Why It Matters - Lieberman

[slipslidingaway]

by Hunter

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/16037/293/94/663008

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:25:05 PM PST

"In the end, the Lieberman fight isn't entirely about Lieberman. Yes, people want to see consequences doled out for the perennially back-stabbing Senator who formed his own political party when his own Democratic voters voted him out, who used his committee as a protectorate of the abuses of the Bush administration, and who -- for God's sake -- campaigned for McCain and Palin, even when their campaign reached its most rancid lows.

But more to the point, people in America want a change from the Bush years -- desperately. And they voted for it, delivering a thumping mandate for Obama. They want things to change, and that's why this minor battle has taken on so much meaning, and why people are so peeved: this was the first test of mettle, and it showed no mettle at all.

...You don't put the status quo guy in charge unless you want the status quo, and you don't put an ideological Republican in the Homeland Security chair unless you want the results to be Republican. That's why people are enraged -- not merely because Leiberman is such an ass, but because this is a clear signal that the Senate has no intention of running things in 2009 any differently than they did 2007 or 2008, and that means (1) weakness, (2) pussy-footing, and (3) allowing Republican obstructionism at every turn. Even in situations where the Republicans (or their ideological allies, like Lieberman) have absolutely no clout whatsoever.

People voted for change. Again -- just like in 2006. If they don't get it, the mood in the country is going to turn south in a hurry. There's still a war, a recession, an economic crisis, a whole bunch of government incompetence and, oh yeah, a second war out there. Things are grim, and the Democrats are in charge of all of it, now -- the whole thing. The implication here, that they still consider their precious collegiality and seniority games to outstrip all of it, and are willing to keep sabotaging a very, very important legislative committee in order to maintain a steady, peaceful ship of state... it smacks of an enforced weakness, and of self-indulgence that nears the point of corruption."

[spanone]

1. i think it's about obama showing REAL CHANGE IN WASHINGTON. i really do.

they can never accuse him of partisanship.

he may actually get something done.

just my opinion

wouldn't that be nice?

[slipslidingaway]

3. That sure would be nice and of course things will get done

having the WH and majorities in Congress, surely they cannot say that they did not have the votes :)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/18/howard-dean-on-lieberman-i-never-looked-into-what-he-was-doing-as-the-chairman-of-the-homeland-security-committee/


"JANE HAMSHER: But the tone we just set, with all due respect, is that Joe's lack of oversight on the Homeland Security Committee, and his refusing to investigate Katrina to pay back the Republicans, and his refusal to look into billions and billions of dollars worth of graft and theft is okay for political considerations. I think that's the message you're sending and I don't think that's the change people voted for.

HOWARD DEAN: Well I don't think that stuff is okay but I have to say I'm not terribly familiar with his record. But you know I would agree, that's not the change we voted for, I agree with that..."

[cliffordu]

2. Fuck Hunter.