Maddow Amplifies Our Point About Lieberman

by: David Sirota

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 13:23


Many in the blogosphere, including OpenLeft (here and here), have noted that the removal of Joe Lieberman from his committee post isn't about revenge - it's about political pragmatism. In specific, it's about making sure a guy who has repeatedly displayed his deep personal and irrational hatred for Barack Obama doesn't have the subpoena power to embark on witch hunts against President Obama. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night took all of those arguments and summed them up in a really great piece:

So, to reiterate - removing Lieberman is not about revenge, it's about helping make sure the next administration doesn't have to spend all it's time fending off a crazed McCarthyist with subpoena power.

UPDATE: Maddow's final point is really important - it's a point I made earlier: This idea that Democrats can just strip him of his chairmanship the moment he gets on his first witch hunt is absurd. Once he's down that road, he becomes almost impossible to control, because he will be portrayed as the Honest Crusader, and Democratic efforts to restrain him will be likened to Richard Nixon's "midnight massacre" where he fired Archibald Cox. It will, in short, create a martyr more powerful than even a Chairman Lieberman.  
David Sirota :: Maddow Amplifies Our Point About Lieberman

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Maddow Amplifies Our Point About Lieberman | 40 comments
I wish there were some way to just reverse the framing completely (4.00 / 5)
De-chairifying Lieberman isn't punishing him; giving someone the chair is a reward. The question Lieberman supporters should have to answer is why, exactly, does Lieberman deserve to be rewarded?
why is punishment such a bad word? (4.00 / 3)
Any party, any party, has to have some form of party discipline...otherwise it is an unprincipled amalgam. If Lieberman has gone beyond the pale of the principles of the Democratic Party, and I think he has, then he should be disciplined, punished, restricted, restrained. We don't have to cut off his pinky or excommunicate him, but removing him from chairman of a major committee is a light slap of his hand. If that is too much for him, that is his choice. It means he NEVER will adhere to party priciples or help the party as opposed to himself. It may bother the DC villagers, but a party that cannot impose a minimal discipline on members isn't worth a shit.
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Since Lieberman is not a Democrat in any sense of the word, there is no reason he should be shoved to the front of the line in front of real Democrats. It's a question of basic fair play.  
[ Parent ]
Leahy agrees with your framing (4.00 / 1)
On the radio today (my emphasis added):

"Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should," Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman's fate in the Dem caucus next week. "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."
 
[ Parent ]
To put it even more simply, (4.00 / 1)
politics is about power. You just don't gift power to your declared enemy. Period.
What do they put in the water in DC? (4.00 / 1)
Democratic efforts to restrain him will be likened to Richard Nixon's "midnight massacre" where he fired Archibald Cox. It will, in short, create a martyr more powerful than even a Chairman Lieberman.

This is so predictable. Are they (Senate Dems) taking crazy pills? It's unfuckingbelievable. "Thank you, sir! May I have another!"

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I would boot him.......... (0.00 / 0)
as I can't stand him. But one question about his power to make Obama's life hell -- can't the Dems boot him anytime they choose if he does not do what they want?
you mean like when he's trashing and lying about the party's presidential candidate? (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
As I understand it (0.00 / 0)
it's not quite that easy. See this article from HuffPo. If it's right, the Dems can remove his chairmanship but it would be subject to filibuster.  
[ Parent ]
Let me get this straight (4.00 / 3)
Lieberman campaigns and votes against President elect Obama and the Democratic Party bends over backwards to appease him, while those to the left of Obama that supported him and voted for him get ignored.

Is that about right?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

I think you've got it right. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
That Lieberman would change his (0.00 / 0)
vote out of spite rather than in what Lieberman believes is best for the country (as Bayh suggests) was a big (but probably unintended) insult to Lieberman from Bayh last night.  That Lieberman isn't responding by saying that he'll always vote his conscience no matter his position in the Senate is hilarious.  What a tool!

O/T: Rachel Maddow can't be too happy that YouTube froze her face in that position for all the liberal blogs to disseminate.

John McCain won't insure children

Have a little honesty (4.00 / 1)
It's about revenge, and about keeping him in line, and avoiding the embarrassment of someone who strays so far off message and repeats the other side's talking points.  Also, there is reason to think that he would be ineffective in pressing Democratic goals in the committee (which could possibly include investigating Bush administration wrongs).  There isn't any reason to pretend it's anything else, because these are all understandable and valid motivations.

In a healthy government, your opposition does have subpoena power.  That's how it works: it ensures transparency.  In a functioning, transparent government, subpoena power would not be dependent on who controls the Congress, but would be granted to whatever party doesn't hold the Presidency.

Bush has been protected from "witch hunts" as well as vital inquiries because the Republicans don't have anyone who will vote with the opposition.  Had Bush appointees been subject to subpoenas earlier - so the issues of compliance would have be resolved long ago - we would have avoided some of the Bush disaster.

It's absurd to think that Lieberman could engage in witch hunts anyway.  As mentioned in the piece, he can still be removed.  There isn't any independent counsel law.  The administration SHOULD respond to subpoenas - it's the rule of law, democracy, and transparency that is at issue.  In fact, the best argument for keeping Lieberman in the chairmanship is exactly the one Maddow made against it.


This notion that Lieberman could just be removed from his Chairmanship (4.00 / 3)
mid-Congress are absurd. Congressional Committee assignments are determined by the party caucuses, yes, but once this is done, they are codified by an organizing resolution voted on by the full Senate.

In order to remove a Chairman Lieberman for bad behavior mid-stream, the Senate would need to pass another organizing resolution to remove him of his committee chairmanship. However, such a re-organization resolution would be subject to a filibuster and is therefore a total non-starter.

This idea that Lieberman could just be ousted mid-Congress without difficulty has no basis in the practical realities of the Senate. Likely, it's a notion conjured by Lieberman apologists to persuade undecided Democratic Senators that it's ok to give Lieberman a chairmanship

[ Parent ]
I'm not an expert (0.00 / 0)
Maybe you are.  But, if you don't have a link, I'm inclined to believe Evan Bayh, who says "we have the right to change chairmen at any time during the session."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
Bayh is wrong (0.00 / 0)
Look it up.
[ Parent ]
To clarify (4.00 / 1)
Bayh isn't exactly "wrong" - obviously they CAN remove him, i.e., it's not impossible. But it IS filibusterable. And thus not nearly as easy as Bayh makes it out to be.
[ Parent ]
I know a little bit about Rule 22, that's all (4.00 / 1)
You can find the organizing resolution for the majority party in the 110th Congress here.

As you can see, it passed by unanimous consent. As you can also see, it assigns each member of the majority party on each committee. These organizing resolutions typically last through an entire Congress.

Should a party wish to reassign chairmanships or committee memberships, it would technically require another organizing resolution to supersede the organizing resolution previously in effect.

Now I mentioned that the resolution I linked to for the 110th Congress was agreed to by unanimous consent. That doesn't have to be the case. Had the Republicans wanted to, they could have objected to unanimous consent and forced a roll-call vote. More importantly, having previously passed the rules from the previous session into effect, the Republicans could have filibustered this initial organizing resolution, if they wanted, under Rule 22 of the Senate.

At the beginning of the session, this would serve no purpose, as it'd be as easy for Democrats to turn around and filibuster the minority party's resolution when it came up for passage.

However, mid-Congress, these assignments are already in place. If you wanted to remove a chairman, you'd have to pass a resolution stripping that person of the chair. That resolution would be subject to a filibuster, and given the political realities of the next Congress, cloture would be unobtainable. That's why I say, he can't be removed. It's just how the rules work.

Evan Bayh either has no idea what he's talking about or is deliberately pushing an account that conflicts with the rules to justify his own apologism.

[ Parent ]
What about this don't you understand? (4.00 / 2)
Once he's down that road, he becomes almost impossible to control, because he will be portrayed as the Honest Crusader, and Democratic efforts to restrain him will be likened to Richard Nixon's "midnight massacre" where he fired Archibald Cox. It will, in short, create a martyr more powerful than even a Chairman Lieberman.

Lieberman will engage in a witch hunt because it will get him the kind of attention he loves. We've seen the way he operates. It's not a mystery. Nothing would secure his place or give him the upper hand more than launching an investigation of Obama. Dems will then be powerless to do anything. The Archibald Cox/Nixon parallel will be devastating. I can't believe Dems would be this stupid. Actually,  sadly, I can.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Simple (0.00 / 0)
Neither you, nor I, could predict what sort of issue Lieberman might pursue against the administration, or the administration's response.  My guess is that the administration and the Democrats would cooperate with reasonable inquires.

And no one can really explain what is the problem with answering a subpoena.  You're afraid the press will run off and make something out of nothing.  Hey, that's life.  It happened to Clinton, but the problem wasn't so much subpoenas as the independent prosecutor law.  A subpoena is a legal instrument, and either the request is for documents that are subject to disclosure or they are not.  

So, let's say Lieberman demands something crazy - a birth certificate investigation.  Then Lieberman is removed.  Then he screams "martyr."

There is absolutely no way to predict how that will play.  The public very well may not be interested in the birth certificate.  There may be a shark attack in the news cycle.  Or maybe, in the midst of winding down a war and a major economic crisis, the public will gush sympathy for poor old Joe and Obama's support will plummet. I'm not real convinced of that.

It is theoretically POSSIBLE that Lieberman will first ask for something entirely unreasonable and then when he is removed the press will trumpet the martyr line and the public may buy it - but it is far from a certainty, and you are opposing the principle of oversight for public relations issues that the party needs to handle every day.

It's a weak, anti-Democratic, anti-transparency argument.

[ Parent ]
Lieberman can't be removed (0.00 / 0)
from his chairmanship mid-session. Please see above comment.  
[ Parent ]
By your argument, (4.00 / 3)
the Dems would do the really, really, right thing if they gave the chairmanship to Mitch McConnell. Then we'd get "oversight" and "transparency" for sure. McConnell is as much a Democrat as Lieberman is. I guess by your logic you're unhappy that the Dems retained control of Congress.

The real question remains unanswered: why do you think a non-Democrat who works against the Democratic Party should be pushed to the front of the line when there are real Senate Democrats with no committee chairmanships at all? Has Gollum become our newest superhero role model?

[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
I see the membership of the committee is based on the resolution.

The operative terms of the resolution refer to "membership" not "composition."

I see nothing in the words of the resolution that would prevent a switch in chairmanship, as opposed to a removal from the committee.

Has this issue ever been tested?

[ Parent ]
Read closer (0.00 / 0)
Not only does the resolution provide for "membership" but it also specifies which member of each committee shall be named the chairman. So, yes, to remove someone from a chairmanship mid-session, you would need to pass an organizing resolution to supersede the currently active one, which would be subject to a filibuster.

I promise I'm not making this up. Ask any parliamentarian or anyone who's been around the Senate for a while.

[ Parent ]
I'll look into it. (0.00 / 0)
I was poking about in title 2 of the US Code, but it's pretty big.  I do see some language about replacement of chairmen in temporary situations, but nothing on point.

If the procedure made sense, it would be natural that the election of members of the committee would require the consent of both parties, because both parties have members.  But it doesn't make sense for the hierarchy to be out of the control of the majority party.  It wouldn't be shocking if the procedure didn't make sense, of course.  As to parlimentary procedure, I am a member of a board that follows such procedures, and our practice is to choose members of committes only, and the members choose chairpersons, who often change before the next resolution.

As I read the resolution, I don't know whether the chairmanships are put in for convenience or if they are essential terms.  I've looked around the net, and I don't see a lot of precedent, and I see opinions on both sides.  I can't believe that this hasn't been tested.  I did find that Joe McCarthy was stripped of his chairmanship as part of a censure resolution.  But I can't imagine that no one else has been stipped of a chairmanship, or stepped down, etc.  I'm also not sure if some temporary replacement authority could be extended through most of a session.

I don't have all day to look, and I'm sure you don't either.  I'm sure that someone who gets paid to look into these things will put together a history.  It is quite possible that you are right, but I don't find the language of the resolution decisive.

[ Parent ]
A point by point response (0.00 / 0)
1. Title 2 of the United States Code is irrelevant to this discussion. The governing set of rules here are the rules of the United States Senate, specifically Rule 14

2. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, and it likewise doesn't matter the practice the board you're a member of follows. The rules are the rules are the rules.

3. Chairmanships are explicitly defined in the organizing resolution. On the matter of chairmanships, you'll note that this organizing resolution from the 110th Congress specifically provides for a temporary replacement for Tim Johnson, who was hospitalized.

An examination of the text involved reveals that Joe McCarthy was not stripped of his committee chair in the censure resolution. Rather, the censure resolution passed in the waning days (December) of that Congress. Democrats had won a bare majority in the 1954 elections. The new Congress would be reorganized in January 1955 with a Democratic majority; hence, McCarthy would not have been chairman even if he wasn't disgraced.

But to your point, yes-- the Senate could have removed his chair as part of the censure resolution. And more importantly, there seemed the political will to do it. But my point stands: that would have been a filibuster-able resolution.

Herein lies my point, which you have not challenged. Yes, it is possible to remove a Chairman mid-Congress. But, it requires a new organizing resolution to pass to supersede the previously effective one. This new resolution would be subject to a filibuster. And the sheer math of the political situation-- 40 Republicans + Lieberman + possibly Chambliss + possibly Martin-- would preclude obtaining cloture.

Therefore, debate could not be cut off, and the resolution to remove Lieberman from his committee chair would die.

Unless one could procure the votes to break a filibuster on a reoragnizing resolution, Lieberman could not be removed. Period. End of story.

[ Parent ]
Yes. (0.00 / 0)
It appears that Rule 14 covers that situation.

As to "[your] point, which [I] have not challeged" - I have questioned (not challenged) whether a new resolution would be necessary to remove a chairman, rather than change membership.  However, Rule 14 resolves the point in your favor.  So, I agree that a filibuster of the removal is a possibility, and it isn't a simple intraparty concern - refuting Bayh's view.

Thank you.  

[ Parent ]
The argument... (4.00 / 2)
isn't that there should be a quid pro quo against principled oversight.
The argument is that Lieberman can't be trusted to provide principled oversight.
[ Parent ]
Why should Dems even be considering (4.00 / 2)
giving this power to someone whom we have reason to believe would use the position irresponsibly and unethically to hurt Democrats? Why is this even being discussed? Lieberman has a consistent history of fucking Democrats just to get his sanctimonious mug on TV. He is a favorite of Sean Hannity. I can't believe we are even having this conversation.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
The worst argument (0.00 / 0)
There are plenty of good arguments for stripping him of his role as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. Those deal with establishing a deterrent effect for future possible defectors, and to demonstrate that party unity is important (by rewarding those who held the firm line by moving them up the ranks). I find them persuasive, and I hope that they carry the day.

That said, this is a terrible reason to oppose the action.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone in Congress being interested in oversight over the Administration.

Remember how we moaned (justifiably) for years that Bush was operating without any Congressional check? Given that, how could we complain with a straight face that one person in Congress might be interested in keeping an eye on the internal workings of the Obama administration?

I don't even think Lieberman would actually provide it (he likes to bluster far more than he cares about being a cog in the Democratic machine), but the mere possibility that he could is not a legitimate reason to chuck him out.

Sandy Levinson is extremely persuasive on this point.

Wrong wrong wrong (4.00 / 2)
There's nothing wrong with congressional oversight. There is something very wrong with LIEBERMAN being in control of oversight. The man has no integrity whatsoever. It's like appointing Al Capone as the D.A.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 2)
Odds are that a Lieberman investigation would be like Whitewater. It would go on for years, be pimped by Republicans, generate a lot of alarmist media, damage Obama's mandate, reduce the progressive possibilities, and in the end turn out to be contrived bullshit.
[ Parent ]
Keeping an eye (4.00 / 1)
like the Republicans kept an eye on Clinton? Is that what we want to rerun? I guess the dividing point on this issue is whether you think Lieberman still has any integrity or commitment to basic Democratic Party principles. Some of us, myself included, see him as an ethics-deprived opportunist who will do anything to keep himself in the news cycle, especially if he thinks it enhances the "maverick" image he tries so hard to sell. Others, like yourself, apparently, see him as a good guy who made a little mistake or something.

To me the most telling historical parallel to Lieberman with this kind of power would be that other Joe called McCarthy. Believe that or not, you still don't answer the basic question: why should a pol who is not a Democrat, who campaigned against the Democratic Party and its leader, and is almost certainly at the end of his Senate career, be shoved to the front of the line ahead of actual Democrats who have shown at least minimal commitment to the best interests of the party? I'd really like to see a coherent argument for that, because it strikes me, frankly, as nuts.

[ Parent ]
Completely missing the point (0.00 / 0)
The point isn't that Lieberman is deserving of the committee chairmanship, or shouldn't be removed.

There are plenty of reality-based, nonemotional arguments for removing Lieberman.

It's pretty remote to argue that there is a serious threat that Lieberman will succeed in being an unchecked one-man Ken Starr against Obama.  You might argue that it is a possibility, but there is no reason to believe it to be a liklihood, and there is a very important countervailing consideration - that of accountability, and that opponents do provide that accountability.  In other words, it ranks as one of the weakest reasons, not one of the strongest.

It is a fear-based argument. To claim it is the "best" argument or "practical" is the sort of emotional, ungrounded approach that used to be reserved for the Sean Hannitys of the world.

Not all of us want to go to the dark side with Rachael.  

[ Parent ]
Dark side??? (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, but I really don't care if you think it's "emotional", since you once again try to distract from the only issue: why does Lieberman, who is not a Democrat, and who has worked assiduously to damage the Democratic Party, deserve to be put at the front of the line for chairmanships?

The reality is that you're the one making emotional arguments based on nothing. If having an enemy in the house is your standard, then you should be arguing for putting Mitch McConnell or John Cornyn in charge of government oversight. They are as much Democrats as Lieberman is. There is no reason to trust Lieberman, and more than a year's worth of reasons not to. I call that rational, not fear based. Maybe Obama should make Bush Sec of State, because nobody can PROVE he'd definitely be bad at it. Your reasoning is so lacking that I have to wonder if you're just another troll.

[ Parent ]
I can't help it (0.00 / 1)
if you can't follow a logical train of argument.

Lieberman doesn't deserve the chairmanship.  But that isn't the topic.  The topic is ONE SPECIFIC ARGUMENT - the notion that Lieberman will conduct a witch hunt from his chairmanship is a likely possibility, a practical consideration, and the most compelling argument against him retaining the chairmanship.

To address one of your digressions: of courseI would have no problem giving Mitch McConnell subpoena power, separate and apart from the chairmanship (the rules are wrong in not providing for it - I can't believe you can't even follow my argument this far, as I've expressly said as much).  As I mentioned, it is good for democracy for him to have it.  This is called VALUES of GOOD GOVERNMENT, something Democrats are supposed to stand for.

I have argued that the Lieberman witch hunt argument is (a) anti-transparency (b) based on a remote possibility and (c) fear based.  Others are arguing the same things on this board.  You're welcome to address THAT line of argument.  But spouting off irrelevancies and claiming that I can't argue is a touch annoying.

To repeat:  in case you haven't noticed, we aren't talking about making Bush Secretary of State or putting Mitch McConnell in charge of government oversight.  We are talking about whether the chair of Homeland Security is a likely base for launching witch hunts after the expiration of the independent counsel law, and whether the administration should be required to answer subpoenas, even if the motivation behind issuing the subpoena is stupid, mean-spirited, and a cheap political attack.  My answers are NO, the chairmanship is an unlikely base for such attacks and OF COURSE, the administration should release to the Congress and the people every scrap of paper that isn't classified or used for strategies in progress.  It is this contention, which I have supported, that you haven't addressed.  Hence, you completely miss the point.

Maddow is a demogogue.  She isn't any better than Sean Hannity.  I have no use for such people, and I find it sad some on the left think her rants are compelling.

It's too bad you think that expounding on the core values of the party is being a troll.

[ Parent ]
Maddow is a demagogue? (0.00 / 0)
Equivalent to Hannity? Wow.
[ Parent ]
The Clinton example (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't seem even marginally comparable.

My recollection is that the Congressional investigation into Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, etc was not particularly harmful.  I have no problem, to this day, with those inquiries being taken up by the Congress.  They may have been silly investigations, but that's part of the process of transparency, as it's an adversarial system.

The problem was the independent counsel law.  Once an independent counsel was appointed, he served as a roving prosecutor, picking off the actual culprits in Whitewater who had nothing to do with Clinton's involvement, and keeping it in the news cycle.  Not even that really hurt Clinton that much - but the fact that the independent counsel could turn on a dime, and convert a Whitewater investigation into a Paula Jones/Lewinsky investigation, did.  If those matters had to be separately taken up by the Congress as they arose, it is likely that the impeachment wouldn't have happened - if you'll recall, the Republicans nearly self destructed when they were pushing the impeachment, and had the track been significantly longer, they might have truly imploded.

In a more ideal Congress, the opposition would always hold subpoena power.  In some countries, this is the norm.  The right to hold this power wouldn't be dependent on the personal worth of the individual.  It would be trusted to the adversary process, as we do many other things in divided government.

Although we don't have that system, but underlying objection Maddow is making is an argument against the principle of transparency.  The Congress doesn't "earn" the right to transparency of the executive through good behavior, just as I don't have to show my good will in a FOIA request.  I find the argument anti-Democratic, anti-transparency, and fairly offensive.  Because I find Maddow and this argument fundamentally offensive, especially after eight years of Bush when we should be looking to ways to ensure MORE investigations, no matter what party is in power, not fewer, doesn't make me a troll, or a Republican.  

If we believe in transparency, we should stand for that value consistenty.  We shouldn't shirk from advocating the value because it's messy or inconvenient in a particular circumstance.  Maddow, who is a smart person who understands what she is saying, obviously doesn't.  

[ Parent ]
not about revenge or pragmatism (4.00 / 1)
it's about following party rules.

Lieberman violated party rules.

the end.

Lieberman is no Great Persuader (4.00 / 1)
He is much less of a danger now than he was in years past.  I really don't care what happens to him either way.

The fear of him strikes me as bizarre.

Maddow Amplifies Our Point About Lieberman | 40 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox