They've kept Joe Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Whew! Harry Reid:
Is this the time we walk out of here saying "Boy, did we get even!"? I feel very good about what we did today. . . . Do I trust Senator Lieberman? The answer is yes. I trust Senator Lieberman. . . . We're looking forward. We're not looking back. We're looking forward to a future we believe sets a new tone for America.
Harry Reid, of course, doesn't want to either reduce his majority or lose his job, and he appears to be acknowledging that the wind is blowing from the center. Both he and Lieberman are saying that in a crisis we don't have the luxury of hyperpartisanship. Good sign!
Ally, your Colorado Senator and friend Ken Salazar was one of the "gang of four" Lieberman thanked for leading the charge (the others: Dodd - CT, Carper - DE, and Nelson - FL).
Ken's really all but a Republican anyway on most things.
I'll note he and I were born in the same hospital in the same year.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 18, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Separated at birth, like David and Danny!
Posted by: amba | November 18, 2008 at 01:28 PM
Lieberman has been useless on Homeland Security. We could give the committee to a three-toed sloth and get more action.
Lieberman is only a moderate on foreign policy, and in his occasional outbursts of ill-informed commentary on culture. Everywhere else he'll back unions and government programs and party-line liberal positions.
It was a dumb move. They should have given the Kossacks Lieberman's head -- it would have pacified them and left us room for maneuver on more important issues. And you just cannot have members of your own party attacking the presidential candidate. They should have kicked him out of the caucus which would have knocked him off the chair and left him facing certain defeat in 2 years. Has nothing to do with bipartisanship: you still need to be able to discipline your troops when they actually go to work for the enemy.
I would rate this as Obama's first mistake.
Posted by: michael Reynolds | November 18, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I suspect that the next time he is asked to describe Pres. Obama, Senator Lieberman will strike a very different tone than he has in the recent past.
Posted by: Tom Strong | November 18, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Tom: that already happened -- Lieberman as much as regretted some of his campaign-rhetorical extremes.
Michael: strategically alone, that would be a mistake. The Dems don't have 60. They can't be confrontational out of the gate. It may not suit your warrior nature, but right now they need to conciliate or provoke obstruction. And a good thing too, IMO.
Posted by: amba | November 18, 2008 at 04:47 PM
The Republicans can't obstruct that easily. 60 would be nice for the Dems but not necessary. There are enough Republican senators up for re-election in two years that won't want to be seen as obstructionist on major legislation. So long as the legislation isn't wacky there will be a handful of GOP senators -- including McCain (and Lieberman if he was forced off the boat) to allow Dems to quash a pointless or ideological filibuster.
Posted by: michael Reynolds | November 18, 2008 at 07:30 PM
McCain just announced he's running for reelection to the senate in 2010. He'll have to pretend to be a good Republican for the next 24 months.
I'm about this far from donating to Senator Chambliss just to keep a speed bump in the Congress.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | November 18, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Michael:
Lieberman didn't work for the 'enemy'; he worked for the opposition.
The enemy is over there.
Posted by: Ruth Anne | November 18, 2008 at 09:48 PM
McCain just announced he's running for reelection to the senate in 2010. He'll have to pretend to be a good Republican for the next 24 months.
Or maybe just a good Arizonian will do, since it's not his party but his state that will reelect him.
Posted by: amba | November 18, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Lieberman's a mensch. I'm a conservative Republican who voted for him twice (out of three elections). He's a complete liberal except on anti-terrorism, which is good enough for me. (Living in Connecituct, and all, that's the best I can do.)
Posted by: Mike Kriskey | November 19, 2008 at 01:53 AM
I'm no fan of Lieberman (slimy opportunist), but I was glad to see that he wasn't removed from the dem caucus. I think Reid hit exactly the right note, which must have been difficult to do given Lieberman's actions and words during the campaign.
Posted by: Katie | November 20, 2008 at 01:28 PM