How Soon Until Buyer’s Remorse Kicks In?
Will the ultra-liberal progressive blogs be able to stay in love with Barack Obama when he embraces their archenemy? I’m talking about Joe Lieberman, of course – and it’s becoming more and more apparent that Obama is prepared to fight to keep him a Democrat:
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.
Lieberman is also getting support from Bill Clinton:
A high-level senate Democratic source tells me former President Clinton is making calls on Sen. Lieberman’s behalf.
I can also confirm, on the same basis, what Huffington Post has already reported, that President-elect Obama is signaling to Senate leadership and other party officials that he wants Sen. Lieberman to be in the Democratic caucus in the 111th Congress.
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.
Notice the condescending tone – Lieberman must be ‘punished’, according to Josh Marshall, Harry Reid, et al. Punished for what, exactly? For speaking his mind and not walking in 100% lockstep? Obama and Clinton are showing far more class and farsightedness in sticking up for a man who has been a lifelong liberal 90% of the time (especially Obama, given the fact that Lieberman endorsed his opponent). But I digress.
Open Left is not happy, coining the phrase “changeiness”. Kos is suggesting that Harry Reid “be his own man” and take on Obama (ha! Let’s see – Barack Obama, the most popular person on the planet right now, and Harry Reid – the most popular person in the room when he’s the only one in it. Some battle that will be). Not satisfied with his already overwhelming pomposity, Kos (I get 500,000 hits a day!) then lays down an ultimatum for Obama:
If Obama is “sending signals” to other Senators on this issue, and if he really plans on running the most open administration in history, then he needs to quit with the covert messages. Say so openly. He’s either FOR Lieberman keeping that committee, or he’s against it, or he doesn’t care. But he needs to speak up or let the Senate handle the matter on its own.
Oh, alright, ultimatum is perhaps too strong a word – but the arrogance is overwhelming.
But really, who cares what the progressive bloggers think? This is about more than them, God knows. Whether that blowhard Kos realizes it or not, throwing his support behind Joe Lieberman is EXACTLY the right move to make for a person who campaigned on a ‘post-partisan’ Washington…and it’s another strong move to the center.
I’m not sending him any love letters just yet, nor do I expect us to continue seeing eye-to-eye for long, but I’m very encouraged by Obama’s early post-election manuevers…
This is partially a false choice. As Kos rather sensibly points out, there’s a big difference between keeping Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and leaving him specifically in charge of the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman insists those are the same thing, and Obama is being cagey about the extent to which he believes they are (Clinton’s spokesperson says the rumors of Clinton’s support are not true, for whatever that’s worth).
Look, I’m not the world’s biggest Lieberman fan. He was in charge of a Committee responsible for oversight of the President and did precisely nothing to oversee his buddy Bush. Leaving him with the power to subpoena President Obama at will strikes me as both dangerous and (politically speaking) irresponsible for the Democrats right now. If nothing else, I can’t see why Obama (in a pragmatic sense) would want Lieberman to keep his chairmanship, which is why I discount rumors of Obama’s support.
In addition, Lieberman didn’t just “speak his mind”. Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding this – and I think it’s precisely because doing something like this in the Republican caucus would be a capital offense – but Lieberman actively campaigned against Obama and other Senate Democrats during this election. He didn’t merely say “I disagree with these guys” – he stood next to McCain and clapped while McCain called a domestic agenda Lieberman claims to support “socialism”. These are not the actions of a guy who is just trying to be an honest good guy – these are the actions of a guy who is actively hostile to the party of which he is supposedly a member. Not to mention that apparently Lieberman made a promise to Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership that he would not campaign negatively against Obama. I don’t know about you, but I sort of expect people to be punished for breaking their promises.
Now, all that said, I am sympathetic to the idea that Lieberman is a reliable Democratic vote on almost everything. I see no reason to seek to actively remove him from the caucus, but I think it’s not the slightest bit unreasonable to expect some mea culpas. I think the case of Arlen Specter makes a nice parallel. A few years ago the conservative blogosphere decided to have Specter’s head (for much lesser crimes than Lieberman’s, I might add) and the Republican establishment rallied to his defense in return for his good behavior, which they have essentially enjoyed since then. If Lieberman promises to start actually acting like the team player he keeps insisting he is, I have no objections to keeping him around – but not as chair of his current Committee; Obama would be risking suicide.
Then Lieberman will become a Republican, if we believe his word.
Nope, he’ll keep the chairmanship, will be my guess…
And who in the world at this point doesn’t know the extent of Lieberman’s support of McCain? Republicans understand perfectly well – he stood with his lifelong friend, and as a strong supporter of the war, he went with the candidate most responsible for the surge and the turnaround in our fortunes in Iraq.
Nobody has a hard time understanding this…
You act as if Joe Lieberman struck out against the Democratic Party out of the blue. It was he that was targeted by the progressive blogosphere for daring to support the war, after a lifetime of service, in favor of some no-name yahoo who made Sarah Palin look like Winston Churchill, and given the respectful nickname “Rape Gurney Joe”. To then say Lieberman is actively hostile towards the Democratic Party is to confuse the horse and the cart…
Let me use an analogy…I don’t see the Republicans throwing Chuck Hagel out of his chairmanship…oh, fine, I suppose you’re going to tell me Chuck Hagel doesn’t have a chairmanship! Well, I never said it was a perfect analogy…let me try again. You don’t see the Republicans throwing Ron Paul…I better leave it alone…
However, Ryan, let me ask you, as someone who agrees that Lieberman should lose his chair…suppose he doesn’t? How big of an issue do you see it being with the progressives?
Would they break with him?
I’ll weasel out by saying I think some would and some wouldn’t…
I think a larger issue, Mark, is that Lieberman was just a terrible chair of HSGAC by any measure. He didn’t hold any hearings while Waxman was working double duty in the House, and now he wants to make a case that it would be detrimental to homeland security itself to take the chair away from Lieberman. That just doesn’t make any sense. By all measures, regardless of his actual views, he was just horribly ineffective in the post. He didn’t do his job to the best of his capacity. Not even 50%. I agree that magnanimity will win the Dems more in the long run than “punishment,” but that doesn’t mean that they should leave a terrible steward in charge of an important committee. Keep him in the caucus, sure. That’s fine. But leaving him with the committee is insane. If he wants to work his way back, and plead his case, that’s fine, but there’s no reason to let him do it from the chair that he failed to use so spectacularly.
I think one argument in favor of Fargus’s position is the fact that Robert Byrd’s chairmanship was taken away — if you are charitable to the Democrats, you could say that they are putting their best & brightest in key positions and clearing out the dead wood –
Who cares. These congressional committes just don’t do anything with their investigations and oversight. Its all theater. Nothing changes.
Waxman did “double duty” la de da. What did he do but hold hearings where he brow beats people who can’t fight back. What change in homeland security did Waxman accomplish? What policy did he stop or implement?
In fact, what one single thing did the Dems stop or do in 2 years of their majority? Pass a minimum wage increase in the first week. Then?
Well, they did pass the FISA bill that the President wanted. They did pass the bailout bill the President wanted. They did vote the war funding the President wanted.
A president with under 30 approvals rolled them. What would a newly elected messiah do?
BTW, it is laughable that Kos thinks he and his nutroots can do anything to Senator Pals Around. What are they going to do? Work for Palin or Jindel in 2012.
Mark, I don’t believe Lieberman struck out at the Democrats out of the blue. But I think you really, really don’t take seriously the extent to which Lieberman revels in giving the Democrats the middle finger. The blogosphere didn’t turn on him simply because of his support for the war – newsflash: there are other Democrats who have been pretty strong war supporters – they turned on him because he uses his war supporter as a cudgel to beat the crap out of his fellow Democrats.
In your question about breaking with “him”, do you mean Obama? If so, I’m not sure. I think there are going to be a lot of progressives who are disappointed in Obama, as I keep saying. He isn’t going to walk their line and he never was. And even Bob, who is one of the stupidest people in the world, understands that they don’t exactly have a lot of leverage here. I think ultimately they’ll be furious for a minute and then get over it. You obviously have a lot less respect for Markos than I do, so your mileage may vary, but I think he knows that stripping Lieberman of his chair is probably the long bet here.
That said, come 2012, you have to believe I’d rather be on Kos’s side than Lieberman’s. That Senate race is going to be a thing of pure horror.
Ryan, have you ever heard of the term “projection”. Or the saying, “pot calling the kettle black”.
Though I am impressed that you have finally learned to read. Now we will work on comprehension.
Well, the newest news from Kos (I know how you love him!) is:
1. Durbin and Schumer want Lieberman off the committee.
2. Bayh and Dodd are supporting Lieberman.
3. Obama is asking for a compromise (which I take to mean Lieberman gets a different committee chairmanship).
Given the personalities involved, that all seems about par for the course to me.
Lieberman says he will walk if he doesn’t retain his current committee…I’m inclined to believe him…
Then I think he should be allowed to walk. Now, I’m not sure the Democrats will do that, in that they’re generally spineless wimps, but I’d cut him loose. Expecting that years of common cause will earn him some leeway is reasonable; expecting that he can campaign for the other party’s guys and get off scot-free seems like both foolishness and bad policy on the part of the other Democrats.
Well, speaking as a Republican, we’d be glad to have him…but again, what is his crime? I don’t like this whole sitting in judgment thing regarding a man who speaks his mind in a free society…I know, I know, he dared to thumb his nose at the great Obama, and take some shots at Democrats who were squishy on the war. Big deal…he’s a grown man, he’s free to say and do what he chooses…
Mark: Much like your site, saying and doing whatever he feels like has consequences. Big deal!, indeed.
Perhaps you had better explain what you mean…
Just talking about the cursing thing. Small point, nothing more. Not claiming you’re a hypocrite, just sayin’. Surely he had to KNOW there would potentially be “punishment”, for, you know, ENDORSING A REPUBLICAN FOR PRESIDENT, and not just “endorsing”, but actively campaigning for. That’s a little much. Much like cursing on your site. I know darn well if I had just said “damn well” you might flinch, but if I drop the f-bomb, that’s just plain not acceptable…to you. Just saying, consider the audience. You think Atrios would give a f*** if I didn’t use asterisks? Or any liberal blog, for the most part?
It wouild be interesting to know what the people of Connecticut think about this. Considering that they voted heavily Democratic and also booted Chris Shays out, one would assume that they a) are aghast at Lieberman’s attempt to outshine Zell Miller and b) would prefer him to vote like a Democrat, regardless of his affiliation.
I’m not saying that politicians shouldn’t act in accordance with what they really believe — as I think Joe Lieberman does — but I am saying that the wishes of the constituency should be at least equally important.
Mike, I haven’t banned you, or kept you from commenting – I’ve just asked you to respect what I consider decorum. Don’t be a martyr for such a small cause…Duncan Black can take care of himself, what do I care? This is my place, not his…
Peter, I think we know that the Democratic voters in Connecticut are not too fond of him – they voted for his no-name opponent (yes, I remember, Ned Lamont) in the primaries. But apparently there are enough Independents and Republicans to keep him in office…at least, last time. Will he win again? I honestly don’t know…
What happens if Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans? He suddenly supports the war? Oh, wait, he already supports the war. Ok, so, he votes with the Republicans on all the platform issues? I’ll believe that when I see it actually happen.
I guess I just don’t see what the Democrats lose by bumping him.
Mark, it’s not about the “great” Obama or any such thing. As Mike said, before he went crazy about this cursing business, there must surely be consequences for endorsing – and actively campaigning for – the nominee of the other party. If Lieberman wants to be treated not just as a Democrat, but as a member of the leadership (insofar as a committee chairman is such), then he should act like he’s a member of the team. Instead, he’s become the Manny Ramirez of the Democratic Party.
Yes, Mark, but if I kept cursing surely you’d ban me. That’s all I’m saying. I know what I’m getting into. If I want to stick around, there are rules…this isn’t ‘Nam…
Mark, what mike is incoherently saying is that since Lieberman broke the rule of party loyalty, he should be shunned/punished, just like you would ban people who break the rules here.
If Lieberman isn’t loyal to the party to which he claims membership, and that party has the power to determine the members of its leadership team, then I’m missing why kicking his sorry butt out, a. represents bad form and, b. is a surprise (to anyone, including Lieberman). The guy has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to carry the team’s flag. Ryan is right, this is very much like the Manny thing; Lieberman can no longer be trusted, he’s got to go. If he expected to be treated well by the Democrats when he chose to campaign for the Republican candidate, McCain, then he was just deluding himself.
God, I really feel like I’m missing some relevant piece of data on this one. What is wrong with punishing a political opponent in a political fashion?
Okay, Mike, you get an assist from Bob – I see now the point…