Let Joe Lieberman Stay
Find a Conversation
Let Joe Lieberman Stay
| Mon, 11-10-2008 - 4:06am |
Throw Harry Reid to the wolves.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/harry-reid-still-defending-joe-lieberman-o
| Mon, 11-10-2008 - 4:06am |
Throw Harry Reid to the wolves.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/harry-reid-still-defending-joe-lieberman-o
Pages
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
The Democrats want to get to that filibuster-proof majority, so they'd like Lieberman's vote and seem willing to kiss his a$$ to get it.
You missed the remainder of my post.
"...buoyed by republican money & republican votes. Then during the 2008 Pres. elections he's been joined at the hip to McCain. He should just join the rep. party & have done with it IMO."
Heard this last night on the news.
Lieberman was pretty much like any democrat, except on the Iraq war. He was the VP candidate in 2000. He has been to Iraq, he saw how things were going, and formed his own opinion. He decided to stick with it, and he has been proven right by all the progress in Iraq since then.
He did not fall in line and and have the opinion that they wanted him to have.
Here's what to do: Lieberman seems to be reluctant to "be demoted" or take another position than the one he has currently, chairing the Homeland Security committee. Why would he be that stubborn? Does he think that elections (to paraphrase the Republicans during the Bush years) elections do NOT "have consequences?" Surely not. Lieberman may very well believe in his own exceptionalism, he may see himself as some sort of pivotal figure that the Democrats NEED, not just in terms of his vote (potentially preventing filibusters, etc.), but in terms of his glorious, "third-way" vision or whatever. He may be ego-soaked enough to be quite deluded about his own importance, or his "rightful" place in history or the Democratic party.
Or there may be a much, MUCH more sinister angle to it.
People sometimes forget that the actual title of the committee which Lieberman continues to chair is the "Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs." People tend to focus on the first part of that sentence when thinking about the committee, or about Lieberman's relationship to it, with some good reason. As 9/11 showed us, "homeland security" is indeed one of our top national priorities. And as Democrats, we're most certainly right in wondering whether Joe Lieberman ought to be the guy in charge of it. However, in our focus on those admittedly very important issues, let's not overlook the "and Governmental Affairs" portion of the committee's title (and responsibilities). What does "and governmental affairs" MEAN, in practice?
It's the Senate counterpart to the committee chaired by Henry Waxman in the House. Quick, name me ONE time during the Bush years, even AFTER the '06 victories which gave Democrats the thinnest of margins in the Senate, that Lieberman's committee has held any hearings about ANY Bush Administration actions or possible wrongdoing(s). Can't do it? That's because there weren't any. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless wiretapping, AG firings, NONE of it rose, in the opinion of Joe Lieberman, to the level of being worth an investigation by his very powerful governmental oversight responsibilities. His committee is literally the check and balance upon the executive branch, as Waxman's is. For a time (continuing right up until today, in fact), one can scarcely open a newspaper or fire up a news-site in a browser without reading somewhere on it of shocking (or at least highly relevant) discoveries made in a new or ongoing investigation by Waxman's committee. In fact, Waxman's efforts have been largely responsible for unearthing and pursuing what little we the public DO know about the inner, often illegal or ethically questionable, workings of the Bush administration - the most secretive in history, and likely (history may very well show) the one with the greatest amount to hide. But during this ENTIRE time, Lieberman never ONCE felt it necessary to involve himself or bring to bear the power of his committee and its oversight functions (including subpoena power), upon ANY of the revelations of misdeeds by the Bush administration.
In short, Lieberman has been flatly incompetent at his job, and that's looking at it in the best possible circumstances. Even if that is the total extent of it, such rank incompetence would be enough all by itself to relieve him of his chairmanship of that committee. But the truth of why Lieberman has done nothing may be nowhere near as mild as mere incompetence. I don't think it takes a whole lot of imagination to believe that perhaps Lieberman's reasons for not investigating the President had far more to do with him not wishing to cause problems for an administration with which he agreed and aligned himself, in substance. It may literally, in some cases, have been simply providing cover for Bush or his administration, scarcely different from various administration officials refusing to testify under oath is "covering." Or Scooter Libby's deliberate "throwing sand in the face of the umpire" was "covering" for far worse administration misdeeds. The fact that there's even a POSSIBILITY that this might be the case should make Lieberman radioactive in the extreme. He should on no account be allowed to keep that chairmanship, regardless of how "good" on homeland security he might be. He could still offer his thoughts to whomever chairs the committee, if he so chose, just like John McCain COULD have told us all how to "get" Osama Bin Laden, if he had truly known HOW to do so, as he claimed before the election.
But there's an even WORSE possibility than that. I don't want to go all tinfoil-hatty on you all here, since I'm going to be taking my leave of you shortly, but consider the following. Joe Lieberman told the party that he would abide by the results of the primary election in 2006. He backed out on his word, and ran as the founder, sole member and President of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party instead, after being defeated by Ned Lamont. He said, during the general election race against Lamont and the strawman of a Republican that the GOP nominally put up to "oppose" him and Lamont, that he was running to be returned to "his" seat in the Senate so that we could elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008. And I think we all know how THAT went. He stumped for John McCain throughout the entire campaign, stabbing his Democratic "colleagues" in the back at every turn, including appearing in a speaking role at the Republican convention. Even then, Lieberman promised Reid that he wouldn't attack Barack Obama....a promise that he also reneged upon, leveling some of the most scurrilous attacks upon Obama that came from the McCain camp during the election, including some things that even McCain himself wouldn't say. In short, Lieberman CANNOT be trusted, because he DOES NOT have the interests of the Democrats at heart. I will refrain from offering my opinion on whether Lieberman even places the interests of the COUNTRY above his own narrow and egotistical gains/concerns, and content myself with pointing to all of the above as evidence that Joe Lieberman has not been a Democrat in anything but name for quite some time now. His record, if not his words (when asked directly) prove that, beyond doubt.
So ask yourself: if Lieberman wouldn't investigate ANY of the revelations of malfeasance by the Bush administration, didn't seem interested in performing the actual oversight responsibilities with which his committee was charged, why on Earth would he NOW seem to want so strongly to keep that particular chairmanship (even when Reid offered him other chairmanship roles)? Is it merely ego, or not wanting to appear publicly as if he's being "demoted" or "ordered around" by Harry Reid? Sure, maybe. But has it occurred to anyone else that PERHAPS THE REASON LIEBERMAN WANTS TO KEEP THIS SPECIFIC CHAIRMANSHIP IS THAT HE HOPES TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT INVESTIGATIVE OVERSIGHT/SUBPOENA POWER VESTED IN THAT COMMITTEE TO DO TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHAT HE REFUSED TO DO TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
I'm just saying. Maybe Lieberman's odd refusal to accept chairmanship of any OTHER committee is merely the ego-driven act of a man who can smell his political relevance coming to an end, and who is desperate to prolong it. Or maybe it's just stubbornness. But would you want a guy who's already demonstrated the record of screwing with his own (former) party (which he still CLAIMS to want to caucus with) in charge of oversight of the executive branch, where he can file all the investigations, however frivolous, he wants? I sure don't. Might as well let Tom Coburn or Ted Stevens have the chair.
McCain LOST???
McCain LOST???
You make many good points here....especially about the lack of oversight in deference to the Bush administration and the possibility that he will doggedly go after the Obama administration.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Excellent point. Leaving Joe Lieberman as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is equivalent to
Pages