Boo hiss: Democrats let Lieberman keep his committee chair
Kevin Drum isn't happy about this, and neither am I. How can the Democrats let someone who isn't even a Democrat and who actively campaigned against Obama keep a valuable committee chair that allows him to investigate the Obama administration? Shouldn't that chair go to an actual Democrat?
This action by the Democrats reaffirms the existence of the following incentive structure for politicians:
This just goes to show how the 2006 and 2008 elections have not really changed the political culture. The same people who never stood up to Bush in a meaningful way are still in control of Congress. There's still so much work to be done.
I think my fundamental disagreement with Obama is over this kind of issue: Obama is fundamentally a conciliator, and the netroots left (of which I am certainly a member) wants to see Republicanism crushed and discredited. Obama is just not interested in that project. So he's going to piss me off a lot. I hope Obama has the political skill and cunning necessary to get things done his way. It got him elected, so I'm fairly optimistic. But the Republicans are out to stop him, and no one loves getting attention by attacking Democrats more than Lieberman. And now he has a powerful committee chair from which to do so.
This action by the Democrats reaffirms the existence of the following incentive structure for politicians:
- Do something that pisses off the right, and the Republicans hammer you for it hard.
- Do something that pisses off the left, and Democrats let you get away with it even though it's well within their power to punish you for it.
This just goes to show how the 2006 and 2008 elections have not really changed the political culture. The same people who never stood up to Bush in a meaningful way are still in control of Congress. There's still so much work to be done.
I think my fundamental disagreement with Obama is over this kind of issue: Obama is fundamentally a conciliator, and the netroots left (of which I am certainly a member) wants to see Republicanism crushed and discredited. Obama is just not interested in that project. So he's going to piss me off a lot. I hope Obama has the political skill and cunning necessary to get things done his way. It got him elected, so I'm fairly optimistic. But the Republicans are out to stop him, and no one loves getting attention by attacking Democrats more than Lieberman. And now he has a powerful committee chair from which to do so.
Comments
Even if they can only get 59 seats now, they might still make this argument, as fate/scandal/death (lots of old folks in the Senate) could unexpectedly open up a seat well before the 2010 Senate elections.
Nah, the Dems are probably just incapable of doing the obvious and publicly flaying Lieberman alive.
Pablo
Assuming this works, it's maybe not too bad a strategy. Though I'm wondering exactly who those moderate Republicans are supposed to be? Chafee's gone. Warner, gone. Smith, gone. DeWine, gone. OK, Snowe's still there, and then, who? McCain??
To your list, I've heard Susan Collins, the other Maine Republican senator mentioned as a moderate. Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter always made a great number of squawking sounds before capitulating to the Bush administration's demands, so there may be some flexibility there.
Often, filibuster-ending cloture votes don't fall 100% on party lines. The Senate is very "clubby": people who have completely different ideologies do favors for each other and cover each other's asses all the time. So I think 60 isn't as magical a number as people make it out to be. Sure, it's better than 59. But it's not like some incredibly wonderful progressive utopia erupts spontaneously out of the Capitol building if we make it to 60.
Profit.