Joe the Turncoat

Start with this.

During the Impeachment Follies of 1998, unasked and unbidden, Joe Lieberman went out onto the floor of the United States Senate to tell the world that he thought that President Bill Clinton had done something naughty.

Very naughty.

Very, very, very naughty.

And icky.

No one in the Democratic Party wanted him to do this.  No one in the Democratic Party was happy he did this.

Republicans were happy.

All by himself Joe Lieberman had given their attempted coup by impeachment a gloss of bipartisan respectability.

A lot of Insider Media Types were happy.

Joe Lieberman had given them permission to treat a silly affair between a middle-aged man and much younger woman as a matter of national importance.  They could write about oral sex, masturbation, thongs, and dances with cigars as if they were missiles in Cuba or burglars in Democratic Party Headquarters or tanks in Tiananmen Square.  They could obsess over a star-struck young woman in a red beret as if she were a leader of a foreign superpower.  The could sniff and sneer and fret and fume and as if a President's adultery was the most appalling and nation-threatening act ever committed in an office where Richard Nixon once worked.  What's more, Lieberman's smug little sermon gave them the excuse to continue doing what they'd been doing all along, covering Bill Clinton as if he was guilty of anything and everything his enemies accused him of, because he was that kind of man.  The kind of man who disgusted Joe Lieberman.  If he'd let a pretty young woman give him head, he was capable of all kinds of sleaziness.   They've never been able to give this up.  After eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, they still get more worked up over Bill and Monica than they do over the War in Iraq.

This was Joe Lieberman's gift to them and it's no wonder they thank him for it every chance they get, fawning over him, defending him, excusing him, treating him as one of the great statesmen and profiles in courage of our time.

Nothing good for the country came of that speech.  Nothing good could have come of it.  But that wasn't the point.

The point was to let all the world know what a moral and principled and decent man Joe Lieberman was.

Joe Lieberman was so moral, so principled, and so decent that he just had to stride out onto the Senate floor and condemn the President of the United States for being a naughty boy.  It didn't matter a bit to Joe Lieberman that the President was the leader of his own party.  Naughty was naughty and a stand-up guy like Joe Lieberman just had to stand up and say so.

I've written a bunch of times that I think John McCain is the vainest man to have run for President in my lifetime.

I keep forgetting that the Quisling from Connecticut ran for the job once too.

Joe-mentum, anyone?

Joe Lieberman should be booted from the Democratic Caucus, not just stripped of his chairmanship.  Whatever's the Party equivalent of having the buttons cut off his uniform, his epaulets torn off, and his sword broken in two is what he deserves to have done to him.  Just for his support of John McCain.

McCain is his friend.  He probably believed whole-heartedly that McCain would have been the better President, the more fool him.  But the principled thing to do was not to go out and campaign for him.  The principled thing to do would have been to quit the Democratic caucus, change his registration to Republican, and then go out and campaign for him.  The truly principled thing to do would have been to resign from the Senate, because he had promised the voters in Connecticut that although re-elected as an Independent he would continue to act as a good and loyal Democrat.  But I guess lying about having sex with a woman who is not your wife is worse than lying about your plans to screw your constituents.

If principle did require him to endorse his friend for President, it didn't require him to speak at the Republican Convention and denounce his supposed Party.  Principle didn't require him to go out on the stump and slander and smear the his supposed Party's nominee.  Principle didn't require him to campaign for down-ticket Republican candidates and actively work against his supposed party keeping and extending its majority so that it could more effectively pursue its goals, the goals that were supposedly Joe Lieberman's goals too, if he was a principled member of the Democratic Party.

Principle wasn't motivating Joe Lieberman.

Vanity was.

He wanted to be John McCain's Vice-President, a job which, if he'd been nominated for it and if the McCain-Lieberman ticket had won the election, would have required him to put his heart and energy into thwarting the Democratic Party's attempts to achieve its goals at every opportunity.

But that's a job he'd been practicing for for years.

In the showdown over some of President Bush's more egregious court appointments in the spring of 2005, Lieberman went behind Harry Reid's back to help broker a "compromise" that saved the right to filibuster for Senate Democrats, as long as they promised never to use that right, at the low, low cost to the country of two more Right Wing idealogogues and Republican partisans on the Supreme Court and two more on other Federal benches.  Why?  Who asked him?  What was gained?

Joe Lieberman's reputation as the principled bipartisan centrist got another wax job from the Media, that's what, that's why.  And who asked him?  The same who that asks him to do anything.  Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman does whatever Joe Lieberman wants him to do for the sole benefit of Joe Lieberman.

Look at his supposedly principled support of the War in Iraq, the supposedly one issue on which he parts ways with his fellow Democrats.

Did principle have to drive him to literally kiss up to George Bush?  Did principle force him to become Bush's apologist not just on continuing the war but on his handling of it and all that entailed, including torture and punching holes in the Constitution?

Lieberman ran for the nomination for the honor of trying to take the Presidency away from George W. Bush.  You'd think that would mean that he thought Bush wasn't the right person for the job?  And I guess he did, except that apparently he finished the thought thus: Because I am more right for it. 

Once it became impossible for Joe Lieberman to succeed George Bush, Bush became right enough that Lieberman thought it would be just swell to become Bush's Secretary of Defense, a job he clearly drooled over, which is why he went above and beyond (or beneath and behind) the call of duty in all his sucking up to Bush.

Jane Hamsher lays out the case against Lieberman but I think it's vital to include his vanity in the bill of indictment.

Lieberman's apologists are saying let bygones be bygones.  But bygones aren't gone by if the man hasn't changed and you can't let bygones be bygones all on your own.  The other guy has to agree to let them be too, and Lieberman's vanity doesn't allow him to.  He holds grudges.  The other Democratic Senators may not.  They might be willing to forgive him for everything. (Glenn Greenwald is pretty sure they will.)  But he won't forgive them.  He'll remember, and he'll get his own back.

And even if he doesn't turn on the Democrats, again, out of spite and for revenge, at some point in the very near future Joe Lieberman will have to choose between what's good for Joe Lieberman and what's good for the Democratic Party.

What history shows is that what's often best for Joe Lieberman is sticking it to the Party.

___________________________

Updated to take Alaska into account:  The hopeful news out of Alaska---as of right this minute, 6:38 PM EST, Democratic challenger Mark Begich is ahead of Republican Senator Ted Stevens in the recount---added to the weirdness in Minnesota and the tantalizing prospect of the the run-off in Georgia makes it harder instead of easier to tell Joe Lieberman to take a leap.  The Democrats have a chance of getting awfully close to that magic 60 and the closer they come the more they need Joe Lieberman's vote.  If you know you're going to fall short by four votes anyway, it doesn't matter if you fall short by five.  But if it looks like you're going to fall short by only one or two...

I'm not impressed by Harry Reid's assurances that Lieberman is really a loyal Democrat at heart and more reliable than some other nominally Democratic Senators he could name, although he didn't.  Name them, that is.  Lieberman has a knack for bucking the Party in times of crisis and the Media loves him for it and he loves to be loved by the Media.  But at the moment Lieberman needs the Democrats more than they need him and maybe he's more frightened of irrelevancy than he is in love with his own image as Mr Bipartisan.

On the one hand, as much as I'd enjoy watching Lieberman beg for crumbs off the Republicans' table, like lina, I'd rather win on health care.  On the other hand, if things are close it's too easy to imagine Lieberman getting it into his head that he's just the guy to "reach across the aisle" and broker a "compromise" deal that's actually a surrender or at least taking to the bobbleshows and op-ed pages to scold his fellow Democrats from being stubbornly partisan, sabotaging everything in the process.

Comments

[Uncle Merlin]

Wow very enlightening, if Connecticut doesn't dump him next then shame on them.

I always loved that bumpersticker: >> "W & Iraq?" /or/ "Bill & Monica?" << and both elements sit on each of the scales of justice.

[Rana]

I've never understood why the Democrats gave him the power that he has in the first place - or why he's still considered a Democrat, given that he had to run a a member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" (! How's THAT for vanity?) to run at all.

There are times when party discipline is a bad thing, a way of squelching needed ideas, but right now the Democrats desperately need to become reacquainted with the concept. Disagreeing with the party is one thing; acting like an opposition member is something else entirely.

They should stop treating him like the courtesy member of the Democratic Party that he is, and cut the sole member of the Connecticut Party for Joe Lieberman loose to drift indignantly where he will.

[Linkmeister]

Connecticut's Democrats did try to dump him. His re-election in '06 was due to a majority of Connecticut Republicans voting for him. Hey! Bi-partisanship!

[Dave G.]

I'm wondering if this just isn't the first sign of Michael Corleone that we're seeing in Obama. Keeping his friends close and his enemies closer. Throwing JoeMentum a bone so later, he can put the squeeze on him if need be. One can only hope.

[Michael Bartley]

Lance, thank you. I find it interesting that many of the "wild eyed leftist commie" bloggers of fevered conservative day and nightmares, have been willing to talk compromise. Take away his chairmanship and let him stay. Normally, I'm for conciliation and compromise when honorable. However, I'm with you on this one. The Democratic party has been spineless and clueless for too long. This is a moment to finally say "enough."

[lina]

I'd rather have his vote on healthcare reform than the satisfaction of punishing him. He deserves to be punished, but I want the legislation more than I want revenge.

[Dumb Ox]

Playing devil's advocate: why is loyalty to the party considered a greater obligation than one's own principles? Stepping out of cynic's shoes for a brief second, if Sen. Lieberman truly had reservations / qualms / issues about President Clinton and honestly believes Sen. McCain would have been a better president, should he have not said anything because he is a registered Democrat? Don't we all snicker and find it distasteful when [insert name of Republican hack] defends whatever President Bush did that week based purely on party affiliation?

Not following the party line is annoying and disruptive and sleazy and spiteful but if that's his greatest sin, I can live with it. I am more concerned with Representatives molesting underage boys, politicians of all kinds taking legal bribes from lobbyists, our general failure to admit the degree we are destroying the environment, general apathy to the fact that one out of five (might have the wrong number here) kids in this country goes to bed hungry every night, and so on. Not following party's orders seems fairly insignificant to numerous other issues out there.

To all commenters - be gentle on the Ox here. I don't want to be put in the position to defend Sen. Lieberman because I am not a fan. But I would like to think that a person could follow some set of ethics, even if he / she does not on regular basis. Is it possible he was calling it as he saw it? And yes, I know the first 10 responses will be about Sen. Lieberman's inconsistencies and his "following principles" act only when it suits him. But isn't that better than being a party hack?

[Linkmeister]

Ox, from my observations over the past eight years, Lieberman practices what's usually sneered at as "moral relativism" or "situational ethics." In other words, unlike Charlie Wilson of GM, who famously said he had for years felt that what was good for GM was good for the country and vice versa.

In Lieberman's case, what's good for Joe is good for Joe, and to hell with whether it's good for the country or his party.

[Rana]

Ox, I don't actually have a problem with someone following their principles, even in cases when to do so is to run against the party - indeed, one rather wishes more people had departed from the GOP during the last few years.

But, on the other hand, I don't think that the _party_ should reward such behavior, unless it is obvious that the principled stand is in fact such, and the principles are in line with the party's own ideals.

Lieberman's been trying to have it both ways - adopting the mantle of "principle" when it advances his own case, then running back to the party when they threaten to take away his privileges. That's not actually standing on principle; that's being an opportunist. Eventually, they should just follow through on that threat and force him to decide whether he really is a Democrat, principled or no.

(Compare Jeffers, for example, who fell out with the GOP over principle - and went independent instead of sacrificing those principles.)

[King Rat]

Ox,

A political party is a collection of people who make compromises with each other in order to boost their chances of actually accomplishing things. Now, obviously, everyone has principles, and obviously everyone has lines they won't cross, even if the party says otherwise. But if you're constantly finding yourself in positions opposed to the party, the honourable thing to do is to leave the party. I personally agree with Lance that Lieberman's out for himself and his vanity, but bending over backwards to be charitable to him, if he really has found himself on the side of the moralizers during the Clinton imbroglio, then with the Republicans during one phase of the Florida recount (when he was on the ticket, for cripes sake) then with Bush after 9/11 and in Iraq and finally with McCain during the last election purely as a result of his deeply held principles, then he owes it to himself and to the Democratic Party to leave. Instead, he's doing everything he can to ingratiate himself with the Democrats now, purely so he can hang on to his preferred committee chairmanship. It's worth noting, incidentally, that even if you disagree with me about his obligations to "himself and the Democratic Party," it's really quite dishonourable to complain about punishment for defying the party line. If Lieberman earnestly believed that John McCain was the man who had to be President for the country's sake, then he shouldn't be complaining when following his principles has consequences.

I should note that I'm from Canada, where we have a much, much stronger party system. That said, I honestly can't believe that there's a sizable portion-possibly a large majority-of the Democratic Senate caucus that seems willing to let him entirely off the hook. I mean, why isn't Daniel Akaka, who as I understand it would take over the chair if Lieberman got bounced, organizing against him? I can tell you this: if a Canadian MP endorsed the leader of another party, he would be kicked out of caucus immediately, and would almost certainly never get back in. But the Democrats seem unlikely to take such a piddling retaliatory measure as giving Lieberman a less desirable chairmanship, let alone doing something serious. I don't get it.

[Ken Houghton]

NO on the update. The closer they get to 60, the more they need Liarman to caucus with the Republicans.

Think it through: 60 is "the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority." The problem is that is ONLY true is the Democrats and those aligned with them vote as a bloc.

I can't scream this enough: letting him caucus is no guarantee he will VOTE with you.

So the meme for the next two years (the first half of which would only be true if G-d liked me more than She does) is "the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority, but still can't get [insert bill description] through to President Obama."

You want 60, you need 60 actual Democrats. Ben "the King should get what he wants" Nelson is bad enough (though if he is consistent—not the way to bet—he won't be a problem). Liarman will backstab the party, and dare them to do something about him.

Knowing that, in this case, keep your Enemy Far Far Away.

[nothstine]

I'm with Ken--Lieberman's vote is simply not to be counted upon.

Add to that another argument I find pretty persuasive: Lieberman's not the only "Democratic" vote that isn't 100% reliable [on health care or whatever]. For any other Senator whose allegiance to the Dem caucus on the topic of the day is shaky [whether because of principles or vanity], letting Joe keep his position after what he's done is an open invitation for them to blackmail Reid too. Giving in to Lieberman makes hitting 60 even more difficult, not less so.

bn

[actor212]

If they get to 60 seats, I say dump Lieberman any way.

I'd work on Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe to defect. Promise them no opposition in the Democratic primary if they switch and plenty of political cover (it's Maine, they'll understand anyway)

[actor212]

Playing devil's advocate: why is loyalty to the party considered a greater obligation than one's own principle

It's not, util you start holding party perks over the heads of the party in order to have your cake and eat it too.

Lieberman has threatened to walk if he is stripped of his committee chairmanships. Loyalty works both ways. Now, his voting record suggests he woudl support Obama's stated agenda by about 90%. It's the 10% that he might disagree with that's going to make the difference.

Specifically, health care. What state does he represent? Connecticut.

What state is the national headquarters for nearly every major health insurance company?

Connecticut.

He will never support a national health care program that works to the detriment of the people who put him in office and so we cannot count on his vote. End of story.

[Saffi]

All the arguments for keeping Lieberman say that Democrats shouldn't antagonize him so that he won't vote against them.

Think about this. Lieberman breaks numerous promises about how he'd vote, campaign, throw support, etc. He as good as calls the Senator who saved his senate seat a Marxist and a terrorist sympathizer. He (or his apologist) claims that he HAD TO, because of his Principles. But now the Democrats can't take away his very high privelege of a committee chairmanship because they can't afford to piss him off?

In other words, so long as they let him commit tactical betrayals, this Principled man will vote with them against his Principles?

Even if he keeps the chairmanship, who says he'll vote for Democratic initiatives? Who can trust him not to abuse** the power that comes with controlling a vital committee?

When has he EVER kept a promise he later finds inconvenient to his ego?

Besides, the only vote they can count on with Lieberman is the first one, on which caucus controls the Senate, and they only need 50 of them.

If the Senate Democrats are so worried about preserving every seat then they should have yanked his chairmanship when it became clear he'd campaign for for down-ticket candidates. If Reid had creditably threatened at the time, Lieberman would have folded like the opportunistic weasle he is, and we might not be waiting on pins and needles for the Minnesota recount.

** Correction - make that "continue to abuse the power that comes with controlling a vital committee." In an administration as infested with corruption, law-breaking and outright war crimes as Bush's, the committee in charge of investigating ... wouldn't. Who wants to guess that Chairman Lieberman will do a complete turn-about on Obama and investigate every typo and misplaced paperclip as though it was the Watergate break-in?