Nov. 17, 2008
Don't Punish Joe Lieberman
New Republic: The Case For Letting The Turncoat Democrat Keep His Position In The Senate
-
Play CBS Video
Video
What About Lieberman?
Conn. Sen. Joe Lieberman faces the possible loss of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee after backing John McCain over President-Elect Obama.
-
Video
Lieberman Lauds GOP Ticket
Joe Lieberman described John McCain and Sarah Palin as two mavericks intent on reform. Lieberman, a Democrat, implored Americans to vote for who they believe to be the best leader.
-
Video
Lieberman Praises McCain's Policy
Sen. Joe Lieberman talks to Bob Schieffer about his support for John McCain, saying that McCain's foreign policy will make the United States' enemies weak and allies strong.
-
Photo
Former Republican Presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, listens as he gets the endorsement from former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Monday, Dec. 17, 2007, at the American Legion in Hillsborough, N.H. (AP)
-
Blog
Enter The Crypt
Read the latest behind-the-scenes news from Capitol Hill in this blog provided by our partner The Politico.
On Tuesday, Democratic Senators will decide the political fate of Joe Lieberman. For the past several years, Lieberman has been a persistent thorn in their side--a relentless critic of Democratic attempts to end the war in Iraq and a no-less-vocal advocate of President Bush's surge strategy. Relations have grown considerably worse since he endorsed John McCain for President last December and delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention this fall. Now that the Democrats have picked up at least six additional seats in the Senate, liberal activists are calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee, revoke his seniority, and possibly evict him from the Democratic caucus altogether. But to do so would send the wrong message to the country, needlessly divide the Democratic Party, and betray the principles Barack Obama stressed so eloquently in his campaign.
To his credit, Obama has sent signals that he wants Lieberman to stay in the caucus, and perhaps even as chair of the committee. "We don't hold any grudges," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter emailed Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on Monday. And, indeed, allowing Lieberman to stay--however obnoxious liberals might have found his dissidence--wouldn't just be a sign of non-partisan, post-election magnanimity; it'd also be in the long-term political interests of Obama and his fellow Democrats. Because if the Democratic Party wants to maintain control of Congress and the White House, it will have to reconcile its liberal and moderate wings. Punishing Lieberman could complicate these efforts.
First, just in terms of policy, those calling for the axe ignore that Lieberman has been a reliable Democrat. Last week, Reid said that "Lieberman is not some right wing nut case," and, in fact, Lieberman has secured a higher party loyalty voting record than 14 of his Democratic colleagues. He's also been a fine chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He sponsored the legislation that first created the department, and under his leadership, the committee has achieved some legitimate successes: Lieberman helped alter the formula by which homeland security funding is dispersed so that the localities most at risk receive more aid, and he crafted legislation to mandate the inspection of all air and sea cargo within three years. He has also sponsored good, progressive legislation, like a bill extending domestic partner benefits to gay federal employees.
Yes, Lieberman's frequent and vocal complaints about the Democratic Party have irked his colleagues. But, in terms of policy, has he really damaged liberal aims more than the other Democratic congressmen and Senators who have not toed the party leadership's line? Senator Robert Byrd, for instance, has been one of the coal industry's greatest friends in Congress, angering environmentalists for decades with his attempts to block measures that would reduce pollution. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he has been one of the most powerful men in the Senate, and it's not unreasonable to say that his position on the issue over the years has done more harm to the progressive cause writ large than Lieberman has.
Moreover, a political party that seeks to represent a broad swathe of the country should be able to accommodate someone (even a committee chairman) who holds slightly divergent views from the congressional leadership. For an example of what happens when a political party imposes ideological purity tests, Democrats need only cast their gaze across the aisle. The GOP is currently enmeshed in a civil war, where the conservative wing has all but destroyed the party's moderate faction. Starting in 1994 and continuing on through today, Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay wouldn't allow for disagreement within the caucus, and the result has been the party's intellectual breakdown. Moderate Republicans like Chris Shays no longer exist, and the party is given to sensational acts of overreach, the congressional witch hunt over Bill Clinton's sex life and the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case being two of the most notorious examples.
There's also the strategic case for keeping Lieberman on: Just because the Republican brand has lost some its luster doesn't mean that the Democratic Party now has the leverage to excommunicate its centrists. For the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has been most successful when it has governed from the center--when it has governed at all. Its 2006 congressional takeover, engineered by incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wouldn't have happened if the party didn't run centrist and conservative Democrats in traditionally red states. Were the Democrats to punish their former vice presidential nominee, it could weaken the position of these legislators by making the party seem too liberal and intolerant of moderates. Leaving Lieberman alone would allow the Democrats to one-up the GOP by showing that they're the ones who believe in a big tent philosophy, as opposed to the small-minded, petty Republicans.
Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or expelling him from their caucus. (On the contrary, some are rallying to his defense.) The people most interested in penalizing Lieberman are a small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists, the same people who were plumping over two years ago to eject him from the Democratic Party for his supposed heresies. Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman's seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the "flagrantly dreadful" Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is "far more than Lieberman deserves," while Josh Marshall declares that offer "simply unacceptable." The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he'll "no doubt" use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate.
From his reversal on FISA and selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff to the news that he's unlikely to overhaul Bush administration national security policies, Obama seems to understand that kowtowing to his party's left flank is not what the American people expected when they elected him president. Though it may be tempting to dump Lieberman now that he needs the Democrats more than they need him, doing so wouldn't put an end to "the partisanship and pettiness and immaturity" that Obama criticized in his victory speech last week. It would instead suggest that Democrats haven't learned a thing about what's currently rending the GOP apart.
By James Kirchick
Reprinted with permission from The New Republic.
| If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism. |




I am quite sure this little weasle was confident that Americans would never elect a black man as President. And, he was certainly looking for appointment as Secretary of State, since he knows that his Senate career is finished after this term. He could never be re-elected and he knows it.
I say to this turncoat go sleep with your new bedfellows!
Wow. The paranoia is spreading.
I wish Lieberman was a man of character, flying in the face of partisanship and voicing an independent opinion for the good of the country and for the best of reasons -but this is not the case. Lieberman is an opportunist and he not only sided with McCain but he blatantly attacked Obama. Did Obama deserve the attack? Was Obama so bad that he deserved an attack from a Democrat attending the Republican national conventions? I don''t think so. It speaks of Lieberman''s character that he asked for and got Obama''s support to help him win his campaign in Connecticut, thanking Obama with attacks at a time when Obama needed support in kind.
We need independent and courageous leaders in our government but Lieberman is none of these things and should not be confused with such people.
Joe Liberman chose his side and lost, Put him in charge of the one man committee responsible for serving congressional coffee and donuts.
Go out of your way to protest AIPAC whenever you can. Make sure when you find out people who are supporting them, you tell everyone you know and what they stand for: Jewish Nazism.
I trust him less than McCain.
He gave his word and he broke his word about attacking Obama. He was so sure McCain was going to win. Maybe he never thought a black man was going to win. Not even 2 weeks before the election, when he show up behind McCain, smiling every single time McCain open his mouth.
Get rid of him!!!
Letjoestay.blogspot.com
Real change means finally cleaning out the closet of trash that has built up over the years.
GET RID OF HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kick him out!!!
To discard Lieberman and push for a Democratic Party that embraces only your values is a recipe for a rout in 2010. You may have only a small window of opportunity to push your agenda. Bill Clinton had only two years.
Now people want to say all is forgiven? You gotta be kidding me. This is the thing that drives so called moderates away from the Dems. Imagine a Rethuglican doing that to their party. Is it any question that they would throw him out on his rear so fast it would make your head spin? No I am not say do it because that is what they would do, I''m saying do it because it makes sense.
Who cares if he jumps over to the Rethug klan if he doesn''t get what he wants. Is there anybody that honestly thinks he has a chance to get re-elected doing that? He probably knows he cant get re-elected anyway and will probably make Obama''s life a living hell.
The Dems would show exactly zero backbone by letting this 2k Judas keep his chairmanship. I''m all for making an example out of this clown because one needs to be made. It is nothing more than ridiculous to think you can stab a guy in the back that you asked to help you get re-elected.
The Dems can''t possibly be that stupid.
He lied us into Iraq so that Israels squatter settlements could stay on the West Bank.
This guy has gotten thousands of our GIs killed and should be investigated for treason.
It is ridiculous to say Lieberman was right about the war. Of course the surge worked. If you kill off enough Iraqi''s and millions of others are in exile, then you send in tens of thousands of our troops, isn''t it obvious that eventually things will calm down? Lieberman is the same guy who said things were great in Iraq while it was burning. He was right about nothing. Maureen Dowd in the times rightly said that when people like John McCain take credit for the surge it''s like an arsonist wanting credit for putting out a fire they started.
Having said that, this article makes some good points about bi-partisanship. But the idea that Lieberman was right about the war is laughable.
It sounds like you want to follow the system of some Parliamentary countries and have party discipline. If a person does not toe the party line he or she loses party endorsement and therefore their seat. The trouble with this system is that you would therefore need one person in Congress to announce the leader''s decision, with all votes a foregone conclusion, and everything else is just for show. It doesn''t sound kike democracy to me.
Running against Connecticut Democrats'' choice for the Senate candidate is being a "reliable Democrat?"
Campaigning against the Democrats'' choice for the Presidential candidate is being a "reliable Democrat?"
All this talk of needing Joe for some kind of filibuster-proof majority is nonsense. He''s a two-faced weasel and he''ll vote the same way no matter where he caucuses so let him stay with the like-minded Republicans. If I never hear his whiny voice again I''ll be so happy. What''s wrong with you, Connecticut?
Since he''s corrupt, has no integrity, and a bald faced liar -- why would the Democrats want him? Let the Republicans have him. He''ll fit right in.
Would you call Jim Jeffords corrupt, a man with no integrity, and a bald faced liar? After all, he betrayed the Republicans even more. He was elected as a Republican and caucused with the Democrats. Or are you being selective, taking ideology above scruples?
With the change of administration and the Dem gains in the Senate, he has become a non-entity.
You people all shoulda that is basically run by aging hippies from the 60''s (pelosi, reid, etc)I sure don''t see a lot of "love".
Lieberman pulled on his colleagues, (both Dems and Reps) don''t you think he should be "second guessed?" I mean, to whom has he shown loyalty? This isn''t third grade, this is American politics and in this arena one must suffer for one''s indescretions and given accolades for one''s successes. HANG ''EM!
-
by jsl45
November 18, 2008 12:10 PM PST
- He needs to be thrown under the bus.....let him join the losers in the McBush republican party...
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 49 Comments