Joe the Senator...

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Ok, hold on a second...wait for it...wait for it -- whoosh, up I go. I just jumped on the "let's analyze the crap out of the Joe Lieberman decision" bandwagon. It was cookin along pretty fast.

Ok, here's the gist of it:

On the campaign trail this year Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain. He followed the campaign script, hitting talking points that made most democrats' blood boil. Here's a quick summary (keep in mind that this was pulled together by the very far left Daily Kos):



Lieberman, undoubtedly, trotted around supporting McCain -- and perpetuating some of the choice pieces of misinformation favored by the McCain campaign. Personally, I believe his involvement began because he thought he had a shot at the Vice Presidency. Actually, he did have a shot at the Vice Presidency. But that's all history now, McCain's advisors (and perhaps McCain himself) felt that they needed someone who represented a more ideologically conservative wing of their own party, and that they needed a cleaner "narrative" (political speak for the equivalent of that tear jerking segment about Olympians that runs right before they take the field, pool, ice, etc); these requirements were met (sort of) in Sarah Palin.

OK, so Lieberman turned on his own party for a shot at the Vice Presidency. And he started campaigning early, earning a famous (awkward) kiss on the cheek from President Bush. But, how did he do as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? That should count for something -- as the etched glass pieces of company propaganda that litter my office remind me: "Performance Matters."

There is surprisingly little information available regarding Joe's actions as Chairman. From what I can find, as Chairman, the most consistent words used to describe Lieberman's performance are: calculatingly lazy. In his position he has the opportunity (and responsibility) to oversee the executive office, and he ignored/refused/avoided this directive.

Right, so the good Senator both turned his back on his party and fell asleep at the wheel in his past years as Chairman. So, what did Barack Obama and the dems have to gain from allowing him to keep his chairmanship?

By coming out in support of Joe Lieberman, Barack Obama basically adopted a puppy from the pound. (No, no, for you skimmers -- he didn't actually adopt that puppy he promised, now, go back to your skimming.) Lieberman had gotten himself thrown out of his home and was sitting in limbo, waiting for the seemingly inevitable fatal dose of retribution from "his" party. Instead, he got brought back into the fold; and as a result, Obama is guaranteed silent support from Lieberman at the very least (if not the same convenient apathy around probing the executive branch).

A lot of the publicly stated reasoning behind Obama's magnamity is the "spirit of reconciliation," and the goal of bringing together a government of partisans. I would love to think that is the true reasoning behind the caucus's ultimate decision. However a little niggling thought at the back of my mind can't help but come out: perhaps this is all about the 60 seat, filibuster-proof democratic majority. In that case, this decision is about the ability of a democratic majority to bypass the strong reservations the other party may have about a particular piece of legislation. In which case, leniency for Joe is a move in the opposite direction from bipartisanship.

Me? I chose to be recklessly naive/idealogical/trusting about the motivations behind the caucus's decision to keep Joe sitting pretty. I'd like to believe that the dems wouldn't get all 60 party senators to vote for bad legislation anyway -- and that having that extra vote in their favor when it counts will help get things done. I would also like to preserve my belief in the good intentions of this President...at least until he's actually in office.