| 10.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Sen. Joe Lieberman has become a real quandary for Democratic leadership. He's an independent who functions as a Democrat, but endorsed John McCain and was extremely critical of Barack Obama. Some Democrats want him evicted from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he could become a real thorn in the side of Senate Democrats and Obama, since Lieberman was most critical of Obama on his security credentials. Others fear taking away Lieberman's gavel would push him into the Republican fold, something he's indicated he might do. The Washington Note has presented a tantalizing compromise: Strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security gavel, but give him something else -- anything that doesn't deal with security. There is, however, one major problem with the idea. Lieberman, by committee seniority, is not very well poised to take over some of the panels The Note's Steve Clemons recommends giving him. He already has a couple subcommittee chairmanships, one of which would be stripped under this compromise because it's on the Armed Services Committee. Would the chairwoman of the Environment & Public Works Committee step aside to make room for Lieberman, or would the other senator more senior on the panel do so? It's hard to imagine they'd relish the idea of being robbed of authority that would result in anything nice happening to Lieberman. The one committee where Lieberman is best positioned to take over without any intramural fights is the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee -- not the most glamorous assignment, but maybe enough for Lieberman to save face and maintain some power in the Senate. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 1 Comment |
| As someone not entirely enamored of the seniority-based system--or the two-party system itself--the Lieberman problem has been testing the limits of my imagination. It seems to me, with or without Lieberman the Dems aren't going to have their filibuster-proof majority. So what's the difference between 58 and 59 seats when one of those votes is as inconsistent as Lieberman's is likely to be? I say, not much. As much as I don't care for the seniority-based system, it is set up as a reward for years of faithful service. By all right, Lieberman is not a Democrat regardless of who he caucuses with. so I say, give'em the ol' heave-ho. Lieberman, of course, has every right, and perhaps the obligation, to go against the Democratic Party when he feels doing so better serves his constituency, but there's no reason at all for the Democratic Party to reward him for doing so, and every reason for them to punish him for his transgressions. Kick him out and move Clinton one rung higher in the seniority so that a reliable Democratic vote can sit at the head of a few committees. |
||
| Jim | Homepage | E-Mail | 10.11.2008, 17:57 | ||