at the pleasure of the leader of the senate?
I mean, what, 9 US attorneys were fired for partisan reasons, and repubs relied on "oh, they serve at the pleasure of the prez" line.
Not to mention, Lieberman has been MIA at the helm. Not a single investigaiton, even voted against troop funding for body armor.
If he's doing a shitty job, why should he be allowed to stay at the helm?
November 7, 2008
5:45 PM
Terri writes:
No, it's not overstepping their bounds to remove Lieberman. It's their prerogative if they choose to do so. Democrats control the senate, therefore it's their decision to make as to who holds these positions. Overstepping bounds would be to demand that you still hold these positions despite past actions.
November 7, 2008
7:31 PM
Rod writes:
It is a stupid decision, but Reid has the right to make it, and lots of experience at stupid decision-making as well, so it's not unexpected.
BTW, Speaking of the firing of US attorneys, none were fired by President Bush-their terms were up and they were not renewed. However, even if they were fired, the previous President fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office, so he has Bush beat 10:1.
The difference , of course, is that the previous President has a 'D' after his name.
November 7, 2008
8:35 PM
Traffic Cop Timmy writes:
Rod is correct. The firing of US attorneys is a non-starter and a deflection of the issue of this post.
If Lieberman is not doing his job, that's one thing. But Reid is obviously being vindictive. And Bridgett has a good point. He is an independent, not a Democrat.
And where is Obama in all this? I have yet to see him lay down the law as the head of his Party since he won the nomination. His silence speaks volumes about the coming four years. A quick phone call to Reid would have stopped this nonsense before it happened - since we're all for unity, etc.
Let me know when someone decides to run against Reid in 2010. I'll be online donating.
November 8, 2008
3:17 PM
Paloma writes:
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It's in charge of investigating the conduct of the White House and the president's administration.
As chairman of this committee (last two years), Lieberman did not pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration.
On the other hand, Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee was highly vigilant, held hearings, issued subpoenas, etc.
Lieberman did nothing and yet insists that he should continue to be the chairman of HSGA! Please! We need someone ethical and responsible in that position.
November 8, 2008
5:02 PM
ICDogg writes:
Having an "(I)" after his name gives Lieberman no special rights in the caucus that begins with the letter "D". With that in mind, it would have been an excellent idea for him not to stab the Democrats in the back. Some things are not forgivable.
Where I come from, if you bet on a horse that comes out of the money, you don't get to cash in at the window. Like horse races, elections have consequences too. Kicking him out of his chairmanship is no more petty partisanship than kicking George W. Bush out of the White House.
November 9, 2008
12:50 PM
Greg writes:
That's right Neocons and Christians, run for the hills. The libs are coming!!! Yeah, the republican party did a bang-up job with the country in the last 8 years. Two wars, an economic collapse, wholesale looting of our treasury and natural resources, etc, etc.
Face it, you got your asses handed to you. You ahd your time and blew it. So stop whining and get on the team.
Joe proved that political expediency is all that matters to him. I am from CT, he is my Senator and he does not represent the interests of his constituents, he represents himself. So just give it up on the "independent" thinker BS. Joe Lieberman of even 6 months ago would have scoffed at the idea of Sarah Palin as VP. Yet there he was, on national tv, promoting her the second coming.
November 15, 2008
9:50 PM
Jason McHugh writes:
I never hear about how "partisan" the republicans are being. Its always thrown in the face of Democrats don't go along with the rethuglicans policies.
Well, guess what? Democrats don't agree with rethuglican policies! Why? THEY DON'T WORK! THEY CAUSED THIS ECONOMIC MELTDOWN!
Your plaintive plea of bipartisanship is BS anyways! When the rethuglicans controlled the senate they did everything they could to lock the Democrats out! Where was you cry for bipartisanship then?
As for removing "Holy" joe, harry reid has EVERY RIGHT! It's in the rules OF THE SENATE! The Democrats control the senate. NOT INDEPENDENTS!
Spare me your fake outrage and hypocrisy PLEASE! I'm so sick of it I could puke!