I vote for the middle way. Is there a committee that oversees the United States Postal Service? Or how about one that sets bus fares in interstate commerce? That way, Lieberman could "save face" and still be kept from doing much more damage than he has already done.

How about product safety? Joe could taste all the Barbie Dolls coming out of China to see if any more still have an arsenic aftertaste.

Crankily yours,
The New York Crank

The Dems in the Senate are more concerned with being liked by other Senators than about getting things done. How else to explained how they get steamrolled on everything, never use the same tactics as the Repukes, and have no consequences for betrayal, etc.?

Obama's going to make LIEberman his bitch. "Now Joe, I saved your hide -- you owe me...."

Give him Small Business, where he is next in line anyway with Kerry moving up to Foreign Relations. And if he wants to go over to the Republicans for that, they should let him.

Beyond that, I get sick of the idea that the Republicans were so much more effective managers of the Senate than Reid has been.

Doesn't anybody actually remember what it was like before November 2006? The Democrats didn't have the votes, but Reid was still able to run circles around Frist on any number of issues. The problem is that it's just really hard to run a Senatorial majority, especially the extremely narrow one that Reid has had heretofore. Let's see how this plays out before we start insulting the Senate Democrats.

As Mr. Benen has helpfully pointed out, Lieberman's current chairmanship would give him a major oversight role for the Obama presidency. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Even if Lieberman promises not to engage in a political witchhunt, what could Dems do if he reneged on that promise (like he reneged on the promise to avoid negative campaigning)? If they tried to take him out of the committee after he started an investigation, it would make the Dems look like they were trying to avoid scrutiny.

He cannot be given that power when he cant be trusted to use it responsibly.

Lieberman is, on some issues, a mainstream Democrat. Find a way to jigger the committees that he chairs one of those - especially one where he'll be nerfed from attacking Obama.

If he were overall a decent person, he'd feel some debt of gratitude to Obama for campaigning for him during the 2006 primary campaign and for vocalizing undeserved support today. Lieberman is not, he's just too self centered. If we're going to keep him, it should be in a place where he can't do much harm.

Does anyone think it significant that Think Progress is obviously in favor of stripping his chairmanship, and Think Progress is affiliated with CAP/John Podesta?

The question is not what you give Lieberman. The real question is what _he_ gives Obama. So far, he has offered nothing. He has to change.

A vote for Obama was "a vote for change". If there is no change even with bloody Lieberman, then Reid is not with the program.

TG Chicago's right. Lieberman is powered by ego, spite and petty vendetta. That's who he is now. There's no public servant in there any more, and there hasn't been for a long time.

People like Dodd and Bayh who are pretending this is all about retribution are irresponsibly ignoring the risk going forward of leaving this loose cannon where he is. I suspect Obama gets it perfectly well, and that's why he took the magnanimous route of encouraging Lieberman's continuance in the caucus while declining to weigh in on his committeeships.

We need Lieberman off a committee in which he'll use his whacked-out personal grievances to a) give Obama a hard time just for the hell of it and b) again, just for the hell of it, obstruct efforts to investigate Bush administration fallout. The time to do this is before the next congress, because we won't be able to stop his emotionally unbalanced rampages once they start. Give him some other committee and be done with it.

Look, I despise Lieberman. If he was on fire, I wouldn't p*ss on him to put out the flames.

But why do we seem so spring-loaded to dismiss the possibility that President-Elect Obama might know exactly what he's doing?

Whatever Lieberman's stake in this might be, I'm glad that Obama seems to be taking a mostly-hands-off stance on this. The President and Vice-president shouldn't have any say whatsoever in that kind of legislative thing. Congressional democrats should figure it out themselves. Granted, for the time being Obama and Biden are still Senators, but the fact that they are the Pres. and VP elect should effectively recuse them from this.

Glennzilla made that point quite effectively in one of his recent columns.

So who would replace Lieberman on Homeland Security? why not frame it as a positive argument "here's someone who would be better at it than Lieberman since Lieberman has been so ineffective"

and if Lieberman bolts b/c he doesn't like his new assignment (or doesn't get one), all Dems and Obama need to do is say "look he left on his own, we wanted him to stay. this is inside baseball that the American people don't want to hear about. let's focus on the economy, etc"

and the issue needs to be done with before Obama takes office

The Senate is all about compromise - it's designed for near-gridlock, where any disgruntled person in the minority can impede any change, and where for change you really have to convince a lot of people that your idea is good. This inherently requires making nice with people you can't stand and whose goals you despise. Therefore, yes, one wants Obama in the caucus.

That being said, for committee chairs you want people who are both loyalists and competent. Lieberman has proven himself to be neither, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Ergo, no chairmanships.

Even worse for Lieberman, his seniority as a Democrat is 0 years, and he is not the leader of a power block that has to be appeased or drawn into a coalition.

"But why do we seem so spring-loaded to dismiss the possibility that President-Elect Obama might know exactly what he's doing?"

Because that is not change. It is just personal cunning. Change has to be public, a new set of rules, and apparent to all.

Lieberman in the caucus. Aargh, sorry.

There must be some consequense to Lieberman for not just campaigning for McCain against Obama, but for speaking at the Republican convention. Obama's made it clear he plans to play good cop, so Lieberman's punishment isn't a testo f his leadership, but it sure is a test of Reid's.

As I argued last night, Obama is actually providing the political leverage here to get Lieberman out of the committee chairmanship. By graciously accepting Lieberman's remaining in the caucus, even in the face of scurrilous betrayal, he has put Lieberman in the position of either recognizing that magnanimity by graciously accepting a demotion from the chairmanship in return for the invitation to stay in the caucus, or holding out stubbornly and arrogantly for everything - in which case it clearly won't be Obama's fault if the Dems dump him. Obama has now established himself as the gracious and forgiving party, and the ball is in Lieberman's court.

Did you guys all sleep through high school Civics classes? The role of the President has three parts: Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, and Chief Legislator.
Aside from Executive Branch duties, the primary duty of a President is to propose legislation to push his agenda, and to work with the Legislators to make sure his bills are passed. The President is even required by law to submit at least one bill every year: the Budget.
So it is definitely within the President's purview to work with the Legislature and direct their actions, just as it is the Legislature's job to balance the President/Chief Legislator's power and agenda.

Elections have consequences, unless you're a member of the millionaires' club. And who thinks Lieberman would be re-elected again now?

Anyone?

I guess as long as Liebershit didn't actually call Obama a terrorist, all's forgiven?

Harry Reid needs to be pelted with rotten fruit for being such a wimpy POS. Nobody is going to take him seriously after this, if they ever did.

GRRRRR.

"Because that is not change. It is just personal cunning. Change has to be public, a new set of rules, and apparent to all."

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about American politics. My mistake.

Hey I'm not for hanging Leiberman from the yardarms for being a traitor but let's face facts when you endorse and actively promote McCain for president as well as denigrate the Democratic candidate YOU'RE NOT FOR THE SAME THINGS THAT THE REST OF THE SENATORS THAT ARE DEMOCRATS ARE FOR.
Boot the son-of-a-bitch out.

Obama's going to make LIEberman his bitch. "Now Joe, I saved your hide -- you owe me...."

Yeah, I remember seeing that movie in 2006. I didn't like the ending, and I have absolutely no interest in seeing it again.

But why do we seem so spring-loaded to dismiss the possibility that President-Elect Obama might know exactly what he's doing?

Here is the deal. There are three reasons to take a hard/punitive line against Lieberman and, at the very least, strip him of his committee assignment.

1. Send a message that disloyalty and slime-mongering will not be tolerated.

2. Prevent Lieberman from stabbing Obama and the rest of the party in the back in the future.

3. Lieberman is a terrible Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

While I think that Obama should relish the opportunity to kick Lieberman to the curb, I'm willing to give him him (and Reid) some leeway on the party disclipline issues (#1 & #2). If they want to trust Lieberman, fine. Just don't come crying when he undermines you.

What I am not willing to do is give any passes on #3.

The Homeland Security Committee is very important. Aside from the important governmental oversight that it is supposed to provide, it provides oversight and guidance on domestic security.

As an American citizen, I demand that the Democrats stop playing games with our national security. If the Democrats think that the best person in the Democratic Caucus to head the Homeland Security Committee is Joe Lieberman...that's their call. But if the Dems pass on punishing Lieberman and there is another 9/11 or Katrina and then it turns out that Joe's committee dropped the ball...I will be holding Obama and the Democrats responsible.

Lieberman is Obama's and Reid's guy now. They own him. They can keep him and vouch for him...or they can dump him. Their choice.

Lieberman is, on some issues, a mainstream Democrat.

The problem is that Lieberman uses his position in the caucus (and, before that, in the party) as a platform from which to campaign against Democrats (mostly, on important issues, but in the 2008 campaign cycle, against Democratic candidates, as well.)

As long as he remains in the caucus, he will continue to do so, using his status as a "Democrat" to add weight to those charges. There is, as I see it, simply no reason to tolerate that.

He ran against a Democrat. He has chosen, as shown by his own actions, that the Republican Party is, of the two major parties, the one he is most attached to, campaigning for their Presidential candidate and downballot candidates. There simply is no logic to him being in the Democratic Caucus, as he is neither a Democrat nor—as evidenced by his own actions—an independent whose attachments to the Democratic Party are more important than his attachments to the Republican Party. The only reason he wants to stay in the caucus is to be in a position to continue to attack from within, and to retain a position of power in the Senate.

The only reason to allow him to stay in the caucus with even reduced assignments that makes any kind of sense is if his assignments are cut in the hopes of making him choose to bolt rather than expressly kicking him out of the caucus. But the Republicans don't have much to offer him, so its quite likely that, bluster about what is "unacceptable" aside, he won't bolt.

". . .a decision for the caucus and its leadership, neither of which involves Obama."

As long as Obama remains a senator & a Democrat, it involves him as a member of the caucus.

This drama is exactly the reason Democrats are viewed as less able than Republicans to defend the nation from aggressors. Yes, Dems won the last election but the public never fully endorsed the ability of the Left to get down in the mud and cut the heart out of an enemy. Lieberman crossed over to the enemy camp, likely provided intelligence to them, campaigned for them, tarred Obama and generally earned the label "traitor". If this doesn't rate the political equivilant of the firing squad then Senate Dems (and by extension Obama himself) are the Nancy Boys they're portrayed to be. Move them far back, behind the battle lines, and have them peel potatoes and clean latrines. The big boys can do the heavy lifting where the bullets fly.

cmdicely: "[T]he Republicans don't have much to offer him, so its quite likely that, bluster about what is 'unacceptable' aside, he won't bolt."

This is the nodus of the problem (if I may characterize it as a problem). What kind of assignment or seniority would the GOP give him? One more vote would make that much of a difference, and their are less GOPers left for the available committees. For how important this angle is, I'm surprised that more hasn't been said about it. I gather that Hon. Sens. Lieberman and McConnell have had some sort of meeting, but that's all. We need to know who as seniority (although there are still three seats left to determine), and who is or is not going to seek new assignments (do they still have the term limits?).

"So it is definitely within the President's purview to work with the Legislature and direct their actions, just as it is the Legislature's job to balance the President/Chief Legislator's power and agenda."

However, that purview absolutely *ends* when it comes to the make-up of the caucus and committee chairs. There is a difference between working with Congress and dictating to it. Bush did the second one, and for Obama to insist that Lieberman stay where he is would be the same thing.

It is *not* the place of the President to tell the Congressional caucus how to manage its own affairs, which includes choosing its own leaders. For Obama to do that would be exactly the kind of massive over-reach which the checks and balances of the Constitution are designed to prevent.

Which, again, is why I'm pleased that Obama seems to be taking a mostly-hands-off stance with this issue.

But the Republicans don't have much to offer him, so its quite likely that, bluster about what is "unacceptable" aside, he won't bolt.

I'd go further & say that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer him. Whatever signing bonus they could dangle in front of him -- and, realistically, there's almost nothing they can -- is completely wiped out by the fact that CT would never reelect him as a Republican. In fact, it's an open question as to whether they'd reelect him as whatever he is now. After Bush, he may be the lamest duck out there.

The first rule of politics: reward your friends and punish your enemies. The second rule of politics: those that don't follow the first rule end up with few of the first and lots of the latter.

ST, the President has one other role, as Head of his Party. This isn't a Constitutional role AFAIK, but it is explicit. The Head of the Party has the duty to lead his party's decisionmaking and process, and to advise (but not dictate) Legislative assignments. Well at least that's how I see it.

If not Lieberman, then who? I would suggest Sen. Menendez (who led the Senate during the Dubai port scandal)

This drama is *exactly* the reason Lieberman should go. Instead of doing their jobs, Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats are too busy arguing about whether Lieberman will get to continue *not* doing his job.

I think Shade Tail is spot on concerning executive overreach, and you might as well consider Obama an executive now. Obama did the right thing basically washing his hands of this petty annoyance and he's actually working on important progress for the country.

Damn Lieberman, but damn the Democratic leadership who waste more than a passing thought on him even more. For the sake of the country, expel him and move on. Have some perspective for once.

The elections over so the policians will only listen to their greedy corrupt hearts.

The Democrats including Obama do not choose to hold anyone accountable .Reid needs to have backbone! Pelosi/Hoyer will hopefully go to hell because Bush/Cheney et al were not held accountable for anything done against America and the World.Pardons Will prevail and America will again prove hypocrisy prevails as the rule rather than the Constitution.
Leiberman ,who purposely mislead the people of State of CT when re-elected and Americans during the campaign, should be held accountable. He has not done his job as chairman of the committee. Leave it up to continually corrupt politicians to allow Lieberman to not be denied the charimanship.Leiberman if he runs will not win in 2012 in CT!'The people will speak again.

Joe Lieberman looks out for Joe Lieberman.

I think Obama recognizes this and is basically telling the Senator to come back to the winning side like the rat he is. The Senate could use his vote, however vile he is personally.

He definitely should not be allowed to keep his committee chair, but there's no risk to Obama putting out a gracious gesture that basically says that the best way for Joe to look out for Joe is to work with Obama.

It's like the old saying: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Sometimes I think Obama has a touch of Machiavelli in him.

yeah, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship I think is the best--the only--option.

Interesting side notes:
5 of the 8 Republicans on the Committee will be GONE: Stevens, Coleman, Domenici, Warner, Sununu.

Obama and Lieberman's seats on Homeland Security will be great gifts for Hagan, Shaheen, Merkley, or Mark Warner. (One Udall could take Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions. I'm not sure any in this Freshman class will get Judiciary or Foreign Relations.)

You all are fighting the last war. I'm a broken record on this.

Of course, Lieberman should be given another committee -- because Homeland Security is too good a platform for him.

Of course, he should be allowed to stay in the caucus.

Of course, the caucus should deal with him. Of course, Obama should not have his fingerprints anywhere near the event.

Joe and the GOP would love to make him into a martyr to Obama's dictatorial personality and Democratic overreach.

The middle option is more generous than Lieberman deserves, but I'd be OK with it. But, it's imperative that he gets knocked down a few pegs. Not for supporting Bush's Iraq, but for taking every opportunity to undermine the Dem position. Not for supporting McCain, but for actively campaigning against his own party's nominee.

I don't want Dems to have to subscribe to an ideological purity, but I see no point to tolerating anyone who actively subverts the party's positions.

If you're in opposition, say so then STFU - or pay the price.

"This isn't a Constitutional role AFAIK, but it is explicit."

You're quite right that it isn't a Constitutional role, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about political parties. And after the display of massive executive over-reach we've had over the past 8 years, I am not willing to accept Obama's defacto status as "head of the party" as justification for anything. The two branches were separated for a reason, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out only just today.

New York Crank @ 1,

Unfortunately, the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over the Post Office is the one that Lieberman currently chairs.

two words for Sen Lieberman.
Zell Miller.

that it was bad enough during the election that Democrats had to remove LIEberman from the regular caucus luncheon because he was viewed as a spy for republicans should tell everyone, including Obama what they need to know about keeping LIEberman in the Democratic caucus, let alone an important committee chairmanship. LIEberman should not only be ousted as chair but also given the message in no uncertain terms that he is not wanted in the Democratic caucus.

The fact that Obama said he be happy to have Lieberman caucus with the democrats is not the same as saying that he'd be happy to see Lieberman continue a chairman of an important committee. Obama would be equally happy if any moderate republicans (if any remain) opted to bolt their stagnant party and caucus with the dems. Lieberman's choice is to caucus with the dems and toe the line or face the end of his political career in 2012. There is not a single republican senator left in that section of the country. If his ego is so big that he can't accept the fact that he is a lame duck unless the dems choose to allow him to remain in the party, let him go and make damn sure that he becomes the most ineffective member of the republican caucus. He has no chips to bargain with; either he accepts his fate or he becomes a non person in the senate and loses badly in 2012. But, it is the job of the senate democrats (not Obama) to decide his fate and more important his committee assignment. He's not the important guy he was when the dems needed his vote to maintain senate control. Right now,he's actually the lowest of the low--an 'independent' with two years in the senate. I leave it to Harry Reid to remind him of that.

for actions there should be consequences. off with his head (figuratively speaking of course)

From the Department of Unfortunate Headlines, courtesy of HuffPo: "Schumer, Durbin Want Lieberman Stripped." Ouch.

Hey - let Lieberman stay in the Democratic party per se if that's a nice gesture and Obamistic expression of forgiveness etc. But please, kick him the hell out of any leadership position like Committee Chair.

BTW Steve, pls. fix the comment window so it remembers my data, I could swear I didn't turn anything off in my browser etc, that would account for the failure.

Reading the Think Progress Report makes me wonder if Lieberman... and John McCain... have recently been taken over by alien mind invaders.
Or maybe it is just being a weak-kneed politician.

Joe and the GOP would love to make him into a martyr to Obama's dictatorial personality and Democratic overreach.

Exactly. Openly kick him out and you give Joe a chance to run to his friends in the media (and he still has a lot) and portray himself as a victim of vicious partisan politics.

Take away his committee chairmanship(s) and slowly withdraw from him without actually removing him from the caucus and he looks like a whiner even to Republicans.

From the Department of Unfortunate Headlines, courtesy of HuffPo: "Schumer, Durbin Want Lieberman Stripped." Ouch.

My eyes! They burn!

President Obama dont betray us.We dont need Liberman.Democrats dont need someone who has voted with Bush 100% of the time when it comes to foreign policy. Even dems in his own state did not need him. Your support for him will lose my suport for you. Dont foregt next election is 4 years from now. You will have 57 dems and possibly more, use your bipartisanship power (if u have any) to get 3 more senators to agree with you .Is this hard for you to do?

Once upon a time LBJ said it best........

"better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in". I forget who he was talking about, but you get the idea.

Lieberman deserves some sort of punishment, but I think the Dems will end up better off, and will I'm sure look better (in a political sense), if Joe is kept in the fold.

Lieberman opposed the Democratic candidate, campaigned vigorously for the Republican nominee, and repeated slurs against Obama.How much more would anyone have to do to justify expulsion or similar punishment?

The Bush administration rarely held anyone accountable. Let's not be the same. Hold this man accountable for his actions.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

"better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in". I forget who he was talking about, but you get the idea.

Except Lieberman has, for years, been inside the tent pissing in, which changes the equation.

with bailouts in vogue and the dems counting on every vote joe must feel like he has a 'get out of jail' card. i say 'do not pass Go, do not collect $200' -- we voted to stop allowing the tails to wag the dogs, dammit -- banish him to the outer reaches of the GOP.

former President Clinton "is making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf," a Clinton spokesperson has since called the report "completely false."

That's good to hear.

I've been VERY P.O.'ed at the Clintons previously. The understated cooperation during the campaign brought me down to civil distrust of them. THAT garbage would have put them back on the S list with a Sharpie marker.

Any decision to leave the Democratic caucus should, for now, be left up to Senator Lieberman.
There is no need to kick Sen. Lieberman out; after all, a supporting vote (even if erratically given) is still a supporting vote. However, in view of Senator Lieberman's activities during the campaign and the presence of seven or more new Democratic Senators in Congress, there is no reason for Senator Lieberman to retain his present Committee chairmanship.
So: DON'T kick him out of the Democratic caucus, but DO remove him from the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security/Governmental Oversight Committee. The two actions are not mutually exclusive.

Jew boy lieberman is just that. i am not racist against any race, creed, culture, or sex. but when this guy will do anything to keep israel punishing the palestinians, americans need to wake up. if we had a muslim in government pushing his personal views to dominate israel, the jews in power would be up in arms. why is it ok for an israeli (lieberman) to do so. this is the core of why he goes against the democrats. in almost everything he votes with them. he went on the side of mccain because mccain wants to continue war on the middle-east, just what lieberman wanted. sorry jew boy, it is time for fairness in the middle east. israel has to stop its imperialism in the region.

Reid is, certainly, sending out mixed signals...

On the one hand, he's on record saying that (paraphrasing), if he hadn't been on TV, he'd have used words stronger than "wrong" to describe Joe the Turncoat's actions... OTOH, he's also on record defending LIEberman as being not as bad as some other of "my Senators", when it comes to votes (I suspect Reid's looking at pre-'06 votes, to claim that).

And then, there's Evan "let Bayh-gones be bygones"... When's *he* up for re-election? He needs a Lamont of his own... And I can hardly believe that, at some point, I actually contributed $25 to the DODDerring old fool...

I'm OK with yanking the Homeland Security gavel away from Joe's pudgy hand before he does any more damage with it, without actually kicking his sorry butt out of the caucus altogether. He's been muttering about how "he didn't leave the party but the party had left him" ever since he lost the primaries to Lamont and I wouldn't want to feed *that* misbegotten idea any further.

OTOH... If he were to take his toys to the Repub sandbox because he's not happy with chairing "The Floor of the Senate; A Clean Sweep" committee, I can't say I'd spend any sleepless nights over *his* decision, either.

ryi, @21:06

An ocean of barf on you and your "jew boy". Your "i am not racist" sounds mighty hollow after that.

cmdicely, I do like your comment on tent pissing.

LOL

It does fit Joe better than LBJ's.