November 11, 2008

11/11: Lieberman Vs. The Netroots: The Sequel

It feels like the summer of '06 all over again in the liberal blogosphere. Ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman is finding himself under heavy fire from the netroots, who are urging Dem Senators to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Liberal bloggers don't care that Lieberman is threatening to caucus with the GOP Senators if the Dems take away his committee chairmanship. In their view, the Dems no longer need Lieberman now that they have at least 57 seats (or 56 without him). Moreover, they're not willing to let Lieberman use his authority as chair of the Homeland Security Committee to investigate Barack Obama's administration. Jane Hamsher warns:

"If [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid buckles to Lieberman's threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next four years."

The netroots were disappointed to learn that Obama "wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats". Several liberal bloggers asked the Obama camp to clarify whether or not Obama wants Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship, but the Obama camp refused to take a position. Most lefty bloggers view the Obama camp's statement as helpful to Lieberman's chances of preserving his chairmanship, but Markos Moulitsas thinks that Obama has simply "left the decision up to Reid."

LIEBERMAN: Key Committee Chairmanships Aren't For Traitors

Liberal bloggers are urging Dem Senators to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, even though Lieberman is threatening to caucus with the GOP Senators if that happens:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Aside from some idiotic asides (like 'national security'), Lieberman's core arguments for continuing to chair the Homeland Security committee are that 1) he votes with Democrats on everything except the war, and 2) he gave Democrats the Senate majority the last two years. The first argument is easily tossed aside. The guy spoke at the RNC convention. For the last year, he's been a de facto Republican. But that second argument holds little merit as well. [...The Homeland Security committee] was the committee with jurisdiction over the administration's handling of Katrina. Anyone remember Lieberman using it to hold the administration accountable for drowning an entire city? Of course not. If Lieberman wants to continue caucusing with the Democrats, he's welcome to do so. But not as chair of this key committee. He hasn't earned the right to stay there based on his performance the last two years, and he has certainly not earned that right with his aggressive efforts the past year to trash Obama in the presidential election on issues of -- yes -- homeland security. We don't need him. No need to throw him out of the caucus, but he can't keep that committee."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "[Lieberman's] committee chairmanship [is] a leadership position. Something you earn and keep based not just on your ability not to get your ass kicked out of the Senate by your constituents, but by pulling for the team. And -- it used to go without saying -- not pulling for the other team. Or at least it used to be. These days, it appears, there are a number of Democratic Senators who don't mind if you spit in their faces and try to undermine everything they've been working for. [...] We all chewed broken glass for two years to get this job done, and Joe Lieberman slashed our tires, poured sugar in our gas tanks, and generally took every opportunity he could to fart in the Big Tent he now prays will shelter him. Woe fucking betide any Senator who votes to save this saboteur."

Firedoglake's Hamsher chronicles all of Lieberman's transgressions: "During his [2006 re-election] campaign, Lieberman said that it was important for him win his Senate race in order to 'elect a Democratic President in 2008,' and that [Ned] Lamont and his supporters would 'frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that.' Undoubtedly, he was a good friend of John McCain for years. And he agreed with McCain about the Iraq War. But underlying his actions was bitterness against the Democrats. Lieberman threatened to caucus with the Republicans over and over again to get his way as the decisive marginal vote in a Senate held by the Democrats by only one vote -- Joe Lieberman's. But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel. Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain's sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senators, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents. Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog: He said that 'Obama has not always put country first.' He thought it was a 'good question' to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist. He misleadingly accused Obama of having 'voted to cut off funding for our troops.' He repeated the claim that 'Hamas endorsed Obama' and said it 'suggests the difference between these two candidates.' He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the 'Democrat' Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans."

Hamsher concludes her lengthy post with a warning to Dems: "During the Bush administration, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman showed no interest whatsoever in investigating a multitude of scandals, including those of Hurricane Katrina. He abandoned his promise to investigate them after [Karl] Rove helped him hold his Senate seat. If Reid buckles to Lieberman's threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next four years. Still wielding power the turncoat would exact his revenge on the new president."

LIEBERMAN II: Where's His Leverage?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Lieberman is in no position to make implicit threats about joining the GOP if he loses his committee chairmanship:

• Moulitsas: "Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters. So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I'm not sure I understand what leverage Joe Lieberman is supposed to have in his battle to save his committee chairmanship. [...] Lieberman can't swing control [of the Senate] to the GOP. And presumably Lieberman isn't going to adopt liberal views on foreign policy to make Democrats happy and keep his seat. Is he saying that if Democrats decide to put a more loyal partisan in charge of the committee he'll disavow his previous views on domestic issues and become an opponent of Roe v. Wade and a climate change denier? It's in his power to make that threat, I suppose, but if he wants to make it he ought to say so plainly and squarely for everyone to hear -- that would be a pretty dishonorable kind of threat to make. But if that's not what he's saying, then he ought to be asking for forgiveness not 'keeping all his options open.'"

LIEBERMAN III: If You Trust This Guy, You're Making A Huge Mistake

Liberal bloggers were sad to learn that Obama "has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress". They think that Obama is making a mistake by trusting Lieberman:

• digby: "So Obama has told the Democrats that he wants them to leave Joe Lieberman alone. He will regret it. Joe Lieberman is a sanctimonious egomaniac who has no sense of loyalty or gratitude and he will stab Obama in the back as often as possible. He may even use his subpoena power on the Homeland Security Committee (which they are going to have to let him keep) to harrass him on behalf of conservative interests. It's a huge mistake to keep him in the caucus where he will have knowledge of their strategy and legislative tactics. He will be the first one called upon to 'speak for' Democrats who are unhappy with Obama's inevitable 'overreaching.' He is a mole for the Republican party."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Lieberman is the Fox News of the Senate. Enable him now, and it'll just bite you in the rear later. Obama might as well recognize Joe's bad faith early and save himself the headache."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks this incident illustrates the ideological differences between Dem politicians and the netroots: "Our elected leadership simply does not share the same assumptions about politics that we do. We believe that Lieberman was rejected by Democratic primary voters and that his campaigning against Obama, our nominee, suggest he's not worth keeping in the party. They believe that the primary voters' choice was irrelevant, that his campaigning against Obama was mostly annoying and unrelated to policy, and that the votes and relationships within the Senate and among different elite decision-makers are all that matters. It's disagreement based on different conceptions of politics, and it means that we have to exercise power in aggressive ways within the party to frustrate and annoy our leaders."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis offers his thoughts: "Lieberman endorsed the Republican candidate for president. He appeared with him at numerous rallies, including McCain's final rally the night before the election. Lieberman dissed Dems at the Republican convention, a la [ex-GA Sen.] Zell Miller. Lieberman accused Obama of being un-American. These are not crimes to the far-left of the Democratic party. This is a betrayal of the Democratic party and our candidate. And it's nice for Obama to want to make nice (not that Obama has much of a choice -- what's he gonna say, off with is head?) But at some point, Democrats need to have some backbone. [...] The party never gives Democrats a reason to toe the line. And we wonder why they stray? Joe Lieberman is going to screw us again. I am just counting the days until he starts to hold hearings to embarrass President Obama and his fellow Democrats. Then the Democrats will have only themselves to blame. As always."

LIEBERMAN IV: Be More Specific, Obama!

Several liberal bloggers asked Obama to clarify whether or not he wants Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship, not whether or not he wants Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Dems. This morning, TPM's Greg Sargent posted a response from the Obama camp:

"President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't 'hold any grudges' against Senator Joe Lieberman for opposing his presidential candidacy, and will not take any position on the question of whether Lieberman should be permitted to keep his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, an Obama spokesperson just confirmed to us.

'We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair,' Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama's stance on Lieberman's future."

Most liberal bloggers think the Obama camp's statement about not holding "grudges" will help Lieberman preserve his committee chairmanship:

• Sargent: "The move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman from the committee."
• Orton: "This statement is intentionally fuzzy -- it splits the baby. [...] While some read this as an Obama blessing of whatever the Senate decides, I think it's instead quite beneficial to Lieberman's case. Joe has been working tirelessly to blur the situation -- publicly trying to make nice with Obama and convince the world that his election conduct was within bounds and reasonable. If Lieberman can frame attempts to strip his chairmanship as retribution, he'll win."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is a bit of a setback to the campaign to oust Lieberman from his committee chairmanship. Internal Democratic Senate caucus support to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship appears significantly based on Lieberman's support for McCain. For the Obama campaign to say 'meh, we don't care that he supported McCain,' will thus help Lieberman out quite a bit. Some will argue that there is no political benefit to be had for the Obama campaign to publicly oppose Lieberman's chairmanship. That may be true, but we need to remember is actually 'Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,' and as such is the committee charged with oversight of the executive branch. Surely, having someone more favorable to your administration than Lieberman would be useful to an incoming administration."

Moulitsas disagrees: "Greg Sargent seems to take this as pro-Lieberman. I see it exactly the opposite -- it's a generic, 'Reid can do what he wants in his Senate' type of statement. Nowhere does Cutter say that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, and nowhere does he demand that Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. Saying 'we'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats' isn't any huge shakes because, quite frankly, no one is seriously demanding that Lieberman be kicked out of the caucus. The question is whether he should keep his committee chairmanship, and on that front, Obama's team has punted. [...] It's on Reid's plate. If Lieberman keeps his committee leadership, it'll be Reid's fault. Everyone has dumped the decision on his lap, and it should be an easy enough one to make."

MN SEN: Don't Let Dems Steal This Seat!

Conservative bloggers are accusing Dems of trying to steal the MN SEN election for Al Franken (who's currently trailing GOP Sen. Coleman by 206 votes):

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Based on my own research, I'm convinced that the two big increases in Franken's total that have been clearly reported on -- Mountain Iron Precinct 1 and Partridge Township -- are legitimate. The Coleman campaign sent a representative to Mountain Iron today to get to the bottom of that 100-vote jump, but the 'corrected' totals look right in the context of the other races in Precinct 1 and the results in Precinct 2. [...] I don't know what the story is in Two Harbors, but the one Franken bump that is clearly dubious is the 30-plus absentee ballots that a Democrat ostensibly discovered in the back seat of her car. There is no way that should happen. There is, I suspect, much more of the same to come."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Democrats have no shame. According to the AP, Joker Al Franken's campaign tried to add votes to their tally that had already been disqualified. Fortunately, the Hennepin County Board of Elections shot them down. [...] The Franken campaign is running out of ways to steal the election. So they are flailing for lame mechanisms to do so. They are afraid."
• RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "If you think the MN race is over just because all the votes have been counted and Norm Coleman ended up with more, then you must not have been around for the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial Election. Currently, Coleman leads Franken by right around 200 votes, and the Democrats have to feel at this point like they can find at least that many votes stashed 'forgotten' in the trunk of some election worker's car. [...] Norm Coleman won his seat in a bitter and close election; help him keep it."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "John Lott finds Al Franken's odd vote gains in Minnesota -- before any recount -- statistically implausible. [...] Matthew Vadum reported on the main site on the ACORN allying overseeing the vote-tallying process. Are the Democrats not done trying to get to 60 seats in the Senate?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Lott: Minnesota could be the new Washington. Or, as Dr. John Lott explains in his latest column, Minnesota may avoid the distinction of being the latest poster state for voter fraud if elections officials can take control of the process quickly. John notes that the additional votes 'discovered' for Al Franken against Norm Coleman seem suspicious, especially since they involve mainly three precincts out of over four thousand."

RNC: Newt To The Rescue?

Most conservative bloggers are enthusiastic about the possibility of Newt Gingrich running for RNC chairman (although they're also fond of ex-MD LG Michael Steele):

• Morrissey: "Some wanted Gingrich to run for President in 2008, but this role would suit him much better. Gingrich has operated best as a philosopher for the conservative movement, someone who can both capture the essence of conservatism and put it into action. Gingrich has the skill to communicate to a national audience and an emeritus status that will have people paying attention when he speaks. As RNC chair, his political baggage becomes irrelevant, allowing him to focus on party- and agenda-building instead of running for office. Most importantly, Gingrich understands the technological tools that escaped the GOP in 2008."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "It's on: Gingrich versus Michael Steele for RNC chair. [...] I'm partial to Newt just because he seems at times to be the only man left in the party with any new policy ideas, but you can't go wrong either way."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Now that Michael Steele is in the race, I think I am going to have to...still go with Gingrich. Why? Because I think Gingrich is the best idea man in the Republican Party, has more experience than Steele, and has led the Party back from the wilderness before. That being said, Michael Steele would be an excellent selection as well. He's young, charismatic, gets it, likes the blogosphere, is popular with conservatives, and understands how to pitch younger voters. Having these two guys battling it out for the RNC chair position is a win/win, because no matter who gets it, it's good for conservatives...which is why I worry that neither of them will get it."

Other conservative bloggers are skeptical of Gingrich:

• Michelle Malkin: "He crumbled on the behemoth bailout. He cuddled Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore's global warming couch. And he's played footsie with Hillary Clinton on health care. Is Newt Gingrich really the best choice for RNC chairman?"
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Those inclined to support Newt Gingrich's apparent bid to chair the RNC on the grounds that he's always flush with new ideas should go back and re-read the former Speaker's list, from back in May, of policy proposals that the GOP ought to embrace to avoid disaster in November. If you find Newt's manifesto -- which urged Republicans to 'overhaul the census and cut its budget radically,' to 'implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system,' and to double down on porkbusting, among other ideas -- to be a plausible blueprint for a Republican revival, then he's your man. If you have the same reaction I did, though, you might want to root for Michael Steele instead."

Several conservative bloggers are also enthusiastic about the possibility of ex-TN Sen. Fred Thompson running for RNC chairman:

• The Next Right's Jon Henke: "The RNC Chair will be in a unique position of Party and movement leadership in years ahead. The Party will need both the tacticion and the strategist. And the most important role of the RNC Chair may well be that of visionary leader. So, who actually embodies the Republican Party ideals best? I've previously suggested Fred Thompson would be an ideal fit as an RNC General Chairman -- a communicator who gets the ideals, the policy and the message -- while leaving the role of RNC Chair to the administrative manager."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "My regard for Thompson...as a communicator and as a person well grounded in winning conservative principles, is very high. His potential candidacy is quite intriguing, to say the least..."

DNC: Long Live The 50-State Strategy

Liberal bloggers are praising DNC Chairman Howard Dean following reports that Dean "is preparing to relinquish his chairmanship":

• Moulitsas: "One of my goals the next few weeks is to make sure that Howard Dean gets his due props and, by extension, all of us who fought to make Dean's vision a reality. [...] If 2008 has taught us anything, it's that Democrats can compete near everywhere, and no state, county, or precinct need be ignored. And while that was our message, it was Howard who took it to DC headfirst against fierce establishment opposition. The status quo 'battleground state' mentality may have been a loser for Democrats, but the DC political elite still had nice, comfortable lives, and anything that might threaten their status was suspect."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I very clearly remember the reaction from the political establishment when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was chosen to head the Democratic National Committee. Most responded with two words, 'Uh oh.' Four years and two very successful campaign cycles later, Dean's achievements as chairman are unquestioned, and the benefits of his innovative 50-state strategy are self-evident. We learned today that Dean is departing the DNC, but he'll leave as something of a hero."
• TalkLeft's TChris: "Detractors of Howard Dean's work as chair of the Democratic National Committee (all he did, after all, was to deliver strong Democratic victories in two successive elections, ultimately helping the Obama campaign flip red states blue and turn much of the formerly red west a nice shade of purple) won't have Dean to kick around any more."
• Oliver Willis: "Thanks to Howard Dean, the state of our party is STRONG."

Bowers is concerned that Dean's departure (and the departure of numerous DNC organizers) means that the DNC will no longer pursue a 50-state strategy: "People inside the DNC are telling me that the program is not dead. This doesn't surprise me, because it is a popular program and I imagine that many of the remaining staffers at the DNC are committed to the program. At the same time, all of the organizers -- who were chosen by local state parties -- have been fired. That effectively kills the program, no matter the messaging and commitment of the remaining staffers. [...] Many of the large donors who always wanted Dean out and the program terminated seem to have, at least, temporarily received their wish. Although I have no evidence to support this at the current time, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is connected to Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Against Compassionate Conservatism

John Hawkins:

"This is still a center-right country and the GOP brand can continue to win elections. However, this 'new Coke' called 'compassionate conservatism,' which features rapidly expanding government, large deficits, corruption, incompetence, and amnesty for illegal aliens has been a horrific failure -- and that should have been painfully obvious long ago. But, that just goes to show you, once again, that the market is much faster and smarter than our politicians. Coke brought the 'old Coke' back less than 3 months after the introduction of 'new Coke' while the Republicans seem poised to continue pushing 'compassionate conservatism' even after being brutally beaten in two straight elections."

LEST WE FORGET: Coworker Has That Excuse That's Going Around

From The Onion:

"ANN ARBOR, MI -- Digital Copy Shoppe employee Don Newson, 38, called in to work on Wednesday complaining that he was certain he had come down with the 24-hour excuse that has been going around. 'My back is killing me, I feel stuffed up, and I have this pounding headache,' said Newson, citing the initial symptoms of the excuse, which often afflicts those who are already late for work. 'It sucks, because I want to come in, but I don't want anyone else to catch what I've got. I should be fine after sleeping for a couple days.' Newson has placed himself on a strict regimen of watching the past six episodes of Entourage on HBO on Demand to cure the excuse."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 11, 2008 01:26 PM