It’s quite a tightrope Sen. Kerry needs to walk these days.
From the Herald:
U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry says his colleague Joe Lieberman’s backing of John McCain’s presidential bid and potential speaking role at the GOP convention should not prompt Democrats to strip him of his Senate chairmanship.
…
The independent Connecticut senator’s support for the Republican White House bid has sparked a petition calling on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to strip Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairmanship.
But Kerry (D-Mass.) and a Reid spokesman said such a move isn’t even on the drawing board.
“We’re not talking about stripping Joe,” Kerry said.
p.s. Anything amiss with the Herald’s headline?
Please share widely!
We’ve heard from a certain campaign that Kerry is not a team player. Senator Reid clearly does not want the Lieberman issue to become a distraction and so Kerry, the non-team player that he is supposed to be, supports the Senate leadership.
<
p>Jeez, when’s Kerry gonna learn to be cooperative and reign in his ambition?
Reid and his people are not talking about the possibility of ousting Lieberman after the election, essentially keeping the option open. Most Senate Democrats are mum about the issue, for good reason.
<
p>John Kerry seems to be taking the position similar to Chris Dodd that such a move should never be on the table.
If the Democratic Caucus is going to oust Lieberman, it should come on the heels of his speech to the Republican Convention. To get the most PR bang, the ouster must slam down unexpectedly. A big enough bang could undercut whatever sycophantic things Lieberman says about Senator McCain or egregious things he says about the “Democrat” Party.
<
p>So I suspect that Reid is playing his cards very close to the chest — and for good reason.
Senator Dodd’s position on this must be complicated by the fact that he’s from the same state. There are probably Nutmeg issues here I don’t know about or understand. When helping do GOTV on a Congressional race in 2006, I was surprised at the number of “Joe” signs that appeared on otherwise Democratic front lawns.
Not that I expect there are a whole lot of issues coming down the pipeline before January, but I wouldn’t antagonize Joe too much. Mind you, I wouldn’t say too many nice things about him either.
<
p>If Reid, Dodd, or anyone else don’t kick Lieberman out as soon as the next session begins freshmen Senators Udall, Begich, Shaheen, and others in company, they’re pitiful.
Next session I want to see Lieberman out.
Kerry and Lieberman, plus Reid, are a threesome that characterize the Dem Party’s capitulation to the neo-con agenda. No serious challenge to the Iraq invasion and occupation, no insistence that Republicans actually carry out a filibuster when they threaten to do so, over and over running scared from the right wing. This is not only not progressive leadership, it is abject failure to lead at all. Completely disgusting is what it is.
<
p>Ed O’Reilly is right on in challenging gas bag Kerry.
If I get this straight, you want a Senator willing to mount futile attempts at filibusters so as not to capitulate to the neo-cons.
<
p>As if futility were an answer.
<
p>On the face of it, that approach is more reminiscent of gasbaggery than whatever it is Kerry is doing.
A filibuster is a parliamentary tool for forcing debate. It is basic to the operation of the senate. It is also vital for public education in a democracy.
<
p>See my blogs, including links to other commentaries (incl. NYTimes, Krugman, and 1964 Civil Rights Act):
<
p>The Filibuster Tool:
http://blogs.umass.edu/derrico…
<
p>Force Them To Filibuster:
http://blogs.umass.edu/derrico…
is one that loses easily. Neither of your blog posts makes any sort of argument that there is any sort of value to attempting a filibuster in the teeth of 60+ eager votes for cloture.
<
p>There might be some invisible, supernatural spirit who applauds symbolic actions made for what is good and morally upright. However, I submit that the opinion on that symbolism-loving-angel doesn’t matter to inhabit this earth.
<
p>Results matter.
Why is this even an issue among mass dems. What is the first thing that John Kerry will want to do when he loses to Ed O’Reilly in a DEMOCRATIC primary come september? Why run – like his pal Lieberman – as an independent and to hell with the Democratic Party.
<
p>For 24 years, John Kerry has wanted to be a SENATOR – not a Democratic Senator, not a REPUBLICAN senator and not an Independent Senator —- just a senator.
<
p>Enough already…Let’s send Ed O’Reilly to Washington…It’s time for Change.
<
p>Name me any Democrats you know like John F Kerry??
Who is more anti-Lieberman than the guy who ran against Lieberman? And if Kerry is so in bed with Lieberman, why this from Ned Lamont’s site?
Title: Why did Ned Lamont endorsing endorse Kerry?
if Kerry’s Lieberman endorsement came out earlier.
<
p>KBusch, you seem to be in a state of severe cognitive dissonance. Perhaps the years of nostalgia and blind loyalty has dulled your senses.
<
p>The fact that Kerry- who vows constantly that he wants to end the Iraq war- has made a public statement in support of preserving the power of one of the most prominent war-enablers in the US Government, is not only disapointing but utterly hilarious.
<
p>Let’s compare-and-contrast statements-
<
p>Big f’ing liberal Diane Feinsetin:
<
p>”I very much regret what he’s doing, candidly, but there isn’t anything I can do about it, and that’s really all I want to say”
<
p>Susan Collins:
<
p>”My hope is that he will not be punished for doing what he thinks is right”
<
p>John Kerry:
“We’re not talking about stripping Joe,”
<
p>I’m not one for retribution. I think that we got to work together, folks. We got to get the job done. We have bigger fish to fry than that.”
<
p>Feingold, Webb: [no comment]
If you go back and read things what I’ve written on Kerry, you’ll see I’ve expressed quite a bit of ambivalence about him. My history hardly counts as “blind loyalty”. In fact, I think Kerry was worse in the 1980s and 1990s than he is now. So believe me, my nostalgia is not of the positive kind.
<
p>Starting with Kerry-Feingold, Kerry has been behaving well and now often finds himself in the faction of good Democrats. Senator Feinstein (I hope you were being ironic in dubbing her a “big f’ing liberal”) has not been.
<
p>And yes, I recognize that Lieberman can be stripped of his chairmanship and evicted from the caucus without the leadership of the Senate changing hands. As I suggested before, doing that is somewhat of a big deal. Senator Reid may have some excellent reasons for not taking that step. If those reasons are because some Senator or other would be upset about it, I just can’t believe that that Senator would be Kerry. It’s much more likely to be a Senator of the Feinstein-Pryor side of the caucus than someone like Kerry in the Feingold-Kennedy side of the caucus.
<
p>Further, Senator Reid probably wants to choose his battles. No matter how gratifying it might be to embarrass the sanctimonious Senator from Connecticut, that achievement probably ranks lower than getting some other pieces of legislation through the chamber. As I suggested in two other comments to this post, there might be a very opportune time to give Lieberman the boot and, agreeing with Sabutai, I very much hope that he receives the boot when the next Senate is seated.