|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | From:  tc101 (Original Message) | Sent: 11/12/2008 12:18 AM |
WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
(D.) For Vendetta
The champagne is barely off the ice and Democrats are already celebrating their new majorities by punishing a few heretical colleagues. In almost every sense, John Dingell and Joe Lieberman are loyal Democrats. But Mr. Dingell is holding down the party's right flank on energy, and Mr. Lieberman in foreign affairs. Now they're targets, and the retribution speaks volumes about the direction of liberal politics.
California Democrat Henry Waxman kicked things off the morning after Barack Obama's victory, with an announcement that he will seek the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The post is currently held by Mr. Dingell, the bulldog Michigander who next year will become the longest-serving Member in U.S. history. In Congressional physics, seniority is gravity, which alone makes Mr. Waxman's challenge extraordinary.
It is even more so because it is a coup d'etat against a climate-change moderate. For environmentalists, Mr. Dingell is a wet blanket because his committee will write any global-warming legislation. The word on the Hill is that Mr. Waxman enjoys the tacit support of übergreen Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who dislikes Mr. Dingell's independence.
In media shorthand, Mr. Dingell's approach to climate change is called "industry friendly." Apparently, this is because his principles include words like "realistic" and "achievable" and "cost containment." An ally of the Detroit auto makers, he does not pretend that putting a price on carbon will be painless and fun. He also knows that well-to-do redoubts such as Mr. Waxman's Beverly Hills won't bear the heaviest burden. It will fall instead on blue-collar, middle-American regions that rely on manufacturing or coal-fired power.
Even so, Mr. Dingell's committee has held nearly 30 hearings on climate change since his party took power. In October, he released a cap-and-trade bill that aims to reduce emissions to 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Incredibly enough, even that huge cut counts as a liberal heresy. The greens demand 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 -- a meaningless distinction considering that four decades is a political and technological eternity.
Then again, compared to Mr. Waxman, just about anyone could be mistaken for an Exxon executive. The Congressman has spent the last year trying to dragoon the Environmental Protection Agency into imposing an economy-wide carbon clampdown under current clean-air laws, an idea Mr. Obama also backs. But Mr. Dingell dares to point out that these laws -- passed in 1970, 1977 and 1990 -- were never written to include CO2. He should know. He wrote them.
The point is not only to humiliate a nuisance. Installing Mr. Waxman at Energy and Commerce would mean a far more aggressive push on global warming next year. It would also send a warning to the Blue Dogs and rural-state Democrats who might not fall in with the Obama-Pelosi energy agenda. Think rubber truncheons and bare light bulbs (compact fluorescents, of course).
Like Mr. Dingell, Senator Lieberman may also lose his gavel. Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid informed the Connecticut renegade that rank-and-file sentiment against him had climbed to a point where he could not stay as Homeland Security Chairman. He may also be booted from the Democratic caucus.
To hear Democrats tell it, much less the Angry Left, Mr. Lieberman is Judas, Brutus and Cassius rolled into one. They're still furious about his high-profile campaign for John McCain, including his speech at the GOP convention. They also want to exact revenge for his unstinting support of President Bush's Iraq policy.
In 2006, Mr. Lieberman was defrocked for the sole reason that as a matter of policy and conscience he refused to repudiate the war that he and so many of his party colleagues had voted for. After Mr. Lieberman lost his Senate primary race to the antiwar Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont, nearly all Senate Democrats were happy to abandon their friend and endorse Mr. Lamont. Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama and the rest didn't even have the courage to stay neutral, for fear of affronting the empurpled left.
Were he a vindictive man, Mr. Lieberman could have returned the favor after he won the general election as an independent. With the Senate split 50 to 49, he might have handed control back to the GOP. Instead, he caucused with the Democrats and voted with them on social and economic issues. Now that they have comfortable margins, his reward may be a complete purge.
If a venerable New Deal liberal first elected in 1955 and a Vice Presidential nominee only two elections ago aren't fit for polite Democratic company, it shows how far left the party's center has shifted.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
|
|
 First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I already mentioned this in a different post but will repeat here. Once a traitor, Always a traitor. That's MY thought about Liberman. The dems don't need him. He has cut his own throat. He would never have been elected as an independent if republicans (70% of them) hadn't voted him in. It was ok to be an independent, but he'll never get re elected again since he is viewed as a traitor. No democrat or even independent for that matter will vote him back in. It's over! By the way, Obama personally said that he won't be making this decision since it is not his to make. However, he feels Liberman should be left alone where he is as head of his committee. He is not vindictive. |
|
Reply
| | | From: tc101 | Sent: 11/12/2008 2:39 AM |
Whatever happened to the vaunted liberal spirit of toleration of
dissent? |
|
Reply
| | | From: John N | Sent: 11/13/2008 10:22 PM |
That is only for those who want to bash anyone conserative, George Bush and now Sarah Palin. All others need not apply |
|
|
First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General