Marc Ambinder quotes Prof. John Zaslow on why the message the Senate Dems — and their enabler, the President-elect — sent via their Joe Lieberman vote is so unacceptable:
All of this might be forgiven if Lieberman had shown that he was an excellent committee chairman. But in fact, he has been a terrible one. This is partly because of his failure to investigate the serial incompetence of the administration on just about everything. Katrina was only one. And this didn’t have to be partisan: incompetence is incompetence no matter who does it. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit–certainly no liberal–has in several opinions accused the immigration judges in ICE of being the most incompetent he had seen (as an example, see http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1208861007986) but there are lots of others). Wouldn’t it have been nice to have had the Senate Homeland Security investigating these things and trying to fix them? You can also read Edward Alden’s terrific new book, “The Closing of the American Border”, which shows in quite painstaking detail the horrific problems that DHS has had in getting up to speed, establishing sound policies, or even understanding what the problem is/was. And where was Joe Lieberman in all of this? Nowhere.
This is far more than just political payback. It reflects a concern that, now that Democrats simply do not have the will to enforce the public mandate. I don’t care about Lieberman personally; but I care an awful lot about the country. And I’m not sure that Senate Democrats do.
Off the top of my head, I can think of only four Senate Dems — Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, and Whitehouse — who reliably demonstrate that they do care about the country. The others? Meh.
sitting here shaking head. I thought it was about change.
“It” hasn’t happened yet.
The government Obama doesn’t yet lead takes a long time to turn, like an enormous ship.
Obama shows every sign of being the kind of person who is playing out a medium and long term strategy rather than dealing with day-to-day media and public reactions. Having watched his campaign, I’m willing to sit back and give him a chance.
I’m less sanguine about congressional leadership, but I think once everyone is sworn in in January is the time to see how they respond to the changed circumstances.
I detest Lieberman. I didn’t like him when he defeated Lowell Weicker and have only grown to like him less since. I’d have done this differently, but this is not a ditch to die in.
To use a chess metaphor, this is watching how he’s moving a few pawns around in the opening and saying “oh no, the game is over!” I’m willing to give him some time.
“Him” being Obama, not Lieberman, right, NMC? Or both?
Yes, I see your point, but gah, that guy (Lieberman) is rank.
pam, I forget exactly how many Senate GOPers are up for re-election next time, but it’s a goodly number again. If Obama gets it rolling the way we can reasonably expect, he may not have such a hard time picking up (self-serving) GOP votes. That makes Lieberman’s even less valuable.
Letting him stay in the caucus I guess I can see — but NOT letting him hang onto an important chairmanship that he’s completely abandoned.
The chess-move “him” is Obama.
The Republicans have another number disadvantage in the Senate in the next election, and some interesting vulnerabilities (Specter’s up again, and is aging, and at least one of those New England seats is up).
But that raises this: Those two I just noted (New England) will lead to some aisle crossing I’m betting. There is more than one way to reach 60.
Perzackly.
Lieberman needs spine and cajones transplants.
A hint of a character would be nice too. Mostly, he needs to be gone.
He’s a troubled little dweeb, but the foremost quality needed in politics is an ability to count.
My bet is Joe either “got the message” and will pay his chit with Obama when called on or he won’t play nice and his peers will have a second shot of pulling his gavel. I’m placing no bets on what they’ll do with this second shot tho’.
Who’s to say the current Dem leadership will be the leaders for much longer? A new Congress means new elections for leadership positions. There are a lot better brains and bigger balls available in the Senate Dem caucus than those sported by Harry Reid (although Pelosi’s are probably larger on both counts). Who you need in opposition is often quite different from who you need in power.