The Lieberman Conundrum
Culture 6:08 AM
Is it possible to be appalled by something, while at the same time being altogether unsurprised?! If so, that's a decent way to describe my perplexed and deeply disturbed sentiment over a quietly evolving story.
Many Democrats in the Senate want Lieberman out of the Democratic Caucus.
WHAT?!?!
It might seem obvious to some of you - Lieberman, once a democratic candidate for Vice President himself, supported John McCain and actively campaigned for him. He must be punished.
Again I say, "WHAT?!"
The Democratic Party has ridiculed the Republicans for being heartless, soulless, scorched-earth dividers with hate in their hearts and discrimination in their laws. They are the party of Lee Atwater. They are the party of Strom Thurmond. They are the party of Karl Rove.
The Democratic Party is the 'big tent party'. It's the party where it's ok to have a different idea or to be different or look different. It's the party that counts every vote. It's the party that cares about the little guy. It's the party that allows dissent and disagreement and -by all means - thought. At least, it's supposed to be all of those things.
Senate Democrats - led by Harry Reid - are so mad about Lieberman campaigning for John McCain that they are pushing for the removal of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee. He was offered chairmanship of a lesser committee if he stepped down voluntarily, but he refused. It's speculated that should it come to a vote quickly, Lieberman would probably retain his leadership of these committees, but this juvenile outburst of animosity against him from the Dems is outrageous!
My question is simple. How can the Democratic Party seriously be fuming at Joe Lieberman for supporting John McCain, when all through the primaries and all through the general election, they touted with pride every endorsement from a Republican that they could scrape up?! Remember how proud they were of the Colin Powell endorsement? So, why is what's good for the goose suddenly not good for the gander?
Interestingly enough, this issue is where I find myself doling out my first kudo to President-elect Obama. Senator Obama (deal with it, he IS still a senator) has decided to speak up along with President Clinton in dissent of the notion of removing Lieberman from the Democratic Caucus. What remains unclear however is whether his post at the helm of the two committees will be in tact.
SERIOUSLY?!
Attention Democrats: you just elected "The One" - the man who is supposed to bring us all together. You just swept into office with an electoral mandate the man who has sworn to bridge the divide and to bring the parties together. You wept and cheered for a leader who campaigned on the idea that we should not use divisiveness to solve our problems, that we need new ideas and people in the fold. And despite his liberal and murky voting record, Senator Obama pontificates time and time again on the need for us to work across the aisle moving forward to bring about the changes this country so desperately needs. Don't go veering wildly off that message by kicking out somebody who campaigned across the aisle. It's petty and antethetical to your whole entire message.
Because I keep hearing this, let me put a notion to bed once and for all. Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain, NOT against Barack Obama. Lieberman was very disciplined about not blatantly trashing Obama on the campaign trail and instead focused on the postive aspects of John McCain. Yes, he wasn't all rainbows and rosepedals about Senator Obama, but that's OK. If you watched him on the campaign trail or if you saw his address to the RNC, you know that he was NOT down in the mud. Yet, sure enough, I got the email from Senator Obama's campaign on the night of his address to the RNC urging me to be up in arms about his so-called disgusting, negative comments. Is it seriously all that surprising that someone would have concerns about Senator Obama's candidacy? Give me a break.
Of course, things are rarely as simple as they seem, and there is much backstory and minutiae to be debated. I will say this: The relationship between Senator Lieberman and the Democratic Party was at its most strained during the campaign for his re-election in 2006. At the time, the war in Iraq was at its nadir of popularity and Senator Lieberman was strongly in support of the president over the issue. Democratic response? The Democratic Party gave Lieberman exactly zero support against his primary opponent and refused to even endorse his candidacy for re-election. The man who did win the nomination against him ultimately still lost when Lieberman ran as an independent candidate, and the Democrats fumed with resentment. They fumed with resentment silently for two years however, because without Lieberman caucasing with them, they would have no majority. Then, when Lieberman endorsed and toured with John McCain - his long time friend and ally - the camel's back broke.
Well, I know a little bit about how Senator Lieberman feels. This is a deeply personal spin on a highly relevant topic. And let me say firmly and directly - if this type of behavior continues from the Democrats, don't be surprised if I leave your caucas too. Don't be surprised if many people do.
Many Democrats in the Senate want Lieberman out of the Democratic Caucus.
WHAT?!?!
It might seem obvious to some of you - Lieberman, once a democratic candidate for Vice President himself, supported John McCain and actively campaigned for him. He must be punished.
Again I say, "WHAT?!"
The Democratic Party has ridiculed the Republicans for being heartless, soulless, scorched-earth dividers with hate in their hearts and discrimination in their laws. They are the party of Lee Atwater. They are the party of Strom Thurmond. They are the party of Karl Rove.
The Democratic Party is the 'big tent party'. It's the party where it's ok to have a different idea or to be different or look different. It's the party that counts every vote. It's the party that cares about the little guy. It's the party that allows dissent and disagreement and -by all means - thought. At least, it's supposed to be all of those things.
Senate Democrats - led by Harry Reid - are so mad about Lieberman campaigning for John McCain that they are pushing for the removal of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee. He was offered chairmanship of a lesser committee if he stepped down voluntarily, but he refused. It's speculated that should it come to a vote quickly, Lieberman would probably retain his leadership of these committees, but this juvenile outburst of animosity against him from the Dems is outrageous!
My question is simple. How can the Democratic Party seriously be fuming at Joe Lieberman for supporting John McCain, when all through the primaries and all through the general election, they touted with pride every endorsement from a Republican that they could scrape up?! Remember how proud they were of the Colin Powell endorsement? So, why is what's good for the goose suddenly not good for the gander?
Interestingly enough, this issue is where I find myself doling out my first kudo to President-elect Obama. Senator Obama (deal with it, he IS still a senator) has decided to speak up along with President Clinton in dissent of the notion of removing Lieberman from the Democratic Caucus. What remains unclear however is whether his post at the helm of the two committees will be in tact.
SERIOUSLY?!
Attention Democrats: you just elected "The One" - the man who is supposed to bring us all together. You just swept into office with an electoral mandate the man who has sworn to bridge the divide and to bring the parties together. You wept and cheered for a leader who campaigned on the idea that we should not use divisiveness to solve our problems, that we need new ideas and people in the fold. And despite his liberal and murky voting record, Senator Obama pontificates time and time again on the need for us to work across the aisle moving forward to bring about the changes this country so desperately needs. Don't go veering wildly off that message by kicking out somebody who campaigned across the aisle. It's petty and antethetical to your whole entire message.
Because I keep hearing this, let me put a notion to bed once and for all. Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain, NOT against Barack Obama. Lieberman was very disciplined about not blatantly trashing Obama on the campaign trail and instead focused on the postive aspects of John McCain. Yes, he wasn't all rainbows and rosepedals about Senator Obama, but that's OK. If you watched him on the campaign trail or if you saw his address to the RNC, you know that he was NOT down in the mud. Yet, sure enough, I got the email from Senator Obama's campaign on the night of his address to the RNC urging me to be up in arms about his so-called disgusting, negative comments. Is it seriously all that surprising that someone would have concerns about Senator Obama's candidacy? Give me a break.
Of course, things are rarely as simple as they seem, and there is much backstory and minutiae to be debated. I will say this: The relationship between Senator Lieberman and the Democratic Party was at its most strained during the campaign for his re-election in 2006. At the time, the war in Iraq was at its nadir of popularity and Senator Lieberman was strongly in support of the president over the issue. Democratic response? The Democratic Party gave Lieberman exactly zero support against his primary opponent and refused to even endorse his candidacy for re-election. The man who did win the nomination against him ultimately still lost when Lieberman ran as an independent candidate, and the Democrats fumed with resentment. They fumed with resentment silently for two years however, because without Lieberman caucasing with them, they would have no majority. Then, when Lieberman endorsed and toured with John McCain - his long time friend and ally - the camel's back broke.
Well, I know a little bit about how Senator Lieberman feels. This is a deeply personal spin on a highly relevant topic. And let me say firmly and directly - if this type of behavior continues from the Democrats, don't be surprised if I leave your caucas too. Don't be surprised if many people do.
Posted by Nick Stone
on 6:08 AM.
Filed under
Posts
Two comments to you, Nick.
I agree with you that the Democrats should not be bashing Lieberman for supporting McCain over Obama. If only it were that simple.
Joe Lieberman actually went out of his way to campaign for republican congressmen at the same time he was campaigning for McCain. That is not particularly acceptable when his "party" is trying to reach a larger majority. They have every right to ask punish him.
Also, while I don't think Lieberman sank to the lows of John McCain and especially Sarah Palin, he was never just ambivalent towards Obama. He went out of his way to use various Republican talking points against him. I think you should go back and look at some of the speeches Lieberman gave. He most certainly campaigned AGAINST Obama. This is especially disheartening as Lieberman asked Obama to campaign for him when he was loosing his re-election campaign in 2006. Obama did just that.
Finally, you should go back and edit your comments when you refer to Obama as a Senator in this post. He officially resigned from the Senate two days ago.
By the way, if you need some evidence as to what I was saying, here you go:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/lieberman_obamas_alleged_endor.php
First, your commentary is sounding more and more negative... What is right with the world these days? I'd love to read your take on that... 60 Minutes is all stocked up on Andy Rooneys.
On to the topic at hand: The Democratic Caucus has more of an issue with Sen Lieberman than just his campaigning with/for Sen McCain. Sen Lieberman has split with the party on more than one occasion. In fact, he has consistently gotten more conservative as time has gone on. In 1988, he ran for the Senate and won because of his soft line take on the Cold War. Where is the softer side of Joe now?
In 2000, Joe was rewarded for his conservatism by being nominated for the vice-presidency. He balanced the ticket very well that year. Liberal vs. conservative; new vs. old; north vs. south etc...
He kept going with the conservatism...
Given that Sen Lieberman was elected by a liberal, staunchly democratic state for his originally liberal viewpoints, don't you think that the state's party and the DNC might have liked the idea of a change?
Ned Lamont challenged (and beat) Sen Lieberman for the democratic nomination because of the Sen's Iraq War record. The Party had spoken. Ned was our guy.
So what did Joe do? He pandered to the right and got enough statewide REPUBLICAN support to add to his incumbency advantage to beat out Ned as an INDEPENDENT in the general...
Let's see.... is there any reason why the Democratic Caucus might be irritated with Sen Lieberman for doing this?
I could understand if a democrat from one of the Dakotas pulled something like this... but Joe really isn't a good fit for the Democrats in Connecticut anymore.
So. When a conservative democrat from a liberal state is elected by republicans after shrugging off the democratic party and then procedes to campaign for/with the republican nominee for President.... everyone should welcome him back with open arms. Riiight.
President Elect Obama is definately the right man for the job. I can't think of many people that would be big enough to let Sen Lieberman back into the circle... including me. But Barack did, and I'm proud of him for doing it... It was the right thing to do.
I just hope that Sen Lieberman will make it official again in 2012 by running in the democratic primary... if not- he really doesn't deserve to be one of us.
One final thing. His name is President Elect Barack Obama. He has resigned his Senate seat... and oh, yeah- he was elected to be the next President of The United States of America. Let's show some respect and address him as such.
As much as it irks me to do so, and as much as he has done to damage our country and the office of the President, I have always regarded the current President by title. Salute the rank, not the man.
chris: amazing comment.
Chris,
Wow. You are REALLY REALLY REALLY far off base, but worse yet - you are actually proud of yourself for it.
Democracy isn't about how self-righteous we can be. It isn't about thumbing people in the eye just because they didn't see eye to eye with you or took the other side of an argument. Sore losers are pretty bad, but sore winners are THE WORST.
Don't imply that I only bring up problems and never try to be part of the solutions. I ALWAYS try to be part of the solutions. I also support - both financially and vocally - candidates that are trying to take this country in the right direction for the better of us all.
More importantly, we're not just in crisis because I say so. Ask a gay couple trying to get married. Ask somebody who just got fired from their job because of cuts. Ask somebody who can't pay their mortgage. Ask somebody whose 401k is at half its value from a few months ago. Ask somebody who works for a car company. Or an airline. Or a restaurant. Ask somebody whose kid asks them how they are going to afford college.
Any of these people will tell you that we are - in fact - in a very serious crisis in this country. I didn't just make it up, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
But this particular entry isn't about me. It's about Joe Lieberman and about thumbing people in the eye.
The Democratic Party has become so cynical, power-hungry, off-message, calculating, and underhanded in their tactics and antics that it has turned me off enough that I can't stand silent about it.
It is NOT COOL to try to kick Lieberman out of the caucus or remove him from chairing his committees with these secret ballots. The Democrats want to play the part of the victim, and portray Joe as the guy who is the culprit.
He didn't think Obama was the guy for the job. Period. They're gonna have to get over it. Lieberman decided - yes, decided on his own accord - to join their caucus after winning back his Senate seat in 2006. The Dems can be as pissed off as they want to about it, but the people of Connecticut - the majority of all voters in the state of Connecticut - sent him back to the Senate. You may call Ned "your party's guy" but Connecticut decided that Lieberman was still their guy.
Lieberman lost his primary bid because the Democrats gave him no primary support whatsoever. That's HORRIBLE. Still, instead of being a baby and joining the conservative caucus after being snubbed by his own party, he helped the Dems achieve a Senate majority. And they're pissed off at him?!
The biggest and most urgent point remains this - The Big Tent Party - the Democratic Party - HAS TO abandon this runaway idea that anybody that doesn't agree with some part of their platform is either stupid, evil, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are not sheep, we're people. These people we send to Washington to represent us have enormous responsibility and their allegiance should be to their constituents and to their conscience before their party. They should!
Also, AGAIN, where were the Democratic leaders crying when Republicans came over to support Obama? Funny how it's ok to jump ship on your party as long as it's in favor of your team. New kind of politics? Yes, a worse-than-ever kind of politics.
Chris, your comments are the epitome of what's wrong with this country right now - and in particular what's wrong with my party. You want to play the victim while attacking other people. You want to claim to move away from slash and burn politics while marginalizing anybody that doesn't agree with you. There is a very very dangerous game of pompousness going around, and it's highly highly unbecoming of my party.
I know a little something about what it feels like to be Joe Lieberman and I'm proud of him no matter what slick ways you come up with to make me feel like I should not be. Like him too, I refuse to be run out of my party for voicing a dissent.
If my tone was out of line in my previous post, I apologize.
It was my overall intent to outline exactly why the Connecticut Democratic Party, the DNC, and the Democratic Senatorial Caucus would be upset with Senator Lieberman.
All things being equal, I thought my points were pretty concise.
I was not assailing Senator Lieberman. That is to say, that that was not my intent.
I also want to be very clear about my concession at the end of my last post. I firmly believe that Senator Lieberman continuing to caucus with senate democrats is a good idea... no matter how he got there this time.
My only stipulation to that is that he MUST run as a democrat in 2012; opposed or not. Should he lose, he needs to accept it or put an "R" after his name.
And to respond to your commentary on my observation of the tone of the blog lately:
I swear that I was trying to be funny with the Andy Rooney stab. I legitimately enjoy this blog for many reasons... not the least of which is that it challenges me. Point being- I would find it refreshing if you would use your talents to comment on something on the cheerful side every so often.
Looking forward to your next topic.
is this blog dead now that your guy lost or what?