I wanted to get a diary in while the furor over Joementum's lack of sanction continues. BTW, I fully expect that some kind of sanction has been demanded by the Dem leadership... I just don't believe that it's a meaningful sanction, or, for that matter, that Joe L seriously intends to behave at all differently.
Still, I am appalled at many of our community's members being unable to separate reasoned appeals for a new Chair at Homeland Security and reasoned appeals for a meaningful sanction upon a rogue Senator who routinely gives the finger to his Senate colleagues, his party, his constituents and the majority of the electorate in this country. Moreover, it's both simplistic and wrongheaded to treat the locus of these two things as nothing more than a desire for "vengeance". True, many who support strong sanctions do so out of heartily admitted vindictiveness. But the fact that a strong sanction achieves the goal of revenge for some does not make it wrong by that fact. Here's why: (over the cliff below)
Conflation of issues in diaries maybe the single biggest challenge DKos faces.
What do I mean by conflate? Well, the Lieberman issue diaries conflate several issues:
1. How to deal with Lieberman's support of McCain and GOP Senators.
2. How to deal with Lieberman's open and hostile criticism of his party, and his party's candidate.
3. How to deal with Lieberman's ongoing behavior and history as a "rogue" Democrat.
4. How to to make decisions regarding Senate roles and responsibilities of Senators.
5. How to address the failure of the Homeland Security Committee to perform its basic oversight responsibilities effectively.
6. How to show that the Senate Democratic leadership recognizes Obama's stated goals and coordinate with them.
7. How to send a message to Americans that the Senate will act responsibly, whether that also advances partisan interests or not.
Now I don't presume that this 7 question break-down of what's wrapped up in these discussions is the only way of looking at it, comprehensive, or will be agreed to by everyone. But here's the thing: it is possible to loathe the Democratic Senators' votes for Lieberman retaining his Chairmanship of the HSC based on 4,5,6 and 7, without even addressing 1,2,3.
- Chair assignments should reflect seniority, expertise, judgment and past performance rather than partisanship--but that still suggests booting Joe. Keeping Joe sends the message that poor performance, poor judgment and clear unwillingness to pursue real oversight or investigation is okay with the kids in town.
- The HSC has been impotent and unwilling to perform it's duties--that falls at the feet of the Chair. Regardless of whether Joe had been the primary obstacle (which he clearly was) responsibility as Chair should be something meaningful. Not holding Chairs accountable doesn't merely send a bad message, it continues to tear down the whole notion of accountability best encapsulated by Heckuva Job Brownie.
- Keeping Joe at Environment while booting him from Chair of HSC addresses 6 quite effectively. Keeping Joe at head of one subcommittee while holding him accountable for lack of progress at HSC sends the message that we value his strengths and contributions, and that we believe in holding people accountable for failure to perform, but not failure to support partisan objectives. What does status quo show? That we haven't got a clue how to be both effective and bipartisan. And ultimately, this is a Senate leadership decision, not an Obama Administration decision. It isn't clear that it demonstrates fealty to Obama, or bipartisanship, just to inside-the-Beltway politics.
- Regardless of whether Joe is booted or not, either decision sends a message to Americans, and one cannot irresponsibly hide behind the myth that making a decision to keep the status quo is not a decision. It is, and this decision sends, IMHO, the wrong message. Obama and the new Congress has a limited opportunity to show that they mean business, as in actually achieving some meaningful goals. Status quo decision-making is the absolute worst kind of message to send now. This ain't exactly bold strokes, folks. Nor is it "the change we need".
Now, as to 1,2,3... Some kind of sanction is necessary, but I agree that practical considerations, including setting a new example about fairness, justice AND accountability must be a prominent part of that sanction. Again, IMHO, the message here is that accountability is as important to Reid et al as it is to Bush. That is not a good message to send the American public, is it? Fairness sometimes means punishing those who have transgressed. And this decision doesn't say "fairness", it says "weakness".
So what practical benefits accrue to Dems from sending this woeful message of weakness and lack of accountability? I can't think of any, can you?
If you think being unilaterally bipartisan works, you haven't learned anything from the last 8 years in this country, or the last 3000 years of human history.