BigSqwert Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 LINK Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay. "This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward." Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems. Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was." But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?" "I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward." Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying. So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first. Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country. Booman Tribune: In other words, if this reporting is correct, Lieberman will be stripped of a subcommittee chair that presides over an issue where he votes with the Democrats, and left in charge of a full and subcommittee (Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland) where he votes against the Democrats. That's f***ing brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 This is PURELY about 60 caucusing Dems, vs. 59 caucusing Dems. Period. They smell blood in the water with the last three races up in the air. Otherwise, they would have dumped his ass real quicklike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 this is purely about not wanting to appear partisan and backstabby to a well known democratic senator after that senator was very backstabby. The man doesn't deserve that chairmanship, he did nothing with it. He should be put in the stocks for his lack of oversight on Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) this is purely about not wanting to appear partisan and backstabby to a well known democratic senator after that senator was very backstabby. The man doesn't deserve that chairmanship, he did nothing with it. He should be put in the stocks for his lack of oversight on Bush. No it's not. I'll just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 No, I'm right. Even if the dems get the remaining 3, they'd feel more than confident swaying specter or a few others over to their side for 60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) This is PURELY about 60 caucusing Dems, vs. 59 caucusing Dems. Period. They smell blood in the water with the last three races up in the air. Otherwise, they would have dumped his ass real quicklike. Well, I'll go MOSTLY, but not quite PURELY. In general, I agree with you. There is also the factor of Lieberman being a potential asset among moderates of both parties in getting legislation done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 09:23 PM) This is PURELY about 60 caucusing Dems, vs. 59 caucusing Dems. Period. They smell blood in the water with the last three races up in the air. Otherwise, they would have dumped his ass real quicklike. there's no way they win Georgia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm going to agree with bmags. They wouldn't base this decision upon 3 races that are up in the air, two of which seem to be going Republican. This is an effort to seem bi-partisan and nice and forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) I'm going to agree with bmags. They wouldn't base this decision upon 3 races that are up in the air, two of which seem to be going Republican. This is an effort to seem bi-partisan and nice and forgiving. Reid? Nice and forgiving? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 04:16 PM) Reid? Nice and forgiving? LOL. I said "to seem", not "to be". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts