Lieberman's Biggest Crime Of All

There's a giant gray area in how the United States Senate operates and, as someone who covers that body, I'm aware of that and try not to react too quickly when I see something I don't like. Maybe my proximity has made me too sympathetic, but I'm aware that there's very often more than meets the eye when something happens in the Senate that people on my side of the political divide may not like.

But this thing with Joe Lieberman is different and I'll tell you why.

When it comes to Lieberman, I've really tried to understand. I even did a brief study in early September in which I set out to discern what good Lieberman actually did do the Democratic caucus in the 110th Congress, by looking for the number of votes where Lieberman's presence on our side of the aisle actually made a difference. And I admit, my dislike for Lieberman is so deep that I truly wanted to find that his membership in the Democratic caucus made no difference and that Senate Democrats could have kicked his butt to the other side of the aisle after his reelection over Ned Lamont in 2006 with little or no consequence.

As much as I hated it, that wasn't what I discovered.

Instead, I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31, 2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote.

I didn't like seeing that, but the results were real and they made me conclude that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was right to not push for Traitor Joe's ouster two years ago and that, like it or not, Democrats actually did need him on their side, at least some of the time.

So I get it. I've learned about nuance and I've learned that the party leader's job in the Senate is a lonely one, fraught with political peril and no-win situations.

Despite all of that, I was as aghast and disgusted as anyone yesterday when Reid and most of the Democratic caucus, let Lieberman off scot free for his repulsive and disloyal actions in 2008. Even with my eyes filled with the gray that is Senate life, I believe Lieberman should have not only been stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, but he should have been removed from the caucus entirely.

We all know the conventional wisdom why: He spoke at the Republican National Convention. He smeared Barack Obama for things like allegedly voting to take money from combat troops in Iraq, despite knowing damn good and well that he was incredibly misleading tens of millions of conventions viewers on Obama's record. And he hit the campaign trail with John McCain and Sarah Palin, participating in hideous personal attacks on Obama and sharing the stage with those calling the president-elect everything from a terrorist to a Marxist.

But as I mulled a stomach made queasy over what took place yesterday, it suddenly struck me that Lieberman's main breach was far more general than any of that and it comes down to this: Joe Lieberman seriously wanted John McCain to be the next president -- and he worked damn hard to make that happen.

So it goes way beyond Lieberman's personal loyalty to a GOP Senator and some nasty comments about his own caucus's guy and becomes a startling view of what Lieberman would actually have liked to see over the next four to eight years -- and there's nothing in it that even remotely resembles being a Democrat or having the right to remain in their Senate delegation.

Because in wanting so desperately to have John McCain taking the oath of office on January 20th instead of Barack Obama, Lieberman wanted the following:

• Years or decades more of endless occupation of Iraq and thousands of more dead American troops
• Acceleration of al Qaeda's strength as the U.S. further ignores real threats in favor of Iraq
• Greater erosion of U.S. image and prestige in the world
• More charity for Big Oil while devoting zero resources to energy independence
• Less oversight of Wall Street and more of the recent price we have paid
• Millions more Americans without health insurance to add to 47 million who already have no coverage
• More children living below the poverty line
• Further debasement of our Constitution and national creed
• Even more elderly making a monthly choice between food, home heating and prescription drugs
• A deficit ballooning to such size that our children's children will be paying it off
• Reversal of Roe v. Wade and criminalizing every woman's reproductive choice

And add to that the significant fact that, as a campaign insider, Lieberman knew for certain that Sarah Palin was an ignorant third-stringer, embarrassingly and dangerously unqualified to be so close to the Oval Office -- and yet he pushed to make that happen.

So, yes, Lieberman said terrible things about Barack Obama and stabbed every Democrat in the back in making allegations about Obama that would by extension also apply to most of them. And he deserved to have his ass kicked to the Republican side of the aisle -- or at least have his committee Chairmanship revoked for that alone.

But what's even more telling is that deep down, underneath all the words and speeches and photo opportunities with the McCain-Palin ticket, what Lieberman was really after was four to eight more years of neo-conservative Republican rule. At least four more years of the same leadership that made 80 percent of Americans believe the country was on the wrong track. And up to eight, 12 or even 16 more years of the same policies that have driven the United States to the point of social, economic and political ruin.

Beyond every outward thing Joe Lieberman did in 2008, he finally came out and admitted through his actions that he is exactly what we've always known he is -- a Republican.

That alone disqualifies him from leading a committee in a Democratic Senate or, for that matter, even sitting in the same room with the Democratic caucus.

And, for dismissing all of that, 42 Senate Democrats should be profoundly ashamed.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Comments

[ohioan73]

I agree. How can a politician be all 'mavericky' and go against their party so much? Shouldn't they just join the party they agree with? Why does McCain continue to insist on being a Republican? Shouldn't he just join the Independents? I wouldn't be surprised if Leiberman was a Republican spy cloaking as a Democrat.

[cam]

Agreed - Lieberman has long been occupying a seat that would be better served by someone better, but so are many other senate seats. Lieberman's perspective on Iraq is not mine, but I accept his right to a different opinion (albeit his opinion seems to invalidate any other opinion or course of action).

For me the straw that broke the camel's back was his endorsement of Palin - that was utterly inexcusable. More than being merrely "an ignorant third-stringer, embarrassingly and dangerously unqualified to be so close to the Oval Office" - which implies she is little more than a passive danger to the office - she is opiniated, ignorant and blindly self-ambitious. She would have constituted an active and malign danger to the security of the nation and of the world.

[garcia83]

I hated Lieberman throughout much of this campaign. My first thought after taking in Barack's win was "Poor Joe, he's gonna get it now". I agree that he was rejected by his state for the democratic nomination for Senate, and I agree that he said some effed up things.

But I find it hard to believe that anybody purporting to be angry now truly feels that Joe has always been a "Republican". Especially when so many of his would have rather seen him in that vice presidential spot 8 years ago rather than Dick Cheney. Especially after this very commentary points out that he was on our side 31 out of 36 times.

I get the feeling Joe bit the bullet on lots of issues during his Meet the Press debate with John Kerry. Did he not trust Barack Obama? Sure. Did he campaign vigorously for John McCain? Absolutely. We averted disaster, and while I'm wary of the message it sends to keep him, I'm convinced nothing good will come out of the primal urge for retribution and having his head brought to us on a platter.

[beanie]

I agree.

An equally important point is Lieberman should not be in the Senate. He was rejected by the Democratic electorate of his own home state. He was "reelected" to the senate after switching parties between the primary and general elections. Of course, he won the general election because of Republicans who ignored their own weak candidate and crossed over to the "Independent" party. What a sham!

This was an egregious example of how badly are political system is broken and how tenaciously some will cling to power, even when rejected by their own electorate.

Also it is difficult to not be cynical about this situation. I love Obama, his rhetoric, his hope and his glorious potential. However, he has already greatly disappointed me. If this situation isn't an example of "politics as usual" than I don' t know what is. Obama could have and should have let Lieberman fade away.

[JinChicago]

-credit bob cesca on this forum-

he said it way better than i ever could
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/an-open-letter-to-joe-lie_b_145026.html
PART OF THE ARTICLE BELOW
'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."

[peterg76]

All lot of other Democrats sold out their principles, their party, their constituents and their country too. The worst thing about Lieberman is how much he's lowered the bar for actual Democrats.

[research]

The Senate is a chummy club including most of the dems, but the House has mostly good democrats, though not Pelosi. The House Reps around Kucinich are worth voting for and contributing to.

[jeanrenoir]

Weirdly, you've left out the most negative thing of all about Lieberman: He was the neocons' ventriloquist at McCain's ear throughout the campaign, feeding him the gospel according to Israeli hawks on Iran, exactly the same way the neocons crafted their gospel according to Israeli hawks for invading Iraq. Once Obama had gotten rid of Hillary, and her eagerness to "obliterate" Iran for Israeli hawks, Lieberman had to redouble his efforts for McCain, the great Likud hope. Especially now that Obama seems determined to turn over America's foreign policy to the Queen of American hawks for Israel, Hillary, it is imperative that all of us focus on the awesome danger to us and the world economy involved in bombing Iran. Iraq has been the greatest fiasco in the history of American foreign policy, because it was engendered not to help America, which it has hurt immeasurably, but to "help" Israel, which is has also hurt. Now the same neocon "geniuses" who brought us Iraq are doing their dead level best to bring us an even more devastating disaster for us and the world in Iran. We've got to do all in our power to stop them this time, even if it means radically opposing Obama and Hillary (and their new best friend, Lieberman). There should be huge demonstrations against bombing Iran, since our economy, and the world's, will simply be wiped out, once and for all, if we bomb Iran.

[iyamchazz]

Joe is history and Iran will not be bombed.
No need for paranoia.

[LiberTLover]

Lieberman didn't think Obama could win so he went with McCain, figuring he could get himself a VP slot or equally choicy position. When it became more clear that he had guessed wrong, his rhetoric got worse in his desperation to achieve his own ambitions. And now that he is gloating about essentially being a traitor and getting away with it, he should enjoy it while it lasts. Karma is waiting.

[tkunz]

Although I voted for the Green Party in the Presidential Race, I am an admirer of both McCain and Obama. The thing that really caught my attention during the closing days of the campaign when the outcome was all but assured and McCain was making his final, futile but gutsy stump speaches was his friend, Joe Lieberman, standing in back of him and just looking sadly but respectfully at McCain with genuine admiration and compassion. I have not liked a lot of Lieberman's views, but unlike most of his lock-step critics, he thinks for himself, takes a stand, displays loyalty and has the courage stick to his beliefs -- and not just hide behind a keyboard and a mouse.

[MARTYB]

Thank you for a wonderful blog, apparently only 13 senators have any REAL principals, and i have
heard "politics is politics" but you know sometimes it is not.

[scooperss]

RIGHT!

[dadw5boys]

Joe knows now he can not get re-elected as a Republican after they have crashed the markets just to try and break the big unions !!!!!!

[mergina]

Thank you. He is a republican. He has always been a republican in dem clothing. Oh if only Gore had chosen ANYONE ELSE as a running mate, we may never had had bush and cheney in office, never been attacked on 9-11, never had a war with iraq or afghanistan, never had anyone die of anthrax, never had tax cuts stolen for the rich few, never would have had 8 years of rolling back environmental laws, never would have created this sickening economical mess. Oh if only Gore had chosen ANYONE ELSE.

[coreyishere]

At last, a Huffpost blogger who gets it.

[morgan1]

This article is dead center and I am pleased someone with some sanity does get it-- And Lieberman. There seems to be some consensus Lieberman is needed to get to the line of having a majority and that is why they kissed his ass after betraying the Democrat Party, slandering Obama and continuing his threesome with McCain and Bush. He must know he has had it as a Republican Politician, but giving this man a pass is unforgivable. What is worse is there is no guarantee he will back Democrats when it is needed. He should have been stripped of his position and made an example of. This is a new day for all of us and this idea of business as usual is over-- Or needs to be as this country is now Center Left and the Lieberman's have no place in it.

[MagisterLudi]

During the 2008 election cycle, Lieberman’s distributed almost $100,000 to Democratic senatorial candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politic

During the 2008 election cycle, Lieberman gave:
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee-$30.000
Mark Pryor of Arkansas--- $15,000
Max Baucus of Montana--$10,000
Tim Johnson of South Dakota $10,000
Carl Levin of Michigan-$5.000
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia--$5.000
Tom Harkin of Iowa --- $5.000
Mark Udall of Colorado-$5.000

[MagisterLudi]

Here's a heads up for those who are still having trouble mastering the lower end of Bloom's Taxonomy.
1. If Dems would have reached 60 without Lieberman--he would be out. Well, in didn't happen. But why give Repubes a freebie?
3. Lieberman votes with Dems on pretty much everything but the war. He's more pro labor than Obama. Therefore, he was stripped of the foreign policy committee leadership and kept in domestic. Now he can be controlled via this remaining leadership. Smart, very smart.