I guess being under federal investigation is a bigger deal when you’re in the minority? Apparently: Republicans are likely to strip Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) of his powerful appropriations post just because the feds are sniffing around. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.

Democrat Darcy Burner has conceded in her race for Congress in the Washington State 8th District. That seemed like a pretty likely outcome since election night, even though the tally was close.

Burner has nothing to hang her head about in that one. She ran a very good race, surprising a lot of people (including some national Democrats).

The excruciating recount in the CT-02 should be finished later today. After multiple swings yesterday, Democrat Joe Courtney leads incumbent Rob Simmons by 82 votes.

An update on our call for questions to pose in our interview with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The interview, originally scheduled for this morning, has been postponed until tomorrow. So keep the questions coming. We hope also to interview Hoyer’s opponent in the majority leader race, John Murtha (D-PA), so stay tuned.

Let me return, briefly, to the post I did yesterday on Republican Michael Steele’s effort to bamboozle Maryland voters into thinking he was the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate there.

A number of Maryland readers have rightly pointed out that way I wrote “Steele Democrat” in the post doesn’t do it justice. On C-SPAN, Steele defended his campaign’s use of the phrase “Steele Democrat” as a play on “Reagan Democrats.”

The way the phrase appeared in the field was:

STEELE
DEMOCRAT

A couple of examples are here and here.

OK, carry on.

From TPM Reader CL:

I used to think the major reason why the Dem response has been muted on Gates was because if they put up a fight over Gates, the administration would withdraw Gates, and put in Joe Lieberman. Then CT’s Republican governor appoints an R and the Senate switches–until last night, however, when I finally got a look at the next round of 2008 Senate seats. Barring an orgy of retirings to run for President, there is a real liklihood that the Dems could hold their numbers . . . and pick up a number of R seats as well . . .

I think Joe sees this and realizes sure, he could switch parties – but in two years, he’ll be back in the minoity, and just like that – not only would he be completely irrelevant, but Meet the Press would stop calling.

He’s got us by balls? Not at all. And I’m willing to bet he knows it more than we do.

Precisely.

Update: That certainly explains why Joe is unlikely to switch parties. It’s less helpful in explaining why he would decline to be Secretary of Defense. But capping your public service career by presiding over the mess in Iraq, for which you are already in part blamed, seems very unappealing by any standard.

In the post below I think TPM Reader CL and David both do a very good job of explaining why Joe Lieberman ain’t goin anywhere. He’s going to caucus with the Democrats and that’s that. You don’t have to rely on his promise to do so during the campaign or even just being a Dem as opposed to a Republican. Simple self-interest will keep Joe in the Democratic caucus for the next two years.

There is another thing I would point out about the importance of a Democratic-led confirmation hearing on Bob Gates. The point of such a hearing would not be to torpedo his nomination, but rather to put down some markers on Iraq and attempt to define the parameters within which the Administration will operate going forward.

I’m talking about big picture items. What is victory? What is the strategic objective? Are we spread too thin militarily and how do we address that? What will troop rotations look like going forward? What should our force strength be? How much repair and replenishment of materiel is required and what will it cost? What resources do we need to commit in Afghanistan? What are the relative priorities?

I don’t have much confidence that those questions will be addressed in GOP-led hearings. The thrust of Republican questioning will be, You’re not Don Rumsfeld, right? End of story.

The temptation will be–already is–to dump the Iraq disaster in Rumsfeld’s lap and be satisfied that just about anything and anyone will be better than Rumsfeld. First, that ignores the continuing role of the President and Vice President. Second, it seems to me that we are at a crossroads, with many options before us. Simply saying any road is better than the one we just came down is irresponsible. There are real choices to be made at this juncture.

After the 1968 elections, not many Americans would probably have guessed that we would be in Vietnam for another six and a half years. We’re at a similarly decisive moment now.

Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA) made it clear last night on Larry King Live that he wants the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of the new secretary of defense, rather than leaving it to the lame-duck GOP Senate.

Update: Webb’s appearance on Larry King Live was last week.

TPM Reader BM responds:

I think you raise important points about hearings on Gates’ nomination. I’m all in favor of such. However, I can see a relatively simple logic for the Democrats moving cautiously here. The real reasons are public perception and speed. Remember, Bush is still pretending to be contrite and bipartisan (despite pushing Bolton for UN Ambassador). The Dems would like to make Bush eat the cost of being the first one to go partisan (though I doubt they are likely to win that particular point in the media).

More importantly, if the Republicans are saying the want Gates in and Rumsfeld out next week, how do the Dems respond? Should they say they want hearings delayed until they take over in January, then a month or more of hearings and a final vote in March? That is basically saying they want 5 more months of Rumsfeld. It’s not a winning position. Further, it allows the Republicans to blame the next 400 American deaths on the Dems by pointing out they kept Rumsfeld in even after the “realist Republicans” wanted him out. I’m not sure if that is a good argument for avoiding important hearings or not, but it needs to be considered and the perceptual ramifications dealt with.

I agree that these are political considerations that need to be addressed. But they strike me as relatively easy to dispense with. Bush is responsible for the first six years of Rumsfeld’s reign of terror at the Pentagon, and nothing says Rumsfeld has to remain until his successor is chosen. Ultimately, though, the focus should be on the President. Iraq is his policy, not Rumsfeld’s. If he’s worried about how long it will take to replace Rumsfeld, he shouldn’t have waited until now to start the wheels in motion.

In his interview last night with Larry King, Jim Webb adriotly sidestepped the question of whether he thought Rumsfeld should have resigned. His point, which is a good one, was to avoid making Rumsfeld the issue when our policy in Iraq is the Administration’s policy.

Update: Webb’s appearance on Larry King Live was actually last week.