  subscribe | Articleman on Talk Radio KRXA540.com Wednesdays 8:05am PDT / 11:05am EDT |  Deadman |  Articleman |  Genghis |  DF |  Orlando |  Mortimus |
| subscribe | Articleman on Talk Radio KRXA540.com Wednesdays 8:05am PDT / 11:05am EDT | Deadman | Articleman | Genghis | DF | Orlando | Mortimus |
NavigationRecent blog posts
Recent comments
Most popularToday's:All time:
|
Jim Jeffords, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and Barack Obama
A quick hitter on the Joe Lieberman liberal blogosphere fooforaw. Barton Gellman's Angler: The Cheney Vice-Presidency, a book immortalized in this space as #3 (not to be confused with #4) on Articleman's Ranking of Noncommensurable Things, contains a story that sheds light on what happened today when the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 to permit Joe Lieberman to remain as Chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee. Early in the Bush Administration, a group of moderate Republicans from New England met with Dick Cheney, expecting the administration to be ready to make deals with them on legislative matters. Afterward, Vermont's moderate Republican Senator, Jim Jeffords, who was then Chairman of the Education Committee, decided to condition his support of Bush's massive tax cut for wealthy Americans (more than a trillion dollars, remember?) on the new Bush Administration's willingness to divert $450 million from the intended tax cut to schooling for disadvantaged youth. Dick Cheney didn't flinch. The Senator would not dictate policy to the new Administration. And when Jeffords threatened to leave the Republican caucus over the dispute, tipping the 50/50 chamber to the Democrats? Well, Cheney wouldn't (pardon the idiom) negotiate with terrorists. Once you accede to the peculiar demands of those who travel at the margins of your coalition, it is they, and not you, who drive the train. Jeffords could do what Cheney told Pat Leahy to do on the floor of the Senate. It starts with F. Sound familiar? True, Joe said some crappy things about President-Elect Obama. But Barack doesn't care. He doesn't need us taking up a collection of indignation in his defense. He doesn't need the score settled. So if you want to settle it, fine, admit it's your score and not his. And Cheney? He settled his, just as the bitterly angry progressive blogosphere wished to settle its score with Joe today. Oh, and he gave away control of the Senate. The blogosphere that doesn't want the imperial Presidency should welcome Obama giving a foe one more chance. Not because it's momentarily satisfying. It's not. But because you don't know how many reliable votes progressives will have in the Senate years from now. And because it's not what Dick Cheney did, or would have done.
Dag? Nab it! Subscribe to the latest from your favorite topic, blogger, or entire site. |
|
I say throw out the traitor. But I am not going to be president. I purposely voted for a guy who is wiser than myself.
Also, I figure if we can just keep doing the opposite of Bush-Cheney, things will no doubt improve in the universe.
Your last sentence is wisdom, IMHO.
Articleman, you're doing a grave disservice to the liberal blogosphere. We need a bogeyman. Bush is out. Cheney is out. McCain is just a crotchety Republican Senator again. You told us not to worry about Sarah Palin. Who is a self-respecting progressive supposed to hate these days? Without Joe the Senator, we'll be forced to devour our own.
Obama has to have a reason for wanting Lieberman to keep his committee. After two years of watching him make one right decision after another, I'm not sure why people are throwing temper tantrums over it.
Obama supporters will inevitably throw temper tantrums. He doesn't mind, he probably enjoys them. If he's not worried, I won't be. Some people are just going out of their way to prove they are above a cultish following of Obama. In doing so, they only give him an opportunity to prove that he can tolerate opposition while maintaining confidence in his own decisions. In other news, I just saw a store in the village where you can buy Obama underwear.
If we pass strong climate change legislation, and strong health care legislation, and lose seats in the Senate, we may be back in the low fifties, with blue dogs constituting the balance. Then the Jeffords analogy becomes spot on.
Still, I agree that, looking at today alone, you're surely right. But when Obama was talking about changing the country's trajectory, he was talking way past today as a frame for what he's doing. I think he's trying to neutralize opposition in the layer of votes from 55 to 70 in the Senate, and I think that's smart. Not something people identified with votes 1-30 are going to like much, of course. Hearing him on climate change, Barack is going to spend his capital. Much of this week is about accumulating it. Smart.
Very well said A-man. I am so trapped in my own revengeful head I find it hard to imagine not needing to act out of revenge. How totally refreshing it must be to just move on and get things done. I may have to try it!!
Consistent with my response to dijamo, above, I really think that Obama right now is being a functionalist. Getting things done is all there is right now. I like that.