Senators begin to speak on Lieberman

Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:41:29 AM PDT

Byron Dorgan joins Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders in speaking out about Lieberman:

As a chairman of one of our significant committees in the Senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. The question is, is that acceptable? The answer is no.

That's not a clear and unequivocal declaration of how he'll vote next week, but it's something to hold onto, and to show other Senators and ask if they agree.

Unacceptable is unacceptable.

So... don't accept it.

UPDATE: The Hartford Courant reports that the vote will be a secret ballot. We've always known the vote will be an internal caucus vote, and so we'd be unlikely to get any thorough, on-the-record accounting of who voted how, but there was still some question as to whether it'd be a secret ballot vote or an open roll call. The Courant says secret.

Also revealed: Amy Klobuchar lines up with Evan Bayh in the "well, we'd take an apology" camp. I guess some Democratic Senators feel Lieberman's transgressions were purely political, and that they're entitled to decide when he's been contrite enough. And it has to be admitted that they do decide, insofar as the chairmanship goes. But given that Lieberman worked on behalf of a presidential ticket whose rallies mysteriously spiked death threats to the Obamas, I'm not really all that interested in the notion that Evan Bayh and Amy Klobuchar think an "Aw, shucks" might be sufficient.

But I don't have a vote.

  • ::

Tags: Joe Lieberman, Senate Democratic Caucus, Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sander, Byron Dorgan (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 2 comments

  •  I'm unclear on the secrecy part (0+ / 0-)

    Is having the vote secret a benefit to Lieberman? I can see how people who might want to support him would think so, believing the base backlash that might come from supporting him would be stifled. On the other hand, if fellow senators have privately harbored ill feeling against him -- not just because of his behavior in this past election, but also because of his sanctimony -- I'd think they'd gladly welcome the chance to vote against him while telling Joe they supported him all the way.

    What do you think?

    •  It could definitely break either way. (0+ / 0-)

      Senators won't want to cross anybody here. Not constituents who've called in, not fellow Senators who've lobbied them from one side or the other, not Obama (whatever his position might be), and not Lieberman, either.

      Hard to see a clear benefit to anyone here, except the one to the Senators who can continue to decline to answer constituents about how they voted. Maybe that's the benefit they have in mind.

Permalink | 2 comments