Blogs and Stories
Lieberman's Empty Promises
Lieberman had campaigned as a born-again antiwar advocate, telling Connecticut voters he was confident troop withdrawals from Iraq would begin by the end of the year, and that 50 percent would be home by the end of the following year. Nobody, he assured voters, wanted to bring the troops home more than him. The month after his election, he called for an immediate increase of 15,000-30,000 troops.
During his campaign, Lieberman said that it was important for him win his Senate race in order to "elect a Democratic president in 2008," and that Lamont and his supporters would "frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that." Undoubtedly, he was a good friend of John McCain for years. And he agreed with McCain about the Iraq War. But underlying his actions was bitterness against the Democrats.
Lieberman threatened to caucus with the Republicans over and over again to get his way as the decisive marginal vote in a Senate held by the Democrats by only one vote—Joe Lieberman's.
But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel. Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain’s sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senator, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents.
Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog.
- He said that "Obama has not always put country first."
- He thought it was a "good question" to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist.
- He misleadingly accused Obama of having "voted to cut off funding for our troops."
- He repeated the claim that "Hamas endorsed Obama" and said it "suggests the difference between these two candidates."
- He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the "Democrat" Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans.
Lieberman went on to deride Obama in a speech before the Republican National Convention (after promising Reid he would not do so), saying he was an "an eloquent young man" who lacked the experience to be president. Reid's office said that Lieberman's seniority within the Democratic caucus, and his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee might be in jeopardy. Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs went on CNN to declare that Lieberman engaged in "flat out lies." But Lieberman would not let up against Obama.
McCain had wanted to name Lieberman as his running mate. He would then have become the first man to run for vice president as both a Democrat and a Republican. But McCain’s handlers warned him that Republicans would not accept a Democrat on the ticket and that the right-wing would mount opposition to it on the floor of the convention. Instead, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Lieberman’s effort to secure Jewish votes for McCain, especially in Florida, were undercut by Palin’s presence. In the end, his strenuous efforts had no effect.
After the meeting between Reid and Lieberman last week, it was reported that Reid told him he was welcome to stay in the Democratic caucus if he traded in his powerful chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee for a less influential one as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Lieberman gave a press conference afterwards in which he threatened once again to caucus with the Republicans and called Reid's offer "unacceptable." But how big a threat was that? Would Lieberman join a diminished Republican minority, have no chairmanship whatsoever, and enter a party in which he could never hope to win a 2012 election in Connecticut?
Lieberman's aides say he is mulling over his options, whatever those might be. Reid says the discussions will go on. But Lieberman's call to let bygones be bygones rings as hollow as his promise to draw troops down from Iraq.
During the Bush administration, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman showed no interest whatsoever in investigating a multitude of scandals, including those of Hurricane Katrina. He abandoned his promise to investigate them after Rove helped him hold his Senate seat.
If Reid buckles to Lieberman's threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next four years. Still wielding power the turncoat would exact his revenge on the new president.
Jane Hamsher, a Connecticut native, is the founder of firedoglake.com. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet, The Nation and The American Prospect. She has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, PBS, and the BBC and is the author of the best selling book Killer Instinct. She has produced such films Natural Born Killers and Permanent Midnight, and currently lives in Washington, D.C. (She was a supporter of Ned Lamont in his race against Joe Lieberman.)
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
If Reid doesn't grow a spine and fails to push forward with stripping the Judas of his chairmanship, he'll end up paying for it himself. Never mind that CT will not re-elect this Liarman in 2012, no matter what.
What's more, now Chris Dodd is also coming out in his "defense". This is outrageous! We don't care that Judas has voted 90% with Democrats. On the major issues, such as the war, and electing our next President, he failed us, and what's more BETRAYED us miserably. And that's what counts. Also, we now have 57 seats, so no good excuse to keep him. I think we should all keep the pressure on Reid & Co, bombard them with emails and calls, lest they forget they work for the people, and their personal camaraderie in the Senate is of no importance to us. We won't stand for a traitor among us. Period!
Your comments ring hollow from a party that abandoned Lieberman. I thought the democratic party was open to all or is it all if you follow the party line.
LindaFromCT
I can't tell you how many people in CT who gave Joe the benefit of the doubt in 2006 and supported him have emphatically told me that they will NEVER vote for him again. He couldn't even be elected dog catcher. Joe's already a Republican for all practical purposes, and I think he supported McCain so vigorously because only through McCain could Joe hold any kind of office, elected or appointed, once his current term as Senator is over, since the neocons don't trust him either. Joe's over, and I think he knows this. There is no need to placate him or try to woo him back into the fold; he broke his word time and time again and even in the political world he can never be trusted again. He can never redeem himself enough to secure election again so all he has left to look forward to is troublemaking. Don't give him any platforms; give him nothing important. Joe lost his CT constituency over Iraq; he didn't accept or respect the will of those constituents; so if he doesn't play ball with the Democrats he is welcome to go over to the other side. It's time to start counting down to the time we can say "Goodnight Joe."
Lieberman-
as I sit here trying to comment
my mind becomes awash in disgust.
He's like a little boy who didn't get
the biggest piece of cake, so he threw a
tantrum and knocked over everyone else's plate.
I have long felt that Joe Lieberman was more the senator for Israel than for Connecticut. He may support the Democrats on some issues, but his sanctimoniousness drives me crazy. I say strip him of all committee chairmanships. If he wants to caucus with the Republicans, let him. If he is an honest man and votes his conscience, that means he will still vote with the Democrats 90% of the time. If not, well so be it. He has earned the right to no longer be in any position of power in the Democratic party. I have been waiting for this to happen to him for two years at least.
Sorry mgibson, just because lieberman didn't win the primaries doesn't mean he was "abandoned". When Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." He was being sarcastic. Lot's of people lost in the primaries but still remembered the term loyalty.
Lieberman has proven be totally untrustworthy and should be all but shunned. He is a disgrace to all the people who voted for him. Maybe the people of CT need to oust him in a recall.
First, a public apology would be nice. Lieberman, McCain, Palin, Bachmann et al need to apologize for the stooopid comments made during the campaign. Then, perhaps, they can be welcomed back into the human race.
Lieberman is with us on everything except everything
John McCain wore Joe Lieberman like a flag in his lapel. Joe must go!
There are two passions about senatorial politics I have that cloud my reason: 1. The hope and dream that the people of CT will realize they've been had and start a recall procedure and 2. Harry Reid loses his job as Majority leader. Hillary Clinton bumping off Reid would make the victory complete.
I don't like the idea that democrats, and I am one, have no place for dissentors. Never been a huge fan of Leiberman and complained loudly to anybody who would listen way back in 2000 when he was picked as Gore's running mate.
And that was years before he became the turncoat he is today. I can't say I'd vote for the man.
But I'd like to think our Party is beyond punishing people for their convictions.
Oh COMON!! This guy still has the nerve to want to show his face and continue in politics?!?! He is the biggest LOSER, and charlatan and turncoat I have seen in politics. He runs with Gore in 2000, then realises that Bush and his cronies might be a better bet (at the worst time in history - during the rise of probably one of the most charismatic U.S. leaders in Obama) and now he wants back after losing disgracefully whilst running alongside McCain? And his speech at the GOP Rally was dispicable. The gall he had to stand in front of all those Republicans and berated OBAMA?!?!...This guy Lieberman bought at the highs and sold at the lows. He's a MORON. And get this, the Jewish lobby actually went more for Obama. Ha! Even your own people didn't go for you Lieberman. Freedom Man. Yeah, free to do your own thing and make your own bed. Now lie in it. You ain't going nowhere. Total loser.
@bybrandy:
I agreed with you, but after reading this article and talking to a very good friend of mind that is very well versed in all things politics domestic and foreign, I've come to a different view. I wouldn't hold it against Lieberman for having his own views, but he's also blocked important investigations using both of his important chairmanships. Those are key functions of government oversight that should respected in a nonpartisan manner. There are valid, substantive reasons that Lieberman should lose his chairs and probably be kicked out of the caucus for the disrespect he's shown for his colleges and the party he supposedly supports. Be critical of your party, but if you're going to go your own way, be honest about it.
That said, I still agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your post, especially when the republican party is facing a serious leadership void, muffling the still-useful dissent that is needed in the legislature.
You know, at first, I was thinking that maybe the Democrats should "let Lieberman back in." But now reading this article, and realising that maybe if they forced him out he would have to run as a Republican in Connecticut in 2012, that would really serve him right. Personally, I find him to be one of the most repulsive members of the Senate going all the way back to Gore choosing him for VP in 2000, which will probably go down in history as the worst VP choice ever... oh wait. Anyway, I no longer see any benefit to continuing to capitulate to Lieberman's ever-devolving and petulant actions. Dodd should really rethink his position, lest it cost him political capital down the road.
Lieberman should have been given the boot long ago. He's a shameless opportunist, a man I have despised since before he was made Gore's veep.
Harry Reid and Chris Dodd are idiots if they think we need to keep him around. We have him on the ropes right now, and should demand he stay in step with the ideals of the Democratic party. He's free to switch parties now that we don't need him in the caucus.
I'm reminded of a comment I read last week in an article here-- "Politics is a team sport." If a player demonstrates a willingness to change sides in midgame, SEVERAL TIMES, you know you have someone more interested in their own play than the game. He wants to be the team star by bringing down the other players rather than upping his own game. He'll do more harm staying than he can ever do by leaving. Send him out. Reid's offer was too generous.
You know, I'm cool with other Democrats thinking Iraq is okay. I'm extremely liberal. I'm so liberal that I believe that you're allowed to disagree with me. However, at this point I just don't see how Lieberman can be trusted. Let him think what he thinks and let him say what he believes, of course. But for God's sake, Joe, keep your damn word! If you tell your constituents that you want to be senator to help ensure a Democratic victory in 2008, if you really think the Democratic candidate is a bed pick, at LEAST don't actually campaign for the Republican.
It's a pity. I admired Lieberman once upon a time, but I don't trust him anymore.
Leiberman is a politician, albeit not a very savvy one. He is Charlie Crist without the sterling principles. I say if Obama wants to use him, do so, but don't ever turn your back. The man is one vicious little dog, but dogs then have loyalty.
There are real reasons why Lieberman is a liability but good luck trying to get someone to voice them in public.
lilmama51, as far as I'm concerned, Lieberman "has all the attributes of a dog, except loyalty".
The Democratic Party would be discredited in my eyes if they buckle to Lieberman, as if he had the one vote that counts, and reward him for his vicious, underhanded behavior. It would be the clearest signal that the Democrats have total disregard for principle.
The only reason to let the traitor caucus with the Dems is that they can treat him as a traitor, asking him to leave the room whenever strategic considerations are on the table and banning him from any chair or membership of howsoever in which commission he want to take part.
Much of this is a smear. I suggest people read the article by Lieberman's former chief of staff in the Augusgt 31stWashington Post, which is referenced at my website.
BTW Lieberman voted AGAINST confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.