So what exactly happened? (4.00 / 1)

There was a report that he spoke in favor of Lieberman being losing his gavel, then reports that that was wrong. Was it something in-between?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:22:17 AM UTC

yes (4.00 / 1)

I don't think he actually said Lieberman should lose his gavel, but he did say that chairmen should be held to a higher standard and that Lieberman's behavior was wrong. So, he sort of said it without specifically saying it.

So yes, Merkley did the right thing. I wish I knew who all 13 of those good Democrats were. The other fortysomething, they should have told Obama "sorry, this is Senate business, Joe is finished". I guess I can only hope that they follow in lock-step when Obama asks them to enact progressive legislation and tax hikes for the rich. Won't hold my breath.

The only upside is that Lieberman owes Obama big time. Hopefully he shuts his mouth and votes the right way from now on.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:04:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Merkley shouldn't be in this "good Democrat" category on this one. (0.00 / 0)

He spoke but said nothing.  I don't think, based on what I've read, that he actually spoke against Liberman, said that he ought to lose his gavel, or actually voted against him.  Looks like Merkley shouldn't have been in that "good Democrat" post. Maybe another time. So, by my count, it looks like one good Democrat and a good Socialist. Merkley, not so much.  Sorry. http://www.oregonlive.com/poli...

---

by: Mitch Guthman @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:38:27 AM UTC

why not? .. (4.00 / 4)

are you really expecting a newly elected Senator to come in and say they need to burn the place to the ground and parade around that room with the "Kiss" float?  For being a newly elected Senator .. he did well .. when you consider that most of the Democrats in the Senate care more about pissing off Lieberman than doing the right thing

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:50:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite right, "language" in the Senate is not normal English (4.00 / 1)

In the "club" known as the Senate, this language is as strong as they get:

Oregon's senator-elect Jeff Merkley gained some notice on Capitol Hill Tuesday by forcefully expressing disappointment bordering on anger with Sen. Joe Lieberman's vocal support for John McCain during the presidential campaign.

Based on this language, he might as well be a "bomb-thrower".

(Perhaps the Senate should be different, perhaps it would be a better place if people there used more direct language. But f**k, the Senate is the Senate.)

---

by: tietack @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:14:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Valid points, maybe Merkley deserves a pass on Holy Joe (0.00 / 0)

You guys make some valid points, so, upon further reflection, maybe we should give him a pass since he's a freshman.  For me the question is whether the voting matched the words and so I think I'll withhold judgment until we know how everybody voted. (Hopefully, the leak will be forthcoming shortly).

---

by: Mitch Guthman @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:32:26 AM UTC

how is it better to vote to retain? (0.00 / 0)

It may have been ballsy to talk about how hurt and disappointed he was, but if he voted to retain Lieberman anyway? Note that Merkley said this, according to the Oregonian:

"At the same time, he also said this a time to look forward and "not a time for retribution.""

Why would you then turn around and vote to strip him? And why would AP go to the trouble to correct a statement that he opposed Lieberman, to say directly and flat out that he did NOT oppose him? (And why would Politico say he spoke out in favor, unless "not being a time for retribution" seemed like a clear indication in sum that he would vote to retain?)

This seems eerily like HR2, the memorial bill to support the war in the Oregon House, where Merkley claimed to have spoken out against it--and then voted Yes anyway (in order to support the troops, he said).

Merkley's not saying, and two major media outlets are currently standing by their stories that he did NOT oppose Lieberman. I think there's still some more explaining to do.

Help us Optimize McCain! Use these widgets to make it crazy-easy...

---

by: torridjoe @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:05:25 AM UTC

I (4.00 / 1)

know this will anger a lot of people, but I think keeping Lieberman is a good move. I know he's done a lot of bad things and will probably do more. But...

They may need his vote on crucial things, like getting supreme court justices appointed. While he's been terrible on Iraq he has voted correctly on "some" other things over the years. Stripping him of his chair will more than likely affect the way he votes on future pieces of legislation (worker rights, immigration, the environment, etc.). He's emotional like most people, and feelings such as anger, pride, etc. will likely affect his future actions. It's crazy to think that people function that way, but they do, even senators, hell, maybe especially power hungry senators.

Plus, I think stripping him of his chair would make Obama look petty to the public at large at time when he is trying to prove he's a uniter. The public doesn't like it when people seem to be holding grudges.

Truthfully, I've read all of the "this gives him the ability to cause Obama future problems" arguments, but I think he's actually less likely to attempt to do anything to Obama now than he would have been had they kicked him out. And couldn't many republicans investigate Obama the same way everyone is worried Lieberman is going to?

This whole thing mostly seems symbolic to me. And I'm too pragmatic for that. I care about real legislation that is actually going to affect people's lives, not who deserves to be punished for saying or doing something we don't like. And yes, I'm a far left liberal, but I want to see things actually get accomplished, and sometimes that involves a touch of compromise. Very few things in life are achieved without a bit of compromise. Just look at most successful relationships. They tend to involve compromise.
 

---

by: Brett @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:45:19 AM UTC