If Dems want to try Bayh's conditional approach, I would strongly suggest a 100 hour agenda, like the House did two years ago. Even then, I would oppose it. The contrast-and-compare line between Lieberman and Jonathan Pollard are starting to lean to the compare side.

bayh is just throwing out that bullshit to tamp down the growing disgust and opposition to holy joe's continued chairmanship of dhs. because there's no way they would remove a sitting chairman in the midst of a congressional term. they don't have the balls to do the right thing now -- to someone who has literally spit in their faces -- there's not a chance in hell they'd grow a spine in the coming months despite their majority rule.

fucking cowards.

They're watching Senate returns in AK and MN. Lieberman doesn't have leverage now, but what if the Dems in the Senate get to 59 seats? How about then?

_That's_ why they're playing it this way.

If Obama had any balls he'd render Lieberman to a Syrian jail and tell them to issue a condition report sometime in 2013. Bastard should be stripped of EVERYTHING, including his party credentials. What does the mob do to someone flouting the rules on the street? See what the hell happens you stick your nose where it doesn't belong, do business with unapproved people, cast your lost with a family at odds with "your own". You end up buried under Giants Stadium. In the river. In the trunk of a car on the way to the junkyard crusher. Obama should do whatever the worst there is at his disposal without breaking any laws. Serve notice to everyone else there is a penalty to be paid for such nonsense.

Far more sensible would be to promise him the gavel back if he behaves for a year or two.

A micro symbol of our big predicament on the hard road to collapse -- screwed if they do, screwed if they don't. When you add up all the corners we have painted ourselves in we end up in a world of Palinisms. When the world runs like Palin thinks you know we are all just redneck monkeys living under the illusion that we are masters of our destiny.

Bayh's comments were truly pathetic.

This is ridiculous. There are many Republican senators that would be more acceptable than Lieberman. And Steve's point is correct. Trying to take his chairmanship away after he has started investigating the Obama administration would look like Gonzales firing judges for similar reasons. The Democrats are giving him the power to use blackmail against them -- and he will.

But even more importantly, Bayh repeatedly raised the specter of letting Lieberman keep his gavel, while reserving the right to take it away if he acts up again.

This line surely must win the Easily Impressed Award for the month of November.

Democrats are unlikely to give much weight to the words of Evan Bayh, probably the most right-wing member of the Democratic senate caucus. Bayh, we will recall, was welcomed as co-chair into the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq at the peak of the war debate. The date of the CLI press release welcoming Bayh, February 14, 2003, was a key date. It is the same day Hans Blix submitted his report to the UN, which criticized aspects of the Powell presentation and dampened Security Council support for the war. It was also one day before the massive global protests against the Iraq War.

Two days earlier, on February 12th, 2003, likely in anticipation of the upcoming surge of antiwar sentiment, Iraq hawks Bayh, John McCain, Lieberman and Lindsay Graham co-sponsored a "Sense of the Congress" resolution praising 18 European countries for expressing their support for the effort to disarm Iraq. It's hard not to see in this evidence that Bayh was a very active and engaged participant in the pro-war propaganda effort taking place around those days, and that signing on to CLI was a clear part of that effort.

Bayh was not just a fellow-traveler of the Iraq hawks, but a ringleader. He was one of four Democratic co-sponsors of the Iraq War authorization. The amended version of the resolution that was substituted for the version sent up by Bush was actually crafted by Bayh, Lieberman, McCain and John Warner. Bayh, Lieberman and McCain appear to have been best buddies during the Iraq War buildup, as comes through during their colloquy on the Iraq War authorization:

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021008/cr08oc02-142_01.html#bayh08142

This isn't surprising. Bayh's attitude to his own party in 2002 was expressed this way to a reporter:

"The majority of the American people tend to trust the Republican Party more on issues involving national security.... We need to work to improve our image on that score by taking a more aggressive posture with regard to Iraq."

It's a strange situation. Lieberman is dead in the water. He'll never win re-elecction. Both the Democrats and Republicans will be going gang-busters after his seat. He really has nowhere to turn. I say strip him of his chairmanship and forget about him. I don't think he can be trusted.

What the heck does this guy have to do to have any repercussions?

It simply comes down to this: He's an Independent, now. He behaves independently, supporting who and what he wants regardless of party. He owes Democrats NO APOLOGY. But he doesn't get a chairmanship. Chairmanships should go to dependable, talented Democrats, period, the end. He is neither Democratic, dependable, or talented. It's a no brainer.

Bayh says that the Dems will need Lieberman's vote on unnamed issues, but that if they don't get it, then they can punish him. Sounds to me as if Lieberman would at that time have an excellent case for an unconstitutional attack on his position as a US Senator. The public relations disaster of going after Lieberman when he goes rogue was mentioned above, but there might even be legal violations in such a scenario. They can certainly dump/punish him for his political activities against the Party. I doubt very much that they can do anything against him when it comes to the performance of his senatorial duties. They are fools if they don't punish him now when they can.

Shorter Dems: There are no consequences to whatever you do. We have no balls or backbone.

The thing the surprised me most about this, was the idea that Hon. Sen. Lieberman would retire rather than face the indignity of... whatever. I suppose I should have known, but CN has a GOP Governor, and would therefore appoint a Republican replacement. Of course, the legislature is overwhelmingly Dem (I believe), so I wonder if they couldn't do what MA did when it looked like Gov. Romney might appoint a replacement for Hon. Sen. Kerry; change the law from appointed replacement to special election.

If this were not possible, there is a chance that the recently deposed Hon. Rep. Shays would be a possibility... I think I could live with that trade.

The situation has come to this because Harry Reid is the most flaccid, impotent, and gutless Senate Majority Leader either party has had in a century.

A Majority Leader who had the barest semblance of a spine would have marched directly into Lieberman's office as soon as he got wind of the possibility that Joe would endorse McCain, and he would have told him in language that would make Tony Soprano blush that if he so much as set foot inside the GOP convention that he was done having any role in Democratic Senate affairs, whether caucusing or committee chairs were in question. Moreover, a Majority Leader with even a particle of leadership ability would have brought a posse of other high-ranking Dem Senators into Lieberman's office with him to help make the point.

This is an early indication of whether Obama is willing to exert his current and considerable political influence for his own benefit. If he acquiesces in Lieberman retaining the chairmanship, then he's sent a clear and unambiguous signal that you can walk all over the President with no consequences. Bipartisanship is fine, but it should not be a suicide pact.

Steve Clemons made a better case for removing him on Rachel's show on Monday:

But the guy is a fearmonger and he‘s been wrong on Iraq. He‘s been trying to push buttons, not just in the Senate but he‘s vice chairman with Jon Kyl of the committee on the present danger, and he‘s been out fearmongering. So, remove those national security and domestic security roles and give him education or give him something to do with technology, which is another favorite of his. Joe Lieberman has strengths and I don‘t think you are seeing them right now, but he does have strengths. But remove him from the areas in which he went to war with the Democratic Party.

The situation has come to this because Harry Reid is the most flaccid, impotent, and gutless Senate Majority Leader either party has had in a century.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

I am admittedly naïve, but it is my fervent hope that this support for Lieberman is all for show. That there's a plan in place to oust him of his chair regardless of what Obama claims (in public) that he wants. This way, it gives the impression that the Sebate isn't in complete lock-step with Obama to stave off charges of partisanship later, it looks like Obama stayed faithful to an old mentor (even though the mentor stabbed him in the back), and most importantly, Lieberman will be gone.

Do I think that's the plan? No. Do I hope that's the plan? Inasmuch as this situation presents itself, hell yeah.

Bayh does bring up an interesting point - He said that Lieberman might retire and the Connecticut Republican Governor would appoint a Republican. Now, if Lieberman would wait until after January 20, would this new appointee serve six years or would there be a special election after a couple of years?

I'd say it might be a case of 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. It certainly allows Obama to be gracious which is often hard to bear when on the receiving end as Joe is.

There are many Republican senators that would be more acceptable than Lieberman. - JS

Wouldn't it be fun to get Arlen Specter to switch. Not only would it make Lieberman expendable, but it would end Chris Matthew's run for Senate as a Dem.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one Steve, Bayh's proposal seemed pretty reasonable to me. I'm just not so sure your doomsday scenario is likely to happen, maybe I'm naive (probably am) but I just can't see Lieberman weilding his committee as an attack dog (to rrreally mix metaphors) against the Obama administration. And if he's doesn't use it to attack the administration, then big whoop if he keeps it for 2 more years (he's up for re-election in 2 years right? I find it difficult to believe he'll get re-elected).

That being said, if Chamliss (or Coleman) wins, this is all a moo point...they won't have 60 and I suspect Lieberman will lose any leverage.

Bayh's response reeks of fear and cowardice. "oooh, if we're mean to Joe, he'll turn on us!" "oooh, we can't punish him, cuz he'll have a hissy"

with or without lieberman, dem's have the majority. with or without lieberman, 60 will always be tough to wrangle. with or without lieberman, there are parts of a progressive agenda that will be a colossal struggle to get thru the senate. question is, are you men or are you mice?

failure to lay the smack down just positively exudes weakness, fear and cowardice -- and(!!!) validates all the "wimp" rantings wingnuts have levied against dems throughout the years.

can't sack Joe cuz he might vote against us...FFS, grow a pair!

Who the hell does Bayh think he works for? The Connecticut For Lieberman party, or the Democratic party? And how many Americans, let alone Democrats, who just handed down the clearest verdict in decades, would say "Yeah, let Lieberman, who called Obama a Marxist, keep ANY gavel while good Democrats sit there and listen to him as he makes rulings that will affect us all."

I'll tell you how many: NONE OF THEM.

Evan Bayh, you work for US. Your buddy sucks ass, and he needs to go before we come after you too.

Oh Ned Lamont... In some alternate Universe you are a capable, progressive lawmaker...

Reid is such a flacid balloon. I can't stand him. Does he not remember Lieberman losing in the Democratic primaries to a progressive Democrat and that he barely survived using sneaky political chicanery? And that after yet another progressive electoral victory there is ample support across the country for even a minor repercussion? Harry "I'm afraid of having an awkward conversation" Reid.

oh, and btw - for all you delusional enough to think you can "peel off" a couple "moderate" goopers like collins, specter, etc.

go back and look at the voting record the last 5-6 years. the senate gop votes in freakin' lock-step on every issue. there is no peeling them off. it's schmucks like bayh and the save joe brigade that get "peeled off".

face it, we have what we have and we don't have 60.

The excuses Bayh gives are unrealistic, Lieberman quit? Or vote out of spite? both seem highly unlikely. Getting to 60 is about the only thing worth giving him the spot for.

Neilt, Lieberman loves attention, and what better way to get it than to go after Obama, the guy he called a Marxist?

Get a clue.

I don't understand why the democrats are being so stupid about this. Your point here is exactly right and how would it ever be politically palatable to do once he is back in the chair?

For the millionth time Democrats, think this over one more time - carefully. You might recall that you are the Democratic party and he is a guy who ran AGAINST your nominee in the Senate race, who lectured you from the podium of the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION and who was not only an enthusiastic supporter of the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE and campaigned for him he actually spoke AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE a guy who campaigned for him in the past.

Now after all that, if you actually let Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship, all I can say is: What a bunch of schmucks. We've traded the party of corruption for the party of stupid.

.
.
.
This is the 'Saddam in power, but defanged' policy being applied to domestic politics.
.
.
.

Can Joe Lieberman say, "I want to be a Democrat"?

Is Lieberman saying, "I want to help enact the Dem agenda"?

If all he's saying is that he wants to be chairman of a cool committee, what's in this for the Dem Party?

In any case, to suggest that Lieberman would vote differently on any one issue depending on whether he keeps his chairmanship or not is to say that the man is an opportunist with no principles and no fundamental belief in Democratic positions.

Why would the Democrats want such a person to be running an important committee?

What the heck does this guy have to do to have any repercussions?

I'll take a shot at answering this question. It seems it is entering "dead girl, live boy" territory with Lieberman. I got pissed all over again watching "Recount," when he was singlehandedly giving the Republicans talking points to use against the Gore campaign. Then he loses the primary in 2006, only to run as an "Independent." In 2008, he pulled some of the most back-stabbing acts a former party member/current caucus member could pull, not only endorsing the opposition, but outwardly and shamelessly speaking against his current affiliation in Congress. I don't care if he starts caucusing with the GOP and it costs the Dems number 60, they need to kick his ass to the curb. After all, there are a few moderate GOP members who are going to push for some of this legislation too because their constituents want it and/or they hail from a blue state.

I wrote the DNC and said if the Dems in the Senate don't have enough courage to take away Lieberman's committee chairmanship then I WILL have the courage to stop giving to the DNC or DSCC for at least the next four years.

for all you delusional enough to think you can "peel off" a couple "moderate" goopers like collins, specter, etc... go back and look at the voting record the last 5-6 years. the senate gop votes in freakin' lock-step on every issue. there is no peeling them off.

OK, let's do that. Voting with the Republican majority:

Arlen Specter 70.5%
Susan Collins 67.6%
Olympia Snow 64.6%

I don't think they can be "peeled off" -- but I wouldn't call this "lock-step" either.

go back and look at the voting record the last 5-6 years. the senate gop votes in freakin' lock-step on every issue. there is no peeling them off. - Fred

I aagree until the last sentence. Republican congressmen are essentially employees, but that doesn't mean some might not be looking for a new job. It is at least possible that Palin has given someone an easy excuse to bolt.

I don't understand why some Democrat on the committee like Claire McCaskill -- who doesn't, as far as I know, have a chairmanship (maybe some subcommittee somewhere) -- doesn't announce that she wants the job. And then say to the Dem Caucus, OK, I'm loyal, I helped elect Obama, and you're going to vote for Joe over me? She'd be an excellent chair.

As for switching horses midstream, I'm not sure Bayh's even right about that. The chairs are set by the organizing resolutions at the beginning of the session, and to replace Lieberman would require a new one. If the filibuster applies to those -- and I think it does -- then the Republicans could block any change.

I think you misunderstand the circumstances that they would take away his chairmanship. I would imagine that they would use that threat in case Lieberman starts siding with the Republicans on filibusters. If that is the case, perhaps what they are doing is a good idea. It provides an easy way to force Lieberman to vote with the Democrats.

It is possible that this has more to do with keeping on the good side of AIPAC than anything else.

You might recall that you are the Democratic party and he is a guy who ran AGAINST your nominee in the Senate race, who lectured you from the podium of the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION and who was not only an enthusiastic supporter of the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE and campaigned for him he actually spoke AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE a guy who campaigned for him in the past.
================

Yah, but even if he turns against us, which is scarcely imaginable, we can write him a sternly-worded letter.
</Harry Reid>

I am so old, I remember when Democrats led the Democratic Party.

I've posted several times making it clear that, in my opinion, keeping Joe within the Dem caucus is a huge mistake, and worse so if he were to retain his chairmanship. Bayh is a horse's ass, mealy-mouthed little DINO. Harry Reid is anything BUT a leader. Lieberman is an opportunist who is not to be trusted. They all disgust me.

"If he acquiesces in Lieberman retaining the chairmanship, then he's sent a clear and unambiguous signal that you can walk all over the President with no consequences. Bipartisanship is fine, but it should not be a suicide pact."

Fortunately, from what I've seen and heard, Obama isn't just some idealist running on good ideas and belief in people. He's also a very shrewd politician. I'm optimistic that Lieberman is being played, not the other way around.

Keeping Lieberman in the fold is another example of short-term thinking. Yes, he may (and I emphasize may) vote with the Democrats if he's allowed to keep his gavel. But it reinforces the perception that upper tier people - in government and industry - operate above the rules, above the law. CEOs fail and are rewarded. Presidents violate their oath of office and retire to live happily ever after. Senators shaft their party and retain all their power. What we have is an aristocracy, not a meritocracy. This culture without repercussions for the rich and powerful is not good for democracy in the long run.

Is it possible that there may be a sort of Michael Corleone/Fredo scenario to this? Lieberman makes some sort of apology. Dem caucus votes by only 1 or 2 vote majority to let him keep his chairmanship, so he knows his grasp is tenuous. He chairmanships with a "real" Demo minder to keep him on task. Then, when the heat's off, and folks are focused elsewhere, someone takes little Joey/Fredo for a political fishing trip?
Of course, this assumes political manhood on the part of Reid et al.

Alright, can't say I read the whole thread, but let's just start telling everybody that Holy Joe has been a mole, secretly working for the Dems to bring down John McCain and Co.

"if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look?"

As I was reading the beginning of the article, this is the first thing that flashed into my mind. I don't see how the Democrats haven't thought of it already.

Pathetic. Oh noes, Joe Lieberman might be "embittered". Bayh is a pussy and the other boys in the Senate bubble are just busy sucking on each others dicks again. What a disgrace.

so the choice is (1) an iffy Lieberman who's done the opposite of earning any benefit of the doubt, or (2) the prospect of a "bitter" Lieberman if they take his chairmanship. I say get him out and let the chips fall where they may. Integrity toward the party should mean something ....

I commend Maddow for pressing the issue.

I don't know enough about the issue to say whether or not his reasons were reasonable.

But that last one--imagining Lieberman might become vindictive seemed a hypothetical and stretch to me and also actually quite telling in terms of how bad their gage is on this, how little trust is left and how they really DON'T know what Lieberman will do next.

That was a a bit sad, a bit pathetic to hear... So they want to play nice, cause they're afraid of what he might do? Yikes.

Rachel Maddow framed the question right, and Sen. Bayh did his best to justify his implied opinion that 'the end justifies the means'. To the Bush administration: information = torture; or, in this case, Lieberman = BLACKMAIL.

I hope no Dem is so deluded as to think that Lieberman will help them stop Repugnant filibusters if he is the 60th senator. Nothing would inflate his ego more than to be the "bipartisan" statesman lending his support to the minority party.

You write: "Bayh repeatedly raised the specter of letting Lieberman keep his gavel, while reserving the right to take it away if he acts up again."

As long as Lieberman had some chance of being his buddy McCain's VP pick, there is an argument to be made for his actions.

But after Sarah Palin?

Lieberman should be forced to defend Palin. And Bayh, too, if he doesn't find Lieberman's actions and statements during September and October objectionable.

"Country First"? Youbetcha! Really, Joe, really. We're all ears. Joe? ....Joe??

From Hilzoy's earlier post: "Someone should have said (regarding Palin's nomination): no, this is just unacceptable, and if you nominate her, I will say so publicly, and oppose her nomination on the convention floor. Apparently, people said this about Lieberman. But no one said it about Sarah Palin. And that's just astonishingly irresponsible."

Lieberman should have said this to his friend, John McCain!

As I said above: Democrats should force Joe Lieberman to defend Palin. And Joe the Plumber, too. If he can't (and, as Hilzoy makes clear, he can't), then no chairmanship.

Oh twaddle.

For years, the Democrats have been saying that they had to do this or that because of "the next election," when they would finally do something.

Well, guess what, they now have control of Congress and the Presidency; and Bayh now says he still needs more time.

So the problem's not Lieberman at all - really. It's Bayh.

And I don't know why we're so worked up over - say - whether or not Stevens gets re-elected in Alaska, when it just would mean instead another Senate Democrat - QED presumptively another Bayh.

The Republicans were onto something when they went around referring to the "Democrat" party. I'm going to start using that term myself.

For the first time in my life, I donated some of my hard earned cash to my political party. I gave to Obama and Tinklenberg. If LIEberman suffers no consequences for his craven behavior(DHS Committee chair is a start), then it will be my last. Harry Reid go find your stones or, let someone with a pair take over.

From an earlier post of yours, quoting Andrew Sullivan: "The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history.... Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again... She has the educational level of a high school drop-out; and regards ignorance as some kind of achievement. It is excruciating to watch her -- but more excruciating to watch those who feel obliged to defend her."

Joe Lieberman campaigned with her and on her behalf for two months. He owns her.

So, Joe, explain. And Evan Bayh (if you think Joe is worthy of a major chairmanship).

Forget Lieberman. It's time to get rid of Reid. With an effective leader, we wouldn't have to spend days on end discussing Lieberman's fate.

An effective leader would have ended this long before a discussion developed.

Instead, Reid has allowed this to become a major political story which has divided the party. He's as much of a pathetic failure as Lieberman is because like Lieberman he simply didn't use his power to hold Bush accountable, and now he won't hold Joe accountable.

Had he simply said Joe will not retain his chairmanship and caucusing is his decision a week ago, no one would be talking about it.

Go to hell, Harry.

If the Democrats say that he can keep his gavel on the condition that he "behaves", and then Lieberman does not "behave", we'll have exactly the same dynamic all over again: Lieberman can still threaten to quit and let the Republican governor appoint a Republican senator, and Bayh will be telling us, once again, why it is best to cave.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as it seems to have been lost over the last week or so.

I believe there is more to this story than we in the public know.

Now ... suddenly ... senators who were advocating Lieberman's removal are warming up to him.

Why?

I wonder what Lieberman either has, or has said that would suddenly make all these Democratic Party Senators advocate that he remain where he is? Why would someone like Durbin - who was one of Obama's advocates and earlier called for ousting Lieberman from his chair - now turn around and get all cozy?

Thanks to Steve, we know why Lieberman has a very good reason to retain his chair. What I don't know is how he's able to retain such support.

I know some people in political circles are very clueless about things. But I wonder sometimes between those who pretend to be clueless, vs. those who really are.

"Fortunately, from what I've seen and heard, Obama isn't just some idealist running on good ideas and belief in people. He's also a very shrewd politician."

That's my impression as well. And it (all the more) leads me to believe that there is something more going on. I doubt Obama is the 'bygones will be bygones' type. One doesn't get to the White House without having some degree of insight and shrewdness either in oneself, or around you.

My guess is this is going to play out over an extended period of time.

What is it about Lieberman that so entralls the Democrats ? What does he hold over their heads that gives him ANY leverage ? Just what is going on behind the scenes ?

I understand the 60 thing but the worry about that is pathetic and juvenile.

Oh yea...we are talking about a lot of pathetic juvenile people so I guess that might just have a lot to do with all this. Take his gavel away and let him do what he wants to do.

GROW UP people !!!

"...it`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM

I posted a Daily Kos diary on this last night (link pasted below) regarding Senate rules on the matter that concurs with your analysis of this argument. The political optics are bad, as you point out, but the reality of removing Lieberman as chair are equally bad.

In order to remove Lieberman, it is not "up to the caucus" as Bayh suggests. By Senate rules, such changes have to be made via Resolution, passed by the WHOLE Senate. That means that such a measure can be filibustered by Lieberman and his Republican friends and allies. No doubt Bayh would join the anti-accountability filibuster, too. Thus, it would be doomed to failure, and thus likely never brought up for a vote because the Dems "won't have the votes" to replace him. Bayh is giving people a false comfort of oversight and accountability that in reality simply won't be there. Indeed, Lieberman will be empowered to act just as he has, with little real threat that he'll actually face any real consequences for it.

Diary analyzing Bayh's statements against Senate Rules can be found here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/13/0239/5069/841/660219

this LIEberman debate is sooooooo frickin' stoopid.

* Are there no other Senate Democrats well deserving of LIEberman's chairmanship?

* What on Earth do Democrats need him in the caucus for?

* Why would Democrats even think of entertaining keeping LIEberamn or creating this nonsense distraction at a time of needing all hands on deck to try to turn the Titanic?

* Is this yet another Democratic Big Stupid rearing its ugly head from an otherwise clear success?

LIEberman is a huge goddamn nothing that no Democrat should be spending an ounce of breath on. Get rid of the skank already!!!!!!

I agree with the several commenters who 1) have only contempt for Reid's leadership; and 2) have no faith whatsoever the the Dems will do later what they are failing to do after their most successful victory ever.

"Someday, when--not iff--Joe spits in our faces again, then we'll really show him how tough we are." As the venerable Wayne says, "Yeah, and monkeys will fly out of my butt."

Had Nancy "No Impeachment" Pelosi enacted the will of the People and at least begun investigating charges of impeachable offenses agains BushRoveCheneyCo, would we be handing over the Treasury to Perkinsian Economic Hit Men on Steroids?

I seriously doubt it.

I told my blogging brother -- you might know (of) him; the old management, here, linked to him once -- that Liebermann should be given the ambassadorship to Paraguay or some other mid-to-low tier country, far from Washington. Make it his St. Helena.

A simple identity. Lieberman is AIPAC. AIPAC is Lieberman. Nothing happens to him. Case closed.