Handling Lieberman
I realize that the very word Lieberman sends a lot of liberals into fits of apoplexy. But it's worth making an additional point to the fine post from my colleague, Eric Kleefeld. Lieberman is talking about leaving the door open to returning to the Democratic party. I think that's unlikely since he would probably be eviscerated in a primary. Still, it's a remarkable shift from a few months ago when it seemed entirely possible that Lieberman would choose to caucus with Senate Republicans.
It's worth noting what's happened to Lieberman since Obama took office. He never wavered on the stimulus. He's supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. He's been fulsome in his praise of President Obama. Think of how much harder things would be for the president if Lieberman had bolted on those issues or had chosen to caucus with Republicans.
I understand Democratic anger with Lieberman. After all, he not only opposed Barack Obama but actively campaigned for the McCain-Palin ticket and endorsed Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The sentiment to kick him out of the caucus had a lot of merit to it. And I'm not suggesting that Lieberman won't stick it to Obama and the Democrats in the future. He probably will.
That said, I think it now seems clear that Harry Reid and Barack Obama were wise not to follow the Netroots call for a Lieberman purge and to let him keep his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I assume most readers will disagree but while the anger of kicking him to the curb would have felt good at the time, wouldn't it have made life harder for President Obama? Discuss.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
You're right, Matt. You're also rational. The latter will guarantee you to get flamed by many here who prefer short-term good feeling (kicking Lieberman out) to long-term goals (having a reliable ally and vote on tough issues).
I hate Lieberman. I wanted him gone. But it's clear that Obama and Reid did the right thing by ignoring us. We need him inside the tent pissing out instead of outside the tent pissing in.
March 13, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't "ignore" us. It's clear as anything that they used us and our outrage as a tool to beat him up with. I've always figured it went something like this:
"Joe, the whole party is calling for us to reenact the last scene of "Braveheart" on you--minus the heroism--and frankly, we're inclined to unroll the scary tools and do it. Get your ass in line, STFU, be fulsome in your praise of your president and your party and maybe, just maybe, we'll forebear on gutting you out like a fish on a dock. And you by God better be grateful for the heat we'll take for it."
And Matt, while the "word" Lieberman is about as welcome as the words "Quisling" or "Zell" around here, pictures of his smarmy fizz are what really send us over the edge.
March 13, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, the fact that the thirteen letter word for oral sex lost his leverage when we increased our majority of more or less real Democrats also played a role.
March 13, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the Pilgrims would brand such folks as Lieberman with an "A" and require them to wear red.
March 13, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the posters on this sight have said this same thing repeatedly. They wanted him to go, but in the long run it was a smart move to get his vote. I don't think you will see alot of people disputing your "point," as most people already agree with it. Seems kind of silly to me to even make the post.
March 13, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who called for Obama to finish Lieberman's bris, I have to say that now I agree with Matt
The man's a trained worm.
Just so long as he keeps doing tricks for Obama especially as various Gangs of (fill in the blank) form
Then let the Nutmegers deal with him
March 13, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Lieberman is a pure opportunist? I mean if he would have been kicked out he would have voted against the Stimulus and against EFCA? So he stands for nothing except what is best for him personally?
He sides with power. The way Reid runs the Senate 58 senators vs 57 senators wouldn't make a lick of a difference.
Lieberman is going to powerplay the Dems in a couple years time, basically saying he wants to run as a democrat and doesn't want a primary challenger. If they want to promary challenge him, well then he needs to veer to the right his last year and a half in order to reach out to moderate Republicans who he'll need votes from as he runs for re-election as a independent.
The guy is a worm.
March 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
DC Democrats don't nominate CT Senate candidates, CT Democrats do. It's not a matter of Joe not wanting a primary challenger, he's not a Democratic incumbent, so he has to win the Democratic nomination.
From what our grassroots friends in CT reported last time around, part of the reason Lieberman was successfully beaten for the Dem nomination last time was that he is completely a creature of Washington and the Beltway media; his relationships with the Dem committees in CT are terrible. He won the general last time based on being the unofficial Republican candidate and on Democrats voting for the familiar incumbent name. With his blood-in-the-water approval rating, credible GOP candidates will be fighting to run against him, and any threat to win the way he did last time will be hollow.
And Matt, the people who are pissed off at Lieberman aren't "liberals," we're Democrats. His main offenses weren't against some kind of liberal orthodoxy, they were against the Democratic Party and the democratic process.
March 13, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with nearly everything you said, but with one exception: there aren't many credible Republican candidates, outside of Jody Rell.
If she decides to run, she's going to be tough to beat, though I suspect the budget disaster is going to make a dent in her popularity.
If Blumenthal decides to run, and that's a BIG if, Joe would lose.
Ned Lamont hasn't definitely ruled out running again, btw.
March 13, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Matt, the people who are pissed off at Lieberman aren't "liberals," we're Democrats. His main offenses weren't against some kind of liberal orthodoxy, they were against the Democratic Party and the democratic process.
Double-ditto and amen.
I'd just add that while there is no cause for defining liberals as something separate from the Democratic Party, I'm perfectly fine with Matt defining Democrats as liberals only, and consigning all the DINOs and DLC cowards to the repug losers.
March 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wasn't just being a nice guy about this, IMHO. I firmly believe (without any concrete proof whatsoever other than deduction) that McCain and Graham visited Obama in Chicago in order to strike a deal so Lieberman (a close friend of both by all accounts that I've read) could keep his chairmanship.
And I think Obama got "something" from McCain and Graham. I suspect it was votes and/or silence for a period of time. I also believe that this time has now expired.
I also think Obama gained the respect of all three. He kept his word to them and that counts in WDC.
Politics is deal making by the best deal-makers we can find. Obama is akin to LBJ in his ability to make deals without remaining rancor. If he couldn't do this, then Hillary would certainly not be Secretary of State right now.
My two cents.
March 13, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And I think Obama got "something" from McCain and Graham. I suspect it was votes and/or silence for a period of time. I also believe that this time has now expired."
When were they quiet? They were very loud and animated in their opposition to the stimulus package just weeks after Obama took office?
March 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nominations.
March 13, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't appreciate the approach at the time, but recognized the pragmatism involved.
It isn't about feeling good when kicking Joe the curb. It's about there being consequences for one's behavior. Quaint, I know, but that's what bothered me about the Democrats' approach to Joe. There weren't any consequences for his odious behavior during the campaign. There still aren't. But that's politics.
March 13, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, didn't we cover this ground in Eric's post? This one seems a bit repetitive.
We know Joe's a bastard. He's, for good or naught, our bastard. But that doesn't mean we want him back come reelection.
March 13, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be a slow news day or he doesn't have anything better to do. The ultimate "point" of the post was the consensus months ago. I guess he is assuming wrong in his conclusion. You know what they say about people who assume.
March 13, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Lieberman voted against E-Verify, which really doesn't surprise me
Does this make any sense at all, when our own politicians sell out American Workers? How can Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, inform his voters that he supports E-Verify, when in the Stimulus package and then the Omnibus bill, he completely cut funding to E-Verify supported by tabling the motion 50 to 47? Radical suspects were already their genuflecting on Capitol hill.
A composite of builders associations, large abhorrent corporate money people and the usual suspects made up of the US Chamber of commerce, ACLU and poisonous entities such as La Raza, Mecha and other open border lunatics. These groups would swamp America with millions more of illegal aliens, as long as they had access to impoverished labor. No matter that US taxpayers is forced by our government to pay for their welfare.. Joined at the hip House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Menendez (D-NJ), Feinstein (D-CA), Boxer (D-CA) and 46 democrats who have shown their deceit to the jobless American people.
There shouldn't be any question about installing E-Verify as a-- PERMANENT-- law, when it will identify illegal aliens and stop them from taking--YOUR--job? Without work--THEY WILL LEAVE. Not just your children out school for summer jobs, but anywhere on the workplace ladder. Not just illegal border crossers, but those with skilled qualifications who didn't go home after visiting this nation. Just remember these incumbents who sold you out, when they are looking for your vote?
Nothing will be accomplished if you remain silent. Keep up the firestorm of voices at Washington Switchboard 202-224-3121 for senator or Representative demanding E-Verify for ten years--if not --PERPETUITY?. President Obama switchboard (202) 456-1414 Comments (202) 456-1111
March 13, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you get lost on your way to some other blog?
March 13, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, everybody, it's Lou Dobbs. How's it going Lou?
March 13, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he should become a republican. He has earned that right.
March 13, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey!
I thought we agreed to two rules regarding posts about Herr Liebermann:
1. No photos of his ugly mug. How about an avatar of a steaming turd? Anything but his actual face. It's bad for my health!
2. The first comment for all things Liebermannn must quote the erudite Acewrap: Fuck You Joe. So, if you comment first, lead with Fuck You Joe. Preferrably with no other comments. Fuck You Joe. Ya can't say it enough.
Anarchy is only a missing Fuck You Joe away...
March 13, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the CT voters have their say. I suspect Joe will not make it out of a primary, let alone through the general.
March 13, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the Zen Master said, "We'll see..." (With apologies to the writer of Charlie Wilson's War.)
March 13, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT ought to enact a sore loser law. There's nothing to keep Lieberman from losing as a Dem in the primary, and having Republicans and Dem idiots give him the seat as an independent. Again.
March 13, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but I'm going to wait a bit longer than 50 days before I start polishing Joe Lieberman's knob for his recent highly unexpected spate of non-asshole behavior.
We have a long ways to go before we really know just how short a leash ol' Droopy is on.
March 13, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink