Independent Man

There was a moment during the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate.

Joe Lieberman, making the case that having a Democrat in the White House had been good for the economy, turned to Dick Cheney and with a big Cheshire chat grin said, "Admit it, Dick, aren't you better off now than you were eight years ago?"

A dumb, dumb question, because there was only one answer a good Republican would give to it, and Cheney gave it.

"Yeah," he growled, "But the government had nothing to do with it."

But that was a dumb answer for Cheney to give because the comeback was obvious and I jumped up from my chair and shouted at the TV as if Lieberman could hear me.

"The government had nothing to do with making you a multi-millionaire?  Haliburton exists to scoop up fat government contracts!  They hired you for all your government contacts!  You're rich because the government was backing trucks full of money up to your front door and shoveling the money off at you with pitchforks!"

Did Lieberman hear me?

No.

Did he hear the voice that must have been shouting the answer inside his own head?

No.

He sat there and chuckled.  As if to say, "Good one, Dick.  You really nailed me with that."

And suddenly I couldn't deny it anymore.  I'd been trying, for the sake of Al Gore, to pretend to myself that Lieberman wasn't what he was, a toady to Republicans, but that's what he was.

It was more important to him in that debate that Dick Cheney like him than that he take-down Dick Cheney.

Now, I'll admit that was prejudice and conjecture on my part.  He might just have been caught flat-footed.  He might just have been so smug and overconfident that it didn't dawn on him that Cheney would have an answer to his weak and obvious joke.  He might not have noticed that the Republicans had been spending a lot of time in the late 90s coming up with explanations for why the balanced budget and the booming economy were not Bill Clinton's doing.  He might have actually expected Dick Cheney to throw up his hands and say, "Whoa!  I am a lot richer now than I was and I have Bill Clinton and Al Gore to thank for it.  Guess I'll pull out of the race now."

He could have been that big a chucklehead.  But I was prejudiced against Lieberman so I thought it was a deliberate act of fawning.   And I was prejudiced against him because of the Speech.

In 1998, Joe Lieberman went onto the Senate floor and single-handedly set out to legitmize the Impeachment-Coup.

People praised Lieberman for his courage, for having the guts and integrity to go against his Party and stand up for a moral principle.

But what principle?

That Bill had been a naughty boy.

Was there anybody in the country who needed to be told that?

Nobody was saying that Clinton had done himself or the country proud.  Plenty of Democrats expressed their disgust and disapproval, and Joe could have expressed his too, in any number of ways that didn't have the effect of his siding with the Republicans in their plot to drive Clinton from office.

Delivering that speech on the Senate floor was symbolic. Lieberman was claiming a position beyond that of outraged citizen.  He was making a quasi-official attempt to shame Bill Clinton into resigning.

No doubt he didn't see it that way.  But that was its effect.  He gave bipartisan cover to the Republicans'  charade that what they were up to wasn't about the lowest of partisan politics.  They were trying to undo an election and Joe Lieberman stood up in the Senate and said that their motives were pure and just.

And that's been Lieberman's trademark ever since.

When he refused to give up his Senate seat when he accepted the Vice-Presidential nomination, he was undermining Al Gore, by showing a lack of confidence in him, and helping the Republicans by essentially giving them his Senate seat if Gore happened to win.

He undermined Gore again during the Recount.

For a long time he has been playing for the other team more often than he's played for his own.

The last straw for me was the "Compromise." Lieberman helped broker a "deal" that allowed the Democrats to keep their right to filibuster while committing them to a promise never to use it.

Joe Lieberman's idea of bipartisanship has always been that the Republicans like him and include him in their meetings.

His loyalty has always been to Lieberman first.

It was an easy call a few months back.  If he had promised to support Lamont if Lamont won the primary and promised not to run as an independent the odds are that he wouldn't be in the position of having to run as an independent.

The fact that he's still talking about an independent run proves that Democratic voters of Connecticut were right not to let him be their Party's standard bearer. Mr Drum:

I suppose it may already be too late for this, but when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff, I hope they keep in mind that Hank Johnson also won a landslide victory over Cynthia McKinney down in Georgia.

As a result, the Democratic voters in Connecticut, who believe that the war in Iraq is hurting the broader war against radical jihadism, now have a Senate candidate who agrees with them. Likewise, the Democratic voters of DeKalb County, who want a representative who spends more time on district business than on investigating weird conspiracy theories, now have a congressional candidate who promises to do just that.

Seems to me the party acquitted itself pretty well tonight.

It's not about the war.  Robert Tanner of AP got that wrong this morning:

Voters in Connecticut turned him down, rejecting three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman for a political newcomer in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq War.

It's about Joe Lieberman being a Vichy Democrat.  It's about his collaboration with the Republicans and George Bush on everything including the War.  Posted by Mr Atrios:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Friday he is not worried about the fallout from the Senate primary on House races, arguing that the message from Connecticut is that anyone supporting Bush’s war policies is in deep trouble. “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening,” he said.

The 2006 elections are going to be a referendum on George Bush's Presidency to date.  Yay or nay?

The Republicans know this.  That's why, Ryan Lizza of the New Republic says, they're learning the fine art of Bush Bashing.

Mark Murray of MSNBC knows it.

Joe Lieberman has been playing for the wrong team, scoring own goals every time he's had the ball.  That's why, as M. Digby points out,  the Right loves him and why, says Mr Greenwald,  they are his biggest fans.

The idea that Lieberman is some sort of "centrist Democrat" and that the effort to defeat him is driven by radical leftists who hate bipartisanship is nothing short of inane. Why would Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol be so eager to keep a "centrist Democrat" in the Senate? Lincoln Chafee is a "centrist Republican." Are there any Democrats or liberals who care if Lincoln Chafee wins his primary? Do leftist ideologues run around praising and defending and working for the re-election of Olympia Snowe or Chris Shays or other Republican "centrists"? Do Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity love other Democratic "centrists," such as, say, Mary Landrieu or Joe Biden? The answer to all of those questions is plainly "no".

The love which right-wing extremists have for Joe Lieberman isn't based on the fact that he's a "centrist." If Lieberman were a "centrist," extremists would not care about him. They would not be vigorously urging his re-election, or praising his potential appointment as Bush Defense Secretary, or touting him as a Vice-Presidential running mate for George Allen. They do that because he is one of them -- a neoconservative extremist who is with them on virtually every major issue of the day.

Once again, Avedon Carol got the ball rolling for me.

Comments

[Fledermaus]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel had an even better line today:

"This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means"

Ouch!

[Claire]

Amen, amen, amen. Frankly, Lieberman is the perfect example of why there should be term limits. After a while these people, or should I just call them politicians (as if some other species), think they are ENTITLED to the power that is given to them. It makes me sick. The Senate is the worst place for this, and it is not surprising that session after session is filled with pork-barrelling do-nothings. They seem to only believe in themselves and can't see beyond their mirrors. Sorry for the rant.

[Matt]

Great post, Lance.

Joe Lieberman has been playing for the wrong team, scoring own goals every time he's had the ball.

I like the soccer analogy. I think that the voters of Connecticut just tried to give him a red card. But Joe has switched jerseys and is trying to make his way back onto the field. Hopefully, if the fans boo loudly enough, he will be shamed into retreating to the locker room, where he belongs.

[harry near indy]

succint post, lance. congrats.

i know blacks will call a black person who kow-tows to and slavishly seek approval by white folks -- at the price of his or her dignity -- an uncle tom or a house negro.

for those of you who speak and know yiddish -- is there a yiddish version of these terms which would apply to lieberman?

[harry near indy]

succint post, lance. congrats.

i know blacks will call a black person who kow-tows to and slavishly seek approval by white folks -- at the price of his or her dignity -- an uncle tom or a house negro.

for those of you who speak and know yiddish -- is there a yiddish version of these terms which would apply to lieberman?

[nola]

First, Lieberman is not seen as "one of us" by conservatives. He is certainly considered more civil than most liberals but that isn't saying much these days. Lieberman has paid lip service on some conservative issues but not much more than that.

As for the comparisons to other "centrists" - Dems don't care about Chaffee because if he loses the primary they will pick up a seat. Similarly, Republicans don't get excited over "centrists" like Mary Landrieu when they are from red states because we think they should be voting with us anyway.

It is about the war. Bloggers may foam at the mouth over "the Compromise" but most voters don't even remember it.

[Kevin Wolf]

Well, I agree with Lance. The war is only a part - perhaps the largest part, but still - of many parts that make up the Lieberman record.

When you reach a point, such as this primary, where you the voter is bound to stop and take stock of that record and it apperars that Joe may as well be a Republican, well, then that's when you as a Democrat no longer vote for him.

That's all that's happened here.

[jonst]

Lance,

You wrote that Lieberman was: “a toady to Republicans”. I don’t think that is correct. Lieberman is a “toady” the military-industrial complex that supposed sophisticated types rarely speak of anymore. Another name for it is the Iron Triangle that rules DC. That is what he is a toady to. And he was not going to give up HIS chance at the big money, if and when, he left congress. He wanted what Cheney had.

[Lance]

Jonst,

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I never thought of that. It's usually about money, isn't it? Joe might have bit his lip there in the debate because he couldn't think of a way to go after Cheney without implying that taking money from the M-I-C was wrong. He might have been imagining some lobbyist pal saying, "Gee, Joe, we didn't know you felt that way. Guess we'd better tear up the check."

But whatever he was thinking about then, though, he's done an awful lot of toadying since.

Nola, Lieberman pays lip service to everything on both sides of the aisle. He tries to vote both ways when he can too. As far as civility goes, I know that people on the Right think that the definition of civility is that people on the Left should shut up and take it when the Right call them traitors and moonbats and collaborators and with Al Qaeda and all that, but even by those standards, the proper description for Joe's behavior isn't civility, it's fawning. And I wouldn't think any real conservatives would want him either, but you have to take that up with Bill Kristol.

[velvet goldmine]

I'm from Connecticut, so my Joe-stuggles reach back to my first election as an eligible voter, when Lieberman's Senate race was against Lowell Weiker, a [then] Republican I admire greatly. That was an incredibly interesting contest, but a long story best googled than recounted here if you didn't follow it at the time.

I don't agree that Lieberman's weakness is either the tendency to be a lap dog to anyone in power nor that he worships at Mammon's alter.

Instead, I think his faith genuinely compels him to defend Israel at all costs, to speak out against infidelity committed by the person who should be the nation's moral compass, and to try to control the level of sex and violence young people are exposed to.

As it happens, I don't think pursuing any of those things in the way that he has is a good thing for the country, but as far as it goes, reasonable people may disagree and so forth. What I DO despise him for is his desperate attempt to have it both ways -- to align himself with a solid Democratic core whole being less than honest about the ways in which his votes and his speeches would depart from the party's belief system.

[mac macgillicuddy]

This may be water under the bridge, but I still think it's worth citing that HAD it come to the Ct's governor's appointing a successor for Lieberman, the governor doing the appointing was one who ultimately went to JAIL. And even better, the probable successor at the time was a crony from that corrupt governor's corrupt hometown who, himself, is currently serving a sentence (the former governor is now out of jail and "born again") for child molestation.

Good one, Joe!

[jillbryant]

Why is it that our political memories are so short now? I remembered some of what you brought up but...can I put this down to another failing of the media - in not bringing all pertinent facts forward when relevant but just joining in the general shouting or --- do I have to admit I have a really sucky memory? Great take, thank you.

[Martin Wisse]

So what was Gore thinking back in 2000 getting Lieberman of all people as his running mate?

Does anybody know?