Political capital for Obama is not Lieberman’s one vote, which would likely fall where it falls no matter what, but the perception of “post-partisanship.” As it is he’s getting flak for not yet naming any Republicans to his team and so many of the Clinton era. Sending the message that party loyalty is what is key would not serve him too well.
I only want their agenda to pass if people can agree to it and stand behind it, not if they are paying off favors and voting out of loyalty.
And no, my name does not rhyme with Shmollyanna.
And you wonder why all the townsfolk worship you.
People generally think if you don’t do the thing they think you should do then you are somehow weak willed or cowardly. I generally refer to these people as ‘idiots’.
Because they only held off so I’d have enough time to come up with a suitable headline:
“Lily-livered legislator lets lying Lieberman lead lame-duck lawmakers.”
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to call my old pal Harry and my buddy at the New York Times.
I’m wondering if inside polling is showing that the Dems have more of a chance at 60 in the Senate than people thought. If so, it’s certainly shrewd to extend that olive branch early, in hopes that Lieberman takes it and sucks up to the Dems in order to be re-elected. I doubt he will be anyway (I think Connecticut voters are pissed off that he lied about supporting the Democratic Presidential nominee), but kowtowing to the Democrats is Lieberman’s only hope now.
I’m fine with the person speaking his mind in honest debate, as long as he votes the right way when it’s on the line. Look, I’m not saying that everything needs to be a strict party line vote, but there’s point in having a congressional leadership if the rank and file members are just going to ignore it and do whatever they want. And if some senator or congressman wants to be a maverick and “the conscience of the Congress” or whatever, fine, more power to him, but he shouldn’t then expect favors, like leadership positions and committee chairmanships, from the party he’s willing to ignore.
And there’s little that says “I’m disloyal to the party” more then speaking at the other party’s nominating convention and telling everyone they should vote for the other guy for President.
I liked this opinion piece on huffpost
There, but for the grace of Obama, goes Lieberman.
I think think Lieberman knows that he owes his position to Obama — that perhaps he doesn’t deserve that position, but owe it he does. He also must know that if he strays too far, it can be taken away from him. He’ll be on his best behavior.
More importantly, I feel this was the cheaper solution political-capital-wise. You can see this frugality in how Obama carefully tests his nominees for political baggage. Obama intends to play this game on offense. If he has to fight Lieberman for 2 years, that’s political capital he has to spend on defense.
The congressional leadership can influence/control what gets to a vote and what doesn’t.
Now if only they actually would…
(Added probably missing “no”.)
I personally think Congress would work better if the legislators paid less heed to their party leaders and more to their constituents. I’d rather see Congressional caucuses for each issue than parties that try to link unrelated issues.
Yeah, because it’ll serve the American people better when our legislators owe votes to specific issues no matter what the individual bills say.
I think they can revote when they feel like it. He is beholding to Obama for not coming out against hi. He is spared the humiliation and being pushed back to the status of a one term senator. Perhaps he will behave better now.