Comments on: Why Obama let Lieberman go

By: Tosk

Tosk — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:38:11 +0000

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

By: reagankid

reagankid — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:20:33 +0000

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.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:04:24 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Howard

Daniel Howard — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:21:41 +0000

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

By: johnny2slick

johnny2slick — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:13:30 +0000

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!