We have all heard that Obama's camp is offering... what, conciliatory? Magnanimous?... support for Lieberman.
This (quite rightfully) either alarms, discourages or irritates progressives, depending on their natural temperament. We are not sure whether this is meant to support Joe's chairmanship or merely his place in the caucus. The latter being fine, the former unacceptable.
While I do believe this is the President-Elect playing good cop, safe in the knowledge that the democrats in the senate will take care of business, it is still worth looking at a few of the less discussed reasons that Joe should not retain his powerful chairmanship...
#1 - Joe is not a democrat. He LOST to a democrat in the primary in 2006 and ran as an independent.
His official party is the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.
So when the Connecticut for Lieberman party has 51 members in the senate, he gets to head any committee he wants. How about that?
But as long as the democrats have control, let's keep the riffraff from running powerful committees.
*Bernie Sanders is an exception to the this rule. He is truly an IINO, being clearly a democratic, non-weasel mainstay who runs as an independent (with the blessing of the DNC) for the exact opposite reasons as Lieberman.
#2 - It's unfair to non-weasel democratic senators.
Under discussed in the steroid debate in sports are some true victims - the athletes that play honorably and by the rules. These are guys that don't make the Hall of Fame or the Pro Bowl or even the TEAM, because other weasels will behave dishonorably to surpass them.
What message do you send to democrats who AREN'T weasels, who don't stab their colleagues in the back, who don't try to undermine the entire progressive movement, who don't try to put Sarah Palin in the White House?
It's fundamentally wrong to let someone like Joe keep a powerful chairmanship when others are far, far more deserving of the party's (and the country's) loyalty.
Reward those that deserve it.
Speaking of which...
#3 - It is unfair to me.
I gave money to the DNC. I gave money to democratic candidates. I supported the party.
It is unacceptable to treat with disdain those who sacrificed financially to get democrats into office... which is what you are doing if you take money donated for democrats and give power to the opposition... which is absolutely what Lieberman was and is and will be.
This isn't about someone not being liberal enough. This is about someone being a turncoat. Wherever the line is, there is no doubt that Lieberman drove a truck over it. This is a man who actively and repeatedly undermined the democrats.
So call your senators AND the DNC. I will vote with my voice and my wallet. If I wanted someone like Lieberman running that committee I would have given my money to the RNC.
(If I may, as an aside - Obama using republicans as advisers or in cabinet positions is a different issue. It is bipartisanship. These are powerful positions... but they serve at the pleasure of the President and he has immediate control over them. They will not seek to undermine him and they serve to offer alternative views. The senate already has that - they're called republicans.)
So add those reasons to the others: Lieberman's incompetence, his ability to undermine the message, his disgraceful behavior during the campaign, etc.
Bottom line is that I hope Obama is just being the good cop. Because if they actually support Joe keeping the chair, I will be bitterly disappointed.
Lieberman is the opposition. Opposition of the very worst sort - the weasel within.
This is not a good senator. This is not a good man.