What is Reid thinking? RE: Lieberman?

[babylonsister]

So far, Lieberman is using his clout mostly in ways that discomfit his fellow Democrats, while his relationship with Republicans has involved more collaboration than coercion. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush's State of the Union proposal for a bipartisan terrorism panel was redundant, Lieberman, who supported the idea, privately sent Reid a letter saying he was "upset." Within days, Reid backed down and negotiated the panel's makeup with the White House. And last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.

I don't want to bore anyone with the rest of this fawning editorial, so here's the link:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1592758,00.html

[Ken Burch]

1. I'll say it again.

This proves that Reid and the rest of the Senate Dems were wrong to stab Ned Lamont in the back last fall. They've turned the Lieb into a monster. Lamont never did anything to justify the party deserting him.

[WI_DEM]

2. how funny it would be if after the next election we had 53 or 54 dem

senators and Reid got a letter from Lieberman saying "I'm upset" and Harry sends it back to him writing, "Who the fuck cares." In some ways I think he should just do it now.

[americanstranger]

3. Digby has a different take.

Time has a lovely paean to Holy Joe today in which his blackmail and petulance are celebrated as acts of courage. But I think they may have gone a bit far when they bought this piece of bullspin:

...last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.

Right. Joe wasn't "comfortable" being there:

Before Bush's State of the Union speech in January, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley brought in Lieberman for a private consultation with the President. Lieberman says he talks with or e-mails Hadley, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and White House legislative-affairs head Candida Wolff every week or two.

You don't suppose the real story is that the Democrats thought it wasn't a great idea to talk about Iraq strategy with a turncoat in their midst, do you?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#7294419601762983613#7294419601762983613

- as

[babylonsister]

4. That's where I got the link to Time from; I think Digby was speaking

'tongue in cheek' when he called it a 'lovely paean'.
It doesn't negate the fact that Lieberman complained and Reid took action to assuage him. Whether Reid had ulterior motives is anyone's guess.

[americanstranger]

5. The point being...

...that they don't talk about Iraq when Holy Joe is in the room.

Digby's point, as I take it, is that Time bought Liberman's spin - that he 'wasn't comfortable' talking about Iraq with fellow Dems - was basically bullshit, and Reid decided to have Iraq discussions when Lieberman was not around.

Makes sense to me, since he's email pals with Hadley and Chertoff.

- as

[babylonsister]

7. Point taken-thank you. nt

[americanstranger]

9. Welcome!

:)

- as

[bigtree]

6. why is there a tendency to accept the worst of motives suggested

by these media sources?

Reid managed Lieberman into going along with the Democratic majority. Who knows what silly compromises he had to make as majority leader. Lieberman has had no imprint at all in the opening legislative actions by Reid.

[babylonsister]

8. You are right, bigtree. I read the Time blip and got a bit annoyed.

Time used to have a good reputation, but I've read far too much recently I disagreed with, so should never take anything they write as gospel.
:hi: