The Senate's Iraq Problem: Lieberman
by Chris Bowers, Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:46:27 AM EST
We need a Democratic Party that is willing to work together to end the war, instead of a Democratic Party whose most visible leaders are more willing to one-up each other in an ongoing attempt to burnish their anti-war credentials to the primary electorate. Unfortunately, right now we have the latter, instead of the former.(...)Now I realize that there is a problem to Democratic Senators sitting down and fashioning a joint plan to stop the war. That problem has a name, Joe Lieberman (emphasis mine):
At some point, if we are ever going to get anywhere on ending the war in the Senate, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry and Obama--all of whom have introduced different types of binding legislation to end the war--should sit down and fashion a combined bill legislative plan of some sort.
So far, Lieberman is using his clout mostly in ways that discomfit his fellow Democrats, while his relationship with Republicans has involved more collaboration than coercion. When Senate majority leader Harry Reid said Bush's State of the Union proposal for a bipartisan terrorism panel was redundant, Lieberman, who supported the idea, privately sent Reid a letter saying he was "upset." Within days, Reid backed down and negotiated the panel's makeup with the White House. And last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.So, discussion of Iraq has now been banned from Senate Democratic caucus meetings. No wonder we have nothing resembling a unified plan to stop the war in the Senate. No wonder a dozen different Democratic Senators are offering up their own legislation to stop the war. Because of Joe Lieberman, Senate Democrats are not even discussing what the nation considers to be by far the most pressing issue facing American today: Iraq.
That is just great. We can't even talk about the biggest issue of the day because Lieberman doesn't want us to. This is truly an unmitigated blessing:
KING: Are you supporting Lamont?Fortunately, the appropriations process starts in the House, and so we don't need Lieberman on board in order to discuss the Murtha plan. If the Murtha plan succeeds, and Democrats do manage to all but end the war over the next eighteen months, it will be despite every Democrat who support Lieberman during his campaign to defeat Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.
CLINTON: I am but, you know, my -- I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate.
Update: More unmitigated blessings. Lieberman threatens to swtich parties over Iraq.
Tags: 107th Congress Power-sharing Agreement, CT-Sen, Democrats, Iraq, Jeffords in 107th, Joe Lieberman, Loss of Majority in Senate, Murtha Proviso, Recall Elections, Republican Majority in 83rd Congress, Senate 2008, Wayne Morse (all tags)