An Open Letter To Joe Lieberman

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Congratulations! You got away with it! So despite having supported and endorsed the Republican candidate for president -- and going so far as to question the patriotism of the Democratic nominee -- you've managed to keep your chairmanship. By rights, you should've been summarily ejector-seated from your committees, bonked on the head with your gavels -- cartoon-style -- and hauled from the Democratic caucus naked and on a rail whilst being pelted with wadded-up copies of your RNC address.

The aforementioned reasons for this still-lenient serving of justice fails to include the syllabus of other trespasses against you, including, first and foremost, your unwavering support for the Bush administration's unforgivable foreign policy -- a policy which has all but bankrupted our treasury and besmirched America's reputation abroad. Heckuva job, Senator!

One might be inclined to consider your conduct to date as somehow principled -- even mavericky, had it not been so transparently self-serving. Your behavior has been that of a man guided by nothing more than petty vengeance and retribution -- attention-starved opportunism not unlike grade-school instigators and gossip-mongers whose only path to relevance is to play two friends against each other. Worming your way from side to side depending on which kid or clique likes you more.

Now, I completely understand the political reasons for why President-elect Obama and the caucus ultimately chose to keep you around. Unfortunately, the Democrats need your stinky vote -- such as it is -- in order to theoretically break any future Republican filibusters. And there will be many of those to be sure. However, the closer we get to 60 votes in the caucus the better our chances of reversing the craptastical policies and legislation of your favorite Bush administration and the formerly Republican Congress.

Sure, there's no guarantee that you'll vote with the caucus, but you made it clear that you would have pitched a spasmodic, petulant fit and changed your affiliation to the Republican Party from the "Lieberman Loves Lieberman" party or whatever the hell it's called, had you been stripped of your chairmanship. Consequently, the Democratic caucus would've definitely lost your vote. It's an unenviable "possibly" versus "definitely" proposition. And with the caucus being this close to 60 against what will surely be an obstructionist Republican caucus, we have no other choice but to roll the dice with "possibly."

That is until 2010 when the Democrats will hopefully attain enough members, and thus votes, that they won't need your support anymore. Then you can storm off and mind-screw the Republicans for a couple of years until -- and it's probably not good strategy to tip our hand like this, but you know it's coming -- until you lose in 2012.

Nevertheless, you got what you wanted yesterday. Circumstances allowed you to keep your chairmanship irrespective of your weasely and contemptible maneuvering. And more than a few of us on the left actually agree with you for once: you managed to abscond off without adequate punishment.

You got away with it, despite those meddling kids, right?

Not so fast.

I submit to you, Senator Lieberman, that you were punished yesterday more than you realize. Stick with me on this. I'll explain.

I've been a supporter of the president-elect for the better part of a year now, and while I've always recognized a deep intellectualism and multilayered thoughtfulness in the man, it never fully occurred to me how he would use these strengths in a position of leadership. Until this week.

In sharp contrast to your behavior, President-elect Obama hasn't shown any predilection for pettiness or disloyalty, nor has he undermined his allies for the sake of political expedience. He's proved himself to be a man of great character. Of values. I don't need to remind anyone how he stood by Jeremiah Wright, for example, and at his own political peril when most would've tossed him overboard like political chum.

You, on the other hand, have shown an unapologetic contempt for the party that once nominated you for the vice presidency -- the party that welcomed you back to the fold even though you slipped through the system and defeated the fairly elected Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, in 2006. You've betrayed your fellow liberals to settle a political score, Senator -- in order to exact some kind of ignoble payback against your former party, against your caucus and against the netroots for merely calling you out on your literal and figurative smooching of the president.

This is behavior President-elect Obama doesn't appear to be capable of. Because he's clearly better than you. In fact, it's not difficult to hypothesize that had you possessed a fraction of his political instincts or any small measure of his morality, you would absolutely not be in this position, Senator.

See, by allowing you to keep your precious chairmanship -- by letting you off the hook -- President-elect Obama, through his political bigness, punished you without punishing you. He beat you yesterday, Senator. He beat you because he let you be you, and underscored it with his demonstrably better angels and strength of character.

In the final analysis, the hard reality is that by not choosing retribution, he made you look...

...small.

And that, Senator, is good enough for me.

Cheers!
Bob Cesca
The Huffington Post
BobCesca.com

Order my new book: One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington. Also available in stores.

Comments

[pinkseven]

No, Mr. Cesca. It is not good enough for me. It has little to with President elect Obama magnanimous
nature. It has everything to do with the future tone and direction of the Senate. Sadly, by not stripping Sen. Lieberman of his chairmanship which I believe he has demonstrated sufficient ineptitude at that he
should lose the chair, it suggests that change will not be coming to the Senate. The Senate will remain
the feckless, entitled body it has been since Sen. Mike Mansfield retired as Majority Leader. The truth is that the present Majority Leader, Sen. Reid needs Sen. Lieberman more than Sen. Lieberman needs
Sen. Reid or anyone else. At least MY senator, Merkley, let it be known where he stands. I hope he
does not lose his voice

[Tom Payned]

Ahhh, another Oregonian with common sense. Hear Hear brother. Maybe it's the higher elevation that allows us to see and think so clearly.

On November 4. in an interview with right-wing radio host Glenn Beck, Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying "that the survival of the country is in doubt if Democrats break the filibuster threshold."

Lieberman then left the interview to return to campaigning with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), telling Beck, “I’m real proud of you. I remember you back when.”

Proud of Glenn Beck?

Fear a filibuster proof Democratic Party?

Nothing less than the survival of the country?

Anyone who thinks Obama and the Dems can rely on this charlatan, may beleive on that bridge to nowhere, Palin was against it and sold that jet on Ebay for a profit.

[berkawoo]

I think that one of the reasons that Obama wanted for Lieberman to keep is position unchanged in the Senate is quite simple. "Keep your friends close and you ENEMIES closer"

[nikz]

Thank you Bob! Perfectly stated!

[bascombe]

just another reason why I love Bob Cesca.

[annschneider1]

It's interesting that he probably thinks he is doing fine in his world but everyone, even his wealthy friends in the private sector, knows what he is now and they will never forget. Pitiful

[Bonobo]

May all my sins be punished as harshly as Joe's. Come on, people. You are going to scorn Lieberman into proper behavior? When did he become Amish? People would not be politicians if they had a sense of shame. Stop chasing the filibuster goose, too. It's a stupid tradition, not a constitutional rule. It meant something when they actually had to stand up and talk continuously, but just registering a complaint makes it way too easy.

[libertyanne]

This is the slimiest of all worms. I hope the people of Connecticut will have long memories in 2012.

[Manchurian]

Thanks, Bob. My sentiments exactly.

[kwijibo]

For a while, I was wondering if there would be enough room in the Big Tent of the Democrat Party for a man like Joseph Isadore Lieberman.

Imagine a man with enough courage to not join in the political lockstep of the failed Harry Reid Senate, a Senate (along with the House) which has half the approval rating of George Bush (and we all know how low Bush's rating is).

I dare say the only reason and I mean the ONLY reason Lieberman kept his chairmanship is so he wouldn't caucus with the GOP. You NEED Lieberman as a Democrat that badly.

Lieberman doesn't look small, he looks courageous. He dared stand up to the totalitarian, monolithic, lockstep Democrats of the Senate. That Democrat Senate backed down because they need him more than he needs them and they know it. Far from looking small, Lieberman stood tall. Far from keeping his mouth shut in the face of a body of vindictive leaders, he dared speak truth to power.

Is this a sign of things to come for the Democrat leadership in the next session of congress? Will they move toward a more open and bi-partisan Senate? I hope the leadership is wise enough and courageous enough to rise above petty vindictiveness and this support of Lieberman is the first step in showing us that.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Joe Biden -rewarded- with VP nomination after having said essentially the same things about Mr. Obama?

[Tom Payned]

However Joe never said that the country's future was bleak>

In an interview with right-wing radio host Glenn Beck, Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying "that the survival of the country is in doubt if Democrats break the filibuster threshold".

And you compare what Biden said to Lieberman?

[MissKaren]

Smaller than small. From now on, Lieberrman is going to be Obama's to use as he wishes. He cannot be other than whole-hog for what Obama wants. Then, in 2012, the voters of Connecticut can do with him what they ought to have done in 2006.

[deb59]

What a great article, I was so angry with Mr. turncoat. After reading this I feel ok about having him around. What goes around comes around. Mr. turncoat you'll get your day.

[gliderguy]

The Dems needed the Lieberman Dem vote rather than a Lieberman Rep vote. That simple.

[AndSoItGoes]

Excellent ... well written and on point.
Think Senator Lieberman IS going to wish the Democrats had removed him from his committee position because from now on, it is going to be very uncomfortable for him in DC. Shunning is a difficult punishment to endure. So ... Mr. L., smirk if you will today. Tomorrow is going to be a long, long period of time.

[11907281]

Cheers to that.

[carol]

Well written, Jesster. Ok. You do have a point... Lieberman is more or less in a hothouse; every decision he makes will be scrutinized and, in the meantime, he might throw a vote or two our way.
This is hard for me to swallow but who cares whether I do or don't? It's a done deal. We'll see how it falls out.

[OneLiberalLady]

EXCELLENT post, Bob; you nailed it. Which leads me to make the point that Obama has really earned my trust. In issues like whether or not Hillary Clinton is a good choice for State, I am willing to bow to Obama's tremendous intellect and superior wisdom. He has certainly shown these qualities during the long, long primary.

[Bonobo]

Because things went so well for him in the non-caucus contests.