November 19, 2008

11/19: This One Stings

Liberal bloggers are outraged that Senate Dems decided by a 42-13 vote to allow ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs committee (while taking away his chairmanship of a less important environmental subcommittee). Here are a few of their comments:

• "I'm done with [Harry] Reid as Senate leader."
• "It's becoming increasingly clear that the current crop of Democrats are genetically incapable of showing, or growing, a spine."
• "Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but 'change.'"

Lefty bloggers are portraying Senate Dems as weak and overly concerned with appearing bipartisan. They're also accusing Senate Dems of ignoring the will of the electorate, which "voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies." One liberal blogger is urging her readers to "sign up to help re-defeat Joe Lieberman" in CT's 2012 Senate race.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are taking pleasure in their liberal counterparts' "bitter frustration". One righty blogger described yesterday's Senate vote as proof that "the netroots are no longer needed" once an election is over.

LIEBERMAN: This Isn't Change We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers are angry and upset that Senate Dems allowed Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[This vote demonstrates] disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems. I'm done with Reid as Senate leader."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "It's high irony for Reid to talk about being 'unified as Democrats.' He just told the people who worked hard for [Barack] Obama's election, who still want to see some oversight on Katrina, to go Cheney themselves. I'm not feeling too welcome at the moment."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Maybe we don't need those extra Senate seats in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. I mean, I'd love for [Mark] Begich, [Al] Franken and [Jim] Martin to win, but what's the point? Why bust our asses for these guys, for the party, when people like Lieberman, who actually campaigned AGAINST some of these guys, are rewarded for their betrayal? It's becoming increasingly clear that the current crop of Democrats are genetically incapable of showing, or growing, a spine. The only way to get anything in this party is to publicly betray the party, to beat the living crap out of them, to stick the knife in deep and twist. Lesson duly noted."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't."

Daily Kos' Hunter explains why he considers this vote significant: "People in America want a change from the Bush years -- desperately. And they voted for it, delivering a thumping mandate for Obama. They want things to change, and that's why this minor battle has taken on so much meaning, and why people are so peeved: this was the first test of mettle, and it showed no mettle at all. [...] You don't put the status quo guy in charge unless you want the status quo, and you don't put an ideological Republican in the Homeland Security chair unless you want the results to be Republican. That's why people are enraged -- not merely because Leiberman is such an ass, but because this is a clear signal that the Senate has no intention of running things in 2009 any differently than they did 2007 or 2008, and that means (1) weakness, (2) pussy-footing, and (3) allowing Republican obstructionism at every turn. Even in situations where the Republicans (or their ideological allies, like Lieberman) have absolutely no clout whatsoever."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen analyzes how this happened: "In retrospect, as soon as the option of kicking Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus was taken off the table, the center of gravity shifted. Initially, taking away Lieberman's committee chairmanship was the compromise/middle-ground between two extremes (giving him the boot and doing nothing). Once Democrats agreed that they preferred to keep Lieberman in the caucus, all of a sudden, stripping him of his gavel became the new extreme position, and the EPW subcommittee became the new 'compromise.' The shift obviously benefited Lieberman."

Benen continues: "Second, let's pause to appreciate just how smart Lieberman is. In this case, I don't mean that as a compliment. It was inconceivable that if Obama won in a veritable landslide, while the Senate Democratic caucus grew by (at least) six seats, that Lieberman would not only get off scot-free, but would also be in a position to dictate to Democrats, without any leverage at all, which outcomes he found 'unacceptable.' If someone had predicted this scenario to me a month ago, I could have found it ridiculous. And yet, here we are."

LIEBERMAN II: Way To Stand Up For Yourselves, Dems!

Liberal bloggers are portraying Senate Dems as weak and overly concerned with appearing bipartisan:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "It appears as though four in five Democrats in the United States Senate are content with their committee leadership including a member who actively campaigned not only for the Republican Presidential nominee but also Republican Senators up for reelection this fall. I knew the Senate was a collegial place...I just didn't know it was this collegial."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but 'change.' That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I see that Senate Democrats have voted to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship. I guess they really showed him, didn't they? No Democrat will ever dare to support a Republican candidate for president, speak at the Republican national convention in prime time, and bad mouth the Democratic Party's candidate ever again."
• Benen: "Lieberman endorsed McCain, spoke at the GOP convention, helped down-ballot Republicans, and smeared the Democratic nominee at every available opportunity, and the caucus decided to let him off the hook entirely."

In a separate post, Moulitsas writes: "I have an idea! In the spirit of post-partisanship, and in spite of the American people's overwhelming votes for change in 2006 and 2008, let's appoint fierce global warming critic James Inhofe to the Environment and Public Works committee! Shit, that wouldn't be any worse than appointing fierce Obama critic and Iraq War supporter Joe Lieberman to the Homeland Security committee. But in all seriousness, I think we've now learned that Joe Lieberman is the smartest politician in DC. He knew Democrats were spineless capitulators who would cave at the merest threat no matter how many times he shit in their face. He's probably having a great laugh about it just about now. Given how much he is hated by his constituents, he at least knows that the Senate Democratic caucus are a bunch of spineless asses utterly unwilling and unable to deliver the change the American people requested."

LIEBERMAN III: Dean Tries To Bridge The Divide

DNC Chair Howard Dean tried to mollify the netroots after the Senate vote by conducting a round of calls with liberal bloggers (including Hamsher, Joan McCarter, Nate Silver, and Greg Sargent):

• McCarter: "Dean's right, we are going to have to figure out where we go from here with a new administration, what our role as the left flank is going to be, and what battles we pick. Obama and the Senate Dems decided that repudiating Joe wasn't worth the potential downsides -- we'll see how that works for them in the next few years. Given Joe's track record, it could be a very bad bet on their part. The Joe Lieberman fight was more than symbolic, more than revenge, more than anger. It's been a long-standing fight to try to make Democrats stand up for themselves and what they believe in. Lieberman obviously abandoned the core of the party when he decided to stand with Bush and McCain on the critical issues of the day. This is a battle we had to fight, if we were going to remain true to our role in the party. There are going to be plenty more in the future..."
• Sargent: "Dean also said he understood the natural human desire for 'revenge,' a description that will dismay many of Dean's allies in the liberal blogosphere, who maintain (as do I) that this wasn't solely about retribution."

Moulitsas mocks Dean's assertion that Dems earned "a mandate for reconciliation" with their victories this year: "Given this 'mandate for reconciliation', I suspect that Reid won't reduce committee staff and seats for Republicans? Since that would be punitive. And we all want reconciliation, right? And maybe we can give Inhofe his committee chairmanship back, because apparently, the American people didn't vote for change. And while we're at it, it just wouldn't be right for Obama to rid the executive branch of its thousands of political appointees, right? Because the first act once you have a 'mandate for reconciliation' shouldn't be booting people out of their jobs for the pesky little reason that they supported the other party. Right?"

Stoller harshly criticizes Dean's defense of the Senate's decision: "There were three Senators who said they spoke up against Lieberman in the caucus today. [OR Sen.-elect Jeff] Merkley, [VT Sen. Bernie] Sanders, and [VT Sen. Pat] Leahy. All three should be commended, as they were not just exercising a vote but resisting the wishes of President-elect Obama. Most Democrats fell in line, Howard Dean leading the way in his final act of humiliating kowtowing before the DC Democrats who repeatedly undermine him and his backers."

LIEBERMAN IV: Putting Policy First?

A few liberal bloggers suggested that allowing Lieberman to keep his chairmanship was smart from a policy perspective, even if it wasn't emotionally satisfying:

• Ezra Klein: "If [this is] not the most satisfying resolution, it's almost certainly the smartest one. Obama is counting votes, not prosecuting grudges. Lieberman's slingshot into the furthest reaches of the far right was always a sadly transparent reaction to his rejection by the left. Human beings do not enjoy criticism. They gravitate towards affirmation. If he can be flipped yet again, that's a far better outcome from the perspective of passing major pieces of legislation, even if it's not the most 'just' outcome from a party perspective. This, incidentally, is the other side of No Drama Obama: Part of avoiding drama is refusing to make decisions based on your own drama. You're seeing it with Lieberman and you're seeing it with [Hillary] Clinton. Whatever the objective strategic merits of these moves, Obama is building out his administration with little heed to the resentments and hurt feelings of the campaign. He's letting the campaign drama die so that his agenda may live."
• Singer: "Some in the press may try to frame today's vote on Joe Lieberman, and specifically Barack Obama's actions in relation to the vote, on left versus right terms, that it was a Sister Souljah moment in a sense. Yet it seems to me that this actually fits more neatly into another frame -- namely that Obama putting policy above process. [...] Process dictates (and I think it's right here) that Lieberman should not enjoy the benefits of the Democratic majority he undercut and campaigned against, retaining his chairmanship. Yet Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does. Under this rationale, Obama will have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the Senate with Lieberman beholden to him than Lieberman weaker, but mad at him."

MyDD's Josh Orton disagrees with Singer: "First, there's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against [Ned] Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election. I also don't agree that 'Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.' Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power."

LIEBERMAN V: Suck On That, Liberals!

The netroots were disgusted after an anonymous Senate Dem aide made the following comments to The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:

"Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: 'The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.'"

• Hamsher: "I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world. No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him."
• Aravosis: "Jane Hamsher is right. The Democrats have sent a clear message to all of you out there, to the entire blogosphere, but also to the larger Netroots (and that includes MoveOn, Media Matters and everyone else in the progressive online space). You don't matter to these people. They don't fear you, so they don't care what you think."
• Greenwald: "Senate Democrats...consider it a good thing to scorn their supporters on what they consider to be 'the Left.' For anyone willing to hear it, they've made as clear and resounding a statement -- again -- about who they are and who they do and don't listen to."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Seems to me that House and Senate leaders have declared an all-out war on 'the Left.' In fact, 'seems' is the wrong word. It doesn't 'seem' like that. They are actually saying it explicitly. [...] It's pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it's a great public message to declare jihad on progressives. I don't know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush's ideological conservatism and solve problems -- not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding 'the Left.' If we wanted that, wouldn't we have elected John McCain and Sarah Palin?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What with several wars and an economic meltdown and and unstable future for oil consumption, you would think there would be lots of things to worry about for our elected leaders and beltway insiders. You would be wrong. Apparently the first priority for the beltway boys is pissing off the nutroots."

LIEBERMAN VI: Schadenfreude On The Right

Several conservative bloggers used yesterday's Senate vote as an opportunity to mock the netroots:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Behold the awesome power of the netroots!"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This action is taken in direct defiance of the netroots, which pushed for the maximum punishment for Lieberman. The netroots, in their vanity, are completely shocked and outraged, but one wonders why this is so. After all, the election is over, the money-raising has abated for the moment, the ginning up of partisan passions is no longer as necessary as it was and the politicians in Washington don't have to pretend that they are impressed by the likes of Daily Kos, or Firedoglake or any other hyperpartisan netroots site out there. In short, for the moment, the netroots are no longer needed and as such, there is no need to cater to the revenge fantasies nursed by the netroots. Thus today's vote in the Senate Democratic Caucus. There will be other such votes that will enrage and disappoint the netroots. After those votes are taken, the political class will have the nerve to approach the netroots and ask for more support. And unless I miss my guess, the netroots will readily say 'yes,' credulously believing that if only it is more accommodating, it will be listened to next time. Good luck with that."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Doesn't 2009 look a little better already? Anybody want to celebrate their bitter frustration?"

Weekly Standard blogger (and ex-McCain spokesperson) Michael Goldfarb slams Lieberman's liberal critics: "Perhaps Lieberman was more committed to the fight than his counterpart on the Obama campaign, [NE Sen.] Chuck Hagel, but any sense of proportion has been lost by the hysterics leading the anti-Joe lynch mob. And there are no pitchfork wielding Republicans intent on burning Chuck Hagel at the stake. There was hardly a peep from the right over his heresy because nobody cared. The Democratic party and the left won a stunning victory in this election, and while they should be savoring it (and most are) a few are busy trying to settle old scores. It's pathetic, but it's also cause for some optimism: these people are a cancer on the Democratic party that even a landslide victory couldn't cure."

HOLDER: Obama Strikes Out Again

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's apparent decision to tap ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "So Sen. Obama, who is trying to distance himself from the Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, has named to his Vice Presidential Search Committee Eric Holder...the top Clinton Justice Department official who was deeply enmeshed in the disgraceful pardons granted by President [Bill] Clinton on his way out the door -- pardons which included two Weather Underground terrorists, whose lengthy terrorism sentences were commuted. (And that is to say nothing of Holder's involvement in the infamous pardon of the international fraudster, Marc Rich.)"
• Jennifer Rubin: "...The mind reels as to why this person, who participated in a notorious Clinton scandal and himself seemed so oblivious to his own conflict of interest, would be chosen. Is this the New Politics? Or is it a throwback to the Clinton years, the very years Obama is attempting to turn the page on, to put behind us all? When one looks to the people Obama in turn has selected as mentors (e.g., Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright, Father Michael Pfleger), friends (e.g., Tony Rezko), and now key advisors (e.g., Eric Holder), voters may begin to question whether Obama possesses the judgment necessary to run an effective and scandal-free administration. If Holder is emblematic of Obama's personnel decisions and an example of what is to come, the answer is 'no.'"

Conservative bloggers are also upset that ex-MD LG Michael Steele, who's campaigning to be the next RNC Chairman, praised Holder as "a good man" and "a principled individual":

• McCarthy: "Sure, Michael, Eric Holder is a very 'principled individual.' As the editors observe this morning, it's a shame those principles don't include adherence to the Justice Department's high standards of procedural rigor, equal justice under the law, and non-politicized law enforcement -- y'know, the ones Democrats have been lecturing us about for the last several years. I wonder what Sen. [Charles] Schumer -- or, for that matter, Michael Steele -- would say if [ex-AG] Alberto Gonzales had greased the skids to pardon 16 FALN terrorists, two Weather Underground terrorists, and Marc Rich...when, in his spare time, he was having six-year-olds seized at gunpoint by SWAT teams for transport to a Communist dictatorship."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If I were a Republican senator, I might be justifiably peeved that my 'chairman' signed off on two sensitive nominations before they even hit the Senate."

Power Line's John Hinderaker is one of the few conservative bloggers who isn't particularly troubled by Holder: "Holder has been attacked for his role in the Marc Rich pardon, which you can read about here; the bottom line, I think, is that Holder was a Clinton loyalist and acted as such. Bill Clinton is responsible for the Rich pardon, not Holder, and it is silly for a single incident of this sort to blot a person's career, on either side of the aisle. Holder is no doubt much more liberal than we are, but that's what happens when a Democrat wins the Presidential election. He's no extremist; he was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and most recently has been working for Covington & Burling, not exactly an outpost of socialism. Holder is obviously a capable guy, and he is a DOJ insider in a way that Alberto Gonzales, say, could never be."

HOLDER II: A Fine Choice

Most liberal bloggers are comfortable with Holder, and they especially like his rhetoric on torture:

• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "If [Newsweek's] Michael Isikoff is correct in reporting that Eric Holder will be the new Attorney General it's probably a good sign that Obama really does intend to abandon the Bush torture policy."
• digby: "Eric Holder as AG sounds like an excellent choice to me. Check out what Jerome Corsi had to say about him in Newsmax last June."

Liberal bloggers are also downplaying Holder's role in Clinton's controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich:

• Drum: "I've been scanning a bunch of stuff about Eric Holder, Obama's apparent pick for attorney general, and the conventional wisdom appears to be pretty simple: (1.) He's basically a decent guy: sound views, hard worker, smart, honest, and generally well thought of. (2.) Conservatives are going to try their damnedest to work everyone into a lather over his rather modest involvement in the Marc Rich pardon eight years ago. From what I can tell, though, conservatives would be smarter to lay off. Holder really does appear to be honest, well briefed, straight shooting, and temperamentally moderate. They're going to get a liberal AG whether they like it or not, and they could do a lot worse than Holder if they somehow manage to torpedo his nomination."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I loathed [the Rich] pardon. But as far as I can tell, Holder's role was as follows: he was called hours before Bush was to be sworn in, and was asked what he thought about a pardon, which (he was told) Ehud Barak strongly supported. He should have raised red flags, but didn't. It's unclear how much he knew about the case, or whether he knew that the phone call to him was a significant part of what little vetting of the pardon there was. (Obviously, it should not have been. That was part of the problem.) This does not sound like a dealbreaker to me, especially since I suspect that in an Obama administration, people will not be asked to weigh in on pardons out of the blue on the night before he leaves office. Otherwise, he seems like a very impressive guy."
• The Reality-Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff: "Expect the right wing outrage machine to quickly spring into action. They will insist that Holder was somehow involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Don't believe a word of it. The 'evidence' that they will offer for this is a 'report' generated by the House Government Reform Committee chaired by that paragon of nonpartisan judiciousness, [IN Rep.] Dan Burton. Essentially, what happened was that Rich's attorneys came to Holder in the waning days (hours?) of the Clinton Administration with the pardon request. Holder didn't know much about it, and he referred them to White House Counsel Jack Quinn. Yes, Rich was a fugitive, but Holder didn't know anything about the case, so he didn't express an opinion. That's it. That's the whole thing. That's what is going to get [Rush] Limbaugh, and [Sean] Hannity, and Fox Noise, and [Bill] O'Reilly, and all of them so shocked, shocked, about the appointment."

STEVENS: Adios, Ted

Conservative bloggers aren't going to miss outgoing AK Sen. (and convicted felon) Ted Stevens, who lost his re-election bid. They're upset that the GOP allowed Stevens to run for re-election in the first place:

• The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham: "Stevens deserves to lose."
• Michelle Malkin: "Good riddance to Ted Stevens. Alaska's GOP corruptocrat has lost his Senate re-election bid. Shouldn't have taken so long."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I'm not happy about the Dems becoming more filibuster-proof, but I can't really mind this too much...I said last year that the GOP shouldn't have let [Stevens] run, and, well, they should've listened."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Stevens has lost. And the Republicans look as bad as the other guys for not taking a stand on the matter, in my humble opinion."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Another black eye for the GOP that could have been avoided if they'd pushed this tool into retirement back when they should have."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: All Is Not Forgiven

Right Wing News' John Hawkins is unhappy that McCain appears to be running for re-election in 2010:

"In the last 8 years, John McCain has been uniquely destructive to conservatism and the Republican Party. He has undercut Republicans time and time again, helped cripple the party's fundraising with McCain-Feingold, helped completely demoralize the conservative base by pushing amnesty and open borders -- and then to top it all off, he lost the 2008 presidential election for us while his aides classlessly trashed Sarah Palin.

If the choice is between having John McCain back for another 6 years in 2010 and having a Democrat, let me go on record now as saying I'd much rather have the Democrat. Put another way, if it came right down to it, 60 Democrats would be easier for conservatives to deal with than 59 Democrats and John McCain.

...Of course, it would be even better if we could beat McCain in a primary. That might be doable if we could get a high quality candidate. So, is there any prominent Republican in Arizona who wants to help save the Republican Party by beating McCain? If so, throw your hat in the ring...."

LEST WE FORGET: History Doomed To Repeat Itself, Reports Man Who Just Dropped Food On Pants

From The Onion:

"DENVER -- After dropping a chili dog in his lap Tuesday, area resident Marcus Nielson addressed the food-related blunder, calling it but another example of how history, marred by the inevitable folly of man, repeats itself. 'Will mankind never learn?' asked Nielson, gazing into the middle distance, his outstretched palm holding a limp and sodden paper plate. 'Sausages, ground beef, onions, garlic -- oh, what blind and obstinate fools we've been!' According to friends, Nielson has previously compared the spilling of macaroni salad to 'the inexorable march of time: its conclusion already a certainty,' likened the tipping over of various beverages to the 'age-old dance between balance and chaos,' and once, after falling down an entire flight of stairs, remarked, 'Jesus fucking Christ.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 19, 2008 12:47 PM