by Teh Nutroots | There is no joy in Demville. Holy Joe did not strike out. Here are what some other blogs are saying:
Michael Stickings at The Reaction:
Reid: "I am satisfied with what we did today. I feel good about what we did today. I don't apologize to anyone for what we did today."
Then, Senator, you are truly spineless.
Kos:
[T]here's...disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.
I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.
While I've never been a Lieberman-hater, I simply think he crossed a line that incredibly few sitting members of Congress in either party have ever crossed, and even fewer (you have to go all the way back to 1956 for an parallel) have crossed without losing their seniority entirely. And this line--you do not endorse the other party's presidential candidate--represents the absolute irreducible minimum of what we must expect of federal elected officials who want to affiliate in any way with the Democratic Party. The refusal to apply this principle--not angrily, or vengefully, but resolutely--is not some sort of signal of a "Big Tent" party; indeed, it most offends moderate-to-conservative Democrats past and present who have respected this one simple rule, and somehow managed to avoid Republican presidential campaign rallies. Reimposing this rule in the future will be difficult, and we all may come to regret that.
A.L. (Anonymous Liberal) sees an upside "if you squint really hard":
It's pretty clear from the statements of various parties, including Lieberman himself, that Obama's expressed desire to bury the hatchet was instrumental in allowing Lieberman to retain his chairmanship. Obama didn't have to do this. Lieberman campaigned for his opponent and said a lot of unfair things about Obama during the campaign. If Obama had allowed Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanship, no one would have blamed him.
Everyone on Capitol Hill and in the press corps knows this. So, in a very real sense, Lieberman is now beholden to Obama. He's owes him one. And there may be times in the next few years when President Obama needs to cash that in.
Of course, A.L. also says this:
Now it's entirely possible that Sanctimonious Joe will prove to be an ingrate, that despite receiving help he didn't deserve from the President-Elect, he won't return the favor down the road. I certainly wouldn't put it past him. But I can at least see the logic in this from Obama's perspective. It doesn't do him much good to have a wounded and angry Lieberman flailing about in the Senate. But with this outcome, there's at least the possibility of putting Lieberman to more constructive use.
Responding to a similar argument made elsewhere, Josh Orton at My DD says:
[T]here's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election.
I also don't agree that "Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee." Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power.
dday reviews some of Lieberman's history re: Iran, and concludes:
[T]his is the kind of fearmongering, overhyping and agenda-driven bluster you can expect coming out of the Homeland Security Committee, in the name of "protecting Americans," over the next 2-4 years.
Can't say you weren't warned.
Matt Stoller at Open Left says:
I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't....
[T]here is an element of telling us to fuck off, and you should get the message. And that message is from everyone who made this possible.
Ambinder posted an interesting letter at his site from Prof. John Zaslow, which---as Ambinder affirms---is hard to argue with. It reads in pertinent part:
All of this might be forgiven if Lieberman had shown that he was an excellent committee chairman. But in fact, he has been a terrible one. This is partly because of his failure to investigate the serial incompetence of the administration on just about everything. Katrina was only one. And this didn't have to be partisan: incompetence is incompetence no matter who does it. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit--certainly no liberal--has in several opinions accused the immigration judges in ICE of being the most incompetent he had seen..... Wouldn't it have been nice to have had the Senate Homeland Security investigating these things and trying to fix them? Wouldn't it have been nice to have had the Senate Homeland Security investigating these things and trying to fix them?....
This is far more than just political payback. It reflects a concern that, now that Democrats simply do not have the will to enforce the public mandate. I don't care about Lieberman personally; but I care an awful lot about the country. And I'm not sure that Senate Democrats do. (emphasis added)
And the conservatives, what are they saying? Let's take a look! Claudia at Poligazette:
In a move so weak it’s almost funny, [Democrats] decided to oust him from a subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works. They really shouldn’t have bothered. It matters not at all to Lieberman himself and fools absolutely no one into thinking you are at all stern or disciplined.
Lieberman, who it must be said has 10 times the huevos of the Democratic Party, did not act like a man who had been granted a second chance he may have not deserved. He called the result “fair and forward-looking” and, when asked about apologizing for some of his remarks during the campaign (like saying Obama put politics above country, that asking if he was a Marxist was “a good question” or that Obama wanted surrender) he offered what has to be one of the lamest halfway non-apologies ever...
Though the Democrats and Lieberman talk about reconcilliation and moving forward, this is simply another formality they should not bother with. Everyone knows that this move has nothing to do with reconcilliation and everything to do with getting within reach of a 60 vote majority. With races in the balance in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia, Lieberman’s vote is of utmost importance, and both he and the Democrats know it.
BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
The Prevailing of Joe Lieberman
Lieberman "Compromise" "Punishment" Proposal Means He Will Keep His Committee Chair
Brave New Films: Joe Lieberman Must Go!
Leahy and Sanders Demand Lieberman's Ouster from Homeland Security Committee
Lieberman Watch Part 2: Republicans Reach Out
Just Say "No Joe": Lieberman Watch
Comments