Here's a guy who the party elevated to VP, who ran for the presidential slot in 2004 on the party, and who turned traitor during an election cycle based on who knows what rationale (even if he agreed with McCain on national security -- he jeopardized the economic and social issues that were also at stake).

Lieberman should definitely lose his chairmanship -- that's an absolute no brainer at this stage.  

The boot out of the party caucus is something they'll have to mull over.

I don't even see this as punishment per se.  Punishment is what the effect of a John McCain presidency would be on families living on the edge of poverty.  Loosing a chairmanship is small peanuts in comparison.  

It's simple consequences. There are sides in Washington, and he chose his, plain and simple. His side lost, he loses with them. Off and out.

Thanks!

Steve

This guy is just like Benedict Lambert, he not only endorsed the Republican running against our nominee, he campaigned for him, spoke at their convention, and slandered our guy.  If there's no punishment of Joe the Traitor, what message does that send about the Democratic Party?  That someone can walk all over us, stab us in the back, slap us in the face and we won't defend ourselves?  No. F***ing. Way.

Who say "give him another chance" won't go to bat for him.  I can get passed him campaigning for McCain.  It is difficult to get passed his verbal attacks on Obama.

If these comments are any indicator of overall sentiment, I'd say Lieberman's goose is cooked.  I suspect we'll find out how cooked soon.

After winning re-election by promising his constituents that he would stay a Democrat and support the Democratic party he turned around and acted like a Rush Limbaugh clone.  In this campaign, he said that Barack Obama would to harm the troops, he called Obama a Marxist, and he said that Sarah Palin was perfectly qualified to be president.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, get the hell out of our caucus asshole.

1) He loses his Homeland Security Chair--not negotiable
2) He keeps any other seniority and committee/subcommittee posts if he signs a statement that he will not run for reelection in 2012 and will actively support the Democratic candidate to replace him.
3) If he does not accept both 1 and 2, he's booted out of the caucus and he can see how much the "new" Republican Party is willing to give him.
If Harry Reid does not punish Lieberman at all? HE should be removed.
Elections have consequences.

This has got to be my favorite.

Perhaps this is why I'll never be in politics; I just can't get into what I perceive as behavior that belongs in a child's sandbox aka "payback".  OK -- yup -- you're all right -- he did a really rotten thing in (a) getting behind McCain; (b) campaigning for him; (c) saying some not so nice things about Obama -- all of it.  But look at his record prior to McCain's campaign -- was he -- EXCEPT for this -- a loyal and productive Democrat? Others might disagree but I think he was.  Is it better to permanently make an enemy out of one who was, at one time, a friend or to extend the hand of forgiveness?  If you believe that the long term consequences of the former (booting him out -- out of the caucus, out of chairmanship, and out of the Senate) are worth the potential cost of losing someone who, except for his recent aberration from the norm, would be an effective and productive member of the "team", then OK -- go ahead, do it.  But if we were voting for change, were we not also voting for a change from the vengeful, spiteful, payback behavior that has been the hallmark of Bush's administration lo these past 8 yrs?  Is that what we really want?  I don't think so - I know I don't. Let mercy towards Senator Lieberman herald that change.  

It's not an issue of payback, but an issue of fairness. Josh Marhsall has it exactly right (emphasis is mine):

I think much of what Lieberman did over the last year was inexcusable. But magnanimity in victory is always a virtue and usually wise. So I don't think it's necessary to expel him from the caucus. And perhaps there are some perks of seniority he could be allowed to retain. But allowing him to keep his chairmanship is simply unacceptable. It's a position the Democrats hold because of the joint efforts of Democrats across the country pulling together to support Democratic policies and ideals and elect Democratic candidates. For Lieberman to enjoy the fruits of that labor after working so hard to stymie that effort would be unconscionable.

Lieberman says his position was one of conscience. And out of generosity more than reason, I'm willing to believe that. But as he so often says, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that he was a "loyal and productive Democrat" prior to this election. Pointedly, Lieberman lost his Democratic primary to Ned Lamont in 2006 and chose to run for office as an Independent. Since then, he has been neither loyal, productive, nor, indeed, a Democrat.

n/t

OK -- deny him his chairmanship. Not sure I agree with your last comment -- don't dispute the facts -- just the statement that by running as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary that this implicitly means that he is no longer a Democrat. However -- let's also not forget Mr Marshall's case for magnanimity, which I stated in somewhat different terms.  I want the re-ascendancy of the Democratic party in our government to also be a renunciation of the unproductive mean-spiritness that I've so detested the past 8 yrs.  

to run as an independent in 2006 in and of itself shouldn't have disqualified him for the chairmanship assignment.

What's gotten people are his actions since receiving the chairmanship.  

Not only did he actively campaign against the Democratic nominee for president this year -- making some incendiary charges.

He also actively campaigned against Democratic challengers running for Senate this year (e.g. in Minnesota and Maine).  Effectively Lieberman worked to undermine the Democratic platform this election cycle.

I think Liebreman needs to be the Rose of the Democrats, deny him chairmanship, then make a statement to the Democratic caucus a long the lines of this, "Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's record and many other records but because he gambled on his team, he can't be eligible for the Baseball Hall of Hame, and is basically banned to baseball Syberia, likewise Joe Liebreman, may vote with Democrats on the environment and abortion and other Democratic issues but in the end thought those took a back seat to Iraq War, to the point of actively campaigning for the enemy, therefore he will be stripped from responsibility  all committee assignments. He will still however be able to vote with the Democrats.  I deeply regret doing this, Joe is a friend of mine, but we need to say everyone will have disagreements over issues when it comes to the party line,but that's normal, what isn't normal is doing that plus rooting for the other side. Because Joe did, not only did he lose his assignments but he also accepted the lot of should his side lose, the spoils belong to the victors. Well he lost, because his side lost and he needs to pay a price.  I'm sure members of the Democratic caucus will concur with this acceptable form of punishment."

That'll send signals, from Democrats having spine to things Democrats shouldn't do.

A chairmanship should be a reward for a loyal democrat.  When he ran as an independent he lost his place in line.   The question is who gets the reward of a chairmanship.  

Should we punish a loyal Democrat by allowing Lieberman to jump the line? The loyal democrat that doesn't get a Chairmanship because of Lieberman is the one that I worry about.  

endorsed by the party and agreeing that if I did I could be removed from the party committee. When the occasion arose that I had to oppose a democratically endorsed candidate because of illegal and unethical conduct, I resigned from the party first because my pledge meant something to me.

Joe the Liar promised his fellow Democratic Senators not to attack Obama then he went out and attacked Obama across the country.

The man cannot be trusted.  He must be removed from the chairmanship.  If he leaves the caucus, good riddance.  

He won't get re-elected either way.

Lieberman made his bed, now let him sleep in it.

Let Lieberman be Secretary of Homeland Security. It's not a post where he can do a lot of damage, and if he tries, he's out on his kiester. It makes Obama look magnanimous, working as part of his announced "reach across the aisle" approach. And, yes, it gives Lieberman a chance to save face, which may or may not be deserved.

More importantly, it gets him out of the Senate four years early. Even if he stays in the caucus, he can't be trusted to toe the line on those all-important cloture votes. Better to open up the seat for a real Democrat like Ned Lamont. And if that means not getting revenge, it's a small price to pay.

Getting Lieberman out of the Senate is highly tempting...

What is there to be pragmatic about? In the last congress, it was in Lieberman and the Democratic Party's mutual interests to cut a deal.

I'm just not sure what leverage Lieberman brings to this game that he really has any say in the matter. It's like Reid is holding a full house, and Lieberman, trying to fill an inside straight, has an 8-high, and we're thinking about splitting the pot in some fashion.

Give him a minor committee. Give him a subcommittee. Hell, give him the huge Homeland Security Department (although I'm not sure he would be unable to make mischief from that post). At least that has some benefit of getting him out of the Senate, although his ability to really affect events in that body seems pretty limited to me, as far as Senatorial stuff goes.

But what is he bringing to the table?

A vote in a Senate where it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. But is Lieberman really going to vote with the Republicans to uphold a filibuster against, say, environmental or labor legislation?  I doubt it.

he'd be in Reid's office, asking for something in return, and we'd just be going through this repeatedly. The whole idea behind being the 60th vote is that you will meet your responsibilities as a party member when the party needs you. Lieberman has already said he is above and beyond that, so what good is his membership in the caucus when it means nothing to him outside of his own self-aggrandizement.

The best tool the Democrats have to fight the filibuster is public opinion. With Obama in the WH, and a 56-57 seat majority in the Senate, not to mention grave problems facing the country, obstuctionism just won't fly.

To tell you the truth, I hope the GOP tries. It will just be another step toward oblivion for them.

Also, remember, the worst case is that Lieberman is around until 2012 if we simply freeze him out.

At the end of the day, if Reid just hangs tough and gives Lieberman something to save face, he will accept whatever he is given, because he is not highly principled, and that will be preferable to being  an unpopular member of the minority party for the last four years of his career.

I'm thinking Iceland or Switzerland.

Thank heavens. Another  excellent sign that an Obama Presidency will be one that I will be proud of and not have to explain away  with embarrassment to folks I deal with from outside the US.