BEHOLD: The Downside
By Erick Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sometimes you have a really great plan. You stick to it hoping for the best result. The problem is, you get so wrapped up in the self importance of your plan that you fail to see the downside.
In the nutroots campaign to off Joe Lieberman, BEHOLD, THE DOWNSIDE:
[Lieberman] suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.
So, Chris Bowers laments that Joe Lieberman is obstructing the lefties' slow bleed policy. The Kossacks are angry (big surprise). Um, folks? You did this to yourselves.
Instead of trying to play reasonable, you decided to pee in the man's cornflakes. You pissed him off and he now has your precious policy by the short hairs. Next time you run off to fund a nutroots candidate to make a policy statement, you might want to be a bit more objective about the dynamics involved. I think it is a fair statement that most outside observers recognized Lieberman's cross-party popularity would be a serious problem for you.
But you know the funny party? Who should you really blame? Probably Jane Hamsher. Had she not put Lieberman in blackface, he probably would not have gotten so much sympathetic attention at the end of the primary season. He would have then had a greater margin of loss, which more likely than not would have given him reason to not run as an independent.
In language the more urbane lefties can understand, "C'est la vie."
Oh, and you want your next target? How about this guy. His public support for Lieberman in the general election got lots of headlines and drew lots of attention.
« Standby . . . — Comments (46) | They Still Don't Get It — Comments (12) »
BEHOLD: The Downside 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Lieberman has already cast his most important vote this term when he voted for Reid. That is vote that the Dems aren't going to allow a re-do on.
Looks like complete grid lock in the Senate until 09.
Technically -- technically -- the whole majority/minority thing is settled for this Congress. However, Senate rules being the convoluted mess that they are, there actually is a procedure whereby the status quo can be declared unconstitutional and recast.
How soon we forget L'Affair Jeffords. He initially voted for Trent Lott as Majority Leader in January 2001, then switched to caucus with the Democrats in about June of 2001, and Tom Daschle became Majority Leader for the remainder of that Congress.
All this being said, I think you'd need to keep an awfully close eye on Sen. Hagel. I think he's alienated enough at this point to negate a Lieberman switch with a switch of his own.
Did the Republicans extract the same deal the Democrats did when Jeffords was fixin' to jump (which is why we got a Senate Majority Leader Daschle for nearly 2 whole years)? I don't know... I'm askin'.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
2000 was special because of the exact 50-50 split AND having Gore be VP for the first 3 weeks of the session.
Since Gore could have broken any tie in favor of the Dems, making them the "majority" for the entire term, the Dems insisted on language that would lead another vote should the balance of power change. It happened and so there was another vote.
This time the Dems had a 50-49 advantage (the VP can only break ties, not cause them) so the special language of 2000 was not inserted into the rules for this session. Thus, the Dems will be in control of the Senate until at least the end of 08.
Still lots of time for this to go the other way, though. Say Lieberman's switch leads to passage of new Iraq spending, allowing the war to continue more or less as it is now. By 2008, the war is far more unpopular than during the 2006 election season. This leads to even greater losses by Republicans, only this time they lose the White House, too.
...that being that the situation in Iraq doesn't significantly improve between now and then. I wouldn't be betting against David Petraeus -- particularly since we're asking him to do something he's twice done before on a smaller scale. And the other thing to remember is that the Iraqi military reportedly continues to improve its capabilities.
The irony of the situation in Iraq is this -- if we'd just get our national nerve and resolve mustered (or even if we can do a good job faking it) it would end itself. It only keeps going as it does because our enemies believe they're breaking our spirit.
Insurgencies are entirely predicated upon the will of those they're fighting. In this case, it's not the will of our fighters (which seems pretty good) but the will of our electorate.
Not sure how this is much different than anything else in the past when it comes to someone else having a different opinion than theirs.
In all seriousness this is an interesting move. I believe its saber rattling more than anything.
...particularly the ones with open commentary, always have so much profanity? Every once in a while, I'll bounce over to MyDD or DKos or even (God forbid) DemocraticUnderground.com. The language at these places is enough to make a sailor blush.
Maybe they were so used to seeing the letter "F" while they were in school, they figured they'd adopt the letter as their own. ;)
You see, when your life is miserable and filled with hatred then you are usually drawn to extremes, Nazi's are one extreme, but they have no power. So being a left wing extremist is the logical way to go.
I remember these people back in my college days, before my own views were fully formed. I can see them sitting in the student union, chain smoking, talking about Marx, Nietzsche, and Sartre, things they had only a superficial familiarity with. dressed in their hobo clothes, looking down on everybody and everything. Filled with profanity and liking nothing better than to be sacrilegious to other peoples beliefs.
All I knew at the time was I wanted to be the exact opposite of these people.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Not too much is going to get done in a 50/50 Senate anyway and it would all but guarantee that Lieberman becomes as unimportant and irrelevant as Jim Jeffords did after he switched parties.
Well then I shouldn't make any Major Andre References either I guess.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...surely you must know something of Anglo-Saxon culture. Hint: saw off the 'miserly' and click on the Google search tab in your browser. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Seems like an odd thing to say. Lieberman is a pretty solid Dem except for the war - just how welcoming are the Republicans going to be in a Senate that's more or less doomed to gridlock whether Lieberman switches or not? Most likely, he'd just end up being the kind of RINO that you good folks threaten to primary in 6 years anyway - why give him anything when he brings so little to the table?
What if there's another Supreme Court opening between now and next November? Justice Stevens is something like 86 years old, as one example.
Granted, Lieberman would still be Lieberman in terms of his vote for or against any particular judicial nominee. Whatever else you want to say about him, Lieberman's no conservative.
However, the control of the Senate does make a huge, huge difference in the judicial confirmation process. For instance, Democrats are now in better position to bottle up district and circuit court nominees until Bush leaves office. If they lose the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, they lose a lot in that department.
As far as legislation is concerned, you're probably right...it wouldn't make much difference. But there are places that it would -- so much so that I wouldn't be asking him to go fly a kite.
The real importance of the Senate the way it stands now is the judicial nominees. If the Republicans don't want a bill to pass, the Dems need 60 for anything so I doubt anything crazy legislation-wise will get done. But, another SC opening is the most important thing as far as I'm concerned because that will last even if...and that's a big if.....the Dems sweep in '08.
It's nice to see Joe stand up for what he believes is right no matter the party label (and no you can't compare him to Hagel because Hagel is looking for re-election so there's no comparison, only a gutless old man who has zero conviction).
four words, in this instance, are irrational on your part.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
Please express your sentiments to the good Senator from Connecticut.
http://lieberman.senate.gov/
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...if he really wants to go. But I don't think that he has that much to gain from a party switch, except to really, really annoy people who were really annoyed by him anyway. Either that or he's decided that he dosen't want to run again, like Jeffords.
Meh, this is a mess for both parties. Lieberman may be a hawk on Iraq, but he's moderate to downright Liberal on a whole host of other issues, though they may gain some traction on judicial nominees.
Mostly, I think he's just posturing.
When push comes to shove, he won't go. Though it's not a popular notion around here, the smart money is that the dems pick up seats in 2008. Lieberman would effectively be trading six years in the majority for two. Additionally, unless he plans on retiring at the end of his term, swapping parties makes his reelection a pretty dicey proposition.
-exits
that Lieberman's switch would change the majority/minority set up in the Senate. See my post near the top for an explanation.
Thing is, if Joe leaves the Dems he'd probably lose his chairmanship, which is why I think he's just blowing hot air about switching.
Don't see why, if the Republicans are in the majority, if Joe switches, why they can't just change the Senate rules, then vote on a new majority leader...THAT just takes a majority, just as it would have done with the change on bringing the judicial nominees to a vote, i.e. the "nuclear option." Isn't that correct?
That maneuver is a reinterpreting of the rules. To actually change them you need a super majority. For the nuclear option, they would just decide that filibusters were out of order (and always have been out of order) on judicial nominees. I doubt you could pull the same thing off with this. I imagine it is pretty specifically addressed.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...which was Lamont, AFTER the primary.
and the more we gloat, the more they repeat them. So Lets gloat ;-)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777