Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Senators using Obama's lack of objection as an excuse for what they did isn't nearly as concerning as if Obama had pressured them to punish Lieberman. The former way, it is the Senate asserting its lack of authority; the latter way, it is Obama asserting authority. I'd rather have a submissive Senate than have a submissive Senate being whipped by a domineering president.
Did it ever pass through the minds of the spineless Democratic Senators that President-Elect Obama was playing the role of "good cop", and was waiting for them to be smart enough to pick up their paces and play "bad cop", giving Liebermann the boot he so well deserves? No... that would take more intelligence than they're showing.
Do you really believe the stuff you write in comments? You sounds like yet another intellectually lazy "moderate" to me.
President-Elect Obama had better do everything the War Party says or it might lose a precious "moderate" vote. It is amazing the way Establishment propaganda inflates and elevates the importance of being a "moderate", and that the term "moderate" represents the average view of the typical uninformed voter (as reflected by polls). "Centrism" is supposed to be the status quo as perceived by "moderate" America but the reality is quite different. The Center is really a vote for increased Government intervention and control in whatever. It is what Glenn described in his post. The Center is War, Central Banking, Bailouts (Military and Economic Intervention), Police State, unbridled support for Israel, etc. The center is the collection of problems that are destroying America that they don't/won't talk about on the news, i.e. consensus.
There is nothing wrong with conflict, especially when the conflict matters. One problem with the center is that it lets a politician/voter avoid conflict by selling out to an unsustainable status quo and calling it some bullshit synonym for teamwork. I'd rather vote for someone principled whom I disagree with than vote for some slippery snake that is going to slither its way into the "center". The principled politician (the few out there anyway) has legs and the snake doesn't, so at least you know where the former stands. The "moderate center" is nothing but a giant snake pit that all sides can slither into.
Let's not kid ourselves. This is the US Senate we're talking about, the closest thing we've got to an "Old Boy's Club" in the US government. It works on a spirit of comity and entitlement, something that in these socially stratified times virtually ensures Lieberman would escape serious reprisal; the fact the Democratic leadership essentially abdicated on this issue to the sentiments of the President-Elect is but the latest failing, but again shouldn't be a surprise as the Senate has always seemed rather removed from its nominal constituents and the consequences of its votes.
That said, lets also not blow this into the sounding of the Final Trumpet. Yes, an unpleasant man has retained chairmanship of a committee of supposed importance, doing so with the apparent blessing of the President-Elect.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Lieberman hasn't done much to build either his own creditability or that of the Homeland Security Committee; I find it hard to believe that he'll actually convene a hearing or investigation that will probe deeply into, well, anything. Even if he does, how can it possibly be perceived as any kind of 'serious' (i.e. credible) effort given his history and willingness to ignore more recent activities?
Atop this, lets also not turn the man into a national issue. His ultimate fate will be decided by the voters of Connecticut. I'm not even clear why the Democratic leadership was involved here, given Lieberman was an 'Independent' who just 'caucuses' with the Democrats; common sense suggests he shouldn't have Seniority or any real input with the party he abandoned in the first place, but then the rules and procedures that govern the Senate are labyrinthine to say the least.
Do I think he should have been stripped of his Chairmanship? He shouldn't have had it in the first place, never mind the last four years. But he has retained his gavel. Whether he'll do anything with it remains to be seen, and even then its not clear if he'll manage to make serious traction out of it.
I'd also like to speak to an earlier comment about how our democracy is supposed to involve and thrive off the 'clashing of ideas', as opposed to quiet deals in the back room. I don't argue the point there, but I'm hard pressed to think of any period where our democracy and government really was lead by such vigorous exchanges as opposed to back room consensus and horse trading. Can someone please point to such a time? Please?
A final word, concerning "Prime Minister's Questions" over in the UK. I really wouldn't put much stock in it, as the 'answers' the PM or his proxies offer tend to look and sound so 'canned' you get the feeling its just for the cameras and not an actual inquiry. I mean, the PM's stock answer of "I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago"...what the hell does that even mean? I can't see how it would work here in the US anyway, given our bicameral legislature; the UK Parliament likewise has two houses, but only one has actual involvement in governance.
Great comment! Now, all we need is to settle on whatever the hell "Progressive" means, and we've got it made! Do you think you could tell us, and while you are at it, point out to me when Obama pledged to be "a progressive".
Now, I admit, I did do a lot of reading trying to find out what a "progressive" is. The best definition I came across was at the site where everybody wrote in to tell what "progressive" means. A young lady said that "progressive means great schools and great jobs" And in sooth, I would vouschafe, who can gainsay that? Certainly not you, johnqeniac!
Certainly not you. I would add to that, but wait! Isn't there a song that tells us about it?
The sun may never set till after sundown.
By eight the morning bogs must disappear!
In short there's clearly not, a more progressive spot,
Than here, in Camelot!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
