So Harry Reid isn't even capable of deciding on Joe Lieberman???

[sfam]

TPM reports that Reid is going to send Lieberman's Committee Chairmanship fate to the rest of the Democratic Caucus to vote up or down on.

Senator Harry Reid's office has just confirmed to me, on the record, that Reid is considering a new step: Asking all the Democratic Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate at their upcoming full caucus meeting if Reid and Lieberman are unable to agree on a way for Lieberman to relinquish his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/reid_spokesperson_democratic_s.php

You gotta be kidding me! So why exactly is Reid in a decision making position? Does he need to send it to a committee when he needs a new pair of shoes as well? Give me a break. If this isn't the type of decision which can be made solely by the Senate Majority Leader, what exactly is this position for?

Hmm, maybe there is a causal connection here - perhaps this is why the Senate has been so hamstrung. For once I agree with the Republicans - Harry Reid really is the wrong guy to lead the Senate.

Common Harry - Make the big call already. The answer is obvious to everyone but you.

[rateyes]

1. What a leader!

NOT.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. Harry is a wimp and a half - time he grew a pair. Lieberman is a traitor & should be shunned by all.

[liberalmuse]

2. I thought it was a clear cut choice.

But I guess not. :(

[BrklynLiberal]

3. I would like to see Barbara Boxer in that job..Majority Leader, that is.

[Ian David]

6. You can say THAT again. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. She's got my vote!

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Delete...dupe post.

[Ian David]

8. Oh! You just did! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

9. hahahahahahahaha

[Ian David]

5. He's afraid to take the heat all upon himself if it backfires.

Someone mail Harry Reid a pair of balls.

[sfam]

10. Better make sure those balls are already fully armored prior to delivery...

If they are just run of the mill balls, Harry will accidentally cut them off while attempting to pre-shrink them.

[atreides1]

17. Why Should He Take All The Heat?

There are other Democrats that don't like what Lieberman did anymore then Reid does, why should they get off the hook?

If they want Lieberman gone then they all need to stand together as one group and kick Lieberman's ass out, not be pantywaists and let one person be the only one held accountable.

Remember this is a bunch of politicians, not the military!

[Why Syzygy]

7. Maybe he needs more input from us ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4398966

[LiberalFighter]

38. Don't just do the petition. Contacting your US Senator(s) would do more good.

The petition would only be sure to go to the Steering Committee but not to every Democratic Senator.

I sent a fax to my dumb ass Senator Bayh criticizing him for supporting Lieberman.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Actually, the answer isn't that obvious

in politics sometimes compromise is necessary, and depending on the outcomes of the Alaska Senate race (where there are still outstanding votes, and some seeming irregularities), the Minnesota recount (where Franken may win) and the Georgia runoff (where Saxby Chambliss may lose) we may NEED Lieberman for 60 votes. This is an unfortunate political reality, at the moment, and it's too early to be precipitous when we don't know if we will or won't get the seats we need to reach 60.

[sfam]

18. So are you saying Lieberman will suddenly stop supporting Environmental issues?

I mean seriously, the problem here is that Lieberman is going to vote for what he wants to vote for. He CLEARLY hasn't bowed to any pressure by the Dems not to do things beyond the pale, like campaigning for down-ticket republicans or saying he fears for the country's safety if Dems get elected.

So what exactly are you getting by keeping him in charge of his plum committee?

Its fairly clear what you get if you leave him there - you now have absence of authority. Nobody will care what Reid says, because clearly there will be no consequences.

Bottom line, the majority that matters is "50" - this is what determines which party is in charge. The magical "60" number applies to votes on an individual basis. Lieberman CLEARLY isn't going to agree to vote for stuff he disagrees on, merely because the Dems want him to. So again, Lieberman ONLY contributes to the "60" number on issues he already votes with us on. He WILL NOT contribute to the "60" number on drawing down troops, for example.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. He might contribute to a filibuster-proof majority on court appointments

which is potentially less likely if he switches to GOP; he might feel an obligation to vote the party line on some important issues if he's suddenly caucusing with the Republicans. Politics is the art of compromise. Is it more important to get rid of Lieberman and potentially lose what may turn out to be a 60th vote on certain key issues and appointments, or to boot him and then have to resort to the Republican 'nuclear option' tactic? I'd say the former is the better alternative than the latter, but then I'm a pragmatist.

[sfam]

24. Again, you're missing something that's VERY pragmatic...If there are no consequences...

Then Reid has no power. If Lieberman can get away with saying he fears for the nation if Dems win and not get punished, why exactly would any Democrat allow themselves to get pressured into voting for something they were unsure of? Pragmatically speaking, we won't be assured of making ANY close votes if there is no consequence of going against the party.

In short, this would be the polar opposite of strong arm tactics. There is a need for power in the hands of leadership. This effectively castrates Reid from forcing anyone to do anything in the future.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. And deliberately losing a potential filibuster-proof majority is a good exercise of leadership how?

The responsible exercise of power includes being able to recognise when restraint and compromise are called for, after all. I still say it's too early for any ultimate decision on Lieberman; there's time enough for that after the new Congress convenes in January. We'll know then whether or not there's a chance of a 60-seat majority. Absent that knowledge any talk of booting Lieberman from the Democratic caucus is premature.

[sfam]

30. What fillibuster-proof majority are you taking about???

I mean seriously, the "60" number is going to be different on each vote. Lieberman is NOT going to vote with us just because we ask him to. If he disagrees, he won't vote with us, even if we give him the Majority Leader title. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Lieberman will STILL vote with us on environmental issues, for instance, regardless if he's a Republican or Democrat. He will STILL vote against us on Defense issues, regardless which party he's in. Bottom line, his vote won't change regardless whether he's in or out. He clearly can't be pressured. Other Dems can. We ALL know that the Democratic party will not support him in the upcoming election - everyone else in the Caucus depends on this help - which is why we can pressure them. We can, however, still give Lieberman pork benefits to keep him happy. But the 60 seat thing is just not a magical number where Lieberman is concerned.

[Catshrink]

12. Harry, you're a big

Throw Lieberman's ass out!

[atreides1]

13. It's Simple

Why should he do it by himself, especially if other Democrats have been complaining about Lieberman?

Let them all participate in this decision, besides by doing it this way the leadership will know which members support Lieberman, and who to watch.

If I were Reid I'd like to know who the potential Quisling's are, wouldn't you?

[sfam]

21. Actually, I would rather our Senate leaders actually have power...

That only happens if they assert themselves. Keep Lieberman in the Caucus if he likes, but no way should he keep his plum Chairmanship. If so, Reid sends a clear signal to all that there are no consequences. Good luck on rounding up tough votes after doing that!

[4themind]

14. There could be an issue with that

Obama's still a senator so does that mean he'll be there too? And does that mean that he'll be directly participating in the judgment on the guy that campaigned against him? Not that I don't think that Lieberman should be kicked out, but maybe it's not a top priority for Obama right to be caught up in the claims of partisan retribution(and distractions in the media cycle because of it). Otherwise he could just say that 'Harry Reid makes the decision for who he thinks would be the best leader for that position', I will be assuming a seperate branch of government and he has the freedom to do what he likes independently'. Or perhaps he'll recuse himself as supreme justices do all the time, although then he'll risk being called a "spine-less" wimp like Reid is being called now for his action. Reid's the man in charge, and he needs to just get this shit down, without drama. If the rest of the democratic senators don't like it, they can vote him out (which I wouldn't mind in general anyway)

[genna]

15. If there are other Senators who have cautioned Reid, he can make sure they are on the record

so all Democrats can understand the Caucus does not want to OUST Lieberman.

If you think democracy is weak and negotiation is simple, then nothing done in the Senate is going to blow your dress up.

[BlooInBloo]

16. It does smack of cowardice, but it does have a real benefit...

Namely it would prevent Lieberman from claiming a one-man vendetta.

[jsmirman]

20. That seems like a really good point *

nm

[gkhouston]

26. Yup. Prolonging the process doesn't let Joe slip quietly from one side to the other while

pretending he only had a beef with Reid. They're drawing this out to send a message to other Dems that there will be consequences for betraying party loyalty when the next Congress convenes.

[budkin]

19. Reid needs to go too... NOW.

[Doityourself]

22. He has got to go!!! What a punk..

[spanone]

25. lieberman is a no-brainer

[Riddler]

27. Did anybody really expect Reid to grow a spine and take a stand on something?

[sfam]

29. Maybe we can take up a collection for a cybernetic implant...nt

[LynneSin]

31. I think that's a fair move

let the party decide; afterall, Reid is not the only democrat in the senate

[LewMoss]

33. I agree

I really hate when people bag on my senator.

[LynneSin]

35. I think we're going to see a different Reid & Pelosi now that Obama is in office

People don't understand that with Bush in the White House there wasn't much we could get done.

[sfam]

36. Should the Caucus also send it to committee before pressuring people for critical votes?

If the leadership has no power, then how are they supposed to pressure their caucus to get in line with them on critical votes?

To me this just sends the signal that Reid is not going to pressure anyone to do anything, or make any decision on anything without concurrence from the majority. That's a fine attitude, but perhaps then he should consider moving to more of a follower role.

[nomaco-10]

37. reid is a decent man, but he has been ineffectual in the role of majority leader. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

32. WTF is wrong with Harry? When was he nurtured?

[nomaco-10]

34. joe lieberliar ought to be glad I'm not the senate majority leader....

not only would I strip him of his chairs and not allow him to caucus with the dems, I'd
WHOOP HIS ASS.

[Supersedeas]

41. Reid and Pelosi must go

[AtomicKitten]

42. I think he's waiting to see how the Senate races still pending pan out.

Lieberman is an epic POS in my opinion, but if his vote give us a 60-person supermajority in the Senate, I'm willing to allow him to remain in the caucus. However, I feel very strongly that he should be stripped of his chair position, and that should not be negotiable.