Yes, Let's Put Politics Before National Security
So an aide for Joe Lieberman wants to absurdly claim that if the Democrats don't give Traitor Joe his committee chairmanship in the next congress that they're putting politics before national security. Forget whether or not the presence or absence of Joe Lieberman affects our national security in any way. The real problem with this argument is that there's nothing wrong with putting politics ahead of national security.
Indeed, that is the natural order of things.
Through our political process we determine what our national security needs are and how they should best be dealt with. The last time somebody told me not to put politics ahead of national security we were on the road to invading Iraq. That the Iraq War even happened was a failure of politics. It represents exactly the kind of security blunder that the deliberative bodies of our government are meant to prevent.
I'm through using the term "politics" as a pejorative. Good, responsible politicking is the way that we're going to clean up the messes caused during the last 8 years of impulse. The American system relies on checks and balances to prevent tyranny. Those checks and balances only work if people practice politics proudly.
A good start would be to deny a committee chair to an inscrutable incompetent who feels entitled to it.
Indeed, that is the natural order of things.
Through our political process we determine what our national security needs are and how they should best be dealt with. The last time somebody told me not to put politics ahead of national security we were on the road to invading Iraq. That the Iraq War even happened was a failure of politics. It represents exactly the kind of security blunder that the deliberative bodies of our government are meant to prevent.
I'm through using the term "politics" as a pejorative. Good, responsible politicking is the way that we're going to clean up the messes caused during the last 8 years of impulse. The American system relies on checks and balances to prevent tyranny. Those checks and balances only work if people practice politics proudly.
A good start would be to deny a committee chair to an inscrutable incompetent who feels entitled to it.
Advertisement
I hardly see how a senator who has demonstrated immaturity with his 'if you don't let me keep my chairmanship, I am going to caucus with the republicans' bs, lack of wisdom or skill in how he conducted himself during this election, and considerably poor management as a committee chair is at all helpful to our national security. On the contrary I find it to be a distraction and waste of time. We need strong, skillful leaders in our senate. There are many other democratic senators that are more deserving of being committee chairs and fortunately more senators altogether.
November 9, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. And though I'd never suggest that our leadership give a committee to a Republican (they didn't give us any when they were in charge) I can easily name Republicans who would do a better job than Lieberman. Lugar is a good example. But this isn't meant to say any of them are qualified, just that Joe isn't -- and by a long shot.
November 9, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trade off is between now and later.
There will be some important occasions in the next 2 years when Lieberman's vote makes the difference. And if he hasn't something to lose, we won't get it.
But it's behaviorally incorrect to reward bad behavior. That means you'll get more of it either from the individual or from those who see he got away with it.
Sadly I conclude the present is more important than the future. Let him keep his chairmanship.
November 10, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should Joe the Senator conclude at that future time that we really mean it when we tell him that he has something to lose if he doesn't go along?
November 10, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. If he doesn't lose it because of campaigning for the opposite side, saying that Barack Obama put politics before country, and that he would be a dangerous President, why should he worry about losing his chairmanship for voting in a contrary way?
Ditch the pathological bag of skin and put someone in who knows what he is doing and saying. Obama isn't giving cushy ambassadorships to his supporters, why should he reward those who actively campaigned againsst him?
November 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
***"There will be some important occasions in the next 2 years when Lieberman's vote makes the difference. And if he hasn't something to lose, we won't get it."***
And how are we to be assured that Lieberman will vote with Democratics on those occasions?
As the "wise prophet" once said, "fool me once, . . ."
November 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's make a deal with the Republican leadership. They get Lieberman, and in exchange we get a few Republican votes on close issues down the line. There's no point in having Lieberman owe us a favor; he has no honor. However, there are still two or three or four honorable Republican senators. If we can - quietly - get the word of one of them that they'll make up in a few key votes for the loss of Joe, in exchange for gaining him as a Republican, we'll have made a shrewd bargain.
November 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree.
Since Lieberman always claims he 'votes his conscience' I conclude that caucus membership will not change that vote. So, when that 'one critical issue' arises, I have no confidence we would win based on Lieberman's vote. Because I have no basis to see why he would give it.
Fool me once...indeed!
November 10, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is such a hypocrite. The ultimate act of putting politics ahead of national security was McCain's selection of Palin as his VP nominee.
November 10, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor:
I think it would be a mistake to dismiss outright the notion that national security considerations must always play second fiddle to political considerations. But, certainly in this case, it just ain't so Joe [Lieberman], and the person who seems to be playing ugly politics is that Lieberman staffer who has put out the lie that Lieberman's continued stint at the helm of the Homeland Security Committee is essential for the nation's security. Hogwash.
I am becomiing increasingly convinced that Senator Lieberman should be removed from the committee chair, after staking out an initial position that Senator Obama would score mensch points--and thus gain political capital-- by defending Lieberman. I'm not really into the whole revenge thing for the sake of revenge, but I do think Lieberman's removal will demonstrate that the Democratic majority is a serious force to be reckoned with, and I also think that Senator Obama can show that he is a unifier in plenty of other situations. Sometimes showing toughness is important. [See Machiavelli]
I still would not be surprised, however, in light of the pressing need to pursue sweeping economic initiatives in the short-term, and given the political capital that will necessarily be expended in that pursuit, that Senator Lieberman might just wind up getting a bye on this one. Stay tuned.
Bruce
November 10, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Joe Lieberman can be trusted to vote with the Democrats over his own interests, whatever he perceives them to be, whether or not he has a chairmanship. Please strip this quisling whiner of his chairmanship and move his office to the one next to the air-conditioning compressor in the basement.
November 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the thumbs down crowd. I say throw the bum out. You can never trust a traitor. There are many others who could much better fill that position. Also Obama is wise to steer clear of this discussion.
November 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you know? Every night, Joe Lieberman grabs his 12 gauge, rounds up his posse committee and patrols America's borders to keep evil terrorists out of our country. How can he do that without his committee chairmanship?
November 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then, when he shoots a member of his own posse he says that since it was out of principle he should still be in charge.
November 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget the second half of the committee that ol'Joe chairs: Governmental Affairs
Does the Dem caucus REALLY want Joe investigating everything under the sun during the Obama term?
Lieberman did NOTHING about his best buddies Bush and Cheney while they fiddled away the last 8 yrs.
Here is another reason Lieberman gets the boot -
Lieberman Asks IRS to Explain Investigation into Obama UCC Speech
http://tinyurl.com/5pqjy7
November 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman: Putz Extraordinaire.
November 10, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Clemons has (for him) a very harsh post up about this mess:
"Remove Lieberman from ALL Domestic Security and National Security Roles"
......Joe Lieberman wants to keep his status and committees and caucus with the Democrats. He has been a fear-monger and someone who has promoted a dangerous, reckless false choice between American relations with Israel and other parts of the Middle East. He is a devout neoconservative who has been a key enabler of many of the most nefarious groups that promoted the Iraq War and who want a series of new wars in the region.
But more than that, he strongly supported someone a heartbeat away from the presidency who knew virtually nothing about America's place in the world, who knew nothing of American history and its leaders and conventions and founders.
Lieberman is dangerous on so many levels -- and he has not apologized for any of his positions or offered any explanation that should make Americans feel comfortable with this Senator in the next four years as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/remove_lieberma/
What I can't understand is Lieberman's apparent belief that he should suffer no consequences for his behavior.
November 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some great points here - in the original and the comments. I have been a Joe-defender for a long time, but I think that the Democratic Caucus has to remove him from the chairmanship. I don't know if he'll caucus with the Republicans as a result, but I think the consequence for his comments against Obama (not his comments in favor of McCain) has to be real.
As for the aide's comment, I have called on Lieberman (e-mail and phone call) to strongly denounce it.
November 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not okay for Joe to continue as chair to a major committee--subcommittee or minor committee would be okay.
Okay for Joe to remain in the Democratic caucus since his vote on future dates could be important.
Shrug. If Joe doesn't like it, then he can make other choices. I suspect he will put his re-election in jeopardy if he sways too far to the right with his votes.
November 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what is it that makes Lieberman think he's so indispensable to the national security of the nation? Is he going to stop being effective if he's no long Committee Chair? Going on sit-down strike?
It does seem to me that since the Democrats will control something like 57 to 59 votes* in the Senate, that maybe such an important committee ought to be chaired by, oh I don't know, someone who at least hasn't trashed the new President's credentials on national security.
I mean, maybe the Senate ought to select someone who isn't so balatantly partisan.
November 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this is what the bully pulpit is for.
I was all ready to call my senator (though, since my Senators are Obama and Durbin it hardly seemed necessary) when Obama came out in support of Lieberman.
The deal I'm hearing now is that maybe Joe stays to chair Homeland Sec, but loses his seniority rights on a couple of other committees.
Fine with me. I hate Lieberman's guts, but if our president is willing to prioritize cooperation over vengeance, I guess I could reluctantly go along with that.
Still plan to donate to Joe's primary opponent in 2012!!
November 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say remove him. After that, what happens is largely up to Joe. He could go caucus with the Republicans, but that would leave him in the minority party facing a mostly Democratic constituency in 2012 that voted for him in '06 with the understanding that he would be caucusing with the Democrats. Would we lose a vote on some bills down the road? Maybe. But if he joined the Republicans he'd be under the same pressures as any other Republican from a liberalish northern area. On the whole, I'd say that's worth not having someone as wrongheaded and stupid on national security issues as Joe Lieberman heading up the Homeland Sec committee.
November 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone check out the video of Lieberman booing Obama at a McCain speech? Check this out: http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/reid-should-watch-joe-lieberman-at-mccain-rally-before-forgiving-him/
He is clearly booing. What a loser.
November 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink