Skip to main content

View Diary: Lieberman: "I'd Walk Three Miles to Support a Stupid War!" (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He Apparently Thinks it's a Life or Death... (5+ / 0-)

    ...matter to have a vote.  Not the substance of the vote, but he's afraid of even having the vote.  Downthread you conceded that this particular vote--not on the resolution itself, but on whether to even allow a vote on the resolution--doesn't seem to fit the exceptions on whether it's a life or death situation.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 12:34:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My concession downthread wasn't quite... (3+ / 0-)
      as you describe it.  

      True, downthread I noted that the nonbinding nature of the resolution and the nature of a cloture vote (at least where the rules of the Senate are not at issue) make it at first glance odd to consider this a life-or-death vote, because his presence wouldn't affect how the vote actually turned out in that 60 aye votes were needed for cloture.  On the other hand, I also said downthread that it's possible, on Lieberman's view, that the margin of the vote may nevertheless have mattered in a life-or-death sort of way.  

      The entire practical impace of this vote, in his view, comes from the symbolism.  The resolution, I believe he has indicated, would somehow embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops, such that more of our troops would die.  I disagree, but that's where he's coming from.  That being the case, it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the margin of the vote affects the symbolic impact-- presumably a cloture vote that failed with 59 votes for and 1 against would be, in Lieberman's hypothetical world, more demoralizing to our troops and more emboldening (is that a word?) to our enemies than a cloture vote that failed 56-43, or for that matter 56-34.  

      Lieberman is only one vote, true, but trying to peg one's analysis on that gets you into a sort of categorical-imperative problem; he may be entitled  to make his decisions on the hypothetical assumption that others would follow his lead and that he needs to act according to rules that would still apply if others followed them.  As a rough analogy, I assume you don't think the fact that Florida 2000 wasn't decided by a single vote excuses each Florida Nader voter and nonvoter?

      And the above analysis isn't really affected by the fact that this was technically a vote on whether to have a vote.  (Actually it was still more remote than that: when you consider that this was a cloture vote on the motion to proceed, and that another cloture vote on the actual resolution would no doubt follow if the motion to proceed passed, this was more of a vote on whether to vote on whether to vote on whether to have the final vote.)  It may well be the only time the Senate votes on the House resolution in any fashion; Harry Reid's remarks after the vote suggest that he may take this to indicate majority support for the resolution, try to make others see it that way, and move on to other things.  So if you think, as Lieberman may, that the vote count matters with respect to the morale of our troops or our enemies, then this may have been his only chance to be registered in that vote count.

      Again, I reiterate that I disagree with the basic premise about the resolution emboldening our enemies and demoralizing our troops.  But once you grant that this may be where Lieberman is coming from, I think his actions are internally consistent with respect to Sabbath rules.

    •  Beyond the hypocrisy, if this vote had been on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Old Gardener

      say, health care, would he have made the walk/vote?

      This is about piety, and public pronouncements of same.  It is NOT about religion.

      It's full of stars...

      by Terra Mystica on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 01:33:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He should have... (0+ / 0-)
        in that scenario, since health care is clearly a matter of life and death.  And I don't know of  any evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have.
        •  He clearly should have, but Iraq seems to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah

          his "extra effort" issue.  Not campaigning on his Sabbath in 2000 suggested that that race (i.e. the Presidency, i.e. not having GWB as Pres.) did not reach the level of importance of cloture on this issue.

          Iraq, too is about life or death, and whether putting more people at risk is the right thing to do.  I do not think it is the right thing to do, by any stretch of the imagination.  But health care would be the right thing to do as it would unequivocally save lives, if it ever hypothetically came to a vote on a Saturday.

          I don't get Lieberman's priorities on this, and I am with RenaRF in her outrage.

          It's full of stars...

          by Terra Mystica on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 03:04:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  has he ever voted on the Sabbath before (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vome minnesota, Terra Mystica

          In what, isn't it 18 years? Hmmm...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site