Why are the peopel on the far left like Rachel Maddow saying that Barack Obama and Harry Reid are wrong for saying that Liebermann should stay in the caucus and keep his committee chair position. People like Maddow saying that they have to punish him if they can't get that 60 seats. Why? Aren't guys like Barack Obama correct in their assessment of the situation, since we shouldn't be picking who is in charge of committees based on politics, but rather who is best for the job?
Generally, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Lieberman is the best man for the job. Plus the fact that committee chairmen are never chosen based on who is best for the job, it is always politics and seniority, with a dash of personal preference. So why make an exception for just this one case? barfo
It's tough to believe that President-Elect Obama is capable of reaching across the aisle if he can't even reach across his own caucus.
I don't think saying to Harry Reid "let him keep it" is making it a priority or particularly time-consuming. I actually think it would engender some real goodwill. Everyone would know he did it, and it would be a way of showing he's not going to stoop to petty politics, that he really is serious about changing the tone in Washington. Lieberman has done a very good job in that post, and that committee is hardly a political hotspot.
And you think that's all it takes? He just tells Harry what he wants and Harry does it? Wouldn't cost him anything? barfo
That's missing the point. You've got to give something to get something in politics. What is it worth to Obama to keep Lieberman's committee chairmanship? My guess is very little. What will it cost him? Nothing if Reid is going to do it anyway. Lots if Reid isn't inclined to do it. barfo
It's a campaign slogan. It's not entirely baseless, some change is gonna come, but it's not realistic to expect Congress to suddenly start working in a whole different way just because Obama got elected. Power is still power. barfo
