How Do we work with Lieberman?

OK.

So the election is over, and we have another six years of Joe Lieberman in the senate.

How do we deal with that?

How do we hold him accountable to promises he has made?

more below...

Joe Lieberman has already broken faith and a number of promises with us, the general public, and especially his constituents in CT.

He promised a self-imposed three-term limit on himself.

Promise broken.

He promised to go vote on issues when we elected him to the senate three times.

Over 400 missed votes in the last decade.

He chose to ignore the will of his party in the Democratic primary.

He chose to equate dissent and disagreement with disloyalty, and brand those of us who disagree with him as enemies.

So these are the things I am thinking of when I am asking "How can we work with Joe Lieberman moving forward?"

How do we hold him accountable to what we expect?

He has promised to caucus with Democrats, but said he will vote "more independently", whatever that means.

The bottom line is, he is here for the next six years and we can either deal with it or alienate him over to the other side.

I'm not interested in kissing his ass, but he's got a lot of weight, perhaps even too much power, due to the structure of the 110th Congress.

Personally, I am not sure I can think of any ideas right now, but I wanted to start a discussion on this because it is an important issue and it is not going to go away.

•  Submit feedback, please! (nt)

  by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:25:39 AM PDT

  •  Harry Reid

    has the answer. There is really nothing for us to do at this point.

    by Mr X on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:30:13 AM PDT

    •  What does harry have to say about it?

      anything, so far?

      by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:32:01 AM PDT

      •  Nothing in public. Just like estranged

        spouses, he's keeping it in house.  

        by Geekesque on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:43:37 AM PDT

        •  im thinkin we need some charlie sheen vs

          denise richards kinda drama goin on here so we know what the score is

          by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:57 AM PDT

          •  Will you settle for Britney/K-Fed? eom

            by Geekesque on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:06:58 PM PDT

            •  oh yeah (nt)

              by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:07:34 PM PDT

•  Maybe he should hire Harold Ford...

  I'm sure that between the two of them they can come up with one good idea - to screw Democrats!

  by mombadanes on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:29:40 AM PDT

•  Tamifah, I hate him.

  I don't want to work with him,and I don't plan on it.  The thing to do with Joe is just don't trust him.  EXPECT him to screw us and the Dems every chance he gets.  If you expect him to be an ass, he won't let you down.  

  by dkmich on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

  •  I kinda feel the same way but if anything

    we clearly rattled his cage.

    But he's a senator for another six years, so what do we do?

    Kick and scream every step of the next 6 years?

    Is there any way we can compromise with this guy and hope to bring him around to our side? Get him to see our side? Get him to acknowledge it?

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:31:35 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, they have to deal with him for at

    least the next two years. While I thought Joe might be tapped for the DoD job, I'll wager that immediately after he is sworn in 2 Jan, he will be offered another job in the admin, enabling GOP Gov Rell to nominate another Republican to take his seat.

    by Spud1 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:33:15 AM PDT

    •  i damn near had a panic attack over that

      by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:36:47 AM PDT

    •  Between now and '08

      find and attack any vulnerable repub senators so that they go down. Then Lieb will be completely and totally marginalized. I just hope he doesn't get any committee chairs. Lieberman is a jerk and is a rat. So he should be treated as such.

      by Flippant on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:59:33 AM PDT

      •  He has been best described as a fuckwad. Tom

        Allen (ME-1) made noise last night that he will run to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in 2008.

        by Spud1 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:19:24 PM PDT

  •  dkmich, I don't think we'll have to worry about

    Joe.  He will probably caucus with the Republicans, after all he is bought and paid for.  That will deny us the Senate majority since we'll have to share with the R's.  I do agree with you, Joe L is a total asshole.

    by lobo charlie on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:38:04 AM PDT

  •  We kick him to the curb

    Toss him under the train. He's toast and no, we do NOT work with him.

    He's a stealth Republican and loves to clap for Bush and kiss Bush's face. Better if he has no access to Democratic committees or policies. Just make him a pariah. If he defects and goes to the Republicans, so much the better.

    The key here is to hope for some Republican defections to the Democratic side of the Senate aisle. This is very likely, considering the shellacking they just got across the nation.

    Wait and see.

    by The Raven on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:39:20 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      and if and when the need arises remind the Dems it is we who are their supervisors NOT JL.

      by Sassy on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:50 AM PDT

    •  would you rather continue senate minority?

      by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:51:20 AM PDT

      •  I'm saying we have to flip a Republican

        So we don't need Joe. Let's see how the early days go. Smart Republicans, watching the landscape turn blue around them, will try to catch the wave.

        The dumb ones will get buried under it.

        by The Raven on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:56:28 AM PDT

        •  that would be nice

          but for right now, we have to work with what we have

          you legislate with the senate you have, not the senate you want

          by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:07:18 PM PDT

•  Like

  we would with any other moderate Republican.  

  by TomP on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM PDT

•  Step 1: Hold nose n/t

  by Spud1 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM PDT

•  We Can't. Lieberman=Bush, Bush=Lieberman

  They are one and the same.  We could be "bipartisan" and work with Joe, but we might as well capitulate to Bush on everything we've fought for.

  No deals should be cut with Lieberman.  He can no longer be allowed to cow and undercut Democrats.  We have to get this country back on track.. and Lieberman isn't interested in that.

  by bincbom on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

  •  OK - that was good for the election

    but it's not true on all issues.  

    by Whiskey Sam on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:31:40 AM PDT

    •  yeah the election is over and the decision made

      now what are we going to do about it and how are we going to make it work.

      trust me i get that people are feeling raw about it.

      I am myself.

      I'm just thinking what can we do to turn this around and make the best out of it.

      by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:34:23 AM PDT

      •  If he caucuses with us, he's giving us

        control of the Senate.  He doesn't have to, so that can be viewed as a conciliatory gesture.

        Not much, but I tried.

        by Geekesque on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:41:23 AM PDT

•  We shake hands

  move forward and hug it out bitch.

  hug it out, bitch...

  Let's try to get over our Joementum frenzy.  He won, I don't like it, but he is a voting (D).  Let's try to move forward together.

  This is a time for celebration and unity.  

  by Whiskey Sam on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:31:12 AM PDT

  •  He is not a voting (D)

    Where have you been this entire election cycle? If control of the Senate rests on him, he'll cross the line if Bush wills it. Remember who paid for his general reelection campaign.

    by lightyearsfromhome on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:34:08 AM PDT

    •  If he votes with the Republicans

      It's one vote.  If he caucuses with them its the chairmanship of every senate committee.  

      by william shipley on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:52:41 AM PDT

•  He won't be in the Senate for long

  He's got a little campaign finance problem, to the tune of $400k in the primary. God knows what he did in the general. He'll be forced to resign shortly.

  by lightyearsfromhome on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:32:16 AM PDT

  •  Which is even worse

    since that will mean Sen. Chris Shays and thus Rethug control of the Senate.

    by IhateBush on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:33:50 AM PDT

    •  He's going to caucus with right wingers anyway

      by ProgressiveFighter on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:37:19 AM PDT

•  PRAY that some GOP Seantor switches

  Snowe, Collins, Specter, Hagel, now is your chance.  Either Joe is the most powerful Senator or you are. Think about it...

  by Wanderer on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:32:41 AM PDT

  •  Really?

    I thought Chafee might have done it, but we'll never know now...

    by keirdubois on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:49:09 AM PDT

  •  What are the chances of drafting Bernie Sanders?

    by McGirk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:53:52 AM PDT

•  If we win Virginia, we don't

  While I'd rather have a 52 seat majority to overrule both Lieberman and Cheney, if I can get 51, I'd rather ignore him into obsolency.

  He made his bed, let him sleep in it.

  by Young Freud on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:33:05 AM PDT

  •  we will have 51 with tester? and without joe?

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:34:55 AM PDT

  •  Your math is off

    If we win VA, and Joe swings to the right, the Senate would be split 50/50, giving Cheney the swing vote.

    by crash the dog on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:38:03 AM PDT

    •  Two words:

      Bernie Sanders.

      by McGirk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:55:14 AM PDT

      •  What are you talking about?

        The actual breakdown is 49-49-2 (the two being Sanders and Joe).  We need them both.

        by deathsinger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

        •  I thought it was 50/48

          by McGirk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:23:36 PM PDT

        •  My bad.

          The TV is confusing me by not listing indys as indys.

          by McGirk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:56:20 PM PDT

•  first thing: no reindeer games. n/t

  by rasbobbo on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:33:14 AM PDT

•  Hell no

  No compromise, no bipartisanship. These assholes wanted confrontation so now let's have it.

  Slap Joe in the back of his big fat head every time he turns around.

  Show him up for the rethug he secretly is.

  by wahuwa on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:34:26 AM PDT

  •  i respectfully disagree

    i think this is a time where we need to work on building consensus, working together, things dems are GOOD AT and have a proven record of

    i'm not by any means saying roll over and take their shit any more, i'm just saying they need to work on the common sense stuff that the voting citizens want to get taken care of

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:35:53 AM PDT

•  leiberman is irrelevant

  Let him do whatever he wants, he will anyhow. We have a country to put back together and get working. We will do that with or without his help. He ran as an independant, he can govern as an independant. We don't need him.

  by Silent Lurker on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:38:48 AM PDT

  •  Do you understand that without him

    control of the Senate is in Republican hands?  That means they have control of ALL the committees?

    by deathsinger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:41:28 AM PDT

    •  Bernie Sanders cancells Joementum out.

      by McGirk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:58:40 AM PDT

    •  we have 51 they have 49, nt.

      by Silent Lurker on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:00:08 PM PDT

      •  If Joe swings

        that is 50-50.  He is going to caucus with someone.  50-50 brings the Cheney factor in play.

        by deathsinger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:01:47 PM PDT

        •  Barney cancels Joe

          by Silent Lurker on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

          •  No, the actual

            election is 49-49-2.  The two are Bernie and Joe.  If Joe goes over to the dark side, the math is 50-50, which allows the Dark Lord (Cheney) to break the tie.

            by deathsinger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:28:34 PM PDT

            •  true, but

              (and you just knew there was a but coming)
              Joe is all about Joe. He will do whatever is in his best interests to survive, and if that means caucusing up to dems, he will.

              by Silent Lurker on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:42:51 PM PDT

              •  This whole thread

                started with me commenting on your statement

                We don't need him.

                We need him.  If only in we need him to not join the Republicans.

                by deathsinger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:51:00 PM PDT

                •  he won't though

                  There's nothing in it for him to caucus with them, they have nothing for him. He can't even get secretary of defense- the iran-contra guy got that spot.

                  He needs to caucus with dems to get anything done, he needs to caucus with dems to satisfy his voters at home.

                  I just don't really see him doing anything stupid to hurt his chances at a future, and to not caucus would hurt his re election chances.

                  We are both just speculating at this time, which is what we do, but I guess we'll just have to take things as they come for now, until we get our sea legs back.

                  by Silent Lurker on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 01:11:12 PM PDT

•  It's like a marriage where people stay

  together for the sake of the children.

  It'll be a dysfunctional relationship, but it's worth the aggravation to control the Senate.

  by Geekesque on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:39:50 AM PDT

  •  this is what I'm thinking

    i understand people saying we don't need joe, but if it's a choice between him and continuing senate minority, well, what do people really want us to do?

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:40:54 AM PDT

    •  Well, I can tell you what Bush wants. Generally

      we want different things than Bush.

      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:42:53 AM PDT

•  (Don't) trust, but verify.

  He is a weasel. Dems should be polite to him, respecting the office if not the man. But they should  never take his word if he promises to vote a certain way, but get it in writing, and if possible, put the screws to him. It is too bad, but Lieberman is not a trustworthy person. At some point he will screw the Democrats, so they should always anticipate that and not be blindsided.

  by revbludge on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:41:30 AM PDT

•  Seduce an R to become a D.

  Kind of attractive to someone that has seniority, is moderate, sees the way the wind is blowing, and doesn't want to spend the next few terms in a minority party.

  Then you do the politically expedient thing: work with Joe until he screws you, then you cut him loose.

  by dallasdave on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:43:13 AM PDT

•  grownups can work with people they dislike

  look at lawyers, they go at it hammer and tong in court; yet act as if nothing happened a few hours later.

  Work with leibermen as if he were a republican, in areas of common interest, just don't leave yourself exposed.

  by mollyd on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:43:21 AM PDT

•  Lieberman or minority status

  I don't like most of what he stands for either, but without him we're the minority.  I'm sure Mitch McConnel is trying his hardest to woo Liberman, and if the Dems fail to embrace him who knows what Joe will do. While I think I think great to hold on to our principles, it's a lot tougher to get things done from the minority side.

  by sog0124 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:44:30 AM PDT

•  Joe owes the Dems too

  Don't forget that Joe got a pass from Harry, Hillary, and Schumer in the primary and the general.

  The wind is blowing the Democrats way and Joe might be wise to caucus with them.

  The question is, who has the power to make the FEC investigation go away? That is who Joe will caucus with.

  So it is still a tossup. I'm betting he'll go with the rethugs, or take a post in the cabinet.

  by wezelboy on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

•  Actually, I think the new Dems

  neutralize Lieberman, particularly James Webb, who is a more authentic voice on the war than Lieberman.  Further, I think Lieberman wants to win back his base, he can not rely on the Republicans who, should he seek another term, are not likely to stick with him.  I'm not worried about Lieberman.  Had the Senate gone differently I might be, but it is the Democrats who will be setting the agenda now so Lieberman won't be key to getting Republican legislation passed as he was in the past.  I think Ned Lamont did a great service to his state and the country.  First, he forced Lieberman to get back to Connecticut (I'll bet he hasn't spent so much time there in decades).  Second, he framed that election, and because of the attention that race garnered, the entire election cycle, as a referendum on the war.  Truly, he's a hero in my book.  

  by masslib on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:48:07 AM PDT

•  Sorry, Tamifah, no go

  Joe is about as dirty as they come. Remember, this is the man who asked Harry Reid to write him a letter of recommendation that he could show to the CT Democratic nominating committee, promising that if Harry wrote the letter, and if Joe lost the primary, he wouldn't run as an independent. This is the man who used street money to try and buy primary votes. This is a man who agreed to be the tacit Republican nominee for the state of CT. The only way to deal with Joe is to ignore him. He wants to be an independent? Then let him be independent. If he wants to continue backstabbing Democrats, that's fine. Just don't let anyone say that Joe is still part of the Democratic party, because he isn't. The Democratic senatorial candidate for CT lost the race, unfortunately, and Joe is the Republican representative. Joe only ended up getting about 20% of the Democratic vote in the general. That should tell you where real Democrats think he stands.

  by grayslady on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:48:46 AM PDT

•  Joe wants his chairmanship

  Isn't he set to be the Chair of Homeland Security? Can't Reid use that as leverage?

  by keirdubois on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:27 AM PDT

•  We Kiss & Make Up

  I find Joe loathesome.  I suspect if I had to look at Sen. Casey (D-Pa) I'd have many of the same reactions.

  It's a majority party.  That means we have to include more than a few people we disagree with or even (gasp!) don't really like.

  Joe was our nominee for VP two years ago.  He votes with us 90+ percent of the time.  While I wish that the "I" after his name didn't stand for "Israel" (which is what I fear), for now at any rate he has chosen to caucus with us.  

  We move forward with him by embracing him and welcoming him.

  Why do you think they called it "moveon.org?"

  by jimpharo on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:53:51 AM PDT

  •  I beg to differ.

    He's a Bush-kisser.

    See here.

    by Dania Audax on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:07:02 PM PDT

•   We don't have to work with Lieberman

  We don't have to do a thing. We nod when he speaks, we give him his turn. There is no reason to overtly antagonize him. He is a senator and should be accorded respect for his office, not for him. We can shun him in other ways.

  by Interrobanger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:57:36 AM PDT

•  Joe's all air.

  he has no accountability and the sheeple who elected him (not the Democrats who voted against him) are never going to hold his feet to the fire.

  I predict he'll be caucussing with the Republicans within the year.

  by Dania Audax on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:57:44 AM PDT

•  I don't know the answer to that question,

  but it does lead me with some sadness to the fact that lieberman would never ask that question in the reverse.

  He'll go from being "hands-across-the-aisle" Lieberman to "kiss-my-ass" Joe.

  by CJB on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

  •  this is what im afraid of

    so how do we deal with it?

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:08:41 PM PDT

    •  No idea.

      He seems to be really bullet-proof.  I'm just glad that Reid's an adult, 'cuz me?  I'd be flicking spit wads at Joe from behind his seat in the chamber and then ducking when he turned around.

      We'll just wait and see how he behaves.  His tune may change dramatically, actually, now that we're majority in the house and the senate.  Joe may not feel the need to be such an opportunistic douchebag.

      I can dream.

      by CJB on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:19:50 PM PDT

•  Call his bluffs

  If he threatens to bolt the party, let him.  Don't assign him committee seats unless he switches party affiliations back, writes a letter explaining himself, and publicly promises to "speak no evil" of Democrats until 2008.

  by GFW on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

•  We get over it and move on

  I'm really hoping we as a community can lance this boil of hatred and move on.

  350 plus comments on this diary last night/this morning, and who knows how many more diaries and comments scrolling off the edge - let's take the rest of today and get this out of our collective system, then move on.

  Vindictiveness does not serve our progressive agenda. If we push Lieberman to the GOP caucus, as many on this thread and the other I cited passionately advocate, we lose the ability to set committees, set the agenda, and move our cause forward for 2008.

  Do I wish Ned Lamont had won? I do. Do I think he ran as strong a campaign as he could have? Perhaps not - I think his momentum stalled coming our of the primary and he never recovered. Do I think Hillary, Obama, Big Dog or other 'DC' Dems would have moved this election 10 points? Not at all.

  Do I think Lieberman had a better grasp on the Connecticut electorate than we do here on DailyKos? Absolutely. And the folks who really fucked us weren't the establishment Dems - it was the GOP. Had they run a stronger candidate it would have peeled support from Lieberman. Even 15 points might have been enough to tip the balance.

  So - it feels great to bash Joe. Go for it. Get all the vitriol out. But let's try to end it - and end it soon.

  Flame away.

  by Pacific NW Mark on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:11:23 PM PDT

•  We find another conservative Dem to replace

  him as the GO-TO conservative Democrat.  We have several to choose from, and I think marginalizing Joe should be a top priority, if only to put a new face on that wing of the party.  I do not want to see this "Democrat" who was subsidized in his reelection bid by the GOP all over the news in the coming years.  

  He's going to be a huge pain in our ass, and he will do it with glee because he's an egotistical fuckwit.  If the Dem caucus doesn't get that, and instead they give him free reign to undermine us at every turn (which he WILL do based on past evidence), then it's up to us to turn to another conservative Dem - who that may be, I don't know (Hart?), but if WE seek them out and make them OUR go-to guy or gal, we might just be able to end the career of Fox News' Favorite Democrat.

  Joe is definitely the one thorn in this whole joyous new congress.    

  by littlesky on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:24:46 PM PDT

  •  I vote for Jim Webb or Jon Tester (nt)

    by Tamifah on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:32:09 PM PDT