Hard to resist one of those Joe-mentum jokes about now.

I hope that the take the chair away. It seems the least the party can do under the circumstances. No need to be spiteful, just make it clear that the party rewards party members with committee chairs. Simple as that.

it seems like the "momentum" Lieberman had may be waning.

I think you mean "Joementum," otherwise known as the most unstoppable force in the universe.

I think you mean "Joementum," otherwise known as the most unstoppable force in the universe.

I think you put an "un" in there that isn't supposed to be there.

Curious - does anyone know what the other Deleware Democratic Senator (VP-elect Joe Biden) thinks about all this?

Spank his bare bottom on the Capitol steps -- and then take away his chair.

Wonder why the Senators are so timid?

Am I the only one who's never *heard* of Sen. Carper before this moment?

I honestly don't know which diva I am more tired by: Lieberman or Palin. I wish they'd go off on a very long moose hunting expedition together, and leave the rest of us alone.

Rather like the outrage Lieberman expressed about Pres. Clinton. Lieberman will offer some token regrets, Carper will gravely pronounce himself still troubled, but ready to move on without further recrimination. The dulcet tones of Kumbaya will resound throughout the Senate chamber, and there will be peace in our time. I choke up thinking about it.

I've personally grappled with the whole notion of vindictiveness and grudges that seem to be emerging around many issues--the bailout of the auto big three brings with it a good deal of undercurrent resentments about how the companies have conducted themselves, and many want them to be punished. Many don't seem to see past that, believing we should just cut 'em loose, many think bankruptcy is good enough for them (although Hilzoy explained it likely would be a liquidation--Chapter 7 kind..). Some are anti-union and envision these employees as overly entitled...even though as I understand it, they've taken cuts already over the past several years in starting hourly wages and so forth...
================================================
But with Lieberman--it's different--it's not only about grudges and vindictiveness. It's about getting real about what we value.

He crossed the line in that he campaigned aggressively against Obama for many months. He didn't just make a few fleeting statements here and there. He was probably one of the most potent antagonists of the Obama campaign.

So this is not about resentment per se. It's more about getting real. About taking notice as to who Leiberman truly is: he is a traitor. He is completely untrustworthy.

"When people show you who they are, listen" urges Maya Angelou. (One of my favorite poets).

As Obama himself said in his campaign speeches:
"It's not only not right, it A'INT right".

Even if LIEberman were permitted to keep his chair, who in hell thinks that he'd all in a sudden 'find' himself and caucus with the dems?

The more the chance for a 60 vote majority in the Senate slips away, the more LIEberman's chances of retaining his positions fade.

Joe has proven that loyalty to his party, and to his country for that matter, is not one of his priorities.

What is? Israel, Israel, Israel. He should just go join the Knesset, represent his real constituency.

Not sure if the word "traitor" applies to Lieberman - since he's an independent, he can support whomever he wishes. That said, however, with the Dems in control, the committees themselves should definitely be the hands of the Dems or at least in the hands of a person who has shown extreme friendship with Dem mind-set and course of action. Lieberman should not be treated with kid gloves but should be stripped of his committee chair and maybe sent to do penance. . . in the National Archives, cataloging the Joe McCarthy files.

Has Lieberman said he wants to caucus with the Democrats?

Or does he only want to be chairman of the committees?

If Lieberman doesn't want to help enact the Dem agenda and he wants the Democrat Party (as he called in Dems in one mailing) to elect him chairman of a committee, Harry Reid should send him to the boys room for a urine sample. Cuz Lieberman is whacked-out on something.

I wish someone in the know would do a political cost-benefit analysis of removing Lieberman from his committee chair.

1. Leaving the Lieberkid in his chairmanship would give him a platform for which he could launch attacks against the Obama Administration. And it would take a 2/3rds majority to remove him after he's been reappointed, right?

2. Removing him from his chairmanship might make him bolt over to the Rethugs. And for the lame-duck session, we would then have a Rethug majority in Senate. This would block any meaningful legislation until after Obama takes office and a new Senate is sworn in.

3. Even if that happens, we get back our majority at the beginning of next year. Do we care if Lieberman doesn't caucus with us? A filibuster-proof majority isn't that likely under most circumstances, even if we had 60 Dems (because herding Dems is like herding cats).

Am I missing anything here?

Sorry, I think that's an effort by him to appear conciliatory and supportive of those who want real consequences, but it remains Carper's job to make those consequences as painless for The Weeper as possible.

Strip Lieberman of seniority until after the 2010 elections.

If he behaves for two years he will be eligible to regain his seniority.

If he goes to the GOP, so be it. He shouldn't expect any bills with his name on them to be called.

Maybe Carper has been talking to Lieberman and doesn't care for what he had to say. Maybe he made threats or maybe he scoffed at the suggestion of q public apology. Who knows, but I am glad someone is seeing this non-sense for what it is.

The odds of getting 60 and controlling Joe are far too small to risk leaving an important role in the hands of a know democratic trader. Only a fool gives a turncoat more power in hopes that he will find his way.

Joe isn't leaving the caucus. That would end any chance of re-election and let's face it, just because they coddled him during the election, doesn't mean they respect him and view his as one of their own.

I think this is all just eyewash to prevent a backlash when Lieberman gets his committee back.

The Dem senators are a bunch of cowardly club-boys. Lieberman is such a despicable dick though, I can't FATHOM why anyone would vote to keep him in the Party, let along in the Senate Caucus...it's just bewildering, boys'-club imperatives notwithstanding.

I've been peeved with Lieberman ever since he whimped out against Cheney in the VP debate of 2000. Wasn't he the first Senator, not just the first Democratic Senator, to call for Clinton's resignation after the Monica issue came to light? Why are the Dems coddling him so much.

Yes, I know his "60th" vote might make them filibuster proof but what are the chances that the Dems will win all 3 of the currently contested Senate races? It almost makes me wish that one of those races would hurry up and be called for a Republican (God forbid that Saxby Chambliss would win but he's the most likely to do just that - craps!) just so Leiberman loses his leverage. He shouldn't just lose his chairmanship, he should lose his seat in the Senate.

Not sure if the word "traitor" applies to Lieberman - since he's an independent, he can support whomever he wishes. -Bev

History and the meaning of the word 'traitor' indicate otherwise. His words and actions in opposition to the party caused the good Democrats of Connecticut to turn him out. A loyal Democrat would not have ran against the victor of the primary. Did Hillary or Edwards run against Obama after the primary? No. Because they're not traitors.

After his election as that independent he made nice and caucused with the Democrats only to retain his seniority and get the chairmanship he wanted. He then disposed of that good will by ignoring his chair duties and campaigning against the Democrats he claimed to be allied with.

Sure, he's an 'independent,' but he still referred to himself as an 'independent Democrat.'

Lieberman is nothing if not a classic, nearly Shakespearean traitor. Let's hope this election finally punishes him for his tragic ambition.

Well done, Carper.

Senator Dodd? Whenever you;'re ready, I'm listening.

I liked you. I'd like to keep it that way.

No need to be surprised. If Lieberman loses his chair, doesn't Carper become chair of the Homeland Security Committee? It's Occam's razor.

I cannot stand Lyndsey Graham. He's a pathetic personality who presented lies like they were just accepted unquestionable facts. I hated to have to tolerate his constant appearances on Sunday talk shows....and right next to him was Lieberman like they were best friends. On the campaign trail, on talk shows, on campaign videos, it was Graham and Lieberman calling those who disagreed with their attack Iran Policies, traitors and terrorists.

To me having Lieberman chair a committee is the same as having Graham chair the committee. They are both ruthlessly ambitious authoritarian intolerant war mongering hypocrites. Lieberman is totally self interested and poison to the democratic party. It is not compromise, bipartisan, or even tolerance to allow Lieberman to keep his chair...it is a complete lack of integrity. Lieberman made a point of demonizing the party, its ideals and candidates. He should not refuse to sleep in the bed he designed.

Jerusalem Joe has got to go even if it means leaving with Reid's balls in his teeth.

If Joe believes in the dems ideology then wouldn't he caucus with dems anyway, with or without a chairmanship???

Seems his "conscience" is up for sale...again. (he thought he would be McCain's VP pick-haha)

As others have written, the "filibuster-proof 60-seat majority" is a chimera. Senators cross over on cloture votes all the time in both directions. Having or not having Holy Joe in the caucus won't have much effect on the situation; in either case he isn't likely to stick with the Dems on any tough votes, if only out of spite.

Off with his head!

No one likes a traitor... If he decides to caucus with the Republicans, they will use him, but they will disrespect him, and ultimately they will stick him in a dark corner...

If he stays with the Democrats, he probably will (and should) lose his committee chair, but he will keep his seniority and eventually can win his way back into some limited power.

If he's smart, he knows this, and will decide wisely. If he's not, well, I'm sure there will be plenty of gruel in his little dark corner.

Joe Lieberman has served his country and his state with honor. He has done one of the most difficult things a person can do - he has put his principles above his power and his party. He has stood up for what he thinks is right, and for the Democrats to treat him this way is a disgrace.

It's worth noting that if Lieberman were to be ousted from the Homeland Security Committee chair, Carper could replace him. (He's in line after Carl Levin, who's not likely to give up the Armed Services Committee chair, and Daniel Akaka, who currently chairs the Veterans Affairs Committee.)

John Imrie, Joe Lieberman directly questioned Barack Obama's patriotism and devotion to our country, and also said he wondered whether Obama was a "socialist." He campaigned against other Democrats, and railed against Obama live on TV from the GOP convention. He said that the Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority would be a threat to the country. Frankly, your outrage over Dems wanting to take away his chair is like being outraged when your wife calls the police after you punch her in the face for burning your toast.

Lieberman has couched all these actions in terms of a courageous "putting his principles above his power and party." Now just why would it be courageous? It's because doing so implicitly RISKS his political power. If there's no risk of punishment, then there's nothing remotely courageous about what he's done. He wears this alleged courage like a badge of honor all over the country, but when Democrats actually give an indication that, surprise, he might REALLY be risking his power, then Holy Joe starts whining like a 4-yr old who's been sent to his room for trying to set his little sister on fire.

But you needn't worry anyhow. Late indications are that the Dems, under the heroically flaccid leadership of Harry Reid, will do nothing more than give Joe a weak slap on the wrist. Given that Obama has apparently conspired in this pathetic enabling, he deserves what he gets from Lieberman in the future.

Joe Lieberman has been a traitor for years. I'm amazed people are just taking notice. Joe Lieberman's political philosophy boils down to this: what is best for Israel. The reason he was against Obama was because Israel is against Obama. Read the Jerusalem Post and you'll see McCain was their step-n-fetch it and they desperately wanted him to win. Lieberman is just an extension of that. Lieberman should just move to Israel and leave America once and for all. Same goes for Sen Levin and Coleman. Traitors all.

Yes, there need to be "consequences" for a man who stuck to his principles. We can't have that happening. What a load of crap. Lieberman has committed the ultimate sin - he acts for what he believes is the good of the country, and insists on making individual decisions rather than participating in sheep-like groupthink. We must punish this traitor! Thought crime! Give me a break.

And by the way, does Washington Monthly occasionally step in and moderate this board and give the heave-ho to the anti-Semites who post here? Because the blatant Jew-hatred in some of these posts stinks to high heaven.

And what about the rest of you phonies, who don't even call the anti-Semites out on their garbage?

Fine if you want to hate Lieberman. I even understand your outrage, to some extent. But are you so outraged at Lieberman that you're blind or acquiescent to outright bigotry directed against him by others who happen to share your outrage at him? Shame on you.

Is it 'anti-semitic' to dislike congressmen who show more loyalty to Israel than to America? Is it 'anti-semitic' to hate the fact that the US is strong armed into supporting a racist regime that is worse than Apartheid ever was? No Joe, that little jedi mind trick won't work with me. I don't support Israel -the 6th crusade- and I'll speak my opinion because I'm entitled to it. Israel is a parasite sucking the blood of its host country: USA