Howard Dean Is Fine With Senate's Lieberman Decision, Suggests It Was What Obama Wanted
Howard Dean says that he's "fine" with the Senate's decision not to kick Joe Lieberman off the Homeland Security committee and suggested that the Senate had acted in accordance with what Barack Obama wanted.
In a phone interview with me just after the vote concluded, I asked Dean if he thought the Senate should keep Lieberman. He said that the Senate had acted "in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted."
"He called the shots, and that's fine," Dean said, in an apparent reference to the tone Obama has tried to set in Washington as he prepares to take power.
Dean also said he understood the natural human desire for "revenge," a description that will dismay many of Dean's allies in the liberal blogosphere, who maintain (as do I) that this wasn't solely about retribution.
"I think it's in every human being's heart to get revenge," Dean said, though he didn't say that "revenge" was the only motive driving the anti-Lieberman forces. He added that the time had come to "swallow hard" and "put aside that kind of stuff."
"It's pretty hard to run the country based on, `We're all working together,' if your first act is to strip someone who was your political enemy...of power," Dean said.
Asked if Lieberman should keep the chairmanship given his performance at the post, Dean replied that it was up to the Senate to evaluate the job Lieberman did. "The Senate will do what the Senate does," Dean said. "It's not my place to interfere."
"They asked Senator Obama's opinion and he gave it," Dean said.
Late Update: To clarify, Dean did not say that the only motive driving the anti-Lieberman movement was revenge, and didn't specifically target the liberal blogosphere in his comments. His point about Obama was that Senators took their cues from the President-elect's desire for a tone of "unification." I've edited the above to make that clearer.
Late Late Update: Jane Hamsher also interviewed Dean, and pressed him very hard on the niggling question of whether Lieberman is, you know, qualified for the post that Senate Dems let him keep.
Perhaps there actually is hope for us all.
Obama really may have meant it when he said he was a pragmatist who want to unify the country. And that infuriates the bitter partisans here.
Chill.
November 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI- Tellmemore is a seasonal troll!!!
November 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
what is a seasonal troll?
November 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which shows up every four years around November. LOL.
November 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, looks like I was right. Heh!
November 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dood, calm down. Don't wet yourself.
I happen to agree, it would have been a bad idea to purge Leiberman and counterproductive. Some bloggers really need to get over Leiberman. In the end, he's not nearly as important or influential as some bloggers have made him out to be, or he would be as a martyr.
Anyways, people really need to wise up and take stock of things.
Like for example, the Dept of HLS needs a complete revamp anyways, and maybe even dismantling and rebuilding from the ground up. It's a Bush creation poorly defined from the beginning, highly redundant, and poorly integrated into the military, intelligence, and law enforcement.
So people, chill out and try to stop obsessing. Look at the "big picture" so to speak.
November 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama knows what he's doing.
He's just gutted the last vestige of independence in the Senate
Not another dime for this crowd
November 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes no sense.
November 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They had an interview with some of Obama's former students and they were actually surprised that people where calling him a Liberal. They said that Obama was very pragmatic. Also, one of Obama's mentors came on the Stephen Colbert show and said when he first met Barack and Michelle he thought they were Conservatives. Whatever he is, I'm glad he was elected.
November 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't do labels or dogma, he actually tries to understand each issue. Which is something a lot of people could learn from.
November 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading all the defenses of Obama heer, I have to ask people:
Is this "change" or more of the same?
An ineffective committee Chair helps Bush for two years and they return him to power. No accountability. No change.
November 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's certainly a change from the Gingrich Revolution and the way Delay ran the House, which was all about discipline, that created an echo chamber that produced lousy policies and lost moderates, causing the GOP to implode.
So yeah, it's a pretty big change and the country is better off for it.
Leiberman is a jerk, but he's a democratically elected jerk with seniority on a committee where he's not able to do any harm and where the junior members actually have a lot more pull. Leaving him in place was the principled thing to do and the best choice in the long term.
It's a disappointing to see so many blog readers still don't get it, and actually thought Obama was going to use the Bush, Gingrich, Rove playbook.
November 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people would say that the "principled thing to do" would have been to respect the votes of the Democratic voters of CT and not invite Karl Rove's buddy into the caucus.
November 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some dopes surely do.
November 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leiberman is a jerk, but he's a democratically elected jerk with seniority on a committee where he's not able to do any harm and where the junior members actually have a lot more pull.
Huh? "Not able to do any harm?" "Junior members have a lot more pull?"
To substantiate that, would you care to detail how much "government oversight" the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has actually conducted over the last 2 years with Lie-berman at the helm?
Or do you think that none was required?
November 19, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many problems with your assumptions it's hard to know where to begin.
"would you care to detail how much "government oversight" the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has actually conducted over the last 2 years with Lie-berman at the helm?"
Ok, that's confused on a number of levels. First of all, it presumes HLS was ever created to provide much security, or to be meaningfully overseen by Congress. Quite the opposite.
HLS was created as a sham mostly to raise terror alerts and make people take their shoes off at airports. It's basically customs service, which has always been a sham for the War on _____ du Jour. It's a joke. It's a fluff organization to create fluff oversight while the real business happens off camera. It's a sideshow for suckers and always has been, going back to Immigration Xenophobia or the War on Drugs under Reagan.
The Bush administration's idea of security from the beginning was operating on the "dark side" i.e. GITMO, National Security letters, Carnivore data mining, extraordinary rendition, etc.
Point being, as soon as you accept that 1) the Committee on HLS is necessary 2) protecting our security 3) and therefore the chairman is important, you've already been had three times over and caught in a conundrum. Because you can't meaningfully oversee a sham operation.
Obama will reform HLS. It may not even be called HLS anymore. I certainly hope not cause the name itself is Orwellian and silly considering the FBI, NSA, and CIA actually do all the brain work, and Customs, the FBI, and local law enforcement does most of the leg work. Furthermore, borders are being patroled by the National Guard now, which is not part of HLS... etc. etc. The whole thing is a total f'ing mess.
None of this is news to anyone paying attention. There's been widespread bipartisan complaints from the formation of HLS, that it's a sham, and it needs to be completely revamped because security in the face of terrorism is actually important, and Congress has never been very happy about Bush's secrecy and lack of oversight which prevents any meaningful oversight of the majority of his domestic "security" apparatus.
***
In regards to Levin and Akaka, they most certainly have a lot more pull than Leiberman and a committee chairman is not god. If a chairman of any committee ignores the other members of his own party, then they complain to leadership and leadership reigns the chair in. That's going to be especially true in Lieberman's case considering how weak he is now.
So no, I'm not the slightest bit concerned Leiberman can do any harm because his committee is virtually powerless to begin with, and his own power in this powerless committee is especially weak.
So basically, your whole question is wrong.
November 19, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a hint about where to begin, kozmik: Have a little clue about what you're talking about first.
To narrow it down further, let's begin with the name of the committee Lieberman chairs, which you've assumed only has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. This has nothing to do with the status of DHS.
The full name of that committee is the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Pay attention to that last phrase. I've bolded it to make it easy for you.
As to what that means, I'll let the committee website speak for itself:
Emphasis mine. None of this is news to anyone paying attention.
Your rambling "response" ignored both the second half of the committee's name and its role as the "chief oversight committee for the United States Senate."
Now, I'll ask my question again: Would you care to detail how much "government oversight" the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the chief oversight committee for the United States Senate, has actually conducted over the last 2 years with Lieberman at the helm? Or do you think that none was required?
Here's a little something to get you going. Note in that article that Lieberman himself
You do know which committee Waxman chairs over on the House side, right?
Here's a little more.
And a bit more on Lieberman's failure to investigate the Bush admin response to Hurricane Katrina, which falls under his purview as well.
It's not just an exercise in incompetence. It's an exercise in studied, calculated, partisan incompetence, calculated to aid Lieberman's pal George W. Bush, a President who now has lower approval ratings than Nixon did when he resigned in disgrace.
Um, you might wanna rethink that one.
As for Lieberman's supposed inability to do harm, he now continues to wield the gavel for the chief oversight committee for the United States Senate, with subpoena power to investigate the administration of a President whom Lieberman said "has not always put country first"; of whom Lieberman thought it was a "good question" whether he was a "Marxist"; regarding whom Lieberman repeated the claim that "Hamas endorsed Obama" and said it "suggests the difference between these two candidates"; whom Lieberman falsely accused of "vot[ing] to cut off funding for our troops"; whose economic plans Lieberman likened to Herbert Hoover's (and, hilariously, a few months later likened to socialism -- Hoover the socialist! Who knew?); whose worldview Lieberman called "naive" and worried (in a Newxmax.com interview!) that he might not have "the right stuff to bomb Iran if it came to that level"; and regarding whose "ties" to Bill Ayers Lieberman said (in the same Newsmax interview): "I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.” It will be interesting to see if Chairman Lieberman suddenly acquires a new-found zeal for investigating the President of the United States, now that a man about whom Lieberman believes all the above holds that office.
Lieberman has already shown himself to be dishonest, bitter, spiteful, egocentric, and prone to temper tantrums if he doesn't get his way (much like his pal McCain.) This is the guy you think should keep his gavel and subpoena power. Whatever.
But next time, you might want to check some of your own assumptions.
November 20, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the many problems with DHS that have been noticed but never reconciled under the Bush Admin:
It's never had funding or been tasked to do meaningful border and travel security. People take their shoes off at the airport and have liquids confiscated but large cargo containers transit our highways, air and sea ports daily without proper examination.
DHS employees know their agency is a joke and morale is terrible.
Experiments in data mining and invasion of privacy were so badly bungled they failed before even managing to run a properly illegal invasion of privacy in an Administration actively encouraging trampling civil rights.
Hurricane Katrina!
****
DHS is in for a sh*tstorm of criticism of Hurricane Katrina proportions under the new Administration. Lieberman is in it up to his neck.
By all means, let Lieberman keep the chair.
November 19, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, hate to burst your bubble, anew08, but it's actually possible to be liberal and pragmatic. If you actually live in the reality-based community, that is.
November 19, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
.....i still wonder what Barack Obama said to Droopy Dawg when he cornered him and shook him down in the Senated Chamber last summer........
November 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said, "This is just for show, Joe. Just look abject and all scared-like. Then, when the coast is clear, you can go back to back-stabbing me. It's okay, nobody's gonna hurt you later."
November 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
somehow, i don't think that was it.
November 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever it was, it didn't slow Joe down a whit. He got even worse (cf: the convention speech, the socialist slur, etc.).
November 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And looky here: today, Joe just got rewarded for both his incompetent performance as chair, and, all that great effort he put into electing Obama!
Whatta country!
November 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the big problem you see? What exactly are you freaking out about? Maybe some people like having boogy men, like fundies like to talk about the devil to give their life clarity, purpose, and common cause? Maybe you've just bought into the myth Kos and such have created, that Joe really matters and that's why everyone should obsess over him.
Reality:
Did McCain win or Obama?
HLS was a lousy Bush creation and needs a revamp anyways. I seriously doubt HLS as we now know it will exist in 2 years.
Is Joe somehow going to stop Obama from closing Gitmo, stop Obama from exiting Iraq, or something else?
Actually Joe doesn't matter so much, and making a martyr of him would have only increased his importance.
November 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is that with the ability to commit oversight of the Obama Administration, Lieberman will use that opportunity to hamstring the Administration with a series of trivial, time-consuming and attention gathering investigations.
Because if Lieberman decides to investigate the Executive Branch, of course it's going to get a lot of attention because a) what Joe did during the campaign and b) this magnanimous gesture on the part of Obama.
Why are you so sneering of people who don't share your opinion, anyway?
November 18, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh nonsense. Where did you come up with that chicken little scenario?
1) Lieberman's committee doesn't even have that power.
2) Even if he did, and actually tried to meaningfully harass Obama's Admin, you know the Dems would be forced to pull the plug on him the way Obama was ultimately forced to disown (after giving him a chance) the pastor who shall not be named.
3) Dept of HLS is a Bush creation that's a total mess. It's poorly defined and poorly integrated with the military, intelligence, and law enforcement. You can bet the Obama Admin will completely revamp HLS. So Leiberman's committee might not even be overseeing HLS in 2 years.
And I'm sneering not at people who reasonably disagree with me on subjective matters, but at people who assert things that are just wild conjecture and nonsense. Like your assertion Leiberman can harass the Obama admin going forward. Talk about 180' backwards because his committee doesn't have that power and he certainly doesn't have any strikes left with the Dem Caucus!
Wake up. Blogs need to stop this absurd obsessing over Leiberman. It's gone on for years now and has become totally pathetic.
November 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The committee needs something, I'll agree with that, but your dismissal of my comments is unwarranted. If this:
reflects the committee's responsibilities, then I'd say there's a fair amount of leeway for whatever sort of investigation to be conducted.
Could Lieberman be successful in such an investigation? PRobably would have trouble getting it off the ground, actually, but the amount of publicity any effort would generate is what concerns me. That, alone, would be enough to be a drag.
As for the "obsessing" over Lieberman? Yes, if concern over someone who has helped ennable the Bush Administration for 8 years is "obsession", then I can't disagree with you.
November 18, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly what I mean. You don't know what you're talking about.
His committee is actually rather weak in everything but HLS. And as I was just pointing out, HLS is a Bush creation that has always beena mess and needs revamping, perhaps a complete rebuild. Leiberman's committee may not even be overseeing HLS, or whatever it's called in two years.
Otherwise it oversees a grab bag of agencies like the post office and census. It doesn't oversee appropriations, or functioning of the executive in any significant way where he'd be a threat to anyone. That's just some fever dream of yours.
November 18, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"fever dream".
Hope so.
And we disagree about how meaningful, or not, Lieberman's committe may, or may not be. While you may wish your statements are fact, they're opinion.
November 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree because you don't know what you're talking about. Don't you get it? HLS as it was formed under Bush is a joke. Lieberman's committee is a joke.
You're freaking out and willing to make him a martyr for it. It's about as smart and proportionate as the Israeli incursion into Syria.
His committee only oversees a grab bag of agencies like the post office. It's basically where nearly forgotten agencies go for oversight. It doesn't actually oversee government as the name might imply. And HLS is itself a bad joke, soon to be scuttled or reformed from the ground up.
In fact, the whole reason HLS was rolled into it was because HLS was always a mess and the Bush Admin constructed it in a way where it had no clear authority or mandate, and was totally redundant with other security agencies. Which was intentional as Bush ran the NSA, wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, etc entirely classified within the executive, without much of any oversight.
What little power his committee has is soon to be properly placed under judicial committees, military committees, and intelligence committees, or under a new HLS oversight/coordination agency.
November 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
straw man.
November 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
impressive.
November 18, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik has gone to great lengths to point out how meaningless this committee is, how pathetic Lieberman is, and so forth.
So why was so much time spent on Lieberman in the last 10 days if the committee is so useless, and Lieberman so powerless?
November 18, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obvious. Are you impling every kerfuffle in politics isbased in a wholly rational and informed electorate? In what universe?
A lot of goof balls see politics as blood sport and wanted his head. The sort of people who piss and moan on blogs every day, or come just for the red meat, but have little to no understanding of how government works.
November 18, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't referring to the blogs. I was referring to Reid's discussion with Lieberman, Obama's statements about it, and the comments by Leahey, Dorgan, etc.
But hey, go ahead and toss the insults! You're a very articulate insulter.
November 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And obviously that was done in part in consideration of politics, and especially the netroots calling for his head. Don't be stupid.
I think it's good they met on him because he was a PITA.
Having said that, I also think it's good and very smart of the Obama team and Dem leadership to leave him in place and reorganize government away from him when so many reforms are already needed, particularly HLS. Rather than martyr him by forcefully ejecting him now during the transition, to make Levin chair of a defunct committee.
And this will go well with the general public and ultimately help Obama and Democrats. It's only some tools in the netroots who can't see past their obsession with Lieberman.
November 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
triangulating centrist troll poop.
November 18, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually kozmik just attacks anyone who dares criticize his beloved obama.
November 18, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're still here? I thought there was a limit on the number of times a person could claim to be fed up and leave the party.
Bye!
November 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only replying because I want to see what it looks like. Will. Each. Word. Get. Its. Own. Line?
November 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. From polemic to poetry. Sweet.
November 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
My "c" is gone. Sob.
November 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is fun.
November 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bye. !
November 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
!
November 19, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
!
November 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am invisible. Cool! Where am I?
November 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is bullshit, despite your incessant, unsubstantiated, bare assertions that it's the case. I'll take Senator Byron Dorgan, Senator Bernie Sanders, Citzens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the reporters at Mother Jones (Brian Beutler) and Newsweek (Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball), the Center for American Progress, and the Project on Government Oversight -- all of whom agree that the committee does have that kind of power -- over your empty assertions and your equally empty assertions to anyone who disagrees with you that "you don't know what you're talking about." As if saying it Just One More Time will magically make it true.
Yeah, that'll look reeeeeal good. Democrats pull plug on "Democratic" chairman investigating Democratic president, stripping him of his responsibilities after investigations begin and subpoens are issued. I can't wait for the media to have fun with that one. Hope you've got lots of popcorn.
November 20, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw, look at who else sits in the committee. Have you even bothered? Levin for one, not exactly a pushover.
Do you really think Leiberman can get away with anything substantial going forward?
If HLS is reformed over the next 2 years, which it probably will be, Lieberman's duties will mostly entail overseeing the postoffice, and even then, not without Levin and Akaka's permission.
This obsession with Leiberman is much ado about NOTHING.
November 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've looked. Biden and Obama were both members. Susan Collins is the ranking member. What's your point?
The fact that we disagree, and will continue to disagree, over this is not because I'm ignorant of the committee or its membership, as you clearly seem to suggest. We disagree. I might be as knowledgeable as you about something and we still might disagree on that something.
November 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The points are obvious and already stated. Your apparent inability to even grapple with them isn't my failure to state them.
1) Lieberman is irrelevant and the obsession with him is pathetic and a terrible misprioritization
2) his committee isn't that important other than HLS
3) HLS may not exist in 2 years
4) Levin and Akaka have more pull in the Senate, certainly have an interest in HLS, and Lieberman really can't do anything without their permission. He's not a strong chairman able to twist arms or set the agenda.
5) He's irrelevant unless he was made into a martyr. Leaving him to wither in a weak committee while government reorganizes is surely the cleanest way to do things.
6) The obsession with him is petty.
November 18, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if you repeat it enough times, it must be true?
re: Lieberman is pathetic.
November 18, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't keep responding to this a-hole, dear CT. He appears every 6 months or so railing against leftist Democrats and their causes. He will keep repeating himself and constructing straw men to attempt to foil you. it's what he does.
November 18, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm impressed by your labeling.
November 18, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Triangulating centrist troll poop.
November 18, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if you obsess over him enough he becomes important. Feel free to contest any of these points:
1) Obama won, not McCain. The value of Leiberman's support doesn't seem to be worth much.
2) Obama by being magnanimous in victory stands to win politically and solidify his moderate support, and it costs him nothing to leave Leiberman a weak committee chair overseeing a lot of nothing.
3) Leiberman's commitee oversees a lot of nothing where he can do no harm. The post office and census bureau for example.
4) HLS is itself a bad joke of an agency. Which isn't to discount the need for real HLS coordination, it's just that HLS as Bush created it is a joke, and there's no reason to think Leiberman will oversee whatever new/reformed agency the Obama Admin creates, because it needs to be radically different and have a radically different relationship to Congress than the present Dept of HLS.
November 18, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
yawn. you're irrelevant.
November 18, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, you have nothing.
November 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
i've got plenty.
November 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of one liners, I'm sure you do. Not much on substance though.
November 18, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
for you no. why respond in detail you'll simply ignore and construct a new straw man. that is an excercise in futility I have no desire in taking today. it has been fun. see ya in few months when it's dem vs. dem on an auto industry bailout or some such?
November 18, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free to contest those points listed above. Impress us.
November 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
golly, this has been fun. but i'll think i'll just keep distracting you from the people that actually are buying in your straw-men.
November 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
like I said, you're troll. I'm done with you.
November 18, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
what does that make you?
November 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
pisher.
November 18, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Joe doesn't matter so much, and making a martyr of him would have only increased his importance.
You're right. Joe doesn't matter much but it is Joe Lieberman himself selling the notion that this issue was about his importance. This was, or rather should have been, a relatively simple matter of whether Democrats were willing to maintain party discipline and discourage their own members from working against them. Aside from the fact that they have made it quite clear now that they have no wish to do so, they used, as the excuse, their hesitance to martyr Joe. They took a matter that should have been exceedingly simple and pro forma punishment for betrayal and made it a matter of whether or not to advocate something as grand as retribution. How unbelievably ridiculous do you have to be as an organization to let the guy who spent the last year calling you a bunch of traitors and trying to undermine your entire agenda make it seem like he is the one taking the high road. What a bunch of clowns.
November 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Joe doesn't matter much but it is Joe Lieberman himself selling the notion that this issue was about his importance."
So Lieberman is unimportant... but we should let him decide the agenda...
"This was, or rather should have been, a relatively simple matter of whether Democrats were willing to maintain party discipline and discourage their own members from working against them."
Yeah, and the answer is: no, we don't intend to run the party or government like Gingrich or Delay would, and that's a good thing.
November 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
here he goes again.
November 18, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Lieberman is unimportant... but we should let him decide the agenda...
No. Try and pay attention. What I said was just the opposite. Despite the fact that Joe is unimportant, we did let him set the agenda. That was the problem all along. We let Joe and people around him frame this as an issue of retribution or revenge when it was always about the simple rule that betrayal invites consequences. You seem to be accepting Joe's absurd notion that to punish him was to make him too important and could harm the rest of our agenda. There is no rational underpinning for such a belief.
Yeah, and the answer is: no, we don't intend to run the party or government like Gingrich or Delay would, and that's a good thing.
Quite frankly, this is an outrageously dimwitted statement. Gingrich and Delay did not invent the concept of organizational discipline and loyalty. In fact, it wasn't even invented by Republicans. The idea that a group ought to discourage its members from acting against it defined goals is pretty much axiomatic. I have never even heard of an organization that would allow one of its members to do what Lieberman did with no consequence. In my lifetime, I have never seen it. I don't know where you work but if you did it at your job, I have no doubt you would be summarily fired. There certainly wouldn't be a vote. The idea that you somehow associate such a simple and utterly unremarkable institutional reaction to disloyalty with the excesses of Gingrich and Delay is deeply absurd.
November 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No we didn't. I'm only discussing the issue to tell people like you to shut up about it and get over it. Or don't.
Regardless, Lieberman and this committee aren't very important and if you want to rant about it all year, knock yourself out.
A lot of people don't seem to have figured out that the fringes and loudest yellers are going to be ignored for the next 8 years, at least. You can get with it, or you can be as irrelevant as the far right have become. A vocal but ultimately impotent minority going forward, not even able to sway the moderate elements of their own party.
November 18, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No we didn't.
We didn't what?
I'm only discussing the issue to tell people like you to shut up about it and get over it. Or don't.
Well that is a tremendously noble and important goal. I am sorry I ever doubted your intelligence.
Regardless, Lieberman and this committee aren't very important and if you want to rant about it all year, knock yourself out.
You're still not focusing huh? I already agreed that Lieberman and his chairmanship wasn't important. It is precisely why they could have just dumped him from it as an entirely appropriate and moderate punishment for his actions without turning it into such a drama. Lieberman and his supporters turned this into a passion play. There was never any need for it to be anything other than a simple rebuke to someone who was wont to act against Democratic interests. Not sure how that simple point, which you have yet to even try to dispute, qualifies as ranting but I leave it your your inestimable wisdom.
November 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, You've completely bought into the hype. Reality:
1) yes he's annoying, but no, he didn't actually do any damage. In reality his endorsement of McCain didn't mean squat, with anyone, not even Jews or CT voters who both went overwhelmingly for Obama.
2) He's not actually a Democrat anymore, but not actually a Republican either. He has no real power or allies. His reputration is in tatters.
3) The only way he could have any power is if Dems gave it to him, by forcing him to actually become a Republican or caucus with them, and making him a martyr to rally Republican partisanship. By allowing him to cling to his committee it really shows how sad he is.
4) It's fitting for him to chair a soon to be defunct committee. Almost poetic really. Rather than expend a lot of energy expelling him, it;s easier just to leave him where he is, and move on without him.
5) HLS will be reformed by Obama, and oversight will also be revamped and delegated to other committees. Lieberman will be left overseeing the Post Office and Census Bureau.
November 18, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of what you are saying here doesn't even address anything I have written but what the hell, I'll respond:
On 1) It is not especially reasonable to punish disloyalty only when its effective. The point is to discourage the intent not the result. I should think this would be entirely obvious.
2) His lack of party affiliation and supposed lack of reputation (I think you are wildly underestimating his continued importance to the public discourse) doesn't argue for his maintaining a chairmanship and standing in the Democratic party. There is no rational connection between those two things.
3) His threat to leave the party or caucus with Repubs lacks credibility. On the other hand, the idea that not punishing him will encourage further acts of disloyalty is quite credible. Indeed, what could possibly be his incentive to do otherwise?
4) Your repeated argument that the HLS committee will soon be defunct is really just mostly unsupported speculation but it is also beside the point. I hope it turns out that way but Lieberman's unacceptable actions will still have been politically validated by the members of his own party. There is no reason that needed to be the case except for the Democrats' unreasonable acceptance of Joe's whining blackmail.
5) This is much the same point as 4). Truth is that we don't really know what will happen with HLS but its also a peripheral concern.
November 18, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, his chairmanship doesn't matter because HLS is going to be revamped and he won't be the chair of anything except post office oversight soon enough. And the disincentive to be like Joe is already plenty clear.
Get that through your skull. If you can't, go ahead and leave the party. Good riddance. Go whine to whoever cares. For every one less whiner like you the party will gain two pragmatists concerned with real issues.
November 18, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, his chairmanship doesn't matter because HLS is going to be revamped and he won't be the chair of anything except post office oversight soon enough.
Repeating bald assertions does not make them anymore true and it certainly doesn't make them any more relevant. One more time, your speculation about HLS is just that. Its a guess and you haven't the slightest idea whether Lieberman will emerge with more a less power after any reorganization. Its an assertion with next to no tangible support no matter how many times you say it.
It is also, to state one more time for the record, completely irrelevant to my argument. I don't care about HLS. I care about whether Lieberman, and others in the caucus, are discouraged from acting against the party's interests. If HLS is going to be retooled, it won't be because Lieberman is being forced to face any consequences for his actions and that is what needed to happen today.
And the disincentive to be like Joe is already plenty clear.
LOL. Its so clear that it is practically invisible. Kosmik. Kosmik. Kosmik. You're being ridiculous. Lieberman has suffered no penalty for his disloyalty, your fanciful estimation of his diminished importance and tattered reputation notwithstanding. Nothing, absolutely nothing, at least that we know of, has changed for him other than a very minor slap on the wrist. Your perception that he has suffered some serious harm from this that will somehow make him less influential is completely belied by today's events where most of his Democratic colleagues defended his good name and honor.
If you can't, go ahead and leave the party. Good riddance. Go whine to whoever cares. For every one less whiner like you the party will gain two pragmatists concerned with real issues.
What any of this has to do with me leaving the party is yet another item completely invented inside your imagination. You seem to be responding to things that you have imagined I have written. My argument, in the real world outside of your imagination, whether you agree with it or not, is a pragmatic argument. I am arguing that the party better serves its interests by discouraging its members don't try to undermine its entire agenda. You disagree and apparently have a different assessment of what is in their best interests. Fair enough. But that doesn't make my argument any less pragmatic unless you don't know the meaning of the word which frankly seems quite possible at this stage.
November 18, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw Dean too
November 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah screw everybody. Thanks for the deep thoughts.
November 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honeymoon is officially over. The first stone is cast on Obama and ironically it comes from the left.
I can't believe people actually think Lieberman is a big enough reason to bring down each other.
November 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
co-sign, kash.
November 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Left has just got license to explode when he appoints Hillary. After 20 months all it took was a Lieberman.
Lieberman won not because of a stupid chairmanship, but he just became a reason for the left and the Deomocratic leadership to divorce even before the marriage.
November 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much. The Dems in the Senate wanted to say "Screw you" to the lefties, and they just did.
November 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressive Left just gave the Dems two consecutive massive victories and this is what we get. Somehow this makes sense in the Senate cloakroom, but it doesn't make sense out here.
November 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the people here throwing stones at the Senate Dem critics don't bother to address real issues at play here:
* Lieberman has not done his job as Chair of Homeland Security. He actually helped Bush and Cheney by not carrying out his oversight duties as Chair.
* Lieberman is not contrite for his attacks on Democrats and the Democratic nominee for President. He mainly says we misquoted him.
* Lieberman can use his seat to attack Obama and the Dems' position. What has been done to prevent that?
* Lieberman has been rewarded for all of the above. Look at his shit-eating grin in all those pictures.
Attack us all you want, but we're raising real issues here.
November 18, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Implying Leiberman maintains power by overseeing HLS is baloney. A red herring. Oxymoron.
The agency of HLS is itself is a joke.
It's not the military, not law enforcement, not the FBI, CIA, NSA or any other intelligence agency. Nor does it have any real authority to coordinate them as it's not anywhere in the executive or CoC.
It was constructed as a smoke screen while the Bush Admin actually conducted illegal NSA wiretaps, Extraordinary Rendition, Gitmo, etc, with little to no oversight.
How do you competently oversee a smokesreen? That's an oxymoronic concept.
November 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he's simply the LAST STRAW.
November 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And bring em down we will
They've spit on us for the last time
November 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can always move to New Zealand after the biggest Democratic election since 1964.
Let the guy be the actual President before you go off on him.
Let's face the facts. WE (and I sometimes count myself among this group) are the base of the party, the true believers. Nothing is good enough for us because the leaders always betray us.
Sounds like the base of the Republican Party. They have been "betrayed" time and time again by their elected leaders.
We don't have enough electoral clout to elect a true believer like Kucinich, so we hitched our wagon to Obama. And he got elected! But so did a lot of other voters who are far more pragmatic than you or I. They get their say too. I have a ton of confidence in Obama. He is 15 moves ahead of the rest of us. Let him govern for a while before you give up.
New Zealand is beautiful this time of year!
November 18, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised. He's always done that. He's a clever provocateur imo.
November 18, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there ever any doubt?
To be clear, I think the real Obama supporters will understand why this move is the best thing in the long term. That HLS will probably be completely revamped int he coming two years anyways. That Joe doesn't matter enough to make him a martyr.
The goof balls who call themselves political junkies, but really just obsess all day over blogs, and who treat politics as a soap opera or sport, they've of course going to freak out. They live on drama. Good governance and pragmatism will never keep them entertained. Their entire self identity is based on the notion they're more left, ahead of the curve, and continually kvetching to prove it.
OF COURSE they'll be attacking Obama in no time. Plenty already are. They don't know who else to be.
November 18, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"real Obama supporters"? are they "pro-American"? Seriously, dude.
November 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean people who actually understand what Obama stands for and wants to do. Which includes most of his supporters. Volunteering for the campaign I found about 95% of people got it and the one in twenty or so who see politics as sport quickly washed out and didn't come back.
Some people online, and some of the most prolific posters, see politics as some sort of bloodsport and Obama as the new gladiatorial champion. Politics is entertainment for them. I'd say about about half of TPM's most prolific posters fall into that category. Which is pretty good considering it's more like 75% at Kos, and virtually 100% at rt wing sites.
Of course those people will be calling for his head, for failing to entertain them, soon enough.
November 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
see ya next time it's dem vs. dem, kosmik. that's the only time you rear your pompous head.
November 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
:rolleyes:
Some of us actually went out and volunteered for the Obama campaign and have lives and can't be here 24/7.
November 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep and you only find time and comment when the dems are fighting amongst each other. what's your deal? mighty suspicious.
November 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mighty stupid is more like it.
November 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, you are. thanks for being so humble and acknowledging it yourself.
November 18, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, from your avatar and your comments you seem to be a troll, possibly a freeper posing as a particularly poorly informed and angry gay man for whom the Democratic party will never be left and who you're constantly threatening to leave as they disappoint you repeatedly. Which you seem to enjoy.
But, I would point out, politically that only helps the Democratic party. Good job smart guy.
November 18, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, was that supposed to upset me? please go on, pisher.
November 18, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond Lieberman, the larger issue is the fact that Obama possesses a very strong control of Congressional Democrats. Hopefully that will continue, and Pelosi and Reid will recognize who gave them the large majorities they have.
November 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more
The Congressional Democrats are nothing without him.
His high priced mistresses
November 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He better make hay while the sun shines. He has about 2 years if he's lucky before the new Congress attenuates his influence.
November 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Howard. You just made leaving the party even easier. Hardly a Democrat remains who I have respect for.
November 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's unfortunate, but you can't please everyone and it's more important to build a strong majority coalition of pragmatic people. Sorry you couldn't be one.
November 18, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let Dean and "GIVE EM HELL HARRY" pay for 2010
November 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
And it will do absolutely nothing no matter what kind of job Lieberman does as chair. Heckuva job, Harry Reid! John Kerry! Richard Durbin! Barack Obama!
November 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean's right. That's all they EVER do. Feather their nests take care of their own
To them you are an ATM at best
November 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put the fear of God into them
That is the only way to motivate a coward
November 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
GIVE EM HELL Harry Reid
That's funny
November 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL is too strong for Reid. Give 'em HECK (gosh durn it) Harry is more like it.
November 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about progressives throwing a hissy fit. This is about the stakes for Obama and the Democrats. We are at a juncture in which "safe", timid policies are the most dangerous possible course of action. Failure to act boldly and decisively to stimulate the economy and reduce inequality will result in a deep, Japanese-style L-shaped recession and consequently, a failed Presidency.
November 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Already considering the failed Obama presidency.
I've misjudged you all.
November 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, Steve doesn't speak for us all, but being the troll that you are, I certainly understand your confusion.
November 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I'm not. Do you understand what "the stakes" means? You have stakes in a game that HASN'T BEEN PLAYED YET. You WARN about possible events that HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. Hope this helps. Perhaps English isn't your native language.
And I will say again, timidity for the sake of "not going too far left" is actually the riskiest policy choice that could be made now. Paul Kruguman has been repeatedly and very clearly explaining this in all the stuff he's written recently. Rather than trolling, you might more productively employ your time in looking it up.
November 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, take a look at the comments here. Gotta say its looking an awful lot like a hissy fit.
But I totally agree that we've got to go bold. Indeed, when things are as messed up as they are now, bold is the only move. In normal times, timid people want to take timid actions, because, while they can only yield small successes if they if they work, they will also only cause small problems if they fail, while bold could result in either spectacular success or spectacular failure. When things get bad, however, and especially when "things" = "the economy," timid will always yield spectacular failures, while bold action at least stands a chance of success.
But when things are bad, its also important to focus on the substantive and and minimize the distractions. There's a legitimate--not necessarily right, but legitimate--argument to be made that Lieberman is a smaller distraction in the caucus with a slapped wrist than he is out of the caucus and a sad-eyed martyr to his principles (yes, that sound is me gagging. We both know he'd he'd make up a new set just for the occaision).
November 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they should have given Lieberman the boot, but let's keep this in perspective. There are a lot bigger issues out there than Lieberman. If they get those right, I can live with Lieberman as HS&GA chair.
November 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder if Obama will run as a GOP candidate next time. That will be true bipartisanship, my friends.
November 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmph, why am i starting to have buyer's remorse for voting DEMS all the way? obama, you are starting to weigh me down too...
why would DEms vote to keep Lieberman and pretend this all about revenge when clearly Lieberman sucks? Kerry of all people? Is this payback for the COS position????? Obama can't be so stupid to surround himself with those who will backstab him at every turn!! I am worried about the HRC pick and now Lieberman will remain chairman of a post where he and President elect do not see eye to eye? Is Obama a masochist or what??? Are the senators only worried about looking out for their own? So voters cast a ballot and we get screwed while politicians be well, politicians???
November 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops i meant SOS position...
November 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a cop out. Obama's statement was pretty damn clear in my book: this was a decision for the Democratic Caucus to make, not him. They made the decision (as a co-equal branch), now fucking live with it.
November 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think that if Obama had wanted Joe out of that chair, Joe would have been out of that chair, so Obama isn't entirely responsibility free in this instance.
November 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him
Does anyone else think this is over the top?
It helps people like Kos to keep a part of the left angry all the time. I wonder when is his next booking on MTP?
November 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As outraged as I am, the pragmatist in me wonders if this maneuver was just a way to keep the Senate majority together through the lame duck session by not giving Lieberslime a reason to bolt before January. It also makes me wonder if Obama is powerful enough to have Joe fall on his sword at any given moment. If that's true and it happens, then I may have misunderestimated Mr. O.
November 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he doesn't watch out, Obama will win California by only 23.75% next time, instead of 24%.
November 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
nope, i think these people are free to interpret obama's silly statement any way they choose...obama could have been clearer if he wanted to....he did give them cover and they took it like he chickens they are....,if he was hoping they would use common sense, he lost!!! lieberman must have something on these folks..like a cat with 9 lives, the wimpy saddle-switcher refuses to disappear!
November 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo.
Boo, boo, boo.
Disappointed!
November 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not "solely," but this was mostly about retribution for Liebermann campaigning against Obama. Revenge pure and simple.
Do you honestly believe that the world or the Senate would care anything about Liebermann's mediocre chairmanship if he didn't campaign for McCain?
Here we have a candidate who campaigned on changing the way government works, and we trusted this candidate enough to vote for him, but as soon as he decides not to seek revenge (and Obama has to be the most aggrieved person in all of this), as soon as he decides that he doesn't want to continue the revenge-driven governing we've had from Nixon to Bush, as soon as we see that different might mean different from what we feel, then we decide we've had it.
November 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
November 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree, both with the original comment and your responses.
November 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% co-sign, or agree with, or whatever the kids are saying these days.
November 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cosign your cosign. I also notice that the people who get this have been imo the more intelligent posters and early Obama supporters.
November 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not.
November 19, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a way, you're correct: by campaigning for so strongly against Obama, Joe made it quite clear how important his chairmanship might actually be.
Sure, he let the Bush Administration completely off the hook, thereby probably deepening the damage it will incur, but imagine if he applied the same zeal he demonstrated in campaigning against Obama to investigating an Obama Administration?
It's not about revenge, at all. It's about being proactive, and trying to prevent a farce like the Christmas card list investigation from happening.
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. In a country of laws, there have to be consequences for breaking the law. The leader of a country of laws leads by example. Being magnanimous for the sake of currying favor betrays the concept of the rule of law, even if the laws in question are the rules and traditions of a political party.
The man betrayed both the party and the leader. The leader can afford to forgive transgressions against him, but he can't afford to forgive those against the party, else the party rules (the laws) have no meaning.
If Dean is right and the caucus is bowing to the wishes of Obama, then Obama has overstepped. We will see to what detriment in time.
November 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. It's not about revenge. It's about not wanting a guy who's been working for years to whip up fear in the American Jewish community for the benefit of the Israeli Religious Right to come anywhere NEAR the Homeland Security policymaking apparatus.
Also, don't forget that the second most deadly terrorist attack on American soil was perpetrated by one of those "real" Americans who'd have been right at home among the howling mobs shouting "Kill him!" while Joe Lieberman stood onstage behind Sarah Palin as she accused Barack Obama of supporting terrorism and hanging out with people who wanted to blow up the Pentagon. Is this who you want in charge of Homeland Security?
November 18, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a group of people that worked tireless for a man who used every single chance he got to talk about the need to get away from partisan division and putting that kind of fuck-you politics aside, you have become rapidly partisan and fuck-you-y about this issue. And, honestly, some of you are getting really overdramatic.
But maybe that's what Reid & Co,. should expect for being the Boy Who Cried Keep Your Powder Dry once too often. This would have been a much easier honor-killing to have to forego, I guess, if the democrats in the Senate had a little more spine in the past.
In any event, the mantra for the last few months is still true: Everyone, chill the fuck out. He's got this.
November 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
..this is intra-party, so how are we being partisan?
November 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it an "honor-killing" to want to remove someone who let the Bush Administration slide for two years?
November 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah yeah we know the obama zombie personality cult motto.
but i'll chill the fuck out when obama actually delivers on anything I think matters. and i won't chill the fuck out just because zombies like you don't think anything matters.
November 18, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never considered myself firmly on the left. And I am not. But this Lieberman thing really upsets me. And it's not about left or right. In any case, all I want to say is the Dems impress me as unwise at best and unprincipled at worst. All they need to do is strip Lieberman of the chairmanship and put him "on probation", promising him that if he starts behaving, he will get the next big thing. With that prize dangling in front of him, I am sure we will find him the most reliable vote for Obama's agenda.
November 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris:
They negotiated as if Traitor Joe held all the power. So weak and spineless ... and stupid. Apparently they have no backbone and can't add or subtract.
November 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not happy with this decision. But remember how many questioned Obama's action or inaction during the election? It turned out they were wrong. I am honig to give him the benefit of the doubt.
For those of you threatening to jump ship, it makes no sense to judge Obama so soon after the election based upon a handful of decisions.
November 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction: I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. c
November 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Croak-sign!
November 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Lieberman played the Judeo mind trick on the Democratic Caucus.
"You can remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee."
"You can remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee."
"Have a nice day."
"Have a nice day."
November 18, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I agree that the Lieberman business isn't a gigantic deal in and of itself. But as an early indicator of whether the Dems are prepared to take real action based on the mandate they've been handed, it's hard to deny that it isn't very encouraging.
November 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd like to see Lieberman not only stripped, but also tarred & feathered. I don't get it.
That said, I have been impressed by Obama's good judgement. Given the lack of obvious good reasons for letting Leiberman off the hook, I can only surmise that there is more to this than meets the eye.
In the larger scheme of things, this is pretty insignificant stuff, so it's time for the throwers of hissy-fits to take a breath, count to ten and move on.
November 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to to tie up Joe Lieberman and throw him into the Chicago River just as much as the next guy, but the bottom line is that this earns both Obama and Reid mucho political capital. Lieberman owes these guys and he knows it, and they know it. When Obama or Reid says "jump!" Traitor Joe says "Yessir! How High and how far? And may I do it again and again." Besides, this really plays into the meme of Obama and "new politics" which plays well with the press, the public and the Republicans.
Finally, I would just add that an underplayed aspect of this saga is that Obama and Reid can now use Loserman as a bridge and conduit to moderate Republicans, which in the Senate, could prove invaluable.
November 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheer nonsense:
When Obama or Reid says "jump!" Traitor Joe says "Yessir! How High and how far? And may I do it again and again."
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Holy Joe will be sticking his thumb in the Democrats' eye in no time.
And, are you happy with Joe's work as Chair of Homeland Security the past years? Are you grateful to him for helping Cheney and Bush cover up?
"Change we can believe in," my ass. What a crock. Incompetence and cronyism is rewarded.
November 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that were true. They will say "please jump" and Traitor Joe will reply "screw you."
November 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't think for a second that the Dems let Joe stay without a shitload of preconditions.
November 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
the vote wasn't the result of any negotiations. there are no 'terms'.
November 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man you must be smokin' some good shit to believe that. It's pretty amusing to read all these little fantasies about how an abysmal capitulation to a slimeball is really a win for our side.
November 18, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Given the lack of obvious good reasons for letting Leiberman off the hook"
Well, the reasons seem obvious to me. First a Lieberman in the chair is better than a Lieberman on FOX news expressing his disappointment in the extreme partisanship of the Dem. caucus. Yes that would be mealy mouthed bullshit but that's beside the point.
Second, he had his meeting with McCain and Graham yesterday. Lieberman is sort of the third Musketeer there.
If he wants to accomplish big things there are a lot of times he will need 60 votes and Mitch McConnell is a wily opponent.
This makes Obama looks magnanimous and earns good will with the center right.
The only real downside is the hysteria from the Netroots.
November 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little soothing music is apparently in order.
Obama is not Obambi and I submit he's made a political bargain. We're all privy to what Joe got.
So what did Obama get? Trust me, it was more than a "feeling" or some vague nonsense about bipartisanship.
November 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He got a great demonstration that all of his "Change" rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.
He helped return a guy to a seat of power which that guy has abused. How did Joe Lieberman serve the people as Chair of Homeland Security?
Very. poorly.
November 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called the DSCC and informed them I will not give them a dime.
Said this was not "change" when they reappoint to the Chair of Homeland Security a guy who has helped the Bush-Cheney crooks cover their tracks.
And, you can call the DSCC, too!
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447
I'll be giving, instead, to ACTBlue, MoveOn, DFA, etc.
The Dem Party is just too corrupt to warrant my support.
November 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, this isn't exactly unity.
November 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lie"berman is a suck-up. Now he's in Obama's back pocket. Political capital means nothing without leverage.
November 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Obama's back pocket? Why do you say that?
What's to stop Lieberman from attacking Democrats again, as he has been doing since Kerry, and especially Lamont, got the nomination?
Instead, Lieberman can hold hearings on the Obama Administration for the next two years and the spineless Dem caucus has shown they won't stand up to him.
November 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Traitor Joe will still go on Fox News and trash Obama and the Democrats.