Betrayed!
Oh, how delicious, the howls of outrage emanating from Nutroots® land (by the way, I officially get credit for coining Nutroots® at Wikipedia now!) over the decision to let Lieberman keep his committee chair! Let us get a small sample, for sheer entertainment value.
The detestable Jane Hamsher (who coined her own phrase, “Rape Gurney Joe”, during Lieberman’s ultimately successful defense of his seat against no-name Ned Lamont):
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.
Oh, let us hope so! David Sirota at the Huffington Post:
With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?
As gross as the Senate statement celebrating the demise of “the Left” is, there’s a truth in the part where the aide says progressives “can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes.” That truth is that the progressive movement – as independent from the Democratic Party – is still incredibly weak.
Praise be to God! (Easy now, folks, I’m engaging in a bit of creative hyperbole).
Arrogant a – er, jerk, Kos issues another of his famous “goodbye to all that” statements (does anyone take this fool seriously?):
[The decision shows] 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.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Will Dirty Harry survive the snub?
Glenn Greenwald says…oh, but who CARES what Glenn Greenwald says? You can just wait and find out in his next New York Times bestseller (oh, all right – he thinks the decision shows bipartisanship, and that’s a BAD thing – I feel a real American hunger for more partisan bitterness, don’t you?).
But one thing is for certain – Barack Obama ultimately drove this decision:
Howard Dean says that he’s “fine” with the Senate’s decision not to kick Joe Lieberman off the Homeland Security committee and suggested that the Senate had acted in accordance with what Barack Obama wanted.
In a phone interview with me just after the vote concluded, I asked Dean if he thought the Senate should keep Lieberman. He said that the Senate had acted “in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted.”
“He called the shots, and that’s fine,” Dean said, in an apparent reference to the tone Obama has tried to set in Washington as he prepares to take power.
You know, I don’t want the Republicans to strip me of my committee chair for saying this, but I must say, I really like some of Obama’s early decisions. I know that won’t always be the case, but this is good stuff…
UPDATE 8:16 p.m.: Ted Stevens lost, so the Democrats are up to 58 seats in the Senate now. Again, at the risk of being accused of anti-Republicanism, that’s a good thing. We don’t want a convicted criminal representing the Republican Party…
Mark, I’m as conservative as they come (not to be confused with Republican) and I, too, like the early indicators of Obama’s presidency. I read DKG’s “Team of Rivals” and here is what I came away with: Lincoln did what he did, i.e.; surrounded himself with his political rivals, because he knew the Union was at risk and he needed as much guidance and support as he could possibly get. In other words, he put his sworn oath to protect and serve above personal, partisan, and political gain.
Not to make too much of this, but I think Obama, in reaching out to McCain and the strong action in favor of Lieberman, is acknowledging that he will need to make some difficult decisions on behalf of the nation and will need the counsel and support of his political friends and (former) enemies.
Kudos to Barrack if that is so.
Well, we obviously have lots of disagreements about all of this, so there’s not much for me to say. I just want to be on record on two points:
1. In 2012, when Lieberman gets absolutely crushed in his reelection bid (his approval ratings in Connecticut are getting dangerously close to Bush/Nixon-level at this point), there will be a lot to be said for the way Markos and his crew have helped destroy the career of a pretty loathesome human being. There are few people I can think of who have done more to establish a real progressive community within the Democratic Party, even if a lot of that party seems bound and determined to simply cave in to Republicans at almost every turn.
2. Even the assiduously non-partisan Marc Ambinder recognizes that letting Lieberman keep his gavel is an act of purely unprincipled political expediency. Maybe that will end up being the right choice for Democrats, but it’s nothing to be proud of.
3. A lot of people care what Glenn Greenwald says. He’s been one of the single most steadfast supporters of basic decency on civil rights for years now. And if you think he’s wrong about bipartisanship, I challenge you to name a single way in which the last eight years have exhibited anything like the bitter partisanship you claim. Our good friend Bob will be more than happy to detail exactly how little the Democratic Party has done to obstruct the Bush administration’s policy goals, I imagine, since I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him do it before.
Where I have redefined “two” to mean “three”.
I guess point 3 needs some clarification. We’ve seen plenty of partisan venom in the blogosphere and the media over the last eight years, but there really has been precious little partisanship in the actual governing bodies of the country. Virtually every major legislative goal of the Bush administration has either passed Congress with major bipartisan support or has been scuttled because of conservative opposition from the right. Social Security privatization is the only major legislative failure I can think of in which the left really drove the opposition to the President’s agenda.
The only thing loathsome about Joe Lieberman is that you don’t like him. Speaking up against his party doesn’t make him ‘loathsome’…and Glenn Greenwald is the most predictable voice in punditry (and a known sock puppeteer). His stand for basic human decency goes like this: Republicans bad, mass media bad, Democrats bad because they don’t indict Republicans and impeach Bush. Glenn Greenwald good, anyone who links favorably to Glenn Greenwald good.
And I find the ‘progressive’ community to be anything but progressive. Their know-nothing economics, based on protectionist, isolationist, and yes, as much as you hate this word, socialist principles (ever read Mother Jones or The Nation? They’re pillars of ‘progressive’ journalism) is poison to me…so if Markos has done more to foster that nonsense than anyone you know, that’s hardly a recommendation…
Don’t put the failure of the House and Senate Democrats to grow a pair into an equivalence with ‘bipartisanship’. You may say letting Lieberman keep his seat is a matter of political expediency…but clearly, Barack Obama made it known that this is what he wanted done. He campaigned on an end to the bitter partisanship that you and Greenwald apparently find missing (unexplained by either of you is how its presence would improve the lot of America), and if he meant it, killing off the Nutroots® revenge fantasies re: Lieberman is a damn good start…
Shorter Mark: The left is jerks and full of partisan idiots who care about nothing but party affiliation.
Also, I hate hate HATE Democrats.
Wrong – I don’t hate Democrats. I hate progressives…
Mark, for someone who apologizes for a party full of bigots, torturers, and white supremacists, please spare me condemnations of the evils of “know-nothing economics”. And while we’re at it, let’s talk about supply-side economics, the Bush tax cuts, and deficit spending. For someone who claims to understand economics, the fact that you’re a Republican is such direct evidence that you’re full of s*** that taking your argument seriously is a bit of a laugh. You are a member of the most anti-intellectual, most actively and proudly stupid political party in the history of the United States, and you want to lecture *me* about how economics works? Blow it out your a**.
Okay, I feel a little better. Substantively:
1. Joe Lieberman isn’t loathesome because he “speaks up” against his party; he’s loathesome because he actively seeks to kneecap his party and backstab its members at every turn. He’s loathesome because he was chair of the commitee chiefly responsible for investigating the executive branch during one of the most vile, anti-American, unconstitutional regimes in US history, and he did nothing. This is not about being a Democrat – as I have to keep reminding you, I’m not a Democrat – this is about doing his job. He has failed the American people, betrayed his oath of office, and acted like a sanctimonious prick the entire time. Taking his committee chair from him seems like the least of the punishments he deserves.
2. On Greenwald: Republicans ARE bad, the mass media ARE bad, and anyone (Democrat or otherwise) who refuses to indict war criminals IS bad. I fail to see the problem here.
Shorter Ryan: The right is bigots and full of morons who care about nothing but ideology.
Also, I hate hate HATE Republicans.
This is fun.
Short me: I hate authority, regardless of direction.
this is silly.
shortest: i hate people.
He He, nice to see the Nutroots squirm but who cares. Its not like they are going to go anywhere. They will vote GOP now?
Lieberman is one of the most consistent leftists in the Senate except for one thing, the War on Terror including its Iraq offshoot. That makes him “loathsome”.
That is true, Dems are weak and toothless.
That is because their leadership is either old and tired (Kennedy) or moronic (Reid and Pelosi). Mainly, the quality of elected Democrats in Washington is no higher than the quality of the GOP.
The Senate and House, on both sides, is filled with legacies, the worthless and the corrupt. So, when the President is willing to ignore them, they fold like the cheap suits they are.
Ryan, you think that anyone else at Homeland Security committee rather than Lieberman these last two years would have brought
the “war criminals” to their knees? Who is this paragon of virtue?
Bob, I don’t think anyone would have brought them to their knees, as you put it. There simply isn’t enough political will anywhere to take that kind of step. This is constantly infuriating to me, because if there’s any President who actually has engaged in “high crimes and misdemeanors” it’s George W. Bush. The case against him is open and shut.
But no one in the Congress is going to step out on a limb and Obama, Disappointer in Chief, has no interest in ruffling any feathers at all. But there are at least people who would raise a stink. I don’t think Waxman has been particularly effective practically, but he’s at least been fighting the good fight. For the last eight years, the President has been committing war crimes and generally being totally and utterly incompetent at everything else, and he has escaped entirely scot-free (except for having one of the worst approval ratings imagineable); at this point I’m ready to stand on principle because there isn’t much of anything else left.
And please, Lieberman may be loathsome because of the so-called War on Terror and Iraq (and he is, I assure you), but the ire directed at him would be a lot less intense if he didn’t insist on being a complete jackass all the time. Actively campaigining against your own party – at both the Presidential and Senate level – and calling the President-Elect from your own party a dangerous Marxist are not the kinds of venal sins you people like to pretend they are. Lieberman is actively batting for the other team; why in the world would anyone reward that behavior?
But like I said, I don’t even need the partisan arguments. Lieberman has conducted zero hearings of one of the most corrupt, awful, treasonous administrations in the history of this country. If you think the reason he didn’t take anyone to task over Katrina is just because he supports the so-called War on Terror and those wicked kids over at that mean blog aren’t playing fair, you’re free to believe that. But I’m calling BS.
Apparently “loathsome” isn’t the descriptive that leaps to mind for Obama when Lieberman is mentioned. Barrack proved beyond any doubt during the campaign that he will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to get what he wants (e.g.: public financing of campaigns), he has apparently decided he needs Lieberman on his side. Reid and the other Democrats (the LEADERSHIP) have once again demonstrated the depth of their courage.
Actually, I take that back. I’m underselling Waxman quite a bit. He has done a pretty substantial amount to uncover the lies and distortions surrounding the case for war with Iraq, as well as the suppression of scientific findings by the administration. That certainly hasn’t led to any direct punishments (yet – and I hope that “yet” turns out to mean something), but it certainly has helped tarnish the Republican brand. There’s real value in that, but only if the Democrats who have benefited from it actually do some good governing at some point. I am not that hopeful.
Perhaps the case isn’t quite as strong as you think, or are you suggesting they all – and it would have to be all if the case is as strong as you suggest – are totally spineless?
Btw, the only thing worse than the President’s approval rating is that of the Congress.
The case for what? That the current administration has committed war crimes? I think any non-tendentious reading of the Geneva Protocols is pretty clear. But I also don’t think it’s just about spinelessness. I think there’s (obviously) a real sense in American politics that holding leaders responsible for something as massive as war crimes is nakedly partisan and that we can’t do something so drastic because it would inflame all kinds of nastiness and really derail the harmonious going-along-to-get-along or something like that. I think, and I imagine others (like Glenn Greenwald) think, the cost of allowing an administration to get away with things like this – and various administrations have gradually increased the extent to which they have violated both US and international law until we have reached the absolutely hideous point we’ve reached – sets a far more dangerous precedent moving forward. If there are no punishments for torturing human beings, then what’s to stop anyone in the future from doing it again? An executive order from Obama may stop it now, but Obama won’t be President forever. Eventually someone (Republican or Democrat) will want that apparatus back. Putting in the kind of safeguards that make prison time a possibility will make that President think twice.
Yes, the Congress’s approval rating is awful. Is there any surprise? As Bob says, they’re cowards and empty suits. Not only do they insist on screwing the American people as much as they can, they do it with huge bipartisan initiatives that no one supports (like the bailout, for a recent example). Now, I take the arguments about how it’s artificially low and always has been because of the idea that you can oppose the institution even if you think your guy’s doing okay, but it’s still the case that it’s a pretty crappy institution. Harry Reid and the President-Elect are so far giving me very few reasons to believe it’s about to get much better.
Not 1 person in a thousand in the US even knows who Waxman is. Less have paid any attention.
He has hearings that get some WaPo and NYT coverage and a few seconds on the news, if that. It pleases Waxman’s ego, that is why he does it. He loves to intimidate people who can’t fight back. Just a bully with a big ego.
No one cares about Congressional oversight. No one. Because Congressional oversight accomplishes nothing except once in a while forces out some stupid official who is promptly replaced by someone else with the exact same views.
Look at Alberto Gonzalez. He was forced out. Did any policy change? No, all policies stayed the same, there was just better PR, we now had a “non-political” AG, someone who was not a “crony”. Big deal.
You raised Katrina. Michael Brown was the official scapegoat, agreed on by both parties. Scathing hearings would not have changed anything.
Congressional hearings are just political theater. Bad theater at that.
Yes, but a large portion of the country (probably not large enough) knows that the administration lied about Iraq and has suppressed scientific findings it doesn’t like. Waxman has something to do with that. Whether his investigations have colored media reporting or disseminated publicly through some other means, they have had an effect on how the public perceives the Bush administration.
And the reason no one cares about Congressional oversight is, as you say, because there are no consequences. Putting Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and the rest of the crew behind bars where they belong would go a long way toward fixing that. Like I said above, I assess the chances of that as basically zero, but I’m a commenter on a blog. I’m allowed to take a stand on principle.
Ryan: Remember those high crimes and misdemeanors that occurred during Reagan? Those same people are now on the TV telling me how the country ought to move forward. I’d rather avoid that potentiality 20 years from now…
Huckabee is toolish today. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/18/huckabee-gay-rights/
Yes, because nobody is beating on your head you are not denied rights. What a dope. I think people should just get married regardless of whether or not it is “recognized” by the state, then, when their loved ones are in the hospital, just show up even if you’re not allowed, or pull the plug if they’re in a vegetative state and they told you they want to die in that situation. Then they’d be “hosed down in the street”, in a court of law of course.
Ryan, you are giving guys like Waxman way too much credit. Its Katrina and 5 plus years in Iraq that sapped support for President Bush, not any investigation or series of investigations.
Be careful what you wish for in the way of prosecutions. “Try my leaders, kill yours” or “never give up power” are the more likely lessons to be learned.
Ryan, I resent your tone in comment #8, and I will ignore all your comments. I won’t respond to someone who heaps insults on my head that are completely undeserved. I didn’t insult you personally, unless you stand for all progressives, but you directly insulted me, and heaped all the sins, real and imagined, of the Republican Party on top of my head.
You have not earned the right to speak to me this way – you have no hold on me, personally or professionally.
End of conversation, unless you feel like issuing a well-deserved apology and speaking like a civil person…
Or don’t apologize, I really don’t care…just speak to me civilly and don’t use me as a proxy for ‘blinkered partisan Republican’, because I’m hardly that…and don’t work out your hostility on me…
Bob, you’re on to something that I’ve always said: Katrina looms large in retrospect – it was the first time that most of America felt truly comfortable with dumping heaps of vitriol on Bush’s head. Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? Would have never happened post-Katrina…
Mark, why should I speak respectfully to you when you have shown nothing but contempt to progressives? I consider myself at least tangentially part of a community you call know-nothings and detestable, a community you said in comment #7 that you hate. If you hate me, then I fell to see what respect I owe you.
And stop being so sanctimonious. It’s not like I spilled tea on your doilies or anything.
Where “fell” = “fail”.
That said, I *will* apologize to you for dumping all the crimes of the Republican Party on your head specifically. I think it’s unseemly and both morally and intellectually irresponsible for you to defend some of the worst human beings who have ever been put in charge of the US government, but your crimes are not their crimes.
Ryan, here’s a suggestion: if you loathe everything that Mark writes, don’t read it. Go somewhere else. Surely someone doesn’t have a gun pointed to your head, threatening to pull the trigger unless you type “decision08.net” into your computer.
Based upon your comments on this thread, you clearly aren’t interested in honest debate, and you feel abused by what you read, so the only reason that I can think of for you to come here and post is some form of masochism.
It’s obvious that Ryan has a masochistic streak…His man get’s office and actually does begin to change things (ie. snubbing some of the rampant partisanship in D.C.) and Ryan already hates him. I especially love his tirades against Mark; personal, childish, nonsensical… Does Mark give a Lifetime Achievement of Jackasserie Award? Ryan the “anti-intellectual” Republican Mark actually has a degree in economics-not that that makes one an expert or anything close to it, but I’m quite sure that his economic acumen is close,, ohh so close to yours. Alright, I’m done now-please heap on the vitriol.
Ryan, why should you speak respectfully to me? For the same reason you should speak respectfully to anyone. Good manners, I believe it’s called.
My “hate” for progressives is not a personalized thing. I hate their economic policies, not them individually. Furthermore, I only mentioned that hate in response to Fargus saying I hate Democrats – I drew the distinction that it’s not Democrats, but progressives.
So you self-identify as a progressive – well, good for you! It still doesn’t mean that I’m thinking of you personally when I criticize progressives. You are NOT a stand-in for the entire movement.
And if you’re going to call me an apologist for all kinds of thuggery for self-identifying as a Republican, under the bizarre theory that any Republican automatically is an apologist for all Republicans, then I insist that you also give me credit for perhaps the most truly progressive of all political decisions in our country’s history, the fight for the end of slavery by the Republican president Abraham Lincoln. Ridiculous? No more so than the equivalence games you are attempting…
Aaron: I don’t loathe everything Mark writes. I think he’s often very good. But I think his diatribes against progressives are ill-informed, petty, and mean. Calling a group of people detestable know-nothings isn’t exactly what I consider angling for honest debate. And, in case you hadn’t noticed, Bob and I have been having a fairly honest debate in this thread.
Mason: I also have a degree in economics. That doesn’t mean that I’m immune to ideology, and neither is Mark.
Mark: You’re not an apologist for all Republicans. You’re an apologist for these Republicans in particular. You say all the time how much you like/love George W. Bush, a man so depraved he could order the torture of human beings. That’s like saying, “Darth Vader was really good, but it’s a shame about what he did to the Jedi.” Not that I’ve ever seen you disavow the torture regime anyway, so it would be more like saying, “Darth Vader was really good, but I didn’t care for a couple of his education policies.”
But I’m done. I know this doesn’t bother you in the least, but I can’t come here any more. This used to be fun, but it’s just not any more. The Republican Party and I have moved so far apart that we just can’t comprehend each other any more, so it’s always just screaming. Good luck with your blog in whatever form you choose to continue it, Mark. I have appreciated that last however-many-years-it’s-been.
Well, it’s your choice. I didn’t ask you to leave and don’t want you to. I just asked that you be a little more civil.
I think you should reconsider and remain a part of the conversation, but I can’t twist your arm…