Dumping Lieberman would put political payback over statesmanship
The age of peace and harmony may be coming to Washington, but some Senate Democrats want to play a little old-fashioned political hardball first.
The partisans want payback against Joe Lieberman, who campaigned for his Republican pal, John McCain.
Lieberman is a Democrat (Al Gore's 2000 running mate, remember) who was rejected in the Connecticut primary two years ago, then ran and won as an independent. He still agreed to caucus with the Democrats, which was fine with them when they needed him to form a 51-seat Senate majority.
They don't need him for that anymore, and some don't want him. Majority leader Harry Reid seems on the brink of shoving Lieberman out of his Homeland Security chairmanship.
It's pure vindictiveness. Lieberman's just the guy who ought to run Homeland Security in the Senate. Sacking him because he wasn't "loyal" to Barack Obama would put politics ahead of country.
Maybe Lieberman's Connecticut colleague recognizes the problem. Chris Dodd told the Hartford Courant that Obama himself might not want this messy fight over Lieberman.
I hope Dodd is right. The Lieberman issue is a distraction from more important business.
More significantly, it contradicts the idea that it's time for all our leaders to work together for the good of the country, no matter what political differences they've had.
If the Senate Dems dump Lieberman, that will say a lot about where they stand.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Lieberman's been awful as that committee chairman. Remember it's the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Oversight. The second function he's absolutely refused to do, even when faced with mounting evidence of laws being broken in the Justice Department. Besides, Lieberman didn't just support McCain, some Republicans supported Obama after all, and he didn't just campaign for him. He spoke at their convention, giving tacit approval to their candidates and platform. By many accounts he even wanted to be on the Republican ticket! He wasn't just being disloyal to Obama, but thumbing his nose at his whole party. He apparently doesn't believe in the party's ideas and message, so why should he get perks of belonging to it?
Also remember in 06, Obama campaigned for Lieberman while most Senate Democrats supported Lamont.
Posted on November 8, 2008 9:39 PM
It's not a matter of perks, it's doing the job. I'd definitely trust Lieberman to lead government oversight more than a blindly loyal Democrat. Maybe that's why Reid wants him out.
Posted on November 9, 2008 8:12 AM
Love it or hate it, the committee system is about perks. As a caucus member you get committee posts and when you're the most senior member of the caucus in power on the committee you get to chair it. In return, you're implicitly expected to show some minimum of loyalty to the caucus. There is a quid pro quo. Getting a committee chairmanship is important to Lieberman on a personal level. If it wasn't he wouldn't have threatened to leave the caucus if it were taken away.
There's no reason to believe Lieberman, despite dubious loyalty, would do any oversight. If he wouldn't bother for Bush, why would he for Obama? Having been completely uninterested in upholding the rule of law isn't the best of qualifications. As for homeland security, I don't see why he's particularly qualified there. He still supports the McCain/Bush way of thinking on that, which is, to say the least, rather backward.
Posted on November 9, 2008 10:51 AM
Doug said:
It's not a matter of perks, it's doing the job. I'd definitely trust Lieberman to lead government oversight more than a blindly loyal Democrat. Maybe that's why Reid wants him out
Really! Do you believe old Joe leadership will have us out of Iraq in a hundred years or out of the Palin and Joe The Plumber presidential campaign of 2012?
Posted on November 9, 2008 4:15 PM