1/25/09
Of course he's overhyped. Of course the expectations are too high. Of course he can't change the world overnight.
That's not what matters. President Obama has already changed this country for the better by one simple fact -- not just who he is, but who he isn't.
In 2004, there were many Democrats who couldn't make themselves overly excited about John Kerry, but still worked their hearts out for him. He lost, but not because his party didn't support him.
For many, Kerry promised the political version of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. (The real oath doesn't say that, but the sentiment is the same.) The first thing Kerry would do, and the reason he won the support of tens of millions of people, was make George W. Bush the former president.
Obama won where Kerry lost, partly because Bush had four more years to convince everyone his party was bad news. As Obama takes office, there's a reason people talk about the challenges he faces in apocalyptic terms.
Even with all we're facing, though, the worst course of action would be to pretend we don't know how we got here. We're in this situation because the former president and his party made decisions, every day for eight years, that led to this. It wasn't incompetence to blame, though there was plenty of that. But if we decide to simply start fresh and try to forget, we'll be guaranteeing it will all happen again.
Everyone who makes that kind of suggestion, even if it's Obama himself, is wrong. If we don't have an honest reckoning about possible criminality committed by our government these past eight years and hold people responsible, nothing will change in the long term. It's not enough to say we've seen what can happen and will stop it in the future. Without consequences, there will be no deterrent.
So that means prosecuting people who broke the law by, for instance, torturing people. To say they only did it to protect their country is a fine defense, if a judge and jury want to believe it.
But it must come before a court, not be decided on some cable talk show.
Saying we need to "move forward" is demanding the questions not even be asked. The new attorney general and restaffed Justice Department can't preclude any investigations, because they don't know where the evidence will lead. If controversial cases go to trial and are decided in court, that's how it should be. But we can't pre-empt them.
Obama had most of his Cabinet approved with no fuss, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, has been held up because a Texas senator wants an assurance that he won't pursue punishment against government torturers. We need to look forward, not backward.
How did we get here? A U.S. senator is telling the administration it has to rule out the idea of investigations, let alone prosecutions, when members of the recently departed administration have already admitted to torture. This isn't "24." We're supposed to be better than that.
(Incidentally, has there ever been a more harmful TV show in history? It's a fact that government interrogators have said they were inspired by the show's blatant torture, which is always presented as the only way to protect us from evil-doers, even though nearly every expert says it's not only wrong, it's counterproductive. They also have the worst writers in the business, but that's another story.)
It goes without saying that no one who was tortured in real life had been convicted of anything, or even formally charged. And torture barely scratches the surface of all the wrongs -- illegal spying, politicizing criminal investigations and all the rest -- committed in our names since 2001.
It would be nice if the election of Barack Obama was a cure-all. Just by him being in office, we're a better country than we were a month ago. But it's not enough. Unless we face these issues now, find out as best we can everything that happened and where laws were broken, we can look forward to having these same discussions the next time a Democrat is elected to clean up a Republican mess.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 330-6233 or at hbailey@ctpost.com.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
City's chances come and go quickly
1/11/09
It's hard to avoid the feeling Bridgeport missed its chance. The window of opportunity was narrow, but it was real. For a few months there, with the economy chugging along and housing prices soaring, and the demand for luxury accommodations spiraling upward, the city had a chance to fill a void in the local market.
The rest of Fairfield County had outpriced the population. Bridgeport, it was thought, could become the home for people who needed to live in the area but had to forget about anything between here and New York. And maybe the city could snag some of that luxury overflow, as well.
Projects that had hung around the back burner suddenly attracted attention from big-name developers. Fallow land was slated for condominium towers, brownfields were to be cleaned and marinas prepared to take root in the Sound.
The scene today looks a bit different. Barely a peep has been heard about the various mega-projects around town, and the smaller-scale deals have nearly ground to a halt, as well. A nationwide housing collapse will do that.
The first real sign of trouble came in what was shaping up to be the first new housing construction downtown in decades. The corner of Fairfield Avenue at Lafayette Circle not too long ago was nothing but grass, but on the site sprang the makings of an 84-unit condo complex, to be built, its backers said, without using any public money. This was Bridgeport coming into its own.
It hasn't worked out that way. Despite a deal last April where the City Council granted the right to sell the condos at a lower rate to entice buyers, the building has for months sat half-finished. There's been no sign of construction restarting, and it's safe to say the active winter weather is not helping matters.
It's not that there hasn't been progress downtown -- the stretch of Fairfield Avenue next to the condo construction has refashioned itself as a destination for new restaurants, and work continues on a number of vacant buildings undergoing a retrofit for housing.
But there, too, the reality is a long way from the promise. The Citytrust building is occupied, but the retail and restaurants slated for the ground floor have not panned out. Work continues at other buildings, slowly -- even the boarded-up disaster at 333 State St., at the corner of Lafayette Boulevard, has seen some activity in recent weeks.
But it's the large-scale projects that look to be on life support, or worse. At last report, the condominium towers and marina to be built at the end of Main Street, next to Seaside Park, were stalled by a dispute over oyster beds in the Sound. In the interim, with the economy falling apart, the market for high-end housing in a neighborhood of decrepit buildings and a total lack of services has not grown.
Then there is the site that brought former NBA star turned high-powered developer Magic Johnson to the city. Next to the Harbor Yard complex, the lot was going to feature movie theaters, an 11-story hotel, thousands of square feet of retail and dozens of residences. For a time, a top concern was that the complex would turn inward, away from the city streets, and do little to help the surrounding neighborhood draw foot traffic. Today, it appears not much of anything will happen there.
Finally, of course, is Steel Point. A few decades ago, a long-gone city administration bulldozed a neighborhood, including dozens of houses and tax-paying businesses. In their place, the city has been granted some awfully attractive artist renderings of what the Bridgeport skyline could look like in some alternate universe.
It's not the fault of city leaders the housing market died, and priorities have taken a drastic turn. Now City Hall is trying to close a budget deficit before the end of the fiscal year, with no one talking much about what the revenue stream will look like the following year, or the year after that. It won't be pretty.
For a city that has suffered a generations-long run of bad luck, it's hard to think the opportunity to turn things around hasn't come and gone. The next time the stars align could be far in the future.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or at hbailey@ctpost.com.
It's hard to avoid the feeling Bridgeport missed its chance. The window of opportunity was narrow, but it was real. For a few months there, with the economy chugging along and housing prices soaring, and the demand for luxury accommodations spiraling upward, the city had a chance to fill a void in the local market.
The rest of Fairfield County had outpriced the population. Bridgeport, it was thought, could become the home for people who needed to live in the area but had to forget about anything between here and New York. And maybe the city could snag some of that luxury overflow, as well.
Projects that had hung around the back burner suddenly attracted attention from big-name developers. Fallow land was slated for condominium towers, brownfields were to be cleaned and marinas prepared to take root in the Sound.
The scene today looks a bit different. Barely a peep has been heard about the various mega-projects around town, and the smaller-scale deals have nearly ground to a halt, as well. A nationwide housing collapse will do that.
The first real sign of trouble came in what was shaping up to be the first new housing construction downtown in decades. The corner of Fairfield Avenue at Lafayette Circle not too long ago was nothing but grass, but on the site sprang the makings of an 84-unit condo complex, to be built, its backers said, without using any public money. This was Bridgeport coming into its own.
It hasn't worked out that way. Despite a deal last April where the City Council granted the right to sell the condos at a lower rate to entice buyers, the building has for months sat half-finished. There's been no sign of construction restarting, and it's safe to say the active winter weather is not helping matters.
It's not that there hasn't been progress downtown -- the stretch of Fairfield Avenue next to the condo construction has refashioned itself as a destination for new restaurants, and work continues on a number of vacant buildings undergoing a retrofit for housing.
But there, too, the reality is a long way from the promise. The Citytrust building is occupied, but the retail and restaurants slated for the ground floor have not panned out. Work continues at other buildings, slowly -- even the boarded-up disaster at 333 State St., at the corner of Lafayette Boulevard, has seen some activity in recent weeks.
But it's the large-scale projects that look to be on life support, or worse. At last report, the condominium towers and marina to be built at the end of Main Street, next to Seaside Park, were stalled by a dispute over oyster beds in the Sound. In the interim, with the economy falling apart, the market for high-end housing in a neighborhood of decrepit buildings and a total lack of services has not grown.
Then there is the site that brought former NBA star turned high-powered developer Magic Johnson to the city. Next to the Harbor Yard complex, the lot was going to feature movie theaters, an 11-story hotel, thousands of square feet of retail and dozens of residences. For a time, a top concern was that the complex would turn inward, away from the city streets, and do little to help the surrounding neighborhood draw foot traffic. Today, it appears not much of anything will happen there.
Finally, of course, is Steel Point. A few decades ago, a long-gone city administration bulldozed a neighborhood, including dozens of houses and tax-paying businesses. In their place, the city has been granted some awfully attractive artist renderings of what the Bridgeport skyline could look like in some alternate universe.
It's not the fault of city leaders the housing market died, and priorities have taken a drastic turn. Now City Hall is trying to close a budget deficit before the end of the fiscal year, with no one talking much about what the revenue stream will look like the following year, or the year after that. It won't be pretty.
For a city that has suffered a generations-long run of bad luck, it's hard to think the opportunity to turn things around hasn't come and gone. The next time the stars align could be far in the future.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or at hbailey@ctpost.com.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Same-sex-marrying socialists strike back
12/21/08
I love our letter writers. Really, I do. They're informed, loyal, passionate and thoroughly infuriating.
With them in mind, from the person who gets a first look at our readers' thoughts, the following is a seasonal-appropriate wish list. I don't expect it to change many minds, but I figure the long-running issues on our letters pages deserve an occasional response.
-- To start with, other than the election, the most popular topic the past few months has been the national economy and the assorted federal bailouts. People are wondering, with good reason, where all this money is going, and where we got it. We just had $700 billion laying around?
All letters are welcome. But there are code words hidden in some thatare signals to stop paying close attention -- "Chris Dodd" and "BarneyFrank." According to one school of thinking, these two, more than anyone else in America, are to blame for our current troubles.
If you want to castigate their decision-making, fine. If you want to say they and they alone are to blame for the recession, that's crazy. They didn't even take over their congressional committees until early last year, and our problems started long before then.
I love our letter writers. Really, I do. They're informed, loyal, passionate and thoroughly infuriating.
With them in mind, from the person who gets a first look at our readers' thoughts, the following is a seasonal-appropriate wish list. I don't expect it to change many minds, but I figure the long-running issues on our letters pages deserve an occasional response.
-- To start with, other than the election, the most popular topic the past few months has been the national economy and the assorted federal bailouts. People are wondering, with good reason, where all this money is going, and where we got it. We just had $700 billion laying around?
All letters are welcome. But there are code words hidden in some thatare signals to stop paying close attention -- "Chris Dodd" and "BarneyFrank." According to one school of thinking, these two, more than anyone else in America, are to blame for our current troubles.
If you want to castigate their decision-making, fine. If you want to say they and they alone are to blame for the recession, that's crazy. They didn't even take over their congressional committees until early last year, and our problems started long before then.
-- Along those lines, this notion of taking sides in a two-party grudge match is a constant theme, but has little to do with how people think. For instance, while the majority of the country has turned decisively against the current administration, many whose anti-Bush attitude predates the rest of the nation feel a special animus toward Senate Democrats.
It comes down to one word -- Iraq. There's a reason many Democrats never got excited about John Kerry, and the 2002 war vote was the No. 1 factor behind Barack Obama beating the supposedly unstoppable Hillary Clinton. What do Obama, Howard Dean, Al Gore and Ned Lamont have that other members of their party lack? The answer -- a near-bottomless supply of good will from fellow Democrats, dating backto their early, vocal opposition to the disaster that is Iraq.
So anyone who writes in assuming any Democrat or Republican supports that party no matter the situation, maybe reconsider that notion.
-- On a different topic, if you're writing a letter responding to a statement about the separation of church and state, don't quote Scripture. No one is taking your Bible away from you. Some people, though, don't want your interpretation of the Bible to determine the law of the land.
-- In terms of the debate over same-sex marriage, there might be something more offensive than writers equating homosexuality with pedophilia, but I can't think of what. We get it -- some of you are uncomfortable with what other people do in their bedrooms. Guess what -- no one wants to know what you do behind closed doors, either. And again, some people don't think you should get the final say on such matters.
There's also the matter of consent. Children, by law, can't give it. That makes a difference, yes?
-- This is a big one -- socialism. Really? Did I miss Obama's plan to nationalize the oil industry?
The notion that the tens of billions of dollars we spend killing people in Iraq could be better spent on schools and hospitals in this country is not radical. Huge majorities in this country support a robust social safety net, so that people who experience a run of misfortune don't lose everything. All other industrialized nations on the planet have some form of universal health care. None of this is controversial.
Maybe those correspondents who fret about our economic choices are happy with the fact that while this is the richest country in the world, there are 41 nations with lower infant mortality rates. At the same time, most workers in "socialist" Western Europe get four to five weeks vacation to start with. What are we supposed to be scared of again?
-- Finally, about the penchant for using the word "liberal" as an epithet -- despite what your radio tells you, it's not an insult.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or by
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Changing law just delays the inevitable
"The people have spoken," read a recent letter to the editor. "It's too bad we in Connecticut never had that same opportunity to protect our families."
The writer was talking about California's Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Connecticut is now one of two states where same-sex couples can legally marry.
What the writer leaves unsaid is what we're supposed to be protecting our families from. Being gay? People either are or they aren't, and I can't imagine anyone thinks passing a law is going to change that.
What adds to the confusion is the odd mixture of church and state when it comes to marriage in this country. It's a legal term that defines a partnership with shared rights and responsibilities. But it's also a religious rite performed in a church by a member of the clergy.
What does the first have to do with the second? If same-sex marriages are anathema to certain religions, there's an easy solution -- don't perform them. But why stop the state from authorizing them?
This is an issue where the key opinion divider isn't gender, class or, despite the results of California's vote, race. It's age. Older people, in general, don't like it. Younger people, for the most part, can't for the life of them understand what the fuss is about.
A poll earlier this year showed 68 percent of Californians ages 18 to 29 favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, with 25 percent opposed. Among those over 65, it was 36 percent approval and 55 percent against.
On the surface, this seems like it should fall into the libertarian don't-bother-me-I-won't-bother-you category. No one has ever been able to articulate what harm would be caused by allowing two willing participants to gain the rights and responsibilities that go with being married.
We've had our answers for the past four years. Since Massachusetts became the first state to declare such unions legal, the country has been anything but rapt with attention at the fallout, because there hasn't been any fallout. The world kept turning. The same is true of Connecticut.
The arguments against legalization fall flat. It's true such unions cannot biologically produce children. So what -- that's true for all sorts of heterosexual marriages, as well. Do we mandate fertility tests for marriage licenses? Are we going to prohibit all weddings of senior citizens?
There's the argument about the past several thousand years of human history, which have frowned upon, to say the least, such unions. As if we're supposed to use ancient Egypt as our guide-post in such matters. History also shows centuries of tolerance for slavery and the subjugation of women -- are we supposed to revert to the good old days on those, too?
It often comes down to religion. But that's not how we make laws here -- it's right there in the First Amendment. Of course, another recent survey showed only one-fourth of respondents mentioned freedom of religion when asked what rights the First Amendment guaranteed, so maybe some people need a refresher.
If it's just a question of personal discomfort, that seems an awfully thin reed on which to deny millions of people some basic rights. If no one is harmed, society carries on as usual and the world isn't consumed in a fiery apocalypse, it's hard to see what the holdup is.
If nothing else, the numbers show attitudes are changing. Young people today will be old people someday, and tomorrow's young people won't object, either. If it doesn't happen now, acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable in a generation or two. Why we have to fight about it from now until then utterly escapes me.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.
The writer was talking about California's Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Connecticut is now one of two states where same-sex couples can legally marry.
What the writer leaves unsaid is what we're supposed to be protecting our families from. Being gay? People either are or they aren't, and I can't imagine anyone thinks passing a law is going to change that.
What adds to the confusion is the odd mixture of church and state when it comes to marriage in this country. It's a legal term that defines a partnership with shared rights and responsibilities. But it's also a religious rite performed in a church by a member of the clergy.
What does the first have to do with the second? If same-sex marriages are anathema to certain religions, there's an easy solution -- don't perform them. But why stop the state from authorizing them?
This is an issue where the key opinion divider isn't gender, class or, despite the results of California's vote, race. It's age. Older people, in general, don't like it. Younger people, for the most part, can't for the life of them understand what the fuss is about.
A poll earlier this year showed 68 percent of Californians ages 18 to 29 favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, with 25 percent opposed. Among those over 65, it was 36 percent approval and 55 percent against.
On the surface, this seems like it should fall into the libertarian don't-bother-me-I-won't-bother-you category. No one has ever been able to articulate what harm would be caused by allowing two willing participants to gain the rights and responsibilities that go with being married.
We've had our answers for the past four years. Since Massachusetts became the first state to declare such unions legal, the country has been anything but rapt with attention at the fallout, because there hasn't been any fallout. The world kept turning. The same is true of Connecticut.
The arguments against legalization fall flat. It's true such unions cannot biologically produce children. So what -- that's true for all sorts of heterosexual marriages, as well. Do we mandate fertility tests for marriage licenses? Are we going to prohibit all weddings of senior citizens?
There's the argument about the past several thousand years of human history, which have frowned upon, to say the least, such unions. As if we're supposed to use ancient Egypt as our guide-post in such matters. History also shows centuries of tolerance for slavery and the subjugation of women -- are we supposed to revert to the good old days on those, too?
It often comes down to religion. But that's not how we make laws here -- it's right there in the First Amendment. Of course, another recent survey showed only one-fourth of respondents mentioned freedom of religion when asked what rights the First Amendment guaranteed, so maybe some people need a refresher.
If it's just a question of personal discomfort, that seems an awfully thin reed on which to deny millions of people some basic rights. If no one is harmed, society carries on as usual and the world isn't consumed in a fiery apocalypse, it's hard to see what the holdup is.
If nothing else, the numbers show attitudes are changing. Young people today will be old people someday, and tomorrow's young people won't object, either. If it doesn't happen now, acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable in a generation or two. Why we have to fight about it from now until then utterly escapes me.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lieberman keeps influence intact
11/18/08
Toward the end of this year's presidential campaign, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman took his message to a conservative radio show, where he was asked, "Do you agree ... that if we don't at least have the fire wall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive?" The host was talking about Democrats potentially winning as many as 60 caucus members, which would bring the chance to forestall - in theory, anyway - the ability of minority Republicans to halt the Democratic agenda. Sixty votes is required to stop debate and allow contentious bills to move forward.
Said Lieberman, who remains a registered Democrat and caucused with Democrats even after losing his Senate primary two years ago: "Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear."
Fear? If the Democratic agenda is so fearsome, why would he choose to caucus with them?
The question is even more pertinent today. His erstwhile party did well for itself on Election Day, winning closely fought campaigns from coast to coast. And with Senate races yet to be decided in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia, the possibility the party could reach that "fear"-inducing 60-vote threshold remains.
Lieberman decided this year that nothing was more important than electing as president Arizona Sen. John McCain. He failed. In the course of his failure, he repeatedly questioned the readiness, patriotism and priorities of the man America did choose, President-elect Barack Obama.
Despite this, Democrats voted Tuesday to allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If McCain had won the White House, Lieberman likely would have been named to a top Cabinet position (McCain reportedly wanted Lieberman as his running mate before being talked out of it). So our senator emerges as the one person who would have wound up ahead regardless of the election's outcome.
The real question, then, is this: If he fears for America in the event of Democratic ascendency, shouldn't he take it upon himself to put a stop to it? Shouldn't he caucus with Republicans and keep that 60th vote out of reach?
Could it be that all this was only about Joe Lieberman holding onto power for himself?
Toward the end of this year's presidential campaign, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman took his message to a conservative radio show, where he was asked, "Do you agree ... that if we don't at least have the fire wall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive?" The host was talking about Democrats potentially winning as many as 60 caucus members, which would bring the chance to forestall - in theory, anyway - the ability of minority Republicans to halt the Democratic agenda. Sixty votes is required to stop debate and allow contentious bills to move forward.
Said Lieberman, who remains a registered Democrat and caucused with Democrats even after losing his Senate primary two years ago: "Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear."
Fear? If the Democratic agenda is so fearsome, why would he choose to caucus with them?
The question is even more pertinent today. His erstwhile party did well for itself on Election Day, winning closely fought campaigns from coast to coast. And with Senate races yet to be decided in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia, the possibility the party could reach that "fear"-inducing 60-vote threshold remains.
Lieberman decided this year that nothing was more important than electing as president Arizona Sen. John McCain. He failed. In the course of his failure, he repeatedly questioned the readiness, patriotism and priorities of the man America did choose, President-elect Barack Obama.
Despite this, Democrats voted Tuesday to allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If McCain had won the White House, Lieberman likely would have been named to a top Cabinet position (McCain reportedly wanted Lieberman as his running mate before being talked out of it). So our senator emerges as the one person who would have wound up ahead regardless of the election's outcome.
The real question, then, is this: If he fears for America in the event of Democratic ascendency, shouldn't he take it upon himself to put a stop to it? Shouldn't he caucus with Republicans and keep that 60th vote out of reach?
Could it be that all this was only about Joe Lieberman holding onto power for himself?
Elections have consequences, but not for Joe
11/16/08
If nothing else, Joe Lieberman is a survivor.
The Democratic leadership has every right to toss him to the curb. But in the name of bipartisanship, not holding grudges or maybe self-flagellation, he's likely to stay on as chairman of the Senate committee on government oversight.
Funny how when Republicans win elections they aren't expected to cater to the other party's loudest supporters.
For a year, Lieberman was maybe the most vocal backer of John McCain in Washington. And that alone wouldn't have been a big problem -- Democrats wouldn't have liked it, but if he'd simply endorsed his candidate and made a few speeches, everyone would have been able to get over it.
It didn't go that way, of course. Lieberman, who reportedly begged Barack Obama to come to his rescue in the Senate primary two years ago, proceeded to attack Obama -- in that ever-so-polite manner of his -- at every opportunity.
In April, he was asked, "Senator Lieberman, you know Barack Obama; is he a Marxist?" Responded Joe: "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question."
Isn't it, though!
In May, he said: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, 'Why?'"
Why, indeed?
In August: We have a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."
Marxism, terrorism and treason -- in Joe's world, that counts as fair criticism.
The president-elect, being a magnanimous type, has signaled he wants Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. No one has suggested kicking him out, but if he loses his committee chairmanship -- the caucus will vote on that this week -- it's widely thought he's done with the party.
It bears repeating -- if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus, it will be because he chose to do so. He will gain nothing from switching to the Republican side; they have nothing to offer. It would be the senatorial equivalent of taking his ball and going home.
And still, the best reason to remove him isn't about settling a score, or meting out punishment. It's because he's bad at his job. In charge of government oversight, he saw no reason to hold hearings into a raft of Bush administration scandals and disasters, deeming "divisive" the idea of probing the response to Hurricane Katrina.
It's up to the Democrats to decide his future, and signs indicate he'll get to stick around. But however it turns out, let's dispense with this notion of "betrayal." Lieberman ran against his lifelong party's chosen nominee in the 2006 Senate race; he can't be surprised some people weren't thrilled with the idea.
He campaigned endlessly for the Republican ticket this year. He vouched for Sarah Palin and told the world how ready she was -- "She's so strong, she's so capable, she's so competent," he said. This about a person who stands for everything Lieberman has supposedly fought against throughout his career. Like in 2006, he repeatedly denounced the Democratic candidate and strongly implied that choosing not to listen to him was unpatriotic and would put lives at risk.
And apparently there are still people mad that mean old Al Gore didn't call before bypassing his ex-running mate and endorsing Howard Dean in 2004. These are adults we're talking about, right?
The Senate being what it is, Lieberman will probably stay right where he is, which means four more years of Sunday morning talk shows. That, truly, is what it's all about.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.
If nothing else, Joe Lieberman is a survivor.
The Democratic leadership has every right to toss him to the curb. But in the name of bipartisanship, not holding grudges or maybe self-flagellation, he's likely to stay on as chairman of the Senate committee on government oversight.
Funny how when Republicans win elections they aren't expected to cater to the other party's loudest supporters.
For a year, Lieberman was maybe the most vocal backer of John McCain in Washington. And that alone wouldn't have been a big problem -- Democrats wouldn't have liked it, but if he'd simply endorsed his candidate and made a few speeches, everyone would have been able to get over it.
It didn't go that way, of course. Lieberman, who reportedly begged Barack Obama to come to his rescue in the Senate primary two years ago, proceeded to attack Obama -- in that ever-so-polite manner of his -- at every opportunity.
In April, he was asked, "Senator Lieberman, you know Barack Obama; is he a Marxist?" Responded Joe: "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question."
Isn't it, though!
In May, he said: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, 'Why?'"
Why, indeed?
In August: We have a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."
Marxism, terrorism and treason -- in Joe's world, that counts as fair criticism.
The president-elect, being a magnanimous type, has signaled he wants Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. No one has suggested kicking him out, but if he loses his committee chairmanship -- the caucus will vote on that this week -- it's widely thought he's done with the party.
It bears repeating -- if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus, it will be because he chose to do so. He will gain nothing from switching to the Republican side; they have nothing to offer. It would be the senatorial equivalent of taking his ball and going home.
And still, the best reason to remove him isn't about settling a score, or meting out punishment. It's because he's bad at his job. In charge of government oversight, he saw no reason to hold hearings into a raft of Bush administration scandals and disasters, deeming "divisive" the idea of probing the response to Hurricane Katrina.
It's up to the Democrats to decide his future, and signs indicate he'll get to stick around. But however it turns out, let's dispense with this notion of "betrayal." Lieberman ran against his lifelong party's chosen nominee in the 2006 Senate race; he can't be surprised some people weren't thrilled with the idea.
He campaigned endlessly for the Republican ticket this year. He vouched for Sarah Palin and told the world how ready she was -- "She's so strong, she's so capable, she's so competent," he said. This about a person who stands for everything Lieberman has supposedly fought against throughout his career. Like in 2006, he repeatedly denounced the Democratic candidate and strongly implied that choosing not to listen to him was unpatriotic and would put lives at risk.
And apparently there are still people mad that mean old Al Gore didn't call before bypassing his ex-running mate and endorsing Howard Dean in 2004. These are adults we're talking about, right?
The Senate being what it is, Lieberman will probably stay right where he is, which means four more years of Sunday morning talk shows. That, truly, is what it's all about.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Lieberman will pay a steep price
11/9/08
All along, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman knew what he was doing. He knew consequences were likely, for himself and the state he serves, if he continued his actions.
The inevitable got under way last week as Lieberman, the former Democrat who ran as an independent and wholeheartedly supported the Republican presidential ticket, met with Senate leadership to begin determining his fate. He is unlikely to emerge unscathed.
As chairman of the powerful Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman has much to lose. The Democratic Party, of course, did quite well for itself last week, and no longer needs Lieberman's support to secure a majority.
He could lose his chairmanship, be denied seniority rights or be kicked out of the caucus altogether. Republicans have already said they would welcome him - as well they should, given their shrinking numbers.
It didn't have to be this way. Lieberman is a longtime friend of John McCain, and could have supported his candidacy while provoking nothing but a few grumbles. Instead, Lieberman invested every ounce of his political capital in the campaign, and even as signs clearly indicated his candidate was finished, continued to dig his own political grave.
He launched one attack after another at Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Now, he must live with the consequences. Unfortunately for the state of Connecticut, the rest of us pay a price, too, in terms of diminished stature in the Senate and less chance of getting federal help when we need it.
State voters, whether they voted for him or not, have every right to be angry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)