7 Comments:

• One more example of why the Democratic majority Congress has such low approval ratings. The voters keep making their wish for change known - loud and clear - and the Congressional Democrats, particularly the Senate Democrats, keep giving people reasons to call them weak. Or, imo, spineless. Not only have they been caving in to the Republicans on a regular basis, regardless of the fact we now have a majority, but they let one miserable sob dictate terms to them because they're afraid to make him mad. Wankers is too good a term for them. It wasn't even a close vote. Effing morons.
  
  We need new blood in there and, now that the country has become more politically active as a whole, I hope we get it. It would not surprise me in the least if Harry Reid does not survive his next re-election bid. I only hope he is replaced with a better Democrat and not a Republican.

  By  Rebecca, at 1:22 PM  

• I disagree. Retribution and revenge are the acts of immature and angry people.
  
  Nelson Mandela taught us that anger doesn't lead to productive outcomes - it is why he formed the truth and reconciliation commission, not the truth and vengeful commission.

  By  shafeen, at 5:54 AM  

• The truth, in this matter, is that Lieberman has not done his job as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. By no criteria whatsoever does he deserve that position.
  
  Committee chairmanships should go to those who have worked hard to make the party stronger and who are willing to work hard on the issues overseen by their committees. He didn't do that. While his counterpart in the House was launching multiple investigations into the most corrupt, abusive and destructive administration this country has ever seen, Lieberman did nothing at all to fulfill his responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive branch of our government.
  
  He was stripped of a chairmanship of a committee where he voted like a Democrat and was allowed to keep the most important of his positions on a committee whose issues he most often votes like a Republican.
  
  It was an insane decision for which there is no rational excuse. And Obama was wrong to think this is an area where he needed to reach out. He's not getting off to a great start, imo.

  By  Rebecca, at 6:22 AM  

• Wow, great comments!
  
  Rebecca: I think Obama had 3 things in mind - he wanted to give Lieberman the chance to make amends, setting a tone for the coming year, he's put Lieberman in a position where Lieberman attacks him he looks pretty ungrateful, and he wanted a shot at that 60th vote from a Senator who is now personally obligated to him. I don't necessarily agree with those calculations, but they are reasonable ones. Who has gotten punked are Senate Democrats, who look like they can be pushed around by renegade members and the White House.
  
  Shafeen: Hi Shafeen! Are you a new reader? Welcome! I don't think stripping Lieberman has to be viewed as revenge, necessarily. Chairmanships are positions of very important responsibility that the party should be able fill. Lieberman hasn't been a good party member, so why reward him with that kind of power? Bad deeds have to have consequences, or they just lead to more bad deeds.

  By  Arbitrista, at 7:01 AM  

• Mature people can get angry too.

  By  Dr. Brazen Hussy, at 7:02 AM  

• Hi there - yep - I found your blog yesterday, and have enjoyed reading your excellent work - thank you! (As a mild advertisement, I started a blog recently - here's the link: http://interacc.typepad.com.)
  
  I have a few thoughts on this issue. First the one I made above - you have to be bigger than ego to lead.
  
  Second, if he was incompetent that's one thing, and I TOTALLY agree that you can't have an ineffective chairman. If that is the case, why wasn't he "evicted" before?
  
  But that's not where the prevailing angst seems to be. This seems to be about loyalty and patronage.If he was given this chairmanship as an Independent, then one would have to assume some independent views/actions would occur, and be prepared to live with the consequences.
  
  And I guess I don't feel that patronage is a good way to lead. I would only have to look as far as the current administration where so many cronies were rewarded with power, and their lack of ethics and incompetence has lead to so many difficulties for the whole country.
  
  I'd rather the best possible person be picked for the role, irrespective of affiliation.

  By  shafeen, at 2:52 PM  

• Hi there - yep - I found your blog yesterday, and have enjoyed reading your excellent work - thank you! (As a mild advertisement, I started a blog recently - here's the link: http://interacc.typepad.com.)
  
  I have a few thoughts on this issue. First the one I made above - you have to be bigger than ego to lead.
  
  Second, if he was incompetent that's one thing, and I TOTALLY agree that you can't have an ineffective chairman. If that is the case, why wasn't he "evicted" before?
  
  But that's not where the prevailing angst seems to be. This seems to be about loyalty and patronage.If he was given this chairmanship as an Independent, then one would have to assume some independent views/actions would occur, and be prepared to live with the consequences.
  
  And I guess I don't feel that patronage is a good way to lead. I would only have to look as far as the current administration where so many cronies were rewarded with power, and their lack of ethics and incompetence has lead to so many difficulties for the whole country.
  
  I'd rather the best possible person be picked for the role, irrespective of affiliation.

  By  shafeen, at 2:52 PM  

Post a Comment
<< Home