by Damozel | UPDATE: Which, yeah, he's keeping it. It's actually sort of funny. Like, you know, I drove the car into a ditch while drunk driving
with my best friend, and my parents punish me by taking away my bike.
From The Washington Post earlier today:
A pair of Senate Democrats will offer a compromise plan today to sanction Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) for his support of the Republican presidential ticket but allow him to keep a key committee chairmanship and remain in the party caucus.
Senators and aides said yesterday that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) will present a plan at a caucus meeting that would strip Lieberman of a low-profile subcommittee chairmanship, possibly one on global warming. But Lieberman would retain the gavel of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. (WaPo)
How can that be? as Chris Cillizza says.
Asked and answered!
The answer is simple -- and yet complicated. The Senate is a legislative body that was built on and even today relies heavily upon personal loyalties. It's why West Virginia Sen. Bob Byrd (D) and Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) are close friends although they agree on almost nothing from a policy perspective; they have spent decades together on the Appropriations committee and, in the Senate, that connection runs far deeper than party identification.
Lieberman seems to be benefiting from his relationships in a body where he has served since 1988. The "old guard" (in the words of one senior Senate Democratic aide) has aligned behind him -- willing to forgive and forget. The newer members -- at least 12 Democratic Senators have been elected in 2006 and 2008 alone -- as well as the liberal wing of the party are much more upset about Lieberman's apostasy and want to see him punished.
"Members are eager to hear his remarks tomorrow," said one senior Democratic aide. "While some want his chairmanship gone, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [Nev.] wants him in the tent, the moderates are pushing hard and the bulk of the caucus is playing ball, particularly if they can strip Lieberman of at least one key committee." (The Fix)
In other words, they want Lieberman in the club even if he has betrayed the party. Yeah, I get that---if the Senate were the Senators' private club. What? Oh. Okay, then. I guess the Democratic caucus kind of is. We send our guys to DC and they get to decide what's best for the rank and file.
I wouldn't be worked up about it if I were happy with his performance on the Homeland Security Committee. I am not.
As Greg Sargent at TPM puts it:
...Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been a disaster at the post, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.
Or, as Kasgro X puts it:
So if that's right, and that's what they go with, then the plan is to strip Lieberman of the subcommittee where he's actually a good Democrat, but leave him in control of the full committee where he stands in opposition to the Obama administration, the Democratic Caucus, and most of America.
This is a good plan, because blah, blah, bipartisanship, mumble, mumble, reconciliation, hummina-hummina sixty.
Senator Obama did his bit for Lieberman and evidently asked for a "compromise."
Many Democrats believe that effort to oust Lieberman from the Homeland Security chairmanship were dealt a death knell last week, when Barack Obama said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Though Obama said he wouldn't "referee" the question over the chairmanship, Obama's statement had the practical effect of allowing Lieberman's allies to claim Obama's support and giving cover to those who want to do nothing about Lieberman's transgressions. (WaPo)
But I am not going to blame Obama---there wasn't much else he could do without sounding vindictive. That's not how he rolls, or how he should roll. It's not up to him (or shouldn't be). I don't suppose he could have stayed out of it. By which I actually mean: I don't suppose he could have stayed out of it?
Several prominent Dems oppose letting Lieberman keep the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair. TPM again: "Even a Lieberman ally, Senator Tom Carper, said today that Lieberman should face consequences that are not "insignificant."" Who knows what "not insignificant" means when politics is in play?
But the outcome pretty much shows what the back rooms of tomorrow's Brave New Democratic Government is going to look like just from this. Or, as The Who put it: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Etc.
Obama or no Obama, I ain't holding my breath for any Capital C Change in the way things are done in DC. But since I never expected it, I won't be that disappointed either---only happily surprised if I'm proven wrong.
RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
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
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Did Bush Admin. Mislead us About Iranian Arms in Iraq?
Senate to Consider $25 Billion Auto-Industry Bailout: But Why? (Updated)
I think that Lyndon Johnson's philosophy is at work. Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Posted by: ROTUS | November 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I think that Lyndon Johnson's philosophy is at work. Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Posted by: ROTUS | November 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I think that Lyndon Johnson's philosophy is at work. Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Posted by: ROTUS | November 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I think that Lyndon Johnson's philosophy is at work. Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Posted by: ROTUS | November 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM