Joe Lieberman surprises exactly nobody.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.
We now have Lieberman’s solemn promise that he absolutely won’t switch allegiances unless he feels like switching. Considering the weight that he gives his earlier promises, no doubt this means that he has already decided to go. Republicans didn’t staff and fund his race for nothing.
cleek
take that, CT voters !
Andrew
I’m just going to go ahead with my personal boycott on Connecticut now.
Andrew
No better place than a Lieberman for Lieberman thread…
This is the craziest shit of all time.
Gregory
If Lieberman tips the Senate back to the Republicans, he could write his won ticket — a fact I’m sure not lost on him.
But as some small consolation, Lieberman’s value as a Fox News Democrat would be gone forever.
The Other Steve
Does the report address the number of workers who would not be in the workforce, but rather be at home living on welfare payments due to unwanted pregnancy?
Just curious.
It seems to me the data is complicated, and the conclusions they draw are stretching reality.
I have also seen new trends in recent years, supported by labor statistics. Households with single incomes seem to be on the rise. Not necessarily a bad thing, it depends. My brother for instance is a stay at home dad. The other major decline in the labor statistics has been fewer teens early twenties getting jobs. I’m not sure if it’s lack of jobs, or unwillingness, or what. If it’s welfare, it’s more likely mom & dad paying them off than it is the govt.
The Other Steve
From the impression I get, Democrats are not afraid of a 50/50 split Senate. Harry Reid was able to control the place as minority leader. Granted Fristy won’t be there, but the Senate isn’t that scarey.
As long as we control the House, we control Congress.
So let Lieberman be Lieberman.
Elvis Elvisberg
Great link, Andrew. I’m surprised they overlooked the fact that gays are part of the problem too by failing to reproduce, but I’m sure they can have another panel take a look at that. Then something on how the trial lawyers and the liberal media make Messicans more fertile while sterilizing Anglos.
Back to Joe, I would hope by this point that the charade that he is a Man of Principle is over. He’s a reed in the wind. He generally votes reliably Democratic, but will triangulate relentlessly and noisily on any issue likely to generate TV appearances. See, e.g., Schiavo, Rumsfeld:
capelza
Rolls eyes at Lieberman. Is that guy a Prima Donna or what?
As for the abortion report…while they are banning abortions why not go for borth control as well, because that certainly has something to do with the decline in native birthrates. If that is their actual concern and not just trying to find a back door attack against abortion. Good grief…
raj
This regarding Lieberman isn’t a surprise.
Frankly, neither is the fact that Schumer et al were supporting Lieberman a surprise. The Democrat’s DSCC isn’t as interested in electing Democrats, such as Lamont, as they are in protecting their own positions in the Senate. If they had supported an insurgent such as Lamont and if he had won, then that could have enticed other insurgents to rise up against them. They are all for incumbent protection.
Bruce Moomaw
I suspect that what Lieberman is really doing is opening a bidding war between the two parties for his services, in return for which he will demand as many earmarks for the state of Connecticut as he can possibly squeeze out of Congress.
shecky
The Republican enthusiasm for Lieberman only points to how bankrupt they’ve become. He’s held almost no common ground with Bush, except to tie himself to the mast of that sinking ship known as Iraq. Perhaps if he switches parties, he’ll flop flop on nearly every position he’s ever held. Would that be such a loss for the Dems?
John Cole
He did in 2000 when he ran with Gore and suddenly had a whole new outlook on a lot of positions. He then reverted back after they lost, so I am not quite sure what would be holding him back now.
ThymeZone
Joe Lieberman is the quintessential craphead politician. A liar, totally self-serving, mealy-mouthed asshole. I never liked him as a Dem, but it seems he would make a great Republican.
Some of the old guard Dems will still schmooze with him, but they are also disposable AFAIC. The sooner we get rid of them and replace them with new Dems who care about more than their own place in the Washington DC pecking order, the better.
I can’t think of anything more apt than “Fuck you, Joe Lieberman. In every possible way.”
Kirk Spencer
I suspect Lieberman will bluster and threaten a great deal but will never quite cross over to the GOP caucus. Whatever else you may say about him, he’s politically astute, and looking hard at 2008.
If the GOP doesn’t change what its brand currently represents in the minds of the American voters, then in 2008 the Democrats will be looking at increasing their margin in the Senate. Remember that about 2/3 of the seats up for election in 2008 are currently held by Republicans.
Swapping now would give him two years of power to reinforce current GOP behavior, at the cost of being on the outside for the remaining four years. (Outside? “Sorry, Joe, we’d be delighted to count on your vote. But there’s no way we can give you any seniority.”)
He’ll “only” be 70 when this term ends, so the consequences of re-election will also matter. He got a lot of CT Democratic votes by playing as “the other Dem”. Caucusing with the GOP would also probably end his political career. And since the man doesn’t need money or fame, I think he’s not willing to give up the power.
He’ll threaten and bluster. But he won’t jump unless pushed, because like the nuclear option its negative consequences are not unilateral.
fwiffo
His political career is basically over in two more years. He could jump parties, but the Senate map in 2008 and to a lesser extent 2010 is very favorable to Democrats. In fact, of the three senate classes, this year’s was the most favorible to the GOP, which is a testament to how big a win it really was last Tuesday. It would be difficult to imagine a scenario where they don’t pick up a couple more seats in 2008, thereby making Lieberman’s threats irrelavent. Sure, he could flip the senate back to Republicans for two more years, but that would be it. And he’d be exposed to even the dullest of voters as a corrupt, self-centered political opportunist.
The caucus should call his bluff. If he stays with the Dems and quits this nonsense, he can stay with the majority and remain relevent. If he continues his whining, nuke his seniority on one of his committees. If he jumps ship, they can neuter him completely when they regain the majority in 2008. In the mean time, a hostile house would keep a 50-50 senate from actually doing anything.
Steve
I’d like to think Lieberman is going to pay a price for trying to be overly cute and set himself up as the ultimate arbiter of power in the Senate. I guess we’ll see.
Elvis Elvisberg
Look, Lieberman’s simpering rent-seeking difference-splitting masquerading as principle speaks for itself, but the Dems would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they pushed him out.
Having control of the House is nice; having control of both houses is nicer, especially on getting the president to moderate his appointments to the judiciary.
And fwiffo, your confidence is admirable, but the Democrats cannot just count on winning more & more Senate races in 2008, 2010, and forever on into the future. It’s too early to count on anything in ’08; who’d’ve guessed two yesars ago we’d be where we are?
r€nato
fwiffo points out something that was posted over at Talking Points Memo: Lieberman will huff and puff but he really doesn’t want to hitch his wagon to the GOP, if he has any foresight at all.
I think the Dems should *gently* call his bluff; if Lieberman did something stupid, it WOULD fuck up some of the Dems’ plans to investigate investigate investigate.
Davebo
Well Joe, if you wanna jump on the sinking ship that is the current GOP I say more power to ya.
But don’t forget you’re life preserver.
Zifnab
From Andrew:
Seriously, there’s nothing more you need to read. But if you insist…
Gee, what are the odds of every Republican legislative agenda being rolled up into one nice neat little package? Liberal welfare policies and income taxes (which Republican business leaders don’t like) perpetuate abortions and illegal immigration (which the Republican base doesn’t like). Wow! So repealing the income-tax in favor of sales taxes and cutting social welfare programs (thus saving money for more tax cuts) will make big strides in cutting abortion and immigration. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the Republicans just wrote a report saying “If you do everything we’ve already proposed for the last 30 years, America becomes super fantastic.”
I believe they’ll be releasing a second report in the future entitled “The War In Iraq Makes Minimum Wages Irrelevent” with equally shocking and amazingly convinent conclusions.
demimondian
Look, I carry no water for Holy Joe, but let’s be completely clear here. He’s an independent now, not a Dem, and he has every right — and, in fact, every responsibility — to act like one. I think that he got reelected under false pretenses, mind you, but what he is doing is exactly what the citizens of CT voted for.
That’s why I wanted Reid/Schumer to throw him out before the election; now, it’s too late.
pie
Too much Joementum.
It’s okay, in 2008 the Democrats will pick up 5-6 more Senate seats, and Joe can ride out his remaining term with a miserable minority of morons.
Steve
The citizens of CT voted for a guy who promised to caucus with the Dems.
He certainly campaigned on a platform of being independent-minded. I’m not aware of any point during the campaign, however, when he said he might flip-flop between parties according to the dictates of his conscience.
demimondian
Hmm. I sort of thought that the “Connecticut for Lieberman” label would give that away, particularly after the Democrats had rejected him in their primary..
Sojourner
Did anybody catch Joe on Sunday? All he talked about was his plan to change the Democratic party.
What a jerk.
Steve
I don’t understand your argument in the slightest. After losing the primary, he explicitly promised that if he won, he would caucus with the Democrats and vote for Reid in the leadership. The quote is unambiguous. If he goes back on his word, then no, voters did not get “exactly what they voted for.”
demimondian
Hmm. Not to get too academic, but (a) I have never seen a quotation from *Lieberman* that he’d caucus with the Dems, and (b) given that actions speak louder than words, HJ’s choice to run as an independent pretty well showed that he didn’t intend to follow the party when it didn’t say what he wanted, in my opinion.
short fuse
I think Joe underestimates that Harry Reid has the upper hand here.
If I were Reid, I would remind him that if he decides to double-cross the dems now, as the country continues to turn against Bush, Iraq, and the neocons, it won’t be hard to tie Joe to that whole sinking ship, and make him the focus of some inevitable investigations.
Why they’re still playing Mr. Nice Guy with this turncoat baffles me. I would so love to throw his butt under a bus.
scarshapedstar
Really?
How quickly we forget.
My thoughts: I long thought that people couldn’t possibly get any dumber than Louisianians (ok, leave Texas aside for now) but the fine folks of Connecticut have left us in the dust. No contest. The guy campaigned like a Republican, smears and intimidation and $400,000 “walkin’ around money” slush funds and all that good stuff. And now he’s gonna vote like one.
VidaLoca
Steve,
Seems to me that the Republican voters who voted for Lieberman do get exactly what they voted for (no matter what party he ends up siding with for the moment, but moreso if he goes with the GOP). The Democratic voters who voted for Lieberman? eh, not so much. Maybe they weren’t paying attention or something — it’s not like the handwriting wasn’t all over the wall.
They can now live with the consequences of their decision.
Steve
Um, yeah, that’s an internal quote about whether it made sense for Lieberman to continue attending Democratic events during the course of the campaign. It doesn’t change one word of his explicit promise to caucus with the Dems if he won the election.
Look, if you guys want to say that Lieberman is a lying hack who is not to be trusted, fine with me. All I’m saying is that a lot of Democrats voted for the guy based on his promise that he would caucus with the Democrats, and if he switches parties, he breaks his word, period. The voters would not be getting “exactly what they voted for.”
It makes you wish for some kind of recall process, although I don’t know if that would even be constitutional. Anyway, I agree with whoever said that he won’t actually be switching parties, since this threat loses all its force once it actually gets executed.
VidaLoca
I see nothing in what Reid and Schumer are doing here that doesn’t fully support the model raj proposes:
I’d only add that they are also all for the maintenance of their own personal authoritay. Losing elections to the likes of Lieberman, losing majority status in the Senate — these are acceptable. What is not acceptable is losing their authoritay in the Party because without that they have nothing.
Any movement that is serious about mounting a resistance has to deal first with the collaborators within it.
Steve
They would actually get better than what they voted for, and good for them.
When you put it this way, it’s kind of another way of saying we get the government we deserve. Which is true, but looking at it that way tends to absolve the actual politicians of responsibility. Maybe people should have known not to trust Lieberman, but it’s still his decision to go back on his promise. Personally, when people place their trust in you, I feel you owe them more than just “well, you should have known I couldn’t be trusted.”
VidaLoca
Oh yeah — in principle I agree with you. But, WTF were the Democratic voters in CT thinking anyhow? Gilliard claims that Lamont ran a weak campaign and I guess he’d know if anyone would, but still that doesn’t excuse voting in such a dumbass way.
Anyhow. What to do? I saw the possibility of recall of Lieberman brought up at FDL, and shot down — argument was, no way to go about it (I’m not sure I believe that entirely) and in any case I don’t see a case to be made for malfeasance — can you recall someone simply for being a deceitful turd? Winning such a recall would take an awful lot of buyer’s remorse on the part of the voters — who, let’s remember, just got done voting for the deceitful turd in the first place.
Steve
Here’s a must-read diary for you. One observation I’ll highlight:
Recall that Lieberman enjoyed massive bipartisan support in CT back before the primary campaign. Yeah, for those of us who have been dubious on Lieberman since the Clinton impeachment or before, Lamont didn’t really have a tough sales job. But for him to come this close to persuading the electorate of Connecticut in general, that’s the remarkable part of the story right there. Once you see a guy as phony, everything he does looks completely phony, but it takes something to get you to see him as phony in the first place.
Steve
Oops, I screwed up my link.
Sebastian Holsclaw
Jeffords.
If you thought it was ok for him to campaign as a Republican and then almost immediately switching over (for milk subsidies for God’s sake) you really aren’t in any position to complain about an Independent caucusing with whichever group seems most likely to help him out.
In reality of course, this is just a threat to keep his power with Democrats.
bud
Just popped in to add a discordent note to the echo chamber, but…
Lieberman beat Lamont on one issue, and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with Joe’s position, it attracted a *very* large majority of the voters.
Now, this may not be the position of the leadership of the party, but, being politicians, they recognize that they *have* to claim the center, and booting Lieberman would not help in that.
Joe’s refusal to make an absolute commitment to the party is simply a signal to the leadership that he’s not going to be a patsy. Let’s say he promised that he would always and forever caucus with D, and never, ever, ever even *look* across the aisle.
What kind of committee assignments do you think he’d get? Would he get any at all?
Between the party’s need to “center” and his assertiveness, he’ll get the “B” list assignments; nothing plum, but a lot more than he would have if he rolled over on his back and bared his throat.
This bunch is sounding like a bunch of capital L Libertarians: absolutely no idea of practical politics, but ready and willing to define a *real* Democrat.
skip
The people who voted for Lieberman got what they deserved–good and hard.
skip
The people who voted for Lieberman got what they deserved–good and hard.
skip
“Lieberman beat Lamont on one issue, and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with Joe’s position, it attracted a very large majority of the voters.”
Utterly false. Lieberman won as a maverick, not a pro-war candidate. The same impulse caused Wisconsin to select Joe McCarthy AND Bill Proxmire— in succession!
The circumstances for such a win are too rare to make a paradigm.
ThymeZone
Horseshit. Joe’s claim to the “center” on Iraq is false, and so is yours. Joe’s position was essentially that we, and that includes Dems, should back Bush’s view on the war, and that we’d fail to do so at our peril.
That’s what got him defeated in the primary. Bush’s War also got the GOP fired as the keepers of Congress.
What got Joe elected again was two weak candidates running against a generally popular but lousy Senator in that state.
The GOP candidate was a joke. The GOP’s posture in the campaign was a joke. I don’t know what happened to the Lamont campaign, but it seemed to run out of steam after the primary. I don’t know, or care enough about it to find out more.
Joe LIberman does not represent the “center” at all. He represents the fence. Real men stand on one side of the fence or the other, they don’t try to be the fence. Politicians don’t do well trying to BE the center, they do well by trying to REPRESENT the center. The center is best represented by taking a principled stand and by recognizing the virtue in opposing views. Not by trying to wear the fence as a badge of honor.
On top of his self-serving attempts to curry favor by promoting the fence, he lies and trashes the party that boosted him to the cushy situation he craves.
Joe is the Richard Rich of the Democratic party, just as McCain plays that role in the GOP. Men who will say and do anything to further their own interests.
Fuck Joe in every possible way. I hope his crotch becomes infested with vile biting stinging parasites.
Pooh
Lieberman in ’08…BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me guess, a Lieberman/Kerry ticket….BWAHAHAHAHAHHA
Steve
What?!? This is about the craziest statement I’ve read today.
First of all, on no planet is a hair under 50% even equivalent to a majority, let alone “a very large majority of the voters.”
Second, among voters who said the war in Iraq was an “extremely important” issue, Lamont beat Lieberman by a margin of 62% to 30%. Among voters who saw Iraq as either “extremely important” or “very important,” Lamont won 49% to 42%. Lieberman won, as the exit polls make very clear, by running up huge margins among people who didn’t think the Iraq war was a big deal.
When you bring up “Lieberman’s position,” I don’t know if you mean his pre-campaign position that we imperil the nation if we disagree with Bush, or his more recent voter-friendly position that Rumsfeld should be fired and, uh, blah blah blah freedom and democracy… but it flies in the face of every fact available to us to claim that Lieberman won solely on the issue of the war, and that a “very large majority” of voters agreed with him on that issue.
It’s all well and good to portray yourself as a bold truth-teller, bravely interjecting an alternate point of view into the “echo chamber”… but it also helps to have at least a little support for what you’re claiming.
Bob In Pacifica
The center, wherever it may be, is not in Iraq.
Redleg
Lieberman has been on my shit list since after the 2000 election when he criticized Al Gore for trying to win the election by being an economic populist. Screw Holy Joe and the financial industry he rode in on.
Alexandra
God, I can’t stand that man. He reeks from the rancid insides to the ugly inside. His voice grates in my ear. And we have six more years of this human boil on our butts.
Zifnab
Joe Lieberman is everything that is wrong with the DLC. Namely that they’re a pack of neo-cons who eat their own.
In a part of the country where Republican is a dieing breed, the only way to be a jackhole conservative and still get elected is to run as a Democrat with your base and caucus with the ‘Pubs on every vote that matters on Capital Hill. I’d feel more sorry for the folks up in CT except they had this guy as a Senator for 18 fucking years. Holy Joe pissed on our President in ’98 when he supported the ‘Pubs on their “sex is naughty” tirade. He voted to support the war again and again and again (at least Kerry had the curtesy to stop after the first time). He gives two SCOTUS judges an “up or down” vote, effectively endorsing both of them when it actually matters. When was the last time he had a good thing to say about a fellow Democratic Senator? When was the last time he defended a Swiftboated party memeber or voiced outrage at a ridiculous Republican talking point? The man is the very definition of DINO. Or, at least ‘was’ until the primary.
Sherard
Here’s a tip:
Too fucking bad. The Nutroots candidate, Ned Lamont, got his ass handed to him. If Leiberman switches parties, which I highly doubt, TOO.FUCKING.BAD. How about, support an otherwise across the board liberal Senator in the Democratic party, or find someone with a CLUE to run against him. Otherwise, STFU.
Anyone that claims Leiberman is anything other than a 100% Democrat with the exception of supporting the war in Iraq (which, conincidentally, a high percentage of Democrats DID, but now want to pretend never happened) they are either stupid or intentionally dishonest.
Joe has been a solid Democrat in CT for 20 years. The fact that he had to beat a nutroots candidate to keep his seat does not make him any less so. By all means, though, keep up the bullshit attacks on the guy and when he does switch parties, you idiots will get exactly what you deserve.
Sherard
Riiiiight… You mean kind of like it was when he faced off against a hand picked candidate of the energized netroots ? Please. If Leiberman didn’t lose this election in CT, there is no unwinnable election in CT. I mean, crap man, buy a clue already.
As for all of you loons now predicting a Democratic sweep in 2008, you should keep in mind that there are 2 years of Democrat controlled Congress between now and then. If you don’t think that performance in those 2 years is going to drive the 2008 election, you are nuttier than you appear to be.
Sherard
Are you kidding ? What happened to Lamont ? He made it up as he went along. His malleable positions on any number of issues made John Kerry’s positions on issues look positively rock solid. He embodied the “say anything to get elected” politician.
Of course you don’t want to look into it further because you don’t want to know what a horrible candidate the Nutroots backed over any other in the entire 2006 election.
chefrad
Is it too late to call for a moratorium on faux-clever terms like “nutroots,” “moonbats,” and other derogatory terms wholly devoid of content? It was bad enough with “blame America firsters” and the like, but at least such banalities had some indicative content.
More than that, using nutroots three times in short order leaves too many of us with the misleading impression that we are are about to hear something hip and insightful, when if fact we are destined to merely being bored again.
There really should be some kind of requirement that snappy but vapid name-calling clichés be rendered void after one use. That, after all, is already more column inch attention than warranted.
For the record, I would never stoop to calling Joe Lieberman a nutroot or a moonbat; not when old reliables such as phoney and egomaniac already serve so well.