Is Anybody Still Surprised by Joe Lieberman?

Joe Lieberman's latest announcement that he will vote against cloture for a health care bill that includes the public option should surprise nobody, as Lieberman, in recent years, has demonstrated that his ideological home is no longer in the Democratic Party. Lieberman has also shown once again that he gets a lot more attention and a higher profile by being a Democrat and taking these positions. While he is no longer viewed as a voice of moderation, maturity and sound judgment from within the Democratic Party, as was frequently the case in the late 1990s, he is still in a stronger bargaining position, and a media favorite, because he is a Democrat.

By wavering between the two parties while never fully abandoning the Democratic Party, Lieberman has made himself far more important than he should be. If he were to formally switch parties, he would suddenly be of little interest to the Republicans as he would be just another member of the minority who would probably be suspect because his right wing credentials would not be strong enough for the Limbaugh-Palin wing of the party. Switching parties would also mean that the Democrats would finally stop courting him on the foolish hope that he will act like a Democrat when it really matters. More accurately speaking, if Lieberman were a Republican, and run that way in 2006, he would not be a senator. That Lieberman still has any power in Washington is a tribute to the failings of the Democratic Party in recent years.

It was only three years ago when Lieberman, seeking his fourth senate term encountered a primary challenge from political neophyte Ned Lamont. Lamont's candidacy was based on the notion that Lieberman, due to his support of much of President Bush's program including the war in Iraq, had been too conservative for too long and was no longer fit to be the standard bearer of the Democratic Party of Connecticut. This rather reasonable premise seemed to outrage much of the Democratic members of the senate as Senators Schumer, Clinton, Dodd and other prominent Democrats, including the then junior senator from Illinois, rushed to support the embattled Lieberman in the primary. Support for Lieberman from Democrats was one of those moments where Democratic senators showed that membership in the club was far more important than a silly thing like consistently taking positions against most of the party or supporting an unpopular Republican President as he dug the country into an ever deeper hole.

The decision of so many leaders of the Democratic Party to support a senator who while opposing most of the party on an increasing number of important issues, was still a colleague and, presumably, a friend, was a mistake, but that mistake was compounded by the failure of any of these prominent Democrats to insist that Lieberman back the winner of the primary before agreeing to support him in that primary. This kind of agreement is very common in primaries and one of the things which helps hold the party together. By not demanding this as a condition for their endorsement, all these Democratic leaders opened the doors for Lieberman, after losing the primary to Lamont, to continue to contest the general election. Most of those prominent Democrats endorsed Lamont after he won the primary, but because they had not done their political work in advance, had much less leverage with Lieberman as they should have.

Lieberman, of course, went on to win that election as an independent. He made this decision to oppose the Democratic Party nominee partially because he correctly assumed that win or lose there would be no consequences from the leadership of the Democratic Party for any of his actions. He was, of course, right as the Democrats welcomed him and even courted him as part of their efforts to retake the senate after the 2006 election.

Since his election as an independent in 2006, Lieberman has successfully reinvented himself as every Republican's favorite Democrat, always available to endorse a Republican candidate, or support the Republican position on a piece of legislation, but somehow still managing to generate more media attention because he is nominally a Democrat. Lieberman, for example, repaid that senator from Illinois for his 2006 primary endorsement by endorsing his Republican opponent in the 2008 presidential election.

It is astounding that as late as 2009, some still considered Lieberman a Democrat and believed that by offering him good committee assignments, Lieberman could be convinced to work with the Democrats on needed legislation. Lieberman's latest pronouncement makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, what was clear to many a few years ago. There is no sense pursuing Lieberman's support or offering him any incentives because when he is needed most by the Democratic Party he can only be depended to abandon the party, its goals and its leaders.

 

Comments

[DAE]

The question should be. Is anyone still surprised by Obama supporting Lieberman?

[ckdogs]

He should lose his committee leadership positions.

[BuckCarson]

Regardless of how is perceived in the Senate, his press releases are perceived by the people as emanating from a wise person fluent and influential in the Democratic party.

A year ago this wouldn't have mattered, but the ever increasing influence of the tea baggers has changed the game to his favor.

[buckcable]

Lieberman is still angry about the 2004 Presidential Campaign. I'm sure he thought he was next in line to get the Democratic nomination but things just didn't work out for him. Since then, he supported Bush for four years and done everything he could to sabotage his party and protect his political contributors. He's just another member of Congress that says one thing and does the other.

The Democrtas don't need him. They should just cut him loose and let him stew with his thoughts of grandeur.

[mhazard]

Imagine if he were president. He would be worse than Bush.

[JayDDrew]

I agree. Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Lieberman and Specter are dangerous.
The magic 60 number is just a number - the Dems can never depend on all sixty of their members agreeing on anything relevant, so why not boot Specter and Lieberman? They'll never be there when you need them and they'll stab you in the back when you need them the most.

[kteachums]

I don't think he should be in any position of leadership within the Democratic Party. He is definitely a member of the opposite party, the party of "no". How could he pull the entire rug out from under the Democrats who have been working so hard for this reform. He is a traitor! The people who support him will see him as such. I wonder how much he was paid?

[Aurical]

I can see some "blue dogs" that may do some things they may not want to because of where they live, (in a red state), but Joe? He is in one of the bluest places on the map and is going against his party, constituents, his country's mandate and against himself. Not 3 years ago he was talking about people having the same care that he had, but he has government run health care.

[mhazard]

I don't know how he sleeps at night. He apparently has no conscience and being a spoiler is right up his alley.

After all, doesn't he have the best of both worlds? He can go dem or repub depending who has the most to offer him.

They need to get him OUT of congress altogether.

[emsique]

He sleeps on a big pile of money he has gotten from the insurance industry.

[really47]

I think Senator Joe has given alot--from his personality..there was a time he musta' felt that God was worth while..along the way,,ya' learn that people just want a easy answer for the ambitious roles..I think Connecticut has ATTN. General's that just don't fall into such--CAPT­IONS--as,,­the language has gone..into­..Lieing&C­heating..t­he population likes to explain..the CENSUS--as theirs..all the while--they are cowardly explaining their failure too be--active in the proper roles..Senator Joe Knows,,ATTN. General Richard Blumenthal­..knows..t­he rest is a record.

[Romeover]

ROFL. Amazingly incoherent.

[Rosanneofpgh]

I agree! Its like really strung words together that make no sense at all but you know its English. (scratching head)

[EuroMom]

Is that you, Sarah? (And are you really 47? Thought so...)

[VANDERGRAAFK]

Whether it's Liebermann, Lincoln, Landrieu or Nelson does it really matter? Let these clowns try to extort Harry Reid for favors and gut a health insurance bill that is already a Rube Goldberg contraption. And, then, if such a watered down piece of garbage that only benefits the insurance industry survives a House-Senate committee, then Obama should have the audacity to veto such trash. The Senate and its arcane rules are not fit for democracy. It's bad enough that Wyoming has as much say as California.

Since a lot of mountain states are opposed to the reform - and exhibit high rates of the uninsured - I can at least accept the opt out provision, especially if the Senators opt out of their health insurance. As for Liebermann and his crass defense of Aetna et al, let's strip him of his chairmanship and not allow him to caucus with the Democrats. For the blue dogs, let's let the dogs out and run candidates against them next time they are up.

But, most importantly, it's time for Obama to use his bully-pulpit to press for change. Change the Senate rules that allow for filibusters. Get rid of qualified majorities required to invoke cloture. And, since the Democrats are in control, let's do it now while they still have a large majority. Now, that's change you can believe in!

[BocaMom]

Let's get rid of all the Blue Dogs in Congress! We don't need them!

[realpolitic]

Lieberman must have no friends at all in the senate. Southern Republicans likely see him as jst another northeastern liberal. Democrats know him as a traitor. Lieberman joined the gang of 14, so Bush judicial nominees could not be filibustered. Now he is ready to filibuster a health care bill with a public option that is widely popular in his home state. Whom is Lieberman working for besides corporate America and as a ideological opponent to Democrats? His disloyalty should have consequences. Strip him of his committee chairmanship and back a real Democrat for his senate seat in the 2014 election.

[rjcrane]

While this article is accurate in what it claims and I agree with with Mitchell's statements and opinions what is missing from this article to me is more relevant. What was omitted is this: About 1/3 of the Senate Democrats either continued to support Lieberman's bid to win reelection AFTER he lost the primary to Lamont and chose to run as an Independent or wouldn't come out and support Lamont at all. This list of about 14 Senators included these that I can still remember after several years: Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Barbara Mukulski, Jeff Bingaman, and Carper. I think Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor and Blanche Lincoln were also on this list . One of the primary reasons that Lamont lost this election and why we don't have a better Democratic Senator who would have supported the public option and wouldn't be beating the drums for another war with Iran, is because these Dem Senators and Dem leadership did absolutely nothing to help Lamont win and allowed Lieberman to campaign as being able to keep his seniority in the Dem Party if he won.

What also should be mentioned is that both Hillary Clinton and then Senator Obama did help Ned Lamont after he won the primary by giving money and some other support so I don't blame them as much as the 14 other Senate Dems who helped install LIeberman by their actions and inactions to defeat Lamont as the Dem nominee.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[mhazard]

No foresight there. And hindsight's 20/20.

[ratmonkey1]

rjcrane: You forgot to mention that the Republicans failed to
support a canidate instead voted for Joe. That's why he won
& Conneticut is stuck with this creepy man.

[daddysboy]

Thank you for a well-written, timely analysis that should put some people's ill-conceived notions about lieberman to bed for good hopefully. For me, I lost just about all of the pittance of respect I had remaining for the Democrat party when their members appeared to lose all connection with their principles and any stated mission in supporting lieberman. It really looked like they were actually so naive as to think that they could secure a voting super-majority with a waffling, self-absorbed political opportunist. Recently, the open raves about Olympia Snow making an extremely modest, momentary aisle-crossing proved that this is apparently, deep-seated naiveté that is quite stunning to witness from senior members of our federal congress.

[mhazard]

I agree whole-heartedly. Olympia's gesture means nothing, since she has already stated her opposition to public option of any kind. She was just hurrying things along so that Joe could play his game.

[Hemihead]

The Health Care reform bills currently before Congress cost anywhere between 1.4 trillion
( that's 1.4 million, million dollars,) and 2 trillion dollars. How are they going to be paid for? Lieberman and the others opposed to the public option know that Health insurance profits are only 2.2% of revenues received, and the CEO salaries of Health Insurance Executives only add 0.1% to that.

So, even if a public option wouldn't have to make a profit, it would lose, in bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency more than it would save by eliminating profits.

But even if they could save that 2.3%, you would have to come up with a way to pay for this legislation somehow.

All the proposals raise taxes on people that currently are covered by taxing their policies, and also raise the costs to business by taxing the policies they give to their employees. And businesses which currently don't offer insurance would have to pay $8,000 per employee to enroll them in the public option. This, no doubt, will cause businesses to lay off more workers.

What good is it to insure one person if it costs another person his job?

The whole purpose of Health insurance reform is supposed to be to lower the price of health care insurance and to increase access.

The bills currently before Congress do none of that.

[PresWatch]

What's your source for the 2.3% profit?

[cybexg]

CBO paints very different numbers. Please list your source (and please have it be a impartial source) or, abandon your point

[VANDERGRAAFK]

Actually, according to a recent Associated Press article, health care industry profits on average are only about 4%. This is certainly better than the grocery industry, but not as good as some others. However, included in costs are the 20 - 25% administrative costs that are used to pay high executive salaries, root out fraud and deny people access to certain procedures and search for pre-existing conditions that make moot many insurance policies. The industry also devotes a large amount of money to lobbying to keep this mess the way it is.

Frankly, in this regard, net profit is hardly a good indicator of the importance that this industry has in defining health insurance in this country.

[mhazard]

So why was he so hot for it in 2006 to the point that he promised this reform to his constituents? He is a flat-out liar and he deserves no position in congress. He should be recalled by the citizens of Connecticut. NOW!!

[Romeover]

Half-a-head, it isn't the profits that health insurance companies take, it's the expenses: 20-30% of every dollar spent on overhead.

[Billie]

It's clear Lieberman values his wallet over the will of his constituents for healthcare reform. And what is most horrible is that because of his selfishness and greed and betrayal, people will suffer if he successfully blocks this reform.

[SyntaxError]

Lieberman should have been censured after the 2008 election when he stabbed Obama in the back by endorsing McCain but instead, the dems decided to kiss up to him yet again. Norman Lear is 100% correct when he says that Lieberman is a "backpfeif­engesicht"­.

The Urban Dictionary defines a backpfeifengesicht as: "A face badly in need of a fist" meaning this is a person that needs to be punched. Alternate translations list the given action as "slap" rather than "punch" or the given weapon as "crowbar" rather than "fist". IMHO, this fits Lieberman to a "T".

[kimleehan]

Have you ever seen a portrait of Benedict Arnold, Lieberman has a strange resemblance to him, Both were born and raised in Connecticut as was P.T. Barnum.