As a Christian, I believe in the phrase "God bless us, everyone" even if I have to grit my teeth. But I'm sincerely happy about this one. Why?
Joe Lieberman gets to keep his Senate Seat (reuters)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Tuesday yielded to the wishes of President-elect Barack Obama and allowed Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship despite having backed Republican John McCain for the White House, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said.
Emerging from a closed-door meeting, Harkin told reporters that Democrats had stripped Lieberman of a subcommittee chairmanship, a far lesser punishment.
There were fears that Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, might become Republican if he lost the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Democratic aides said Obama urged Democrats to do what it takes to keep Lieberman, who represents Connecticut, in their Senate conference where he routinely votes with them.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro; editing by Doina Chiacu)
I strongly disagree about the "punishment" aspect, and I am definitely pissed over the concept of party loyalty. Where are we, Soviet Russia? Joe Lieberman is a good liberal. He gets "As" in abortion rights, gay rights, medicare, and pretty independent on affirmative action, and health care liability. But the Dems only wanted to punish him for supporting W on Iraq. To isolate him to the point of bring in pseudo-Dem to challenge him in CT back in 2006 changed not only my opinion about Dems but also changed the opinion bloggers like Brendan Loy. Many liberals are truly liberal - we destest bullies. So what happened to Joe the Politician and Joe the Plumber enrages us.
Both parties have been acting like four year olds over the concept of party loyalty. What about loyalty to represent the citizens??? Can I get an Amen, somebody? Neither Lieberman nor Obama, nor Tancredo or anyone else should be forced to get in line. It's not just childish, it's dangerous for this country. It ruined Rome, it ruined Russia (White vs. Red factions after Lenin's death), don't let it ruin this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Both parties have been acting like four year olds over the concept of party loyalty. What about loyalty to represent the citizens??? Can I get an Amen, somebody? Neither Lieberman nor Obama, nor Tancredo or anyone else should be forced to get in line. It's not just childish, it's dangerous for this country." (Rachel)
<
<
I agree, but while there is quite a bit of disagreement and even rancor within each Party (the Moderate republicans disdain the Conservative base, the Liberal Dems revile the Conservative Blue Dog Democrats, etc.), there is almost always a coming together or coalescing along Party lines in public and for floor votes.
Some times (most times) we don't see what's promised to those outside groups to get them in line, but that's been America's time-honored political way - giving up one issue for a more immediate one.
That's probably why Party outposters are so rare.
Even rarer is what the Blue Dog Dems did over the NSA surveillance issue. The Liberals, both Democrat and Republican opposed granting immunity from prosecution to the telecom companies forced by law to cooperate (that kind of mandated cooperation SHOULD come with an "IMPLIED immiunity"). Pelosi-Reid tried very hard to keep the Blue Dogs in check on the issue...and FAILED!
The GOP did a much better job (in that instance) of keeping their liberal members from leaving the reservation).
While I agree with your point overall, a certain degree of Party loyalty is pretty much how things get done in a two-Party system.
The Lieberman case is an extreme and an embarassing example.
For better or worse (and I believe history will show, for the worse) the Liberal Democrats chose to politicize both the military war on terror (WoT) and our domestic anti-terror programs.
For the time being that strategy worked, in (1) electing more Democrats and (2) securing more political power for that Party...at least for now.
But now that Party finds itself in the unenviable task of having to protect the nation and the standard set has been a perfect record post 9/11, despite numerous terror attacks around the world (showing intent) and numerous foiled plots around the U.S. (showing verifiable attempts).
All of a sudden, team Obama has ceased talking about any "18 month Iraq pull-out," and has apparently accepted the current three-year timeline. The incoming administration has also signalled an increase in military force in Afghanistan, has stopped talking about shuttering Gitmo and has approved the NSA surveillance programs.
If team Obama wisely chooses to accede to most of the Bush anti-terror programs and continues the military WoT, then the Left HAS to apply the same standard they had to Bush....AND, should some seek to go after Bush administration officials for "war crimes" (as the Kucinich tin-foil hat brigade wants), they'll HAVE to go after EVERY official, Democrat and Republican, who continues those positions.
Team Obama and the Dems are not in a very enviable position. Their ONLY card is that they can count on Conservatives NOT politicizing their own anti-terror measures and their own war-time actions.
Team Obama seems to realize the political and strategic conundrum it's in now.
The likes of Frank, Kucinich, Conyers, Dodd and Waters apparently do not...at least not YET.
The bar is set very high at this point.
Just ONE attack...just one over the next four years, and this administration will be deemed a failure compared to the Bush administration on that score.
Moreover, allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, or allowing an aggressive, expansionist Iran access to Iraq, should we pull out prematurely, or allowing an already nuclear Pakistan to fall into more radicalized hands would all have disastrous consequences for the next administration AND for the Democratic Party down the line.....not to mention for America's national security.
I don't envy the Obama team's challenges. The only saving grace is that they can clearly see their challenges outlined right now, while the Bush administration had no advance warning about the business scandals (Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, Tyco, etc.) that broke in the summer of '01, nor the coming WoT that would consume that administration's resources and attention for the remainder of its tenure.
I may be proven wrong down the road, but I don't see the Blue Dog Democrats going along with the Liberal Democrats on most national security &/or economic issues...and I see a major rift coming between the Obama administration and the liberal Democrats (Frank, Rangel, Dodd, Conyers, Waters, etc.) over a host of issues.
The liberals in Congress seem to want an agenda that is far more antithetical to what the American people want and would tolerate.
I may be proven wrong down the road, but I don't see the Blue Dog Democrats going along with the Liberal Democrats on most national security &/or economic issues...and I see a major rift coming between the Obama administration and the liberal Democrats (Frank, Rangel, Dodd, Conyers, Waters, etc.) over a host of issues.
Sounds nasty, and you're probably right. Look at how Biden is being treated by Reid. although that is more power oriented than ideological, it's still not good. Perhaps Obama could provide the unity needed if he takes up the leadership mantle and puts Nancy and Harry in line. That would really impress me and keep the Dems afloat. Right now, they are beginning to sound contemptous of Americans, at least Harry with this "smelly tourist" comment.
"Perhaps Obama could provide the unity needed if he takes up the leadership mantle and puts Nancy and Harry in line." (Rachel)
<
<
That would be impressive...and I'm sure that the likes of Axelrod and company have looked at histroy and how a Liberal Democratic Congress brought down Jimmy Carter and how Bill Clinton was almost undone by the Foley Congress his fiorst two years.
Congress remains relatively anonymous and unaccountable for their actions, so they tend to push a far more ideological agenda...on both sides.
The Executive Branch is the face of government and gets the blame and tends to be more pragmatic.
I think Obama's choice of Rahma Emanuel (one of the architects of the 2006 "Blue Dog" Democrat revolution, and a relatively conservative and former Israeli soldier himself, was a good one, in that it signalled that Obama does NOT intend to go off the cliff with the likes of Frank and Dodd and Pelosi and Reid....still, it's quite another to fully rein those folks in.
Congress is very much out of touch with the Americans, most of whom, they seem to disdain.
I think Obama CAN rein in the Democratic Left, but it will be a tall order.
I DO see the Blue Dogs as a weapon Obama can use against the hard-Left Dems...maybe that's why he chose Emanuel.
I remain a registered Democrat to this day and often call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat." Perhaps that "Bluer than Blue Dog."
While I've crossed Party lines in most national elections, I still hold out hope for a "Liberal implosion" and the re-taking of the Democratic Party by its blue collar, workingclass roots."
Post a Comment