An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Left Wing Seething over Lieberman’s Possibly Escaping the Noose

burglar.jpgLet’s take a quick poll here and have a show of hands if you didn’t see this one coming. CNN is reporting that Joe Lieberman looks to be a “shoe-in” to keep his chairman’s seat on Homeland Security and stay in the Democratic Caucus, while being “punished” by losing some less prestigious position. Predictably, his opponents in the Democratic base who are still boiling mad over his endorsement of John McCain and attacks on Barack Obama, are up in arms.

Um, what idiot would think that taking away a subcommittee from Lieberman would be seen as a “stinging rebuke”? In whose DC-Beltway-addled mind is that even remotely punishment?

Let Lieberman keep that subcommittee. No one gives a shit about it. The only thing that matters, the only thing that Lieberman wants, and the only thing we don’t want him to have — is the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

If this is the “starting point”, and given the Senate Democrats’ history of capitulations, expect Lieberman to come out of that meeting as majority leader.

KOS is hardly the only one. Of course, the main point which made this so predictable is that the majority of these critics are bloggers, pundits and talking heads who are partisan, ideological purists. Harry Reid, on the other hand, has a job which makes him a pragmatist by definition. If you select a majority leader who is a purist, he’s very likely to be a minority leader within an election cycle or two. The Senate races are still playing out, but it looks like the Democrats will seize Ted Stevens’ seat in Alaska and Al Franken may still find a path to victory if he can pry open the trunks of a few more Chevy Impalas. The Georgia seat, however, is a pipe dream and the Dems will come up at least one seat short of a bullet proof majority. He can get by with the support of a few hungry RINOs (which assumes the loss of a couple blue dogs here and there) but it will still be razor thin. He needs Lieberman more than Lieberman needs him.

So Joe will give the appearance of eating a small portion of crow (”whew! That was close. They almost kicked me out!”) but he’ll go back to business as usual. Lieberman will wander off the ranch at times, particularly on foreign policy issues where he wants to play the hawk. But on the critical domestic issues – particularly SCOTUS appointments – he’ll toe the company line. There’s high drama playing out in the blogosphere and the media, but it’s looking like nothing more than business as usual on the Hill.

  • LetJoeStay
    This is fantastic news. I'm glad cooler heads have prevailed. Joe stays!
    http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/
  • AustinRoth
    Politics is the art of the possible. Once the elections are over, the focus of elected officials turns to the need to govern effectively. So, despite the desires of rabid, the Senate Democrats took the pragmatic course. That is a good sign, actually, that maybe the next Congress will not be dominated by a need for retribution. But time will tell on that point.
  • RememberNovember
    Let's hope that No-Show Joe keeps up his performance in the Committee and people with actual drive like Waxman keep doing their jobs. If JL actually decides to take his job seriously and start in on the administration when he was laissez faire to Bush's offenses then we'll know Joe for the partisan hack he truly is.
    Connecticut voters should be the final arbiters on him, in the end. They won't re-elect him that's for sure.
  • StockBoySF
    I suppose one alternative is for the Dems to act like Republicans and kick out anyone who doesn't fully agree with them.
  • "They won't re-elect him that's for sure."

    Seems like I've heard that somewhere before...
  • elrod
    The anger at Lieberman does not just come from left wing bloggers. A lot of Democratic Senators - including centrists like Carper and Bayh - have expressed outrage at Lieberman for his behavior during the Presidential campaign. At the very least they want a heartfelt apology and recognition that he tried to undermine the party's nominee.

    Also, the Democrats do not need Lieberman more than he needs them. The magic 60 numbers has to do with filibusters, not actual votes. The Maine RINOs will almost certainly oppose filibusters of Democratic bills - and blue dogs will never join in to filibuster Democratic bills. This isn't the old Dixiecrat gang. Lieberman will also not likely back filibusters of domestic policy bills.

    But if Lieberman quit the Democratic caucus, he would have no authority whatsoever. And he'd get killed in Connecticut in 2012 if he became a Republican.

    I think the Dems should work out a swap of some sort. They should give Lieberman the chairmanship of some other reasonably important committee (not subcommittee) and replace him on the Government Oversight committee.
  • RememberNovember
    All in all it seems the Dems are trying to stack the deck- and punishing Lieberman will blow up in their faces...so they are making nicey nicey for future issues- which kind of seems like an appeasement stance rather than a hard line. When they are done with him they'll throw him to the sharks. That's my guess.
  • JSpencer
    I agree with Elrod; the desire for accountability isn't just from left-wing democrats. For many of us this isn't about hot-headed partisanship; it's about trust and judgement. I understand why a pragmatic approach warrants consideration, but the democrats will be wise to not trust Lieberman any further than they can throw him at any given moment.
  • RememberNovember
    I think we should all revisit "Smoking gun" Joe's ' speech at the RNC.
  • Silhouette
    If you or I did what Lieberman did, we would be stripped of our titles and made to feel glad we were allowed to darken the door of some backwater democratic headquarters office.

    Because he's being held in high glory for cavorting with the Rovian pool of sharks, I smell dirty politics at hand...on the dem side of the aisle. In fact, you can use as a litmus test exactly who are wolves in sheep's clothing by who stands to support Lieberman's retention vs who is outraged by it..

    "We're making a list, checking it twice..gonna find out who's naughty and nice.."
  • kritt11
    I agree there's a lot of anger amongst the Democrats in the Senate against Lieberman, and he deserves every bit of it. He's been playing footsie with everybody and counting on the fact that the Dems are trying to get to the magic 60.

    But, Democrats also can't afford to alienate him, as they only have a short window of opportunity to get things done before voters start holding them accountable.
  • DLS
    Where is the anger at The One for not wanting Lieberman to be given the GOP McCain treatment (other than during elections, when and after he is the nominee by default, that is)?
  • I honestly don't give a damn one way or another. It does seem like a bit of a sign that the Democrats are going for the pragmatic approach in governance, which is nice for me. And if the voters of Connecticut don't like what he's been doing...well, he's up for reelection (if he runs) in four years. We can let the voters decide, and Kos can foam at the mouth for all I care.
  • Hmm. Is this not the same team of commenters cheering the endorsement of Obama by Colin Powell?
  • StockBoySF
    Michael Merritt: "Is this not the same team of commenters cheering the endorsement of Obama by Colin Powell?"

    I'm not sure what your point is. There is nothing wrong with supporting someone who is not of your own party. Yes I'm mad a Lieberman but I'm actually pretty proud of the Dems sticking together (more or less) and not playing childish political games (at least the leaders). A few months ago Patrick E. had a post, asking each of us to name something we liked about the other party. Since I'm pretty much a Dem, the comment I made about the Republicans was that I liked the way they were unified (or something along those lines). Sure there are some wayward Dems, and I like that, too. Everyone has a voice and aren't lock-step behind the party leaders (like the Republicans in Congress were behind Bush).

    Kicking Lieberman out of the Dem caucus causes more problems than it's worth. I think keeping him in is a great long term strategy. And what's more is that this shows that the Dems in Congress can disagree and won't have to fear losing their assignments or other political retribution. I'd like to remind point out that under Bush everyone was a "yes man" (or woman) and no one dared be a contrarian, lest they fall out of favor and be shown to the door faster than you can say, "lickety split". We see where that sort of leadership got us..... one big mess after another.

    If we want open and honest dialogue then the conditions need to exist to foster that environment. Obama is doing a pretty good job so far, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. This is the change Washington needs. Not many people want the political bickering to continue.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC