Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTo the surprise of few on Capitol Hill -- and, surely, to the disappointment of many beyond the beltway -- Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman will retain his chairmanship of the powerful Senate Homeland Security Committee and his place in the Democratic Caucus.
Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president who angered his fellow partisans first by embracing neo-conservative foreign policies and then by backing Republican John McCain for the presidency, had been targeted for punishment by grassroots Democrats who were furious with his positions and actions.
But the message of Lieberman's critics was never coherent -- it ranged from calls for expelling the independent senator from the caucus to stripping him of committee assignments to demanding an apology -- and it never achieved the sort of critical mass that might have influenced Democratic senators to demand a measure of accountability from one of their own.
Against the call for accountability was a political argument, advanced by allies of President-elect Barack Obama and a number of Lieberman's Senate colleagues, that taking too harsh a stance toward the senator from Connecticut might make him the first political "martyr" of an era in which Democrats are trying to send bipartisan "one-nation" messages.
So Lieberman took a slap on the wrist: giving up the chairmanship of a subcommittee dealing with climate change and accepting a formal if tepid condemnation from the caucus for some of his more over-the-top statements on McCain's behalf -- especially his absurd claim that Obama's vote for setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was an attack on the troops.
In return, the caucus voted 42-13 to let Lieberman remain in the caucus and enjoy the primary perk of that membership: the Homeland Security chairmanship.
Ultimately, the result was a disappointing one, as it left Lieberman in charge of a committee where he had been a problematic player while removing him from the chairmanship of the climate-change subcommittee on which he has tended to take positions that are far more in line with those of mainstream Democrats.
Could the fight have ended differently? Perhaps, but it would have required an inside-outside strategy where Lieberman's critics in the caucus (Vermonters Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, Californian Barbara Boxer and Iowan Tom Harkin, among others) worked with netroots and grassroots activists to develop a clear ask. That ask -- probably the surrender of Lieberman's committee chairmanship in return for allowing him to retain subcommittee chairmanships he values and that are significant for Connecticut -- was telegraphed in a statement last week by Sanders.
But, by then, Lieberman had already been "saved" by Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
What remains is the question of whether Lieberman will take his caucus membership seriously. Senate Democrats will need his vote when Republicans seek to stall action on policy initiatives and confirmations of Obama appointees. If he provides it, that will be the end of the story of his relationship with the caucus -- though not with the voters of Connecticut, who polling suggests are souring on their renegade senator.
If, on the other hand, Lieberman sides with the Republicans to undermine the party's agenda and the Obama presidency he worked so hard to prevent, then the caucus can and should be prepared to censure the Connecticut senator by rescinding the pass that he was given on Tuesday.
And what are the rest of us left with? For now, there are few options, except perhaps to Laugh at Lieberman.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
We can still laugh at Lieberman" No, he isn't funny. And it would seem to me that he would be terribly demoralizing to the rest of the committee.
Posted by lachatte at 11/18/2008 @ 1:47pm
"To the surprise of no one on Capitol Hill, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman will retain his chairmanship of the powerful Senate Homeland Security Committee and his place in the Democratic Caucus."
Mr Nichols, if it's "to the surprise of no one"...
why did you guys at "TN" keep acting like "something different" was going to happen?!??!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 1:51pm
Gotta say, after all the cheering dies down, Obama is starting out on the wrong foot.
Posted by Lil at 11/18/2008 @ 1:53pm
Lieberman is getting the last laugh and not us.The dems are weak and Obama and the dim congress will change nothing.The only real difference between Obama and McCain was their drastically different VP choices.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 1:56pm
In my opinion Obama is proving to be a lot smarter and more politically savvy than any of his critics imagined.
I am absolutely astonished at the rate he is already being written off by some of the left leaning bloggers here.
Give Obama a chance. Sheesh!
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2008 @ 2:04pm
Mr Nichols, if it's "to the surprise of no one"...
why did you guys at "TN" keep acting like "something different" was going to happen?!??!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Gotta keep the interest of those "progressive" readers don't ya know. What would happen to advertising revenues if Nichols admitted it was a done deal from the start?
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 2:14pm
Lieberman is getting the last laugh and not us.The dems are weak and Obama and the dim congress will change nothing.The only real difference between Obama and McCain was their drastically different VP choices.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - gotta hand it to "old Joe." He plays both sides masterfully. And he will keep his senate seat.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 2:16pm
freiheit-Obama is a shrewd politician who knows how to play politics,but that's not change.That's the status quo and one of the reasons why I never could get behind Obama.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 2:18pm
onevote-Lieberman has proven that he is the master manipulator.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 2:20pm
onevote-Lieberman has proven that he is the master manipulator.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
As good (bad) as they come.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 2:22pm
Hillary Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Position in Obama Cabinet 09:19 H | Topics: Politics - Women
That's what the British newspaper the Guardian reports.
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration.
If Hillary Clinton indeed were to take the position of Secretary of State, it would poise a Latina to step up and be a front runner for the Clinton Senate seat.
Rep. Nydia Velazquez is the front-runner - for now, at least - to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the next secretary of state, a source close to Gov. Paterson said yesterday. "They think she's a twofer," said the source close to Paterson, who would get to pick Clinton's replacement. "She's a woman and a Latina and therefore a home run. He's feeling tremendous pressure in western New York, which he has to win to win the general election. But the closer pressure he's feeling right now is from the Hispanic community."
Source: Vivirlatino.com
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 2:28pm
Check out Paterson's rationale for Clinton replacement in the above post. Golly, a Latina and a woman too boot. The land of Hillary Clinton.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 2:31pm
Nichols asks:
<<< And what are the rest of us left with? >>>
According to Nichols, the Democrats are left with an modus operandi where you accept someone into your caucus, but if he votes his conscience, you kick him out.
No, that is despicable, not laughable.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 2:41pm
I look forward to more of this from Obama and the gang.
The future looks bright that we will achieve a new order of peace with honor.
And Lieberman IS the exemplary of honor isn't he?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 2:42pm
hugo-It has nothing to do with voting your conscience,but has to do with the fact that Lieberman is a failure as head of that committee and has to do with switching sides when politically expedient to do so.Lieberman has been having a tantrum ever since he lost the dem primary in Conn.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 2:45pm
Is it me or is it just hard to tell the difference between "change" and "status quo"?
Posted by fragen at 11/18/2008 @ 2:47pm
Here's an idea:
Now that Joe 'the schmuck' Lieberman is going to retain his chairmanship of Homeland Security, why not simply abolish the "Department" entirely and start from scratch?
Naw, that would represent too much change to believe in --we might get a little woosy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 2:52pm
The Senate allows itself a secret vote on this, but is against rank and file members and/or prospective members of labor organizations having a secret vote.
Posted by tucanofulano at 11/18/2008 @ 2:53pm
Correction to above:
That's woozy with a 'z'.
Although the word wussy is another all too appropriate adjective pertaining to the Democrats, and perhaps Obama too.
I'm doing my best to hold my fire, but my trigger finger is gettin' really itchy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 3:01pm
There was Dodd, in the NYTimes report, concerned for the welfare -- what was best for-- Connecticut. Such a contrast, eh, to the slogan, however empty, of "country first" of Lieberman's other party?
2. Dems retained and claimed for the last 7 years the option on "the Homeland is still insecure; we need to insist on industry spending 10s ofo billions hardening potential targets of terrorists."
Well, they kept Lieberman to sustain options on that security- state welfare, those hundreds of thousands of security guards....producing nothing, but protecting us from the bogeyman.
Same as it ever was.
Posted by htravis at 11/18/2008 @ 3:04pm
Naw, that would represent too much change to believe in --we might get a little woosy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Note Joe's contribution to creating this worthless boondoggle of a department to begin with.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 3:05pm
As much as I can't stand Leiberman, this is the smart political move. If you are Obama, you don't want Leiberman and GOP operatives grandstanding and whining about bipartisianship in an attempt to damper the public's enthusiasm for your Administration.
Just like any job, Obama has got about 100 days to make significant changes, where most people are going to say "Give Obama a chance." So, he's going to want to focus on getting some things done and doesn't need little fish like Leiberman messing up his message discipline with their personal agenda.
Obama's reaching out to McCain, Clinton, and even Leiberman so he can make good on all the bipartisan talk and make something that looks like change happen. But he has also laid the groundwork that if people don't want to play ball, he'll drop the bomb on them. Moves like this and his chief of staff selection make this clear.
Leiberman, now safely contained, still presents Obama with the option of yanking his chairmanship later and being used as an example at a less critical moment. It's shrewd politics, and I'm sure the career politicians are hearing his message loud and clear - and meanwhile, he leaves the general public still enthusiastic and expectant.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 3:10pm
So, is Obama's action the brilliant political maneuvering of a Disraeli or Joe Cannon, or is it blundering reminiscent of Carter or James Buchanan?
Posted by Mistral at 11/18/2008 @ 3:12pm
Droopy-Dog keeps his job! I gave up on these Demorats twenty years ago. I am so glad I did. This bone-head play is almost as stupid as taking impeachment off the table.
Posted by jazzfan at 11/18/2008 @ 3:13pm
Under "bipartisanship," whom does the electorate hold accountable if things go wrong, reward if things go right?
Posted by fragen at 11/18/2008 @ 3:19pm
Leiberman, now safely contained, still presents Obama with the option of yanking his chairmanship later and being used as an example at a less critical moment. It's shrewd politics, and I'm sure the career politicians are hearing his message loud and clear - and meanwhile, he leaves the general public still enthusiastic and expectant.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That will take a senate resolution, which can be fillibustered by Repubs. No easy task. The time to yank him was now, prior to commencement of the next Congress.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 3:27pm
You're right. He'll wait until next Congress and not try for a Senate resolution.
The time will be two years from now - if Joe doesn't play ball. They'll yank his chairmanship next time around and put the machinery in place to make sure he loses his Senate seat.
But to do it now? Nothing is gained, and it would carry a high price. It's not worth it. Better to keep him in line with the carrot and the threat of the stick rather than go straight to the stick.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 3:40pm
Appreciate the insight, SR, but humbly and firmly disagree.
There should have been at least some consequences for Lieberman, and I don't believe I witnessed any of note.
Bad precedent. And bad politics.
But I'm being as patient as possible for the moment.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 3:49pm
Lieberman's been playing both sides since at least 2006 and he will continue to play the Dems for the fools they are. No wonder they have the reputation of being weak on defense when they can't even defend themselves.
Posted by AmiBlue at 11/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
The Democrats already had the threat of taking away Lieberman's chair and kicking him out of the caucus,but that did not stop him from turning on them so there is no reason to believe that the same threat will stop him from turning on them,again.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 3:55pm
What an embarrassment. All Harry Reid has done is perpetuate the myth of weak-willed Democrats. They've caved on everything from "buying bad debt" from the investment banks, to ridiculous FISA "reforms".
In 2 years we're gonna need a good challenger for Harry Reid in the primary.
Posted by SoldierBoyBlue at 11/18/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 3:49pm
I'm curious. Why, exactly? For reasons of party discipline? Justice? Because Leiberman is a little weasel?
Why is it important that he get his, right now? And what do you think will result from this precedent?
I agree that it violates my sense of fairness, and I would like politics to dispense a little karmic justice. But, practically, that move would help Leiberman and make him more of an adversary. Why do it?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 3:55pm
I hear you. But, what real threat do you have when you are barely holding on to a majority? It's a little different now, but he still might be the deciding factor in a close fillibuster vote.
I'm sure Democrats harbor no illusions about Leiberman, and he will turn on them again. But, he would be a bigger problem if he were caucasing with Republicans - and that's just the bottom line on it.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 4:28pm
Better to keep him in line with the carrot and the threat of the stick rather than go straight to the stick.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We shall see. Just not clear on who is wielding the carrot and stick on this one. Forgive and Forget - Look Forward and Not Back seems to be the soup du jour for our Dem Congress. The problem is for accountability. The reward for bad behavior is not unnoticed by those who choose this path, and this of course extends far beyond the question of Lieberman.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
Better to keep him in line with the carrot and the threat of the stick rather than go straight to the stick.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008
There is no threat of the stick - Reid simply lacks the balls to do anything in that matter. Lieberman will spend the next 4 years (yes, 4 years) using his position to try to avenge Obama's victory by attempting to tie up administration officials with subpoenas. He will do his best to gridlock the government, and Reid will do what he always does - claim that the only workable solution is complete, abject surrender to a group of people who have been fully repudiated at the polls by the American people. We don't have time any longer for that tpe of crap, but Reid simply lacks the courage to do anything to stop it.
Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 5:01pm
traitor joe will bend with the winds of the zeitgeist and survive, i'll even venture to guess he will manage to prosper.
pull out your hair and beat your chest all you want, but...
you'll just get a bloody scalp and bruised chest.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2008 @ 5:06pm
Who remembers how Joe Lie ber man stood in the well of the Senate to condemn Bill Clinton against the will of popular support? Who also remembers the 2000 presidential election when in spite of status quo pundits praising Lie ber man's worthiness the people never gave him more than 2% of their confidence? Do we not remember how after he was forced to withdraw from that race he managed to become the candidate for veep on Al Gore's ticket? Who remembers how disloyal he was then, especially the way he todied up to Dick Cheney during the vice presidential debate? Then when lame Joe Lie ber man lost in the 2006 Connecticut primary to Ned Lamont the loyal Democrats of that state were obviously and clearly remembering how useless he had been for them. That's why they voted him out. But Joe "Big Mo" Lie ber man would not go away. He ran as an independent and with the support and the tricks of the real Axis of Evil-- Dick Chency, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. Joe Lie ber man is no democrat! What is puzzling and even more troubling is how he maintains his insider power in spite of the wishes of the people he is failing to serve.
Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/18/2008 @ 5:06pm
Yay Obama!
Chaaaaaaaaaange is coming, haven't you heard?
What a joke!
Still better than John McCain and the religious fanatics, but not by much!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 5:08pm
Not a good precedent for the new President. Republican Joe is a traitor to the party and merely living under the shine of his own ego trip. They'd done better giving the chairmanship to Olympia Snow; even as a declared Republican, she's a better Democrat than Joe the rat snake ever will be.
Posted by runner315 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
Still better than John McCain and the religious fanatics, but not by much!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 5:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny Dem primary. Obama - stalking horse of Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by runner315 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
I don't think the problem is Joe Lieberman, as unpalatable as the man is...
The problem is the Democrats, and their willingness to engage in the same slimy, opportunistic politics as the Republicans.
Weird!!
At least Obama can speak in full sentences when he lies and obfuscates.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 5:26pm
At least Obama can speak in full sentences when he lies and obfuscates.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 5:26pm
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:35pm
Change needs to start with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. No 2 people are more responsible for congress having worse approval ratings than Chimpy McFlightsuit.
what good has Lieberman done on the HLS committee? Why does he deserve to keep the chairmanship?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 5:44pm
You ain't seen nothing yet. Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:35pm
On what exactly do you base your feelings about Obama being a failure,months before he takes office? Really, you have been wrong about everything you have predicted here for months.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
I guess this speaks to Obamas desire to "all get along". He has decided to forgive those who have trespassed against him.
Damn moosleum ideology!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 5:57pm
As my drunken uncle used to say, Sometimes the only thing that'll straighten a man out is to get his butt whupped. I believe Congress does have a gym behind which Lieberman could be invited, and said whupping applied. But who in the Senate could possibly administer said whupping? (Now that I think about it, Jim Webb looks like he could do it.)
Posted by Citizen54 at 11/18/2008 @ 6:00pm
IF...If homeland security is wrapped up with the Iraq war (2003- ) as Lieberman likes to say, then what is he, as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee doing about this:
[By JAMES GLANZ and RIYADH MOHAMMED
Published: November 17, 2008
BAGHDAD -- The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is systematically dismissing Iraqi oversight officials, who were installed to fight corruption in Iraqi ministries by order of the American occupation administration, which had hoped to bring Western standards of accountability to the notoriously opaque and graft-ridden bureaucracy here.
...One Iraqi former chief investigator recently testified before Congress that $13 billion in reconstruction funds from the United States had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste by Iraqi government officials.]
http://tinyurl.com/6lpdy9
Looks like the Iraqis ARE becoming more American in the way they run govt.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 6:11pm
The decision to forgive Lieberman's abominable transgressions and have him retain his chairmanship at the Homeland Security Committee is a slap in the face of all those of us who worked our arses off to ensure the election of Obama with the hope that a more honorable Democratic party would emerge. Treason is one sin that should never be forgiven,
Posted by Magister at 11/18/2008 @ 6:32pm
Magister, that is why you should not get your HOPE up. Dems is dems.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 6:38pm
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:35pm
I, unlike some who post here, have been awake for the past 8 years to see the biggest crooks and liars in American history run our once great nation into the dirt, smiling all the way.
Don't even go there.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 6:46pm
"I'm curious. Why, exactly? For reasons of party discipline? Justice? Because Leiberman is a little weasel?
Why is it important that he get his, right now? And what do you think will result from this precedent?....."
~SR Jenkins @ 4:28pm
I think it's not too much to ask that the "leadership" of the Senate simply state, "Look Joe, you've been a bad little goy and there are consequences for that now, unlike under Dubya's reckless and clueless administration. We request that you turn in your badge on the DHS chairmanship, and if you're a good little goy, we'll consider a chair of some other committee. But you'll have to earn it."
I don't think it's as useful, as some apparently do, to kowtow to one giant, obnoxious ego in order to beg for his support. It sets a precedent for similar behavior from others down the road.
Firm but fair should be the motto going forward.
That alone would represent some change worth believing in.
But that's just my humble opinion.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 6:48pm
Who was the douche-nozzle that was arguing with me the other day about Rahm Emanuel and the power of AIPAC? Oh no, Emanuel was a great choice, he claimed, goes back with Obama to Obama's Chicago days. There won't be any pressure from AIPAC regarding Lieberman. I see.
Nothing could illustrate the inherent weakness of this upcoming presidency more than this Lieberman episode. AIPAC loves Joe and if you think that Obama and his congressional operatives don't know that you need a new laxative. Next.
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 6:48pm
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
Based on the fact that so far, he has shown himself to be nothing but a shill, which is pretty much exactly what he was allegedly running against.
Like I've been saying for months, you don't get to be president without owing people favors. Empty "hope" speech and rhetoric do NOT a president make.
He is a great politician, but then again, so was the George Bush of 2004.
Respect needs to be EARNED, before it can be given. So far the only thing he has done that needs to be respected is running a successful campaign.
Note: Even knowing all of this well before he was elected I still voted for him, and will give him a chance. But I will be damned if I'm not going to criticize his every single move. Do not go down the road of the repugs, where criticism is akin to being "unAmerican".
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 6:48pm
Well that could be anybody here who bought into Mr. Obama's spiel without ever really looking back.
Partisanship knows no party.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 6:54pm
Yeah well we all know where it got Jesus to let Judas into his Cabinet too-- Oh and he supposedly knew what was coming... And yes of course we all know Obama ain't no Jesus.
The dem senate fell down on the job yet AGAIN.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/18/2008 @ 7:03pm
Maybe we can hear a little more about the impeachment of George W. Bush?
LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 7:09pm
Nothing could illustrate the inherent weakness of this upcoming presidency more than this Lieberman episode. AIPAC loves Joe and if you think that Obama and his congressional operatives don't know that you need a new laxative. Next.
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The leverage that Joe Lieberman has over Congress. I am trying to think of a member of Congress who dared stand up to AIPAC directly? Go against AIPAC, and lose your cushy Congressional job. Oh yeah...."old Joe" holds the cards all right.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 7:18pm
"Under "bipartisanship," whom does the electorate hold accountable if things go wrong, reward if things go right?"
Posted by fragen at 11/18/2008 @ 3:19pm
Excellent question.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 7:24pm
When it comes to security matters (Spying on America) AIPAC proved that it still calls the shot; they wanted Lieberman and they got Lieberman despite the, irrelevant, cry of the overwhelming majority of Democrats. It was done in a secret vote and thus assuring those Senators, who voted for Lieberman, a measure of protection from the wrath of their constituents.
Foreign policy is very important to AIPAC as well, for the very obvious reason of protecting the Israeli interest. It seems that we are up for a surprise there as well. The appointment of Senator Clinton, who is strongly supported by AIPAC, as Secretary of State is happening at the expense of Governor Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson made a daring move when he supported candidate Obama; bringing with him the Latino votes. It is clear, however, that Richardson is too principled to suit AIPAC as Secretary of State. With Rahm Emanuel sitting at the Chief of Staff and Lieberman at the Senate Homeland Security, then why not to Wolfowitz at the Defense Department and maybe Richard Perle at the CIA.
I am afraid that by the time Obama finishes his reading on Lincoln, the Neocons will have a total grip on the White House.
Posted by CripThink at 11/18/2008 @ 9:12pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 6:54pm
"Well that could be anybody here who bought into Mr. Obama's spiel without ever really looking back."
There were and are certainly enough of that kind of yahoo around here. In most cases, they are the mirror image of the so-called "pro-life" Evangelical voter who, despite his avowed convictions, was willing to support Bush after his notorious compromise on stem-cell funding back in 2001. People who are this lacking in principle usually concern themselves only with matters of power, achieving it and holding on to it. Truth means little to them. They are weasels and need to be so identified.
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 9:53pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 7:18pm
"The leverage that Joe Lieberman has over Congress. I am trying to think of a member of Congress who dared stand up to AIPAC directly? Go against AIPAC, and lose your cushy Congressional job. Oh yeah....'old Joe' holds the cards all right."
If you are looking for scholarly output on this question, I'd recommend Mearshimer & Walt's, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Both have had a price to pay for their honesty. And so has Tony Judt, noted Jewish historian, and author of the important, Post War. Our government is in virtual slavery to this lobby. There is no political struggle currently more virtuous than that associated with the often obscure attempts to bring freedom of movement to the formation of our Middle Eastern policy.
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 10:11pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2008 @ 6:48pm
I'm torn. I agree with you. But, I also think going that route would create a distraction. There are bigger fish to fry.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/18/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 9:53pm
I think Johnny Boy just outed himself there Mask!
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 11:32pm
They should've kicked Lieberman to the curb straight away. It's not like he can be counted on anyway.
It's not about petty revenge, or getting one's pound of flesh, it is about changing the Dems image of being wimpy. He caucused with the Dems and then stabs them in the back?
Send Fraedo Lieberman out in the boat with Al Neri.
Posted by koroviev at 11/19/2008 @ 12:52am
Also, there were posts here blaming Obama. He isn't even President yet.
It's Reid and the other dems. I saw Lieberman and Reid on tv earlier this evening and although Reid said he was angry and Lieberman took back some of the things he said. They should've still removed him from the Chairmanship and probably kicked him out of the Caucus.
Posted by koroviev at 11/19/2008 @ 01:13am
Send Fraedo Lieberman out in the boat with Al Neri.
Posted by koroviev at 11/19/2008 @ 12:52am
So in this scenario Obama is waiting for someone that's close to both him and Lie berman, to pass-over before sending Lie berman on the fishing boat for the last time...
And could that simply be a 'political pass-over'?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/19/2008 @ 09:42am
Maybe we can hear a little more about the impeachment of George W. Bush?
LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 7:09pm
Investigations were a Joe Biden and Barack Obama promise... and with even 60 in the Senate-- it still has to come to a head in the House.
That's no where in need of a Judas Lie berman to cut open that double sutured scab. Besides he may be on a boat ride trying to fish by then.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/19/2008 @ 09:57am
If you are looking for scholarly output on this question, I'd recommend Mearshimer & Walt's, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Both have had a price to pay for their honesty. And so has Tony Judt, noted Jewish historian, and author of the important, Post War.
Posted by john lowell at 11/18/2008 @ 10:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Found Mearshimer & Walt's article, as well as Tony Judt's NY Times piece discussing it. Note AIPAC pushback from the liberal Jewish community as well.
'The lobbying group will be known as J Street and the political action group as JStreetPAC. The executive director for both will be Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House.
"The definition of what it means to be pro-Israel has come to diverge from pursuing a peace settlement," said Alan Solomont, a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser involved in the initiative. In recent years, he said, "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."'
Jewish Liberals to Launch A Counterpoint to AIPAC Political Funds, Lobbying to Promote Arab-Israeli Peace Deal - Excerpt from: By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 15, 2008; Page A13
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:07am
Al-Qaida No. 2 insults Obama with racial epithet By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF and LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writers Maamoun Youssef And Lee Keath, Associated Press Writers 9 mins ago
'CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, using a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.
The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect -- along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- "house negroes."
Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."
The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.
The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date......'
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:17am
Wow! With letting "Brutus Benedict Arnold" Lieberman keep his committee chair, Senate Dems have just about descended to the stupid, spineless nadir the House reached when Speaker Pelosi inflicted voluntary sterility on that chamber by declaring "impeachment is off the table." It appears there is no notion of standards, discipline, or morality among the Congressional Democratic leaders. How about a class action lawsuit by DSCC contributors to get their money back? And, in the wider arena it seems that the "no drama Obama" approach has quickly produced plenty of drama, for folks who bought-in to his positions, statements, and style during the campaign, and that truly splendid victory speech in Grant park. Sadly, and disgustingly, drama has arisen in the form of tragi-comedy. Forgiveness for Lieberman, welcoming to McCain, and no foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton to be nominated for Sec. State? Let's be clear, you can't successfully run as complicated an enterprise as the Federal executive branch like it was Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. Where is the "change we need?" How about a strong third party emphasizing environmental and public health, removing the legal status as "persons" from corporations, and establishing a truth and restitution commission to document and prosecute the dozens of Bush Administration nefarious malfeasant minions? Sam Nunn, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Hegel, John Danforth, Paul Krugman, Kevin Phillips, John Dean, Cynthia Tucker, and E.J. Dionne come to mind as senior leaders.
Posted by invoxicated at 11/19/2008 @ 12:54pm
When he supports his first Republican fillibuster, he will be ousted. Wait and see.
Posted by redxblack at 11/19/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 11:32pm |
Ah, there you are. You're the credulous shlemeil that brought that pathetic argument on behalf of Obama's massa, Rahm Emanuel, the other day. Now with the Leiberman situation evolving as it has, tell us now that AIPAC won't be in the drivers seat at the White House for the next four years please.
Posted by john lowell at 11/19/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:07am
Yes, one of the saddest aspects of this AIPAC, Israel lobby business is how it misrepresents the views of a majority of Jews in this country. Ironically, it more closely mirrors the views of dispensationalist Evangelicals, than American Jews. It is a creature of American Likudists and Christian Zionists by and large. But it has a strangle hold on our foreign policy and we won't be free until it is neutralized. The same comment could be made of our economic life and the many corporate lobbies that dominate economic policy in Washington.
Posted by john lowell at 11/19/2008 @ 1:50pm
"Yes, one of the saddest aspects of this AIPAC, Israel lobby business is how it misrepresents the views of a majority of Jews in this country"
If it does not represent the majority views of the Jews; then why the this majority has been silent about all the abuse of AIPAC the Neocons and Israel?
Posted by CripThink at 11/19/2008 @ 2:48pm
What democratic party? Oh if only there could be an election in Connecticut today... alas!
Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/19/2008 @ 3:49pm
The same comment could be made of our economic life and the many corporate lobbies that dominate economic policy in Washington.
Posted by john lowell at 11/19/2008 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes, very true. And although approximately 70% of the electorate in 2006 wanted out of Iraq we are still there. A sad commentary on our "representative democracy."
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 6:37pm
My message is short ... I am disgusted with "Midas" Lieberman and the Democrats to retain him !
Posted by loretoguy at 11/19/2008 @ 8:22pm
'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.' -- Lyndon Johnson
Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/20/2008 @ 09:04am
I for one commend Liebermann's actions. I'm sure he had his reasons for his "traitorous" behavior, but at least he doesn't play the old "get behind the party" game. Acting on your convictions! What a novel concept for a politician!
And somehow I can't help thinking that had the party affiliation been reversed, then JOHN NICHOLS, old Mr Subjective himself, would be singing Libermann's praises as a farsighted icon who had "come over to the light"
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 07:51am