Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Wants Lieberman to Stay ... But at What Cost?

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2008.


It's one thing for Obama to forgive Lieberman for his attacks; it's quite another to offer his Homeland Security chairmanship as an olive branch.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 


Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009.


According to Greg Sargent, Howard Fineman is reporting that Obama has now expressed his clear support not only for Joe Lieberman staying in the caucus, but for retaining his Chairmanship of the Department of Homeland Security Committee.

While it's one thing for Obama to personally forgive Lieberman for the race baiting and other gutter tactics that he engaged in on McCain's behalf during the campaign, it's quite another to let the chairmanship of such an important committee, which Lieberman has used for years to prevent Senatorial investigation into no-bid contracts and contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security, to serve as an olive branch.

That's an awfully high price for a lot of reasons.

Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has been one of the most corruption-riddled arms of the government, able to hide its affairs from the prying eyes of the public under the guise of "national security."   Here's Richard Clarke from his book Your Government Failed You (p. 212):

As soon as it was obvious that a big new federal department was going to be created, the major Defense Department contractors and systems integrators saw a new opportunity, or perhaps a new prey. The contractors are known as "Beltway bandits," because of their elaborate corporate facilities in the Washington suburbs along the Beltway highway and because of their frequent cost overruns on DOD contracts. Suddenly former government officials working for the big contractors were asking to see me and anyone else they knew at the White House. Their purpose was always the same. They had come to explain that they were now the vice president for homeland security of their company. I asked one such visitor, whom I had known for years, "What the hell do you know about homeland security?" Helaughed and admitted, "Nothing, but neither does anyone else."
This has created a mess under the Bush Administration that one could safely predict it would. 

The Department of Homeland Security is requesting a 2009 budget of $50.5 billion dollars.  To put that in perspective, the military budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for 2009 is $200 billion

The budget for Barack Obama's healthcare plan, when fully implemented, is estimated to be between $50-65 billion annually.  (pdf)



We're already being told post-election that we're going to have to dial back our expectations, that Obama's plans might have to be sacrificed during these difficult economic times to the Blue Dog demand for "PayGo" if there's no way too offset them in the federal budget:


President-elect Barack Obama promises a bold energy plan to develop green technology, slash oil imports from unfriendly nations and tax more of the profits of oil companies, but the cost of the Wall Street bailout and an expected U.S. recession may impede his efforts.
Obama said as much during the first presidential debate when he said he may have to scale back on his green plan.
"I'm not willing to give up the need to do it, but there may be individual components of it that we can't do," he said.

So where's the money going to come from?

Well, the House has a Committee on Homeland Security too, and its Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight recently found $15 billion worth of waste in 11 Department of Homeland Security  programs --  for "projects ranging from airport baggage-screening to trailers for Hurricane Katrina evacuees."



Lieberman, many will recall, was responsible for holding hearings into the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.  But after winning his 2006 election with the help of the GOP, he decided it would be too "divisive" and refused to do so.

Good governance is going to be about more than passing new legislation, it's going to be about cleaning up the mess that has been made over the past 8 years.  It's going to be about weeding out the graft and greed and corruption that has caused American taxpayers to foot the bill for outrageous deficits.  The military industrial complex has been bilking the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security with no-bid contracts for things nobody needs that we're not allowed to know about for years now.    The only way we're going to find out about these abuses, and right them, is if our elected officials accept that responsibility.

Not only is Joe Lieberman not doing that job, as Chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee he's keeping anyone else from doing it.  He happily allowed a seat on the Homeland Security Advisory Council to be doled out as political patronage to a corrupt Bush Pioneer.  He has no interest in cleaning up the mess he helped to make. 



Is his continued happiness worth the cost of healthcare?  Of the environment?  Of putting Americans back to work?  Of reducing our dependence on oil and getting the economy back on its feet?

Allowing Lieberman to retain control of a committee where he has done nothing but suppress meaningful oversight is going to be an awfully bitter pill to swallow when we're told that the price of "change" we all thought we were voting for is going to be too high.

Call Democratic Senators and tell them -- Just Say No to Joe.

Sign the petition -- Joe Must Go.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: lieberman, obama, joe lieberman, barack obama, 2008 election, politics news, lieberman mccain, obama lieberman

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
In debate leading to vote, McCain compared Reid to Madoff, Hatch invoked socialism, and Lincoln promised trouble ahead
Post by Adele Stan. November 21, 2009.
ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Howard Fineman also said...
Posted by: Quannah on Nov 12, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that he thought Obama was setting up a "Good Cop, Bad Cop" scenario for when the Senate meets to decide Lieberman's fate. (Obama being the "good cop" and the rest of the Senate who don't appreciate Lieberman's traitorous action being the "bad cop.") Obama's being magnanimous. He's trying to appear to not be partisan. He's looking at it from a different perspective, but it doesn't mean that he supports Lieberman. He's disengaged from the Senate at this point, and is transitioning to the Executive Branch.

Obama clearly said he isn't issuing an "order" for the Senate to follow. He was giving his own opinion. And he said that he doesn't expect the Senate to act on what he said, but that the Senate will have the chance to debate the issue and vote on it. And he will abide by their decision. After all, it isn't like he could issue an edict and the Senate would have to comply!

There are plenty of Senators who are really pissed off at Joe Lieberman. Too many to keep him in his position, I believe. So... hopefully, this will all be a moot point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Howard Fineman also said... Posted by: peacefullaim
This is politics
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 12, 2008 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama can take the high road, on the odds that the Senate will boot JL out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is politics Posted by: Quannah
» RE: This is politics Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: This is politics Posted by: Quannah
"good cop, bad cop", or "productive program, destructive program"
Posted by: channing on Nov 12, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Quannah is probably right above in speculating that Obama can allow the Senate to thrash and burn LIEberman.

The other angle I had thought of referred to Obama's campaign pledge to review federal programs top to bottom and eliminate ineffective ones: Could it be that The Department of Fatherland Security has met its match? Considering the FBI, NSA and CIA are NOT COMPONENTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY while certainly, flagrantly, ridiculously intricately involved in ALL THINGS SECURE/INSECURE IN THE HOMELAND, wouldn't it be great to discover the Obama administration has a secret plan to abolish this fiasco?

...just dreaming of change

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama helped reelect LIEberNAZI in 2006 so of course he's gonna give JL more goodies !
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 12, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did you people expect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leiberman shot HIMSELF in the foot, Obama does not need to.
Posted by: Ashoka911 on Nov 13, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is possible that there are much worse actors " paling around " and that he needs to gesture positively towards Leiberman in order to move others off the scene.....I don't know. Liberman shot himself in the foot and has made his bed, I am sure. He certainly has given up the Armed Services committe (much more powerful). Homeland security has a lot to atone for and him as Chairman wont stop that. Obama can't afford to loose the political capital on vengence. I see that the number 1 and 2 in the CIA may be squeezed out by Obama. He is in a complete hornets nest! I would not want to complicate his decisions (but I think he is better than that). We need to make the new democratic movement real, and let him do the best that he can do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TruthIsSuperiorToHonor
Posted by: ittakesallkinds on Nov 13, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To answer Howard Fineman's comment - I believe you have the right take on Obama's statement. (Opposite to 'methinks thou dost protest too much', rather: thou dost accede too much...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JT Barrie
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Nov 13, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF Barack wanted to send a strong message of reform and change he would follow the example of he Great Prevaricator when he appointed Bill Bennett as head of the DOE. Why not offer the head of the DHS to Dennis Kucinich - someone who is a strong advocate of civil liberties and constitutional law. Another possibility that sends not only this message but that of bipartisanship would be to reach across the aisle and offer the DOE position to Ron Paul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JT Barrie Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: JT Barrie Posted by: StirMan
Prosecute LIEberman for Derelicition of Duty
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 13, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oversight? Investigations? None under these treasonous assholes protection.
Joe LIEberman should be held criminal responsible for failure to protect & defend the People & Our Constitution.
I'm all for Bipartisanship, but The Corporations are NOT one of the Two.
How can you trust a man who will even serve up his own religious community, so HE can gain more power. Hagee is 'a man of God Like Moses'???? He accepts the 'friendship' of a group of religious sociopaths who beleive God will only save 144,000 CONVERTED Jews?
If Joe Lieberman lacks the conviction to defend his own religious philosophy or at least warn others about the deception toward it, How can we possible expect him to have any conviction when it come to Serving US?
Lieberman has proven himself Untrust worthy on all levels regarding moral, ethics and committment.
Prosecute him to the full extent of the law and Let him find out which religion is the 'True One' for himself!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: StillStanding on Nov 13, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, this is just a further example of Obama's spinelessness. The thought of the sanctimonious Mr. Lieberman remaining at the helm of the HS committee after his conduct during the election is unconscionable. Some may think Obama is taking the "high road", but I think it's just further evidence of his lack of resolve to bring real reform. It's just fascism as usual, folks. If you voted for Obama, you got snookered.

And, by the way, have you heard the rumors that Obama wants a national police force? How Nazi can he get?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lieberman
Posted by: janelynne on Nov 13, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Maddow last night the strategy was explained that Joe would up and quit if he couldn't have the chairmanship and then a Republican would take his place. So, Joe is essentially blackmailing the Democrats to hold on to the chairmanship.

I don't think that is a good enough reason to hold on to Joe. Joe cannot be trusted with anything from serious policy issues to simply keeping his mouth shut. He isn't a good soldier; an underminer, a leaker, a drama queen; a betrayer. Joe will exact his revenge one way or the other because he has a personality disorder. This is a case where the Democrats have to cut their losses early because this won't get ever better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lieberman Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Lieberman Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: Lieberman Posted by: Quannah
jim williams
Posted by: jawsouth on Nov 13, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let him wallow in his own choice. This guy lost the democratic primary in his own state as an incumbent. That should tell the Democratic party something!!!! What price is it that we would allow him to keep his position? To have him vote with the Democrats on our agendas? Is this not the same as special interest groups giving enormous $$$$ to congress to influence their vote. Obama campaigned aginst these special interst groups and now essentially wants the Democratic party to be a special interst group. That is, instead of money we are giving Lieberman his power play to have him vote with us. It was sickening enough to see Lieberman standing behind Mcain on every speach during Mcanin's campaign. If this occurs I will never, ever consider giving 1 Nickel to a Democratic party again

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama apologists already, what a joke you sheeple are
Posted by: DCostello2 on Nov 13, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Oh, he's just playing good cop/bad cop' 'He just had to say all that stuff to get elected' Blah, blah, blah....just like O-Blah-ma. When are you sheeple going to accept the fact that you voted for another member of the Machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

miss_grundy
Posted by: miss_grundy on Nov 13, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if any of you watch Olbermann on MSNBC but one of his guests pointed out the three choices that Obama has regarding him. The idea is not to allow Lieberman to set himself up as a "victim" once Obama becomes president. And it doesn't give Lieberman free rein to do whatever he wants as chair. He can still be removed by the Democrats if he creates problems for Obama.

By doing this the President-Elect lobs the ball straight into Lieberman's court. He will have to be grateful for keeping his chairmanship. If he goes against the Democrats, he will lose. And he may have a rough road come the next election cycle when he will have to defend staying in the Senate.

This chairmanship is Lieberman's to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks miss_grundy
Posted by: CJC on Nov 13, 2008 3:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you.

Politics is the art of the possible. What's to be gained by seeming to be vindictive?

I think Lieberman is slimy, but better to have him stay as an Independent/Democrat than have him take his marbles and officially move over to the Republican side. Coopting is better than fighting.

There's time enough for the Democrats of Connecticut to put up a serious primary contender should Lieberman decide to run again in 2012.

Much smarter to be savvy than self-righteous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks miss_grundy Posted by: StirMan
» RE: Thanks miss_grundy Posted by: jawsouth
The Fox-protecting Committee Chairman
Posted by: jimswanson on Nov 15, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]

I’m a progressive who could not warm up to Joe Lieberman even if we both died and were cremated together.

Lieberman may not be one of the fox who are personally raiding the Department of Homeland Security chicken coop—and costing America tens of billions of lost chickens, I mean, dollars—but as the fox-protecting Committee Chairman, he is much more expensive and dangerous.

Lieberman also proudly retains his neocon credentials in spite of eight years of disastrous foreign policy blunders by the neocon-led Bush regime.

Lieberman also turned a blind eye to GOP attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

He supported every Middle East warmongering initiative of the Bush regime, and made things worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, with increased deaths on both sides, and with no peace in sight.

Standing out in stark contrast are the contributions of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to peace in the Middle East.

Consider Carter’s sustained efforts leading to the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979—a peace agreement that has never been broken by either party. That required Carter’s strength, integrity and moral leadership—in short, diplomacy—something missing from Lieberman’s and the GOP’s toolkit.

Likewise, Clinton had a key role in supporting the peace process that led to the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1994, which agreement has never been broken.

With friends like Lieberman, Israel needs no enemies.

This and much more is discussed in, “The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America,” by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

Patriots everywhere can download the entire book for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

I ask for nothing in return, except that you perhaps use my book to help restore and build America.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]