Letters to the Editor
-
Amity et al, on control of the senate should Joe bolt
My understanding is that the current senate was organized under a binding agreement under existing senate rules between Reid and McConnell in which the Dems would maintain control of the senate even if they lost their caucus majority (there are actually only 49 Dem senators, along with 49 Pub senators, with the 2 remaining senators, Sanders and Joe, being indies who caucus with the Dems). I.e. Joe could bolt, but it would effectively mean nothing in practice (although of course it would look bad in a PR sense). Dems would keep control of committees and floor activities, and, since Joe is likely to vote as he has till now, nothing would effectively change. So while the threat of Joe leaving might be an implied excuse that Reid has been using in order to not push things as aggressively as we'd like, this is in fact a fake excuse. It's all about PR, not substance. And for a variety of reasons, Dems continue to all the Pubs to prevail on PR (made all the more bizarre given that the public is no longer buying it--but for reasons of their own, Dems prefer to continue to pretend that the emperor is not really butt naked).
This is not about Joe, but about the approximately 1/3 of senate "Dems" who have, effectively, been acting like or enabling Joe and his RW buddies, in their votes, words and other actions (or inactions). Folks like DiFi, Rockefeller and Schumer might officially "oppose" Bush's policies, but have done so little to actually do so in their actions as senators, as to render the distinction laughably and tragically meaningless. Unlike Joe, theirs is the sin of ommission, not commission. But really, what's the difference? None that I see. Flip sides of the same aweful coin on the realm.
-
Don't worry Amity
Lieberman, if he switches parties, doesn't take his committee appointments with him. (You'll recall that jeffords was offered a plum spot (for him) if he moved.)
But even if lieberman switches parties, the Dem leadership still has the committee seats it started the term with. So if lieberman switches, and stays on homeland security, he has to bump off one member, AND displace the ranking member to retain anything close to his current status.
Long story short, he won't switch parties, because it would mean trading in a chair for something less. And the allocation of committee seats is by party, not by person.
-
RE:Dems pretend that the emperor is not really butt naked
I don't think Dems pretend that the emperor is not naked, but rather want him to continue to parade around naked in front of the people. For most Dems, like the Repubs, the ends justify the means. And again, like the Repubs, the end is to win, not to stand up for principles.
-
Glenn Greenwald on negating my point
"Control of the Senate" means which party appoints the Majority Leader and which one controls the Senate floor. Even if Lieberman switched, that would still be the Democrats, which negates your original point.
Maybe your math is different from mine. I count 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 Socialist, 1 Lieberman, and 1 Cheney. The Republicans + Lieberman = 50 + Cheney = 51.
If anyone else is adding it up differently, I'd love to compare.
Lieberman is free now to vote with the GOP on every committee. How would his changing party affiliation affect the outcomes in any way? It wouldn't. He'd still be the same Joe Lieberman, voting the same way.
Let's suppose that Lieberman, like his suburban Connectictut constituents, finds a liberal stance on social issues agreeable but a hawkish stance on the Middle East absolutely obligatory. All things considered, a guy like Lieberman will go with an option where he can get minimum wage increases, small business support, public construction, and so on — provided he also gets his way on the One Big Issue.
I don't know Lieberman as well as some do, but that seems a straightforward, accurate characterization of how he votes and how he prioritizes his issues. Does this not sound like a situation Lieberman would choose, if he had the power to choose it?
More importantly, your reasoning means that Democrats must always think about how not to offend Joe Lieberamn with everything they do, which effectively makes Joe Lieberman the true majority party in the Senate.
That is exactly my point.
That's called governing by snivelling fear ...
You asked (perhaps rhetorically) for an argument in defense of the sniveling fear of the Democrats in the Senate. I've only tried my best to oblige.
... what are all the great things that would have been lost if Lieberman had switched?
Minimum wage increase, Mukasey instead of Olsen, no recess appointments, any debate at all over FISA, the fact that Joe Biden can credibly make demands for Senate investigation of the CIA ... the real question is not what these things are. There are a lot of them, though not as many as there should be. The real question is whether they'd happen without kissing Lieberman's ass on the war — and if they wouldn't, if the trade would have been worth it.
-
@WT
Indeed. It's all part of our heritage, innit?
Nope. Education is a cornerstone of functioning democracy, people in Pakistan would gladly provide examples. Being informed is the whole reason for freedom of the press, and what makes their current breakdown so vicious. And we have never allowed crazy people to vote, except for those enabled by Richard Daley, but he allowed the dead to continue participating in Chicago democracy.
I acknowledge your desire for a more accurate map of the public mind, and would argue that the process should be two way, the public mind needs a more accurate map of the government mind. And that the government is in a subordinate position; it seems lately to have forgotten from whom it derives it's just powers.
But we'd get a lot bigger exchange, and have a better interface, with a lot of caucusing and direct communications, maybe lobbying as it was originally conceived -- by citizens. Voting should be reserved for decisions on which there is ample time to inform and ample time to make up one's mind. No country schedules elections without that basic pre-requisite, such elections would be considered unfair. Hierarchies work. If you want lots of referenda, bring back the town meeting (actually bring it to those parts of the country that never had it).
And maybe severely limit the classification of information. That's how we get into the messes we have most recently.