Why Obama let Lieberman go
A lot of people are upset that the Democrats didn’t go all vindictive on Joe Lieberman and boot him from his committee chairmanship. I have no love for Lieberman and detest his choice to stump for the Republicans this year. But I think I understand what Barack Obama was up to in pushing the Senate Democrats to bury the hatchet.
Obama spent most of the marathon campaign that just ended telling people that he wanted to move beyond the old partisan politics. Having won the election, he now faces a set of problems of a magnitude we haven’t faced since the 1930s. Just as Obama was Mr. Consistency on the campaign trail, sticking to the same themes and policies across the states and months, so, I think, he wants to demonstrate consistency from the campaign through the transition into government. “Remember what I said on the trail?” he’s in effect saying. “I meant it. And I’m going to act on it.”
A president with that sort of carry-through would be something extraordinary — and unfamiliar. I understand why Obama partisans might discount the promise of transcending partisanship as being so much blather. Our last president made campaign noises about “being a uniter, not a divider” and proceeded to pursue an intensely divisive agenda with the thinnest of mandates.
After such an experience, we can be forgiven for collectively discounting all talk of moving beyond the old battles. But I think Obama meant it, and means it, and means to see what happens when a president actually tries to deliver on that promise. While removing Joe Lieberman from his post might satisfy many an activist’s sense of justice, it won’t move us any closer to fixing the economy, reforming healthcare, or reversing the Bush Administration’s destruction of our functioning government. Whereas holding on to Lieberman’s vote in the Senate might.
In other words, settling scores is, and ought to be, a lower priority than delivering on a big policy agenda. If Obama can achieve that — and anyone who defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries and won the White House as a black candidate knows something about achieving tough goals — then the scores will have a way of settling themselves.
Wordyard RSS feed
November 19th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I agree, apparently Lieberman wanted to come back to the fold,
why spend a month fighting a possible tie breaking voter that agrees with you on a number of key issues.
Let’s move on!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Thank you for the assurance that I’m not the only person in the world who understands it this way.
Seriously, don’t we have bigger issues to talk about than Lieberman?
-d
November 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This analysis just might work if not for the fact that Lieberman simply can’t be trusted. People act like having 60 members in the Democratic Caucus will somehow make filibusters impossible. This is nonsense. Cloture votes are exactly that, votes, and the 60 senators required have to be wrangled each and every time. Lieberman is just as likely, or maybe more than likely, to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans.
The truly disappointing thing about this development was the opportunity that was missed as a result. What they could have done was booted Lieberman, shuffled the committee assignments and offerred one of them to a Republican who really doesn’t belong with the Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, as an inducement to do a Jeffords. That would have accomplished many more things simultaneously than the lame “let bygones be bygones” message that pardoning Lieberman sends.
First, it would have been a positive message to the base that worked so hard to get Obama and the Congressional Democrats elected. Second, it would have sent a message to the rest of the RINOs that maybe it was time to reconsider their place in the Republican party. Why stay with the minority party if you don’t really agree with them when you can join the majority and actually have some influence to move forward the things you care about? Third, it would have provided a two-vote swing in the Senate, by simultaneously add to the Democratic caucus and subtracting from the Republican caucus.
The Lieberman decision makes Democrats look weak and stupid, not magnanimous. It also signals to liberals that we’re in for more triangulation and Sistah Souljah moments. A lot of progressive bloggers are already feeling deflated about the Obama presidency and it hasn’t even started. Heckuva job, Senate Democrats.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Though I’m no fan of the leftist illuminati, I do think Obama made the right call here. It showed class and a savvy read of the nation’s emotional pulse right now. Lieberman was being intellectually honest, and no matter what party one belongs to, that is something to respect.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Why are we talking re Obama? This was an internal Senate matter. Obama = executive, Senate = legislative. Once upon a time the Senators used to zealously defend their prerogatives and independence of action from encroachments (both friendly and/or hostile) by others.
I’d argue that much of what ailed the country over the past eight years resulted from the legislative side’s unhealthy deference to executive power. Yeah, it’s all Democrats now. but IMO it would have been a good thing if they started drawing the line between the two again.
http://www.ph2dot1.com/2008/11/say-what.html