Comments on: Will Obama Opt To Play Hardball In Dealing With Sen. Joe Lieberman?

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:16:46 +0000

Lieberman did not simply vote for the other side on an issue in the Senate. He went out and actively campaigned for McCain and attacked Obama. For him to then expect to keep a committee chairmanship when the Democrats are the majority party is unreasonable.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:56:55 +0000

Sorry, greenschemes, but that argument doesn't work-- mainly because the GOP has been instrumental in drumming folks out of positions of power who were not conservative enough on every position. Why do you think Hagel didn't run again?

Lieberman actually spoke of Obama's anti-americanism while campaigning with McCain at every step. He was considered for his VP before Mac picked Palin. In '06 he was given money from the RNC warchest because they did not want Ned Lamont in the Senate and knew their own candidate had no chance. Lieberman promised he would investigate the WH's response to Katrina, then announced after the '06 election that he would not do so.

How can he be trusted?

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:08:22 +0000

Flog?

By: greenschemes

greenschemes — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:55:58 +0000

The thinking here is that because an American who happens to be a democrat opposed his colleagues and voted for the other side. So now the retribution begins. Who will Obama Flog first? Who gets the vaseline and who doesnt.

Politics is revolting. Even Obama's own supporters dont get it. Its this bullshit Obama ran against. Now I hear it everywhere from those who supported him. Who are we going to punish first.

By: PeterV

PeterV — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:02:08 +0000

I think more people in the Senate should feel free to switch sides on a particular issue. Just because you're D or R, doesn't mean you have to be, say, pro-choice or pro-life, for the war, or agin it. The only thing that really makes me mad about Lieberman was how disparaging he was to the Dems once he “switched sides”. If there's anything to punish, that would be it. As far as supporting McCain and not speaking against talking points, that's just normal pre-election behavior.
But since Obama is ostensibly for reconciliation and compromise between parties, he doesn't do himself any favors by meting out punishment against Lieberman, unless he threatened his kids or something. And if the Democrats in the Senate want to look good, they'll say bad things about him, but let him keep his seats in the spirit of cooperation.
Will this make Obama look weak to the senators? I doubt it, if only because Obama wasn't president when Lieberman switched.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:14:30 +0000

Is it really “playing hardball” to expect Lieberman to accept some consequences for his actions?

And really, is the Majority Leader of the United States Senate nothing more than a surrogate for the President?

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:10:46 +0000

I suspect it will come down to the remaining undecided elections.

If the Democrats pull of a sweep and will all 3 then they need Joe to get to the magic 60 and will probably work on keeping him.

If they lose one, and thus cannot hit 60, they will dump him.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:31:34 +0000

I appreciate that Obama may not relish the prospect of “dealing” with Lieberman, but actions have consequences and there must be accountability for the choices Lieberman has made. Frankly I don't see how the democrats can trust the man at this point. If he chooses to move to the republican side of the aisle, then by all means, have it done with.

By: Michilines

Michilines — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:05:47 +0000

The two things this topic brings to mind is one, what Mike brought up about Obama supporting Lieberman in '06 and two, that video of Obama having a talk with him on the Senate floor.

I'd say there are more important things for Obama to do than deal with Lieberman in this last short lame duck session of congress. Let the next congress, with its new members decide what to do with the guy — and in the meantime — he can think about just how important he is when all of the republicans and conservative talk show hosts stop calling him. (Which is the flip side of making a fight out of this topic — you know Lieberman would be on every single conservative talk show so he could whine and cry foul and bash the Democrats in general and possibly Obama specifically.)

By: Mike_P

Mike_P — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:43:28 +0000

I have a feeling Obama doesn't want to insert himself into the situation - it could be seen as unseemly should he do so, and could backfire on him. Lieberman has showed, since badly losing the party nomination in '04 and his own primary in '06, that he feels he is just too important to the US to be constrained by party loyalty, honor, his own past efforts and beliefs, or anything else. He would have no problem loudly trumpeting his "victimization" if Obama did insert himself. This, even though Obama campaigned for him in '06, after Lieberman asked him to, putting his own reputation at risk with the "netroots" who could already smell the blood in the water surrounding Lieberman.

In addition, Lieberman's committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs is the committee charged with governmental oversight - the one which is supposed to investigate corruption, politicization, etc. Lieberman held no hearings - while torture, Justice Dept. politicization, domestic spying, and on and on were making headlines daily. Compare his actions to Henry Waxman's actions as the House equivalent.

Lieberman is in no position to bargain, or claim losing his chairmanship is "unacceptable." The Dems have enough of a majority as well as moderate (or scared) Republicans to get legislation through without him. If he bolts to the Republicans, he is joining a party that is all but extinct in New England. Connecticut voters just threw out the last remaining Republican House member in New England. And he certainly won't be getting any chairmanships with the Republicans any time soon. In short, it doesn't look like a wise career move for Joe.

The question is, is Joe man enough to suffer the consequences of his actions, and earn his way back into the good graces of his party, or is he so full of himself that he just can't bear to do that. Sadly, given his actions since '04, I'm guessing it's the latter.

By: BurrDeming

BurrDeming — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:27:50 +0000

The anger against Joe Lieberman goes back to 2006. He was not the only Senator who continued to support a forever occupation.

But even then he was unique as a Democrat in going out of his way to taunt those whose support he demanded.