For the greater part of this year, Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain and turned his back on the democrats. After the election, it was clear that Joe Lieberman bit the hand that fed him.
Earlier this year, at a campaign rally for John McCain, Lieberman mentioned:
"You know, Political Parties are important in our country. But they're not more important than what's best for our country, they're not more important friendship, they're not more important for our future. That's why I'm PROUDLY here, to urge republicans and independents in New Hampshire to come out on January 8 and make John McCain the next president of the United States"
In case you missed it, Joe Lieberman was welcomed back into the democratic party by Harry Reid last week.
Last week, Rachel Maddow ran a bunch of interesting stories on MSNBC about Joe Lieberman. On a short segment between a commercial break, Maddow pops the question, some thing along the lines of, "What will the liberal blogger's reaction be to the democratic party's welcoming of Joe Lieberman back into the partyfold?"
(Note: Rachel doesn't pop the blog sphere question in this segment...but really, who are these liberal bloggers? Do they exist in some sort of blog sphere? as if they had some sort of political power in a tangible reality?)
Rachael Maddow, here is a possible reaction from the "liberal blog sphere":
(In case you didn't quite get it, this song is totally ironic; Johnny Dangerous is totally mocking violent house/hip hop songs with the stereotypical, boring, repetitive monotone beat and the line, "Club America, Club America")
Here are the political possibilities at hand:
Since Senator Stevens lost his seat in Alaska, the democrats now control 58 seats in the senate. 2 senate races in Minnesota and Georgia are still undecided.
Two days ago, www.politics-360.com reported that Al Frankin was likely to beat his challenger, Norm Coleman. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/projection-franken-to-win-recount-by-27.htmlGA) That brings the democrats up to 59 seats in the senate.
In Georgia, a sub situation is occurring: Georgia law requires a candidate to get 50% of the vote plus ONE vote. In a hotly contested senate battle between democrat Jim Martin and the charming republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss, Chambliss won a majority of the plurality of the vote on Nov 4, however, did not garnish the necessary 50%. A third party challenger used the closeness of the race to take some of the vote share away from Chambliss. So, as prescribed by state law, Saxby and Jim have to have a rematch on Dec 2 in a special election contest.
No one is clear what the likely outcome will be.
So, to get back to it, it looks like Al Frankin will pull in one more victory in for team democrat. This allows democrats to control 59 seats in the senate, one away from the holy grail of the 60 votes that Larry Reid keeps saying that he needs to be able to get things done around hill.
Do the Democrats really need 60 votes? Harry Reid has been putting fast ones on the American public for months.
Almost one year ago today, the democrats promised the American public that they were going to do something about the ending the Iraq war. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/14/democrats-may-force-alln_n_72591.html). So, to make it look like they were doing something, Harry Reid staged a mock filibuster about ending the Iraq war.
This is perhaps the most boring filibuster that the staff at Oh, Bang, Bang.com has ever seen. If the democrats really cared about ending the war in Iraq, then, Harry Reid should have forced the republicans to wage a filibuster. On the night of the "all night filibuster", Reid should have used his leadership position to make sure that every democrat was in the Senate Chamber. Make it a spectacle: Pack the chamber and cause a ruckus: Make our founding fathers proud. For once, try to force the republicans to do some work, shut the whole thing down and bring debate to a close by invoking cloture.
Harry Reid didn't do any of those things. The chamber was empty and not animated. Really, he didn't need 60 votes for the Iraq War withdraw bill. At the time, Reid could have probably persuaded moderate republicans to go along with the democrats; that would have brought the Yea- withdraw vote count up to 60. The bill would have passed through the senate, and the United states might be much further along in getting the f*ck out of Iraq (and the war in Iraq is a huge problem that has already cost the US 3 trillion dollars- that's a big wad of cash).
To clarify popular misinformation: Democrats don't actually need to control 60 votes in the senate to invoke cloture on the republicans during the next session of congress.
All the republican senators are scared: the republican party was almost annihilated on the Nov 4. Every one on the entertainment news TC channels keeps blathering about compromise and a "spirit of bipartisanship". If this is actually the sediment around Washington DC, then, the democrats don't need 60 seats; Harry Reid should be able to "persuade" republican senators to vote for democratic bills in the upcoming session.
With regards to Joe Lieberman:
Perhaps in a secret senate cloak back room Nancy Pelosi and harry Reid held a gun to Lieberman' s head and threatened Lieberman:
"You have to vote with the democratic party on every bill. period," and then made Lieberman sign a contract in blood.
If Lieberman did this, or some sort of deal was reached, then, it will allow the democrats to control 60 seats in the senate. Once the democrats have the 60 votes, Harry Reid will lack excuses for the senate's perpetual paralysis inaction (and if there is legislative paralysis next session, that might put Reid in a very precarious political situation if he is unable to force the democrats to get along and pass some legislation)
Additionally, if Mr. Saxby Chambliss gets defeated in Georgia, the democrats will control 61 votes with Lieberman; 60 votes without him....and this assessment presupposes the fact that every democrat is going to go along with the party on every bill; this is a seriously dubious fact
Really, the questions surrounding Lieberman are irrelevant. Either way, the democrats should be able to dominate the senate. Public opinion is behind them.
What was Obama suppose to do about Lieberman? Beat that bitch with a bat? Unlikely.
Lieberman has dug his own grave. He has made a total fool of himself in the last couple of months. Even if he keeps his leadership positions in the senate, he has no power to exercise since he has lost all respect and credibility with other congresspeople and the American public.
He simply looks like a traitor; historically, Americans don't like traitors and have little sympathy for them.
Everyone needs to relax about this whole issue. Obama's response to the Lieberman question was savvy: Obama welcomed Lieberman back into the fold because he knew that Lieberman was politically powerless and therefore was not a threat to his political agenda.
Do you pity the fool?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment