As I've recently had the great fortune of moving to the Hoosier state just in time to ensure that it turned blue, I find myself with an interesting opportunity to bend the ear of our Democratic Senator, Evan Bayh. As has been amply documented here and here, Sen. Bayh has been reluctant to agree to stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee immediately (if ever). Below the fold is my letter to Sen. Bayh.
Dear Senator Bayh,
I recently watched your interview on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, during which you presented your case for why Senator Joe Lieberman should remain with the Democratic caucus and retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee of the United States Senate.
While I appreciate your request for a public apology from Sen. Lieberman, which is the very least he can offer after a shameful season of actively campaigning against his party's presidential candidate, I disagree with your opinion that Sen. Lieberman should retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee until he demonstrates conclusively that he can no longer be trusted to perform that duty to the satisfaction of Senate Democrats.
As I have followed the Senate's handling of homeland security and war issues quite closely since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I must disagree with your assessment of Sen. Lieberman's capacity to chair this committee in a manner consistent with the American people's desire for a swift end to the war in Iraq and atonement for the damage to our nation's reputation and dignity as a result of numerous criminal acts tacitly and sometimes even explicitly approved and encouraged by the Bush administration.
Sen. Lieberman has shown little willingness to investigate these acts aggressively and transparently. Sen. Lieberman's allegiance to the failed policies of the Bush administration on the same issues that come before the committee he chairs should immediately disqualify him from retaining the chairmanship of that committee.
Some senate Democrats (Sen. Brown of Ohio and Sen. Feinstein of California) have recently suggested to their constituents that now is not the time to decide whether or not Sen. Lieberman should retain his chair, that it is better to wait until the 111th Congress convenes early next year. This, frankly, is untrue. Any vote on chairmanships for the next Congress will take place during this "lame duck" session, and, as such, now is precisely the time to make this decision. Also, allowing Sen. Lieberman to remain chair of his committee in the short term will make it exponentially more difficult to remove him at a later date, as such an action would require a resolution on the floor of the Senate rather than a majority vote from the Democratic caucus alone.
Some Democrats argue that Sen. Lieberman should be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee but should remain in the Democratic caucus. Again, I respectfully disagree. While it is true that Sen. Lieberman votes with the Democrats on approximately 90% of the votes that come before the Senate, it is the remaining 10% that concerns me. Sen. Lieberman has consistently ignored the voice of Democrats across the country to end the war in Iraq and to hold the Bush administration accountable for his failures and, yes, its crimes.
But beyond those votes, I fail to understand why Senate Democrats would want to welcome into their caucus a man who took every opportunity to belittle Democrats and to accuse our candidate of anti-American tendencies, "Marxism," surrender, and defeatism. I fail to understand why you and your Democratic colleagues would want to welcome a man who went before the Republican National Convention in prime time to attack President-Elect Obama and the entire Democratic Party. I fail to understand how these actions do not immediately disqualify Sen. Lieberman for the privilege of joining the Democratic caucus.
I understand that Democrats are very close to a "supermajority" of 60 seats in the Senate, especially as the Senate races in Alaska and Minnesota appear to be trending toward the Democratic candidate. But I feel that loyalty to Democratic principles, ideals, and basic vision should trump the tenuous relationship Sen. Lieberman has with the Democratic Party. Surely the one vote that would force cloture could be found elsewhere, perhaps from Sens. Snowe or Collins from Maine, both of whom have a history of siding with Democrats on important issues. A supermajority with Sen. Lieberman as the 60th vote is a fragile supermajority at best, and likely no supermajority at all in the case of the national security issues that are especially important at this time in our nation's history.
Sen. Lieberman does not deserve to retain his chairmanship, nor does he deserve to remain within the Democratic caucus. He cast his lot with the Republicans when his party needed him most, and it is time that he join the minority in the United States Senate.
I hope that you will reconsider your position on this important issue.
Respectfully,
Prof. (Mahanoy), Ph.D.
Indianapolis