November 07, 2008

11/7: Where Does He Go Now?

The fate of ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen Joe Lieberman is the big topic in the blogosphere today, following yesterday's widely publicized meeting between Lieberman and Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid. Most liberal bloggers support Reid's desire to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Committee, but a Lieberman aide warned that "losing the chairmanship is unacceptable" and that it might prompt Lieberman to leave the Dem caucus. Nevertheless, lefty bloggers are circulating a petition telling the Dem Steering Committee to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.

While the netroots obviously have a personal stake in dishing out some payback to their longtime foe, they believe that there are other important reasons for taking away Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. David Sirota explains: "I want him removed from his chairmanship not merely because I don't like him, but because of the real danger Joe Lieberman presents -- Joe Lieberman with subpoena power to investigate the [Barack] Obama administration." Jane Hamsher makes a similar point: "Though Lieberman has not investigated one meaningful scandal in his role as chairman during the [George W.] Bush Administration, we are certain he will only be too happy to cause problems for an Obama administration when 2009 rolls around."

Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers are urging Lieberman to switch parties...

LIEBERMAN: Joe's Gotta Go

Liberal bloggers are urging the Dem Steering Committee to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee:

• Open Left's Sirota: "I, like most readers here, don't like Joe Lieberman (obviously). I, like most readers here, want him removed from his chairmanship. But I want him removed from his chairmanship not merely because I don't like him, but because of the real danger Joe Lieberman presents -- Joe Lieberman with subpoena power to investigate the Obama administration. Lieberman has been a partisan attack dog for the Republicans against Obama for many months now. Empowering that attack dog with the subpoena power that comes with a committee chairmanship (and especially on a committee whose role is broad executive investigations) is insane."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Get ready to lobby these senators [on the Steering Committee]. The key isn't to push for Lieberman's ouster from the caucus. We don't need him for control of the chamber given our expanded majority, but if he's a backbencher with no authority, who cares? Let him wallow in our majority stripped of all influence. We could use his votes on important domestic policy like EFCA and whatnot, without having to deal with him becoming a fierce critic of the Obama Administration at the head of the key Homeland Security committee. Heck, throw him a bone with a minor sub-committee chairmanship, the kind they give promising freshman senators to beef up their resumes. That way he can't cry that Democrats are throwing him off the caucus. If he wants to reject that option, and he probably would since it would kind of be an insult, then so be it. Let him reject a gracious Democratic offer, rather than the other way around. But no committee chairmanship. Those need to be reserved for real Democrats and genuine allies."
• The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman: "For two years, the Republican Party falsely accused Barack Obama of hastening the genocide of the Jewish people -- while Sen. Joe Lieberman uttered not one word of rebuke. Even worse, Lieberman gave this sick Republican Party strategy his seal of approval by campaigning for John McCain, in the course of which he repeatedly echoed the lie that Barack Obama was somehow dangerous to Israel. [...] If Harry Reid allows Lieberman to continue to hold authority over other Democrats in the Senate, by retaining his committee chairmanships, then the shame of Lieberman's immoral behavior in the 2008 election will surely stain the Democratic Party."
• Atrios: "It's not exactly news that the man who wants to end the war more than anyone is a liar. He's not someone who can be trusted. Let's hope Reid does the right thing -- not just for the country but for his fellow Democratic senators -- and gives Lieberman the boot."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's time for Joe to go."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Hamsher has launched a petition urging the Dem Steering Committee to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship: "We've watched for years as Joe called us traitors, lied his face off, stabbed Democrats in the back and did everything he could to keep Barack Obama out of the white house. Lieberman laundered smears that even McCain wasn't willing to launch himself. [...] Make no mistake about it -- Lieberman was openingly threatening the Democratic caucus in his press conference today. Enough is enough. Please sign the petition to the Steering and Outreach Committee, telling them it's time for Joe to go."

LIEBERMAN II: His Just Desserts

Several liberal bloggers believe that stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship is not an adequate punishment:

• BooMan: "[Lieberman] must be punished in some way...and losing his committee chair is the bare minimum. The problem is, it's not enough. Lieberman sits on three other committees: Armed Services, Environment & Public Works, and Small Business. I have no problem with Lieberman working on infrastructure, environmental issues, and small business, but he must not be allowed to continue on serving on the Armed Services committee. He will be a Republican voter on the committee and an obvious ally of the Ranking Member, John McCain. Lieberman cannot be trusted to sit in on strategy sessions related to national security. He simply cannot be allowed to stay on Armed Services, or to serve on other intelligence related committees. That should be the penalty. He can take it or leave it. He can caucus with the Republicans if he wants."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "My gut says to kick him out of the caucus altogether."

On the other hand, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks Lieberman should be given the opportunity to keep his committee chairmanship: "What a weaselly sh*t Lieberman is. That said, I still think the deal should be that Lieberman must never join a GOP filibuster. I would let him keep a committee if he agreed to that."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh urges Lieberman to switch parties: "Dear Senator: Switch parties. Or at least, be an unhyphenated Independent and caucus with the Senate Republicans. There is no reason to think that you will ever be treated with respect and dignity in the Democratic Caucus again. Even if you seek to make amends for what Senator Reid perceives to be your apostasy, you will always be viewed with suspicion and bitterness by members of the Democratic Caucus. By contrast, Republicans will welcome you into the fold. You will help cut a Democratic majority and if your presence in the Republican Caucus helps the GOP recapture the majority in the Senate at some point down the line, you can have your chairmanship back. And if your seat makes the difference in that effort -- and who knows? It might -- your power will be especially and particularly enhanced. So make the switch. Take the plunge. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

SUMMERS: Not A Netroots Fav

Many liberal bloggers are opposed to the idea of Obama appointing ex-Clinton Treasury Sec. Larry Summers as his Treasury Sec.:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Am I missing something or are there like four or five completely independent reasons not to appoint Larry Summers Treasury Secretary? I'm really having a hard time understanding this one. Just at the level of optics, since the economy is issue number one right now (and not just the real economy of jobs and living standards but the financial architecture itself) and you're trying to look forward not back, why would you pick someone for Treasury who was not only in the Clinton administration but was actually Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration. Not understanding that. Next, management shortcomings and controversial statements about women's brains that got him canned as President of Harvard. And on top of that, the new Treasury Secretary will be charged with instituting a beefed up framework of financial sector regulation. But Summers was a key player in the 1990s deregulatory consensus that laid the groundwork for a lot of these problems. Not that that makes him verboten -- a lot of other people did too. But it does create an element of of cognitive dissonance going into the job."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "We've been hearing Larry Summers name floated as Treasury Secretary. Bad idea. Not only did he not call the financial crisis, but he has foot in mouth disease. What a Treasury Secretary says can move markets in a big way, and Larry is simply too frank, and too unable to control his mouth for the spot. And while yes, he's brilliant, but he's also brilliantly abrasive and his brilliance is primarily in the details, not in the big picture. Such a bad choice for Treasury Secretary and I find it odd that he's even being considered."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Summers was one of the key proponents of the banking deregulation of 1999 that led to the current financial crisis. In addition, Larry Summers has argued that women are innately less gifted in science than men, that 'Africa is Underpolluted', that child sweatshop work in Asia is sometimes justified, and that job destroying trade agreements are good for America. People get stuff wrong all the time. That's not bad. But if you got the big stuff wrong, repeatedly, while being warned against it, you shouldn't be rewarded with a promotion."
• TPMCafe's Dean Baker: "It would be a really bad start to his administration if President Obama picked a Treasury Secretary who shares a substantial part of the blame for the bubble economy and the financial crisis. It will not be easy to pick up the pieces and get the economy back on its feet, but we would be going in the wrong direction to put one of the people responsible for getting us in this mess in the top economic position in the Obama administration."
• The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "If [Summers] is appointed over [NY Fed. Pres. Timothy] Geithner, [Econ. Prof. Laura] Tyson, and others -- we need to quickly get a sense of whether or not the economic views of Summers have changed. Can he embrace a smarter version of globalization than he helped create? Can he help promote an alternative to the winner takes all capitalism that Summers helped to reify and which made people like Robert Rubin mega-wealthy? Can he embrace a genuine re-write of the American social contract that pushes forward the rights and position of labor? Can he abandon the fiscally conservative ideology of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project that he and Rubin helped hatch? We need to know the answers to these questions. I find it strange that Obama is seriously considering someone whose previous work and profile is so at odds with the goals Obama has proffered in his campaign. If Summers is appointed, we have to hope that he is not the Summers we knew eight years ago."

MCCAIN: Put A Stop To This, Maverick!

Conservative bloggers are angry that McCain hasn't publicly defended Palin after several of his campaign aides leaked unflattering stories about her to FOX News and Newsweek:

• Michelle Malkin: "My syndicated column today takes on the cowardly character assassins in the McCain campaign who are trying to kneecap Sarah Palin. [...] The question now is whether John McCain -- proud author of books on character and courage, honor and duty -- will just sit on the sidelines and let this debacle continue or stand up and defend the running mate he chose."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The longer this goes on without a condemnatory statement from Maverick, the more it smells like it's being done with his tacit approval. Then again, people are going to assume it's being done with his tacit approval anyway, so why even get involved?"
• RedState's Academic Elephant: "...What did we hear from the hero John McCain on these scurrilous leaks from his campaign regarding Gov. Palin? As far as I can tell, not one word. Despite how badly they reflect on him -- his original decision to pick her, if she was indeed so shockingly unqualified or on the discipline of his team, which is apparently zero -- he made no effort to stop this or counteract it. He's letting them confirm what the enemy already thinks it knows about Palin, robbing us of a possible candidate down the road. This is his second major violation of [Ronald] Reagan's 11th Commandment, and at this point, I think it's time to cut our losses. We've paid our tuition. McCain' Last Ride has cost us dearly, and I don't think we need to lose Sarah Palin to save his reputation."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "This is irritating me deeply. Isn't McCain all about honor? Shooting your running mate for history isn't honorable."

NRO's David Frum blames ex-Palin aide Nicolle Wallace for the leaks: "Wow -- that is some savage cutting & gutting that Nicole Wallace has just performed upon Sarah Palin. Nicole & I crossed swords once, during the Harriet Miers nomination battle. Watching what Nicole can do when she is seriously annoyed, I am grateful that I got away from that fight with nothing worse than a few bumps and bruises. [...] Would it not better serve the cause of understanding for Nicole Wallace to give an on-camera interview to Carl Cameron and state these points in her own voice -- and allow viewers to asses their credibility? Wallace's fingerprints are all over these leaks anyway, so it's not as if she has any anonymity to lose."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau has had enough: "Enough with the graceless savaging of Sarah Palin by McCain staffers. The whole enterprise is ridiculous. Attacks on her do little more than cast aspersions on the judgment of Senator McCain and his staff (those who chose her) and offer aid and comfort to those who treated her most hatefully. It also creates and exacerbates unnecessary tensions in the party based on reasons that have nothing to do with policy or ideology. Come on, people. We lost an election. Let's not lose our dignity along with it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Appealing To Conservatives And Independents Simultaneously

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"Why did the Republicans lose ground? I don't agree with everything Frum writes in his book Comeback, but one of the areas I think he's on solid ground is diagnosing the different priorities between independents and Republicans. Independents are deeply anxious about their health insurance, but health care reform isn't a topic that really gets the conservative base jazzed, other than opposing HillaryCare. The Republican base is passionate and focused about the war on terror, but independents have largely forgotten that there is a war going on. (If something blows up tomorrow, this phenomenon will change in a hurry.) Independents and centrists feel great economic anxiety and a sense that their wages are not keeping pace with the costs of modern life; conservatives generally nod when a Republican says 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'

The faces of the Republican party, be it the leaders in Congress, the new RNC chairman, some future candidate or some outside voice has to be able to speak to both groups' concerns fluently. In McCain, the party had a candidate who couldn't speak to the independents' concern well (how often did he explain his health care plan in detail?) and who couldn't speak to conservatives as well as Palin. In the end, John McCain spoke most frequently and eloquently about that which stirred John McCain -- i.e., the outrages of federally-funded planetarium projectors in Chicago and bear DNA research in Montana."

LEST WE FORGET: Famous Lines From '80s Anthems Adjusted for the Cost Of Living

McSweeney's Gabrielle Wootton:

• "If you're lost, you can look and you will find me...using GPS or cell-tower triangulation."
• "Our house...in the middle of the street. Our house...brought us a zoning violation and a mortgage default."
• "Push it to the limit -- we'll swear it was identity theft."
• "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! Let's put it out so we can get the deposit back."
• "Video killed the radio star ... and video was remanded without bail."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 7, 2008 01:06 PM