If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture & filibusters when the Republicans voted in lockstep (particularly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislation where Lieberman is vaguely progressive), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (& hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/07cong.html?_r=3&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://thinkprogress.org/lieberman-not-progressive/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/8/17349/2244
For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidential campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, We the People, got what?
Without 60, without his voting on cloture/filibusters, on the legislation that Obama & Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats), what the h3ll is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the Democratic Caucus (make him privvy to your strategizing) and reward him with a plum chairmanship?
For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislation, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery & expanding JoeLieberman's power wasn't & isn't in the interests of the DemocraticParty or the People.
Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republicans in cloture/filibustering, or an ultimatum that he couldn't join Republicans in cloture/filibustering?? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
0 comments:
Post a Comment