The Democrats are still pussies. Let Lieberman off with a slap on the wrist.

You’d think that after two years of being the majority in both houses of Congress and making gains in the recent election, not to mention winning the Presidency, that the Democrats would have grown some balls, but you’d be wrong:

Today in a closed-door meeting, Senate Democrats voted 42-13 to allow Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, despite his attacks on Barack Obama during the campaign season. Shortly afterward, Senate Democrats held a press conference during which they stood by Lieberman and surrounded him with their support. Some highlights of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) remarks:

– “We’re looking forward, we’re not looking back.”

– “I understand anger. … I would defy anyone to be angrier than I was. But is this a time when we walk out of here and say, ‘Boy, did we get even?’”

– “I am satisfied with what we did today. I feel good about what we did today. I don’t apologize to anyone for what we did today.”

– “The question is, do I trust Senator Lieberman? The answer is yes, I trust Senator Lieberman.”

Lieberman apparently threatened to take up with the Republicans if the Democrats punished him. When you consider that he all but did just that during the election anyway I don’t see how that was much of a threat, but apparently enough Democrats felt it was enough of a problem that they voted to let him stay. Word has it that Obama himself was in favor of not punishing Lieberman and I’m not sure I understand why, but hopefully he’s planning on holding it over his head when push comes to shove otherwise it’ll make no sense.

I still think it’s a mistake to let Lieberman get away with it and it’s a bad sign for how the next four years is going to go if the Democrats can’t grow a pair after all the gains they’ve made.

12 thoughts on “The Democrats are still pussies. Let Lieberman off with a slap on the wrist.

  1. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Until Democrats can promote a candidate to beat Lieberman for his seat, it’s better to put him on as short a leash as possible and very much under the Democratic watchful eye.

  2. The Dems are probably hoping Lieberman will be a swing vote to give them a 60-vote supermajority – if and only if they win the still uncertain senate seats in MN, AK and GA. I think the Dems are at 56 in the Senate.

    Lieberman has the best of two worlds: he gets to keep his committees, and gets to remain the wildcard vote that everyone wants to suck up to.

  3. I dont know. Sometimes it shows more balls to let petty bygones go.

    Plus if Lieberman really went along with his consience, good for him. It would look really bad for the Dems to appear as if they were punishing him for his bipartisanship, especially considering the platform that Obama ran on.

  4. I don’t think there’s anything petty here. Lieberman said some pretty outrageous things for someone who considers himself a Democrat.

  5. I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions that he’s anything other a Liebermancrat. What are the Democrats supposed to do? Completely divorce him as much as possible from the political process, and give credence to the notion of “Four more years of the same old partisan politics?” I’d love to send him out to pasture too, but at this point I’d just as soon take my time destroying Joe Lieberman and having the Democrats use him as a tool than have them shoot themselves in the foot politically with him.

  6. Well, and in all fairness, I had expected him to be on McCain’s short-list for VP. For most of his policies, right now, he seems aligned with the Repub’s.

    Course, I don’t know much about him. I still remember doing a speech on him in my fifth grade when he (and a number of others) were condemning Mortal Kombat.

    I’m trying to dig it up, it’s been ages. I remember he was taken to court for, essentially, lying through his teeth to advance his career. At the time, the name “Rep. Silver” comes to mind. He lost the initial round of lawsuits against him by Midway. I don’t know if the appeals pulled him out.

    But, as Stormin Norman pointed out, this is politics, and he has position as a power player, now. I can’t fault him for his posturing. I don’t think they should be kissing his ass, though. Move on without him – he’s been against you for a long time.

    More than anyone, Lieberman makes the case for the need for a strong third party. He certainly doesn’t belong with the Dems.

  7. I don’t think there’s anything petty here. Lieberman said some pretty outrageous things for someone who considers himself a Democrat.

    ‘Petty’ was a poor choice of words.

  8. Well what do you expect when Obama’s ‘change’ turns out to be appointing a who’s who of the Clinton era to cabinet positions.

  9. Who else is around to fill those positions though, that has any experience in government, Engels? You’d have a better success in pulling the President himself off the street than the political machine beneath him. Doing things as the government is different than doing things as any other entity or individual. It requires specialized skills, personal contacts, and usually teams of people to act in support. At the upper levels it’s a shallow pool, especially if one of your goals is to hit the ground running.

  10. I think it is a good move. It is a risk, as you might give the impression that others in the Party can dissent without consequences. But, while I do not want to sound at all idealistic or naive about the Democratic Party, I do think it is in general more about pluralism and freedom of opinion than the Republican Party is. Now, Lieberman supposedly broke a promise about not personally attacking Obama, but I think Obama and the Democrats are trying to show a sort of class here. Both parties try to portray the other side as narrow minded and not open to dissent or difference of opinion, and this gives the Democrats a way to argue that this is not true of their party. Obama himself is trying to be Lincolnesque, as they say, reaching out to his opponents, including Hillary and McCain. Obama wants to be a “uniter, not a divider” I think, and wants to show that he is serious about moving away from “the old politics” as he was fond of saying. This gives him an opportunity to do something like that.

    That said; the real reason why they did it, I am sure, is because they want the filibuster-proof majority. That is no secret. Why hand a senator over to the Republicans? And I suppose they do not want to alienate independents either.

  11. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Until Democrats can promote a candidate to beat Lieberman for his seat, it’s better to put him on as short a leash as possible and very much under the Democratic watchful eye.

    I got some ear wax that could beat Lieberman.  The Democrats don’t have the balls or the skill to beat the Republicans at their own game, and they don’t have the ethics to play an honest game.  The only one of them that even partially impresses me is Obama, and we still don’t know if he can do any of the things he’s promised, much less if he plans to.

    Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo and quite a few others should already be brought up on charges of treason.  The Dems can’t even do that, and that’s a no-brainer.  How can anyone expect them to take out one of their own… no matter what he’s done?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.