Lieberman Chairs Committee Overseeing Executive Branch [View All]

[orleans]

this is why that fucker turncoat needs to GO GO GO

randi was talking about this tuesday:

"obama says he'd be very happy to have senator liberman continue to caucus with the democrats. ooh, very shrewd. welcome to nuance.

"here's a little thing that is routinely overlooked about the lieberman. take a moment to consider: he is the chairman on the senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. that's the full name of that committee. it's not just homeland security. oh no. it's homeland security and governmental affairs and here's what it actually does: it is the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive; it is the committee that oversees the president's branch.

"congress is basically the tool of oversight. it holds the purse strings and it has the ability to tax. those are the three things that congress is known for. and then they do other things like impeachment and removal which is why it is so important to focus on the governmental affairs committee and lieberman is chairman of it. because if that committee decides to pursue an accusation of wrong-doing against the president then that committee can start the hearings in the senate about wrong-doing.

"now i will tell you--joe lieberman has decided NOT to--in all his years there--not to pursue any accusations of wrong-doing against the bush administration.

(she goes on to say that lieberman's committee is like that of waxman's committee in the house--and while henry waxman has done a ton of oversight, lieberman has done no oversight on bush.)

"now, you piss off lieberman--this is why i think he is clinging to that committee: he. wants. to. be. the. guy. he wants to be the guy that can accuse barack obama of anything he wants to.

"obama is saying leave him alone, this little one's not worth it--move along, he means nothing to us--because i think he (obama) thinks liberman is out the next time he has to run, i think he thinks lieberman has lost respect of a good deal of senators he serves with--there's plenty of senators who have just about had it with him. and a lot of democrats have tolerated lieberman because he held our slim majority in his hands. i don't think he'll finish his turn without becoming a republican.

"i think we ought to get rid of him. i think he ought to be in the home for retired turncoats.

http://www.novamradio.com/live/rhodes_about.php

now, this:

The vote on Lieberman's chairmanship is only seven days away. As such, it's time for some whip counting. First, let's at least count how many are needed to win:


There are currently 49 Democrats in the Senate right now.

Sanders and Lieberman do not vote on the chairmanships, from my understanding. So, the total stays at 49.

The six incoming Democrats who have been confirmed as winners in 2008--Merkley, Mark Udall and Tom Udall--will get to vote. The three candidates whose campaigns have yet to be decided--Begich, Franken and Martin-do not participate. This increases the total to 55.

Neither Biden nor Obama, nor their replacements, will be around for the November 18th vote. So, subtract two, and we are at 53.

27 votes are needed to win.

Twenty-seven votes to win, but what are the various camps?

Six members of the Senate--Carper, Inouye, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor and Salazar--publicly backed Lieberman over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont two years ago. As such, it is safe to mark these six in Lieberman's column. They all backed Joe running against a Democrat once before, so why would this be any different?

Evan Bayh (a former DLC chair who was eyeing a Presidential bid back in 2006) and Chris Dodd (also from Connecticut) have come out in support of Lieberman. This brings Lieberman's total to eight.

Howard Fineman's report that Durbin and Schumer are opposed to Lieberman keeping the Homeland Security Chairmanship. While this technically only means two votes against Lieberman, Durbin is #2 in the Senate, and has close ties to Obama. Schumer is the DSCC chair who has overseen the first election of fifteen of the Democratic Senators who will be at the meeting. Those fifteen Senators also won't appreciate Lieberman running against Democrats in 2006 and 2008, since they were all elected in those two years. That is an awful lot of support cutting against Lieberman, potentially even a fatal amount.

Harry Reid also opposes Lieberman keeping the chairmanship. If he didn't, then what would all of this arguing even be about? It is an outside possibility that he supports Lieberman but is getting pressure from Durbin and Schumer, but I don't think so. All of the leaks from Reid's meetings with Lieberman indicate Reid wants to strip Lieberman of the chairmanship.

In addition to Schumer, Reid, and Durbin, nineteen other incumbent Democrats who will be in the Senate in 2010 publicly supported Ned Lamont back in 2006. These are our best chance for votes among sitting Senators.
Overall, these numbers leave me cautiously optimistic. We have the leadership on our side, while Lieberman basically has the Democratic half of the Gang of Fourteen. We also have a large number of first-term Senators who will probably vote with the leadership, and also a large pool of Lamont supporters to lobby. It's far from secure, but I like our chances.

I like our chances even more if we keep contacting Democratic Senators
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9875

my senators are obama and durbin. i contacted durbin.

please contact your dem senator.

(lieberman will have impeachment on the table for obama beginning the afternoon of jan. 20th.)