I think Jane Hamsher is wrong when she says this;-
Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question." I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world. No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.
Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."
I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.
No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.
but that's because I don't think there was any consideration about wider implications or messages to support groups at all. The Beltway dams are sad relics nostalgic for a golden era of clubby collegiality about the business of government that rises above narrow party concerns. Even if he's an (-I), to them he will always be one of them, somebody who looks for their lead, not from their own House majority leader, but from the most eye-swivellingly moronic of the republicans. The problem for the Democrats is not that Joe is uniquely traitrous to their cause, but that so many of the DC Democrats actually share his desire to be repugnant. keep to the Fen Causeway
EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect
Here's what you need to say about Lieberman: His heterodoxies have remained contained. Unlike John McCain, who conveyed his post-2000 disgust with the Republican Party by sponsoring a lot of liberal legislation on essentially random issues, Lieberman's fight with the Democrats has not strayed from foreign policy. For instance: His 2007 AFL-CIO voting record was 84 percent. That's exactly the same as his lifetime AFL-CIO voting record. In the most recent Congress, his score from the League of Conservation was 96 percent (which is actually a recent career high). Lieberman is, arguably, an extremely reliable Democratic vote. The exception, of course, is foreign policy, where he's an extremely reliable Republican vote. But he's not really needed on foreign policy votes. The president has broad autonomy on strategic questions. ... That said, the operational effect of stripping Lieberman would have been that he becomes a Republican, and caucuses with them. It would have meant his incentives shift to curry favor with Republican voters. It would have, in other words, made him a fairly unreliable Democratic vote on domestic issues. The question became, then, does the satisfaction of retribution outweigh the value of one more vote in an extremely close Senate? It's hard to say that it does.
But he's not really needed on foreign policy votes. The president has broad autonomy on strategic questions.
...
That said, the operational effect of stripping Lieberman would have been that he becomes a Republican, and caucuses with them. It would have meant his incentives shift to curry favor with Republican voters. It would have, in other words, made him a fairly unreliable Democratic vote on domestic issues. The question became, then, does the satisfaction of retribution outweigh the value of one more vote in an extremely close Senate? It's hard to say that it does.
The worry now is not that he remains so indolent, but that he discovers an energy so far lacking and starts using his powers to get in the way of the Obama legislative efforts. That committee can cause real problems for a president if he so wishes, the question is; does he wish ? keep to the Fen Causeway
And if he screws around, he can be kicked off. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
EK might have a point, but running the second most powerful committee in the Senate does look like the sort of thing you get as a reward for doing good works, not what you get despite being backstabbing scum. keep to the Fen Causeway
I wish Vermont chose all of our politicians. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The Senate seems to have a lot of complex hierarchies, and many are not all that clear... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over matters related to the Department of Homeland Security and other homeland security concerns, as well as the functioning of the government itself, including the National Archives, budget and accounting measures other than appropriations, the Census, the federal civil service, the affairs of the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service. The committee's name was formerly the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, prior to homeland security being added to its responsibilities.
The politics of the committee are up in the air for now, because so many Republicans on it were either defeated in the election (Stevens, Sununu, possibly Coleman), have retired and been replaced by Dems (Warner, Domenici), or are in serious danger in upcoming elections (Voinovich). Collins and Coburn are the only two Reps certain to be on for the foreseeable future, but even they're likely without problem, since Collins can be pushed around and Coburn has a good relationship with Obama after working on transparency issues with him. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I think Ezra's right, too, about Daschle's appointment being a clear sign that Obama's serious on that issue.
The Lieberman issue aside, we've had a couple good Cabinet picks in the last two days. Holder is with us on the key issues at DoJ ("zero-tolerance" on torture, against the death penalty, against the expansion of executive power, etc), and Daschle is a good choice on health care reform. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Any ideas for DoD ? keep to the Fen Causeway
My money's still on Samantha Power as national security adviser, but who knows?
Richardson will fit in somewhere, too. In fact, he may be SecState, depending on what turns out to be true and false about the Clinton thing (and it's tough to tell since the idiot Clintonistas are, of course, leaking a million things per minute).
On paper at least, like I said, I think Daschle and Holder are very good picks. Daschle signals that they mean business on health care. Holder signals that they mean business about rolling back the police state. And even little Rahm made the right noises on universal health care and green energy infrastructure in front of the CEOs at the WSJ forum.
Daschle and Emanuel, more than anything, seem to point to a desire to have people who know the workings of Congress (based on their backgrounds and the statements from the campaign), which goes along with the stated intention to move hard and fast after Inauguration Day. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
