- ‹ previous
- 1994 of 8807
- next ›
Lieberman Escapes Dems' Wrath--and That May Be Good
Revenge is for those who don't care about results.
That's the mature message of Howard Dean. Moments after the Democratic Caucus in the Senate decided to keep Senator Joe Lieberman, who had campaigned for John McCain's presidential bid, as head of the Homeland Security Committee, Dean, the outgoing head of the Democratic National Committee told the Huffington Post that the Senate Dems had done the right thing:
You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well. And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies....
My point of view is that Barack won. He can afford to be magnanimous. And if we happen to win both recounts and Georgia, Joe is the 60th vote. And the truth is -- and I certainly don't have to defend Joe Lieberman because, you know, we have an interesting history -- but the fact is, he does vote 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. And no, he shouldn't have said all those things. But why not clean the state? Why not start all over again? Why not allow him to vote with us on the 90 percent of the stuff? He will be a good vote on climate change -- and this matters. He may be a good vote on election reform, which I hope we will get to. So, you know, he may end up - though it is a little against the odds -- he may end up being the vote that allows us to conduct business when Mitch McConnell decides we shouldn't.
Dean has a point. Netroots Democrats got whipped up into a frenzy over the Lieberman matter. For many Democrats, excommunicating Lieberman--who is an independent now but who caucuses with the Democrats--would have felt great. They wanted to see the Senate Dems flash some political muscle. But getting personal is not always the way to get ahead. When Obama takes the high road, he can gain political capital. When congressional Democrats help him do that, they will be helping themselves. Lieberman is a sideshow--a sanctimonious, irritating sideshow. But the president-elect and the Democrats in Congress have much bigger fish to fry. They could afford to toss this one back into the pond.
By the way, Kevin disagrees.
Is it possible that Obama is pulling a little jiu-jitsu on Lieberman here? I mean, Lieberman clearly owes him now, which Joe (sort of) acknowledged. Maybe that bit of leverage will come in handy for Obama down the road...
All of a sudden, this Lieberman episode has many people moaning that there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. This is not news.
There's a fellow who has been saying this for many years. His name is Ralph Nader. Those of us who have voted for Nader in the past are still being demonized by those who are now finding that he was right.
It's long past time for the left to drop the Democrats and go elsewhere. Reform from within is not possible - this episode proves it.
Nader has a lot of faults and is getting on in years, so I'm not pushing him as the leader for this movement. But someone needs to step up, and we need to get moving on ditching the Republicrats once and for all.
It's not a question of revenge or "getting personal". It's a question of policy priorities. Keeping Lieberman means continuity with the Bush administration in Homeland Security policy and law.
Is that change you can believe in?
This is horrifying news for people trying to get their lives back together after the government's appalling response to Katrina. Lieberbush did nothing in the last Congress to help them because he was a partisan Republican who didn't want to embarrass Bush. (I know Lieberbush pretends to be a Democrat sometimes, but he is GOP through and through.)
Larry's right, it is time that the left ditch the Republicrats. And JG is right too; it is not a question of 'getting personal' or of some sort of political revenge, it is a question of policy priorities. Lieberbush is a cancer that needs to be surgically removed. I think that Obama just out smarted himself on this one.
It's pretty telling that this article presents "revenge" as the only possible reason or motive for those wanting to hold Joe Lieberman accountable.
What about holding him accountable based on principle?
Like the fact that Lieberman deserves to lose his Democratic leadership position based on his pattern of taking a Republican approach to principles instead of a Democratic one.
Maybe when it comes to core principles and values between the "two" parties, there's really no difference.
That is, for both parties, "getting personal is not always the way to get ahead," and apparently neither is having principles.
"Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly."
Anybody who offends the Party must be dealt with harshly.