Keep Lieberman in the Caucus (For Now)

posted by John Nichols on 11/12/2008 @ 3:20pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (63)

Subscribe Now

This writer has worn out several computers criticizing Senator Joe Lieberman, going back to the days when he was mounting a conservative-backed challenged to progressive Republican Senator Lowell Weicker. In 1988, Lieberman was a Democrat in good standing with a party that was willing to defeat one of the nation's leading liberals in order to secure a minimal partisan advantage.

Now, Lieberman is a free-floating independent -- having been reelected, after losing his 2006 Democratic primary, as the standard-bearer of an ego-trip party called "Connecticut for Lieberman" -- who caucuses with the Democrats.

On foreign-policy issues, Lieberman is more neo-con than the neo-cons. On economic policy, he is, like Indiana's Evan Bayh and a number of other senators, a Democratic Leadership Council corporatist with a slight sympathy for trade unionism. On social policy, he's a moderately liberal mainstream Democrat.

During the course of the 2008 presidential race, Lieberman chose to follow his neo-con instincts and back Republican John McCain, the Arizona senator with whom he shares a passion for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.

Lieberman's ridiculous appearance at last summer's Republican National Convention should have been sufficient punishment for the senator from Connecticut. After all, the man who was himself the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 had to try and find nice things to say about McCain's veep pick, the absurdly unqualified Sarah Palin.

But there are many Democrats who now propose to purge Lieberman from the party's Senate caucus -- a move that would strip him of committee assignments and the advantages that accrue to a senior senator serving with the protection of the majority party. The issue will come to a head in short order, as the new Senate majority determines whether to kick this particular senator out of the club.

Were I a senator, I'd oppose the purge.

It is not that I have any particular taste for Lieberman or his policies. I have interviewed the man a number of times and covered him in many settings and, frankly, he has always impressed me as a self-serving petty moralist who is a bit too bemused by himself -- and who is, of course, as consistently wrong on trade policy as Rahm Emanuel and as consistently wrong on Afghanistan as Barack Obama.

But it strikes me that purging members from caucuses never looks very good and never has the desired effect of achieving the ever-illusive goal of ideological purity.

As putrid as it has been on so many matters in recent years, the Senate Republican Caucus has actually understood this fact. In 2004, when Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee announced before the presidential election that he would not be voting to reelect George W. Bush, there was plenty of grumbling among conservatives. But Republican Senate leaders immediately made it clear that Chafee would not be punished; in fact, they maneuvered, unsuccessfully, to try and get the Rhode Islander reelected in 2006.

Republicans weren't so smart in the 1950s. After Oregon Republican Senator Wayne Morse announced before the 1952 presidential election that he would be voting for Democrat Adlai Stevenson -- the GOP caucus stripped Morse of his committee assignments and effectively forced him across the aisle to a Democratic caucus that Lyndon Johnson was slowly but surely turning into a political powerhouse. Morse was actually strengthened politically and won reelection as a Democrat in what had been a solidly Republican state.

Similarly, Republican attempts in the 1920s to purge insurgent senators -- after they split with the party to back the independent progressive presidential bid of Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette -- did serious damage to the coherence of the GOP caucus in the Senate and ushered in an era when, despite significant majorities, the party had to struggle to maintain control of the chamber.

Lieberman is neither so principled nor so politically viable as Morse or the La Follette men of the 1920s. In fact, he is arguably less viable than Chafee after the 2004 election. This is likely to be the Connecticut senator's last term.

The question is whether he will serve it as a titular member of a Democratic caucus, which might benefit from his experience and his votes on some issues, or as a member of a Republican caucus that would be thrilled to have him.

My sense is that Democrats would be wiser to keep Lieberman in the Democratic circle for so long as he sides with the caucus on cloture votes. After all, if Al Franken prevails in the Minnesota recount and Jim Martin wins the Georgia run-off -- both serious prospects -- a Democratic caucus that includes Lieberman will have 59 Senate seats. And if Alaska's Nick Begich comes from behind as that state counts the last of its ballots -- a more remote prospect -- a Democratic caucus that includes Lieberman will have the 60 seats needed to block a Republican filibuster.

Without Lieberman, it is tough to see how Democrats get to the filibuster-proof position that is the last piece of the puzzle of a governing majority. (It is the matter of the governing majority, not any love of Lieberman, that explains the signal from President-elect Barack Obama's transition team that: "We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges.")

If Democrats did somehow get to 60 in the Senate, and if Lieberman then betrayed the party on a critical vote, that would be the point at which to debate expelling him from the caucus.

At this point, the discussion sounds more like venting than smart, or serious, politics.

Comments (63)

I would FORCE Lieberman to switch his party affiliation back to Democrat if he wants to keep his chairs and caucus with the Democrats.

I never liked his switching to become an Independent to circumvent the loss in the Connecticut Democratic primary, or his reliance on right-wing Jewish donors from out-of-state to defeat Lamont. If a recall were held today, Lieberman would be soundly defeated for his betrayal, so there has to be "some" penalty for his misadventures.

On domestic issues he is not bad, but on foreign policy he is a right-wing nut like his Likud/AIPAC backers.

He can NEVER be counted on to vote contrary to Likud, regardless of his stated party affiliation or who he caucuses with, so if he can be useful on domestic issues most Democrats care about, I do not have a problem with him if he declares once again that he is a Democrat.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2008 @ 3:42pm
Lieberman is the effective senator from certain Tel Aviv & Jerusalem neighborhoods & West Bank settlements.

Can't recall when these constituencies were last part of the US. Or even US allies. Not to mention representative of all Israelis.

Lieberman is a liability.

Throw him out of the caucus. The Dems can't get a bulletproof 60 seats & Lieberman will mainly betray the Dems, as he has shown repeatedly.

Go, Joe. Now.

Posted by sloper at 11/12/2008 @ 3:51pm
Nichols is half-right. It's always unwise to piss off a U.S. Senator and drive him into active opposition. He's going nowhere until Jan. 2013, so you should try to work with him. As long as the Obama administration reforms and reorganizes the Dept. of Homeland Security, is the Senate Chairmanship REALLY that important? Could Reid somehow circumvent Lieberman if something really HAD to get done concerning DHS? As far as the filibuster-proof 60 vote majority is concerned, one can't count on the entire Democratic caucus ALWAYS being united. A few Senators will usually vote the other way. Seeming to be bi-partisan would probably be a better idea--it might even encourage Republican defections on crucial votes (McCain perhaps?). The best way to get rid of the filibuster is to change the rules of the Senate and lower the vote for cloture to say, 55. It can be done and the number has been changed a couple of times. It used to be 67, not 60. Anyway, hold your nose and let Lieberman hang around--just don't trust him.

Posted by Hamiltonian at 11/12/2008 @ 5:16pm
Hey, the whole idea of rewarding Lie berman for his disloyalty is a further display of how the low of the lowest bar set by new con repub, has so corroded the supposedly dem spine of steal that I no longer see that first rung on the ladder of change. It's what's been buried when it should be Lie berman..

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2008 @ 6:08pm

I think there will be plenty of side agreements if he stays, like:

1) No opposition to any judicial appointments from Senate Judiciary Committee;

2) No joining with Republicans on any filibuster of any "domestic" issue advanced by a majority of Democrats;

Etc.

He will clearly have to give up some "independence" if he wants to caucus with the Democrats.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2008 @ 6:20pm
Lieberman thinks he is protecting Israel by siding with the Republicans.He does not belong on any committee involving national security or foreign policy. Because of Israel, he wants us in Iraq and attacking Iran. This would be a stupid move for Israel and the U.S. He is a menace to both countries!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/12/2008 @ 6:23pm
Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2008 @ 6:20pm

That ladder is on somewhat shaky ground... or is that quicksand!?!?!

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2008 @ 6:24pm
The entire premise of this post is a straw man. No one is talking about kicking Lieberman out of the caucus. The only thing under discussion is his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.

I think the caucus should call his bluff; take away Homeland Security, give him something innocuous but valuable back home. Nail his feet to the floor on judicial appointments and other filibusters. And then everybody smiles for the cameras and swears how valuable Joe is, and this wasn't punishment, oh no, just a reorganization carried out with Joe's full cooperation.

If he walks, he walks. There is no deal the Republicans can offer him that is better.

Posted by rdeaver at 11/12/2008 @ 6:37pm
Remember when Lieberman plotted to pass legislation in the senate (Proposed by John Ashcroft) which would have encouraged Americans to spy on their neighbors and co-workers. When Senator Leahy tried to prevent funding for that legislation; Lieberman blocked Leahy being the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This guy is the worst senator in memory since Joe McCarthy. His first love and loyalty is for Israel and to hell is the American interest. It is fine for him that Americans are dying in Iraq, so long as, this is good for Israel. Harry Reid is having a real Dilemma at hand; expelling Lieberman means angering the powerful Jewish Lobby. A better Idea is to negotiate with the Israeli to take him and let him run on the Likud ticket

Posted by CripThink at 11/12/2008 @ 7:27pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2008 @ 6:24pm

This is not shaky ground - you hold his chairmanship over his head and if he votes the "wrong" way it's gone!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2008 @ 7:29pm
He doesn't need to be kicked from the caucus, but he does need to be stripped of his chairmanships. The Democratic constituency that brought the party larger majorities and the Presidency is to be expected to tolerate a neo-con like Lieberman running the Homeland Security committee? No thank you.

If Joe wants to leave after that, let him. Then it's on him.

Posted by Digshot at 11/12/2008 @ 7:55pm
Two issues here. One is that booting Holy Joe from the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is not the same as booting him from the caucus. Keep him in the caucus, sure. But don't put him where he can hamstring the new administration, especially considering his negligence in the chairmanship over the last two years.

Second: Lieberman's presence or absence in the Democratic caucus has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the filibuster. When it comes to filibusters, some Democrats will vote for cloture and some won't, as will some Republicans. There's nothing about membership in good standing in the caucus that would make Lieberman one whit more or less likely to vote for cloture on any particular issue. Keep him in the caucus, sure. But don't think it will help break a single filibuster.

Posted by jgold2 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:45pm
John, I honestly haven't heard many, if any, Democrats talk about kicking Lieberman out of the caucus. I have heard plenty of talk about removing his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, but not of removing him from the caucus. Please don't confuse the two.

Posted by progressnerd at 11/12/2008 @ 9:00pm
I think there is value in keeping Lieberman in the caucus, but he should definitely lose his chairmanship. It, however, at least for me, is not about punishment, but performance. If you look at the record of how many committee hearing Lieberman has held, good luck finding any. He has held no investigations and has even stonewalled investigations carried out by the House. That alone justifies his removal.

Posted by yutsano at 11/12/2008 @ 9:01pm
Maybe the more important issue to be addressed is whether the Democrats should eliminate the undemocratic filibuster.

Posted by fragen at 11/12/2008 @ 9:40pm
Leave him in the caucus. It's ok for Dem's to have opposing views. Leave the in fighting to the Republicans.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 9:51pm
Posted by fragen at 11/12/2008 @ 9:40pm

How do they avoid looking hypocritical after complaining when Bill Frist mentioned the "nuclear option"?

How do they get around Robert Byrd!?!?!!??!

Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:04pm
'The sad truth is that nearly five years after 9/11, this president has made the country less secure than we were before the attacks. We have tinkered around the edges of homeland security without making the tough decisions and investments needed to make us truly safe. And perhaps worst of all, we have taken our eye off the ball in the war on terror.'

Evan Bayh - Source: Wikipedia

'Lieberman describes himself as being "genuinely an Independent," saying "I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."[6]'

Source: Wikipedia

Strange contradictions from a supporter of Lieberman on this issue - clearly something else going here other than party line spin echoed by MSM and so-called "independent journalists."

Posted by OneVote at 11/12/2008 @ 10:08pm
I generally agree with Mr. Nichols to the point of being a "ditto head". Joe Lieberman, however, is not on my list of "I agree with you". The acceptance of Lieberman's behavior is to the detriment of the party and the Senate and some friction between the administration and the congress is good. A veto/filibuster proof majority will not make for good legislation. Friction is really essential. Keeping Lieberman will do more damage to the party and the senate than the minor damage done by the elimination of this character. There are more deserving choices for the chair of his committee.

Posted by lachatte at 11/12/2008 @ 10:12pm
I thought the issue wasn't punishment and purity, but keeping him far, far away from the Government Oversight Committee, where he'd be the "bipartisan" point man for keeping the Obama Administration mired in trumped up scandal. He stays in the caucus but gets another committee -- I thought that was Reid's offer. It seems sound to me, because the Dems need to accomplish a lot and they don't need one gotten-up Travel Gate after another, with someone as sanctimonius as Joe running to the cameras every three seconds claiming the Dems are trying to silence him. And, remember -- he lost the Dem primary!

Posted by RLawrence at 11/12/2008 @ 11:48pm
Who gives a flying flip about governing? We want our pound of flesh damn it!

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/12/2008 @ 3:59pm

Since when did you care so much ahout John Kerry's vice presidential running mate Derwoood? You guys on the right should be thinking about why the overall American voters ditched your party in an overwhleming way in the last two elections instead of worrying about Joe "play both parties against each other for personal gain" Lieberman.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 04:27am
It's always unwise to piss off a U.S. Senator and drive him into active opposition....

Ham, The dems should let Lieberman vote how he is going to vote, but they need to kick his ass out. He should lose his high positions as well as being an insider to the majority party. There are consequences for playing both sides of the fence....neither side trusts you.

Lieberman is a sell-out. I'd let him go down in history as being an obstructionist if his intentions are to vote with the GOP block. If he does, then his true colors will show. If he's this man of character that some of the folks posting here believe he is, he'll still vote his conscience even if he's not an insider....but 10 to 1 says that he's a petty asshole who will side with the GOP and AIPAC on international matters either way. Boot his flip floppin ass out!!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2008 @ 04:34am
Sometimes it is important to do the right thing at the expense of potentially questionable strategy. Why would anyone think at this juncture that Lieberman would be a voting asset--considering the ongoing and very real measurable damage he does not only as chair of Homeland Security but to the party as a whole with his zionist agenda. He was the preferrence for VP on the Republican ticket--for goodness sake. The change we need would be to cut him lose once and for all.

Posted by Lil at 11/13/2008 @ 07:56am
Rahm Emanuel given a pass and now Joe Lieberman? How serious can these liberal progressives at the Nation be?

What will be the next rationalization of a Obama administration overture to the worst political elements inside the Beltway?

Posted by Lil at 11/13/2008 @ 08:07am
John, a clear distinction needs to be made between (A) stripping him of the chairmanship (B) purging him from the Dem caucus. Most people want to see (A) happen (while I personally support (B), I only insist on (A)). Now, here's the case against Joe: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/no2joe">http://tinyurl.com/no2joe</a> which is a must see for everyone, especially the senators. Please pass the URL around, everyone!

Posted by NLib at 11/13/2008 @ 08:24am
Nichols:

I have interviewed the man a number of times and covered him in many settings and, frankly, he has always impressed me as a self-serving petty moralist who is a bit too bemused by himself -- and who is, of course, as consistently wrong on trade policy as Rahm Emanuel and as consistently wrong on Afghanistan as Barack Obama.

bemused

adjective 1. deeply absorbed in thought; "as distant and bemused as a professor listening to the prattling of his freshman class"; "lost in thought"; "a preoccupied frown" 2. perplexed by many conflicting situations or statements; filled with bewilderment; "obviously bemused by his questions"; "bewildered and confused"; "a cloudy and confounded philosopher"; "just a mixed-up kid"; "she felt lost on the first day of school"

Is Lieberman confused or lost in thought over himself, or is Nichols bemused by the word bemused?

Posted by Jason Rhodes at 11/13/2008 @ 09:21am
More disappointment from the Obama camp. Check out Ron Klain's law firm. "Change" Clinton style. And do check out the resume of Mr. Culvahouse. President Obama is looking more and more like the "black" HRC.

'O'Melveny & Myers LLP is an international law firm founded in Los Angeles, California. The firm is the 19th largest law firm in the world and lauded by Vault as one of America's top twenty most prestigious law firms.[1]

It employs around twelve hundred attorneys in fourteen[2] offices worldwide. The firm has represented a host of notable clients, such as Apple, Exxon, Enron, Fannie Mae, Goldman Sachs, the District of Columbia, New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and other law firms. They represented former Enron Corporation chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling during his four-month fraud and conspiracy trial.[3]

The firm was founded in 1885 as "Graves & O'Melveny" by Henry O'Melveny and Jackson Graves.[4] Former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher is a partner at the firm's Century City, CA office. The current chair of the firm, Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., who serves at the firm's Washington, D.C. office, is the former White House Counsel during the O'Melveny & Myers attorneys represent clients in many areas, including antitrust and competitiveness issues, appellate work, aviation law, capital markets, class-action defense, corporate law, entertainment and media law, finance and restructuring, "global enforcement" and criminal defense, healthcare law, insurance and mass torts, intellectual property and technology, labor and employment law, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, project development and real estate, SEC, securities litigation, strategic counseling, tax law, and trial and litigation work.'

Source: Wikipedia

Posted by OneVote at 11/13/2008 @ 10:18am
John Nichols' reason for keeping Lieberman in the caucus is preposterous. It is a bad reason even if Nichols is right about Lieberman's remaining in the caucus would be politically expedient and it is shameful to think that political expediency should trump the many good reasons to be rid of him.

Posted by SidneyGendin at 11/13/2008 @ 11:26am
All he is is an animated turd. He stinks up the Senate.

Posted by Truthman at 11/13/2008 @ 11:35am
There's no advantage to kicking him to the curb here. But is there an advantage to taking his chairmanships away and, presumably, distributing them to "loyal" party members. Certainly there are, but will these benefits outweigh the cost of losing a caucus member. Lieberman has said taking his chairmanship is "unacceptable," and the only threat he seems to have to offer would be to leave. Whatever the party chooses, they should do it in a way that rises above pettiness. Make the reasons clear to the public and show this is more than revenge. Democrats have been voted into power. I tend to think if their policies are portrayed as partisan and petty, the support they now enjoy won't last long. Congratulate Lieberman for his independence and welcome his voice publicly and always welcome him. Take his chairs only if there are political advantages to members of the party. And force him to think about what ideology he actually supports rather than allow him to force the party to blackmail him with seats of power. Instead of worrying about keeping Joe to preserve a filibuster proof majority, Democrats should start by working with the people across the aisle. Certainly the Republicans will be looking to see who they might be able to strip away from the Democrats on the issues that matter most to them. Whether he's caususing or not, Lieberman will be a target.

Posted by dsdorion at 11/13/2008 @ 11:42am
Why all the deep concern over a potential fillibuster uin the bye-and-bye, that nobody has yet threatened, against legislation nobody has yet proposed?

What policy do the Democrats in the Senate intend to initiate, which they anticipate to so arouse the shrinking Republican minority as to persuade them to unanimously obstruct it? And at the risk of their remaining seats?

If the Dems want so much to punish Lieberman for being such a Quisling, he's earned it, and they should just do it...Lieberman can't be trusted to serve the interests of Americans... or really, anyone's interests, except the hard-liners of the Israeli right wing. The "mortal-threat-of-fillibuster" hobgoblin should frighten nobody.

There is some wisdom, however, in the advice to keep one's friends close, and one's enemies closer. But this decision should be made on that basis, and not out of fillibusterphobia.

Posted by Iconoblaster at 11/13/2008 @ 12:12pm
Fillibuster, schmillibuster!

Obama was elected on a ticket of hope, smarter politics, and a little non-partisanry. Letting Lieberman get away with treason, rewarding him in fact for it, will taint the Obama presidency from the start, rather than send a non-partisan message. We can send a non-partisan message in a number of ways, and letting Lieberman keep his Senate Chairmanships, and/or in the caucus, is the worst possible way of doing that.

If Obama wants to play politics, and let lieberman stay, or even reward him in some way, it will bring cynicism back to politics and we'll be the laughing stock of the repubes.

Yes, we want our pound of flesh. Stripping Lieberman is an excellent way of doing that.

Posted by TheSteelGeneral at 11/13/2008 @ 12:49pm
Then there is this:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/13

--but what care Nichols of such minor details.

Posted by Lil at 11/13/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2008 @ 6:24pm

This is not shaky ground - you hold his chairmanship over his head and if he votes the "wrong" way it's gone!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/12/2008 @ 7:29pm

Er, he has the chairmanship and he more than voted the wrong way, he voted to completely undercut the entire dem party. But he's to still retain the chairmanship-- 'holding it over his head didn't seem to persuade him much before' and it sounds more and more like a president is being set: "F**k with us and get rewarded."

Sounds too much like a distinct groveling position from years learned weakness and fear.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2008 @ 1:19pm
Begich is actually in the lead in Alaska now, with the remaining votes to likely Begich-friendly districts. So it looks like we have at least 58

Posted by ThePedro at 11/13/2008 @ 1:31pm
Besides-- there was a very good reason way Al Gore would not support Lie berman for re-election and backed Dean over Lie berman in 2004.

Has Lie berman ever apologized for royally f**king the USA and the world out of 8 years of an Al Gore presidency?

However, the only thing that would persuade me to consider giving Lie berman a pass now would be if it comes out that the reason he was so close to McCain't was in order to do to McCain't what he did to Gore, and returned the favor... (was it really Lie berman that persuaded McCain't to try out pAlin, or to be close by and correct McCain't while camera's were rolling, or... ?)

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2008 @ 1:46pm
Has Lie berman ever apologized for royally f**king the USA and the world out of 8 years of an Al Gore presidency?-----Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2008 @ 1:46pm

How did Lieberaman, who GORE PICKED for his Veep, "f**k" him out of winning?

Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 1:48pm

What, YOU don't know?

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2008 @ 1:55pm
Apparently Obama is personally is advocating for Lieberman. Rahm Emanuel, Lieberman, guess we know what lobby takes priority. Guess Mearsheimer and Walt were right.

Posted by Lil at 11/13/2008 @ 2:25pm
No, HSUB...tell me.

How did the guy that GORE PICKED for his Veep cost him the election?

(Heads up for an old buddy--next question is "Well, why didn't the brilliant and prophetic Al SEE THAT COMING and not pick him?!??!?")

Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 3:31pm
James A. Swanson www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]

I'm a progressive who could not warm up to Joe Lieberman even if we both died and were cremated together.

Lieberman proudly retains his neocon credentials in spite of eight years of disastrous foreign policy blunders by the neocon-led Bush regime.

Lieberman turned a blind eye to GOP attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

He supported every Middle East warmongering initiative of the Bush regime, and made things worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, with increased deaths on both sides, and with no peace in sight.

Standing out in stark contrast are the contributions of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to peace in the Middle East.

Consider Carter's sustained efforts leading to the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979--a peace agreement that has never been broken by either party. That required Carter's strength, integrity and moral leadership--in short, diplomacy--something missing from Lieberman's and the GOP's toolkit.

Likewise, Clinton had a key role in supporting the peace process that led to the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1994, which agreement has never been broken.

With friends like Lieberman, Israel needs no enemies.

This and much more is discussed in, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP's War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

Patriots everywhere can download the entire book for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

I ask for nothing in return, except that you perhaps use my book to help restore and build America.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com

Posted by jswanson at 11/13/2008 @ 4:40pm
No, HSUB...tell me.

How did the guy that GORE PICKED for his Veep cost him the election?

Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 3:31pm

ksaM, your question by implication is also asking why did Lie berman get the chairmanship if he was just going to campaign for McCain't-- what in the world was the dem senate thinking... Because that was assumed beforehand what Lie berman broadcast in order to get the chairmanship -- right?, but if that's so why are most dems now so upset and wanting to take it away!?!?! (That logic of course sounds too much like the inside/upside-down world of the new con repubs; it is a wonder ksaW survives crossing the street.)

I egress the illogic, but to answer your presumedly ignorant question, during the Florida recount fiasco, he backstabbed Al Gore by calling for the counting of military ballots, whether or not they were cast in compliance with state law. Didn't that negative mo within the closest of ranks act as a campaign supporters deflationary tact that allowed for the rest of the new con repub brown shirts to step-in at will and with an almost totally unchallenged response?

BTW:

http://crooksandliars.com/node/22575

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2008 @ 5:05pm
to keep this short & sweet bad actions have consequences. Most of the other articles have enumerated Lieberman's betrayal of Obama, Democratic Senatorial candidates and his failure on the homeland committee. That he threatens the Democrats if they remove him as Chairman of that committee is incredible! If the Democrats let him get away with that and let him keep the chair it makes us look like cowards who are afraid to punish a transgressor. Lieberman will look like a winner and the Democrats are just a bunch of pushovers. I do agee with one point the author makes; Lowell Wicker was one hell of a Republican Senator and subsequently a very fine independent Governor of Connecticut.

Posted by Barbarajoan at 11/13/2008 @ 8:14pm
Lieberman is a tapeworm and you don't accomodate such leaches, you get rid of them. Nichols usually makes sense but this is bs. Lieberman is a traitor to everything except his ego and ambition.

Posted by HuTom at 11/13/2008 @ 8:27pm
The author is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Posted by boriskin at 11/13/2008 @ 10:10pm
Lieberman may be somewhat liberal on domestic issues but so what, so are many republicans! The independent senator from Connecticut has solidly cast himself with the GOP so I don't know why their is any debate. For heavens sake, he campaigned for the republican ticket! Lieberman is going to vote with the Democrats on healthcare anyway, lest now the Dems can say they have a bi-partisan healthcare plan. Thats worth more politically than being held hostage to a smug illusion. Lets get this ship ideologically pure first, then take control elsewhere and everywhere.

Posted by hughm8 at 11/13/2008 @ 10:12pm
Bad reasoning. You were right in 1988. You can't heal a wound by sealing the germs inside.

Think about it. The Dems need to stand on their hind legs.

Lieberman is a self-serving egotist, whose puny vote would be unreliable at best and come at an exhorbitant price.

Your voice is important. Retract and tell the Dems to do the right thing.

They also need to heal the Congress, and be able to reach across the aisle for Repubs with principles.

The run-amok partisanship must end. Your narrowed-eyes counting of votes is more of the same.

Best wishes, Robert J. Burke Santa Cruz, CA

Posted by rjburke at 11/13/2008 @ 11:05pm
Nichols remembers Senator Lowell Weicker fondly.

The interesting thing about Weicker is that though a Republican he supported the Democratic candidate Lamont in the 2006 election. That, in the opinion of Nichols and most here, was of course Weicker's right. Putting conscience above party loyalty seems to them perfectly splendid.

But these same people are furious Lieberman followed his conscience and supported a Republican in 2008. That they deem a betrayal which merits punishment, though the Democrats had rejected Lieberman in the primary and had forced him to turn Independent. Even as such he voted liberally 90% of the time.

Now, they are generously not kicking him out of the Caucus, because they might need his vote to defeat Republican filibusters.

Lieberman's Iraq war position also angers Nichols. That he wanted Saddam's neck wrung and the insurgency defeated, and thought both possible and desirable seems anti-Democrat and treasonous to the patriotic Nichols, not to mention all the Nation's comrades. Those were neocon ambitions and neocons are of course loathsome.

The patriotic Nichols wanted to ignore Saddam's contumacy vis a vis the UN and the US, to leave him to do his mischieve in peace, which included burying hundreds of thousands in mass graves, to ignore the WMD danger, and subsequently, when the insurgents were rolling exploding cars into civilian crowds and declaring democracy, religious toleration, gender equality, etc. hateful to God, he wanted to withdraw US forces and to let Iraq fall to those fanatics. That was the clever Nichols policy, while traitorous neocons like Lieberman wanted the fascist Baath out, an Iraqi democracy in, and the US vindicated.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/14/2008 @ 12:56am
This waffling about keeping Lieberman in his slot is exactly what makes politics such a scummy profession in the eyes of the public. There is no integrity among those unprincipled pigs; they will do anything to further their own interests, including selling out the country. Lieberman should go, not just because of his treacherous action, or be retained because he sometimes votes with the Democrats; there's another issue which far surpasses Senate politics in importance and that is Lieberman's allegiance to Israel which should be evident to the dullest minds in the Senate. The electorate certainly is aware of his constant clamoring for war with Iraq and now with Iran. This serves Israel's interests, not ours. The real dilemma is that all of our leadership positions are firmly under the influence of the jewish lobbies, mainly AIPAC. One has only to recall the sickening display of groveling at AIPAC's annual meeting, by our Senate and House leaders. One would swear that Reid of the Senate and Pelosi of the House were sent to Washington to represent Israel. These two leaders are only the most obvious of the Israeli toadies in the Congress, as no one who aspires to a career in politics, gets anywhere without kowtowing to AIPAC. Both Obama,and Biden have sworn eternal support for Israel. McCain and Palin have also sworn their allegiance to jewish neo-con interests represented by AIPAC. It is safe to say that NOT one member of Congress dares to question support for Israel. Israel enjoys better access to and better representation in our Congress than any of our citizens. Lieberman is just a small part of that effort by the most organized pressure group in American politics. Israel is better represented in the United States Congress than in its own Knesset.

Posted by Doubtom at 11/14/2008 @ 01:33am
So much for the party of "tolerance."

Posted by ou812jb at 11/14/2008 @ 03:49am
Why wait until Lieberman blocks another Democratic legislative priority, or makes good on his melodramatic warnings about the danger of a filibuster-proof majority?

We need a committee on Homeland Security that will provide real oversight, not stonewall any investigation of its failures. Placing the appearance of magnanimity before national security is a bad start, a dumb start.

Lieberman certainly has the potential to do great damage - whether he remains in his committee chairmanships, and in the Democratic caucus, or not. Trusting him to repay Democratic support with newfound loyalty is a perfect example of Einstein's definition of insanity.

Obama and the Democratic establishment supported him in 2006, betraying a progressive Democrat who had won the Democratic nomination. Interfering to this shocking extent in a state election is one of the few truly puzzling moves Obama has made. Continuing to support Lieberman is beyond puzzling, it looks weak and ridiculous - and it gives power over the Democratic agenda to a man who, of all people in Congress, has forfeited his right to that power.

Lieberman has now proven beyond any reasonable argument his contempt for the party and the person who made the mistake of returning him to the Senate. It's done. He's there. The mistake was made, and this is the logical and necessary time to deal with it, not after he has voted with the Republicans in some crucial vote.

Let's please not wait until after he has stonewalled yet another investigation, or undermined the Democratic majority, or launched an "investigation" of Obama for being a Marxist or an anti-American. He's aching for an opportunity to go swanning and huffing over to the Republicans. I say, give it to him. Now, not after he has done even more damage.

Posted by journey80 at 11/14/2008 @ 03:52am
The solution to the Lieberman problem. It's so simple!

Dear President-Elect Obama:

I urge you to name Joe Lieberman Secretary of State. Hear me out.

1. It removes him from his chairmanships, in particular Homeland Security, allowing his replacement with senators who might not stonewall meaningful oversight, if not investigation, into departments Bush has had eight years to wreck.

2. It sends the most powerful signal possible that magnanimity is more important than national security.

3. It is supported by the Lincolnian principle of keep-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer.

4. Replacement of Joe with a dependable Republican allows for accurate calculation of votes in the Senate, removing the always-nagging possibility that Joe will bolt the Democratic party on a critical vote. Is this the vote where he screws us again, or will it be the REALLY important one? Etc.

5. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/04/lieberman-caucus-dems/

6. It allows Democrats to quit wasting energy, abandoning dignity, and submitting to blackmail by pursuing the rainbow's end of a Lieberman vote; and focus instead on gaining the support of sane Republicans for critical legislation.

7. This is the really big one. You can fire his ass.

Please forward this urgent suggestion to your transition team for immediate consideration, or at the very least to leak to Andrea Mitchell.

Posted by journey80 at 11/14/2008 @ 08:12am
He will clearly have to give up some "independence" if he wants to caucus with the Democrats.

Right. If he squawks then throw the bum out.

Posted by boing007 at 11/14/2008 @ 09:13am
Two things:

1) Change the purview of the committee Lieberman chairs. It could still be the Senate Homeland Security Committee but it could decide how to clean up goose poop [a known health risk and a menace to our country's security especially if you slip on a piece] on the Mall and other major issues. Send the minor stuff like what to do with inspecting shipping containers and streamlining airport security to those goofballs at the Small Business & Entrepreneuship and the Commerce, Science and Transportation committees; they don't have enough work to do, anyway. Squirrels in our national parks may have been compromised and fitted with explosive devices by terrorists. Get Joe on it immediately; have him personally check each potential squirrel bomb and defuse such as need defusing. He will be very busy indeed.

2) Include peril for Connecticut as the consequence of failure for each and every vote in the Senate. Make it clear to Joe that either we go along with the president or Torrington ceases to exist, either we bail out the national economy fairly or we send everybody's bill to millionaires in Litchfield. The point is that he cannot have free rein to oppose the Democratic Party without personal and immediate pain. This can be done through a combination of appropriation decisions, executive orders, and concessions to Republicans that would in effect steal Lieberman's clothes.

In other words, Joe only understands that it's all about Joe. So let's make it all about Joe, but make it all about Joe in such a way that if Joe doesn't play ball, the Connecticut for Lieberman Party will henceforth be known as the Political Suicidaires.

Posted by ciotog17 at 11/14/2008 @ 10:26am
Posted by TheSteelGeneral at 11/13/2008 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

this is a matter for the senate, not Obama. the pres elect does not control the senate, not even that of his own party. nor does the pres.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 11:16am
Doubtom at 01:33am says:

<<< Lieberman should go, not just because of his treacherous action, [but because of] Lieberman's allegiance to Israel . . .The real dilemma is that all of our leadership positions are firmly under the influence of the jewish lobbies . . . Both Obama, and Biden have sworn eternal support for Israel. McCain and Palin have also sworn their allegiance to jewish neo-con interests . . . NOT one member of Congress dares to question support for Israel. >>>

Why single out Lieberman for his support of Israel, if the entire Congress is pro Israel?

Well, Lieberman is an observant Jew. To Doubtom that speaks worlds. If a devout Jew admires Israel that warrants accusing him of treason and expulsion.

There is not just crummy logic but a bucket of racist scum in this Doubtom crumb.

The problem is, much of the Nation crowd sees eye to eye with him. Everyone might not be as obvious an anti-Semite, but at bottom most detest Israel no less, and if truth be told, the majority would not be all that upset if most Jews vanished to points east tonight.

The Left's anti Jew/Israel bigotry and unreasone is everywhere. Take the general unanimity here in opposition to Israel. It is defended as justified by the independent reading of political events by progressives.

However, that much of the rest of the country, not least the Congress, is pro Israel, is not attributed to people's independent judgment of political events, but to the devious machinations of AIPAC.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/14/2008 @ 3:22pm
Take the general unanimity here in opposition to Israel.

notsofast buddy.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:46pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/warn.mhtml?pid=383743

I agree with the rest of your post.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:55pm
SOME OF THE REST OF YOUR POST.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:18pm
Lieberman is disloyal and will tattle everything to the left-over crazy cheneyites. This sleeze bag cannot be trusted because he owes too much to the crooks who got him elected in spite of the will of the democratic voters of Connecticut.

Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/14/2008 @ 6:51pm
Remember how the Republicans drove us into ruin by supporting Bush/Cheney for eight years like lemmings? Obama sends an important message: You can disagree with me and still be in the family. Of course he also wants Lieberman to support important initiatives - by making nice Obama plays the Godfather who promises the knee-capped foot soldier that he still has a place at the table. I'm really liking Obama.

Posted by linjentoo at 11/15/2008 @ 1:52pm
To Doub I agree with you completely.Lieberman should be ostracized by th Democrats. Write him of as a turncoat; a traitor. Furthermore Obama should be aware of AIPAC Trojan horses such as Rahm Emanuel who demonstrated his true allegiance when, during the Gulf war, he had joined the Israeli military and declined service on behalf of the US.

I repeat: Lieberman is not just a supporter of Israel. He is a Zionist religious fanatic whose agenda is to pave the way for a Biblical Israel even if that means the demise of the United States. At this very moment, the Zionists are working their way of befriending the Chinese seeing them as the next superpower that is worth kowtowing to as long as that will serve their ultimate goal.

The Zionist fanatics' aspiration is to use every means possible to create a incontestable "Eretz Yisrael" (Land of Israel) stretching between the rivers Nile and Euphrates: "…On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.'" (Genesis 15:18-21) tom:

Posted by Magister at 11/15/2008 @ 2:20pm
To DoubTom

I agree with you completely. Lieberman should be ostracized by th Democrats. Write him off as a turncoat; a traitor. Furthermore Obama should be aware of AIPAC Trojan horses such as Rahm Emanuel who demonstrated his true allegiance when, during the Gulf war, he had joined the Israeli military and declined service on behalf of the US.

I repeat: Lieberman is not just a supporter of Israel. He is a Zionist religious fanatic whose agenda is to pave the way for a Biblical Israel even if that means the demise of the United States. At this very moment, the Zionists are working their way of befriending the Chinese seeing them as the next superpower that is worth kowtowing to as long as that will serve their ultimate goal.

The Zionist fanatics' aspiration is to use every means possible to create a incontestable "Eretz Yisrael" (Land of Israel) stretching between the rivers Nile and Euphrates: "…On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.'" (Genesis 15:18-21) :

To make this dream a reality, the territorial integrity and, perhaps, the very existence of five nations (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq) has to be compromised. If the world allowed Israel to pursue such a schizophrenic course what would be the consequences? Armageddon?!!!

Posted by Magister at 11/15/2008 @ 2:41pm