Louisiana Pol Slams Lieberman Over Katrina Punt
As Josh noted over at TPM, Senator Joe Lieberman has just taken the very surprising step of revealing to Newsweek via an aide that he will not use his chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee to aggressively probe the government's catastrophic failings in the wake of Hurricane Katrina — in direct contradiction of statements he made during last year's campaign. In other words, Lieberman's basically letting the White House off the hook for its largest domestic policy disaster to date.
We thought this punt by Lieberman was pretty eye-opening. So we decided to call all the Dem Presidential hopefuls, all the Dems on Homeland Security, and a few Gulf Coast pols to get their reaction to it. More after the jump.
Now we have our first response. Congressman Charlie Melancon, a relatively conservative Democrat from Louisiana, has just hammered Lieberman's decision in an interview with Election Central.
"I'm just disappointed that he's not going to pursue it, particularly pursue it in terms of — I can understand that there's a whole lot of things we haven't had oversight on in six years — but Katrina is a major national occurrence," Melancon told EC.
Melancon voiced his frustration at the lack of overall accountability that would result from Lieberman's backing off. "I would like to see — I'm not looking for a witch hunt — but I'd sure like to find out what's going on with the recovery," he said. He added that even though he is from an area hit by Katrina, even he is still left uncertain about everything that has happened. "It's as though our government has information and doesn't want to share it with its elected officials."
So that's Melancon's view. Here's a full list of all the pols we're seeking reaction from:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
Charlie Melancon
Jim Webb
John Edwards
Carl Levin
Daniel Akaka
Thomas Carper
Mark Pryor
Mary Landrieu
Claire McCaskill
Jon Tester
John Breaux
Gene Taylor
We'll keep you updated as reactions — or "no-comments" — come in.
Update: Election Central was able to get in touch with a spokesman for former Sen. John Breaux, D-LA, and Breaux has declined to comment.
Update: Leslie Phillips, the press secretary for the Homeland Security committee has now responded to Melancon's comments. Without directly responding to his criticism, she offered some general comments about Lieberman's work to reform FEMA, noting that "the public is aware — as a result of Lieberman's work — that the response to Katrina is sorely lacking."
Most interesting, however, was Phillips's final comment on the matter: "All legislators must seek bipartisan accommodation with the other party, with the White House, if they want to get anything done. And the fact is Senator Lieberman's record of accomplishment is quite extensive."
Why should this surprise anyone? It was obvious that Lieberman needed the Republican donor base to win, and that Rove was the key to that. He wasn't going to do it out of the goodness of his (blackened and decayed) heart. The piper is being paid.
January 12, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean former Sen. John Breaux, D-Pharma?
I think he understands a thing or two about utterly compromising your principles. JUst look where it got him!
http://www.pattonboggs.com/jbreaux/
January 12, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Along with supporting the President's troop increase, it seems like Lieberman is just going out of his way to send a big F you to the voters of CT.
January 12, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer? His co-chair Susan "moderate" Collins? Rosa DeLauro and Chris Shays? Or Rahm Emmanuel who said during the general that he was unconcerned about the election in CT because "two Democrats" were running?
Also, as a favor to me, could you add my own Liebercrat Senator Ken Salazar to the list? He was one of the Lieberboosters, and recently hosted the big "Welcome Back Joe" lobbyist party for him. I'd call myself but I think his staffers have blocked my number by now.
January 12, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we just go ahead and put an 'R' next to his name?
January 12, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman lied to the voters 180 degrees on every important issue in his campaign. His shameless dishonesty makes him a disgrace to his country and and embarassment to his state. Does CT have a mechanism to recall its senators?
January 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gene Taylor is talking now in the House about insurance companies and their refusal to pay up.
January 12, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman must feel just about bullet-proof right now. Just got a new six-year term after bucking the party structure in his state. Now he's got the President throwing his name around like he's the god of bipartisanship. He's loving it.
The President uses him like a blue dress and the Democrats can't do anything to him because they need him to balance the Senate. You think W won't wave Joe in front of the Democrats the next two years, taunting them and trying to get them to do something to him so he'll go Republican the way Jeffords flipped a few years ago?
Joe is W's last best hope.
January 12, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman for Hagel. C'mon, it's a fair trade.
January 12, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's gotta be loving the attention and the conundrum he puts the Democrats in. He's a DINO and belongs in the GOP but the Dems need him to keep their majority, so they can't go against him much for fear of the Jeffords effect. Jeffords' defection from the GOP took their majority away for a year and a half.
With Joe, it's all about Joe. Over the cliff with George and DIck.
January 12, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sure looking to me that Lieberman wants to be McCain's "bipartisan" running mate.
January 12, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take Hagel over Lieberman ANY day of the week.
I like Chuck. He seems to take seriously the "country before party" concept.
January 12, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Short Ride has his beady eyes on another prize -- Cheney's seat as VP. Cheney biffs off due to "health issues," Short Ride takes over as VP until the impeachment, and then becomes President. He then is elected on his own in 2008 by a grateful nation. Tell me you don't see Lieberman's so-called mind working this way.
January 12, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy to swap for Susan Collins too.
January 12, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 12, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Connecticut.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
January 12, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For 2008, I see two giant issues against the Republican party.
Foreign: Iraq
Domestic: Katrina
Joe's betting on escalation for Iraq and disappearance for Katrina all for the sake of the party, the party of one.
January 12, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, you're doing yeoman's work here, but sadly I doubt you will get any of the senatorial presidential hopefuls (Dodd, Clinton, Obama, etc.) from dissing Holy Joe on the record.
I can't say I blame them too much; they have plenty of reason to be scared shitless by Lieberman, lest he become and "Independent" Republican.
January 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This highlights that the most tragic mistake of the '06 election was the DSCC's, as well as the Schumer's, Clintons' and numerous other high profile Democrats refusal to fully and vocally support Lamont. If Ned had had that support, and some of the DSCC money, he would be the Senator from CT now. Fully 35% of Dems in CT voted for this lying piece of human trash. Do you think that would have happened if the national Dems came out in full throated support of Lamont and chastised Joe for disrespecting the results of the primary? If half of those Dems had voted for Ned the result would be that Lieberman could be "bipartisan" from his new position as a lobbyist for Big Pharma.
The Dem leadership is getting bitten in the ass. It's what they deserve in this case. I just hope they're happy.
We have nearly two more years of this crap to deal with. When Dems increase their majority in the Senate in '08 so that a Lieberman defection won't change the majority in the Senate, they should strip him of his committee chairmanship. If goes over to the R's, so be it. Let him serve out the remainder of his term as an irrelevant member of the minority.
January 12, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
Two nits to pick: They deserve it, but we're paying for it. And I hope they realize that they could have done something about this and didn't. Schumer and Bill Clinton are probably the two individuals who could have done something, but didn't.
January 12, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is a Republican whore. Clinton had Lewinsky, and Bush has Lieberman kneeling. A couple of sick pathetic egos stroking each other.
January 12, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton did worse than nothing, he came up and hugged Holy Joe, the last least honest man in Washington, in the Primary.
No way to know for sure, but I suspect that Joe would otherwise have lost by so much it would have made his CFL bid (aka run as a Republican in Democratic clothing) much more difficult to pull off.
January 12, 2007 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
one thing that people aren't factoring in here -- the republicans aren't lockstep any longer.
January 12, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath for any comment from Mary Landrieu. She backed Lieberman in the general even after Lamont won the primary. I called Landrieu's office to ask if the Senator planned to support the nominee of her party. The staffer told me that this was an issue only to a handful of die-hard Democrats and that Louisiana was better off with Landrieu's "friend" Joe Lieberman in the Senate (yes, that was his description). Landrieu's reward? She and her state get stiffed.
By the way, the recent election in New Orleans that sent "Dollar Bill" Jefferson back to the House was the last under Louisiana's absurd open primary system. Beginning with the 2008 election we'll have party primaries like the rest of the country. Oh how I wish there were a Louisiana Democrat strong enough to challenge Mary Landrieu. Unfortunately the Democratic bench has become so decimated here that the only Democrat with a prayer of pulling it off isn't likely to run. You see, it's ... her brother Mitch.
January 12, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
you thought this was bad, wait until subpoenas start going out and loserman conveniently switches sides about two seconds later.
scumbag knows where his bread is buttered and/or knows who has the incredibly graphic pictures in their filing cabinent.
January 12, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Liebermann drops the ball in the Senate, the House of Representatives has two committees that could investigate the Katrina fiasco, their Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Government Reform Committee is chaired by Henry Waxman of California, the biggest corruption buster in Congress. I'd relish watching Waxman's hearings on Katrina.
January 12, 2007 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton did worse than that. His Larry King appearance and saying it was a win-win for Democrats whether Lamont or Lieberman won was the signal that it was OK to fund Lieberman.
January 13, 2007 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone might tactfully and quietly point out to Joltin' Joe that in two years, he may well be expelled from the party and stripped of his plum assignments if he doesn't watch his step now.
Sam Thornton
January 13, 2007 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
One point of hope is in view. If, after the 2008 election ONE additional Dem seat is won, Holy Joe will be without ANY committee chairmanships and/or committee assignments other than building maintenance. The Dems WILL throw him under the buss. So he has two years of high living as disgusting as that is. He will get his just deserts after 2008!!
January 13, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 13, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, if the Dems had come out full-throttle against Lieberman, and he won anyways...
*awkward*
January 13, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that margins were slim enough in Virginia and Montana that any distraction of time and money might have cost us one or both of those seats.
The DSCC made exactly the right call.
I wanted Lamont to win too but he has his lackluster general election campaign to thank for that.
January 13, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink