Obama Shunning Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is now reaching out to Obama and Biden to make nicey-nice, save his Homeland Security Chairmanship, let bygones be bygones, yadda yadda.  But Obama evidently handed him off to Biden, even as he’s taking calls from Republicans.  (As Markos says, "So he’s reaching out to key Senators, yet when Lieberman calls, he’s handed off to Biden?  Doesn’t sound like Obama doesn’t hold grudges.")

Before the Democrats in the exclusive Senate club make any more moves regarding Joe’s gavel, they might want to listen to Rachel Maddow’s comment last night:

The Democrats want 60 seats in the Senate so they want to hold on to Lieberman. But their plans for keeping him in his chairmanship, not punishing him at all, maybe just asking for an apology, those plans don’t make sense. What makes sense to me is do to Lieberman what happened to the Democrats who supported Barry Goldwater or George Wallace in elections past. They lost their committee jobs.

And then yes, maybe he will quit or become a Republican. But you know what? Joe Lieberman is not going to vote with the Democrats on important and contentious stuff like Iraq and torture. He might not even vote with Democrats on other things. Since he told Glenn Beck on Election Day that he fears for the survival of the country if the Republicans can’t filibuster the Democrats.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, HOST, "THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM": If we don’t, at least have the fire wall of the filibuster in the Senate, that in many ways America will not survive.

LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it’s not like that but I fear, and I think the filibuster is a key.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MADDOW: The filibuster is key. So Lieberman is probably not going to be with the Democrats in the 60-vote kill-the-filibuster-majority, right? Listen, Democrats. You have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won’t get your 60 votes.

But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election. You do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government. And you do get your political soul and your political dignity back.

And you probably get the satisfaction of seeing Joe Lieberman trying to run for re-election as a Republican next time around in New England. And that would probably be hilarious.

Got that, Dems?  Lieberman doesn’t believe you should get 60 votes.   So the argument for keeping him around, on the basis that he’ll deliver the magic 60 to you, are completely irrational.

I’m blogging for The Nation this month, where John Nichols writes "Keep Lieberman in the Caucus (For Now)" I counter with "Give Lieberman the Bum’s Rush (Forever)." 

Nichols says:

Without Lieberman, it is tough to see how Democrats get to the filibuster-proof position that is the last piece of the puzzle of a governing majority.

Why is it so hard to understand that when Lieberman says he thinks a filibuster-proof majority is a dangerous thing, he means what he says?   I think the "oh Joe would never do that" arguments should’ve ceased a while ago, somewhere between the time he pulled the plug on Katrina investigations for the GOP and when he accused Obama of undermining the troops.

You can sign the petition telling them to Just Say No to Joe here.

Related posts:

1. Lieberman Says He’ll Filibuster Health Bill; What’s Obama Going to Do?
2. Rachel Maddow Redux: Dangers of Keeping Lieberman in Caucus (from November 2008)
3. Dodd: Reprimanding Lieberman is “Ridiculous”
4. It’s Black Friday
5. Lieberman for Anything