Why has LIEberman been in the Democratic caucus since the 2010 election?

[SwampG8r]

why has theis worm not been stripped of his seats?
We no longer have the false threat of him voting against us
Why have we not kicked this turncoat to the curb?

[tavalon]

1. Careful, you look too far down that rabbit hole, you aren't going to like what you see

Trust me. If you want to remain a relatively happy Democrat, don't go down that path.

[freshwest]

2. Only because he gave a voting majority for committee chairmanships. It allowed the Dems to control .

Some legislation and appointments, but it hasn't worked as well as it could if the GOP hadn't raised their obstruction to the highest level ever seen.

The Democrats ran a progressive against Liebermann but he could not be defeated in his state and is going to be there. He was the tipping point o have that majority, and he's played it to the hilt. Otherwise, the Dems would be in the same position they were in during the Bush years.

At the time Liebermann was elected as an independent, Franken was denied his seat for months through GOP lawsuits. Another Senator had a brain aneurysm that kept him from being on the floor of the Senate, but since he was alive, and could still communicate, he was the third person needed to make a majority for assignments.

It was upon those three men that the majority depended. So that's why, and it's why they have had to compromise with him on things he wants. It's been very thin and the Democrats may lose the Senate this year and then it'll be pure GOP bills.

That's why the focus on Obama is overdone. He cannot spend without the approval of Congress. He couldn't close Gitmo because Congress and a media firestorm erupted when he wanted to bring the POWs to the USA and give them due process. No matter what he did, they denied him the money. The media said he wanted to bring them into the USA as Islamist agents to commit terrorism. There has been so much garbage out there since Day One.

[MFrohike]

3. Incorrect

Lieberman was essential for a supermajority, not a majority.

He retains his chairmanships due to weakness. When Obama interceded on his behalf, he showed the world that he would not settle scores, even when absolutely necessary. If a president won't allow someone who actively campaigned for the other party to be subject to party discipline, it sends a clear signal to the world that he lacks the ability to conduct low politics effectively. In short, it makes everyone think he has no balls.

Before anyone brings up the argument about obstructionism, he interceded for Lieberman at the very start of the new Congress. It was not at all apparent that the GOP would abuse the living hell out of the filibuster as they've done for the last 3 years. Elevated use of it was likely expected, as they've adopted the old Southern Caucus strategy to an extreme, but the levels of obstruction we've seen were likely not anticipated. Between the lines, I don't think it was done to garner a supermajority.

It's funny, though. Not disciplining Lieberman has actually emboldened him. It's sort of like a political proof of the concept of moral hazard in the financial system.

[SwampG8r]

4. but that was then...why do we still let him caucus with us? nt

[sofa king]

7. I think there are two main reasons.

One reason is that once a Senator sticks around for awhile, that person becomes a political force as large as or greater than the party that person represents. Think Jesse Helms: a permanent embarrassment to the GOP, yet reelected decade after decade because of the personal power he accrued. Helms rarely wrote a bill of his own, much less passed one, and his intransigence damaged his own party at least as much as he hurt the Democrats. But they couldn't run him off. Helms was a big reason why the Republicans have never controlled the Senate for any considerable length of time since the 1960s.

Lieberman is similar in many ways to Jesse Helms, but for the moment he has more value to the Democratic Senate than he is a liability.

The second reason is that when Lieberman stepped out of line earlier this year, he got a good talking to from Harry Reid. It's easy to guess what was discussed: keep acting the asshole, and his committee assignments will be stripped, his kickbacks and earmarks will be noted and publicly discussed, and his cozy relationship with the most criminal political party in the history of the world will be underscored. There must be literally hundreds of felony charges still waving about in the air from the Bush Era, waiting to be used, and L almost certainly has a few of his own waiting for him out there.

So he shut the fuck up. No campaigning with the other guys. No filibustering his own party's bills. Party line votes as dependable as a touch-screen voting booth in a southern state. He'll still buck up from time to time but I'll be genuinely surprised if he does something that inhibits the Democrats in the Senate or jeopardizes the reelection campaign of the President.

Which makes him our little kept bitch. His primary job now is to not be a Republican, and while that's asking a lot of him to do that, he's delivering.

[Richardo]

11. Nicely put

[TheKentuckian]

12. He needed appropriations for Gitmo north, not to simply do as Bush had done on hundreds

Rutof occasions already and proceed with trials and even released plenty.

Obama didn't want to do that, he wanted to avoid making waves and he wanted to permently detain some number because he couldn't put them on trial and was afraid to follow the law and release them (probably with really good reason, which doesn't matter we have to release potentially very dangerous people) so his "solution" to closing Gitmo was to put one on American soil, and close the infamous location as PR and that needed a special appropriation.

In the end, about six months to the day after taking office Obama signed his own handcuffs on this matter and in doing so we see a President knuckling under to essentially an unconstitutional overreach on executive power and set up this perverse encarceration without trial or even charge.

Hell, he could have had his cake and eat it too, he could have cleared out the gulag under existing authority and after the last guy was out still signed the bill and avoided all the spitball fights about screwing the troops.
Which would have side stepped the overreach issues because with Gitmo empty, it would apply to no actual people. He then could close the empty prison on his own authority as Commander in Chief.

I find it curious that folks want to hang on the refusal to fund Gitmo North as the real hand wringer, when if successful it would just be Gitmo North and seen as such. Closing the infamous gulag would be nothing more than a PR event.
It was heading toward fulfilling the letter while losing the spirit anyway.

[Tx4obama]

5. Lieberman will be retiring from The Senate at the end of 2012. See link below

List of U.S. Senators that have 'announced' that they are NOT running in 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110090

[Fumesucker]

6. You mean former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Lieberman?

The Lieberman that was Al Gore's running mate?

Because he truly represents what the Democratic party is all about, maintaining the power of the 1%.

[brooklynite]

8. Because most of the time he votes with the Democratic Party...

according to the Washington Post, 90% of the time, including critical votes like DADT repeal, the DREAM Act, and Health Care reform. Is he a progressive? No, but the unpleasant reality is that neither are the majority of Democratic voters.

[Gman]

9. Lieberman made it 60

What? You want him to caucus with the GOP? I suggest a primer in how legislation gets passed in today's Congress.

Actually, he's been caucusing with the Democrats since he won as an independent.

[surfdog]

10. Because we need his vote , simple as that