Somewhere in the remote caves outside Waziristan....

EXCITED AL-QAEDA HENCHMAN:  Fearless leader!  Good news in the Washington Post today!

OSAMA BIN LADEN:  Did they finally buy out Tom Shales?

HENCHMAN:  Even better!  The infidel Lieberman has been stripped of his chairmanship, O Most Wonderfully Bearded One!  

BIN LADEN:  Excellent!  Then the final piece of the puzzle is in place.  Get Project: Omega Codex into action immediately! That foolish Harry Reid has no idea what a blunder he's made!  Mwuahahahaha!

Not sure why removing the traitor Lieberman from his important chairmanship of Homeland Security is "lunacy" or "absurd". This man has broken every promise he's made to the Dem leadership and Obama, and repeatedly stabbed them in the back during O's presidential run.

If Lieberman were a Republican, the retaliation would have been instant and severe!

I agree with KOS that Harry Reid has been a huge disappointment in his leadership style and should removed as majority leader. We need a true Dem leader here, and not a whiny wimp like "Fightin"" Harry Reid has been.

And his talking style is atrocious...every time he makes an important speech he looks like he's ljust finished a big Thanksgiving dinner and wants nothing more than to fall asleep on the couch.

You psuedo-progressives here at TNR are often wrong...this might be part of the reason you're losing readership...

HENCHMAN:  WE'VE GOT JOE-MENTUM!

BIN LADEN: That pun makes no sense in our language (shoots henchman).

Curtian.

Maybe Liberman will go all 'First Blood' on Harry Reid and run off in search of Bin Laden himself.  He'll tie on the bandana, grab his explosive tipped arrows and run off into the hills of Waziristan.  We'll try in vain to bring him back but ultimately he shows up back in DC holding Bin Laden's head.  Then, he'll beat Reid to a pulp and claim his rightful throne as Chair of Homeland Security.

If I were more ambitious, I'd put together a movie script.  All I can manage is an abstract though...

Oh, you meant it as a question?  I thought it was a Victorian imperative - rather clever, it would have been ...

If the Dems welcome Lieberman back, or worse, welcome him back without exacting punishment it will prove they are pushovers.

They can let Lieberman be chairman of whatever committee they want, as far as I'm concerned. Just so long as Lieberman does not receive any classified briefings related to sensitive issues of national security. I'm not fool enough to trust Lieberman not to leak potentially embarrassing information. And I don't say that entirely on account of his partisan disloyalty -- the man is a shameless media whore who's now trying to rehabilitate his reputation starting with the Washington media establishment. He's an unacceptable leak risk on grounds of person political predicament alone.

Then there's the substantive issue of his being chairman of an important committee who will have zero ability to build meaningful legislative coalitions within the Democratic caucus unless someone else does the heavy lifting. Lieberman's lack of influence in the majority caucus makes his chairmanship of that committee a real danger to national security. That's a committee whose chairman the majority caucus has to trust, because they have to rely largely on his word when considering homeland security legislation. Lieberman can't possibly be an effective chairman of that committee. Either he doesn't understand this, in which case he's just not up to the job of being chairman of any committee on account of fundamental cluelessness, or he does understand that his title puts the nation at marginally greater risk and he says to himself, "Screw the country, I want that title."

While Kos's rhetoric is overheated (come on, it's Kos), I am astonished that there is ANY possibility of Lieberman retaining his chairmanship.  Come on, guys.  We won.  Grow a pair.  Bipartisanship is fine, but party discipline does need to be enforced when someone transgresses so egregiously as this guy.

At this point it's all symbolic. The American people care about Joe Lieberman about as much as they care about William Ayers.

Joe is scenery for Kos to chew. Willy Loman to McCain's Ben. If he's removed from his chair, only the pixels on a thousand blogs will remain, before fading, like LBJ's gallbladder scar; the organ was painful for a while, but ultimately unnecessary. The operation was a success. Or maybe he's Prometheus, with Reid flying by on occasion to gnaw at his liver. Either way, it's about bile.

Lieberman is a walking metaphor, forever dependent for meaning upon external objects.

Let's just change one letter and fix the punctuation.  Wither, Lieberman.  Sounds good to me.

The first two moves of this drama have already taken place, and the third is coming soon:

1 - Obama has "signaled" (i.e. leaked) that he supports Lieberman's place in the caucus and chairing his committee.

2 - Reid and Lieberman have met and Reid has expressed his displeasure while not making a decision, effectively punting to the Dem Caucus.

Thus Obama maintains his air of Caesarean willingness to pardon his enemies, while Reid covers his ass and avoids responsibility.

I predict the following final moves in this pas de deux:

3 - The Dem Caucus meets and, in a vote by secret ballot, expels Lieberman.

4 - Lieberman sucks it up, asks for forgiveness, and is moved to another committee but not Homeland Security.  He is let back into the Dem Caucus.

Punishment is meted out.  Repentance is expressed.  All is forgiven.  Future transgressors are forewarned.

Bi-partisanship is fine but Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front.  

By the way, I agree with Tim's take on this one.

Rhubs:

Joementum was Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, so he'll have access to classified briefings. Worse, Joetraitor didn't hold one hearing into Bush Administration mismanagment and misdeeds.

Obama has not "signaled" his support of Lieberman continuing to chair his committee, tim. Obama's flack only mentioned keeping Holy Joe in the caucus.

Forget Lieberman's support of McCain, his phony bipartisanship in the Senate and even his disgusting smearing of Obama and the Senate Dems (it's a good question whether Obama is a Marxist, 60 Dems in the Senate would bring on the doom of the nation, etc.). He has been a HORRIBLE committee chairman. Just awful. He conducted exactly no oversight over the Bush admin's disastrous handling of Katrina (breaking of one of his re-election promises), and he similarly has done nothing to check or probe or otherwise look at Bush's equally disastrous homeland security record. For that alone, he should be reassigned, at the very least.

arsonplus:  "Bi-partisanship is fine but Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front."

Yeah, right, but come on, give the guy a break -- after all, we don't want TOO much intelligence!  If we understood the Arabic stuff we'd have to bring a whole new perspective into play.

I'm with tec on this - if Dems wuss out on this, they look like a bunch of chumps.

One thing to remember, which DC insiders never do, is morale in the field - we Democrats out here in the universe are sick and tired of Lieberman calling us terrorist lovers and traitors and nothing happening to him, except a bunch of self serving neo-cons and their lovers calling him principled for it.  Argh.  ENOUGH with this S and M relationship already.

If Obama and Co allow him to get away with this, then it hurts the troops - we're less inclined to vote, donate, organize, etc.  No, I am no exaggerating.  

Ice Holy Joe, he was seriously rotten at his job first of all and second of all, begged for it.

(then again, Obama may be the Zen master on this after all - get points for being magnanimous and simply wait for him to be booted by his own voters, utterly de-legitimizing the man. Smart.)

arsonplus:  "Bi-partisanship is fine but Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front."

I tried to find out about cutting funding for Arab studies through Google, but couldn't find anything.  What are you referring to?

Hope Tim and arsonplus are right, but I wouldn't count on Reid or the other Dem Senate leaders to show any cojones on this issue...up til now, they might as well have been castrated and branded with the Republican logo!

The only thing I could find concerning Lieberman and funding Arab studies was this from a speech he gave in 2005:

"Last year Senator McCain and I authored legislation -signed into law by President Bush as part of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - that creates an International Youth Opportunity Fund - a fund we hope other nations will help shape and support.

The Fund will pay for constructing and operating new primary and secondary schools and libraries in the Middle East. It also mandates an increase in exchange programs that will send more of our students to Arab countries and bring more Arab students to the United States."

www.securityconference.de/.../rede.php

That would suggest that he has been a proponent of Arab studies and exchange with Arab countries.

Reid should be sacked on his performance alone. As for Lieberman, who cares? He's a turd - tell me something I didn't already know. Just ignore him.

Mpatrick's post reminded me of something.  In countries with established aristocracies, when the holder of a title dies without issue, the title is recycled.  Now that Rove and the Rove machine are out, can we annoint Sanctimonious Joe with the title of "Turd Blossom"?

BIGM

I was referring to the senate version of [HR 3077 ] The International Studies in Higher Education Act ... which was born of a report smoking Joe and Lynne Cheney worked on: "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It,"  

I recall that the NEA published a report on the subject and that salon ran an article you could probably Google up.

NEA as in National Education Assoc  by the way.

Eh.  Who cares?  I'm with Zengerle.  Why all the vindictiveness for and against Lieberman?  He's an idiot, and a tool, but he's also a vote in the Senate we, and Obama need, to get actual important things done, on health care, the economy, global warming, energy, etc.  Lieberman seems to move rightward when he gets piqued, like in the '04 primaries or the '06 challenge.  He's still in his seat, thanks to the voters of Connecticut, for all of Obama's first term.  Be the bigger man, take his votes, see if, given the overall shuffle in the Committees going on anyway thanks toe the departures of Byrd and Biden from the chairs of Appropriations and Foreign Relations, respectively, to shuffle Lieberman to some other Chairmanship.  Otherwise, man up and realize we have actual things to get done, he's still technically a Democrat, and without the twin siren songs of McCain his buddy and the blogosphere wounding his ego he'll get back to being the Democrat he is.

This need to purge disloyal members is what's helped get Republicans in trouble.  Look at how great all the Club for Growth purges have ended up: With Democrats in those Red districts.  In '06, Dems totally kneecapped their Gubernatorial candidate by obsessing over Lieberman-Lamont.  Money that could've been helpful in expanding our  majorities in the Senate and House could have gone to better use.  Look at what happened to FDR in 1938:  His purges failed miserably, and when he needed Dems to vote with him on key things like replacing the Neutrality Act, Senators that even agreed with him (like Walter George of GA) were still pissed at the attempted purge.  Majorities are won by big tents, not small, purist enclaves.  We've got three Senate races still out, a boatload of a legislative agenda starting in January, and a Country in crisis.  Why fight this petty squabble when we can co-opt him to tackle what really matters?

Fuck Lieberman. Let him go seat with his Rep buddies.

Crock,

You aren't making unreasonable points but you are missing something simple ... Joe's gavel.  Don't the people volunteering for and donating to Jim Martin right now deserve better? Reid can cut Joe a break if he wants to, but the next time the DNC hits folks here in Illinois up for cash, they are going to get less of it, and they should.

I'm not talking purism here. I considered HR 3077 retarded, suicidal and just plain offensive and don't see any part of opposing the ideology and individuals responsible for it as petty.

"Bi-partisanship is fine but Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front."

"Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) announced today that the West Hartford Public School System will receive more than $200,000 over the course of three years under the Foreign Language Assistance Program - Local Education Agency (FLAP-LEA). These grants are intended for study of less-commonly taught foreign languages. [-]

These grants help local schools provide foreign language instruction in one or more of the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and languages in the Indic, Iranian, and Turkic language families. The innovative nature of the program, its use of technology, and other similar factors are also considered as part of the competitive application process. "

lieberman.senate.gov/.../release.cfm

Can someone explain what is being taught in "Arab studies"? Arabic, Arabic literature, Arab history, or Arabism according to the orientalist school of Edward Said, which is just another word for rabid anti-Zionism? Who are the great names of Arab studies?  Rashid Khalidi? Joseph Massad? Nadia abu el-Haj?

arson,

I'm not sure I follow you vis a vis Jim Martin, Harry Ried, etc.  As someone volunteering for Jim Martin, who has called people donating to Jim Martin, I can tell you they don't give a lick about Joe Lieberman.  They care generally about four people: Jim Martin, Saxby Chambliss, Barack Obama, and George Bush.  They want a senator who'll stand up for them on Health Care, work to fix the economy, get our troops home from Iraq, and kick Saxby and his dirty ads back to Moultrie.  No one really cares about HR 3077 (as disappointing a bill as that is) and of the debate over what to do with Lieberman, HR 3077 doesn't come up either.

Crock,

Didn't mean to be unclear.  My intent was to point out two things. First, that when people donate time or money or both to out of state campaigns we're putting a lot faith in the party's leadership, because we'll never get to actually vote against the candidates in question if they end up screwing up. Martin, for instance seems like a good guy from a distance, but if he's elected an turns out not to be, there's not much his out of state supporters will be able to do about it. That being the case I don't see it as unreasonable to expect the party - in the persons of its leaders - to take whatever corrective measures they can in our stead when someone steps as far over the line as  Lieberman has. The guy has literally worked against having that gavel and since he failed despite that effort, I don't think he deserves to benefit from the hard work [yours, mine and others] that went into defeating his cause.

My second point was that party purity aside, he's been a piss poor senator where issues of national security are concerned. Even if he'd campaigned for Obama day and night I'd think his committee deserved a better chairman.  

O' and nogal, the man is in favor of mandating who can teach and what can be taught on the basis of "pro-Americaness" as he defines it. How is that different from what Michelle Bachman suggested?

This looks like a great twofer on offer by Kos--leave Lieberman alone, as he is a perfectly solid Democrat in almost every important respect; AND take the opportunity to get rid of the appalling Harry Reid, to be replaced as Senate Majority Leader by Hillary Clinton. She will do a much better job from Day One, and would likely become one of the best at that post in recent history.

I have heard comments on Joe by a number of Senate Democrats, and not a single one was in favor of continuing the ridiculous Burn the Heretic pogrom beloved of Kossaks and their fellow travelers. Besides, does anyone still think that the Department of Homeland Security "supervised" by Lieberman's committee has anything at all to do with actual security? It is a multi-billion dollar sham that provides "security theater" designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid terrorists. See Jeffrey Goldberg's revealing article in the Atlantic.

RP - with all due respect, balderdash.  I am not a Cossack, nor is anyione I know who wants Joe to be relieved of his chair.  I'm a centrist Democrat who supported the war, so please give that line of reasoning a rest.  This notion that Joe is some righteous honorable hero being attacked soley by anti-war absolutionists is absurd and self serving.

I am not a Cossack for demanding that my Senators do their jobs - Joe Leiberman was the single worst commitee head we had in a time of war when the administration broke several laws, pissed away bilions of our money and troops through corruption, incompetence and venality, and took an ax to the Constitution.  

He abdicated all responsibility for his oversight responsibilities, If he personally supported this behavior by the Bush administration fine - but he represented the people, not Joe Leiberman.  We had every right to expect oversight and base our decisions on information gathered.  Reading up on the Constituion and the job of the Senate may help you see why Joe must go.

I see no reason why we Democrats should continue the Bush years of rewarding incompetence and protecting cronies from accountability just so right wingers don't call us names - so cowardly.  Yes, I find his insults deeply disgusting, Anthony Zinni as traitor?  The dozens of JAG military lawyers who protested the shredding of the Consitution and were demoted for it?  Traitors?  Please! Joe has to live with himself for his bile, but that's not why he should lose his chair.  

It's you who is being ia Cossack for refusing to acknowledge that main fact.

I didn't know you were a Connecticut voter Wandrey. I am, and like a consistent majority of my fellows I  have voted for Joe for a couple of decades. We are "the people" in question, and we think he's been a fine Senator. So do most of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

That, IMHO, is the "main fact". Prepare to be disappointed.

RP - Nope - I own his ass and you do too.  Once he becomes the head of a commitee responsible for oversight of Homelad Security and therefore the Presidency, the voters of Connecticut share him with We the People.  He is responsible to all of us at that point, he doesn't have to accept those assignments and he's certainly not entitled to them - as he so clearly thinks he is.  He abdicated that responsibility and was rotten at his job.  I just don't agree that he should get a pass for it, it sets a bad precedent to continue the practice of politicizing what constitutes professional competence, whoever does it.

I hope Obama doesn't govern from any oher place other than competence, right left or center is fine by me - just do it well, don't be afraid to hold ANYone accountable for poor performance and be willing to continually assess whether something is working or not - the Gates model - he's fired numerous Republicans for rotten performane and good for him.  The few Republicans left in the Senate are good ones and I have faith that things will go well.  

But they had all better get ready to be held accountable at the Senate level for their professional competence.

Wouldn't it be better to view his chairmanship as up for grabs for whichever young Senator proves his/herself in the next couple of months? There is a new congress coming in and I see no need to rush this when that particular chairmanship may be a valuable reward for past deeds or future loyalty. Besides, if retribution is what you are after, isn't revenge a dish best served cold?

arsonplus:

"I was referring to the senate version of [HR 3077 ] The International Studies in Higher Education Act ... which was born of a report smoking Joe and Lynne Cheney worked on: "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It,""

Thanks.  I read the Salon article and it turns out that it doesn't support your statement that "Bi-partisanship is fine but Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies."  First of all, neither Lieberman nor Cheney worked on that report, though they were among the founders of an organization that produced the report.  Second, I couldn't find a version of that bill from the senate, but I did see references that such a version would have to come out of the HELP committee, which Lieberman was not part of.  Third, that act was from 2003.  Where is the evidence that Lieberman "keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies" especially when he has actually contributed to that funding, as cited above by me and nogal?

This is pretty flimsy, if not downright false, stuff.

What I see here is a small mobbing, academic style:

www.youtube.com/watch

bigm

First, I'd suggest reading the NEA report/article. Second, I'd suggest simply checking the post 2003 bills you're referencing, specifically the strings attached to the proposed "funding." Unfortunately, as I recall the senate version had a  benign title that will be difficult to Google. On the other hand Lieberman's public statements on the subject should be findable. Third, well we simply disagree re the salon article and on responsibility for "Defending Civilization" ... reports of its kind are rarely written by their sponsors but it is not unfair to hold those sponsors responsible for their content.

Finally, I'll concede that my statement was on the hyperbolic side, but the fact remains that Lieberman has supported introducing "pro American standards" into higher education. I can't speak for anyone else but I find even the concept reprehensible.

"...but the fact remains that Lieberman has supported introducing "pro American standards" into higher education. "

Googling ""pro American standards"  lieberman joe arabic studies" produces one result only which is this thread.

If arsonplus has any supporting documentation to his accusation that Lieberman actually has systematically aided and abetted the introduction of academic policies which he termed "pro-American", then arsonplus should be able to produce them. This was his theory. He should be the one to defend it with the necessary sources.

But then, perhaps in arsonplus's scheme of things, such an expectation is also deemed "a pro American standard", to be jeered at as detrimental to a free academic enquiry, or whatever.

Perhaps IronyRoad can come to arsonplus's aid, seeing as he was so happy  to cheer along when the latter made that somewhat "hyperbolic" statement.

No one seems to have noticed just how clever Barack Obama has been by advocating that Lieberman not be punished by the Senate Dems.  Henceforth Lieberman will be in Obama's (and Harry Reid's) pocket; they will be able to call on him to vote for cloture when there's a need to break a filibuster--say, over Supreme Court nominees; senators take such interpersonal debts seriously.  If Lieberman refuses to go along, he can be booted out of the caucus at that point.  In the process, Obama puts some flesh on the bones of his post-partisanship and comes across like the true statesman he is.  All in all, a very smart move, as compared with the vindictived alternative, and one that bodes very well for his presidency.

Just noticed that for reasons unknown my links heavy response to NoGal did not make it through the TNR spam filter.

Which makes sense now that I think about it.

arsonplus : Such an annoying tool, the "spam filter" is, and so convenient, isn't it?

dude click my screen name ... read the post and then insult. doing it out of order makes you seem biased [and it wasn't convenient at all. that freakin post took a lot longer than cuttin' -n- pasting links would have]

I've already been through those sources you provided. I was  however, unaware that anyone acting on behalf of academic integrity and freedom would consider Ward Churchill as an example of  a silenced "academic". A not so silenced charlatan, maybe.

Never mind. It is clear from the post you wrote that you cannot sustain your original claim here that:

"Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front. "

For that highly  irresponsible  and misleading accusation, you substituted:

"Joe has supported “Pro American Standards” in higher education. "

Not at all the same accusation, is it?  Do I take it you no longer claim that  Lieberman " keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs"? So, if you knew that what you were claiming was, at the very least, a malign exaggeration,  why did you post it? Is this your idea of what academic freedom is, lying to your readers?

_________________

Of course nothing is a fact in your little rant. Juan Cole's "interpretation" is a dizzying spin and another attempt to smear Israel and invoke the frightening spectre of the "Jewish Lobby" in trying to discredit the report:

" dislike of Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or recognition that the U.S. government has sometimes in the past been in bed with present enemies like al Qaeda or Saddam."

Yet you cite it as if the argument were firmly planted, self-evidently true, and factually meritted.

I have not encountered in anything  LIeberman wrote or said the term "“Pro American Standards”  but I may have been reading too fast. Perhaps you can help me locate one such instance?

After all, isn't that the term you consider the most obscene in its infringement of Ward Churchill's  academic  freedom to teach his thesis,  that the dead and wounded of 9/11 are little Eichmanns who deserved what they got?

____________

To IronyRoad: If you agree with all this, then you have come a long way from the time you considered Ward Churchill a buffoonish figure suitable to recommend only a pseudo-academic  spoof.

Uhm I quoted Juan Cole, Rashid Khalidi,  Neve Gordon, Sara Roy, Salon, Common Dreams  a few academic journals and linked to the bill, the original report the website of the ACTA website and a debate on the subject. I didn't bring Ward Churchill up and only know  enough about him to recognize that mentioning him in the same breath as Edward Said [however much you may disagreed with him] is frankly absurd.  Plucking one cook name outta of the score plus "Defending Civilization" essentially attempted to blacklist is intellectually dishonest to say the least and pretending that "Defending Civilization" garnered something less than near universal scorn outside of the offices of the National Review is silly.

Wait ... what am doing, this is pointless,  once the anti-Israel boogie men are out of the closet the conversations over ... it was nice typing at you nogal, have a nice night.

"I didn't bring Ward Churchill up "

But you did:

news.arsonplus.com

"How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It,” which was often refered to as a blacklist becasue it listed examples of insufficiently patriotic behavior of the part of the professoriate and called universities the “weak link” in the war on terror"

" examples of insufficiently patriotic behavior " www.dissidentvoice.org/.../Baker0207.htm

___________

Another  forgivable "hyperbole"?

arsonplus:

Your red herring  is noted. You did not explain why, if you knew that your claim that

" Joe is still the moron who keeps trying to cut federal funding for Arab studies programs despite the giant freakin' pile of GAO reports that point out how desperate State, CIA, etc's human capital situation is on that front. "

was an exaggeration, at best, why did you make it?

And you did not help locate even one example where Lieberman used the term "“Pro American Standards”.

But who cares about  accuracy or facts, right? After all, we are talking academic standards here...