Looks like the Senate wanted to get out in front of Obama and be the first to disappoint us. Senate Democrats are rewarding Joe Lieberman for questioning the President-Elect’s most basic intentions, and keeping Lieberman in a chairmanship for which he has demonstrated little interest in actually using for the public good. Great job, guys.
Update: I think Jane Hamsher puts it well:
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. Â 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.
silence dogood
Hamsher puts it well if you’re a fan of the solipsistic point of view that everything anyone has or ever will do is done specifically to fuck with you personally. It’s great to have an opinion–I can’t stand him on a personal level–but the reactionary outrage of people who see this as an afront to their collective personage smacks of the outrage a certain sect of the netroots continues to display in the aftermath of Gov. Kaine’s endorsement of Gerry Connolly.
Despite what one anonymous aide might say out of the perverse desire to see himself quoted, nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks on their way to the Hill, “What can I do to fuck with the netroots today?” No matter how goddamned tempting the Jane Hamshers of the world may make it sometimes.
MB
She also puts it well if you’re a fan of the point of view that you should occasionally stand for something besides comfort in the cloakroom and the continued flow of PAC money.
Disgust with this has nothing to do with “netroots.”
silence dogood
MB, seriously, my friend, this is up there with the “why don’t we hit back?” post you rightfully derided several months ago. It’s the same tone. It’s not about policy, it’s not about effective governance. It’s not even about winning or losing. It’s about how angry we are. It’s about hate. It’s about who hates who more and gosh darnit, we should have a vote about that.
The three biggest players in the American automotive industry are begging for help that out government can’t give them. There are millions of jobs in this industry, from the UAW members in the plants to the machinists who fashion the parts to the steelworkers who supply the materials. Yet there are twice as many Lieberman posts on firedoglake, and each Lieberman post is getting more “diggs” than the story about how hundreds of thousands of American stand to lose their livelihoods, homes, pensions and benefits if nothing is done.
Who is it again who’s overly concerned by what’s going on in the cloakroom?
MB
I’m not sure if you’re arguing with me, or with the pitchfork mobs. I’ll grant that I’ve linked to a place alight with torches, but I’d like to think that I’ve done a fairly respectable job of establishing that my politics and criticisms aren’t fueled by “hate” here.
In Lieberman’s case, however, I’ll go with disgust that was earned well before the Bush Administration, and generally justified since then. I’m not a fan of sanctimonious pricks wagging their fingers in my face.
But even setting that aside *and* setting his last election aside (which we’ve already gone ’round on), there are still plenty of reasons that Lieberman ought not retain his chairmanship. First, he’s not a Democrat (tho’ he sure does like to send them the money). Second, he’s done a pisspoor job in his role as chairman. Oversight of DHS for the past two years, and he thought they were doing such a bangup job he did no investigating? Or maybe Iraq contracting was going so swimmingly well that he didn’t bother to look at things? Yeah, that’s the sort of judgment and oversight I support Democrats to get in government.
And what’s the cost to getting rid of that? Awkwardness and a lull in campaign dollars? Right. What am I thinking?
silence dogood
I’m arguing with the pitchfork-wielding masses, I assure you, although I am perplexed by why this particular tirade was held up in a laudatory fashion.
Because while there are plenty of reasons for thoughtful people to feel disappointed by the vote, Hamsher’s tirade didn’t mention the fact that Lieberman’s asleep at the switch on the Senate’s oversight committee. It didn’t mention his sanctimonious bullshit on Israel or violence in video games or how school violence is the media’s fault and the rock and roll music and oh kids these days. It didn’t mention anything to do with governance. But it did mention the word “hate.” Twice.
I’m sure Joe Lieberman doesn’t represent your ideals in Washington, MB, but I’m also pretty sure Jane Hamsher wasn’t representing your ideals in the little rant you linked to.
MB
I’ll plead guilty to reading my own meaning into it, tho’ I don’t think it was too unreasonable a stretch.
In any event, Senate Dems absolutely demonstrated that they’re far more interested in what is good for them (in the short run, anyway), as opposed to what is good for us. That may be entirely unsurprising, but it’s not okay.