The impassioned and angry strong support for punishing Joe Lieberman is getting a full airing on a recommended diary.
The desire to take action is totally understandable.
The purpose of this diary is to start from the point I suspect we are at, which explains why nothing can and will be done.
I've never posted an "opposite opinion" diary before, but my feeling is that this side of the story needs to be aired, so that people realize that Reid likely has no options.
Let's go back to December 2006.
The situation was maximized for Joe Lieberman to have complete control of the situation.
The caucuses looked as follows:
50 Dems (including Bernie Sanders)
49 Repubs
1 Joe Lieberman
With of course VP Cheney as President of the Senate.
Therefore, Joe Lieberman and his decision to caucus with either party would determine who had control.
Lieberman had of course said during the 2006 campaign that he (I believe the word he used) intended to caucus with the Dems. He did so at the time that it appeared the Repubs would control the Senate, since a 6 seat Dem gain seemed unlikely.
But the situation changed a bit when he became the determining vote.
My guess (and others who have details should clarify - and by that I mean specific citations) is that Lieberman and Reid met. Lieberman reiterated his intention, but insisted on a commitment from Reid that he under any circumstances would retain his chairmanship within the caucus.
I don't like Joe Lieberman one bit, but hardly can deny that this was the smart thing for Lieberman to do. And at that point, what were Reid's options?
He could tell Joe, no thanks, I won't guarantee anything, or say yes, you can have what you want.
My guess is that if Reid had said no, then Lieberman would have gone straight to McConnell, switched to the GOP, retained his chairmanship, blamed Reid for threatening to punish him down the line.
If my scenario is correct, then Reid had no choice, and gave his word.
Once he gave his word, as a man of honor, and in a position as Majority Leader where his word needs to be believed, he is left with nothing he can do about Lieberman, at least for this session.
My fear is that in order to gain Lieberman's vote for organizing the Senate, the agreement may be in perpetuity. We don't know.
But the bottom line seems to be this - Harry Reid can do nothing about Lieberman without breaking his word.
And it is wrong to ask him to do that.
I hope this helps some angry Kossacks understand the likely realities of the situation.
UPDATE: Thanks for the ongoing discussion. No problem with a lot of opposing viewpoints being aired.
One suggestion I do agree with. I do think that the Democratic leadership, if at all possible, should explain all the details and why they are not in a position to do anything. To not do so has reached the tipping point of doing damage.