Again, another sober and cogent analysis of the Lieberman situation leaves us all wondering "WTF"?

Mark these words, this decision will come back to haunt us all; it is only a matter of time. A self-important asshole like Lieberman cannot help himself.

I pity the DSCC solicitor who calls me the next time looking for money.

But Connecticut had a moderate Republican Senator, Lowell Weicker, who has far more intelligence and character than Leiberman, and whom Leiberman defeated. Weicker was so repulsed by Leiberman's actions that he announced in 2006 he'd come out of retirement to run against Leiberman if no one else would.

So Leiberman's a Republican only if Republican is a synonym for weasel. I'm not saying in many cases it's not, but he's responsible for his actions no matter what his label, and they are not those of an honorable man, but of a guy who's always looking for a narrow doorway or a wedge to press his own advantage. He has forfeited respect. The Dems may need him but they should never trust him. And if Weicker were in the Senate today, he might well become a Democrat.

Forgiving Lieberman and letting him stay in the fold was an error. As was Obama's making Hillary Sec of State.

begin the epic fail!

Lieberman does anything he can to stay in government, one kind of another. Save three years working for a law firm when he first graduated from Law School (1967-1970), he's been in government, state or Federal ever since. Forty years nearly. He doesn't know how to do ANYTHING else! This hawk on Iraq and now on Iran, received two deferments from serving in Vietnam. The Democrats are going to regret keeping him in the fold; the man has no loyalties to anyone or anything outside himself...and that would include the Jewish PACS that support him so strongly. He'd betray them in a New York second as well if it would keep him in any position of power.

The DSCC gets not one smidgen of money from me until Joe Lie is wipes from the face of the Democratic Caucus for all eternity.

To take it a step further: If he had been a Republican he would have been a marginalized figure. How many pro-choice Republicans got plum speaking roles at their convention? He really only got the attention he got because he was on Gore's ticket.

Which prompts a catty reminder about how Sen. Lieberman's place on the 2000 Democratic ticket was one of many examples of Al Gore's hopelessness as a Presidential candidate.

Here's a more current observation: Lieberman didn't have his committee do much in terms of DHS oversight during the last two years. Intrusive Congressional oversight is always troublesome to the executive branch, and one cannot help but wonder if any assurances were demanded of Lieberman that he continue his committee's quiesence during the next two years.

The point is that if they were, the demand was almost certainly coming from the incoming Obama team, not from Senate Democrats. It remains to be seen whether Democrats in the Senate will be as willing to follow orders from the White House as Senate Republicans have been for eight years, but to the extent that Lieberman's rather gentle treatment indicates Obama's preferences more than it does those of Senate Democrats, this could be a bad sign. The American system was not designed to operate with everyone in the President's party deferring to the President's wishes even on subjects having nothing to do with the executive branch's own operation.

One could easily conclude that Jeffords acted out of principle. I'd like to hear someone make that argument about Lieberman. Sometimes there is a fine line between pragmatism and simply lack of principle. In the case of Lieberman, I don't think it comes close to that line.

If Lieberman was a Republican, he would presumably have voted with Republicans. But, despite his many betrayals, he usually votes with the Democrats. This was true before and will be true now.

I don't see the comparison between Jeffords and the Mugwump, not at all. Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee left the Republican Party out of disgust at their ideas, because the Republican Party had changed. Lieberman attempted to embrace this 'new' Republican Party, and only came scuttling back to the Democrats because his standard bearer lost. (And remember. he continued to embrace the Unspeakable Hagee even after McCain had acknowledged his mistake.)

I suppose if I try hard I can find arguments on Obama's and the DSCC's side, along the lines of 'we're stuck with him for the next four years, let's try to work with him.' I could even see possible rationales for leaving him in his post -- either that he's done so bad a job investigating Republicans he won't be a danger to Democrats either. or -- and Obama is the only politician I can imagine thinking this way -- better to have a somewhat hostile person in that position to 'keep us on our toes.' Or maybe this is just his version of "With malice towards none, with charity towards all..."

So far, every time I've disagreed with Obama I've been forced to come around and see he was right, but this might be a 'Fiorello moment.' ("I don't make many mistakes. but when I make one it's a beaut!")

We'll see if this is one he -- and all of us -- will regret, or if our disagreement with the decision is emotional rather than rational -- we all HATE the guy. Whichever, I think there will be relatively little harm done.

My head hurts.

When's he due for reelection? He's dead meat at that time.

I don't make many mistakes Prup (albeit attributed)

The biggest mistake you made that I regret, is predicting WV would go to Obama. :)

The administration poised to take power is characterized as "pragmatic" more often than any other description, and a pragmatic approach would be therefore appropriate. The fact is, any advantages of keeping Liberman are significantly outweighed by his destructive and rogue influence, not to mention his arrogance and sense of entitlement. They should kick him to the curb, and in a high-profile, visible manner. God knows there'd be no problem showing cause.

Steve,
What's up with the McCarthyism?

"If Lieberman was a Republican -- an actual, self-identified, caucusing Republican -- and wanted to switch parties, there probably would be a much stronger willingness to accept and indulge his campaign efforts on behalf of GOP candidates."

Well, take that one step further--even if that were the case (Lieberman a come-to-his-senses Republican), would the Dems have handed him the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee? I think not. Therein lies the rub.

The biggest mistake you made that I regret, is predicting WV would go to Obama. :)

And don't forget Prup's oft-repeated insistence that a maximum of eight (!) states would go for McCain. But laughter is always a welcome gift.

he's been in government, state or Federal ever since. Forty years nearly. He doesn't know how to do ANYTHING else!

I dunno. Something tells me he'd find the transition to big pharma lobbyist to be nearly seamless.

I agree with shortstop. It's time for Lieberman to make the logical transition to K Street.

I agree with above comments that emotions are getting the better of rational assessment here. How powerful a person is Lieberdouche, exactly? Yes, he still has the chairmanship, but what kind and amount of political capital does he have that he can effectively deploy? The guy's a trainwreck of a human being, a public disgrace. He's sold whatever shreds of a soul he ever had not to the devil, but to that skanky pawn shop just outside of town. He'd fluff his own mother if it served his twisted agenda, and EVERYONE knows it. I think Reid and Obama did the only thing they could, but more importantly it works 'cause Lieberman is an insect, a gnat, albeit an extremely annoying one. I'm interested to see if he gets removed from his chair at some point.

But just wait untill the day Obama calls lierman into the Oval office.Listen Joe my little bitch you rump turd you,How does it feel kneeling before me you Bitch.Obama will make him sqirm.Not to mention the crow joe has to eat with everyone in the world knowing what a worm this man is.

Lieberman's betrayal of the party may be seen as a MORAL issue, and as such, one might be able to "forgive" him even when he refused to apologize for his betrayals.

But the PRACTICAL ramifications are important, and I don't think professional commentators have concentrated enough on whether or not the Senate Democrats made a good tactical decision. They let Lieberman retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee because they wanted so much to have Lieberman voting with them that they decided "practical" outweighed "moral" considerations.

But by what earthly rationale do they think they can count on Joe Lieberman to toe the line? Lieberman is a professional betrayer -- it's what he does to get attention. And he loves the attention. I don't need to be as smart as Nat Silver to project Lieberman will be betraying his new/old Democratic friends soon. And often.

The Senate Democrats made an ill-judged bargain with the devil, and the country will pay the price for their foolishness.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

I'd say the people are way ahead of the politicians on Lieberman. Not a good sign.

But by what earthly rationale do they think they can count on Joe Lieberman to toe the line?

Well let's see.......

He does what is demanded or he is out. Every vote, every action will be a test of "loyalty". As a former boss once told me..."You don't have to like what we tell ou to do, you just have to pretend that you do and get it done."

What is not mentioned is that Lieberman still stands by his decisions to support Republicans and their agenda.

It's like a republican who wants to retain his chairmanship even after the opposing party has taken control of the Senate by saying I am still a republican but I will caucus for the most part with dems as long as I get to keep my chair.

Lieberman has demonstrated a lack of integrity and is more than willing to go in the direction of the highest bidder.

This is ridiculous. If Joe were an honest-to-God Republican, there wouldn't be Dems who'd gone out on a limb for him and then been betrayed. He wouldn't have enjoyed the benefits of being a Dem and then betrayed the party.

Instead, it would be Republicans he was betraying.

This isn't rocket science.

How rational would it be for the Senate caucus to then make Lieberman the chairman of the committee responsible for oversight of a Democratic administration?

Reading the article, this is the first thing that occurred to me. It doesn't matter whether they needed his vote or not. There is absolutely no indication that he will vote against the neocon position on things that matter so they aren't going to get his vote when it counts. And allowing him to retain the chairmanship is stupid beyond belief. I do not understand at all how someone who otherwise exhibits greater than normal intelligence would allow this self-centered weasel to retain the ability to hurt his enablers.

Wait until he starts investigating Obama's birth certificate, whether he is American enough, whether he has terrorist/communist links, etc. Then what do you do? If you took away his chairmanship, then it looks like a coverup and the wingnuts would rise up in holy righteousness and all the dickheads who bought into the Swiftboats are going to yammer away like woodpeckers.

How rational would it be for the Senate caucus to then make Lieberman the chairman of the committee responsible for oversight of a Democratic administration?

Exactly. Who cares if LIEberman calls himself a Democrat or aligns himself with Democrats. The outrageous thing that Obama and the Democrats did was reward LIEberman with a powerful, plum chairmanship AND not hold him accountable in anyway. Ezra Klein's 'what if' is completely not applicable or worth a minute of consideration.

It was a horrible, horrible thing the Democrats did in rewarding LIEberman's treachery - it reflects very poorly on their character.
.

Lieberman is no more a Democrat than GW Bush is an intellect.