Got a minute? Tell wOw what you think.

Post | 11/18/2008 1:02 pm

Lieberman Off the Hook, Sort of. Senate Democrats Let Him Keep Committee Chairmanship

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
©AP

Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent of Connecticut, will keep his Senate committee chairmanship after all.

It was thought that Senate Democrats threatened to strip the former Democrat of his title of chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, as punishment for not just supporting John McCain, but for giving an address at the Republican National Convention.

But on Monday, the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman against Barack Obama during the campaign but allowing him to keep the chairmanship.

"I understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters, before offering Lieberman a bit of understanding:

Is this a time to walk out of here saying ‘Boy, did we get even?’ …We’re moving forward, recognizing there was a time in Joe Lieberman’s political career that I will neither understand or approve.

We today announced to the American people we’re going to move forward and handle the problems that face our country.


Reid also acknowledged the Democrats wouldn’t have had a majority the past two years if it weren’t for Lieberman. Translation: Senate Democrats need Lieberman’s vote, so they need to keep him happy. They need 60 votes to get things done in the Senate, and they need Lieberman to continue caucusing with them and not jump ship to the GOP side. Obama also encouraged Democrats to let him stay on.

Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, welcomed the news, telling Huffington Post, "You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn’t run on revenge very well." He went on to point out that Senator Lieberman has voted with the Democrats 90% of the time, and described the move as "shrewd."

"It’s a resolution that not only resolves the current dilemma but it’s a resolution of reconciliation and not retribution and I appreciate it," Lieberman said. "This is all about going forward … I appreciate their respect for my independence of mind - that’s who I am."

Read more about: Barack Obama, congress, democrats, Election 2008, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, News, senate, U.S.
You might also like:

8 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Belinda .

I can’t believe they did this…..I can not believe this.

Wow, after all the negative comments made about Barack Obama AND the fact that he spoke against him at the RNC……wow….I’m speechless.

By Belinda . on 11/18/2008 5:25 pm
f p

Belinda—they don’t call Joe the Connecticut State Weasel for nothing!

By f p on 11/19/2008 9:25 am
newzie snoozie

WELL, NOW YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FORGIVE GOD IS FORGIVINF FOR US. THEN WHEN WE DO NOT ACTUALLLY FORGIVE THEN WE HAVE ALL H___ TO PAY. SOMETIMES WHEN WE DO FORGIVE WE GET SHOWN UP FOR ALL TO SEE…. THEN AGAIN, WHEN WE LET TOO MUCH STUFF PASS ON IT SOON BECOMES A HABIT AND WE JUST OVERLOOK IT.

By newzie snoozie on 11/18/2008 7:28 pm
Ky McQueen

Even though they let him back in the fold…Lieberman will have to run again and his seat as of now is not safe for the next election…

By Ky McQueen on 11/18/2008 7:49 pm
Lucinda Herbert

Hallelujah!

By Lucinda Herbert on 11/18/2008 9:17 pm
Ms. Dee

Wait a minute. They were going to “punish” him for exercising his first amendment rights? Why would that even be considered. I’m so impatient sometimes with party affiliations. How is this different from “punishing” Senator McCain for running against the President-elect? What’s up?

At any rate, most the time I agree with Desmond Tutu. Conciliatory justice reaps greater rewards that retributive justice. If someone molested my child, I might have a hard time accepting that conciliation is in anyone’s best interest. But even then, I’d be more inclined to favor restrictive justice over retribution.

But clearly in Lieberman’s case, maybe some anger and resentment needed to be vented, but what choice did they have? He’s a declared “Independent Democrat.” He has every right to his opinion. I’m sure Lieberman isn’t the only member of Congress who may have lingering mis-givings about this young Freshman Senator from Illinois, even if he has been elected the 44th President of the United States. Obama said he would be their President too.

So why would these people think they had any right to strip Lieberman of his rank in the Senate? I’m confused.

By Ms. Dee on 11/18/2008 10:19 pm
Corinne M.

Reid, Obama, and others have totally mischaracterized the situation: It’s not about revenge, conciliatory justice or First Amendment rights but accountability. As chairman of an important Senate committee, Lieberman should be held to a higher standard of conduct. He used his Chairmanship for only one purpose: to block oversight into Bush scandals and corruption.

Senate Democrats need Lieberman’s vote, so they need to keep him happy. They need 60 votes to get things done in the Senate, and they need Lieberman to continue caucusing with them and not jump ship to the GOP side.

This is a myth. Here is what bipartisanship in Washington means (thanks, Glenn Greenwald at Salon):

To support Bush’s FISA law
GOP - 48-0
Dems - 12-36
Lieberman - Yea

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
GOP - 0-49
Dems - 24-21
Lieberman - Nay

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
GOP - 46-0
Dems - 7-40
Lieberman - Yea

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran (labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization):
GOP - 46-2
Dems - 30-20
Lieberman - Yea

To condemn MoveOn.org:
GOP - 49-0
Dems - 23-25
Lieberman - Yea

The Military Commissions Act (allows trial by military commissions instead of through the criminal justice system):
GOP - 53-0
Dems - 12-34
Lieberman - Yea

To renew the Patriot Act:
GOP - 54-0
Dems - 34-10
Lieberman - Yea

Greenwald: “On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means. ”

I also think that Democrats should know better than to count on Joe’s vote for anything.

Obama also encouraged Democrats to let him stay on.

People apparently forget that we have a system of checks and balances in our government. The President (elect or inaugurated) has no business telling either house of Congress what it should or should not do.

Joe Lieberman abandoned the Democratic Party long ago when he chose to stand with Bush and McCain and the party failed to hold him accountable.

By Corinne M. on 11/19/2008 8:46 am
Dona Howlett

I don’t think his word will be worth much in the future to either side.

He doesn’t seem to know which clothing he wants to wear.

I think he just wants attention………………this is a good way to get it.

By Dona Howlett on 12/01/2008 9:18 pm