The LieberSham: Email to DiFi and BoXer
Dear Sen Feinstein:
Today the US Senate's Democratic Caucus vote on Sen Lieberman's Chairmanship provided yet another example of why the US Congress is held in such low regard by the American people. The eviscerated empty shell we see today has lost any significance as a viable democratic institution and has become something very much like the Board of Supervisors here in San Francisco
Perhaps you recall.
The US Senate..high priced mistress by any other name
I have today removed my name from the DSCC mailing list and will do the same when Reid sends me one of his "Give Em Hell Harry" missives...if I can stop laughing long enough
Today the US Senate's Democratic Caucus vote on Sen Lieberman's Chairmanship provided yet another example of why the US Congress is held in such low regard by the American people. The eviscerated empty shell we see today has lost any significance as a viable democratic institution and has become something very much like the Board of Supervisors here in San Francisco
Perhaps you recall.
In 1996 Willie Brown called his Board of Supervisors a "collection of pantywaists" and proceeded
"I'm telling you, I can produce six votes on that board any day of the week. For anything. . . . But I have to do it when I think it's wise to do it.
"I have to do it when I can do it a second time. This is not a gas station in the desert. This is not Dick Morris dealing with a $200 hooker. These are long-term relationships. These are mistresses that you have to service."
The US Senate..high priced mistress by any other name
I have today removed my name from the DSCC mailing list and will do the same when Reid sends me one of his "Give Em Hell Harry" missives...if I can stop laughing long enough
Advertisement
I think this is a great reminder for people on how Washington works. There are too many people that post on political blogs that have little, if any, experience with Washington and therefore their "informed" opinions are anything but.
The Senate is an exclusive club of 100 members. There is a mixture of personal relationships, mutual back scratching, and constituent pressures that all bear down on it.
100 is a very interesting number: it's large enough that statistics count, it's small enough for it to be controlled. Lyndon Johnson was Master of the Senate for that very reason.
Every once in a while you see something like this and you get shocked because the world didn't look like it should.
As a simple example taken from history: Brown & Root was a construction company that gave huge kickbacks to Johnson (complete in brown paper bags) for the construction projects in TX. This is now the same company we know and love called Halliburton. So: were the kickbacks bad? Yes. Was what Johnson provided to the hill people of TX good. Yes. Can we separate the two? Not really.
Welcome to Washington.
Remember: Obama himself told the Senate that he didn't want to get involved. Translation: don't strip him.
Obama played a major role in this. Why? Because Lieberman is probably Harry Reid's dog after this. And probably Obama's as well. There's no one more loyal than the person you just saved. In fact, this was probably spelled out to Leiberman explicitly.
Expect to see the same type of shenanigans on the GOP side. With the shrinking minority, some more powerful, but less senior, moderate GOP senators may buck for high privileges -- especially if they hint that they might support a cloture vote with the Dems.
Much of Washington is about making it look good for the public which has a short attention span. And they know it. They are thinking about votes in the next few years... the public is not.
November 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that Lieberman would do anything except what he wants to do? I can't imagine a more complete betrayal. I posted a Youtube here of Lieberman booing Obama's name at one of those red meat rallies. Rather than make him feel chastened, I would expect this to make him feel invincible. Why shouldn't he?
November 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senators who go "rogue" don't last long. The Senate isn't constructed that way. Read Master of the Senate and see how the Senate operates.
Obama gave Lieberman an official pass and prevented any indignation from the Dems in the Senate. After all, Obama was the injured party, not the Dems in the Senate. Nothing is granted as a pass without extracting something in return. We have no clue as to the backroom dealings that in all likelihood also involved Reid and Pelosi. Obama is, first and foremost, a politician. Want more proof? Howard Dean is all over the media saying how shrewd this is.
November 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am the injured party. Lieberman's effort to stop meaningful change was an insult to me. And his continued occupation of a chair from which he refused to do anything to impede the Bush admin's trampling of the constitution is a danger to my democracy. I voted (and worked and donated) for responsible government, not more "get-along, go-along." And I have the right to feel betrayed.
November 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true if you give enough money, you can have more of a say. But I'm betting that you haven't given enough money for that.
By the way, if you want to start kicking Dems out of the party because they didn't do enough to stand up to the Bush administration, I suggest you include all those who voted for the AUMF and the Patriot Act.
November 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been hearing on cable news that the reason the Dems did this was to get to 60 votes in the Senate. But does that make any sense? Lieberman isn't going to support the Dems when he doesn't feel like it anyway (like on foreign policy and security issues - and they let him retain Homeland Security!), and if they had cut him loose he would have continued to vote with the Dems on those issues on which he retains a vestige of his previous Democratic values anyway. What difference does keeping him on the Dem side really make?
I completely agree with CVille - this is likely to encourage him rather than rein him in. It's basic operant conditioning. The Dems wished to decrease his disloyal behavior. Therefore, they needed to provide consequences (punishment) for the undesirable behavior. Instead, they essentially rewarded the behavior. We can predict the outcome.
November 18, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Dean, Lieberman voted 90% with the Dems. How exactly is this going rogue as you claim?
The issue on the table was Lieberman's behavior towards Obama during the campaign -- and even then it was about making specific attacks on Obama as it was known he would campaign with McCain. Obama just gave him a pass. So, that's the end of the story.
By the way, if you really want to play politics, you will note that Obama also served on the DHS committee. As a result, you can believe there is a relationship there that we know nothing about.
Deals were cut and the Senate knows that in a few newscycles this story will go away.
Wanna bet that the "outrage" we see on TPM will follow suit? The bloggers here will move on as well. Guaranteed. Cynical? I don't think so. It's the reality that will come to pass.
November 18, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
His objections to Obama were all based on foreign policy issues, and my objections to Lieberman are based on the same issues. A 10% bad record is still unacceptable if that 10% of votes supports unnecessary wars and leads into other foreign policy mistakes.
I've read some of what Dean wrote today about the situation:
That makes sense if Lieberman were somehow restricted from having a lot of input into foreign policy, which represents that pesky 10%. But he's been left as chairman of a committee where he can create a lot of havoc by not advancing Democratic interests. I'm not interested in revenge here, but in advancing a good progressive agenda, and Lieberman is unlikely to help do that in the foreign policy realm.
I do like the idea of cleaning the slate and the idea of being magnanimous in victory (or just generally). And there is that other 90%. So at this point, I'm shutting up about it and simply hoping that there were clear conditions placed on Lieberman. Do X, Y, and Z, and if you don't, then you'll be stripped of HS (at minimum).
November 18, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are mixing up several arguments.
Voting 90% of the time with the Dems is not considered going rouge.
Secondly, DHS doesn't do things with foreign policy.
Third, the subject on the table was very specific: Leiberman went back on his word not to attack Obama during the campaign. It was not about whether campaigning for McCain was okay or not, or whether you approved of his votes. Once Obama says to Leiberman "I forgive you", Obama has all the power. The Senate now has no case against Leiberman.
If you are still upset with the decision there are only two options for you: (1) move to CT and vote against him and/or (2) donate to his opponents.
For all those upset with the Leiberman decision, you should start blaming Obama. Or perhaps, you should recognize just how truly clever the candidate you supported really is.
November 18, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I said I'd shut up about it, but since you were so critical of what I said, I felt the need to defend myself:
You said:
Nah, I'm being quite consistent. It's just not what you want to hear. If the 10% of non-Democratic votes were in the important areas of foreign affairs and the votes undermined our relationships with other countries, as well as undermining our liberties, then that 10% does indeed represent going rogue. You're correct here: DHS does not deal directly with foreign policy. But it does represent our approach to foreign affairs, and the chairmanship of the committee offers Lieberman an opportunity to use fear-mongering in regard to foreign affairs in order to advance his own hawkish foreign policy agenda. And that hawkish foreign policy approach will affect his decisions at DHS in a way that puts our liberties at risk. He already used fear-mongering against Obama in the campaign because of those hawkish policies; do you really think he's completely re-thought his foreign policy views? I admittedly could have been far more precise in how I expressed myself on this issue. Whether or not the Senate restricted it's case against Leiberman to one very specific issue is irrelevant to my own case against him. I see no reason to restrict my comments to the narrow focus that you prefer and I wish the Senate had looked further at that 10%. Pfft. How about: (3) talk about it at TPM. It's you who is interjecting "blame" into the discussion. Obama, if you'll recall, has invited citizens to tell him when we feel his decisions aren't right. You're still thinking with that old "my way or the highway" mentality.
All that said, I'll state again that despite my extreme reservations about Lieberman, at the same time I really am drawn to Obama's idea of cleaning the slate. I'm willing to take a wait-and-see approach, but I'd suggest you don't attack me for having those reservations, because that's not likely to make me any more fond of Lieberman.
November 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
We may see the results of this deal when Obama tackles the Mideast Peace Process.
November 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurred to me this morning, that the object of the whole exercise may have been to remove Joe from the Environment and Public Works Committee without drawing attention to the act.
This brou-ha-ha may have(I'm not convinced, mind you, but there's a slowly dawning suspicion) been intended as a bit of misdirection with the ancillary benefits of a completely unrelated kerfuffle, putting Joe in the position of owing some favors, and discrediting right-wing criticisms of business as usual partisanship.
What role will the EPW Committee play in the major initiatives of the first couple years of the Obama administration?
I am thinking it may(might, maybe) become a more important committee than the one for which Joe still has the gavel.
November 19, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with CT that Lieberman is now on a very short leash. He's a guaranteed vote, and may even have to accept agenda items on his committee. Or he may be set aside, and not get anything useful to hold hearings on.
It just looks icky, but who looks more stupid, the guy that backs the loser, or the people that let him come back? Joe's brand is dead, along with the other maverick's.
November 18, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, Tom. Someone used this same phrase with Hillary (and in the same way you just used it) and Desidero claimed it was "sexist". ;-)
November 18, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Lieberman will be loyal for one second. Remember, Obama saved him once already by campaigning for him in CT, then again by not campaigning for Lamont post primary. I think Lieberman is laughing at the weak pathetic display of boot licking he got from the Democrats. He is giggling to himself with the knowledge that he is untouchable. Once session starts the Republicans will have enough members to filibuster every change Dems want to make to chairmanships.
Lieberman will open an investigation into every death after the first battalion of troops leave Iraq and he will ask the question "If Obama had not withdrawn the level of troops- would this soldier still be alive?". Democrats are going to regret leaving Lieberman in that chair. He is suddenly going to find the purpose of the gavel that has gone dusty for so long.
November 18, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no. If the minority party filibusters too much and about seemingly trivial things (to the public) it hurts them tremendously. Even the minority party wants things -- like money to bring home to their constituents -- and they can't get it if they are too ornery.
Moreover, I suggest you take a look at the Senate DHS committee. The GOP side is looking mighty sparse in terms of returning Senators.
November 18, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
seen the menu for 2010 ???
19 repuglitards on the menu, SIX from states carried by Barack Obama
15 Democrats on the menu, one or two shaky seats, mostly solid holds
so we could pick up another SIX Senate seats in 2010, possibly more
and here's a nit picking point:
people keep saying we got 58 democrats in the Senate, where the fuck did you people learn to count ???
we got FIFTYSIX Democratic Senators folks, and two independents
Bernie Sanders is dependable and morally outstanding
joezoe torturman is the opposite
kepp it straight, people
November 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just makes sense to keep Lieberman. Utilitarianism will kick retributivism's ass any day (for all the right reasons, of course). It is no simple task to pick up a senate seat these days, and why just give one away when there will be no purpose for it other than revenge?
It's not like other senators are going to do the same thing. Senators want to grab on to the coattails and try to get something done. Punishment would serve no purpose in this case. I wouldn't say I trust Lieberman, but that would be the same no matter which side he caucused with.
November 18, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Lieberman move is just another example of Obama's political genius. Being vindictive may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't help progress. If Obama had punished Lieberman he would have been fighting with him for the next four years and Lieberman could have caused a great deal of trouble for Obama by joining with the Republicans on many issues. By letting a by-gone be a by-gone--and making such a public statement in favor of Lieberman--Obama now will have Lieberman on his side at least most of the time. This will be hugely helpful in getting Obama's agenda through congress. Sure, many of us don't like what Lieberman did--but it's far more important that Obama succeed than Lieberman get punished. Yes, there's no guarantee that Lieberman will be 100% helpful--but the odds that he will be helpful most of the time have dramatically improved.
November 19, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other point: the only way to truly punish Lieberman in a way that doesn't disadvantage the Democrats is to prevent him from ever being elected again. He's in congress for four more years and the Democrats need him on their side while he's still there. After four years, though, he should be toast.
November 19, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
the joke is gonna be on DiFi and Boxer in the future
john mcstaain wore george bush around his neck during this election
and DiFi and Boxer get to wear the lieberschmuck in the NEXT election
wanna be cali's governor DiFI ???
too bad you supported joezoe tortureman
we're gonna remember that you sought to protect that lying pisant fucking backstabber
and babs, you probably want to be reelected to your current office
TOO BAD, YOU PIECE OF SHIT
LAY DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU GET UP WITH FLEAS
how do you like the lieberschmuch now that you're WEARING HIM ???
don't come back to cali lookin for votes anymore
you're DEAD to us
November 19, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clearthinker has made some very valid points here, and I agree that there were probably very tough negoatiations in that closed door meeting designed to make Lieberman "heel." However, I am with those on this thread who seriously doubt that a) Lieberman has any intention of following through on any commitments to up his voting percentage to 100 percent Dem (particularly on issues involving his neocon obsession: Iraq) or that 2) Harry Reid has the power, after yesterday's vote, to force him to do so.
The worst thing a majority leader can do is show weakness in the face of mutiny. Reid blinked, and now Lieberman holds the trump card, not Harry.
I doubt that Nancy Pelosi, who actually has the cojones that Reid lacks, would have stood for such a slap in the face. By the way, one thing that Clearthinker missed is that Lieberman also bought those 42 votes by donating big to the DSCC.
November 19, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt that Lieberman's CASH donations softened the landing from his turncoat ways.
"Lieberman subsequently gave $250 thousand to the DSCC. Senator Chris Dodd also cited Lieberman's donation to the DSCC yesterday."
http://tinyurl.com/6fdm4z
I'm sure this is blood money Lieberman had raised from Republicans during the 2006 general election. I think he had about $4M left over after spending about $10M. IMO, that is why Lieberman did NOTHING a chairman of the Gov't Affairs to investigate Bush/Cheney actions. He owed them BIG for the not so shadowy backing of his re-election bid.
What I object to in returning Lieberman to the chairmanship is that is a power position for him to use should he decide to run again. You know, the old influential Senator vs the rookie ploy. That was all over his 2006 run. Sure, a lot can happen in four years.
November 19, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink