With the defeat of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the Democrats now have 56 official seats in the US Senate. This number is enhanced by two independents who caucus with the democratic majority: Bernie Sanders from Vermont (a socialist) and Joe Lieberman, formerly a right-wing democrat from Connecticut. This effectively brings the democratic majority to 58, two votes short of a 60 seat majority that can pass any legislation without the threat of a filibuster.
With two senate races still undecided (a close recount in Minnesota and a somewhat unlikely chance of winning a run-off in Georgia), the majority has decided to allow Lieberman to keep his chair of the homeland security committee, effectively cutting a deal: he caucuses with the democrats as independent in exchange for the privileges of seniority.
John Nichols of the Nation defends this decision to keep Lieberman, on pragmatic tactical grounds.
I see Nichols' point: there isn't much to be gained by making the Democratic tent in the Senate smaller. That being said, is it is necessary to punish Lieberman in some way for his support of Mccain during the campaign, relentless promotion of aggressive and militaristic foreign policy, and general right-wing moralizing.
The most effective way to do this is to run a serious and well-backed democratic candidate in 2012 when he's up for re-election. Ned Lamont was brave to run against him in 2006, but the Democrats need to get serious in ensuring some degree of party discipline for core decisions.
Tactically speaking, it seems unlikely to me that the Democrats will win both Minnesota and Georgia, which even with Lieberman joining the group will require reaching out to the dwindling number of moderate republican senators (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Spector, Chuck Hagel) on crucial legislation or nominees that the republican minority filibusters on.
Ultimately, it seems more productive to build a coalition with these folks on borderline issues (health insurance, minimum wage, large diplomatic initiatives, large federal infrastructure spending, progressive energy policy, center-of-left Supreme court nominees) than it does to keep Lieberman as part of the coalition. Should Lieberman not vote for cloture (the vote that ends a filibuster) on a central issue, he should be stripped of his seniority immediately.
Loisaida is a term derived from the Latino (and especially Puerto Rican) pronunciation of "Lower East Side", a neighborhood in Manhattan, New York City. Loisaida Avenue is now an alternate name for Avenue C in the Alphabet City neighborhood of New York City, whose population has largely been Hispanic (mainly Puerto Rican) since the late 1960s.
No comments:
Post a Comment