« We rep the same Smart-tech | Main | Race and D&D » Lieberman triumphant!!18 Nov 2008 12:38 pm Comments (55)
Bah. And they wonder why voters often view Dems as spineless wimps. What does a Senator have to do the the caucus (e.g. trying to get a Republican Senator elected in MN) to actually invite some consequences? I don't see this as moving on; Lieberman has absolutely no consequences from the caucus for his actions. And when he does something dumb with his committee, there will be much handwringing and "say it ain't so, Joe!" Sucks for less senior Senators who might actually do something with a chairmanship. I'll be eagerly awaiting instances of Lieberman being genuinely helpful to Democrats. Votes one would expect based on his record do not count--if he wants to go nuclear and vote Republican all the time, CT can kick into gear about removing him. I doubt it'll happen, but I doubt he'll be giving a damn what the Dem caucus wants. 
Lieberman=Victor Von Doom? Too much praise for Lieberman. He'd be one of the Wrecking Crew, at best. For more Liberman snark-
Post-partisan or weak? Not punishing Lieberman is what Obama is. You can view that as a good thing or a bad thing. On this particular issue, Hillary would have gotten rid of him, but on most issues the Democrats just didn't have a viable choice who would have been better.
From TPM Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country. Bah. Bah. It's like one of those awful parents who can't tell the difference between actions having consequences and punitive vengeance. I don't know how Obama really wanted this to go; I do know he timed his resignation from the Senate so that all this week's business went forward without him. Unless he put in a full-press to the entire membership about how absolutely key it was to keep Joe in charge of governmental affairs, they should have voted on practical lines and tossed the bum out. Bah.
On this particular issue, Hillary would have gotten rid of him, but on most issues the Democrats just didn't have a viable choice who would have been better. (In my post above the first 2 paragraphs are quotes; something happened to my code.)
"Nuff said" Hardly. Read Glen Greenwald's comments about this for a larger and more thoughtful view. Such talent you have TNC; and such prime internet real estate you have here, and yet you give us comic books and sports metaphors. Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
"Such talent you have TNC; and such prime internet real estate you have here, and yet you give us comic books and sports metaphors." You forgot about Star Trek, Ric Flair, Mike Tyson, Air Jordans, Raekwon and blood elves. Don't you dare forget about the blood elves...
Gah, I'm too angry to go on a rant about how much this sucks, but I just want to point out a gem by Marc Ambinder in his post about Lieberman: "There are indications this morning that Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his post as chairman of the Homeland Security committee, and there are indications that Sen. Barack Obama's intervention will be recorded as one of the major reasons why this is so. Reporters, and I can't exempt myself from this, have been salivating somewhat voyueristically for a round of public fighting between the Left, broadly represented by the Netroots, and the Obama transition entity." http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/reporters_looking_for_obama_v.php Really, Marc? That's the most important thing about this whole affair for you? To salivate about the fight between Obama and the netroots?
Harry Reid pretty much confesses that the vote has NOTHING to do with Lieberman's ability to do his job as Homeland Security committee chairman: "Reid said KEEPING LIEBERMAN HAPPY would help Democrats fend off the GOP if they attempted to filibuster Obama's legislative initiatives. Democrats enjoy a 57-40 edge in the upper chamber with three races still undecided." http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1108/Lieberman_keeps_Homeland_Security_post.html That pretty much sums the whole thing for me. Who cares if Lieberman is not qualified for the job?
Ha ha! The analogy is perfect in so many ways. Maybe I can take hope in the fact that Dr. Doom did, in fact, overreach himself and lose in the end, though I don't know when Captain American will show up to kick Lieberman's butt. Or maybe--if you agree with Digby--the whole Lieberman scenario was just Senate "kabuki theater" where everyone acts outraged and nothing changes. That would actually make this affair as crass and contrived as Secret Wars was. The real question--which superhero is Bernie Sanders, who actually went out on a limb to take a stand here?
Man, I loved the Secret Wars comics. Secret Wars 2 was really good, too, but the first was always my favorite. And speaking of blood elves - how are you liking the expansion? So for WOTLK is everything I hoped it would be. It's a return to the evil shit I liked in Frozen Throne and no more of the Pink Castles on Purple Asteroids bullshit of TBC. How's that for some nerdspeak?
Somebody (TNC?) should start a countdown clock on their blog on when Lieberman will screw the Democrats, so that I can scream "Told you so! Where's your vaunted 60 votes now, suckers?" when it happens. My bet is it would happen with the auto bailout. Any takers?
Keeping the snake Lieberman in the tent is hardly 'change', but conceivably it is part of a viable strategy to achieve meaningful improvements. Perhaps Obama will be able to use the ‘team of rivals’ - ‘all hands on deck’ approach to mobilize a critical mass behind progressive change. His campaign has been so adroit to date, that I’m not ready to criticize his methods.
This is an outrage and a disgrace. The Democratic Party is a joke. Joe Lieberman is a traitor and should have been shown the door.
I would have kicked Lieberman out. I'm petulant, so sue me. But one thing I have learned from this presidential campaign is that Barack Obama is better at this politics thing than I am. So if Obama thinks he can work with Holy Joe in the caucus, I'll accept that he's probably right and I'm wrong. I wonder if this means the Dems are thinking, "holy crap, we might actually get to 60"? And wouldn't they feel dumb if they kicked Joe out only to find out a month later that they kind of need him.
You forgot about Star Trek, Ric Flair, Mike Tyson, Air Jordans, Raekwon and blood elves. Don't you dare forget about the blood elves... You are quite the wit TNC-as you should be. But this is lazy blogging. So many comments here offer links to other blogs where there is some substance that it is an implicit criticism of your blog for a lack of substance. "Nuff said."
Deborah, sorry, communication malfunction. I didn't mean there is no one better than Lieberman in that committee, I mean there was no viable candidate better than Obama overall in the Democratic primaries. Because after FISA and this, Obama leaves something to be desired. There is a difference though, between non-confrontational/weak and practical. Practical would have been Obama saying openly, "I think Lieberman should keep his seat in the spirit of being a bigger person." Obama could have done that. He has nothing to be afraid of. Non-confrontational/weak was Obama resigning from Senate right before the meeting, making a vague statement that gave Lieberman leverage, knowing it would give Lieberman leverage, and then behind the scenes lobbying on Lieberman's behalf (if press reports of that are true). No, it's not like there was a better option during the primaries, but Obama is a weak politician and I expect to see this again and again even though for now I hope he wins re-election and somehow does a good job addressing the economy and healthcare.
Slapp, This really is the beauty of blogging. If you think that I'm doing a lazy job, you can go out there and do a better one. You can even link to this post and talk about how lazy it is. I'd really encourage you to do that. We need more bloggers.
This shows that the problem isn't Lieberman, the problem is incumbency. Senators don't take their jobs seriously because - outside of criminal charges or sex scandals involving penguins - they've got the best job security on the planet. Get Nevadans to vote Reid out of office, and see how quickly they'll pick up on how p-ssed us real voters are.
I like this blog just fine, thank you very much. Who wants to read the same damned talking points rewritten in different ways over and over again? Plus, you're proving my theory that, deep down, jocks and nerds are fundamentally the same creature.
As you would say, Meh. All the hysteria from the usual hysterical corners aside I don't see any big victory for Lieberman and the forces of darkness here. It seems to me the Mr. Obama pushed this one because he quite clearly saw that a Lieberman by the balls was better than a Lieberman scorned. And I am quite sure that Liebermans balls are sitting in a glass jar on a shelf in Chicago but an offer to lend them back out at interest was proffered. He's not popular at home anymore and is going to have to play nicely with Obama. Its also clear that Obama wants/needs the other two Musketeers, McCain and Graham, to play as well.
Jack Irons, FISA is not a biggie to me--what can I say, I think they took the government's word that the government was authorized to do this, and didn't want to be accused of not patriotically combatting global threats to the nation. Torture is a big issue for me, and I'll be furious if Obama waffles on that one, but I don't take rumors that he may be thinking of something that would relate to something else as indication that he is going to do so. So on most issues I have a wait and see attitude--let him at least get into office before deriding his actions there. On this, if he wanted to send a clear signal, he should have stayed in the Senate for this week's meetings. Resigning sent the message that it was Senate business, saying he wanted Liebermand to stay in the caucus was ambiguous (since he could lose the chairmanship and choose to stay), and the "Obama saved him" rumors are quite different from a firm stance. It's just Joe, not that huge a deal, but mostly it's left with Obama looking ambiguous (did his master plan come to fruition? does he not care? the only thing off the table is strongly sending a msg to Joe) and Reid and the rest of the Senate are left looking ineffective, like there's nothing you could do that they wouldn't forgive if you might hypothetically in the future vote for them. I think the countdown to "when will Dems next curse Lieberman's name" is likely to be shorter than the countdown to "when will Joe prove that keeping him is paying off." Inside the Senate this may read as collegiality; outside it reads as "what photos does Joe have, and of whom?"
Apart from the issue being highlighted, this graphic is well timed for me as I was just thinking last night that I should pull out my old Secret War comics for my 6 year old. He is still a bit too attention deficit for most comics, but the large number of characters should appeal to him. And he was just asking how Venom got his powers, and my explanation seemed pretty weak to me, so he might as well see the original story of the suit.
"Get Nevadans to vote Reid out of office, and see how quickly they'll pick up on how p-ssed us real voters are." Oh come on! Yes, Reid has been ineffectual on this issue and others, but are his sins worse than Lieberman? Lieberman needs to be voted out first. In fact, just to keep the blame game going, I blame the people of Connecticut for not voting Lieberman out when they had the chance. What were you guys thinking??
"Non-confrontational/weak was Obama resigning from Senate right before the meeting, making a vague statement that gave Lieberman leverage, knowing it would give Lieberman leverage, and then behind the scenes lobbying on Lieberman's behalf (if press reports of that are true)." Oh, I don't see this at all. With Durbin and Kerry coming out strongly pro-Lieberman it was clear where Obama was at. But being that he is the president elect it would have seemed overbearing for him to stay in the Senate and be a direct part of this. It was much smarter for him to play this exactly like he did particularly since the hysterical reaction from the Netroots was so predictable and he has some plausible deniablity. This is my view showcases what a smart and strong politician Obama actually is. He wants to do big things. To do that he's going to frequently need 60 votes. With this he makes an overture to 3 possible filibuster breaking votes in McCain, Graham, and Lieberman. A less skilled and weaker politician would have demanded the traitors head on a platter instead of thinking it out coolly and strategically.
Deborah: For me FISA was a big thing because if the Telcos were acting reasonably, they could have put that before a judge who would have decided so. But it really is a big thing because Obama pledged that he would support a filibuster and went back. If Obama had said in February that he thinks the Telcos didn't do anything wrong, or were justified, he likely still would have won. On the other hand, he likely still would have won if he had supported a filibuster in July. He went the weak way though, which strikes me as what he is generally tempermentally inclined to do. Not that there was a better alternative. In the Lieberman case, we don't know what his position is because he won't say what his position is. Much more than before the election or during the primary, there is no political advantage to not saying what his real position is, it is just that he's tempermentally non-committal. That's who Obama is, not post-partisan, but timid. But there was no better alternative this year. There are just rumors, but there are no rumors in the other direction a less timid Obama could quash the rumors with one statement in either direction, but we don't have that. Also, please don't say it is because he doesn't care either way. He has an opinion and is too timid to let you know it.
AhYup: If you really want, you can stretch "timid" into practical. I'm sure that's what Obama does and how he sees it in his own mind. But why would Obama need plausible deniability with the netroots? Anyway, what would have been timid? Or are you saying there is no such thing as timid? Or are you saying that specifically for Obama there is no such thing as timid? Instead of a countdown till Lieberman betrays the democrats, come up with an action you would perceive as timid rather than practical and let's count down until Obama does the timid action, by your a-priori definition.
"Oh come on! Yes, Reid has been ineffectual on this issue and others, but are his sins worse than Lieberman?" I'm not even convinced Lieberman's sins were that bad. Obama didn't lose, after all. Throwing away a semi-reliable vote just to punish the guy doesn't make much sense. BTW, great username. I need to go dig out my Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy DVD now...
From Huffington Post: DNC Chair Howard Dean welcomed the decision to keep Senator Joseph Lieberman as head of the Homeland Security Committee and, consequently, in the Democratic Caucus, saying the move was pragmatic, magnanimous and politically shrewd. Speaking to the Huffington Post just moments after it was announced that Democrats in the Senate had voted to keep Lieberman as committee chair, Dean said the party had done the right thing by not giving into urges for retribution. "You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well," he said. "And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies."
MikeF, I'm more partial to Smiley's People myself, the one where Peter Guillam had the beautiful, pregnant French wife :) I would be more convinced by the "throwing away a reliable vote" argument if I don't find Lieberman to be a deely dishonest and untrustworthy man. He's the Bill Hayden of the Senate.
I do realize that it's off topic, but who is that on the Secret Wars cover? The Beyonder?
It seems to me the Mr. Obama pushed this one because he quite clearly saw that a Lieberman by the balls was better than a Lieberman scorned. And I am quite sure that Liebermans balls are sitting in a glass jar on a shelf in Chicago but an offer to lend them back out at interest was proffered. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. But in terms of what we are able to see, the Senate didn't gain any leverage of Lieberman today. If anything, they lost it. The only real leverage they had over him was this committee chairmanship and he keeps it. Going forward, attempting to punish him for acting against Democratic interests will come at a much steeper cost. Now I agree that we cant know everything that goes on behind closed doors but to outward appearances at least, Lieberman walks away looking stronger and Dems considerably weaker. Speaking to the Huffington Post just moments after it was announced that Democrats in the Senate had voted to keep Lieberman as committee chair, Dean said the party had done the right thing by not giving into urges for retribution. This whole issue of retribution is a frame that comes entirely from Lieberman and his supporters and it is beyond pathetic that Dems have apparently chosen to accept it. The reality of this should have been much simpler. There isn't another organization on this entire planet, not even in congress, where any member of any organization could do what Lieberman did to the Democrats and escape punishment. Not one. It has nothing to do with retribution. It is the simple business of maintaining the discipline of your organization that dictates that such actions have to have real consequences. Any other organization, from the girl scouts to the NATO alliance, might have allowed Lieberman to keep his lunch money but assuredly would have shown him the door. The Dem caucus merely wrings it hands and worries about being judged as too harsh if they remove part of his leadership role. They are truly a sad bunch.
Yeah, Smiley's People is great too. But I don't see Lieberman as a mole like Hayden. Endorsing McCain was pretty much in line with the positions that Lieberman has openly held for a while - free trade, continued presence in Iraq, generally hawkish foreign policy. He usually votes Dem on the social stuff, and that comprises most of Obama's policy goals. Iraq is basically settled by SOFA and Obama is as hawkish as anyone on Afghanistan. I think it's definitely in the Dems' interest to keep him on the inside (but have the lamp-lighters watch him carefully).
I'm inclined to agree with Brent, but maybe Obama and company have plans for him (closer to 60 votes etc) and some devil-deals they've made w/ Lieberman. I don't like Lieberman for a number of reasons and I think Democrats have reason to distrust him, but then again I'm not a Dem myself so I don't feel much of a stake here. Perhaps Obama's calculated that he can sort of count on Lieberman's loyalty with this gift and with the threat of demotion hanging over him, who knows.
Endorsing McCain was pretty much in line with the positions that Lieberman has openly held for a while - free trade, continued presence in Iraq, generally hawkish foreign policy. That is really beside the point. Setting aside that supporting McCain did not require some of the really nasty smears he put out there about Obama, whatever affinities he shares with McCain in certain areas of policy, getting him elected President would have damaged to progressive agenda in all areas of policy. In a sane world, that would be unacceptable to an organization formed to support that agenda. But here we are. I think it's definitely in the Dems' interest to keep him on the inside (but have the lamp-lighters watch him carefully). And do what when he betrays them? Fact is, they lost their shot to deal with Lieberman in any substantive way.
"But why would Obama need plausible deniability with the netroots?" Well, they are known to be a hysterical pain in the ass but they also raise lots of $$$ and do a lot of leg work. But that kind of seems out the windows since Dean and all are saying that Obamas lead has been followed. As is your point. What you read as timid here I read a smooth. There is supposed to be some check and balance between Legislative and executive. Resigning while letting his wishes be known allowed him to stand back and look like he was being magnanimous but not big footing the process either. "Timid" in my view would be caving into the base's demand for blood when the wisest course of action was in a different direction. What you expected out of him as far as a show of strength, of course, was the way that the Bush GOP would have done things. Nobody was ever allowed to step out of line. How did that work out? I think Obama is showing himself to be cool headed and wise again. Lieberman owes him and he has a fairly reliable vote. A lot of people in the center right also believe that Lieberman was acting out of principal. Regardless of whether he was or not this earns Obama bi-partisan cred. It makes it look like he really meant it when he said that he wants to get past that red/blue divide. It makes it look like he accepts that people can take a different course of action based on principal and still be ok people. I just don't see the downside here.
"...getting [McCain] elected President would have damaged to progressive agenda in all areas of policy" Probably. But I still don't get the upside to booting Lieberman. The Democrats would anger a vote that they need, and open themselves up to charges that they're purging the opposition rather than reconciliating. The press loved McCain's concession speech, and the narrative has generally been that Obama is willing to work with former opponents - "team of rivals" and all that. "But he said mean things about the president-elect" isn't a good enough reason to undercut that message.
Tee hee...I anticipate a FISA level outrage here on the internets for a week or two from the same crowd that was so upset about that, while the rest of the country rolls on, not caring, not even noticing really.
What you expected out of him as far as a show of strength, of course, was the way that the Bush GOP would have done things. Nobody was ever allowed to step out of line. This was not about somebody "stepping out of line." It wasn't about some disagreement over a spending bill or some minor ideological disagreement. It was about addressing a deliberate and public attempt to make everything, every single thing that progressives want to achieve, considerably more difficult by electing a Republican President. It was about suggesting that the Democratic candidate for President might be a secret Marxist whose competence and patriotism should rightly be questioned. It was about working to get Republican Senators re-elected. But setting all that aside for the moment, your answer to how well things worked out for Bush, is that, in quite a few of the ways that count, they worked out pretty damn well. They passed many, many pieces of conservative legislation. The appointed many, many conservative judges to little or no opposition. They started and sustained the wars they very much wanted. They raided the treasury and very successfully repressed the progressive agenda for a very long time. Our people are poorer. Their people are richer. Party discipline was very much a key to achieving all of these things. Strength shown and seen was strength achieved. Now, they've lost a couple of elections. Maybe they will lose a few more in the coming years although that is far from a foregone conclusion. But they will be back and when they get back part of it will be because they maintained the discipline of their caucus. At least part of the reason for that is that they won't have people on their side out there trying hard to get Democrats elected. Democrats are apparently uninterested in maintaining a similar discipline.
Probably. But I still don't get the upside to booting Lieberman. The Democrats would anger a vote that they need, and open themselves up to charges that they're purging the opposition rather than reconciliating. The press loved McCain's concession speech, and the narrative has generally been that Obama is willing to work with former opponents - "team of rivals" and all that. "But he said mean things about the president-elect" isn't a good enough reason to undercut that message. There is exactly zero reason to accept the idea that forcing Lieberman to face consequences for his actions should undercut that message. Reconciliation does not require a lack of accountability. It is only in the context of Lieberman's self serving rhetoric that the two are at all related in this scenario. Democrats helped him by allowing the issue to be framed this way but its nonsense. This was about moderately disciplining a member who had shown rather serious disloyalty to your cause. It was later about holding the line on that discipline when the betrayer suggests that doing so would only result in more betrayal. Democrats, following a very familiar pattern decided it was best to cave to such a threat or maybe they decided that they had good enough excuses to protect someone they didn't really want to punish anyway. Either way, all this stuff about moving ahead in a spirit of bipartisanship was a big fat red herring. The only person preventing that, no matter how he was punished, would have been Lieberman. Moreover, there was no question of purging or booting Lieberman. That was never on the table. He made it about whether or not he would participate in the Democratic caucus. He made it about the price of his loyalty. Again, there isn't any effective organization I can think of that would respond to such a transparently lame threat by giving the betrayer everything they want.
Obama could have kept or left Lieberman without impacting energy independence, health care, et al. It is not the case that the only valid argument for removing Lieberman would have been that it would help energy independence or something like that. Lieberman was not the right person for the job. What votes do you think would have been "thrown away" by removing Lieberman from the chair? I can't think of any. But it is now demonstrated that there is no cost to opposing the Democratic party, while that has never been demonstrated about the Republican party. That probably will work to Obama's disadvantage as the Republican party is more disciplined than the Democratic party which may have an effect on votes, say, regarding education. But I don't think the primary motivation here is political advantage. I don't think there is a significant political advantage either way, other than the Democratic Party's slight loss of credibility at enforcing discipline. We are as far as we could possibly be from the next election and Obama isn't even President yet. I think the primary motivation here that Obama is tempermentally timid. If you really want, you can find strength in anything. Obama was "strong" for not admitting that he disagrees with the netroots so that he can keep taking their money while plausibly denying that he opposed the course they favored. If you try really hard, you can figure out a way to describe that as strength. Obama could have gone with the liberals or with the conservatives on this issue. He could have done so strongly in either case. He went with the conservatives and in a weak way. There was no better option during the primaries, but this is what we have as President today. After Obama's reelection, which hopefully will be easy and not require the level of enthusiasm this one did, the netroots is unlikely to support another candidate as timid as Obama, unless like this time there is nobody better in the field which hopefully will not be the case.
Until someone makes an argument as to how taking his chair wouldve helped achieve energy independence, fix the economy, improve health care, strengthen the middle class, or really, do anything that the party is supposed to be focused on, my position will continue to be something along the lines of "meh"... Well I would say that the party has a real interest in discouraging its members from acting to undermine all its goals but you apparently believe progress towards those solutions is unrelated to such a concern. What can one say about that after all? Most groups, organizations, companies accept such a thing as axiomatic. It pretty much defines what it means to be a group or caucus etc., that your members at least try to act in the best interest of a defined set of goals. But maybe that is all wrong after all and there is a better way to achieve things as a group. The only thing I can suggest is that maybe you could ask your question a different way. That is: how does maintaining party discipline by mildly slapping Lieberman on the wrist hurt these issues. You could ask the question in the same format about FISA. How would it have hurt to stand up for civil liberties? I can see the case one might make. If we punish Lieberman he might decide to (further) betray us. If we support civil liberties, people might think we are weak and vote against us. The best path forward is the one that pledges the least amount of fealty to our core principles. That is how we will gain strength and solve all of our big problems. Is that the argument you would make?
Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. But in terms of what we are able to see, the Senate didn't gain any leverage of Lieberman today. If anything, they lost it. The only real leverage they had over him was this committee chairmanship and he keeps it. Going forward, attempting to punish him for acting against Democratic interests will come at a much steeper cost. --brent That's my frustration in a nutshell. We have to hope that they really do have leverage we can't see. But the optics as to who has whom by the balls--well, Lieberman gave up absolutely nothing and got everything he wanted and looks pleased as punch; Reid looks relieved that it's over. (but have the lamp-lighters watch him carefully). And do what when he betrays them? Watch him really, really, really carefully. With very beady eyes. Right up close. That'll show him! What happens if he loses his chairmanship? He makes good on his threat to become a Republican (which he was presumably prepared to do right up until the last week of August, since an independent can't run on a Republican ticket in some states), and he.....Changes all his votes on social issues? CT might have something to say about that. Votes how he would have anyhow on foreign policy issues? Obama's camp was very good at framing the campaign, and Brent is right about this: Joe has provided all the framing on this issue, that to lose his chairmanship for trying to defeat Democrats (we aren't talking one endorsement, we're talking active campaigning down the ticket) would be "retribution" and for his actions to bear fruit would be "unfair and mean." I really wish the Dems had shown more than a Sanders/Lahey sized spine here, and framed the issue as "we'd love to keep Joe, but you don't hand rewards to people who try to kick you out of office, so we'll be at minimum taking his chairmanship away. Maybe he could have another committee if he convinces us to trust him." Joe had to do nothing here; the presumably offended party had to do everything.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/18/joe-lieberman-remembering-the-love/#more-8332 You know, when even the notorious McCain loving Michael Scherer thinks that Democrats are being played for suckers, you know something's not right. Take a look at Lieberman's greatest hits.
My very own personal favorite from Lieberman's greatest hits: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, "Why?""
I was reading about the Dingell-Waxman battle for the House Energy and Commerce Committee chair, and I had a thought - why didn't the Democrats in the Senate choose this same way to bump Lieberman from Homeland Security? Instead of making a big deal about punishing Lieberman, why didn't the leadership just ask one of the senators to run against Lieberman for the chairmanship, the way Waxman is challenging Dingell? Then the senators can just quietly vote Lieberman out, no harm, no foul, sorry, Joe, we just think you haven't done a really good job, we want this new guy to take a crack at it. Another intriguing question - can they still do this now? The meeting this morning was to discuss Lieberman's fate only, right? Which means committee assignments have not been done. So theoretically, some brave soul could still challenge Lieberman for the Homeland Security chairman, and the Democratic senators could still do the right thing for the right reason; i.e voting out Lieberman from the chaimanship for doing a bad job, not as retribution. Can someone who knows more about these things enlighten me? Are the rules for committee chairman selection different in the House and the Senate, and that's why they can't do this?
Its not a bad idea Peter but I think we can already see that the Democrats, most of them, are not looking for a way to punish Joe. They really don't want to and the last couple weeks have been about their finding excuses not to. So that is what happened there. Besides that, the Senate is a lot more chummy than the House and leadership challenges are much more common in the latter.
Yeahh, just forget about that previous post. I know I'm reaching here. I desperately want to believe that the Democrats in the Senate have some super-secret brilliant plan to quietly remove Lieberman from Homeland Security later, while reaping the praise for being bipartisan and forgiving now. I forgot who we are dealing with for a moment. Democrats with super-secret brilliant plan - now that is hilarious! Oh well, a guy can dream, I guess.
I have really enjoyed reading as you find your way, and spent the ride home this evening playing with the Secret Wars possibilities. McCain as Galactus, with Lieberman initially trying to hitch his wagon to an unsuccessful effort, but then being the last man standing? Clinton as Kang to Obama's Doom? Obama as the Molecule Man a la Secret Wars II? Yeah, yeah, kind of weak but bravo on the Secret Wars-campaign connection! And Joey Porter is going Cassel-hunting this weekend.
The title of this post brings to mind Batman Triumphant, which some might recall as the working title of the flick Joel Schumacher wanted to follow up Batman and Robin with. Batman and Robin, like Joe Lieberman, is a god-awful travesty. Batman and Robin was eventually followed up with Batman Begins; the future does not look nearly so promising regarding Lieberman, but Obama has had good political instincts thus far, and it might prove to be an inspired move.
I do realize that it's off topic, but who is that on the Secret Wars cover? The Beyonder? It's Dr. Doom, having been "reborn" (and his face reconstructed) after absorbing the Beyonder's power in Secret Wars #10. (Of course, it didn't last long.) His look of triumphant glee is because at the end of the previous issue he just annihilated all the heroes on the Beyonder's planet. Of course, that didn't last long either.
I desperately want to believe that the Democrats in the Senate have some super-secret brilliant plan. --Peter As do we all. Possibly involving capes, utility belts, and a secret Hall of Senatorial Justice reached through a janitor's closet.
With Begala's election in AK, the Dems are now at 58-- with a recount and a runoff to go. Maybe they're hoping for that magical 60 number still? I'm still hoping Deborah's right about the capes and utility belts, though.
Hey, I know that issue! This post is pretty close to pure awesome.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Apropos of not much, there was a much better "headline" over at HuffPo today, above some guy's post that I never heard of:
"Republicans Debate Their Future, Democrats Say Kiss Our Black Ass"
Not exactly "Obamaesque, but the general sentiment among us winners.
Posted by brucds | November 18, 2008 12:46 PM