There's also the fact that being in the caucus isn't that big a deal, as the rules of the Senate don't make as great a distinction between majority and minority party status - it's just a collection of 100 individuals for the most part. When the Dems needed Lieberman to caucus with them in order to form a majority, that made it crucial that he be included. Now with a solid majority, his presence in the caucus doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Might as well keep him in (since he votes with them a lot anyhow), rather than appear like jerks by kicking him out.
Right. So why aren't they saying this? Is there something I've missed, is it not in fact such a great opportunity to reinforce this image of a difference between the parties of the current and next administrations? Or have they just somehow not noticed what an opportunity it is? Or maybe they haven't really had a good chance to say so?
I just found out today that Lieberman chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. One advantage of kicking him out of the caucus would be to put a fully-fledged Democrat in that position. Probably their seniority rules prevent them from otherwise ousting him.
Excellent, thank you! This is why I originally made the post - seeking reassurance that I wasn't actually smarter than Harry Reid. We could still debate the relative merit and importance of the PR message vs the chairing of this committee, but it's nice to find an actual concrete reason why it would help them to expel him.
...a great statesman, which according to the popular and electoral vote he basically already is...
Hey, hey - let's not get crazy here. While some of those votes may have been for "great statesman", they were the minority. The vast majority were for "candidate possessing a more trustworthy vice president", "someone who agrees with me on the issues", "a member of the party I always vote for", "guy who looks better on TV", and of course, "candidate least likely to resemble Bush" - the mention of whom ought to remind everyone that an electoral victory does not a great statesman make.
Okay, I'll try not to put quite so much spin on things next time. Interestingly, pretty much all of those things you cited reinforced my own voting decision.
Comments 9
Reply
Ehh.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hey, hey - let's not get crazy here. While some of those votes may have been for "great statesman", they were the minority. The vast majority were for "candidate possessing a more trustworthy vice president", "someone who agrees with me on the issues", "a member of the party I always vote for", "guy who looks better on TV", and of course, "candidate least likely to resemble Bush" - the mention of whom ought to remind everyone that an electoral victory does not a great statesman make.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment