MSNBC’s Tom Curry offers what purports to be an analysis of why the Democrats allowed Lieberman to keep his gavel, but it reads more like a handy compendium of Villager conventional wisdom.  Although in fairness to Curry, a lot of it comes from the Democrats themselves.

With Senate races still to be decided in Minnesota, Alaska and Georgia, the Democrats are only three away from getting their 60. A Lieberman exit would make that goal impossible.

Does anyone seriously believe that Joe Lieberman would be the 60th vote against a Republican filibuster?  After he sang the filibuster’s praises and said he feared for the nation’s survival if the Democrats got to 60 votes?

[Sen. Ben] Cardin emphasized Lieberman’s “total record — one of a progressive (state) attorney general, a progressive state legislator, a progressive senator.” He praised Lieberman’s “record on civil rights, his record on the environment, his record on consumer issues.”

A "progressive senator" who is pro-war, pro-warrantless wiretapping, and pro-torture?  Who voted against the Alito filibuster (ironic, eh?) and showed zero compassion for rape victims?  Who spoke at the Republican convention and campaigned for Republican candidates in presidential, Senate, and House races?  There may be individual issues Lieberman is progressive on, but to call him a progressive is an insult to those of us who are.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said that during the presidential campaign, Obama and other Democrats “talked about a message of unity. Today was living that message of unity….”

Why is "unity" a one-way street?  Is there no line of disloyalty that a senator can cross that will result in any kind of meaningful consequences?  This is not about magnanimity vs. vengeance, this is about accountability and trust.  Not only did Lieberman go beyond the pale by campaigning for the opposition, but he betrayed his responsibility as a committee chairman by not investigating the Bush administration’s response to Katrina.  For that negligence alone he should surrender his gavel to someone who will use it responsibly.

A club member can violate etiquette or break the rules, and Lieberman had done that. But it was in his interest and that of his fellow members to remain in the club.

Apt analogy, but wouldn’t the "club" be the Democratic caucus?  Removing Lieberman’s committee chair is not the same as expelling him completely.  If he wanted to join the party that just got kicked in the nards in two consecutive elections because he lost his gavel, that’d be his choice and good luck to him.

There is one other myth unaccounted for here, which is that Lieberman had to beg and plead and promise to be a good boy to keep his gavel.  While he probably did make some promises, there is nothing in his history to suggest that he would ever keep any of them.  And unless the organizing resolution for the next Senate is specifically structured to make chairs easy to remove, Joe will get away with it for the next two years, at which point this whole sorry cycle will repeat again.


Related posts:

  1. Lieberman on Point for Senate DADT Repeal
  2. Dodd: Reprimanding Lieberman is “Ridiculous”
  3. Lieberman Says He’ll Filibuster Health Bill; What’s Obama Going to Do?
  4. Rachel Maddow Redux: Dangers of Keeping Lieberman in Caucus (from November 2008)
  5. Lieberman for Anything