A Time for Mercy
I know this isn't a particularly popular position among liberal bloggers, but I really don't think the Democrats should waste their time trying to punish Joe Lieberman for his apostasy.
Don't misunderstand, there's no bigger Lieberman-hater out there than me. The man is a smug, sanctimonious loser with an ego the size of Nebraska. And he richly deserves to be stripped of his chairmanship and unceremoniously booted out of the Democratic caucus.
That said, I don't think doing so would be in the best interests of either the Obama administration or the Democratic party. The Democrats have just won a landslide victory and that gives them the latitude to be magnanimous, to show mercy even to those who don't deserve it. And that can be just as powerful a message as anything else. It says that the Democrats are serious about building their tent, about being a true majority party open to everyone who wants to be a part of it--even if they're very late to the game.
Taking punitive action against Lieberman, on the other hand, will look vindictive and small. Even if Obama stays completely out of it, the media will suggest that he allowed it to happen, that he could have stopped it and didn't. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not exactly starting off on the right foot. It might not be the message of inclusiveness that Obama wants to convey right now.
If I were Harry Reid, I'd probably let Lieberman keep his seniority and his place in the caucus, and I'd try to shuffle the committee chairs to give him the chairmanship of a committee where he tends to agree with most other Democrats (maybe education?). I'd also let it be known that Lieberman is on Double Secret Probation going forward and any decisions are subject to reconsideration should circumstances warrant. That should be enough to keep him in line.
I realize that's not want most of my fellow bloggers want to see happen, but they'd get over it. As long as Lieberman isn't in a position to do major damage to Obama's agenda (which is why the committee shuffling is important), I think it's in the Democrats' best interest to keep him in the fold. Throwing him out of the caucus would generate negative publicity while accomplishing very little.
Don't misunderstand, there's no bigger Lieberman-hater out there than me. The man is a smug, sanctimonious loser with an ego the size of Nebraska. And he richly deserves to be stripped of his chairmanship and unceremoniously booted out of the Democratic caucus.
That said, I don't think doing so would be in the best interests of either the Obama administration or the Democratic party. The Democrats have just won a landslide victory and that gives them the latitude to be magnanimous, to show mercy even to those who don't deserve it. And that can be just as powerful a message as anything else. It says that the Democrats are serious about building their tent, about being a true majority party open to everyone who wants to be a part of it--even if they're very late to the game.
Taking punitive action against Lieberman, on the other hand, will look vindictive and small. Even if Obama stays completely out of it, the media will suggest that he allowed it to happen, that he could have stopped it and didn't. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not exactly starting off on the right foot. It might not be the message of inclusiveness that Obama wants to convey right now.
If I were Harry Reid, I'd probably let Lieberman keep his seniority and his place in the caucus, and I'd try to shuffle the committee chairs to give him the chairmanship of a committee where he tends to agree with most other Democrats (maybe education?). I'd also let it be known that Lieberman is on Double Secret Probation going forward and any decisions are subject to reconsideration should circumstances warrant. That should be enough to keep him in line.
I realize that's not want most of my fellow bloggers want to see happen, but they'd get over it. As long as Lieberman isn't in a position to do major damage to Obama's agenda (which is why the committee shuffling is important), I think it's in the Democrats' best interest to keep him in the fold. Throwing him out of the caucus would generate negative publicity while accomplishing very little.
posted by A.L. at 9:42 PM
28 Comments:
i couldn't agree more. nicely put.
AL-
You became a favorite blogger of mine during your first stint filling in for Glenn Greenwald quite some time ago.
Reading today's post I can't help but think you're toeing the line in response to the recent rumors that Obama doesn't want Lieberman thrown out of the caucus.
I don't doubt your sincerity. More like I wonder if you've been blinded by Obama-love.
Erik
Over the past couple of days I've come to believe that Lieberman should not be stripped from the caucus, but he should be removed as committee chairman of any committee of any significance.
Better yet, give him a decent committee to chair, but make it one where he agrees strongly with Obama. And NOT one that involves Homeland Security or Defense.
AL -
I totally agree, though I have to admit I've been chomping at the bit for retribution for a while now...he is such a sanctimonious $(^#$)$? ...
Oh well. I really do think, however, that he needs to be stripped of his homeland security chairmanship. He's already done enough damage in that post (by doing nothing) as it is. And call me paranoid, but I feel like despite his pleas of "bipartisanship" (couched in "McCain has put his country first but Obama hasn't'), I feel that he actually believes the things he said on the trail about Obama. Who's to say he wouldn't be reinvented as a "non-partisan" country-first "warrior" against Obama, using his committee chairmanship to its fullest extent against the President-elect? That cannot be allowed to happen...
Lieberman's a partisan hawk who can't be trusted...except in a position where we know he's voted with us in the past.
So, as much as I want to see him fade into irrelevance, I would really just prefer that he's no longer able to do active damage to an Obama agenda.
I agree with Matt, though the important part of stripping him of his chairmanship is that it's also the Governmental Affairs committee. He's been just about the worst chair of that committee ever, holding no hearings on a terrible administration, and should have been in danger of getting shuffled even if he hadn't stepped out of line with the party.
Sounds good until your first pet piece of legislation gets a secret hold slapped on it. Homeland Security, doncha know.
I really don't understand the talk of 'punishing' Lieberman. Surely he abandoned the party by supporting the opposition candidate for the highest office in the land?
By campaigning for McCain and doing party tricks like being his straight man in Very Serious trips to the Middle East, Lieberman joined the Republicans. I just don't see why the issue even needs discussion, let alone how the Democrats formalising his decision could be regarded as unreasonable or vindictive.
Throw the bum out! He won't be noticed amidst the war crimes and murder charges against he entire Bush leadership, and the raft of sub-prime mortgage charges. Just because people have elected Obama does not mean the US is not going to hell in a hand basket. Depression WILL come, Obama has endorsed all of Bush's Middle East aims in real terms. Wake up! People have elected a personable front man for "more of the same". Crucify Lieberman and then go after the real criminals. To paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge: "Is there no rope? Are there no lamp-posts?"
As long as he's is reminded everyday that he's a major league scumbag... I don't care what they do with him.
The issue here is not whether Lieberman is thrown out of the Democratic Caucus (which would hurt the Ds more than Lieberman) or whether he is given some insignificant chairmanship. It is whether he is allowed to keep his current chairmanship of HSGAC, which is supposed to conduct government-wide oversight of the executive branch.
As Sandy Levinson at Balkinization (hardly a right-wing apologist) puts it: “Needless to say, I anticipate that the Obama Administration will be the first in recorded history to do everything just right and, therefore need no whit of oversight. But, just in case I turn out to be wrong in my optimism, it would be good to know that Congress in fact was living up to its constitutional duty to ask hard questions and not simply playing dead before Administration assurances about the purity of its motives and quality of its policies.”
Truth be told, I don’t think that leaving Lieberman as chairman of HSGAC would be much of a threat to the Obama Administration (the Senate Democratic leadership would have more than enough tools to rein him in if he got out of line). But removing him from the HSGAC chairmanship would send a clear signal that all the Democratic rhetoric about the need for Congress to act as an independent branch and a check on the executive is just that- meaningless noise.
Moreover, this has nothing to do with "mercy." Lieberman is not entitled to a chairmanship, and this is not a question of his personal interests.
BTW, I can understand why you would call Lieberman “sanctimonious,” and even “smug,” but I don’t get the part about his having “an ego the size of Nebraska.” There are very few Senators who are less deserving of that crack than Lieberman (hint: Barack Obama is not one of them).
I say show Lieberman exactly as much mercy as he did his proclaimed party's presidential candidate. What's that? None? Well, sobeit then. Keep his whiny, sorry ass around if you must, but by all means strip him of any committee chair where he can continue to undercut Obama.
I think Obama is playing a wider game here.
Lieberman has good friends among Republicans, most notably John McCain. Henry Reid made an interesting point that Lieberman has voted with the caucus more often then some paid-up Democrats. If Obama needs to get legislation through both houses speedily, having Lieberman owing him a big favour, and with Lieberman's good relations with Republicans, it may be worthwhile keeping him onside for the moment. There are probably Democratic votes Obama can count on less than Lieberman's. Lieberman's influence with McCain and Republicans may also be of use.
Obama plays a long game, and this is probably part of it. Time is not on Lieberman's side. If he does not play ball, he can be dealt with later. Meanwhile, Obama gets brownie points for magnanimity, and holds out an olive branch to McCain.
There a bit of "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" about it. Or, as LBJ put it:
"Better inside the tent p**sing out, then outside the tent p**sing in".
I've made similar comments elsewhere, and was roundly trounced. I think Reid and Obama can make a deal with Lieberman, that gives them both what they want. Basically, let him keep his caucus - or perhaps another less dangerous - but also put a leash on him. Some kind of no tolerance rule or secret veto that constrains his more despicable behavior. I think that arrangement would be quite powerful for the Dems, like having a double-agent obligated to your side.
I also feel the disgust and anger towards Lieberman. "Despicable" is too nice. But putting that aside, his ousters serves Obama less than a short leash does.
Obama isn't one for drama. He's not going to want the business of punishing Lieberman to turn into any kind of media story.
On a purely personal note, I'd like to see him punished. It's one thing to support the Republican candidate. It's another to bend over backwards covering for McCains mistakes and burying your own party. This wasn't reaching across the isle, it was outright changing sides.
What about the idea of "promoting" Lieberman out of the Senate into a post like Ambassador to Israel? We could get a new Democratic Senator to replace him, no one could really call it punishment, and Lieberman has always shown very strong interest in Israel. Those who question Obama's dedication to Israel would also be silenced.
As the Democratic caucus in the Senate is operated, it isn't exactly an exclusive group. Membership seems to be by declaration of an intent to pursue common goals. If Lieberman wants to caucus with the Democrats, what should it matter to the rest of us? It's not like his views will be given much weight.
As for committee chairs, there is really only one issue: ability to get things done. The job of the Senate is oversight, and he dropped the ball on that. He's done such a dreadful job in his last chair position, there is simply no way he should get another chair, except perhaps on a committee that doesn't need to do anything.
This is Congress, surely there are a few useless committees he could chair. I'm opposed to making him ambassador to Israel. An ambassador should be loyal to the country they come from, not the country they go to. Iceland would be a better choice.
Lieberman has got to go from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. Lieberman waved Michael Brown through to become FEMA head. Lieberman hasn't investigated the Bush administration. Lieberman can't be trusted with the gavel now Obama is coming to power.
MLS - So your argument is that Lieberman shows himself as the ideal person to be a watchdog on possible corruption of the Obama administration...because he failed to conduct any oversight at all on the Bush administration?
And that if the Democrats remove him, given his abject incompetence, that shows that their corrupt and don't want any oversight over Obama?
This seems patently absurd to me.
Beyond that, in terms of other committees, here are the ones Lieberman is on -
Environment and Public Works - he'd be fine as chairman of this, but I can't imagine Barbara Boxer is willing to give up her chairmanship to Lieberman.
Armed Services - Lieberman is a disaster on national security. Don't let him anywhere near the gavel on this one (not that Carl Levin is likely to be willing to give it up)
Small Business - Bingo! John Kerry is the current chairman, but he's moving up to Foreign Relations. Next in seniority are Harkin and Levin, who both already have chairmanships. Next is Lieberman. He can't do any harm there, but it's still a committee.
In terms of other committees, I don't see how you can make him chairman of HELP or Energy or Commerce or whatever when he's not even a member of those committees.
Anyway, Lieberman for Small Business Committee chair! If he'd do it voluntarily, it wouldn't even officially be a demotion - he's up to be chair of that committee anyway, so he can choose which he wants. He chooses small business, Akaka steps up at Homeland Security, and all is well.
Not that it will happen. What a tedious douchebag Lieberman is.
I agree - Lieberman is now knowns to all for being a disloyal person.
By being conspicuously merciful with him you rob him of whatever kind of passive aggressive stunt he was about to pull.
Recall - Lieberman begged Obama to campaign for him in 2006 and he promised Obama that he would support the Dem nominee (Lamont) if that person won.
Lieberman broke his word back then - Then he lied about and had his defenders in the media say that he, Lieberman, was the one who was betrayed.
I want to see Lieberman punished. But I agree that if the Democrats do it, it'll look bad for them and Obama in particular. Republicans will welcome him into their camp and paint the Democrats are vindictive and a party that doesn't welcome differing views. My hope is that the people of Connecticut will come to their senses and bounce him out instead.
This is a difficult issue for me. I also want Lieberman punished but his sway among some moderate republicans could be make it worth it keeping him around.
But, and I stand firmly on this, cannot keep his chairmanship. Give him of a lesser committee but not only did he not do any oversight of Homeland Security, he also spoke at the REPUBLICAN national convention speaking bad on our candidate. That is uncool to the max and should be punished in some way. However, keeping him close could keep him afraid to make the wrong step so...
Lieberman is a lemon so make lemonade by putting him in the Veterans Affairs Committee.
Let him use his world famous liberal tendencies in the repair of all the death and destruction he has cheerleaded from the safety of the Senate floor. If he truly cares about our citizen warriors then let him lead the charge to procure funding and oversee the proper spending of money to care for America's veterans.
I heard somewhere that this has been offered and Lieberman thinks it is an insult.
Happy Veterans Day.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Lieberman is a traitor to the party. He can caucus with the GOP, or be the lone wolf. He should NOT hold any chairmanships.
I think if you are Obama and want a way to publicize all the nefarious things that Chertoff had done you use Lieberduck to do it. You tell the jerk that he gets to keep his committe as long as he pursues vigorous oversight of the past malfeasance. This way his Rethug credentials are used to do in the Rethugs. Also, the double secret probation needs to be out there to let him know the committee can be yanked at a moments notice.
Wow. A fundamental aspect of politics is to reward your supporters and loyalists and punish your enemies and those who are disloyal. In addition to allowing Lieberman to work mischief as chair of an important watchdog committee, Homeland Security, in an area that he has shown himself to be completely opposed to President-elect Obama, leaving him as chair would send the following message: It is okay to do everything to sabotage the Democratic Party candidate for president and the senatorial campaigns of Democrats (Maine and Minnesota) and you will suffer no harm.
I also agree completely. Give him a different chair
Everybody wins a little and loses a little and the party is stronger
America, as I faintly recall, is a nation founded on compromise. Some people seem to have forgotten that, and they paid for it. Let us not do the same.
P.S. you are one of my favorite political bloggers
If the GOP gets Lieberman in their camp, it will only be a mattter of time before he betrays them or leaks against them.
I've never understood where this meme of "punishment" came from. Isn't it an issue of trust? If I'm playing pick-up football and one of my teammates keeps knocking down the QB, doesn't that guy get kicked off the team? Hasn't Lieberman shown that he won't honor any deals, assuming some of these commenters are right about behind-doors dealing?
For at least 4 years, I've wondered what a President would have to do to warrant impeachment. Now, I wonder how many times democrats have to be betrayed before they separate themselves from the culprit?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home