November 12, 2008

11/12: Ratcheting Up The Pressure

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The netroots have various reasons for wanting to punish Lieberman. Some argue that it's dangerous to give an outspoken Barack Obama critic the authority to conduct investigations of Obama's administration. Others argue that Lieberman doesn't deserve to chair this committee because he is "an anti-Muslim bigot" who has "actively worked to undermine the progressive agenda". Markos Moulitsas makes the case simply: "Plum committee chairmanships should go to those who worked to elect Democrats to the Senate and White House, not those who, like Lieberman, spoke at the RNC convention trashing our nominee and campaigned for Republicans in Senate races in Maine and Minnesota."

Now that it's been confirmed that the full Dem caucus "will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee", liberal bloggers are speculating about how the vote will break down. Chris Bowers predicts that a majority of Dem senators will vote to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship, but other bloggers are more pessimistic. Either way, it's clear that the netroots will spend the next week encouraging their readers to call their Dem senators and tell them to take away Lieberman's chairmanship. As Greg Sargent explains: "The decision to go forward with the vote offers the anti-Lieberman forces a key opportunity to ratchet up the pressure right now."

LIEBERMAN: Joe's Gotta Go

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Plum committee chairmanships should go to those who worked to elect Democrats to the Senate and White House, not those who, like Lieberman, spoke at the RNC convention trashing our nominee and campaigned for Republicans in Senate races in Maine and Minnesota."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "There's been a lot of discussion about Lieberman's behavior during the election, from suggesting Obama might be a Marxist to accusing him of 'not putting country first,' to other assorted incidents in which Lieberman embarrassed himself while shilling for John McCain. But none of those are reasons why Lieberman should lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman should lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee because it's about to be 2009 and there is no reason to keep an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a Committee that handles national security affairs. Lieberman participated in The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, a movie which claims there is a vast conspiracy of American Muslims to subvert democracy [...] These are the same people who gave us the shadowy anti-Muslim Obsession film that was distributed in newspapers in swing states during election season. Put simply, you can't have an anti-Muslim bigot in charge of Homeland Security when the country as a whole is dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism."

On the right side of the blogosphere, AmSpec Blog's James Antle doesn't think Lieberman has much leverage: "Next year the Democrats will control at least 57 Senate seats instead of the current 51-49 split and Dick Cheney will no longer be president of the Senate. That makes Lieberman a lot less useful to [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid & company. In case things don't work out with Reid, Lieberman is now said to be in talks with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about caucusing with the Republicans. But it's hard to see how that would be particularly useful unless Lieberman changes his position on some domestic issues or agrees to sustain GOP filibusters regardless of his personal position. With the economy looming larger than Iraq, Lieberman's voting record seems likely to return to the Democratic fold even if the Connecticut senator himself is expelled from it."

LIEBERMAN II: A Progressive No More

Many liberal bloggers are promoting a new Think Progress report entitled, "Joe Lieberman: The Progressive Who Lost His Way". The report lists a number of Lieberman statements over the years and concludes:

"While Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has fought for progressive policies in the past -- such as protecting the environment and expanding civil rights -- his recent record demonstrates that he's a progressive no more. As this report documents, Lieberman has embraced the right wing on far more than foreign policy. In fact, he has betrayed progressive principles on a variety of domestic issues. As he has lurched to the right, Lieberman has actively worked to undermine the progressive agenda."

• Moulitsas: "The 'he votes with us on everything but the war' crap is just that -- crap, as a comprehensive study by the Center for American Progress notes. [...] This guy long ago lost his way, which is why his own constituents have tired of him."
• Atrios: "Not just the war. And not just that he campaigned for McCain and supported Republican senators. Joe's bad for a lot of reasons."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If anyone has any lingering doubts as to why there should be at least some consequence for Lieberman's misconduct, the fine folks at ThinkProgress have a new report highlighting the senator's recent record."

LIEBERMAN III: Judged By A Panel Of His Peers

Now that it's been confirmed that the full Dem caucus "will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee", liberal bloggers are discussing the upcoming vote:

• TPM's Sargent: "This isn't about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. It's about the committee chairmanship. The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as 'poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals,' because then it becomes solely about retribution."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Let's be clear: the question on the table is not whether Dems will boot Joe from their caucus. The question is whether Lieberman will remain chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. We've heard rumors that the decision would be made by a caucus vote, but now, a Senate aide tells Sargent, it's official. [...] Lieberman really has one lifeline left: convince enough Senators in the Dem caucus that stripping him of his chair would be vindictive, mean, and partisan. We all know how nervous politicians get when someone accuses them of *gasp* being partisan...But there's no reason to give Lieberman an inch. Removing him as chair is a perfectly appropriate remedy for how he's politicized national security to attack his own party. Joe walked into this all on his own."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[The] full Dem caucus will vote on Lieberman's fate. At least now we can force the spineless wonders to take a public position. It is depressing how quickly the Democrats are choosing to show they have no spine. It's a week since the election. I think that's a record."

Open Left's Bowers does some "whip counting" and concludes that a majority of Dems will probably vote to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship: "Six members of the Senate -- [DE Sen. Thomas] Carper, [HI Sen. Daniel] Inouye, [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu, [NE Sen. Ben] Nelson, [AK Sen. Mark] Pryor and [CO Sen. Ken] Salazar -- publicly backed Lieberman over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont two years ago. As such, it is safe to mark these six in Lieberman's column. They all backed Joe running against a Democrat once before, so why would this be any different? [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh (a former DLC chair who was eyeing a Presidential bid back in 2006) and [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd (also from Connecticut) have come out in support of Lieberman. This brings Lieberman's total to eight. Howard Fineman report[s] that [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin and [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer are opposed to Lieberman keeping the Homeland Security Chairmanship. [...] Schumer is the DSCC chair who has overseen the first election of fifteen of the Democratic Senators who will be at the meeting. Those fifteen Senators also won't appreciate Lieberman running against Democrats in 2006 and 2008, since they were all elected in those two years. Harry Reid also opposes Lieberman keeping the chairmanship. If he didn't, then what would all of this arguing even be about? [...] In addition to Schumer, Reid, and Durbin, nineteen other incumbent Democrats who will be in the Senate in 2010 publicly supported Ned Lamont back in 2006. These are our best chance for votes among sitting Senators. Overall, these numbers leave me cautiously optimistic. We have the leadership on our side, while Lieberman basically has the Democratic half of the Gang of Fourteen."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks Bowers' whip count is "optimistic": "[Bowers] counts [CA Sen. Barbara] Boxer as someone who would vote for expulsion. While Boxer towed the line in 2006 and ultimately supported Lamont as the Democratic nominee, she's a good friend of Joe's who campaigned for him during the primary -- with semi-disastrous results. I don't see Boxer throwing Short Ride under the bus. Of course, you can always call and ask her."

Meanwhile, Salon's Green Greenwald is pessimistic about the chances of taking away Lieberman's chairmanship: "This will be decided by secret Senate ballot, so we'll likely never know who did what. It's hard to say what will happen, but if I had to guess, I'd say that Lieberman will remain exactly as is. Does anyone really have any faith in Senate Democrats to do anything else?"

MCCAIN: Weak Sauce, Maverick

Many conservative bloggers were hoping that McCain would use last night's appearance on "The Tonight Show" as an opportunity to denounce his anonymous campaign aides who leaked unflattering stories about Sarah Palin:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Apparently John McCain will be on the [Jay] Leno show tonight. It will be disappointing if he fails to disassociate himself from his classless aides."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The silence from John McCain about all the anti-Sarah Palin rumors being peddled to press has been remarkable. Why hasn't he stood up for her? He should have tried to put an end to the ugliness."

These bloggers were disappointed that McCain did not denounce the anonymous aides:

• Carpenter: "John McCain didn't have much of an answer for all the rumors members of his campaign are peddling about Sarah Palin in his first post-election appearance. Palin's name didn't even come up in his 'Tonight Show' interview until after the first commercial break and McCain's first segment was nearly seven minutes long! [...] McCain never said the rumors were untrue or denounced the people pushing them."
• Michelle Malkin: "From the man whose best-sellers include 'Why Courage Matters' and 'Character Is Destiny' comes this underwhelming reaction to the cowardly smearing of Sarah Palin by his own unnamed staffers: 'These things happen.' Not: 'Shame on the leakers. I denounce and renounce them.' Not: 'I'm going to get to the bottom of this and make sure those blabbermouths never work in a major campaign again.' Just: 'These things happen.' Heckuva job, McLame."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson -- who has been trying to track down the anonymous McCain aides leaking unflattering stories about Palin -- points a finger at ex-NH AG Tom Rath: "Tom Rath is the former Attorney General General of New Hampshire. He's also been a Republican National Committeeman. He is not the type of guy people should treat lightly. I am, consequently, rather disturbed that several people, both inside and outside the McCain campaign -- trusted people -- tell me Mr. Rath is responsible for the Newsweek story about Sarah Palin's temper tantrum in New Hampshire. [...] Rath is one of those who hitched his wagon to Mitt Romney. It is, however, people in the Romney camp pointing fingers at Rath, in addition to McCain staffers. I called Mr. Rath at his office to ask him about it. I said I was calling about the latest Sarah Palin smear. He seemed to know which one I was talking about. He vigorously denied the charge, said he had never met Sarah Palin before, and was not responsible for it. I guess the question then is why are people close to Mitt Romney and John McCain looking disapprovingly in his direction?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Palin's Dilemma

Hot Air's Allahpundit:

"Read Ron Brownstein's exit poll number-crunching to see how much work she has to do among independents to become a viable presidential candidate. The only way she adds to that 35 percent, I think, is to totally wonk out on foreign and domestic policy in interviews going forward. But that presents a dilemma: The reason the media's fascinated with her is because she's not a wonk, but rather an average Jill who shuttles the kids to school and whips up a little moose stew on the fly when she's not busy governing the biggest state in America. That's why not one, not two, but all three interviews she's done this week have included scenes of her in the kitchen and around the house. Once she starts demanding that they skip the vignettes related to her persona and ask her questions about Ukraine, how many reporters will still want to talk to her?"

LEST WE FORGET: In Defense Of Bloggers Who Live In Their Parents' Basements

During her interview with FOX News' Greta Van Susteren, Palin took a shot at liberal bloggers:

"Ms. Palin directed most of her media criticism at liberal bloggers, whom she twice called, 'those bloggers in their parents' basement just talkin' garbage.'"

Blue Tidal Wave's The Saint thinks this is unfair (h/t John Cole):

"How quickly Palin forgets who brought her to the nation's attention. It was a conservative blogger who lived in his parents' basement. University of Colorado-Colorado Springs student and right wing blogger Adam Brickley was given credit for being the first to envision Palin as a Republican vice-presidential candidate via his website: http://www.palinforvp.blogspot.com. Sarah and Todd Palin personally called to thank Brickley after she was selected as McCain's running mate."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 12, 2008 12:31 PM