The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Lieberman and Couric

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Katherine — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:35:43 -0000

Are you going to argue that Carter was an effective president, Rhonan? As for liberal bloggers, they were first invoked by sgwhiteinfla, to whom I was responding.

Lieberman is not an enemy on domestic policy. Nor will he gratuitously become one if he wants to get re-elected in deep blue Connecticut. Obama's calculation is that he needs votes from Lieberman (and moderate Republicans) on domestic policy more than he needs to punish disloyalty that was ultimately harmless anyway.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Rhonan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:12:09 -0000

Kuros, I hope the sky is the same rosy color when you remove your head from it in the spring of 2009.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Kuros — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:28:35 -0000

"Lieberman is an enemy!"

Why? What harm has he caused? There were other Democrats who signed onto the Military Commissions Act, you know. I don't believe Lieberman's endorsement meant anything, practically speaking.

My head's not in the current week's news cycle. Its in Spring, 2009. Lieberman is not going to obstruct Obama's economic or domestic legislation. And the Executive is so strong that Lieberman is individually helpless against Obama's initiatives re: foreign policy.

Anyway, I predict Obama is going to continue to frustrate a number of true liberals.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Rhonan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:27:56 -0000

Katherine,

Nice job. You managed to work two O'Reilly talking points (Carter and liberal bloggers!) into your last comment. Double Word Bonus for you.

I am not a liberal blogger. I am a pragmatist. "Obama can't afford to make enemies?" Here is a newsflash for you. Lieberman is an enemy! What more does the man have to do to convince you of that?

The sausage making is what gets things done in Washington. You can try to wish it away, but you ignore it at your own peril.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Jack Irons — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:23:16 -0000

Let's be a little more serious for a second. If Lieberman had lost the homeland security committee, I'd say Obama did the right thing. If Obama issued a statement that he thinks Lieberman should stay in the interests of post-partisanship, I'd say Obama did the wrong thing but in a courageous manner.

If Lieberman had lost the committee, everybody saying "getting shit done" requires leaving him on the committee now would be saying "getting shit done" requires taking him off the committee.

If Obama issued a statement that Lieberman should stay in the interests of post-partisanship, everyone defending Obama's decision to play this role behind the scenes would be supporting Obama's decision to publicly express his opinion.

Why go through this? Just say you are always going to say Obama is right and I'll respect that as much as I can. If right and wrong is based on what Obama does in your world, then what more can anyone possibly add once you've seen what Obama did?

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Hoss — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:51:34 -0000

Basically, it was too early to pick this fight. I don't understand why Reid decided to take up this issue now vs after Jan 20. There was no way Obama was going to pick a controversy before the inauguration.

A controversy like kicking him out would have taken up a lot of time and then you would have had the media and the Lie-man on every show with his riduculeous statements and more lies to deal with.

Obama made the right call and now the Lie-man would remain on defense until the Obama admin decides to dump him after the inauguration.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Katherine — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:51 -0000

Time will tell whether Obama's decision on Lieberman was correct. Until we see how he actually votes, it's all speculation. The ultimate leverage lies with his constituents, who went for Obama by 20 points and fired Chris Shays, the last House Republican in New England.

As for the netroots, I don't deny that they helped put Obama where he is. I don't deny that the Internet has revolutionized American politics. But if the netroots have any sense at all, they'll make their 2010 decisions based on actual legislative successes (or failures), not internal political sausage making. If Obama (or Reid or Pelosi) allows liberal bloggers to micromanage every leadership decision between now and then, he'll end up making Carter look effective. The liberal bloggers can afford to make enemies. Obama can't: it's his job to get stuff done.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Rhonan — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:10:07 -0000

Katherine,

You seem like a very nice person, and we will have to agree to disagree. The fact that you believe that the majority of Americans don’t recognize Joe Lieberman doesn’t do anything to convince me that your view is valid. The point is that keeping him in this position needlessly endangers Obama’s policies down the line. It isn’t something that I “admire.” It is something that I have learned through history. If, as you believe, the country doesn’t care about Lieberman, than the Dems should have acted now to remove a potential threat. By allowing him to keep his soapbox, he will soon resurrect the squabbling that you so despise. That is what he does. It is his nature.

One last point, it would be a wonderful thing if your post-partisan view of the world was indeed accurate. I want to live in that world too, however, history tells me that this is not the case. Your view on the election turning on McCain’s negative campaigning ignores a pretty vitriolic Republican Convention that resulted in a huge Republican bounce and a lead. Palin’s speech was flat out nasty, and the polls responded. The election hinged on the economy and the public discovering the unseriousness of McCain because of his selection of Palin (post-Couric interview)

Re: Lieberman and Couric

sgwhiteinfla — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:39:47 -0000

sgwhiteinfla: Liberal and progressive blog readers/posters are not a majority of the country. Sorry. They aren't even a majority of Obama's general election supporters.

"Thousands of people expressing their displeasure?" Obama got nearly 67 million votes nationally. I would bet money that the vast majority of those (outside Connecticut) don't even know who Lieberman is, much less care whether he keeps his chairmanship.

Yes, millions of people will care if Obama can't pass his agenda. Obama is clearly betting that forgiving Lieberman will help him more than it hurts him. Given he's been right on almost every political calculation he's made for the last two years, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Katherine

Here is the point that you are missing, those liberal bloggers who don't seem to mean much to you were also a substantial majority of the grassroots and netroots efforts of the Obama campaign that helped to get those 67 million voters to the polls for him. They were also instrumental in raising money for down ticket Democrats as well. If the liberal bloggers arent important I wonder why Howard Dean got on a conference call with 4 of the biggest liberal bloggers in order to try to smooth over the situation on Tuesday. That being the Howard Dean that engineered the 50 state strategy which helped Obama pull joff his historic victory. I guess he just likes wasting his time huh? Why are Dems like incoming freshman Senator from Oregon Jeff Merkley and NY Governer Paterson all frequent posters at dailykos? Have you noticed that one of the major reasons that the Republicans keep pointing to as why they didn't do well the last two cycles is that they haven't learned how to maximize the internet yet?? You can dismiss this all you want but it flies in the face of reality. Just how do you think all of those anti prop 8 demonstrations that went on last weekend were orchestrated??? Thats power. And the reality is the liberal/progressive blogosphere was in fact instrumental in getting Obama and many other Democrats that you probably never heard of elected this year and if they pull back their support its going to hurt the Dems severely in 2010.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Katherine — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:17:37 -0000

sgwhiteinfla: Liberal and progressive blog readers/posters are not a majority of the country. Sorry. They aren't even a majority of Obama's general election supporters.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

sgwhiteinfla — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:03:35 -0000

Doesn't this vote just keep Lieberman in his committee for the lame duck session, during which they still need him for 50?

I'm pretty sure they entirely reorganize the whole senate in January, when the new freshmen are sworn in. They can still take it from him then.

Posted by wendy

No Wendy, Lieberman now has that chair for at least 2 more years. They only way they can strip him is by a vote of the full Senate including Republicans. And it would be subject to filibuster. Basically the Dems have no leverage over him anymore so if he goes back to being bat sh!t crazy they just have to grin and bear it. Thats why most people recognize what a dumbazz move this was by the Dems

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Robert M — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:36:31 -0000

If Obama needs things done it is he needs a vote not someone whom has repeatedly stabbed him in the back. As the scorpion said to the frog mid- stream, its in my nature. No guarantee he'll get it.

When I walk in hell for the murderous things I've done, it will not be on the level reserved for kapo traitors.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

wendy — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:03:57 -0000

Doesn't this vote just keep Lieberman in his committee for the lame duck session, during which they still need him for 50?

I'm pretty sure they entirely reorganize the whole senate in January, when the new freshmen are sworn in. They can still take it from him then.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

sgwhiteinfla — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:37:30 -0000

Markos of the dailykos represented for the progressive blogosphere today on MSNBC. Kinda ruined their "Crazy Leftist Liberal" caricature of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VCtoiPawX0

Re: Lieberman and Couric

sgwhiteinfla — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:12:20 -0000

As for the rest of the country, I would say they mostly couldn't care less

Posted by Katherine

Thats simply not true. Maybe the rest of REPUBLICANS don't care but if you go to any progressive/liberal website right now you will see how wrong you are. And I am not talking about far left wing sites. Thinkprogress.org, Crooks and Liars, Open Left, Huffington Post, Firedoglake are all progressive websites where thousands of people are expressing their supreme displeasure with how the Senate Democrats handled Lieberman. The problem is people have been sold this 60 vote myth that all the Dems need is 60 Democrats or something close and a few Republicans and they will be able to push all of their agenda through. But in the last two years Lieberman has shown himself to be unreliable on many of those crucial votes. And there are many Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson and Claire McCaskill who are horrible when it comes to voting with the party on progressive issues. But the 60 vote meme is really meant to cover Harry Reid's ass. By allowing Lieberman to do all he has done AND be a crappy HS chairman and still keep that chair thats a clear signal to the other "Blue Dog Dems" that they can vote however they want because truly, what will happen to them if they don't? And I GUARANTEE you that when the Dems dont pass their grand agenda all of America will be concerned!

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Katherine — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:40:35 -0000

Rhonan: I'm thinking of the voters who have been kicking moderate Republicans out of office for the last two elections, precisely because of their lockstep obedience to the radical wing of their party. I'm thinking of the moderate Republicans who voted for Obama--in spite of serious doubts about his policies--because they were repulsed by the McCain campaign. I'm remembering that every time McCain unleashed a new attack, *McCain's* poll numbers went down. And I'm remembering that the speech that catapulted Obama onto the national stage in the first place was all about how the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Obama has a mandate for the DeLay-style bare-knuckled enforcement of party discipline that you seem to admire.

If the citizens of Connecticut want Lieberman punished, they need to talk to Chris Dodd. Their other Senator helped rally the pro-Lieberman forces. As for the rest of the country, I would say they mostly couldn't care less. As I see it, the American people want their government to quit squabbling and get to work on the problems facing the country.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

John Henry — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:26:03 -0000

The incentives are all wrong. Lieberman should have been stripped of both chairmanships and Harry Reid should have been responsible for it. He's the leader of the Senate, for chrissake, not Obama. You can't let members be insubordinate and not expect the others to pull the same antics. Even worse, it now looks like they are kowtowing to Lieberman. They are just asking for a leadership crisis.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Rhonan — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:07:58 -0000

Now. He doesn't have the opportunity now.

I agree that we should have some perspective, but this perspective needs to extend beyond the warm and fuzzy afterglow of the election. Things aren't always going to be peaches and cream and if Senator Sanctimonious feels that there is some attention to be gained down the line by making noise about something, do you honestly think he won't? As for taking away the gavel then? Just wait to hear the outcry that will accompany that. It will be a mess, and we will reflect back on this period now and kick ourselves. Trust me, he is not the chastizable type.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

sgwhiteinfla — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:56:07 -0000

I am late getting to this thread and for that I am sorry, but I think that Coates you have yourself this day played the "Barack the Magical Negro" card by saying keeping that slimeball Joe Lieberman as HSC is "getting shit done". For that statement to be true Joe Lieberman would have to feel both remorse and a sense of indebtedness to Obama. He feels neither as he expressed on the record yesterday. So how exactly is keeping a guy in a chairmanship that he hasn't earned and doesn't deserve qualify as getting shit done? Mind you when Bush would keep incompetent azzholes in the their positions instead of firing them we would all pitch a fit. But now that Obama is endorsing doing the exact same thing we are trying to frame it as "Change".

Actually its boils down to more of the same. Don't believe me??? Here is the test. Answer this question honestly. "Does Joe Lieberman deserve to be chairman of the Homeland Security Committee on Government Affairs based on both his past performance and his campaigning for the opposition this year?" If you can't answer that with an unequivocal yes then it is INDEED more of the same Bush like cronyism that we all claim to hate. By the way I pointed this out in two different posts of my own. Not trying to pub my stuff but I also am not trying to write a book in this thread. So if you want to see my rationale in more detail for why this move was NOT change we can believe in go to this post

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/8249/5873/416/662662

And here is my post about Lieberman laughing at the Dems the very next day after they let him keep his gavel

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/20/91650/621/72/664039

In closing Harry Reid has shown he is a spineless chump (shout out to Congressman Cummings) and the rest of the caucus followed suit. Please don't get your feelings hurt thinking that jackass Lieberman is going to now turn all progressive on us in gratitude for not taking his gavel. Hell if you click on my links you will see that the guy says unequivocally that the Dems did not punish him at all. Seriously. So what exactly is going to "motivate" him to step in line? Absolutely nothing. I tried to shield Obama from blame in that decision but the truth is if Obama was responsible then this is officially the first dumbazz move of his Presidency. Hopefully it will be the last for a long time.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Kuros — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:32:22 -0000

"I don't see any reason to believe Joe won't play ingrate again if he feels like it."

Joe isn't going to have the opportunity.

"Lieberman still stabbed Obama and the rest of the party in the back this year."

That implies that he dealt a serious blow to Obama and the rest of the party. But Obama and Party won in a landslide. Lieberman didn't stab anyone in the back, he merely pelted them with spitballs. Perspective, people.

And I agree with Joel.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Ramdu — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:50:04 -0000

Yes, Lieberman stabbed Obama in the back after Obama had helped him in 2006. And look how weak he now looks after having done that. Also, let's not forget the episode where Obama pulled Lieberman aside on the Senate floor during the campaign and had a private chat with him. It seemed an almost physical act of intimidation. I don't think Obama is afraid of him at all. Maybe because Lieberman has no political base of power any more. He is just an empty shell at this point, despite his high and mighty chairmanship.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Joel — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:36:38 -0000

Here's the thing: Obama has Lieberman by the balls. If he supported booting him from the HSC chairmanship, ol' Joe would have a chance to regroup with the other side.

Keep your friends close, enemies closer, etc.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

SeanH — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:33:16 -0000

Obama saved Lieberman, and now Lieberman is in his pocket.

Obama helped save Lieberman once before by campaigning for him in 2006. Lieberman still stabbed Obama and the rest of the party in the back this year. I don't see any reason to believe Joe won't play ingrate again if he feels like it.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Rhonan — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:23:16 -0000

Katherine,

I hope that you are correct and that the velvet glove/forgive and forget approach will work. I am just supremely doubtful that it will. Your assumption is predicated on the fact that our opponents are rational beings. I have seen how Washington has operated over the past sixteen years, and I don’t see it. From Whitewater, to the Iraq War, to the Military Commission Act, I have lived this story. I know what is going to happen when Charlie Brown goes to kick the football. A recent example of good faith bipartisanship I can recall when Tom Daschle tried to reach across the aisle? Remember how well that worked out for him and for our country?

The constant hyperpartisenship line I recall was not continually uttered by Obama, rather by Lieberman as he continued to stab Obama in the back.

And finally, I don’t know what “vast majority of voters” you are writing about. According to the most recent Hartford Courant poll, 70% of Connecticut residents are unhappy with the way the Senate handled Lieberman – 30% approved. I’m not talking about shoving anything down anyone’s throat. I’m writing about changing the disastrous policies of the last eight years and moving forward in a progressive direction that will benefit out country.

Re: Lieberman and Couric

Katherine — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:34:59 -0000

Uh, Rhonan? I think we just elected a guy who spent two years saying that Republican-style hyperpartisanship is the problem. *You* may want to see the Democrats shove their mandate down the throats of their opponents, but the vast majority of voters don't.