In a 42-13 vote, the Senate Democrats refused to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Lieberman instead will lose his chairmanship of a global warming subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Commission as a rebuke for supporting John McCain and attacking Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I don't agree with this decision. Lieberman is Judas. He spoke against obama like if he was a repub. Lieberman must go and will lose his election in CT. You will see. There is growing group in CT alone that don't want him anylonger in their Senate seat.
Lieberman is a traitor and so are the Democrats that voted to keep him in the chairmanship
"He spoke against Obama like if he was a repub." -floridaforu
He didn't speak any differently than Powell did in endorsing Sen. Obama, or Mayor Giuliani when he endorsed Gov Cuomo. See my earlier articles:
http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/2008/11/crashing-party-part-ii-pataki-vs.html
and
http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/2008/11/crashing-party-powell-v-lieberman.html
"He didn't speak any differently than Powell did in endorsing Sen. Obama, or Mayor Giuliani when he endorsed Gov Cuomo."
You are delusional! He hammered Barack every chance he had--and don't change the subject--what Powell or Giuliani said has nothing to do with Sen. Lieberman and his behavior, regardless of how you spin it.
"--what Powell or Giuliani said has nothing to do with Sen. Lieberman and his behavior, regardless of how you spin it." -Charles B. Hyde
The point is (as shown in those two articles) that the Republicans did not try to expell either Guiliani or Powell from the party for endorsing the Democratic Party's candidiate. I'm glad to see the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee treated Sen. Lieberman the same way.
Its not just about supporting a friend. 1. He said he would not attack Obama, he did. 2. He said he would not speak at the GOP convention, he did. 3. He campaigned against Democratic Senate candidates supporting instead Norm Coleman and Snowe. So why should the Dem's let him keep a powerful chairmanship?
His whole punishment angle seems weird to me. When you lose an election you have to give up responsibility, when you win it you have to take over responsibility. That's not about punishment, it's about democracy having value.
Apart from that I'd be interested in the reasons why you are happy that Lieberman held on to his chairmanships. In all your discussions you've always argued that he was not trustworthy, wouldn't vote on principle, would seek to work against the Democratic party etc.
Based on that, I'd expect a comment along the lines of - "well it's unfortunate he's still around, but politically that was the necessary decision." You don't say that though - you are happy. My question is: why?
Stefan, the reason why Sen. Lieberman was aloud to keep his chairmanship was the same reason why he was given it to begin with - he earned it. As The New Republic explained:
"First, just in terms of policy, those calling for the axe ignore that Lieberman has been a reliable Democrat. Last week, Reid said that 'Lieberman is not some right wing nut case,' and, in fact, Lieberman has secured a higher party loyalty voting record than 14 of his Democratic colleagues. He's also been a fine chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He sponsored the legislation that first created the department, and under his leadership, the committee has achieved some legitimate successes: Lieberman helped alter the formula by which homeland security funding is dispersed so that the localities most at risk receive more aid, and he crafted legislation to mandate the inspection of all air and sea cargo within three years. He has also sponsored good, progressive legislation, like a bill extending domestic partner benefits to gay federal employees."
You can find the entire article at:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5daa4a35-afd6-4474-9a83-a1dec2525c82
Sorry I meant the question differently: why are you personally happy about this decision? You've never defended his qualifications on this blog, you've only argued how he might harm the Democrats if not paid-off with a chairmanship.
Political positions shouldn't be earned, and they shouldn't be given as rewards. Neither should they be taken away as punishment. They should go to the people best qualified for them.
So question is: do you think he is the most qualified person for this chairmanship, or do you feel
this is the only way to keep him on board?
"So question is: do you think he is the most qualified person for this chairmanship, or do you feel this is the only way to keep him on board?" -Stefan
I definitely do not think it's the only way to keep him on board. I've stated that even if he was stripped of his chairmanship position, I believe he would remain in the Democratic caucus. Is he the "most" qualified? I don't know - I can't say that I truly know every little detail about every one of his Democratic Senate colleagues. Perhaps there is someone with more qualifications, perhaps not. However, Sen. Lieberman himself is certainly qualified for the Chairmanship and there's no reason (based solely on qualifications) to remove him from that role. As the TNR article explained, he has done a very good job as the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Therefore, the only reason to remove him would be for revenge. As you know, I was completely against that.
The only negative thing about Sen. Lieberman keeping his chairmanship is that it essentially ended the purpose of this blog. Oh well, it’s good to go out on a high note (I feel like Michael Strahan).
Post a Comment