Joe Is Not With Us On Homeland Security, Either
By David Neiwert Thursday Nov 13, 2008 12:00pmSo Evan Bayh is leading what appears to be a growing chorus of "let bygones be bygones" Democrats who want to let Joe Lieberman keep his seat as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee:
“We can take away his chairmanship, that’s something we have the right to do,” Bayh said on MSNBC. “What you will have at that point is someone who may very well resign, or someone is embittered ... who might not be with us on some of these key votes.”
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.
Bayh said Democrats should tell Lieberman sternly, “Look, we’re giving you a chance here, but if you don’t do the right things as chairman, and we see any continuation of this kind of behavior ...the game is up at that point.”
Democrats need to look beyond the mere fact of Lieberman's egregious disloyalty in the past campaign, which of course is at least an understandable reason to remove him, if not the most compelling one in a post-election season aimed at bridging rifts.
A far more compelling reason is that Lieberman in fact parts ways with Democrats on many issues besides merely the Iraq war. Think Progress has a pretty thorough rundown on just how many ways Joe is not with us when it counts: on taxes, Social Security, torture, health care, energy ... the list is long and damning.
But the ultimate reason to remove Lieberman as chair of Homeland Security is that his record as chair of that committee has been abjectly conservative, partisan, and in the end a menace to Americans' civil rights: In other words, Lieberman is antithetical to the progressive mandate Democrats have just been handed.
Think Progress has some of the lowlights:
- Lieberman on oversight duties: “We don’t like investigating”: Responding to criticism of his committee’s record, Lieberman said, “We like to do legislation,” Lieberman said. “We don’t like investigating … just to see who is at fault.” [7/15/08]
- Held zero oversight hearings on Bush administration in 2007: Lieberman conducted zero “proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance” in 2007. [12/24/07]
- Backed away from pre-election demands to investigate White House response to Katrina: Lieberman “quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans,” Newsweek reported. [1/12/07]
- Said investigating Katrina was like “playing gotcha”: Lieberman said he was not interested in “looking back, and assigning blame would be a waste of Congress’ time.” Lieberman said he was reluctant to mount an investigation of the failures of the initial response, saying “We don’t want to play ‘gotcha’ anymore.” [1/30/07; 1/30/07]
- Refused to investigate Blackwater shootout in Iraq: After Blackwater came under fire for allegedly killing several Iraqi civilians in September 2007, Lieberman refused to hold oversight hearings on the matter. “You’ve got to set your own priorities, and it was clear to me that other committees were going to pick this up,” said Lieberman. [10/10/07]
Perhaps the most egregious instance of Lieberman's reactionary agenda in Homeland Security, though, has been the way he has pushed Jane Harman's misbegotten "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007". Lieberman has managed to twist it into a legal tool for harassing American Muslims while simultaneously ignoring the ongoing, and very real, threat of right-wing domestic terrorism.
Considering that the FBI's own terrorism experts now are increasingly concerned about the threat of far-right-wing domestic terrorism rising in the context of an Obama presidency, this is a blind spot that will be simply unacceptable in a Homeland Security Committee chair -- especially one who already has a track record of ignoring inconvenient issues that properly bear congressional inquiry.
America can't afford to have Joe Lieberman chairing its Homeland Security Committee any longer. That, and not simple revenge for his disloyalty, is the reason Democrats need to think long and hard before letting those bygones be.
Login or Register to post comments.
Strip his power and make him pay penance.
The people of Connecticut are going to remove him anyway.
His political days are numbered.
Hey, the Catholics make you confess, then say an act of contrition, THEN do your penance. In Joe's case, he should make a PUBLIC confession of his sins before being absolved.
Mmmm...no, he should make a public confession of his sins before being kicked out, without being absolved, ever.
Shit-can the devious little turncoat. The system runs on party loyalty. He violated it.
On the other hand . . . in a Senate that is teetering on the edge of a 60-seat majority, another Democratic vote in the fold may be vital in to the passage of health-care reform, restoring environmental standards, global warming legislation, financial sector regulation, etc, etc.
The Republicans can and will use every means at their disposal to block new legislation. Having Lieberman outside the Democratic fold will only enable this.
Best to keep him on a short leash in the service of the Democratic agenda.
No, this is exactly how he got away with everything he did, this is why he knew he was acting with impunity every day that he supported this ugly illegal war and ravaged us with all he had. There should be no possible forgiveness for Lieberman, not even if he makes the 60th senator. He isn't going to vote with us anyway. He's a devious little bastard who not only will not help but is actually out to do HARM. Would you let someone like this keep living in your house? How would you sleep, go to the bathroom, turn your back? You couldn't. If I'd known Obama was one of those who campaigned for Lieberman in 2006, I wouldn't have voted for him, I'd have voted Green or something, maybe even Bob Barr. That's how deeply I frown on Lieberman, and have since way back.
Thu, 11/13/2008 - 12:03 — Liberal AND Proud
Strip his power and make him pay penance
I dunno, sounds kinda Catlick to me.
Let each demodratic senator kick him in the nuts. Then we can move on.
A Grateful Lieberman Returns the Favor to Obama
It is quite obvious, just like Obama's FISA vote in July, that the
Dem leadership is all about taking care of their own. Even if he
utterly betrayed his party, the voters of CN and the American people,
he is part of the machine and will be protected.
Change we can only dream of.
It's like that funny morning-after feeling I hear tell about. *smirk* "I thought you said you LOVE me?! You were just saying that so I would let you...? And now you're just going to leave me, go do what you want? Aren't we getting married???"
Maybe we were boobs for believing the Change message. Clearly, these guys comprise a fraternity. Their loyalty is to each other, obviously. I can only imagine the self-disgust felt today by erstwhile supporters of Head Fraternity Brother Dodd.
.
Why Why Why do so many people, sane intelligent people, WANT that miserable Bastard?
I don't see so many. Who do you mean? A handful of two-faced democratic senators? I'm not going to presume the sanity or intelligence of THOSE boogers. Sanity and intelligence, anyway, hasn't much to do with trustworthiness, has it?
The dems will vote for him to stay.
The only accountability is the election.
The election is over. It's the morning after. The dems can do anything to us they want to us, now. Funny feeling, huh!
I signed the petition to remove Joe Lieberman from his chairmanship on FireDogLake a few days ago and added on the comments that Senators like Dianne Feinstein should take notice to help us move the country of get the hell out of the way.
By the Democrats as well as Repugs? Is it the case that the Dems did not want Katrina or ANY other bushCheney scandals investigated? They certainly did not help the House Reps who tried to investigate & impeach.
He makes a mean latke?
Great pinockle player?
Holds the secret recipe for Senate kosher pickles?
He's the only one who knows in which order to light the Senate Menorah?
It's his turn to bring in bagels?
He does the challah prayer?
Israel/AIPAC has put the word out that Joe stays put?
Remember how "Joe the Senator" was Gore's running mate in 2000?
Remember how the Democratic Party in Connecticut managed to rid themselves of "Joe the Senator" in 2006 and within hours of losing the primary he became an Independent and was re-elected basically by Connecticut Republicans? And who campaigned for him over Lamont? Barack Obama.
Remember how "Joe the Senator" and McCain were joined at the hip throughout the entire campaign with "Joe the Senator" going so far as to whisper corrections into McCain's ear from time to time?
Remember when McCain "picked" Palin to be his running mate (even though he REALLY preferred "Joe the Senator")? Who did Lieberman take Palin to see within hours of her landing in the lower 48? "Joe the Senator's" AIPAC/Israeli handlers would be the correct answer.
"Joe the Senator" is Israel's front man in the Senate. As crazy as this sounds, I'll betcha he'll figure out a way to get re-elected to the Senate in Connecticut in 2012.
Honeymoon over yet folks?
We will be stuck with him until 2012 but my Lamont sign will be shined up and ready to go for that campaign. Meanwhile, there's not a lot we can do about him. I'd love to see him go but if he resigns Gov. Jodi Rell gets to appoint a replacement - likely to be Christopher Shays - a bonafide republican rather than a wannabe.
Personally, I hate that fundamentalist. But I think it would be stupid to toss him into the opposition without an attempt at reconciliation. A vote is a vote. He should be monitored closely but allowed to remain at the table. Think: what would the right wing want us to do on this issue? Seems they would welcome us to be divisive and toss him out.
bobsf:
While the media seems to understand the Traitor Joe issue as whether to kick him out of the Democratic Caucus, the real issue is whether to allow him to remain as the Homeland Security Committee Chairman.
Seriously, consider the logic: Reid says that Lieberman votes with us on just about every issue except for his neo-conservative posture on Homeland Security. So, we should let him be the chairman of the one committee on which he will do the most damage to the party and the country?
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
*grin* And John McCain is his own man! *grin*
Pssst. Joe, that brown stuff ain't gonna rub off no matter how hard you try.
Ever tried the hand cleaner GOJO? it's a REAL product. Guaranteed to remove ANY residue or grime off your hands. Hows about we all send a can to Harry Reid?It comes in wipes,too!
Smells nastier than hell though.
Maybe Joe can pick up the morning coffee? Morning Joe with a bag of bagels,courtesy AIPAC?
SCAB.
Traitor Joe has long been averse to investigating the Bushevik Adminstration, as the bullet point list above explains. Indeed, he seems to be against any kind of oversight for neo-conservative foreign policy at all.
If he remains as Homeland Security chair, will he suddenly change his tune? Does he want the chair now in order to investigate President Obama?
"...Does he want the chair now in order to investigate President Obama?"
Uh oh, now I'm really scared. That sounds JUST LIKE a Joe move.
Get Real......throw him OUT.....then go wash your hands real good.
Check the bowl to see if the little turd is still there.
Flush again.
Repeat as necessary.
No more two country citizens,most of all our government(and I use that term jokingly)leaders. joes a zionist pig, dibs on his face, I need a new pair of gloves
CEO,citizens,eyes,open.
Strip him of everything. Shame him and toss him out on his ass. The pragmatic me says keep him until 2010, and hope Lamont bests him.
Fuck it. Throw his ass out.
it's not just the Senate Homeland Security Committee - it's the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee...
and as chair, ol' joe has the authority to bring up investigations...
and, as reported here yesterday:
Exhibit A: Michael Reagan:
EXPOSE LIBERAL CORRUPTION -- With the Democrats back in power in both Congress and the White House, you KNOW that they'll be falling right back into their habits of taking lobbyists' money under the table, trading votes for campaign contributions, spying on and sabotaging Republican legislative plans, covering up their leaders' sexual "flings," and spending taxpayer money on personal expenses like never before. But this time, YOU AND I will be there every step of the way, making sure that no stone is left unturned, every dark corner is filled with light, and every illegal act is paid for with censure, impeachment, recalls, investigations, and jail time for every criminal we expose in Washington, D.C.
he cannot be trusted.
I think he should lose his chairmanship . . . surely some consequence should be evident for his comments against Obama and the Democratic Party during the campaign. If one can participate in wrongful acts without due consequences, what are we teaching our children!
has been forgiven and now let bygones be bygones...as a token of his apology he should be given a coveted hunting trip with the other honorable mention 'Dick' Chaney.
Bayh himself says we must "make nice nice" with Joe to keep him from opposing crucial votes.
If Joe is likely to vote simply to obstruct and not what's in the best interests of the people he represents, he has no business being... not just head of any chairmanship... but not even IN any Committee at all.
Why? Because we may be within striking distance of breaking any Republican fillibusters (Stevens is behind!). This could be important for the Supreme Court.
Politics is an ugly business.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LnLtk3_0E1Q/SRxvX8B...
for letting him stay is to use Joe as a Threat to Obama.
well, there's a new twist... too dark for me...
even though he IS a threat to OBAMA...
oh! you mean the REPUGS use him as a Threat to Obama - FOR SURE!!!
Joe Is Not With Us On Homeland Security, Either
Joe who, Stalin?
This is what's wrong with politics.
It's all politics.
Polytics would be having multiple facial tics.
If we wait until next year, as Bayh suggests, and Lieberman investigates anything or anyone in the administration, then they try to remove him it looks like a coverup and Lieberman looks like a martyr. Do it now because he didn't do his job and the dems are in the clear.
it wasnt just the war that turned the base and many other dems against holy joe....it started in 2000, when he threw gore under the bus. it continued when he chose to embrace and give bush a big wet one on the floor of the house. and it continued in his constant belittling of the dem caucus when it came to almost anything the bush administration was doing, in regards to the shredding of our constitution.
joe proved time and again that while he may vote with dems...he is not one of them.
seriously...does bayh parent his kids the same way?
hey evan, when your eldest kicks you in the nuts, do you turn to him and say "thank you sir, may i have another?"
this was summed up best by a conservative panelist on mahr last week
"he is a rat"
btw, biden has chosen ron klain as his cos
we hard ass jews now control the halls of power....BOOFUKINYA
Take away his privaleges and make him earn them back.
do the dems now think they have a good shot at winning the final 3 senatorial contests? if so, then they have to make nice with joe to get to 60
of course, joe said the dems having 60 would be dangerous to the country...
Listen to this idiot:
Fascinating. Remember that premise. This is not about Joe Lieberman. It's about helping President Obama pass his agenda. Keeping Obama's ardent Homeland Security foe as the Homeland Security Chairman is the best way to maximize Obama's chances of passing his agenda.
Never mind that Bayh contradicts himself here. Joe's a big guy, and can live with the consequences. Really? Hmmm . . . . . . .
Oh, yeah. Joe's a big guy all right. He can live with the consequences.
And who would be wandering the halls with no influence of any kind, right? 'Cept maybe as a rookie Republican, right? And the Homeland Security Chair would be a pro-Obama chair. Or at least not a neo-con!
Yep, that Joe's a big guy all right, and it is we who should let it go, and not try to settle scores.
Which belies the argument that we need Lieberman --- except in the case of another Democratic Caucus of weaklings who can't manage to find a moderate Republican or two (there are two in Maine) to help pass legislation, and who can't stand up to the obstructionism of the gentlemen's filibuster. Do we really need Lieberman? Or do we need a whole new Democratic Caucus? If the latter, fuck it. Whether Lieberman's in or out is inconsequential.
Good grief! Remember the starting premise? This is about MAXIMIZING Obama's chances of passing his agenda. So, the whole argument is that Joe Lieberman is such a petulant baby that he will hold his breath and stomp his feet just to hurt us all if he doesn't keep the chairmanship with which he can do the most real damage. This just doesn't make any sense. If this is truly who Joe Lieberman is, WE DON'T EVEN WANT HIM IN OUR CAUCUS. He's an untrustworthy, spoiled brat, and he's not going to help us no matter what.
Is he fucking kidding?!?!?!?! He is actually arguing that we should not hold him accountable because we can hold it over him that we might hold him accountable?!?!
This is the whole point! You DON'T hold him accountable! You NEVER HAVE! He ran as a Democrat, and LOST! He got back in on Republican votes after the Republicans nominated a dead man, and he ran AGAINST US. He got his chairmanship so that we could control the Senate, and he fucked everything up for us. Then he actively campaigned against the Democratic Presidential ticket, thereby BREAKING HIS PROMISE TO CONNECTICUT THAT HE WOULD DO THE OPPOSITE if they returned him to the Senate.
Jesus, Bayh, how much more evidence do you need that Joe will go off on "some kind of tangent?!" And when he does, will you say that we need him for now, but that you still have control over him later? Is this the new Friedman Unit?
Evan Bayh is Charlie Brown arguing that we must keep Lucy on the team to maximize his chances of kicking the football for the winning goal. Without Lucy, no one will apparently even hold the ball up.
Bayh's whole argument is an exercise in absurdity. At every turn, the Democrats make nice with Traitor Joe. And at every turn, he screws them.
You wanna maximize your chances at getting progressive policies through? Give Lieberman a chairmanship he'll use TO VOTE WITH US rather than against us. Otherwise, let him go, and deal with his replacement --- who, by the way, will be much easier to defeat in 2012.
Fine post, Karen, thank you.
Why do the Democrats keep talking about revenge?
What we are talking about here is justice. The fowl group of retards representing us, Lieberman is 1, caused many problems and division in America. It is time to clean up Washington, what ever you want to call it. Bunch of wimps.
Fuck revenge do whats right, the right thing is to recall Lieberman for stealing his seat in the senate. Remove the idiot from any positions that would allow him to manipulate the Washington fix that is promised to us.
Karen said it all.
I'm going to have some crackers now.
Southern white guys?
And now with all three branches we still cannot bring accountability to anyone... politics to the end. It begs the question, When will the democrats ever stand up to anyone?
It’s the reason were in this mess.
Egregious is an over-worked word, but in the case of Lieberman's bad behavior, it's really fitting.
If the DNC and major Dems had supported their parties rightfully nominated candidate in 2006 Lieberman would have been out on his ear. I don't like Lieberman or him supporting McCain but what he did to Obama isn't much different than what the DNC did to Ned Lamont.
E X A C T L Y !!
The Bush Doctrine is that you should preemptively attack anyone you might suspect of being dangerous. The Bayh Doctrine, apparently, is that you should preemptively pay blackmail to anyone you might suspect of being dangerous:
“We can take away his chairmanship, that’s something we have the right to do,” Bayh said on MSNBC. “What you will have at that point is someone who may very well resign, or someone is embittered ... who might not be with us on some of these key votes.”
Kick Bayh out as well. Hes not much different. And add Pelosi and Reid demotions while you're at it.
Shumer and Biden and Rahm Emanuel and Obama and Clinton and Murtha
Lieberman is understandably confused. When one is a dual-citizen, it is hard to reconcile the security needs of both nations. Sometimes, the needs of one must take a backseat to the needs of the other.
As hard and honestly as I've tried to see the other side on this, the bottom line is that this isn't even a close call. Obama owes his supporters at least this. The American people certainly will understand if the Dems boot Lieberman from the Homeland Security chair.
If he supports Lieberman retaining the chair of this committee, that really sends a bad signal to his base, and will make many of us ask the next logical questions: "Where can we go for a refund for all those campaign contributions?" and "Who will be our candidate in 2012?"
A lot of us supported Obama because he seems like the only pragmatic adult in the house (well, Senate actually.) Dumping on Joe because he said bad things during the campaign might make us feel better but won't help get things done in Washington. If the Dems had a larger majority Obama would probably be the first to throw Joe under the bus (he supported the little creep in his election bid) but the sad fact is that we need him.
I suspect that Joe will get his punishment in other ways than the obvious ones.
Why is Stalker Joe still here? What do you have to do to get kicked out for god's sake?
I used to be mad at CT, until they voted for Obama :-)
President Obama, please regain your senses and show Droopy the door.
This is the same Evan Bayh who was almost selected to be VP? I'm shocked! Is this change I can believe in?
This is soooooo important. You have to call your Senator and any other Senator and tell them what you think. they are going to have a meeting in the very near future to decide what to do about Lieberman. In my opinion he CANNOT be allowed to keep his Chairmanship. Go here to find the phone number and leave a message!
There is another aspect to this Lieberman deal. Right now there are 57 Democrats. If Stevens loses in Alaska that is 58. If Franken wins in Minesota that is 59 and if Chambliss loses in Georgia that is 60. There is a good chance that the Dems will win all three and then we will need Lieberman on our side. I almost hope one of the Republicans win.
It is very complicated indeed!
This is what pisses me off about the Democrats , no backbone what so ever , they may bark once in a while but have no teeth , if Obama doesn't succeed in implementing his programs and making the changes he wants to make it will be in large part due to these nutless wonders . Don't have to be rabid assholes like so many of the Repugnants but come on , have some principles and stand by them !
OK so Bayh says we can just remove him if we don't like what he is doing.
1) First he was ineffectual and you didn't remove him.
2) In the event that he decides to do his job as head of said committee and investigates you know wrong doing, wouldn't it be some sort of obstruction to remove him in the middle of hearings even if those hearings were totally and completely without merit?
Isn't removing US Attorneys in the middle of investigations perceived as obstruction?
Beware.
In vulgar terms, to retain Jo Jo will make congressional democrats look like the pussies most people still consider them to be. Superfluous to say, that perception will be extended to include Obama, should Lieberman retain his chairmanships.
Toss the bum out. If you are depending on him for a majority, it's in name only because he will vote the other way when the chips are down. Better to let a real Democrat handle the powerful committee chairmanships than have Joe LIEberman controlling them for the Republicans.
Hopefully Connecticut citizens will wake up and dump this asshole in 2010.
Naomi Klein wrote about Israel filling the money void that the dot.coms left them with by starting a new economic windfall in homeland security. They now specialize as a country in the parts and parcels of homeland security, selling their technology of fear and security to other countries. Am I the only one who sees a strange connection to Lieberman's involvement and continued interest in heading up our homeland security in the Senate? Frankly, I'm worried about what the tool has up his sleeve with Israel.
Don't lets all fret too much -- committees are not things that are fixed in stone. If they wanted to, the Senate could let LiEberman keep his precious seat but then make the department completely irrelevant.
It has been done in companies from time to time -- rather than provoke a conflict you starve the bad guy's department and take all of his authority away bit by bit. Liberman might find that his brief extends to making sure that the basement washrooms are safe and tidy.
Hey, well, I'm really sorry (if anyone is offended) that I campaigned for McCain. Terrible mistake (in retrospect). Won't happen again, I swear. Yeah, and about joining that chorus of idiots who called Obama a Marxist and didn't condemn calls to kill him, well, I'm really sorry (if anyone was offended).
Lieberman let it be known that if his Homeland Security chairmanship was revoked, he'd leave the Democratic caucus.
That's a threat.
Reid shouldn't put up with that shit, and neither should any of the Democrats. Lieberman is basically saying "I will leave the moment it suits my needs," and that's unacceptable. You don't pull that kind of shit and expect to get gifts in exchange for spitting in someone's face.
Login or Register to post comments.