Pangloss Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDuXte5q_Mq4U0JKrcPRUJppvHVQD949MCJ81 I guess Harry Reid must have missed Obama's victory speech, in which he spoke of bringing people together and listening to one another. Today he went after Joe Lieberman in one of the most obvious examples of political pandering since the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. Reid, in a sternly worded statement after the 45-minute meeting, said no official decisions have been made. But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential. The technical right: To force members of your political party to play ball your way. The message: Support Republicans, and we will destroy you. This is a perfect example of how different President Obama will be from the partisan leaders of Congress. Something will have to be done about that, or there will be clashes between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 can Reid just reorganize house committees like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 can Reid just reorganize house committees like that? Pretty much, yes (although, he's doing it in the Senate, not the House, as he is a Senator, not a Representative). He is the Senate Majority leader, and the majority controls most committee staff and resources. http://www.senate.gov/general/common/generic/about_committees.htm Due to the high volume and complexity of its work, the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees. Although the Senate committee system is similar to that of the House of Representatives, it has its own guidelines, within which each committee adopts its own rules. <...> Committees receive varying levels of operating funds and employ varying numbers of aides. Each hires its own staff. The majority party controls most committee staff and resources, but a portion is shared with the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Correct. And while I think it's unfortunate that he's doing this, I have to qualify my remarks by saying that this IS how the business of the Senate is traditionally done. Internal party business directs Senate business, and Senate business reflects party happenings and structure. But it ain't what I voted for on Tuesday, and if this is what he plans to do with his "mandate" then he's going to have a very big surprise waiting for him in November of 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It's only been two days. They're still high from exhuberance. Seems a bit too soon to be pushing assertions of "the new distasteful tone" in Washington. While I want to avoid partisan mandates, much like you, I also am not comfortable that a fair conclusion can be made at this point due to the extremely limited dataset in your sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 My honest opinion of the situation is that Lieberman basically stabbed the entire Democratic party in the back. I have absolutely zero sympathy for him. He f**ked them over and whatever recourse the Democrats desire to take is entirely deserved. They call it "politics" for a reason, and Lieberman played his cards badly. He bet on the losing horse. He has absolutely no reason to expect any favors. Now's the time he should expect the reciprocity coming him. Now it's time for him to bow out and take a graceful exit. The message[/i']: Support Republicans, and we will destroy you. Considering what the Republicans have done to this country over the past eight years, do you really expect the Democrats should cut him any slack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I don't feel sorry for Joe. The Dems did let him hang around when they needed him tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I feel sorry for Joe because the democratic party left him first, namely on the principled position he held on the war and his approach to supporting it and the troops. He didn't play the party politics game in the face of thousands and thousands of dead human beings, so they shit on him. He shit back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 He did leave the democratic party when he lost the party nomination. He declared himself independent and formed the "connecticut for joe lieberman" party to keep his senate seat. Maybe it was a mutual rejection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Yeah, I guess that's fair. I will say though, that supporting McCain was quite a 180. I remember watching him, listening to him, in disbelief that I'm really witnessing Joe Leiberman prop up a republican. One could also make an argument about character, in that he could so easily flip and be believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 He did leave the democratic party when he lost the party nomination. He declared himself independent and formed the "connecticut for joe lieberman" party to keep his senate seat. He's still registered as a Democrat. He just ran as an independent for the senate after he didn't get the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 He's still registered as a Democrat. He just ran as an independent for the senate after he didn't get the nomination. I thought he ran under a new party, not as an independent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman Or did he never actually belong to the party that endorsed him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 My honest opinion of the situation is that Lieberman basically stabbed the entire Democratic party in the back. I have absolutely zero sympathy for him. He f**ked them over and whatever recourse the Democrats desire to take is entirely deserved. Considering what the Republicans have done to this country over the past eight years' date=' do you really expect the Democrats should cut him any slack?[/quote'] He supported ONE REPUBLICAN over a SINGLE ISSUE. That is not a crime! But Democrats want him utterly destroyed and removed from the face of the earth, preferably torn limb-from-limb in the process. In other words, politics as usual -- we're in charge, now watch us destroy and condemn. More of the same. The pendulum has swung. How'd that work out for Republicans when they did it, Bascule? Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows. This is not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 He supported ONE REPUBLICAN over a SINGLE ISSUE. Yes, and in the grand tradition of such Democrats as Zell Miller, he delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention and trashed the Democratic nominee. But hey, I guess the Democrats should just give him a bye on that one, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 They CAN do whatever they want. What I think they SHOULD do is join Obama in the spirit of reconciliation and a new spirit of national unity. Joe Lieberman is not their enemy, and he has not harmed them in any way. Furthermore, what we're talking about is internal politics of the Democratic Party, not the running of this country. But it's the running of this country that will be affected by their internal political action. I think that's wrong too. That is how it is normally done, but remember -- we want CHANGE. That's not change. It's anti-change. (I'm coining a new phrase here today.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 11, 2008 Author Share Posted November 11, 2008 More news came out on this today. Apparently Obama has interceded and asked Reid to keep Lieberman in the caucus. This is quite revealing of Obama's character, because Lieberman essentially stabbed Obama in the back during the campaign. When Lieberman was running in that tight race to get himself re-elected, he asked Obama to come and campaign for him, and Obama did that. But then Lieberman turned around and attacked him in a very personal way on the campaign trail, questioning his readiness. I think that says a lot about his willingness to stand behind what he said last week. Can we set hatred and partisanship aside and run this country together? Yes we can. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4591108.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 From what I read Reid intended to keep Lieberman in the caucus anyway, despite pressure from angered Democrats not to do so. I really don't think Obama was the deciding factor in Reid's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Maybe not but his actions are matching his words. I may just end up eating mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 18, 2008 Author Share Posted November 18, 2008 So the Dems voted and Lieberman gets to keep not only his position in the caucus but his valuable chairmanship on Homeland Security. The more punitive senators wanted him removed from that position because of its key oversight over the incoming Obama administration, but with Obama himself opposed to Lieberman's removal that became much less likely. Lieberman did lose his position on the Environment and Public Works Committee, giving them something to save face with. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111800231.html?hpid=topnews Chalk up one key victory for Obama. This is a subtle but significant sign of how politics is going to change in this country, right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 So the Dems voted and Lieberman gets to keep not only his position in the caucus but his valuable chairmanship on Homeland Security. The more punitive senators wanted him removed from that position because of its key oversight over the incoming Obama administration, but with Obama himself opposed to Lieberman's removal that became much less likely. Lieberman did lose his position on the Environment and Public Works Committee, giving them something to save face with. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111800231.html?hpid=topnews Chalk up one key victory for Obama. This is a subtle but significant sign of how politics is going to change in this country, right here. Lol. I just logged in to search for this exact thread and share that exact link. Turns out the naysayers spoke too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now