So Why Was It We Didn't Kick Joe Lieberman Out of The Caucus?
My inclination as a diehard Obama supporter is to assume that, in the long run, his decisions turn out to have been right.
But it became ever more clear yesterday hat his "forgive and forget" policy toward Joe Lieberman was a big mistake. (See Reober Scheer here).
I understand why Obama did what he did. It is summed up in two adages. The first states that the difference between a caucus and a cactus is that, on a cactus, the pricks are on the outside. The other states that it is better to have the bad guy pissing out from inside the tent, than outside pissing in.
These are wise adages. But they don't apply to Lieberman. He has been pissing inside the tent for a decade, at least. His treachery was capped off by his opposition to Barack Obama in the 2008 general election. His whole raison d'etre is to harm the Democratic party (and push an aggressive policy toward Iran, much like his Iraq policy, only worse).
He is not a Democrat. He is a neocon. No, he's not a Republican because he does not believe in any kind of party loyalty. By stating that he won't even stand with the Democrats on a filibuster vote, he has demonstrated that our 60 vote majority is a chimera anyway. It's time for him to go, if for no other reason than to send a message to right-wing Democrats. And also retribution.
A comparable Republican would have been sent packing years ago. I don't like to emulate them but, sometimes, I do admire that they at least stand up for their odious principles. Why don't we stand up for our good ones?
isn't he for re-election in 2010? if so, it will be a pleasure donating to his opponent.
October 28, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No 2012.
As far as allowing him to caucus and retaining his Homeland Security Chairmanship. I'm glad they did. At least now Reid and the WH can threaten him with both tossing out of the caucus and stripping him of the Chairmanship.
Joe is nothing if not a whiney attention whore who likes to think he is important. He would suffer mightily if he had be be a back bencher for the remainder of his last term
October 28, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely time to take the chairmanship from him. And really, is he the guy we should be trusting homeland security to anyway? Oh and we also need to punish Connecticut a bit. Lieberman needs to have to take a huge cut for his apostasy.
October 28, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some inconvenient truths about Joe
Money he has received form the Healthcare Industry: $3.3 million
Where his wife, Hadassah, works; Hill & Knowlton as a senior counselor in its health and pharmaceuticals practice.
Joe's right his stance is all about fiscal responsibility and the debt.
His personal fiscal responsibility and making sure he never ever goes into debt.
October 28, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't stand the guy. But it only makes sense to kick him out if you get more votes that way: if purging him gets you two votes from (say) Blue Dogs chastised into orthodoxy. Then great, toss him out the front door. But is that payoff really likely?
Better to have an ass**** who votes with you most of the time--even if he deserts on some key ones--than strip the caucus of that elusive, albeit unreliable, 60th vote.
In politics, ya gotta play the hand you're dealt.
October 28, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If, as may be the case, your caucus is so diverse and undisciplined, that you are never going to be able to find 60 votes for any given cloture vote, then you certainly ought not to sacrifice anything to keep one of those unreliable votes.
Lieberman comes from a strongly Democratic state where there should be a Senator who strongly backs the Democrats. Progressive Punch ranks Lieberman as 52 of 100 Senators in the likelihood that he will support progressive positions. This is not acceptable although Lieberman has improved -- believe it or not -- in the last session.52 Lieberman, Joseph I CT 68.50 (lifetime Support in critical votes) 82.69 (support this session in critical votes) 79.36 (lifetime percentage voting with progressives)
89.12 (Percentage this session voting with progressives).
October 28, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Said another way: Since I support him, I'm positive he's making the right decisions (even when it's not immediately apparent).
In other words, Obama's decisions reflect MJ's superior judgment!
That's the most accurate (if accidental) self-regarding comment I have ever seen from a "diehard" Obama supporter. LOL!
The American voter in a nutshell.
October 28, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's change we can prelieve in.
October 28, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your funny is only marred by not being derivable from the actual quote...
October 28, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
“The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.”
Dwight David Eisenhower
October 28, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
people have figured out that obama is a pushover and are taking advantage of that.
he is a pushover in respect to health care reform, financial reform, iraq, afghanistan, the i-p conflict, and with lieberman.
The Obama administration said on Wednesday that they "disagree" with the substance of Sen. Joseph Lieberman's critique of a public option for insurance coverage. But in the daily press briefing with reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs treaded carefully when it came to pushing back against the Connecticut Independent's threat to potentially filibuster health care reform. [link]
October 28, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
Simple -- The President and all the others know history.
In 1976 one of the most liberal people ever was elected President and given a filibuster proof margin.
The liberal wing ( today's progressive wing ) declared that this was a mandate to finish what Johnson started.
The Southern Democrat wing and the neo-Conservative wing ( yes, Neo-Cons really ARE and always WERE Democrats -- and Joe is one of them ) who are the predecessors to today's Blue Dog and new Dem wings said "Hold it. Wait! What the people did was punish a crook and the guy who pardoned him. There was no mandate."
Liberals said "Blasphemers! Vote party unity or we will destroy you. We can afford it -- we have MORE than enough margin to lose a few of you!"
1980 comes along -- Reagan wins partly from 18% interest rates and partly from the daily count of the hostage crisis ... but THAT isn't what the leaders of the party remember.
What they remember is all those moderate Democrats losing their Senate seats.
Problem is so did ALL the liberals!!!
See, in 1980, due to the WAR declared by the liberal ( progressive ) wing of the party against the moderate ( Blue Dog ) wing?
THE REBUPLICANS SWEPT THE SENATE.
SWEPT SWEPT SWEPT.
Nasty nasty -- you see, you punish those nasty nasty representatives and ...
" ... send a message to right-wing Democrats. And also retribution. "
Those damn blue-dog voters ALL OVER THE COUNTRY send a message right back.
"Retribution is a two-way street!"
And you know what? Barbara Boxer doesn't stand a snow-ball's chance in heck at re-election in 2010 without any Blue-Dog votes.
And send the representatives a message like that and you can see the 58+2 majority turning into a 42+2 minority.
Because the results have occurred. It has happened.
Declaration of war ... sending a message to right-wing Democrats ... whatever you want to call it WILL have their voters walk on you.
For a generation or more.
But this time ... instead of losing the South ... and having to change your name because the "P" word becomes an insult ( yep it was the MODERATES who made the L-word an insult ... not Reagan ) ... you will probably lose the whole country.
Cause THIS time?
The right wing of the Democrats will NOT come back. Not unless the leadership officially declares that the progressive wing is muzzled.
October 28, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another simplistic rendition of history. Sigh.
So if we progressives can't get what we want now because we need to coddle the Blue Dogs, and can't get rid of the Blue Dogs, why don't we bring the Blue Dogs to heel now and get what we can. If we are right that what we want will work (the Republicans enacted what they wanted and it really,really, did not work), the sooner we get it enacted the better so that the voters can see that it works.
October 28, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was the Manchurian Candidate hiding behind Al Gore.
October 28, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's hard to understand why harry reid, and the white house, put up with lieberman and his gang of nay-saying thugs. i realize both of them have a similar style, let the kettle boil until it's run it's course, and then move ahead. but this is too important - they've had six months and more to mouth off, and of course the media report every word. now it is time for the white house and reid to use their 60 vote majority. otherwise what is the point? can you imagine how fdr or lbj would have handled these guys? they would have been in a gulag long ago. bah! i am disgusted.
October 28, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am leery of Obama's seeming willingness to reach out to anyone and anybody, but the guy is smart, and I trust him more generally than I trust rumored "people" like Politico writers.
But doesn't this moment prove Obama was RIGHT about keeping Lieberman in the caucus, rather than out of it? I mean, there's a shot at the public option now, based on vanity points for this unmistakably narcissistic blowhard. Give him some little face-saving detail. Let him claim to have "saved" the insurance companies, whatever. But get him to let the vote take place.
What a strange little man, standing up for conservative jurors to be free from filibuster while he stabs his party in the back; and not just once, but over and over again.
October 28, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "it is better to have the bad guy pissing out from inside the tent, than outside pissing in"
MY COMMENT: That depends on how accurate the bad guy's aim is.
October 29, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "it is better to have the bad guy pissing out from inside the tent, than outside pissing in"
If you exile someone far enough away from the tent, they can piss (and moan) all they want and still not get any in the tent.
October 29, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Nichols in the Nation, November, 2008
Keep Lieberman in the Caucus (For Now)
My sense is that Democrats would be wiser to keep Lieberman in the Democratic circle for so long as he sides with the caucus on cloture votes....
Without Lieberman, it is tough to see how Democrats get to the filibuster-proof position that is the last piece of the puzzle of a governing majority.
The jig is now up for Holy Joe.
October 29, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional Democrats are one of the most craven, cowardly, mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy groups in the history of the known universe. It does not help that the President and Sec of State are ex-members of this zoo of spineless creatures. But columnists such as you, MJ, need to do more than hammer the daylights out of these notorious Congressional wimps until them they evolve into the members of Phylum Chordata. You need to continually kick the behinds of lazy apathetic voters who mindlessly re-elect public sector disasters such as Traitor Joe and his appeasers.
The pride that adherents to the Sarah Palin Party take in being steadfast and resolute hypocritical ignoramuses is their problem. The task of coaches for the ought-to-be-opposite side (among other duties) is rather to instill a sense of long-lasting shame in letting those arrogant fossil-brained BSers stomp all over it again and again and again and again, until the fossils are better at doing that than anything else.
For the sake of progressive humanity and whatever, "Move-On" should commit immediate mass suicide and be replaced by "Never Forget."
October 29, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...now it is time for the white house and reid to use their 60 vote majority..."
Not really so. The Democrats have 58 senators, the Repubs have 40, and 2 are independents. Without Lieberman they simply cannot prevent a filibuster and that kills the only provision that has a chance to change the healthcare playing field, a public option.
Whether Lieberman is simply posturing and might respond to pressure from voters and/or peers, or might change his position for a price remains to be seen.
This is all high risk vs. high payoff power politics. I can see why Obama is reluctant to risk being portrayed as a loser if he pushes for a "bridge too far" on the health care bill. He is happy to let the Democratic senators take the lead. Whether you like it or not Lieberman is in a power position on this.
And I cannot print what I really think of the guy.
October 29, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why was it that we supported Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?
October 30, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink