by Damozel | Can't say I'm surprised. I can't even say I'm disappointed because...well, this is who Obama is. Expect him to walk a middle path (to quote the I Ching), meaning one quite a bit to the right of where progressives would like him to be.
If Reid lets Lieberman keep his committee chair, progressives might well be "up in arms" as Nico Pitney and Sam Stein remark, but I reckon---and I say this with love---that progressives who voted for Obama might as well get used to finding him come up short in supporting the understandable (to this progressive) desire to wipe the slate clean.
We here at Buck Naked Politics supported Obama---some, like me, more fervently than others---but none of us ever mistook him for a progressive (which is why some people here were never that enthusiastic about him). His change meme has always been about the unity and the bipartisan action and the reaching across the aisle and the reconciliation.
Taylor Marsh remarks:
There hasn't been such a hissy fit since the primaries. Seriously. What part of post-partisan did people miss in Obama's 21-month campaign?...
Lieberman has no loyalties, but to himself. Big surprise.
Guess what? President-elect Obama is obviously well aware of this, but he's more than willing to take Joe's votes when he can get them, which will be fairly often.
So of course, when he was asked about Joe Lieberman, he wasn't going to say that Lieberman should be expelled from the Democratic caucus.
President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
Obama's decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.
Aides to the president-elect did not return requests for comment. Senate officials were unclear whether Obama would be comfortable with Lieberman maintaining his current committee post. (HuffPost)
Of course, whether he stays in the caucus is a completely separate question from whether remains chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee. As Steve Benen pointed out a couple of days ago, Reid didn't in fact threaten to boot him out; and he apparently offered Lieberman another committee chair. Lieberman threatened to walk if he couldn't retain his chair. "I wouldn't want to see him booted out" is kind of a minimal response, isn't it? What's in question, I guess, is whether Obama meant "I wouldn't want him to be kicked out" as opposed to "I hope you'll induce him to stay." Quite a lot of the discussion, as Greg Sargent points out, mixes up the distinction.
Josh Marshall says:
That doesn't mean he doesn't want him punished in some way. I have the sense -- though this is more speculation on my part -- that he's agnostic on that question. But he wants him in the caucus -- which would seem to give Lieberman some real leverage.
Greg Sargent says:
[T]he question for the Obama camp is, Do they really countenance Lieberman, a colossal failure at this gig, to stay as Homeland Security chair? A lot is riding on the specific messages that come from Obama's camp on this question, and it's fair to ask for a specific answer.
I don't guess I expect Obama to answer this question directly, do you? Publicly, at least, I imagine he'll leave this decision to Reid.
Kos---damn, he still doesn't get it---doesn't seem to understand Obama's reasoning.
I suspect with Obama's edict (again, assuming such reports are accurate), [stripping Lieberman of everything] is off the table as it looks too much like retribution and for whatever bizarre reason, that's apparently bad. Democrats love playing the "battered spouse" bit.
All Democrats who voted for Obama should pause to ask themselves why so many Republicans and moderates voted for him. John Cole says:
The weirdest thing about this election was listening to Democrats acting if he was the new liberal icon and Republicans attempting to pretend he was the new socialist devil. He is neither, and there was never anything in his speeches or his policies to suggest that he was. Watching Republicans try to demonize him as some wild lefty over the next few years is going to be pretty damned amusing, especially since if anything, Obama represents a competent, nonthreatening centrism.
Whatever. I don't agree with HuffPost that Harry Reid's hands are tied. He is certainly free to disregard Obama's opinion. Kos again:
Whatever concerns the Obama administration might be making, the Senate is still run by Harry Reid. Or at least it supposedly is. If Reid can't be his own man, and run the place according to his own wishes, not only does he deserve to lose his leadership spot, but his seat when he's up for reelection in 2010.
We've seen what happened to Congress when they decided they no longer were an independent branch of government, rather an appendage of the White House. It wasn't pretty. We don't need more of the same. (Kos)
Right. And Reid's decision to offer Lieberman a lesser or different committee chair seems to me to be the right middle ground for Dems: Lieberman can take it or he can leave it. If he wants to leave the Democratic caucus he can, as Markos says, do so under his own steam.
I believe in magnanimity, but I do think it's appropriate for there to be consequences to Lieberman's actions. And I want him off that committee anyway, for reasons Kos states.
Why should Lieberman lose his committee?:
- Lieberman has been ineffective at his committee, shielding Bush from criticisms about the war and Katrina.
- Lieberman took to the campaign trail and spoke at the RNC conference bashing Democrats and Obama on ... national security.
So functionally, Lieberman has been a Republican on the issue of National Security the past two years.
To quote Nicholas, f*** that for a game of soldiers. Again, Reid offered Lieberman what Steve Benen correctly characterized as "a very sweet deal."
Reid is nevertheless willing to a) let him stay in the Democratic caucus; b) keep his seniority; and c) give him the chairmanship of something else. That, by any reasonable measure, is ridiculously gracious of Reid. It's certainly more generosity than Lieberman deserves or has earned.
And yet, Lieberman thinks that's "unacceptable."
What possible incentive could Reid and Senate Democrats have to offer Lieberman an even better deal? The message is, or at least should be, surprisingly straightforward: "If you don't like the generous offer, join the minority party." It must drive Lieberman crazy, but the fact remains that Democrats don't really need him. He has no leverage.
The Anonymous Liberal argues in favor of magananimity.
The Democrats have just won a landslide victory and that gives them the latitude to be magnanimous, to show mercy even to those who don't deserve it. And that can be just as powerful a message as anything else. It says that the Democrats are serious about building their tent, about being a true majority party open to everyone who wants to be a part of it--even if they're very late to the game.
Taking punitive action against Lieberman, on the other hand, will look vindictive and small. Even if Obama stays completely out of it, the media will suggest that he allowed it to happen, that he could have stopped it and didn't. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not exactly starting off on the right foot. It might not be the message of inclusiveness that Obama wants to convey right now.
If I were Harry Reid, I'd probably let Lieberman keep his seniority and his place in the caucus, and I'd try to shuffle the committee chairs to give him the chairmanship of a committee where he tends to agree with most other Democrats (maybe education?). I'd also let it be known that Lieberman is on Double Secret Probation going forward and any decisions are subject to reconsideration should circumstances warrant. That should be enough to keep him in line.
But---as noted above---it looks as if Reid has already done all that.
It's Lieberman who has said that the "offer" is unacceptable. I'm sorry; but that's just arrogant.
Greg Sargent makes a crucial point on this score.
[L]et's not get distracted. The question isn't whether Lieberman gets to "stay in the Dem caucus" if he wants to. That's what Lieberman wants you to think the question on the table is. Rather, the issue is, will Dems let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee?
The Lieberman camp has worked very hard to muddy the waters here. Lieberman aides have tried to persuade people that a vote to oust him from the committee is indistinguishable from a vote to oust him from the Dem caucus overall.
Don't believe it. Reid's people have made the situation very clear: The question of whether Lieberman remains in the caucus is up to him. He can vote how he wants, no matter what happens to his committee assignments.
Should he stay or should he go? I don't really care, so long as he doesn't keep his chair on that particular committee. I don't think this makes Democrats "like battered spouses," as Kos puts it; it's simply pragmatic. I just don't think Reid should be negotiating with Lieberman. Allowing Lieberman to stay in the caucus is fine; but where I have a problem is if Reid is actively attempting to induce him to remain.
George Stephanophalous says that the matter will be voted on when Dems caucus next week. But which matter? Whether he remains in the caucus or whether he gets to retain his chair on the committee Homeland Security Committee? Both?
Digby thinks either option should be unacceptable to Dems, and never mind Obama's wish to display magnanimity.
Joe Lieberman is a sanctimonious egomaniac who has no sense of loyalty or gratitude and he will stab Obama in the back as often as possible. He may even use his subpoena power on the Homeland Security Committee (which they are going to have to let him keep) to harrass him on behalf of conservative interests. It's a huge mistake to keep him in the caucus where he will have knowledge of their strategy and legislative tactics. He will be the first one called upon to "speak for" Democrats who are unhappy with Obama's inevitable "overreaching." He is a mole for the Republican party.
Josh Orton agrees:
Lieberman is the Fox News of the Senate. Enable him now, and it'll just bite you in the rear later. Obama might as well recognize Joe's bad faith early and save himself the headache.
Taylor Marsh says:
[W]hile I understand Obama's logic and the message he is sending, which is the same one he sent since he started running, I remain part of the Kick Joe Out caucus. At the very least he should be humbled in the caucus.(TM)
It seems to me that it would be the easiest thing in the world for Obama to say, "It's up to Senator Reid to decide who chairs what committees" and to leave it there. I hope that's what he intends, but we'll see.
In the meantime, those who want to see the back of Lieberman can go here. Or you can check out Princess Sparkle Pony's Lieberman hand turkeys here!
RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
OTHER RECENT POSTINGS
Historicity: Obama Visits Bush at White House
Obama to Keep Three Top Bush Appointees?
Talent Agents Pursuing Sarah Palin?
Rahm Emanuel Urges Auto Industry Bailout; Cutting Executive Pay Would Save Jobs
China Announces Huge Economic Stimulus Plan
Conservative P.J. O'Rourke: "We Blew It." A Retort from a Liberal O'Rourke Fan
Tales of the Nutterdammerung: Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light!
I think Josh Marshall summed this up the best when he said "It's not a negotiation". Lieberman has essentially no leverage. If the Democrats offer Lieberman a choice between losing all seniority and getting the chairmanship of some minor subcommittee that rarely meets, then he will take that. There's no way Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans - for one, it would reduce his chances of winning reelection in 2012 from low to zero. An he would have no seniority with them, either. His only negotiating leverage is his ability to complain publicly or act grateful publicly.
In Markos's defense, he has talked before about how there's nothing wrong with leaving Lieberman in the caucus as a powerless back-bencher. His mistake, if you think it's a mistake, is reading a lot into the statement from the Obama camp. I hope it's a mistake.
It's entirely possible (likely?) that this is a smokescreen by Obama and some senate Democrats to shield themselves from criticism. So they come out of the private meeting, and say they're offering Lieberman the Crime and Drugs subcommittee or something, and not only is Obama insulated from criticism, but they can whitewash the whole thing by saying, "well, we had to shuffle things around with all the new senators, so Lieberman just got moved to a different committee". Of course everyone would know that's bullshit, but it doesn't matter.
Then again, maybe I'm just deluding myself, and the Senate Democrats really are about to roll over on this one. In the end, it comes down to the views of the other members of the caucus, or the organizing group, which is smaller. And Senators are famously independent on these things. I'm not sure Obama's statement is anything more than an attempt to insulate Obama from any political fallout.
Posted by: Adam | November 11, 2008 at 10:21 AM
This just in: the Obama folks make it more explicit.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obama_spokesperson_he_doesnt_h.php
Executive summary: We're OK with Joe, but the whole committee thing is up to Harry Reid. This is in line with the "insulate Obama from impending political fallout" theory, so I remain hopeful.
Posted by: Adam | November 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I say Ol' Joe needs some Old School schooling: Deny Lieberman seniority on committees of his preference. If he bolts the Democratic Party and becomes a Republican, his political career is over. The GOP candidate in Conneticut will crush him in his next primary. I say call his ff-ing bluff.
Posted by: Vigilante | November 11, 2008 at 10:56 AM