Lieberman lies and lies again. And when the local Fox Reporter calls him on the lying, Lieberman just lies some more. But it doesn't matter to him, simply because he's never had to pay any real price for the years of lies and the backstabbing. That's just politics to Joe Lieberman. And not surprising in the slightest is the ass-kissing of Barack Obama. Expect his lips to be firmly planted there for the foreseeable future.
Sen. Joe Lieberman told NBC's Tom Brokaw that he regretted some of his statements attacking Barack Obama during the campaign but declined to offer an apology.
"I do regret as I said to the caucus and afterward publicly, there were some things I said in the heat of the campaign that I wish I had said more clearly. Other things, frankly, I wish I hadn't said at all," said Lieberman. "That happens to all of us in the heat of it campaign but nonetheless, I regret it and I want to move forward."
Brokaw pressed Lieberman for an apology. "I heard word 'regret' but not the word 'apology.'"
"You can take from the word regret what you will," answered Lieberman.
John Amato:
Brokaw made a point of telling Joe that he used to hold others accountable back in the day, when he stabbed Clinton in the back during the impeachment. "Holding yourself accountable, looking back at the last six weeks, two months or so, what are the statements you most regret? Joe wouldn't go into the details, because they were so many times that he crossed the line, but he still thinks McCain is a really swell guy. He called Obama and Barack was too busy to answer.
Watch your back.
Although I think he'll be on his best behavior initially because the economy is in such shambles, there will be a time when he speaks out against Obama.
Jon debuted a new segment last night called "Does That Get Me Fired?", in which he asks the seemingly reasonable question: What exactly does one have to do in order to get reprimanded by the United States Senate? If trashing your own party's nominee for President and disgracing your party with seven felony convictions doesn't do it, what will?
"A great career down, let's say, a series of tubes."
A voice of reason explains what went down yesterday and why regarding the continuing saga of Joe Lieberman.
A bit of background first for those who don't remember: Ned Lamont is the Greenwich businessman who had the temerity to challenge Lieberman for the U.S. Senate in 2006 as a Democrat and defeated him in the August primary before losing to the then de facto Republican candidate Lieberman in the November General Election. The win in the primary by Lamont is regarded by many as the greatest political upset of recent U.S. political history. Lamont had next to no political experience prior to the race, which consumed much of the political landscape in the summer of 2006, and was the catalyst for a resurgent Democratic party which swept into power in both the House and the Senate.
As one of the group of bloggers Lieberman and his campaign despised -- a distinction we carried proudly -- hearing Lamont give his impressions carries much more weight than any of the chattering class. And he did not disappoint.
The very first line was direct and to the point, that this wasn't about retribution but about approving bad behavior, and that this was "probably the wrong move". Lamont's points about Lieberman being "All war, all the time" nailed him, as did Lieberman's constant attacks on Obama during the presidential campaign, that he was and has been "in the Republican column" for a while now, Lieberman's "recalcitrant behavior", the victimization. Ned rattled off his transgressions with a deftness and an aplomb he really didn't possess in 2006. But for all that he could still see Obama's likely view that Lieberman is a distraction he doesn't need right now with so many other things going on. Lamont didn't sound convinced but could see the logic. In the end, when Alison Stewart asked Ned Lamont if he'll run again he replied "Never say never." A very good sign indeed, considering Lieberman is now only slightly more popular in Connecticut than George Bush.
A quote from Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Jellyfish:
"Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and a member of this caucus."
Hm. Last I checked, Lieberman was officially registered as an "Independent Democrat". Last I checked, he was elected not as a member of the Democratic Party but of the [Connectictut for] Lieberman Party.
UPDATE: I notice in the video that one of the Democrats standing behind Lieberman is Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. Funny thing: Just this summer at the Big Tent at the DNC, he couldn't name a single critical vote that Democrats had passed because of Lieberman's support. And then got nasty about it.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) told Fox's Chris Wallace that Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaigning for the Republican president candidate and some Republican Senators was not acceptable behavior for a someone with a Democratic Chairmanship. "The question is, is that acceptable? The answer is no," said Dorgan
Dorgan said that Democrats will meet next week to vote on whether Lieberman will be allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) told Chris Wallace that Republicans would welcome Lieberman into their caucus. Dorgan pointed out that Democrats have no intention of kicking Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus.
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.
David Neiwert wrote a great piece about Lieberman already, but I wanted to follow up also. Bayh goes on the Rachel Maddow show and defends Lieberman keeping his committee chair. Obama has said that he wants Joe and Reid to work things out and for Joe to remain caucusing with Democrats and Lieberman supporters are using this, but that doesn't mean the Dems have to keep him just where he is. We have to give Harry Reid credit on this one. He told me straight out in Denver that he doesn't like Joe and wants him stripped of his leadership position since he broke a promise and attacked Obama while campaigning for McCain. That's a sin, "my friends."
Lieberman would be doing this country a great favor if he resigned, but he'd never do that so Bayh's first argument is about as lame as can be made, He ran with McCain to try and remain relevant. It was all about power. And then Bayh is worried that Lieberman would be "embittered" if he stays. Well, that's too bad. Senate Democrats must vote down Joe from his positions of power. Lanny Davis hinted that Joe would be bitter after begging Senate Democrats to forgive Lieberman.
My guess, Mr. Bonin, though I can't speak for Senator Lieberman, is that he will still vote on his principles - but if he is treated badly, it is human nature for his loyalties to party-discipline votes, including cloture, would be less.
Hey Lanny, was it was OK for Lieberman to treat Obama badly? If Lieberman has any real values left, you know, "Country First," then he will take the demotion and vote with his beliefs.
I just watched Evan Bayh try to explain to Rachel Maddow why Lieberman needs to keep his chairmanship. Bayh explained that they have no choice because Lieberman is threatening to leave the Senate if he doesn't get his way --- and the Connecticut Governor will then name a Republican who will never vote with them. And if he stays and doesn't get what he wants, he will be "embittered" and then vote against them on close votes out of spite. So in order to do what's necessary for the country they need to give him what he wants.
I guess that's what putting "country first" means.
Bayh was just embarrassing. He's going to have to pop a fistful of Viagra and watch some "24" just to persuade himself that his testes are still descended after that pathetic performance.
They should just get this over with. Watching these people willingly (pretend to) cower like beaten dogs before Holy Joe's threats is just depressing. Just do it already.
And to think Bayh's name was floated around as a possible running mate.
Chris Cillizza says:
Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," said Lieberman. "But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times."
Can Democratic Senators look beyond these comments -- not to mention the fact that Lieberman was a regular presence on the campaign trail with McCain in the closing days of the race?
We'll find out some of the answers next week when the Senate Democratic caucus convenes. At that meeting, a vote is expected on whether Lieberman can retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
The vote will be a secret ballot and even the most plugged-in Senate operatives acknowledge they have no idea how it might turn out.
So 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.
Steve Clemons from The Washington Note tries to explain how there are ways to at least send a message to Holy Joe by removing his chairmanships to critical committees.
UPDATE: Think Progress has a new report out today showing how Holy Joe, who once proclaimed that he was "a Democrat with a 35-year record of fighting for progressive causes" has lost his way. And BraveNewFilms has a new site and video called "Joe Lieberman Must GO"
Reid: Joe Lieberman told me yesterday "We got a big job to do. I'm going to do everything I can to help Barack Obama."
King: Does he owe him an apology?
Reid: Well I don't know, you know this is not a high school deal where you say okay you embarrassed me in front of my girlfriend therefore you apologize.
King: But you made peace with Sen. McCain. Should they do something like that?
Reid: Maybe they already have. I think a lot of this is very private stuff but Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong and I'd like that we weren't on television I'd use a stronger word of describing what he did. But, ah...Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn't support us on military stuff and he didn't support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record, he's good. He comes from one of the most liberal states in the country. He is, Joe Lieberman is not some right wing nut case. Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of CT.
Considering how often Democrats have caved to Holy Joe's Machiavellian games in the past, these kinds of words aren't exactly heartening.
Dana Bash at CNN reports that Holy Joe is unhappy about his looming and well-earned demotion, and is thinking about joining the Republican caucus:
A Senate Democratic source familiar with the meeting confirms that account and tells CNN that one of options Reid gave Lieberman in a private meeting Thursday is Chairman of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee.
But the aide to Lieberman says the Connecticut senator made clear that was “not acceptable” to him, and reminded Reid that he was one of the Senators who wrote the legislation creating the Homeland Security Department, and that’s where he wants to stay.
Nothing was resolved in the meeting, and the Lieberman aide tells CNN that although he still wants to caucus with the Democrats, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell has contacted Lieberman about formally aligning with Republicans, and that Lieberman is “keeping all of his options open.”
An aide to McConnell confirms to CNN that the two men “have been talking.”
Look, Reid is offering Lieberman a very sweet deal. By some counts, much too sweet. Lieberman betrayed the Democratic Party and broke his word to his own Democratic constituents. Reid is nevertheless willing to a) let him stay in the Democratic caucus; b) keep his seniority; and c) give him the chairmanship of something else. That, by any reasonable measure, is ridiculously gracious of Reid. It's certainly more generosity than Lieberman deserves or has earned.
Joe can threaten all he likes, but fact is: He's irrelevant now. There's no reason for Dems to cave on these threats.
Before, Lieberman was hoping to privately lobby his colleagues to save him. But with the curtain pulled back, we can lobby the same potential Lieberman allies. And now they'll have to choose between personal loyalty to Joe and doing the right thing - with the whole world watching.
If they hear from enough of us, there's no way Joe keeps his position of power.
So let's get to the phones. And the emails.
The number for the Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Start with your own Senator, but call the more conservative members of the Dem caucus too. Ask whether they support Lieberman remaining as Chair of the Homeland Security committee, given his unfair attacks on President-elect Obama. Be polite, and calm. The young people who answer the phones are entry-level staffers.
The blogosphere was abuzz today with the news that Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was about to be stripped of his senate committee chairmanship. Sam Stein at the Huffington Post wrote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will meet with Joe Lieberman on Thursday to discuss how the disaffected, controversial Connecticut Democrat-Independent fits into the future of the party.
A source with knowledge of the situation says that Reid will likely tell Lieberman that he is being stripped of his committee chairs -- a retributive move for the former vice presidential nominee's anti-Obama, anti-Democrat advocacy on behalf of John McCain.
Nothing determinate has so far been mentioned but speculation remains that Lieberman's days are numbered. Harry Reid issued this statement later:
"Today Senator Lieberman and I had the first of what I expect to be several conversations. No decisions have been made. While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."
A chastened Lieberman then made the statement in the video above in a press conference. A man living on borrowed time.
