Rachel makes a very strong case for why Joe Lieberman should not remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and why the damage he could do and already has done in that position far outweighs the slim hope he might vote with the Democrats when really needed.
Responding to Evan Bayh's promise that they'll take the chairmanship away from him if he tries to pull any investigative shenanigans on Obama, Maddow notes adroitly:
Are you really going to wait until he starts his first off-base witch-hunting investigation of Obama into whether he's a Marxist or a traitor or whatever, and then you're going to take away his gavel. [Laughs] I'm sure that's going to go over great.
... Listen, Democrats, you have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won't get your 60 votes. But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election, you do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government.
You go, Rachel. Why didn't the Democrats already do something about his failure to hold any hearings on hurricane Katrina and the no-bid contracts given to Cheney's buddies? Why have they allowed someone who's acted as a protection arm for the Bush administration to chair one of the most important Senate committees in the Congress already and not investigate the fraud and corruption that has occurred in this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?
How can Democrats think it would not be a complete political disaster if they tried to shut Lieberman down after he decided to use the position to possibly go after Obama in the same way Republicans went after Clinton for overblown controversies? Especially given the statements he's already made about Obama regarding foreign policy, particularly his oft-stated fear of what actions Obama might take as President?
Joe Lieberman needs to go before he can do any more damage than the Democrats have allowed him to do already.
