Merkley on Lieberman: "Disappointment bordering on anger"
As the incoming Senate Democratic caucus gathered in Washington DC today, one of the first orders of business was the question of whether and how to punish Senator Joe Lieberman for his support of John McCain's presidential campaign and several incumbent GOP Senators.
First, the outcome: The caucus voted 42-13 to allow Lieberman to keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, while delivering a "mild rebuke" (NYT) by removing him from the Environment and Public Works Committee (and thus taking away a subcommittee chairmanship.)
Second, the confusion: Early in the day, based on an anonymous source, the Associated Press reported that Senator-elect Jeff Merkley had spoken out against Joe Lieberman. Later, they issued a correction - which was itself incorrect - which only added to the confusion. (With some more confusion added to the pile by Politico, which used an anonymous source to claim that Merkley spoke out in support of Lieberman.)
Third, the truth: The Senate Democrats have pledged to keep their individual votes secret - so that the secret ballot process will be respected. And that's a pledge that Merkley is honoring. Here's what Jeff Merkley had to say, in public and on the record. Decide for yourself.
Six weeks before taking office, Oregon's senator-elect Jeff Merkley gained some notice on Capitol Hill Tuesday by forcefully expressing disappointment bordering on anger with Sen. Joe Lieberman's vocal support for John McCain during the presidential campaign. ... "Sen. Lieberman's choices for this last election cycle were very difficult for me personally. I felt a lot of personal pain," Merkley said.... Merkley said he told his colleagues of how hard he worked in 2000 for the Gore/Lieberman ticket and how Lieberman's behavior this year left some rank and file Demcrats feeling betrayed.
"I expressed these sentiments because I felt that citizens who work in a grass-roots capacity should share their voice and my voice on this," he said.
Merkley stopped just short of saying Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairmanship. But he suggested that chairmen are party of a party's leadership and should be held to higher standards.
"Folks who are priviledged to serve as a chair are part of the leadership of this team and much is expected of them," he said.
"Jeff Merkley did speak at the meeting, and he expressed how profoundly disappointed he was with Lieberman’s actions," [Merkley spokesperson Julie] Edwards said, adding that Merkley said he had been a big supporter of the Connecticut Senator when he was a vice presidential candidate in 2000, and that thousands of Oregon Democratic volunteers worked tirelessly on his behalf. “He also believes that the chairmanship is not an entitlement, it’s a privilege."
From a later, entirely different AP story:
Senator-elect Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., was critical of Lieberman at the caucus and said afterward in a statement that he was "very personally disappointed by his conduct during the campaign." He wouldn't say how he voted on the resolution."Serving as a committee chairman is a privilege, not an entitlement and I expressed those views during today's meeting," Merkley said. "Beyond that, I hope we can move forward as a caucus to do the work we were elected to do."
"He did speak at the meeting," said Julie Edwards, Merkley's communications director. "He is someone who cheered for Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Lieberman's words and actions this year were profoundly hurtful to him... The committee chairmanship is a privilege and not a entitlement and Senator-elect Merkley believes that being a member of the leadership comes with certain responsibilities. But at this point he does look forward to putting this behind us."Sources familiar with today's meeting say that Merkley was one of the few Senators to speak out critically about Lieberman's campaign antics. Both Senators from Vermont -- Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders -- also expressed criticism of the Connecticut independent.
And some analysis, from OpenLeft's Matt Stoller:
There were three Senators who said they spoke up against Lieberman in the caucus today. Merkley, Sanders, and Leahy. All three should be commended, as they were not just exercising a vote but resisting the wishes of President-elect Obama. Most Democrats fell in line, Howard Dean leading the way in his final act of humiliating kowtowing before the DC Democrats who repeatedly undermine him and his backers.Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and Patrick Leahy is a long-standing lion of the Senate. Jeff Merkley is a newly elected Senator, and his very first action is standing up for progressive principles, while trying to maintain a pledge of secrecy he made to the caucus.
I'm very proud of Jeff Merkley today. He did the right thing by speaking out, and while I don't know all the details of what happened, it's important to recognize it when someone tries to open up a legislative body as hidden as the Senate to the public. Was this perfect? No. But it is very very hard as a freshman with almost no standing in the Senate to stand up to both a President-elect and a Senate Democratic caucus whose traditional posture is a supine allegiance to the executive branch the conservative DC chattering class. Merkley did it anyway.
This is what Better Democrats do.
|
November 18, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (121 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: backbeat | Nov 18, 2008 10:03:27 PM
Kari, thanks so much for clearing this story up. Kudos to Jeff Merkley. Thanks for doing us right and remembering all the hard work of the people who got you there.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 18, 2008 10:46:35 PM
They can actually all be right, and nothing presented here notes that AP's retraction is incorrect (unless you have AP's re-retraction and are withholding it). The O's account does not show AP to be incorrect. Note what their correction says:
This version CORRECTS by DELETING Merkley from lawmakers who opposed Lieberman; Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.
It does NOT say that Merkley did not SPEAK OUT against Lieberman; it says he did not OPPOSE Lieberman. What would lead them to undertake a very specific correction to mean what Kari infers here, if in fact quite apparently Merkley DID speak up? And how could Politico (dismissed as relying on anonymous sources--which doesn't stop Kari from using other stories that rely on the same unknown sources) figure that he spoke FOR Lieberman--and as yet aren't correcting that?
What makes all three right is if Merkley indeed spoke out about hurt feelings and wrongs against the party--and then closed by saying, as Mapes quotes him, "this is not a time for retribution," and indicated he would vote to retain Lieberman. On a purely logical basis, why would you frame it as a question of retribution, say it's not time--and then vote retributively? In any case, in this scenario all three would be right: Merkley's right that he spoke out, AP's right that he did not oppose, and Politico is right that he ended up speaking FOR him, not against him.
All of which seems an awful lot like HR2, in which Merkley perfected the art of discussing why the paper he was nonetheless about to sign was so very wrong and misguided. It's a bad war!--but I'm voting yes. Lieberman is a bad man!--but I'm voting to keep him.
And nobody can call themselves a "better Democrat" who bought Lieberman's frame of punishment rather than simple accountability. He wasn't to be stripped; he was to be REPLACED by someone better--someone who was more aligned with the party on the issues to come before his committee, and someone who had done the work that is obligatory and dispositive in 99% of the other chair decisions the Senate makes. On that score, many more Senators beyond ours missed the boat.
Posted by: Frank Burns | Nov 18, 2008 10:53:56 PM
The Senate Democrats have pledged to keep their individual votes secret - so that the secret ballot process will be respected. And that's a pledge that Merkley is honoring.
Yes, thank you, Sen.-elect Merkley. Nothing stirs my kettle of beans more than the preposterous notion that citizens should know how their representatives in the government have voted.
Pish posh!!
I for one am glad that this group of good ol boys and gals has found a dubiously-reasoned-yet-conveniently noble sounding way to keep that information from the people who put them in office.
STUPID CITIZENS! How dare they! Just stop dreaming and go to sleep!
Posted by: Garrett | Nov 18, 2008 11:08:12 PM
Lieberman is a whiny Senator. The vast majority of the time he votes with us. He made a mistake this time and will suffer for it. If you don't think Rahm made it clear to Lieberman (and I have heard inside information that says it was so) that he will be in our court you're out of your mind.
For this I'm more like, "meh." We'll probably have McCain voting on our side more than half the time now that he doesn't have to pander to the right.
It's called being magnanimous in victory people and it's why Barack Obama is the President elect. Partisanship needs to go now!
Posted by: torridoe | Nov 18, 2008 11:17:48 PM
"The vast majority of the time he votes with us."
Not on the issues predominantly before his committee..
"He made a mistake this time and will suffer for it"
When? Surely you don't mean by losing some sub-committee chair he didn't even care about.
"f you don't think Rahm made it clear to Lieberman (and I have heard inside information that says it was so) that he will be in our court you're out of your mind."
What stick do they plan to use? What possible enforcement tool do they have left? They just stuck him in there for two years, pretty much no matter what. He's never going to stab the party in the back any worse than he did this year; if they didn't enforce their rules then, why later?
"It's called being magnanimous in victory people "
So you'd be OK if McCain were made Homeland Security Chair instead? That'd be magnanamous too. How about Inhofe for Environment, while we're at it? Team of Rivals, baby!
Posted by: Garrett | Nov 18, 2008 11:28:05 PM
Torridjoe,
You don't get it do you? You think Barack Obama is supposed to be some hyperpartisan payback for 8 years of Bush? You obviously didn't pay attention to his message. Back off buddy.
I don't think McCain would make such a terrible Secretary of Defense. I think he'd be pretty good. We won...we won in huge margins. Don't think we won because of a "liberal" message. We won because people are sick of the hyperpartisanship the Republicans created and that you are pumping into your post.
Obama wants Lieberman in our camp and I think that's the right call too. The man knows his place and I don't think he'll stray. Nobody else is going to offer to appoint him Veep so he just gets to sit in the Senate until he's too old to run again. He's not going to pander the same as McCain won't. We'll probably see McCain on our side plenty of times from here on out because he doesn't have a damned thing to lose.
Plus if he does stray Rahm will probably send him the severed head of a monkey or something.
Posted by: torridoe | Nov 18, 2008 11:36:29 PM
"You don't get it do you? You think Barack Obama is supposed to be some hyperpartisan payback for 8 years of Bush? You obviously didn't pay attention to his message. Back off buddy."
No, it never had anything to do with payback. That's Lieberman's frame. It has to do with rewarding those who do a good job and work to build the party. Lieberman did an absolutely criminal job as Chair, and did the opposite from every other Senator eligible for that position. It's not punishment; it's accountability. The plum jobs go to the Senators who can work with leadership on those issues before their committee, and who have worked hardest to support Democrats. Lieberman has done neither. It's an insult to the good Senators to simply ignore that.
"Don't think we won because of a "liberal" message."
Beg pardon? So that whole trickle-up, card check, green jobs, war-ending, torture-stopping spiel from Obama--that was all bullshit? Because that sure looks like a liberal message, and that's exactly what people voted for. They want government to do more, and they want stuff to get done. With Lieberman blocking the Democrats from Homeland Security, we will not see the change we were promised and worked so hard for.
It is a grave mistake to fall victim to Republican framing of "hyperpartisanship." This had nothing to do with it. And now that he's off the hook, what possible incentive does he have to toe the line now? A severed monkey head? Ha, ha. No, what really? Seriously.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Nov 18, 2008 11:39:52 PM
torridjoe: It does NOT say that Merkley did not SPEAK OUT against Lieberman; it says he did not OPPOSE Lieberman.
And that is incorrect. The AP has no knowledge of how Jeff Merkley voted: yea or nay. It is quite possible that he did indeed OPPOSE Lieberman. There were 13 negative votes in the caucus. Not 2.
I know you really want to dislike Senator Merkley, torridjoe. He beat your beloved primary candidate. But cut the man a break. He is indeed a better Democrat - and with balls to, being the only freshman Senator to take a public stand on such a controversial issue.
Posted by: Garrett | Nov 18, 2008 11:58:20 PM
Torridjoe you really have very little grasp politics wise do you? Go spend some time outside of Oregon. We benefited from George Bush and utter insanity from the GOP this time around. If they had stayed true to their 1994 message we'd likely be sitting here in the minority again. Fortunately their party is splitting and the racists and Christianists are their "base."
It's all about politics and you obviously don't know how to play them. When you're sitting close to 60 you don't skewer a guy who will sit in your caucus if he gets to maintain his seat. He agreed to things to maintain that seat behind the scenes I'll guarantee you. Lieberman is no Republican.
I do take issue with this,
"Beg pardon? So that whole trickle-up, card check, green jobs, war-ending, torture-stopping spiel from Obama--that was all bullshit? Because that sure looks like a liberal message, and that's exactly what people voted for.
No none of that is a liberal message. You're so screwed up over the last 8 years you don't know that it's the American message. Americans don't want war, they don't like torture and they like making money...that isn't a liberal message. It's the freaking American dream. The GOP twisted that and scared the piss out of America for years. Americans simply told them to shove it.
My point is if we sit here and stick our tongues out and go nya nya nya at those people who are wary of certain things we will be rebuked. Just like we were in 94 and just like the Republicans were in 06 and 08. Play peacemaker my friend. We need to have a majority a long time to move America forward. Slowly but surely wins the race. Backlashes don't.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 12:37:22 AM
Americans don't want war, they don't like torture...
That's not the way Joe Lieberman's been operating as head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee the past two years. He's been all for the war and the torture. That's why some people thought he should be removed from the chairmanship.
But what can you expect from people who thought he'd make a good vice president in 2000?
Posted by: daniel spiro | Nov 19, 2008 4:56:33 AM
Steve Maurer typed:
"I know you really want to dislike Senator Merkley, torridjoe. He beat your beloved primary candidate. But cut the man a break. He is indeed a better Democrat - and with balls to, being the only freshman Senator to take a public stand on such a controversial issue."
I was pleased with Merkley's comments as well. And I was pleased with Obama's decision to be magnanimous toward a politician who, quite frankly, said unconscionable things against him during the campaign.
But on a separate point, what did you mean by "He is indeed a better Democrat?" Better then whom?
I certainly hope that wasn't a dig against Novick, who threw his heart and soul into making sure that Smith left Washington -- both before Merkley joined the race and after Merkley became the nominee. Please tell me that I misinterpreted the above statement.
Posted by: daniel spiro | Nov 19, 2008 5:00:11 AM
Upon further review ... I think I now understand what Steve Maurer was saying -- and that I did misinterpret his statement. Merkley is one of the "Better Democrats" around, not that he is better than the guy torridjoe favored for Senate. I would hope (and assume) that Maurer, as much as Merkley, recognizes all that Novick has done for the Democrats of Oregon. Let us stipulate that both combatants for the Senate seat in this year's primary are "Better Democrats."
Posted by: BOHICA | Nov 19, 2008 6:41:22 AM
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, if my memory serves me, also has oversight on FEMA, you remember FEMA don't you? One of the most fucked up agencies on record. Heck of a job Joe.
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Nov 19, 2008 7:07:34 AM
We really need to get Joe Lieberman off of the "News Cycle"
From: BobGieger.com
I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31, 2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote.
I despise Joe Lieberman's behavior over the past years, but it's time to "Move-On". And remember the first time he screws up let's all drive to Washington and toss him under the bus.
Posted by: BOHICA | Nov 19, 2008 7:11:02 AM
And remember the first time he screws up let's all drive to Washington and toss him under the bus.
I call shotgun!
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 19, 2008 7:17:20 AM
It’s really quite entertaining to watch J-Lieb play his party like a cheap violin.
He was defeated in the primary when he last ran, then promptly beat that guy by running as an independent. Dems had to play nice since the vote count was so close in the Senate, now they kiss his ass since they are desperate for a filibuster-proof majority. All that despite his pimping for J-Mac during the campaign.
Better not turn your back on old Joe, dude makes Machavelli look like a piker!
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 19, 2008 7:31:31 AM
I wanted Joe to get his comeuppance. But the truth is, this was Obama's decision. And the logic of it is sound. Right now Obama owns Joe Lieberman. One misstep and he's out. If anything, Joe Lieberman is a political animal who values access and position. His kisses the feet of those who are in power. He will be counted on to deliver, and if he doesn't, he's toast.
In the meantime I find the petulance and immaturity prevalent in the blogosphere, predictable but contemptible. People on the progressive blogs think it's all about them, and they are stunned to find out they don't own Obama and the Dem. party. War and peace don't matter, healthcare doesn't matter, environmental protection doesn't matter, worker's rights don't matter, the economy doesn't matter. Only the hurt feelings matter. And it makes them vewy, vewy angwy...........And they aren't going to work for Dem. candidates every again, or give another dime, ever ever again..
Posted by: Karen | Nov 19, 2008 7:33:15 AM
It's good to have TorridJoe back.............. even if he's still stuck in his rut. Talk about being in the tank for Steve Novick.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 19, 2008 7:56:19 AM
For months now, I've been telling people that Obama will redefine the Center, despite all of the yammering from both ends of the political spectrum. None of us know where exactly that will be, but we all know that it won't be defined by comparing positions with any current paradigm.
I find this to be hugely refreshing.......
One emerging point is that January 20th will be The Beginning and Obama will give everyone a chance to get on the train, regardless of past behavior.
Don't be fooled by all of the conciliatory talk on the front end. The first time someone in the administration or congress breaks discipline, you'll get a chance to see Obama's ruthless side. I'm not talking about principled opposition, but rather about leaks, broken bargains, etcetera.
*************
There are a few people in Illinois and in the recent presidential campaign that have seen the teeth, and they are no longer in doubt. At a point, per Machiavelli, a couple of the worst offenders will be taken up to the tower and pitched out of the window in front of the assembled populous.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Nov 19, 2008 8:02:33 AM
"One emerging point is that January 20th will be The Beginning and Obama will give everyone a chance to get on the train, regardless of past behavior"
Finally...true Christian ethics and ideals without nasty and uptight contempt for others. Maybe there is hope after all. I like the "Forgive the sinner but not he sin" attitude that was expresses in this.
For once, the Dems didn't act like Republicans. Yes, Pat, it is refreshing.
Posted by: marv | Nov 19, 2008 8:03:21 AM
Change you can believe in is turning out to be just an
empty slogan. Lieberman's chairmanship also gives him
authority in oversight. As critical of Obama as he has
been Barack will stay in line with Bush/McCain policies.
An indication is found in the selection of Eric Holder
who assisted with the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.
They have given a new name to the DLC but it is still the
same old Clintonistas. So, yes we are glad that Smith is
gone and that Merkley replaced him. But thirty years of
policies that have destroyed America will never be fixed.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Nov 19, 2008 8:34:54 AM
"Merkley on Lieberman: "Disappointment bordering on anger" "
Maybe Jeff needs some anger management counceling?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 19, 2008 8:42:51 AM
An indication is found in the selection of Eric Holder
who assisted with the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.
Greenwald and I conditionally disagree.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 19, 2008 8:52:39 AM
No none of that is a liberal message. You're so screwed up over the last 8 years you don't know that it's the American message. Americans don't want war, they don't like torture and they like making money...that isn't a liberal message. It's the freaking American dream. The GOP twisted that and scared the piss out of America for years. Americans simply told them to shove it.
Yes! Exactly!
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 19, 2008 8:54:38 AM
Let us stipulate that both combatants for the Senate seat in this year's primary are "Better Democrats."
Agreed!
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 19, 2008 8:57:50 AM
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 19, 2008 7:31:31 AM
Echo.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 19, 2008 7:56:19 AM
Echo.
Well said, both of you!
Posted by: kari chisholm | Nov 19, 2008 9:10:05 AM
spiro... "more and better democrats" has been a netroots slogan for over a year now. I suggest reading my entire post -- through the clip from Stoller.
Posted by: marv | Nov 19, 2008 9:23:50 AM
Greenwald makes no endorsement of Holder for his role in
the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Thanks for the
link. Re-read it.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Nov 19, 2008 9:37:44 AM
For the record, Daniel, your later interpretation of what I wrote is exactly correct. Had Steve Novick won the primary and the general election, I would have been proud to have him as my US Senator.
Oh, and I used the word "to" instead of "too", which was grammatically correct. Bleah. I type too fast to catch these things.
Posted by: Law-n-Order D | Nov 19, 2008 10:00:44 AM
Garrett, as a moderate Democrat your comments are very appreciated. I encourage you to post more.
Posted by: anon | Nov 19, 2008 10:55:50 AM
It's good to have TorridJoe back.............. even if he's still stuck in his rut. Talk about being in the tank for Steve Novick.
What's so great about having TJ back? He's a worse whiner than Joe Lieberman, and he's not helping his favorite candidate by bashing Merkley.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 19, 2008 11:59:43 AM
LIE berman is lucky he didn't try his crap in Norway. They are tougher on Quislings than the spineless Democrats.
As for this bullshit about needing LIE berman's vote, Reagan went over the heads of Congress to the people to lead the nation his way. His way may not have been all that good, but what happened to the Democrats' Great New Orator? Remembered he was a Democrat and being spineless is SOP for his party's politicians? Change? What change?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 19, 2008 12:37:14 PM
Quisling for those who know little about World War II.
For those people trying to explain the senate's compromise on LIE berman, fair enough. Compromise is essential in politics, but where do you draw the line? For some Democrats the answer is apparently nowhere when we consider their votes for an illegal war on Iraq that involved into a crime against humanity.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 19, 2008 12:50:28 PM
Slow news day? Basically this is a non-event. Last time I checked, Liberman had an (I) behind his name. He got that because the DSSC ran against him and ran him out of the democrat party. Big Tent?
As to the Senate democrats keeping their votes secret, " so that the secret ballot process will be respected."... what a bunch of hogwash. This same bunch for the most part is in lock step to take away the secret ballot process in the form of the EFCA, an Orwellian title if ever tere was one.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 1:13:22 PM
Sources on Capitol Hill say there was little to no opportunity for Senators angry at their recalcitrant colleague to fully register their disagreements. Only one resolution -- one that kept Lieberman in his post but took away his position on an environmental and public works committee -- came to the floor, and it clearly had the support to pass. Senators could voice their displeasure or vote nay. But in the end, as one aide says, "the meeting was theater."
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Nov 19, 2008 1:21:09 PM
Bill Bodden: IMPEACH JOE LIEBERMAN THE QUISLING!
Er ... I mean THROW HIM OUT OF THE SENATE AND INTO JAIL WITH THE BUSH WAR CRIMINALS!
Posted by: torridoe | Nov 19, 2008 1:50:58 PM
"And that is incorrect. The AP has no knowledge of how Jeff Merkley voted: yea or nay. "
On what basis do you make this claim? How do you know he did not state his position during the caucus? Very clearly they believe they have SOME credible way to make this claim, since they went to the unpalatable trouble of correcting the record to state it so.
Your strawman attempt runs out of gas when it comes to the large cross-section of people saying exactly the same things I am, who don't appear to have been major Novick supporters. But enjoy your crutch; I'm sure you'll whip it out any time during the next 6 years when Merkley does something stupid--it wasn't stupid; they're just haters.
"Torridjoe you really have very little grasp politics wise do you? Go spend some time outside of Oregon."
You mean beyond the 27 years I spent outside of Oregon?
You can accuse me of not understanding politics, but it's damn sure clear that Lieberman gets it, which makes this paragraph absurd:
"It's all about politics and you obviously don't know how to play them. When you're sitting close to 60 you don't skewer a guy who will sit in your caucus if he gets to maintain his seat. He agreed to things to maintain that seat behind the scenes I'll guarantee you. Lieberman is no Republican."
I'm sure he agreed to all kinds of things. What motivates him to keep those promises, having broken so many others without consequence? And what does having 60 seats have to do with having 60 votes? Do you REALLY believe that in a vote to set a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, Joe will be the 60th vote to bust the filibuster? Yeah, sure.
The idea that Lieberman would do anything but caucus with the Democrats is just plain stupid. There's no upside for him, only downside.
And this makes no sense whatsoever:
"No none of that is a liberal message. You're so screwed up over the last 8 years you don't know that it's the American message."
I'm fully aware it's the American message--one that happens to completely agree with liberal principles. The whole center-right thing you're trying to push just doesn't pass the smell test, unless you believe that an overwhelming number of voters voted for "the most liberal Senator" in the Senate, expecting Republican-lite policy. You do remember the word "change" being bandied about, right? Leaving Lieberman to fuck things up is not change; it's exactly what we had last term.
Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 19, 2008 2:21:27 PM
On what basis do you make this claim? How do you know he did not state his position during the caucus? Very clearly they believe they have SOME credible way to make this claim, since they went to the unpalatable trouble of correcting the record to state it so.
The fact that it was a meeting closed to the press, for starters.
Since they've since corrected the correction, clearly they didn't know the story in the first place.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 2:35:01 PM
Since they've since corrected the correction, clearly they didn't know the story in the first place.
Or someone typed it in wrong. Or someone gave them incorrect information. For that matter, you can't even be sure that the correction is accurate or that Merkley was there, apart from unverifiable statements.
Posted by: Bob Baldwin | Nov 19, 2008 2:36:31 PM
torridoe:
Do you REALLY believe that in a vote to set a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, Joe will be the 60th vote to bust the filibuster? Yeah, sure.
No, not on Iraq. But will he break a filibuster on health care, EFCA, USCT appointments, environmental issues, and a whole host of others? The better be the case, because that's the deal that makes sense.
Posted by: backbeat | Nov 19, 2008 2:41:41 PM
But will he break a filibuster on health care, EFCA, USCT appointments
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Supreme Court Appointments? You must be joking! Didn't Holy Joe vote yes on Bush's radical rightwing appointments.
This is to laugh
Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 19, 2008 2:43:46 PM
Or someone typed it in wrong. Or someone gave them incorrect information. For that matter, you can't even be sure that the correction is accurate or that Merkley was there, apart from unverifiable statements.
Sure I can. I can ask Merkley's office.
Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 19, 2008 2:45:17 PM
I'm sure he agreed to all kinds of things. What motivates him to keep those promises, having broken so many others without consequence?
Given that he could lose the gavel at any time--and he seems to CRAVE that shit, he's got a lot of incentive to toe the line Obama and the leadership ask.
Posted by: backbeat | Nov 19, 2008 2:46:56 PM
well, i did ask merkley's "office" and he really did speak out against lieberman. i believe this person but will never reveal my source. ;)
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 2:57:12 PM
What boggles my mind about this is that, according to Merkley spokeswoman Julie Edwards in the PolitickerOR report Kari refers to is that the plan to remove Lieberman from the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee was only brewing in the Senate since Lieberman started campaigning for John McCain.
For two years, since the Democratic voters of Connecticut chose someone else as their nominee and the Senate Dems decided to hold onto Lieberman by letting him keep the chair in order to maintain their thin presumed majority, the guy has done nothing in terms of oversight in his committee.
For half of the final term of the Bush administration, one of the most powerful committees in the Senate -- with jurisdiction over most of the Homeland Security department, the National Archives, the budget, the census, the civil service, governmental records, the District of Columbia, nuclear exports, organization of the executive branch, the postal service, and classification of government employees, among other things has just lain fallow. Nothing about the government response to Hurricane Katrina, nothing about whether DHS is actually effective, nothing about chemical plant security, nothing about the White House end run around mandatory records laws, nothing about whether the vice-president is actually a fourth branch of the government unto himself. Lieberman hasn't been doing his job.
Supposedly, he was left in place in 2006 because he was needed in the Senate, but not only did he fail as chairman of his committee, he turned around and attacked the people who kept him on. So naturally the thing to do is keep him on longer.
Some people really never learn.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 3:11:12 PM
Sure I can. I can ask Merkley's office.
I could call them too, but how do you know that what they're telling you is any more accurate than what the Senate staffers who talked to the AP or PolitickerOR or any other of the varying news reports said? The casual observer certainly won't find out which way Merkley voted.
Merkley spokeswoman Julie Edwards would not say if Merkley voted to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship,
So there's no telling how he voted, and his spokesperson only talked about how unhappy he was about Lieberman's comments during the campaign and nothing about what a failure Joe's been as chairman. Maybe he did. maybe he didn't, but all I'm seeing is a conventional wisdom approach to the issue, not change I can believe in.
And before you all blow yourself up into Macy's balloon-sized animals, I'm not claiming that anyone else would have done this differently. Merkley's the senator-elect. He's the one who's going to have to take the heat for his decisions. I'm going to hold him just as accountable as I'd hold Wyden.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 19, 2008 3:18:17 PM
Given that he could lose the gavel at any time
If they wouldn't take his gavel away for being a miserable failure as chairman for two years, why would they bother in the next two?
Not to mention, the process of removing Lieberman from the chairmanship before 2010 isn't something that can be done with a flick of Harry Reid's magic wand. Not that that is even likely.
Posted by: torridoe | Nov 19, 2008 3:31:08 PM
The AP corrected their correction? When and where, Carla? It still says "Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman," bold as love on the original article...I even hit F5 to make sure the cache was freche.
On filibustering:
No, not on Iraq. But will he break a filibuster on health care, EFCA, USCT appointments, environmental issues, and a whole host of others?
But doesn't he already favor the Democratic position on those issues? Are you suggesting that the fear was that he'd turn on the American people and vote out of revenge, were he to be removed? If that's the case, then he should have simply been kicked out of the caucus altogether, and really expelled from the Senate. Threatening to vote counter to national interest, out of spite? Why would you want someone like that anywhere near a Senate seat?
Posted by: torridoe | Nov 19, 2008 3:32:44 PM
"Given that he could lose the gavel at any time"
The chance that would happen during a session is near zero. If they don't have the balls to do it now, after this, Lieberman has a free pass all the way to 2010.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 18, 2008 9:11:08 PM
Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.