Nov 17 2008
Lieberman Likely To Keep Chairmanships, But At What Cost?
After being placed between a rock and a hard place, Senator Joe Lieberman will have no easy way of it, in the coming months. Whether or not his Senate colleagues (read: backstabbers) choose to allow him to keep his well-earned committee chairmanships tomorrow, he still has a tough road ahead. Ignoring the fact that he has done a competent and thoughtful job of managing the Homeland Security committee, Senator Lieberman’s colleagues are out for vengeance… upon one of their own… who happened to back the losing candidate… wait, I’m lost; exactly what vengeance do they feel is needed, what “wrong” needs righting? Didn’t they win?
You may not be alone if you’re confused, too. In a word, it’s all dirty, selfish vengeance, baby. In word trickling out of various Senate camps, it is being said that officials on the Senate Steering Committee may be looking not to kick out Senator Lieberman, but to keep the status quo. Sources have been quoted as noting that the 50-person Democratic representation in the Senate is mainly pledging to keep Senator Lieberman as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, but still wants blood. According to these unnamed reports, Lieberman will be stripped of something, just not the same something of before. In a clearly punitive measure against an Independent, for being independent, the Democrats, and leader Harry Reid, will be sending the absolute wrong message to the public; rather than encourage thoughtful governing and freedom of ideas, if such an action is allowed to go forward, from now on, any senator who decides that what is best for their political party is not necessarily best for the country, may be faced with the same job insecurity. Joe Lieberman supported a friend, not a party, when he stumped for John McCain in 2008; will such a vote (and a SECRET vote at that!) dictate that in all future elections, party members must support their party candidate, even if they feel it will have a detrimental outcome for the nation? What kind of a message does that send? Will Joe Lieberman be the last senator to choose country over party for the foreseeable future? One can only hope this is not the true end to bipartisanship, especially as with the election of Barack Obama, we have been promised an end to business as usual in Washington, to partisan bickering and to unwarranted political infighting. Call me crazy, but this unjust, unwarranted and frankly superfluously dumb decision to have a vote on Joe Lieberman’s future… is the antithesis of “change.”
If Senator Lieberman is still faced with a humiliating vote to strip him of any leadership position, he has a tough decision to make. He could really stick it to his ex-party, by choosing instead to lend his gravitas and bipartisan thoughtfulness to the Republican Party, which, according to historical precedent, will be back in power in the not-too-distant future. OR Senator Lieberman can choose to remain on with the Democratic caucus, holding his nose and trying to ignore the fact that the very same party tried to end his political career. If he chooses this option, Senator Lieberman will probably do so, knowing that he is probably one of the last remaining Democrats in the Senate, (call them the “Blue Dogs” if you will) who could competently and thoughtfully oversee this very important committee, without being beholden to the same far-left groups that helped elect Barack Obama, the very same groups salivating and already clamoring for some change they can see.
- Lieberman Likely To Keep Chairmanships, But At What Cost?
- Joe Lieberman Likely to Keep His Committe Chair Job
- Ten Percent of California Home Loans in Default; Recession, Unemployment Likely to Keep it That Way
- The Bastards are Broke - Are We Going to Keep Throwing Money at Them?
- Chavez to Obama: Beware… but of What?
5 Responses to “Lieberman Likely To Keep Chairmanships, But At What Cost?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
Blue Dogs rock!
I agree that Lieberman should not be kicked out. How interesting that you and i both did an article on him today.
Well, looks like they did compromise, and he lost that subcommittee chairmanship, but kept the big one.
Come, on, Susie, you gotta admit that Lieberman DID do something to tick the Dems off. He wasn’t exactly skating on thick ice here. He HAD to know that he’d pay a price, however willing he may have been to pay it.
Oh no, I completely agree - he definitely ticked the Dems off. He knew he was up against a party he still works with, but backed the guy he felt would be better for the job. I’m just surprised that the same people who keep chanting change, post-partisanshap and bi-partisanship, were circling the waters for blood in such a conspicuous manner. But definitely, he did tic the Dems off, but I do feel that they went too far in trying to censure his remarks… last time I checked, representatives who have said MUCH worse aren’t getting their chairmanships voted on, or aren’t the subject of drafts condemning their (much worse) actions. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand… if everyone was treated the same for their actions in the Senate, it would be entirely different.
Well, the last I looked, the guy in town that is talking the MOST about change is the guy that called Reid and told him to make sure that Lieberman DIDN’T get tossed under the bus.
And Obama is the guy that counts the most here, precisely BECAUSE he is crying “change” the most. He is the head of the Democratic party, and he is the one that should set the tone and the agenda.
It looks to me like he did just that.