The Lieberman Problem

There are three Senate seats that remain undecided (Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota) and while the Democratic pickups mean they are comfortably over 51 seats, it appears that they will fall short of the filibuster proof 60 they were shooting for. It is, of course, possible that the Democrats could still reach that number, but I just don't see Georgia going into their column. Since no one received over 50% of the vote, that race will go to a runoff and without Barack Obama on the ballot, Democratic challenger Jim Martin is unlikely to do as well as he has a 2nd time.

So with the majority locked in and 60 apparently out of reach, the question is now what to do with Joe Lieberman?

Lieberman very publicly continued his slow break with the Democratic Party in this year's election, backing his friend John McCain, going so far as to speak at the Republican National Convention and attack Barack Obama as a possible Marxist and not committed to America. Nasty stuff even for a turncoat.

The Connecticut Senator has been a thorn in the Democrats side for a long time. He supported censure for Bill Clinton following the Lewinsky affair and has spent his career as an advocate for censorship in the entertainment industry. Al Gore's selection of Lieberman for VP likely cost Gore enough votes from the left to lose the presidency (kind of) to George W. Bush. His vocal and adamant support for the Iraq War led to a primary challenge from Ned Lamont in 2006. Lieberman lost the race and immediately filed to run for his seat as an independent. Joe opted to caucus with the Democrats after winning the three way race, but his continued support for the war and serving as a McCain/Palin attack dog have Democrats seeing red.

So here we are. It seems the Democrats have three options:

1. Do nothing.

Totally unacceptable. I'm all for bi-partisan cooperation, but you don't get to call the President-elect a Marxist and be welcomed back with open arms. Sorry Joe (not really).

2. Boot him from the Democratic caucus and his committee chairmanship.

While this would be the most satisfying to Democrats nationwide, nothing would please the smug and sanctimonious Lieberman happier than being made into a martyr by nasty partisan Democrats. I can already hear him whining about how he put principal over party. Gag me.

Strategically, the Democrats would create an enemy in a legislative chamber where any one member can basically stymie legislation for days on end through a filibuster. The Republicans would welcome Joe to their ranks and portray him as a hero. Its unlikely they would ever fully trust him, such is the lonely life of a turncoat, but he would be a useful PR tool for a party desperately in need of one.

No. The dangers of turning him into a martyr and poster boy for the Republicans outweigh the emotional satisfaction of publicly humiliating him.

3. Strip him of his chairmanship, do not force him from the caucus.

This would seem to be the best of both worlds. Lieberman pays the price for his disloyalty by losing his beloved chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, but cannot say the mean old Democrats drove him from the party. The chairmanship change can be spun as a simple difference of ideology.

Also, if Senate Democrats do this, Lieberman will probably leave the caucus of his own free will. We'll be rid of him, but without creating a hero for Republicans.

Its a long way off, but hopefully Connecticut voters will make this a moot point by voting him out of office in 2012.