As Congress prepares for a lame-duck session that could start next week, both Senate caucuses are getting ready to confront rogue members of their own party.
On the one side, Democrats are taking action against the man who just eight years ago was their vice-presidential nominee. On the other side, Republicans have to figure out how to deal with their longest-serving member who just happens to be a convicted felon. (The upcoming count of thousands of Alaska ballots could also spell the end of Stevens without his colleagues’ intervention.)
For now, most of the action is taking place on the Democratic side as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid informed Joe Lieberman that he could be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security. Since then, contrary reports have circulated about whether Lieberman was offered a smaller committee, whether he might join the Republican caucus if he is stripped of his chairmanship and whether Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have privately defended him.
What we do know is that Reid will call for a vote over Lieberman’s chairmanship at next week’s meeting of the Democratic caucus next week. The vote will take place via secret balloting, making the process much more unpredictable. Democrats have no plans to kick Lieberman out of their caucus as of now, so any such decision would have to be Lieberman’s alone. (The Connecticut Senator has kept a liberal enough persona that it is hard to imagine him caucusing with the GOP; Reid himself has said, after all, that Lieberman has been a more reliable vote for many Democratic caucuses than many of his own Senators.)
53 Democrats will participate in this vote: all the sitting Senators except Barack Obama and Joe Biden as well as the six newly elected ones (the two Udalls, Shaheen, Warner, Merkley and Hagan). The only tea leaves we have to read for now are Chris Dodd and Evan Bayh indicating that they do not want to punish Lieberman, while Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are said to be lobbying against him. Schumer’s position could influence members of the 2006 and 2008 class, all of whom have had a long relationship with the DSCC chairman.
Obviously, any hint Obama provides as to how he would want Lieberman to be treated could have a big influence. His spokesperson released a vaguely-worded statement to TPM today, indicating that Obama did not want to stand as a referree on the chairmanship question and he did not mind the Connecticut Senator staying in the Democratic caucus. The two matters are of course entirely separate, and Lieberman could risk further backlash if he is seen as blackmailing his colleagues into leaving him in his post in exchange for his staying in the caucus.
Meanwhile, the Republican caucus is unable to rejoice in the Democrats’ trouble since they have a fish to fry: the potential re-election of Ted Stevens, who was recently convicted on felony charges. It would be up to Harry Reid to call a floor vote over whether to expell Stevens, but both parties want Republicans to take the first step here: For Democrats to take the lead could be seen as politicizing the matter, and for the GOP to let them do so would make them look weak on corruption.
Mitch McConnell is reportedly holding discussions with his colleagues about how they should proceed, but South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has made it his personal crusade to oust the Alaska Senator. Last week, DeMint indicated that he would press the full Senate to hold an expulsion vote. Now, he is planning a somewhat scaled-back effort: calling for a vote to expel Stevens from the Republican caucus. Either move would force the hand of the Senate leadership and precipitate matters more quickly than Reid and McConnell might be wanting to proceed and it would indicate that Stevens’ colleagues are unwilling to wait for his appeal to be completed.
If Stevens survives the full count of last Tuesday’s ballots and is then expulsed from the Senate, all bets are off as to who would replace him. Mark Begich would surely wage another bid in the special election that would be held in the spring, but is it plausible to expect any Democrat to win in Alaska after their disappointing results over the past six years? This could very well be a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin to move to Washington after all.
I cannot understand why any Democratic Senator would vote to have an elected Independent Senator hold a chairmanship belonging to their party of a committee or subcommittee. That’s without even getting to the fact that this **** Lieberman campaigned for the Republican presidential candidate and against the Democratic presidential candidate. Neither can I understand why they’d want this guy who is NOT a Democrat and is an obvious friend of Republican McCain inside their huddle listening to their strategy with possibility that he may reveal it to the other side. With the election of additional Democratic Senators, the situation has changed. They initially had to worry about Lieberman yanking the rug out from under them and possibly denying them the right to organize the Senate and its committee. With the added Democratic Senators, Lieberman is irrelevant and not needed in the caucus. This talk about him being needed to maybe provide the 60th vote against a Republican filibuster would be laughable if it was not such a serious matter. Does anyone believe he’d provide the 60th vote on an issue that went against either his neocon or religious views? I’d rather take my chances on trying to peel off a fairly liberal Republican on such issues like Snowe or Specter. No! Lieberman is an Independent! He’s made that perfectly clear. Let him go stand in his own corner if his friends on the Republican side of the aisle don’t want to associate with him. He much deserves the isolation. At bottom, he will vote his interests (sometimes with a majority of Democrats and sometimes with a majority of Republicans). I hope a majority of the Democratic caucus has the backbone to kick him out the door if he tries to join them after all that he has done. He deserves nothing from them. Rewarding someone for bad behavior will not serve them well (if that’s what they wind up doing). Rest assured that no Democrat who does that will get any future campaign contributions from me and they would deserve none from anyone else who cares about issues (rather than the old boy’s club).
Ken, I don’t like Lieberman either but keeping him would sent the right message of post-partisanship Obama wants, plus he is a reliable liberal vote on domestic issues and on Iraq, moderate republican hate the war so the votes could come form there.
Dan, if you’re saying that Lieberman is a reliable liberal vote on all domestic issues, I thoroughly disagree. On religious issues, he’s with the crowd that opposes church-state separation. Funding religious schools is right up his alley.
What Obama would be showing people like me by turning the other cheek on Lieberman is weakness rather than strength.
Treachery must not be rewarded.
Ken - What Lieberman did was worng but he is one of the more liberal members - Nelson, Bachus etc are much more conservative usually on issues. Iraq as an issue will go away in the next two years with the withdrawl.
Lieberman did allow the Dems to have the majority these past two years when he could have been a true independent and let Cheny be the tie breaker. I will support the Democratic candidate for Senate in CT when the next election arrives to beat Lieberman but I don`t want to spoil Obama’s first month in office with this minor matter. I deally I would like Lieberman gone but sometimes we have to swallow that and let his constitutents do their duty in 2012- when Obama will have coattails for the Dem candidate.
44,000 voters purged in Colorado:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10959130
Mike, I could not disagree more. The issue of what to do with Lieberman is not hardly a minor matter that we just have to swallow so that everything will look hunky dory during Obama’s first month in office. How Senate Democrats deal with it will show whether they at long last have a backbone or if they can be rolled over by those without a backbone who only care about presenting a phony image of unity.
Sure, Lieberman could have stood with the Republicans and let Cheney break the tie in organizing the Senate in January 2007. That he didn’t wasn’t out of party loyalty. It was because Senate Democrats let him have this big committee chairmanship that they have the ability to dole out. He wouldn’t have gotten that from the Republicans.
And Lieberman is NOT one of the more liberal members of the Senate. For the 110th session of Congress (2007-2008), the American Civil Liberties Union gave him a score of 36%. I think you’re referring to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana, who you say “are much more conservative usually on issues. ” Well, they definitely were not as conservative by ACLU standards during the years 2007-2008. Ben Nelson got a rating of 50% and Baucus got 86%. Moreover, neither Nelson nor Baucus supported John McCain for President this year. And both were elected as Democrats, unlike Lieberman. Being stuck with this turncoat in the party caucus (where he can listen and report to his GOP friends) and as chair of an important committee for the forseeable future is not hardly a minor matter.
I’ll believe Iraq goes away as an issue when I see it. With Lieberman’s support, our involvement there has cost much money (that could have been used more productively) and precious lives. But that’s not the only issue on which Lieberman goes along with a majority of Republicans. Just about anything relating to homeland security and vouchers for religious and private schools are among the others.
The majority of Senate Democrats can roll over and go along with Holy Joe if they wish, but it’ll say something about their backbone if they do.
Ken - I agree Iraq has cost lots of money etc but it has been over 5 years and we are nearer the end, thank God.
I think you need to look at someones voting record over several years or you fall into the “Obama is the most liberal senator” trap when you only take one year adn exclude arbitarily other years. Also the ACLU can be a bit nutty so I would look at other groups like the Sierra club, AARP, AAACP etc to get a more rounded idea.
I do not like Lieberman at all and look forward to him being voted out. I don`t think he should have that committee chairmanship but I want the Obama agenda advanced.