I've also heard from a Senate staffer that Obama has sent word that he wants Lieberman in the caucus. Now to be clear, the word isn't "let Lieberman chair Homeland Security", it's "keep him around". The logic is pretty obvious -- it allows Obama to look like he's not vindictive. (Kind of funny for a guy who just chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.)
Why should Lieberman lose his committee?:
- Lieberman has been ineffective at his committee, shielding Bush from criticisms about the war and Katrina.
- Lieberman took to the campaign trail and spoke at the RNC conference bashing Democrats and Obama on ... national security.
So functionally, Lieberman has been a Republican on the issue of National Security the past two years.
Why should Lieberman keep his committee?:
- Lieberman votes with Dems 90 percent of time (except for National Security), and
- and that's pretty much it.
Those facts actually suggest that the best solution is to move Lieberman from a policy area in which he is a functional Republican, over to an area where his philosophy is more agreeable to the Democratic majority. Seems obvious enough.
What are Lieberman's options?
- Keep his committee, stay happy undermining Obama on Iraq and other national security issues.
- Lose his committee, stay in the caucus as a backbencher.
- Lose his national security committee, pick up a new committee where he lines up philosophically with Democrats.
- Lose his committee, caucus with the minority Republicans.
If he switches allegiances, his already-tough reelection chances in 2012 become next-to-nil. He could do that in a fit of pique, but his political obituary would be written. And a Republican caucus that is increasingly hostile to dissent wouldn't be the most welcome home for a senator who ultimately, as noted above, votes with Democrats 90 percent of the time. Are we seriously to believe that Lieberman would switch parties and suddenly would be a reliable anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-labor vote for the GOP?
The case for stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security committee chairmanship is open and shut. And not even Obama is arguing he should stay there (assuming the reports are correct).
So Democrats have three choices:
- Let him keep his committee chairmanship,
- Offer him a new one, or
- Strip him of everything.
I suspect with Obama's edict (again, assuming such reports are accurate), #3 is off the table as it looks too much like retribution and for whatever bizarre reason, that's apparently bad. Democrats love playing the "battered spouse" bit. But option #2 is still available.
Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters.
So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out.
One last point: Whatever concerns the Obama administration might be making, the Senate is still run by Harry Reid. Or at least it supposedly is. If Reid can't be his own man, and run the place according to his own wishes, not only does he deserve to lose his leadership spot, but his seat when he's up for reelection in 2010.
We've seen what happened to Congress when they decided they no longer were an independent branch of government, rather an appendage of the White House. It wasn't pretty. We don't need more of the same.