The Seniority Wrangle

[Rex Kickass]

So what happens in Congress after an election? Jockeying for position, that's what.

 

Sen Reid (D) of WV has decided to return to the back bench, giving up his chairmanship of Senate Appropriations.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15409.html

 

Sen. Lieberman (I) could be finding himself without a caucus. He's threatened to leave the Democratic caucus because it appears the Senate Dem leadership is going to pull his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee from the Senator after actively campaigning against Obama and other Democratic senate candidates. The offer that Lieberman finds so unacceptable is a different committee chairmanship and retaining his seniority. However, although invited to join the GOP, Lieberman hasn't done so because McConnell has no ranking position in a committee to offer to the Senator from Connecticut.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15401.html

 

Seven time felon Senator Stevens of AK may be causing a serious fissure in his caucus. There are a number of fellow GOP Senators who actively want him expelled from the caucus, something that McConnell may or may not be resisting. Could we end up seeing a new minority leader in the next two months?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15392.html

[Texsox]

I am kind of sad to see Old Joe acting this way. I can't say he doesn't deserve the treatment he is receiving. But I find no joy in watching it happen. In a small way he represents someone like we've talked about here. A true centralist who embraces planks from both platforms.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I am kind of sad to see Old Joe acting this way. I can't say he doesn't deserve the treatment he is receiving. But I find no joy in watching it happen. In a small way he represents someone like we've talked about here. A true centralist who embraces planks from both platforms.

 

I wish there were more people like him in government. Those who represent both parties and dont let party politics stand in the way of what their opinion is on an issue.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wish there were more people like him in government. Those who represent both parties and dont let party politics stand in the way of what their opinion is on an issue.

Its funny, I never hear anyone say this about the other I in Congress (Sanders, VT). Then again, I don't know much about him either. I may have to do some reading up.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Its funny, I never hear anyone say this about the other I in Congress (Sanders, VT). Then again, I don't know much about him either. I may have to do some reading up.

 

 

I dont know much about him either, other than he exists. I'm guessing thats what most people know about him also.

[NorthSideSox72]

I dont know much about him either, other than he exists. I'm guessing thats what most people know about him also.

I know a little, and just read a wiki about him. Kind of an interesting history there.

 

One thing that stood out - he was the main sponsor of and introduced the 2007 global warming reduction act.

 

He calls himself a Democrat-Socialists, caucuses with the Dems, but does not necessarily have a smooth relationship with them.

 

[Texsox]

It has to be hard to be an I

[Balta1701]

I am kind of sad to see Old Joe acting this way. I can't say he doesn't deserve the treatment he is receiving. But I find no joy in watching it happen. In a small way he represents someone like we've talked about here. A true centralist who embraces planks from both platforms.

I, naturally, disagree, but I'm not going to disagree based on politics, I'm going to disagree based on his performance on that committee. The Homeland Security committee is an oversight committee. It's job is to make sure the people appointed to positions in DHS are qualified, and to conduct oversight on DHS activities. Compared to his counterpart in the House, Congressman Waxman, Senator Lieberman's committee has been an absolute joke. From the failures around Katrina, to planning for future disasters, to the illegal NSA spying activities, to investigating contracts, and so on, he has done essentially nothing. Joe Lieberman was the one holding the gavel when one Mike Brown was approved as FEMA head.

 

First and foremost, he has been a joke as head of this committee. Now, to add in the partisan stuff...why is Joe so desperate to keep this committee? Unless he wants it so that for some reason the Homeland Security committee can be completely inept, he wants to use it against the President. That's the main thing he'd have to do at that committee. So why exactly should a Democratic Senate set itself up to have trouble with its own committees?

[BigSqwert]

I know a little, and just read a wiki about him. Kind of an interesting history there.

 

One thing that stood out - he was the main sponsor of and introduced the 2007 global warming reduction act.

 

He calls himself a Democrat-Socialists, caucuses with the Dems, but does not necessarily have a smooth relationship with them.

 

He was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher recently.

[NorthSideSox72]

He was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher recently.

Poor guy.

 

[knightni]

It has to be hard to be an I

"I" is the loneliest Roman Numeral that you'll ever do.

[Rex Kickass]

It has to be hard to be an I

 

It's easy to be an I. It's hard to be an opportunist when all your bets don't pay off. He's a schill for whoever will possibly get him his next advantage. Lose an election? Refile as an independent. But then cut a deal with his caucus so he doesn't lose seniority and still wins the election. He embraces nothing but what's good for him.

 

And what's good for him is the back bench in the Senate.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's easy to be an I. It's hard to be an opportunist when all your bets don't pay off. He's a schill for whoever will possibly get him his next advantage. Lose an election? Refile as an independent. But then cut a deal with his caucus so he doesn't lose seniority and still wins the election. He embraces nothing but what's good for him.

 

And what's good for him is the back bench in the Senate.

Are you talking about Lieberman or Sanders?

 

[Texsox]

It's easy to be an I. It's hard to be an opportunist when all your bets don't pay off. He's a schill for whoever will possibly get him his next advantage. Lose an election? Refile as an independent. But then cut a deal with his caucus so he doesn't lose seniority and still wins the election. He embraces nothing but what's good for him.

 

And what's good for him is the back bench in the Senate.

 

It's hard to get elected, it's hard to introduce any legislation, you have to decide to caucus with one of the other. No national committee to help. No fund raising doors opening up for you because of the D or R. No extra campaign help with out the D or R. It's called a two party system for a reason.

 

I can't see how it is easier.

[Balta1701]

It's hard to get elected, it's hard to introduce any legislation, you have to decide to caucus with one of the other. No national committee to help. No fund raising doors opening up for you because of the D or R. No extra campaign help with out the D or R. It's called a two party system for a reason.

 

I can't see how it is easier.

But the issue is, Lieberman got ALL of those things from the Dems in 06, despite losing in the Dem primary. Only a handful of Dems avoided endorsing him, he got plenty of fundraising help including other people from the party making appearances for him, he still wound up with his (useless, Bush-covering) committee chair, and so on.

[Texsox]

But the issue is, Lieberman got ALL of those things from the Dems in 06, despite losing in the Dem primary. Only a handful of Dems avoided endorsing him, he got plenty of fundraising help including other people from the party making appearances for him, he still wound up with his (useless, Bush-covering) committee chair, and so on.

I was thinking a true (I) coming from out of no where.

[Balta1701]

I was thinking a true (I) coming from out of no where.

Ah. I'm still after Holy Joe.

[Rex Kickass]

Are you talking about Lieberman or Sanders?

 

Sanders is a socialist, not an opportunist. The Democratic Party knows they couldn't win the seat that Sanders runs for, so they choose to support him.

[mr_genius]

Sanders is a socialist, not an opportunist. The Democratic Party knows they couldn't win the seat that Sanders runs for, so they choose to support him.

 

He pretty much votes along the lines of the Democrats from what I can tell, so there really isn't even much of an incentive to try and get his seat.

 

Lieberman supported a GOP for president and spoke at their convention, if a Republican did this to the GOP they would likely do that same thing to that senator (some type of retribution) that the Democrats are doing to Lieberman. One thing to keep in mind is that Lieberman is still going to vote with the Democrats on most issues, which is why he is almost always added to the Democrat vote count when considering getting to 60 to stop a filibuster.

[Rex Kickass]

He pretty much votes along the lines of the Democrats from what I can tell, so there really isn't even much of an incentive to try and get his seat.

 

Lieberman supported a GOP for president and spoke at their convention, if a Republican did this to the GOP they would likely do that same thing to that senator (some type of retribution) that the Democrats are doing to Lieberman. One thing to keep in mind is that Lieberman is still going to vote with the Democrats on most issues, which is why he is almost always added to the Democrat vote count when considering getting to 60 to stop a filibuster.

 

Except he argued against having 60 Dems in the Senate all fall. He's no longer able to be trusted if I was in the caucus. Things like seniority and chairmanships are based, to a large extent on party loyalty and benefit for the party. If you cut a deal to stay in office with the people in your caucus after you lose your party's primary, you owe them. You owe them loyalty. You owe them, at the very least, saying nothing at all if you can't support your caucus' candidate. But to do what he's done is unforgivable in party politics.

[Texsox]

Except he argued against having 60 Dems in the Senate all fall. He's no longer able to be trusted if I was in the caucus. Things like seniority and chairmanships are based, to a large extent on party loyalty and benefit for the party. If you cut a deal to stay in office with the people in your caucus after you lose your party's primary, you owe them. You owe them loyalty. You owe them, at the very least, saying nothing at all if you can't support your caucus' candidate. But to do what he's done is unforgivable in party politics.

 

You are right. Which is why I came to the conclusion it is hard to be an I. He needed that party support to get elected and reelected. He needed party support to have any influence on committees and such. The candidate is always beholden to the party. Perhaps that is one thing we could improve in our government. Our elected leaders need to be loyal to their party before being loyal to the people and entities in their districts.

[Rex Kickass]

You are right. Which is why I came to the conclusion it is hard to be an I. He needed that party support to get elected and reelected. He needed party support to have any influence on committees and such. The candidate is always beholden to the party. Perhaps that is one thing we could improve in our government. Our elected leaders need to be loyal to their party before being loyal to the people and entities in their districts.

 

It's not hard to be an I. It's hard to be an I who wants the benefit of a being a D or an R without doing the things that come along with that.

[mr_genius]

Except he argued against having 60 Dems in the Senate all fall. He's no longer able to be trusted if I was in the caucus. Things like seniority and chairmanships are based, to a large extent on party loyalty and benefit for the party. If you cut a deal to stay in office with the people in your caucus after you lose your party's primary, you owe them. You owe them loyalty. You owe them, at the very least, saying nothing at all if you can't support your caucus' candidate. But to do what he's done is unforgivable in party politics.

 

Oh good, if your theory is correct the disloyal Lieberman won't blindly vote for what the Democrats want. I approve of this.

 

So what if he loses a chair position, at least he won't have to be a Democrat anymore. Seems like a win to me.

 

Things can change in the senate, if he sticks around he could see a situation where the Democrats aren't in control.

[jasonxctf]

f*** joe lieberman. the guy has every right to support whichever candidate he wants, but he took it way to far. The guy needs a reminder that the democratic senators he was so actively campaigning against, supported him and Gore in 2000 and some supported him when he was running in the democratic primary in 2004 for President.

 

then in 2006, when he's on life-support, many Democrats still supported him or chose to sit on the sidelines with the senate race against Ned Lamont. (and I believe Obama was one of them, at least until Lieberman lost the Primary)

 

then, as a way to thank Obama for not campaigning against him, or supporting the other guy during the Primary, he stabs him in the back to support, campaign and speak at the RNC for McCain.

[bmags]

keep in mind, Lieberman also helped campaign for lower ticket R's, not just his friend McCain. So long useless Joe, keep on war mongerin