You'd better believe the election has energized me to post tons of new entries!
Okay, I've slept and digested and now it's time to talk about another minor political issue that's been on my mind.
Namely, all the references I've been seeing and hearing on-line and on TV about Democrats "kicking Lieberman out" of their congressional caucus.
I keep waiting, in vain, for Democratic analysts on those TV shows to say "no no no, that's the old Republican divisive way of thinking. We're the party that tolerates informed, polite differences of opinion without calling the people who disagree with us America-hating terrorists."
What a fabulous way to really distinguish the Dem and Rep brand image! It's not "Washington is childish, intractable and gridlocked", it's "Republicans are childish, intractable and gridlock-causing". I mean, liberals have certainly complained about the current administration squelching dissent - surely they aren't going to do the same thing? Here's a nice prominent example right in the election cycle that can be used to show how different the two parties are.
Plus, from a more cynical point of view, nothing would be sacrificed by extending the olive branch to Lieberman - in fact, all the benefit is on the side of letting him stay! For one thing, wouldn't he be likely to become a champion of the reconciliation, heal-the-divide-that-divides-this-country meme that permeates the Obama campaign, out of gratitude and respect for the party that let him be independent and have his own opinion while still, let's face it, mostly voting with Dems. On the other hand, vengefully eject him out of, basically, spite, and what incentives will he have THEN to work with you on your country-healing agenda? Absolutely the opposite: feeling himself wronged, he would be motivated to sabotage that effort, to take an eye for an eye for an eye until the whole Congress is blind (which is even worse than stumbling blindly around because of some wool that the administration has pulled over their eyes).
If Democrats in Congress really want, as Obama has been saying, to put the divisive era behind us and move towards being able to work together, both parties respecting the other's American-ness and patriotism, accepting diversity of opinions as a good thing, etc, then at some point one side has to start some forgiving. Not only is the losing side unlikely to be the first, but even if they were that takes away the whole brand-image advantage.
The best time to take this position would have been before the election - for one thing, before they knew whether tossing or not tossing Joe would determine whether they had a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority. Okay, one opportunity missed (as far as I know) - still, it would be far better to start saying now that he can stay in the caucus if he wants.
A somewhat less ideal situation would be if Harry Reid and the Senate leadership want to kick him out, but Obama convinces them not to. That would be nice in a couple of ways: right-leaning analysts have been talking about whether Obama could "stand up to his own party", something they say he hasn't shown he can do; plus, it would really demonstrate his much-vaunted ability as a peacemaker and one who can get those around him to basically start acting like grown-ups. On the other hand, I say this is less ideal because then it's really Obama who gets the credit: Democrats in general wouldn't necessarily be seen as any less divisive and childish than Republicans, just Obama in particular would be seen as a great statesman, which according to the popular and electoral vote he basically already is.
So my hope would be that the party closes ranks, sooner rather than later, in favor of allowing Sen. Joe Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats as long as he wants, despite his support for McCain in the general election, and to quickly put down those who would suggest that Democrats are as spiteful and vindictive as their opponents have been. That's the way to put the money where the mouth is, as the kids say, in terms of being the party to end the childish bickering in government and accept that rational adults can have different opinions and yet still support, serve, and indeed love America on both sides.
Respectfully submitted,
Geoffrey Wessel, Di
Namely, all the references I've been seeing and hearing on-line and on TV about Democrats "kicking Lieberman out" of their congressional caucus.
I keep waiting, in vain, for Democratic analysts on those TV shows to say "no no no, that's the old Republican divisive way of thinking. We're the party that tolerates informed, polite differences of opinion without calling the people who disagree with us America-hating terrorists."
What a fabulous way to really distinguish the Dem and Rep brand image! It's not "Washington is childish, intractable and gridlocked", it's "Republicans are childish, intractable and gridlock-causing". I mean, liberals have certainly complained about the current administration squelching dissent - surely they aren't going to do the same thing? Here's a nice prominent example right in the election cycle that can be used to show how different the two parties are.
Plus, from a more cynical point of view, nothing would be sacrificed by extending the olive branch to Lieberman - in fact, all the benefit is on the side of letting him stay! For one thing, wouldn't he be likely to become a champion of the reconciliation, heal-the-divide-that-divides-this-country meme that permeates the Obama campaign, out of gratitude and respect for the party that let him be independent and have his own opinion while still, let's face it, mostly voting with Dems. On the other hand, vengefully eject him out of, basically, spite, and what incentives will he have THEN to work with you on your country-healing agenda? Absolutely the opposite: feeling himself wronged, he would be motivated to sabotage that effort, to take an eye for an eye for an eye until the whole Congress is blind (which is even worse than stumbling blindly around because of some wool that the administration has pulled over their eyes).
If Democrats in Congress really want, as Obama has been saying, to put the divisive era behind us and move towards being able to work together, both parties respecting the other's American-ness and patriotism, accepting diversity of opinions as a good thing, etc, then at some point one side has to start some forgiving. Not only is the losing side unlikely to be the first, but even if they were that takes away the whole brand-image advantage.
The best time to take this position would have been before the election - for one thing, before they knew whether tossing or not tossing Joe would determine whether they had a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority. Okay, one opportunity missed (as far as I know) - still, it would be far better to start saying now that he can stay in the caucus if he wants.
A somewhat less ideal situation would be if Harry Reid and the Senate leadership want to kick him out, but Obama convinces them not to. That would be nice in a couple of ways: right-leaning analysts have been talking about whether Obama could "stand up to his own party", something they say he hasn't shown he can do; plus, it would really demonstrate his much-vaunted ability as a peacemaker and one who can get those around him to basically start acting like grown-ups. On the other hand, I say this is less ideal because then it's really Obama who gets the credit: Democrats in general wouldn't necessarily be seen as any less divisive and childish than Republicans, just Obama in particular would be seen as a great statesman, which according to the popular and electoral vote he basically already is.
So my hope would be that the party closes ranks, sooner rather than later, in favor of allowing Sen. Joe Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats as long as he wants, despite his support for McCain in the general election, and to quickly put down those who would suggest that Democrats are as spiteful and vindictive as their opponents have been. That's the way to put the money where the mouth is, as the kids say, in terms of being the party to end the childish bickering in government and accept that rational adults can have different opinions and yet still support, serve, and indeed love America on both sides.
Respectfully submitted,
Geoffrey Wessel, Di