After he stumped for McCain and a couple of Republican Senators, the Senate Democrats decided to do approximately nothing to Joe Lieberman. He was actively campaigning for McCain while the McCain campaign was accusing Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” This raises the question of what, exactly, a Democratic Senator would have to do to actually cross the line. Would taking a dump on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lunch in the Senate cafeteria provoke him to action? Or would it just earn you a sternly worded letter.
The vote was 42-13. I suspect Evan Bayh was among the 42 even though:
Bayh said that Lieberman must first issue a “sincere apology†for campaign attacks warning of the perils of an Obama presidency and a large Democratic majority in Congress. He said Democrats should allow him to keep his chairmanship on the condition that he would not use his subpoena power and influence as chairman to undermine Obama’s presidency. Otherwise, Democrats would take away his gavel at any point next Congress, Bayh warned.
To my knowledge, Lieberman has offered no such “sincere apology.”
Senate aides said Mr. Lieberman did not apologize for his actions, but told his Democratic colleagues that some of his comments on the campaign trail had been misinterpreted. The vote on a resolution letting him keep the homeland security post, while expressing disapproval of his comments on Mr. Obama, was 42 to 13, with newly elected Democratic senators as well as incumbents taking part.
Lieberman did not apologize for supporting McCain, but did seek to clear up comments he has made that were interpreted as critical of Obama or Senate Democrats. “He did not apologize—and he was not asked to apologize—for supporting Sen. McCain,†said Nelson. “That’s over. The election is over. It’s a new era,†the Nebraska senator said.
Lieberman also did not apologize for supporting Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota in his race against Democrat Al Franken, the aide said, noting that Coleman supported Lieberman in his last, and toughest, re-election bid.
So, how did Sen. Bayh vote in the absence of the required sincere apology?
And then the asshole credited Obama with saving his job. That would be the same Obama who campaigned for him in Connecticut, but who Lieberman later decided was a danger to the country. This Lieberman clown is just an insufferable piece of shit. Probably twelve people on Earth (all family, or Republicans) actually can stand the guy. And yet, he’s still among us. Look for him to start using his gavel sometime after Jan. 20, in the interest of “bipartisanship”.
It occurs to me that if Lieberman had apologized, he would have immediately announced that his fingers were crossed. Then the rest of the Democrats would have said “That was a good one!” Then they would have shared a laugh.
All I gotta say is: “Connecticut – If you do it again, we’re gonna kick you out.”
I suspect that we’ll only have 4 more years of this idiot. Can’t say the same for the other 42 who voted for him. We need another Lyndon Johnson in the leadership.
I imagine that if Bayh voted this way, it was really no different than his votes cast on legislation he hadn’t read. Where exactly would the surprise in that lie?
Not sure I like this either, but publicly anyway this is the result Obama said he wanted. It wouldn’t look good for Senate Democrats right off the bat to defy the wishes of the new party leader.
Mr. Glenn is correct, by all accounts Obama wanted this. Obviously the President elect is lining up a staff (Biden, Clinton for example) with Congressional experience, and he’s probably doing this because there are things he would like to accomplish with expedience in mind. I think Obama is going to need Lieberman, and this move is in correlation with his promise to deliver a “bi-partisan” atmosphere.
Not that it will do any good. Obama will still be labled a radical, a Marxist, a terrorist sympathizer. Just because the campaign has ended don’t assume these labels will disappear. His opposition is comprised of truly dishonest and hateful people who will stop at nothing to discredit the new Democratic President.
I’m not a fan of Lieberman…and if there were 61 D senators, I’d be completely in favor of getting rid of him. But as it stands now, there will be, best case, 60 Ds (including Sanders and Lieberman); more likely 59 Ds. So every vote will really count, including, unfortunately, Lieberman’s.
All I heard Obama said is that he didn’t want Lieberman kicked out of the caucus. I didn’t hear Obama hold forth on whether Lieberman kept his committee chair. (Obviously this doesn’t mean nothing was said behind the scenes.)
I just figure that if Obama is relying on Lieberman to do the right thing at some future date, he’s making a mistake. Presumably Obama is smarter than me though. (Man, it’s good to say that about a President.)
At least once in the coming months, Lieberman will decline to vote for cloture solely in the interest of “bipartisanship”. On foreign policy issues, Snowe or Collins are surer bets than Lieberman to break a veto.
Obama’s the bigger man. This gets him past the “fool me once” point.