Steve Ralls

Feinstein-Lieberman: Bad News for Democrats

Filed By Steve Ralls | November 10, 2007 5:48 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Al Franken, Democrats, Dianne Feinstein, Jeanne Shaheen, Joseph Lieberman, Mark Warner, Senate

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and his west coast counterpart, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, are becoming bad news for progressive-leaning Democrats. With a slim majority in the Senate, Democrats had already been governing "by the skin of Joe Lieberman's teeth," as Senate candidate Al Franken recently said in a fundraising letter. But now, Feinstein seems to be ideologically aligning with Lieberman to force through Republican initiatives that the American people clearly rejected when changing the party power in Congress.

First, Senator Feinstein cast the deciding committee vote in moving forward the nomination of anti-gay judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, she helped to ensure confirmation of Attorney General nominee Michael "Don't Know Nothin' 'Bout no Waterboardin'" Mukasey to head the federal government's top law enforcement agency. And now Feinstein has signaled she will again jump ship and join Republicans in granting immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the Bush administration spy on American citizens.

All of this begs the question of "what next?" when it comes to Feinstein and Lieberman's run to the right. It also underscores the need for a larger Democratic majority in Congress to help balance out rogue party members who align with Republicans on the wrong side of important issues. And it might also be enough to make you wonder, as Wonkette did on Friday, whether "next time Dianne Feinstein runs for something, maybe vote for someone else."

Now, I understand the importance of keep Feinstein's seat in Democratic hands. We know, for purposes of control of Congress, that party identiifcation is important, even if it is an identity not always in alignment with the party itself, or the party's constituents. It is, after all, because of conservative Democrats that the party now holds the majority in the House . . . most of the Dems' gains were in Republican leaning districts, where they won by running right of center candidates.

But how much are we willing to sacrifice principles and good votes in order to see a Democrat - any Democrat - hold onto a seat? It's a question that has the potential to create a significant fracture between the party and it's progressive-leaning base of traditional supporters.

The first such fracture happened in Lieberman's race for re-election. A majority of Connecticut Democrats, fed up with the Senator's hawkish views on issues like the war in Iraq, refused him the party's nomination, and Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent. That, in turn, fractured both the Republican and Democratic bases, and gave him enough votes to defeat the Democratic nominee. In turn, Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats, ensuring their very fragile majoirty. And that, in turn, gave him great influence in the Democratic party .... whose voters had already rejected his agenda.

Now, the Democrats depend on Lieberman to hold onto their 1-vote majority in the Senate. Lieberman, however, has ran so far to the right that he's now being rumored as a Vice Presidential candidate for the GOP in 2008. (It seems likely that a Democratic challenger to Feinstein would have an easier in time in the more progressive state of California, where she'd likely flop if she attempted to run as an Independent herself.)

As a result, Feinstein-Liberman is increasingly meaning bad news for Democrats and Democratic voters.

All of this, however, also argues for an increased focus on electing a few more Democrats in the next election. By turning over solidly Republican seats to candidates like Franken, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner, we can get a more comfortable cushion. Their election could mean dwindling influence for Senators like Feinstein and Lieberman and a more secure voting bloc for Democrats in the Senate.

Both Lieberman and Feinstein are considered safe votes on LGBT issues in Congress, but the confirmation of federal judges and attorney general nominees impacts our community, too. (And don't forget that some of the surveillance Feinstein now wants immunity for also targeted us as well.)

If we want to make real progress on issues like these, we need to work to mitigate the influence of the Feinstein-Liberman wing of the Senate and give more seats in 2008 to Democratic candidates who will dare to stand up and vote the right way.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Or the Democrats could just stop being so bad.

Mukasey wasn't confirmed just b/c of Lieberman and Feinstein - 11 Democrats didn't vote against his nomination. That's a lot in a body of 100 Senators. Schumer was another who switched sides because he didn't think torture was all that big a deal, and Indiana's own Evan Bayh did as well.

Not a single Republican switched sides, though.

It's got me thinking a lot about how American Democracy works. On the main problems with Mukasey - torture and believing that Bush shouldn't have to follow the rule of law - most Americans are not with him. A vast majority think that we shouldn't torture and that Bush shouldn't be a dictator. But hey, the guy got confirmed anyway, and now the argument is that we A) can't trust the Republicans to represent people or common decency, B) can't trust about a fifth of the Democrats to support it either, so C) we have to elect more Democrats. The only way this all works out in the case of Mukasey is having 63 Dems in the Senate (since one fifth will flip off the country in situations like these).

What kind of Democracy is that that in order to represent a majority of Americans, we need to pad the situation so much in their favor to even have a fair shot at being represented? It reminds me of the ENDA debate as well - 65% of people support job protections for trans folk, but we still don't have the votes in the comparatively more liberal House. Um, yeah. We outnumber transphobes 2-1, but that just doesn't translate into a majority for our leaders. Mm-hmm.

Or the sexual orientation protections, that about 80% of Americans support, will be vetoed by the prez. That's only 4-1 support for a bill, but, hey, that's American democracy for ya!

55% of Americans are in favor of same-sex civil unions, but do 55% of states have them? No! We have to pander to the lowest common denominator!

The deck's stacked against any kind of progress, and things don't look like they're changing. Most Americans want to get out of Iraq, but none of the major presidential candidates have a plan that'll get us out before 2012.

This is why I'm applying to Canadian law schools....