More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Trey Ellis

Trey Ellis

Posted: December 16, 2009 10:51 AM

Why I'm Not Mad at Lieberman

What's Your Reaction:

Alright, when I first heard of his latest petty, self-serving publicity stunt I yelled at the TV and hurled a perfectly good clementine against the wall. But I'm calmer now and I'm not mad at him for wielding power.

I'm mad at the administration for not wielding power.

When Joe was kicked out of the Democratic Party he could have hidden in a corner and sulked. Instead, he understood his strategic position and figured out exactly when and how to strike.

The president's problem is completely the opposite. He was elected with a mandate and momentum to accomplish momentous things, however he and his advisers chose to hang back on health care. What did they expect would happen? Who did they expect would fill the power vacuum? Of course the special interests and the Republicans and moderate Democrats flooded into the void. From the very beginning when the president and Rahm Emanuel said, "Everything was on the table," they invited chaos, disaster and assured their own powerlessness. If you run a campaign promising to change a broken system, how can you entrust the most significant piece of legislation of your tenure to that same system?

The Obama administration needs to course-correct immediately. He needs to make a series of bold, muscular, ruthlessly political moves immediately (reconciliation anyone?) to put the fear of god into all those puny adversaries out there that have been pushing him around with impunity.

 
 
 

Follow Trey Ellis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TreyEllis

Alright, when I first heard of his latest petty, self-serving publicity stunt I yelled at the TV and hurled a perfectly good clementine against the wall. But I'm calmer now and I'm not mad at him for ...
Alright, when I first heard of his latest petty, self-serving publicity stunt I yelled at the TV and hurled a perfectly good clementine against the wall. But I'm calmer now and I'm not mad at him for ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 326
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
10:37 PM on 12/20/2009
The WH knew precisely what would happen when they chose to hang back.

It was a means to an end and it looks like they are getting what they want.
06:05 PM on 12/20/2009
Joe Lieberman demonstrates the fact that the Dems have too big a tent. While I don't believe in the small Republican tent philosophy, I feel it is a mistake to include people who are going to sabotage you. Joe Lieberman opposed the Medicare buy in which he supported before. This shows not only that he is unprincipled, but also he wants to sink the Democrats. The Dems are going to loose seats, not because they are to liberal, but because they compromised and caved and showed a level of weakness that turns people off.

Lieberman will cause the Dems to loose seats pure and simple. The question is are the Dems going to lie down and take it and loose more respect, or are they finally going to strip him of his positions.

Republicans beat the Dems not because people agree with their positions, but because people percieve them to be strong. Bush beat Kerry with the slogan "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." What did Kerry stand for? I voted for him because he is not Bush, but I would have prefered Dean.

If the Dems don't stand up for some principles and make a case they will never win. Stop negotiating with people who have no interest in working with you or you will loose.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Nemeth
06:53 PM on 12/20/2009
I understand and appreciate your point but I feel you are playing into Lieberman's game. Lieberman may be a master strategist, but he is only powerful if the Democratic leadership lets him be.
Matt Taibbi spoke eloquently to this when we was on Bill Moyers' show last week. Here's what he said - "I mean, that's what George Bush did when he wanted to get something unpopular passed or something that was iffy. I mean, he just took, you know, if there were any recalcitrant members, he just took him in the back room and beat him with a rubber hose until they changed their minds. I mean, he could've taken Joe Lieberman back there and said, look, if Connecticut ever wants a dime of highway money again, you're going to have to play ball on this thing. That's what the president does."
This is where Obama is just straight up failing - as predicted, he's too cerebral, too cool, too enamored of the "can't we all just get along" approach to actually get things done. One may or may not have liked W, but he got things done the old-fashioned way - he used his power to ensure compliance. That's what Republicans do.
05:42 PM on 12/20/2009
This blog demonstrates the wrong I often see amongst fellow liberal democrats: They often yell too loud in their criticism of Obama; like Bush they say: “it is our turn, use any amount of force to compel compliance.” But that is not how Obama ran. He always promised and talked about consensus. Lieberman was never kicked out of the Democratic party -- he had Lamont as challenger in the Connecticut primary which he lost but came back again in the general elections and won. He chose to caucus with Democrats, a party for which he was a standard bearer as a VP candidate. After supporting McCain in 2008 and after making very pejorative remarks and accusations against Obama he was spared and rewarded with a chair of a senate committee, thanks to Obama. Finally, reconciliation: Not for every kind of legislation. Democrats are constantly struggling to break the filibuster -- with sixty votes which they do not always have so for now, Lieberman will remain indispensable as he did when Franken and Burris were yet to be confirmed or when Kennedy passed. Pray that Byrd remains in good health and that more Democrats are not tempted by the sweet conservative apple. You see, Obama always MUST do a delicate political dance until he has an overwhelming majority in the Senate. Sorry you wasted a "perfectly good Clementine." So, you really never told us why you are mad at Lieberman. We do know why you are mad at Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ken Nemeth
06:56 PM on 12/20/2009
How's that consensus workin' out for ya? While it would be political suicide for Obama to push through a liberal agenda, how about actually pushing through something?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicholas Roy
05:19 PM on 12/20/2009
Fair enough, but this doesn't let Lieberman off the hook. He put his own personal wealth and ego before the needs of over 46 million Americans for nothing more than petty reasons, he is a disgrace to the Senate and the United States!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
04:52 PM on 12/20/2009
The Obama administration needs to course-correct immediately. He needs to make a series of bold, muscular, ruthlessly political moves immediately (reconciliation anyone?) to put the fear of god into all those puny adversaries out there that have been pushing him around with impunity.

SOUNDS GOOD.

it's just that Obama can choose to stand up for what he believes in. Since he stands up and gives us nothing I have to surmise that Obama stands for nothing and is just another DLC politician. I believe that that is verified everytime every time I see (R)ahm mentioned in an article on how the WH has pre-planned deals with insurance and pharma. When I read about the WH visitors log being filled in advance of the Baucus Plan with the names of INs. Co. people and pharma people.
04:41 PM on 12/20/2009
Trey, if you aren't mad at Lieberman, you aren't paying attention.
photo
rbenjamin
Rule 5 rules
03:23 PM on 12/20/2009
Good post, and the title got me thinking. Mad About Lieberman..... hmm, that could work. Paul Reiser as Lieberman, and Helen Hunt as Hadassah. It writes itself!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
wyldthings
as a young man I said I'd never get old an didn'
03:17 PM on 12/20/2009
What a joke,KICKED OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!! He's a chairman in your party. When Spector became a Dems He did not stay with the Republicans.
03:14 PM on 12/20/2009
Yes, we got Obama into power, but exactly what have we gained by doing so? Even if you discount the outrageous attempts by the Republican Party to discredit him, he has, all on his own, upheld most of the constitutional violations instituted by Bush. And all he offers to us are the half truths and distortions, like those mouthed by Axelrod on Meet the Press this morning. You say that we must elect more liberal politicians, but I seriously doubt that the word liberal can ever be used to modify what a politician is. They speak of great things when they are trying to get into power, but as soon as they gain power, there they are supporting the corporations as soon as enough money is offered to them. And even if there were such a thing as a liberal politician, how would we know him when we see him. How do we know that his rhetoric is not merely smoke and mirrors to get elected. You must admit that although we voted for Obama, he has not been the President you and I hoped he would be.
01:30 PM on 12/20/2009
Obama is fast becoming one of the most ineffectual presidents. He seems powerless, which is amazing considering he had something like over 60% approval ratings when he entered office.
He wants everyone to 'get along' too much, he has focused on 'bipartisanship' too much at the expense of accomplishing the mandate he was elected to fulfill.

It is telling that when the health care debate was going on he was accepting the Nobel prize and giving yet another pretty speech. I think that is what we will get from Obama for the rest of his term, because I do not think he is strong enough to challenge the very entrenched power structure in D.C.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
04:57 PM on 12/20/2009
Obama's charm, just like Clinton's, was part of the DLC plan. Just like Clinton gave us GATT and NAFTA, Obama is giving us 'reform' for H/C and banking.

The bloom is off the rose pretty early.
11:07 AM on 12/20/2009
Your argument falls down at the beginning. Lieberman was not kicked out of the party. He lost a primary election. He then chose to start his own party -- so he LEFT the Democratic party. If the leadership of the party had gotten behind Ned Lamont (instead of backing Lieberman) we would have been through the debacle we have just gone through.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
05:01 PM on 12/20/2009
also, Obama, Shumer and Hillary worked actively for LIEberman and strangely, the Repugs did not support their own candidate. Hillary put Carville on Ned's campaign and it immediately went into the tank.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
10:28 AM on 12/20/2009
He removed himself from the Democratic party by aligning himself with Bush.
04:40 PM on 12/20/2009
He removed himself from the democratic party by aligning himself with bush. You could be talking about Obama..
10:21 AM on 12/20/2009
My opinion for what it is worth, is that Obama has actually played it smart and has gotten the best deal he could in a lobbyist-corrupted government. He made deals early on with Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medical. The three vast lobbying coalitions have similar priorities (preferring NO healthcare reform at all) but IF healthcare reform should happen, each coalition wants to position itself to get more goodies than the others (a sort of competition for the spoils between them). I believe the president played the game of extracting as much as possible from each while getting lukewarm agreements, and promised only enough goodies to keep each lobbyist coalition satisfied but competitng with each other. We are unfortunately in a period of corrupt government where voters don't matter and lobbyists run Congress. With such a sick situation, I believe Dems got as good a deal on healthcare as possible. And its not a done deal yet. Just an opinion.
photo
watchingduck
I'll tell you what I'm blathering about... I've go
12:46 PM on 12/20/2009
You are far too kind-hearted. The administration is either incompetent or they have sold us out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsws
No owning ideas. Limit only commercial use.
03:08 PM on 12/20/2009
Obama was never committed to getting a really good bill in this round of health care reform. He talked about what he wanted, but he also said that as long as it covers a substantial number of the uninsured and does something to bend the cost curve, everything else is on the table.

He has two kinds of issues to worry about: end-of-the-world issues, and everything else. Last time we had a Great Depression, it ended with WWII. It's not clear whether Great Depression II would lead to WWIII, but if it did there would be no survivors. Global warming may have the potential to be an end-of-the-world issue. Peak oil may have the potential to be an end-of-the-world issue. Fixing the financial system is one step farther away: until it gets fixed it has the potential to cause another crash, which could lead to GDII which could lead to WWIII.

By my reckoning, he's been doing things in the right order and putting about the right amount of emphasis on health care.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
05:04 PM on 12/20/2009
have a look at the contributors to Obama:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,83

there's a lot of banks in there, starting with Goldmine Sacks
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dsws
No owning ideas. Limit only commercial use.
09:59 PM on 12/21/2009
Those are all less than a million each, aside from UC, out of what was it, a billion-dollar campaign? His book royalties are more than a million. I don't think he's selling out the country for that kind of small money.

Furthermore, if those are from Open Secrets, the donations are from people who work for those firms, not from the firms themselves. With a small legal firm where every employee donates $4600, even menial part-timers, you can tell it's from the firm. But when a company with tens of thousands of employees has donations under a million, it's not likely to be corporate money getting laundered through individuals.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Salukeitis
09:51 AM on 12/20/2009
The damage has been done Wall st possesses its Hundreds of billions and billions of bonuses. O will try to Chip away at that but thats all. The Banks are not lending. Will O force them to, How about Energy? You really think he'll come against Big Oil, Saudi/Bush Oil , Big Coal - I dont think so. The environment effort by the admin is already much to minimum. Hoe about the Govt putting people to wor alla FDR. So much to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wernerholm
bio doesnt ever meet guidelines
09:13 AM on 12/20/2009
Agreed, except I am mad at all of them. "Our" "Government" reminds me a bit of the friends at the party of the demanding tweeny boppers on MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen".

When the teen is presented with an older Lincoln (as a prank prelude to a new Mercedes), and bursts into hysterics and her friends jump to her defense and say things like "oh, no... she was having none of that old gross car"...... like a temper tantrum from a spoiled teen is somehow justified.

Later when the Mercedes is presented the friends all comment for the camera about how the princess deserved a "sweet ride".

And somewhere out there some health insurance executives daughter is being thrown a $250k birthday party..... because his company denied your claim. And his lobby won in the Senate.