Sen. and chairman Joe Lieberman:
"I was pleased with the discussion we had at the Democratic Party caucus this morning. There was a very good and worthwhile exchange of views and there was a productive outcome. I want to thank Senator Reid for his wise and valued leadership on this matter. I look forward to continuing to chair the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and working to ensure our country remains safe and secure.
"The election is now over and we have a new President-elect - it is imperative that we put politics aside and address the challenges facing our country. I look forward to working with President Obama, and with my colleagues from both parties to restore our economic prosperity, reform our healthcare system, protect the environment, keep our country safe, and on many others issues. Let us turn the page, honoring our differences and moving forward together."
Today will be the exception.
The left will be vocal and angry.
By and large, they aren't going to blame Obama; more on that later.
They're going to blame the Senate as an institution and the press. .
One reader implied in an e-mail that if the press had only covered the story better, than decision-makers would have better context within which to punish Lieberman; basically, the press is at fault for not educating the American people well enough about Lieberman's political sins which would have led to (>>) more pressure on the Senate which would have led to (>>) more pressure on Obama and Harry Reid which might have yielded (>>) a different vote. Here is the sentence from that reader: "Perhaps if people were actually informed by the media in detail of what Lieberman has said and did, there might have been more pressure to have him removed."
What's the bill of particulars here? What were Joe Lieberman's sins? So far as I can gather - and this hunter-gatherer verb is brought to you by years of talking to liberals and progressives, Mr. Lieberman:
... undercut the Democratic Party at critical junctures.
... undercut the Democratic Party's national security messaging efforts at critical junctures, reinforcing the views of independents that Democrats were weak, or transiently concerned with the subject, or unserious.
... supported the Iraq War, the Surge, President Bush at all turns.
... endorsed John McCain and spoke at the Republican convention. Criticized Obama disrespectfully.
... is seen as a sanctimonious creature who leeches; he takes the benefit of communion with the Democratic Party without performing the rituals.
... is unrepentant.
It's easy to see why Democrats resort to the fricative when pronouncing his name.
And were Senate Democrats in a retributive mood, it's easy to imagine how these sins would become venal and prohibitively grave, and bye-bye- Joe. Kicking Lieberman out of his job would have made Democrats feel good about being Democrats. It would encourage party loyalty, and what political scientists call the solidary benefits of political party membership. It would discourage those who bucked the party line.
But Senate Democrats are in a governing mood. Winning by seven points nationally and having large majorities in both chambers can do that to a party. It's going to be easier, relative to punishing Lieberman (and therefore pushing him to the Republican Party), to send progressive legislation to the President. They'll need him on filibuster breaking votes. His impact on foreign policy will be minimal. Some Senators have taken to the microphones to brag about the spirit of reconciliation that pervades the party. Maybe. But the Democrats today have sent the message that they favor convenience over party; expediency over parochialism. Make no mistake: keeping Lieberman where he was the expedient decision here.
| 
F*CK LIEberman. He is a sanctimonious prick.
There. I feel better.
I still hate him.
Posted by Shaun | November 18, 2008 2:32 PM