Harkin: Lieberman Has Something to Lose

[ProSense]

Harkin: Lieberman Has Something to Lose

By Matthew DeLong

The Iowa Independent caught this quote from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), talking about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) recent threat to join a GOP filibuster of a health care bill that includes a public health insurance plan.

“(Lieberman) still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the (Homeland Security) committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic Caucus. So, I’m sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote.”

That’s the first time I’ve heard a congressional Democrat bring up Lieberman’s chairmanship as something the Connecticut senator might lose if he were to vote against a Democratic health bill.

[AllentownJake]

1. It is a Caucus

If the caucus is angry enough they can go over Harry's head.

[PearliePoo2]

2. Now we're talkin'

Oh Joe.....incoming across your bow.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I wish that were true

Lieberman is unelectable at this point so he's a lame duck.

I see incredible wealth in Joementum's future as a full-time shill for Connecticut insurance interests.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if numbers have been mentioned already.

And he'll get to spend more time with his family since his wife is already holding a place at the trough.

[ProSense]

5. Why do you think it's not true. "Lieberman is unelectable at this point so he's a lame duck."

Then he can be a lame duck without a chairmanship.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I am assuming that Harkin is referring to leverage.

Obviously Joe has things to lose in the abstract.

The question is whether he has anything to lose that is more important to him than trashing HCR.

Since he is going to get a truckload of money the moment he leaves the Senate if he plays ball trashing HCR that probably more than balances the loss of his chairmanship for three years.

Put another way, if Joe's chairmanship is more important to him than being a bought-and-paid-for shill then he probably wouldn't have pulled this stunt in the first place.

[ProSense]

9. "if Joe's chairmanship is more important to him" Did you missed how he begged for it

in the aftermath of the election? Regardless, boot him if he doesn't support the bill.

[harkadog]

18. What makes you think Lieberman is unelectable?

What has changed since his last election? Nothing.

[CTLawGuy]

24. he supported McCain and Sarah Palin

that did not go over well in my state. Mainstream Dems will be unafraid to challenge Lieberman in 2012. Also the 33% of Dems who supported him as an independnet are having major buyers remorse because of his 08 campaign activities, among other things.

[senseandsensibility]

4. Tom Harkin is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party

K amd R :kick:

[tinrobot]

6. I'm convinced that's why they gave him the chairmanship.

Because it gives them a bargaining chip.

[tritsofme]

7. It is my understanding that it would require a new organizing resolution to strip Joe of his chair

and this would face a cloture vote, which would surely fail.

I don't think it is as easy a snap of the finger midsession.

[ProSense]

10. Lieberman isn't a Democrat, and all it takes is a caucus vote. n/t

[tritsofme]

11. Committee assignments are set through the organizing resolution.

I don't see how Democrats can alter this document unilaterally.

[ProSense]

12. The organizing resolution has nothing to do with who holds the chair or a spot on the committee

It's an allocation of slots.

[tritsofme]

19. I believe you are incorrect on this point.

See the organizing resolution for the 110th Congress:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-27

If Leadership were to seek changes, they would need a new organizing resolution, and it would face a cloture vote.

The chair is a Senate position, not a caucus one.

[Clio the Leo]

13. Makes you want to call him up and .....

..... in a really creep voice go, "we're going to take your title!!!!"

and then hang up real fast. :)

[calimary]

15. Well, we should also be calling OTHER Dem senators.

Tell them there's a lot of support for yanking lieberman's chairmanship if he votes with the enemy. We've forgiven him FAR too much already, imo.

[beltanefauve]

21. Petition here:

http://boldprogressives.org/majorityvote/p-typ-fb

[Cha]

22. Thank you, I shall do my

best to pass this around!

[calimary]

25. Excellent! Thanks - and I put in on my Facebook page, too!

What I like about this the most is hearing other voices starting to say the same thing. REALLY beautiful to hear Harkin voicing this out loud. It needs to be out there, it needs to be said, it needs to be brought up, again and again and again! The more it spreads, the more (hopefully) that swine lieberman and others will start to feel the walls closing in on them. They need to be made VERY painfully aware that there may be pretty serious consequences for going rogue like this, and siding with THE ENEMY. And just WHY does TRAITOR joe deserve to have a frickin' committee chairmanship? He isn't even a Dem anymore. For him and his ilk, it has to be more and more uncomfortable and even painful to have to face rising and angrier choruses of "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON, ASSHOLE?"

[goclark]

14. Let's Get Going!

[Cha]

16. Perfect! And, much damn better than

Senator Dodd's whiny response.

[Jennicut]

17. Holy Joe will run as an independent again, leaning rethuglican.

He did not get elected with major Dem support here in CT anyway so I wonder if he cares about hanging out with the Dems in the Senate anymore.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Yes he should know he will lose his Chair, definately...

But pressure also needs to be mounted against Lieberman in CT to whatever extent possible right now. I wonder if phone banks should be set up to call CT voters. We know the drill by now.

[zulchzulu]

23. Don't f*ck with Tom, Lieberdroid n/t