Option Three For Lieberman
Last night, I wrote an article outlining the two seemingly obvious options for the future of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman: 1) Accept another committee leadership assignment and lose his current Homeland Security committee chairmanship, or 2) Leave the Democratic caucus. However, I also discussed a third option, one suggested by several Senate officials, including Lieberman’s fellow senator Christopher Dodd: President-elect Barack Obama calling for reconciliation with Lieberman.
Obama appears to be in favor of this third option, as reported by the Huffington Post today.
President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.
If these reports are true, Reid’s options definitely become limited. He can’t appear to be following Obama’s wishes and then go remove Lieberman from the committee, as Lieberman considers this unacceptable. Essentially, they’ll have to give in in order to keep him there. Obama has to know the implications of such an attempt at reconciliation, but he still went ahead with it anyway.
The far-left is probably screaming their heads off to this report, but I think Obama knows he can’t pander to this side of his party if he wants to govern effectively. This has already been seen by the selection of the pro-Israel Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff. And if expressing support for keeping Lieberman in the Democratic caucus is any signal, it may show that an Obama administration won’t be as bitterly partisan as feared by some conservatives.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I should think the GOP would welcome, Joe with open arms!
I don’t think it’s a matter of being “bitterly partisan” as much as a matter of Democrats showing some spine. Lieberman spit in their faces and smiled: He promised he wouldn’t speak ill of Obama, then questioned his patriotism and said he was putting party over country, a man who came to campaign for him during his embattled 2004 election. He said that his support of McCain was purely personal, but then campaigned for down-ticket Republicans.
I understand the practical need for Lieberman to remain within the caucus, but some punishment much come of it. The Democrats can’t send a message that blatantly trying to tear down your own party while lying about your true intentions goes without comment or consequence.
Give him another chairmanship. Call his bluff. If he wants to caucus with the minority party, then that’s his problem. We’ll see how it goes in the next elections. It sends a terrible message to the country and the rest of the party that one guy can step on you and then smile and hold you hostage to his whims.