The Lieberman Question

I observe the following facts:

• Joe Lieberman did not (ahem) use his position as chair of the Government Oversight and Homeland Security Committe to investigate President Bush. At all.
• Lieberman's foreign policy record over the past few years is atrocious.
• Lieberman's record on almost of all other issues—choice, pay equity, labor, the environment—ranges from good to very good.
• Democrats now enjoy veto-proof majorities in the Connecticut State House and State Senate.
• Richard Blumenthal (D) has been hyped as the "First Jewish President" since his election to become Connecticut's Attorney General in 1990, but he has yet to run for higher office.

Given these facts, it seems to me that President-elect Obama should run the following play:

• Announce that he intends to make the EPA Director a cabinet level position, to include oversight over America's strategy to cope with global warming.
   
• Convince the Connecticut State Assembly to change election laws to force a special election within 90 days of any Senate Vacancy. Gov. Jodi Rell's (R) veto can be overridden purely with Democratic votes.
• Call Joe Lieberman and tell him the President is asking him to serve his country as EPA Director.
• Have the Senate confirm Lieberman as EPA director.
   
• Call Richard Blumenthal and ask him to run for Senate.

This has lots of upside:

• It will enhance Barack Obama's image among Villagers for whom bipartisan cooperation is important.
• It replaces Joe Lieberman in the Senate with a Democrat
• It allows Joe Lieberman to work on something that he has cared about for a very long time.
• But it does not put him in a position where he can wield power in a particularly venal fashion; in particular, naming Lieberman Interior Secretary would give him some discretionary authority over gaming licenses, and thus allow him to protect the Foxwoods Casino. Likewise, naming him Defense or Homeland Security Secretary would give him a much larger budget, and of course claims that his views on defense issues are correct.

This plan does not punish Joe Lieberman, but as best I can tell Barack Obama is not that interested in punishing Joe Lieberman. So why is my ingenious musical chairs plan not being given more consideration?

Comments

[North]

This assumes Joe wouldn't say no? Is that safe?

And does Joe know anything about the environment?

[steelhead]

I think you need to add "not" in item 1

[low-tech cyclist]

For one, the bit about getting Connecticut to change its laws to make this play work, really smacks of heavy-handedness.

Far better for Obama (or Reid) to say, "Lieberman's done absolutely nothing with that committee for the past two years, despite a wealth of matters under its purview that deserved looking into. As of now, we're applying a 'use it or lose it' standard, so Joe's lost that gavel. We'll find him another one that suits him better."

Re-frames the issue in a way that makes Joe look unreasonable for wanting to hang onto that particular committee.

[low-tech cyclist]

"does Joe know anything about the environment?"

Yes, he co-authored the climate change bill that was considered earlier this year.

But I wouldn't trust him even there. That was a fine bill for 2003 or 2005, but weak tea for 2008.

[yoyo]

Oh great, so the obama administration can be have someone one board who is constantly leaking damaging things to the press sounds great

[low-tech cyclist]

My sense is that, regardless of how he votes on particular issues, Lieberman's already emotionally gone over to the other side.

I'd hope that some Democrat will have the opportunity and the will to ask Obama, "Do you really trust this guy? You know that as chair of that particular committee, he's got the power to make your life really, really miserable. You're taking one hell of a gamble here."

[MR Bill]

Leiberman is of course problematic.

Could you get him to recant his lies about Obama (socialist, defeatist, bad for Israel)?
Would he be willing to sever ties with the Christian Right Israel fetishists, the Hagees and Coral Ridge Ministry types?

His nonperformance on the HomelandSecurity/GovernmentalAffairs Committee should be a deal breaker. His shilling for the Republicans? Contemptible.
What does the Democratic Party get if they keep him there?
What happens if we kick his sorry ass out?
I'm with low-tech here. He has made trouble, and would be positioned to wreak havoc.

[Corvus]

My theory is that their pleasant noises in his direction at the moment are probably based trying to not seem vindictive, and protect against blowback when the hammer does come down (though it might be a very tiny hammer). They can't trust the guy anymore, the things he has said, he is just too obviously a traitor. Maybe they just want to be pleasant so that, even if he bolts, he might not vindictively vote against them even on issues he once agreed with them on. Or maybe they are looking at the senate races in Minnesota and Alaska and thinking, we could still make it to 60, and are thinking of keeping him, warts, boils, infectious diseases and all. I don't know, but I don't see a decision coming until after the Minnesota recount.

[ikl]

The EPA is very important. Wrong place to hide Lieberman. Even if Lieberman is generally good on the environment, I don't think that we can trust him to carry out the Obama agenda.

I'm also doubtful about the play in CT needed to get this to work. Even a few defections in the legislature would ruin the plan. Besides, if he don't get to 60, I think that I'd rather have Chris Shays than Lieberman. He is pretty similar on the issues and doesn't seem to be a total $%^% - not that I am not happy that Shays lost: I worked on election day for his opponent, Jim Himes, who is going to be an excellent US Rep, I think.

[ikl]

The EPA is very important. Wrong place to hide Lieberman. Even if Lieberman is generally good on the environment, I don't think that we can trust him to carry out the Obama agenda especially when the going gets tough.

I'm also doubtful about the play in CT needed to get this to work. Even a few defections in the legislature would ruin the plan. Besides, if we don't get to 60, I think that I'd rather have Chris Shays than Lieberman. He is pretty similar on the issues and doesn't seem to be a total $%^%. Not that I am not happy that Shays lost: I worked on election day for his opponent, Jim Himes, who is going to be an excellent US Rep, I think.