Lieberman Holds Democratic Party Hostage

Photos

SayNotoJoe.jpg

see larger image

uploaded by matthewnstoller

Karl Rove and other know-nothings in Washington are citing Joe Lieberman's victory over Ned Lamont as proof that opposition to the Iraq War is not as universal as the polls suggest.

As a Connecticut native, I closely followed the Lieberman race this year and have to admit that even I was largely ambivalent about it. Yes, I voted for Lamont in the primary and the general, but his campaign never really caught fire. His entire insurgency was based on a single issue, Iraq. Apart from opposing the war, he did nothing that particularly endeared him to voters. Connecticut voted for Lieberman in spite of his support for the war, not because of it. He successfully portrayed himself as the voice of authority and experience, while Lamont did nothing to counter charges that he was inexperienced and had nothing to talk about other than Iraq. This perception was reinforced by a series of lackluster performances in the Senatorial debates.

Let's get something straight here. Even though George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, he is about as popular in these parts as a cockroach in a kitchen. As states go, they don't get much bluer than this one. But Connecticut voters are a habitual lot and barring a seismic event, they tend to stick with incumbents through thick or thin. This state isn't called the land of steady habits for nothing. Lieberman was re-elected not because he is particularly loved, but because Lamont did very little to present himself as a viable alternative. Even I found it difficult to get excited about his candidacy.

I was reflecting upon this today while watching Lieberman gloat about his victory on Meet The Press. He spent most of the interview dissing the Democratic Party and whining about how he was trying to bring the party back to the center. But not one word of criticism for the party that has just been so comprehensively rejected by the American people. To hear him drone on about the shortcomings of the Democrats, one could be excused for thinking Republicans had been acting like political moderates for the past few years and had been victorious last week.

As the interview went on, my blood began to boil. Here are a few choice excerpts:

MR. RUSSERT: The Economist magazine, here is the headline. “Stuck with Joe: Suddenly the most influential man in the Senate.” And what that refers to, senator, as you well know, the Senate is now 51 Democrats and independents; 49 Republicans. If you caucused with the Republicans rather then the Democrats, the Republicans would be in charge of the Senate.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right.

The smug, arrogant smirk on Lieberman's face when Russert called him "the most influential man in the Senate" was priceless. He is reveling in his power to hold the Democratic Party hostage by threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans if he doesn't get his own way. You see, Joe Lieberman only does what is in Joe Lieberman's best interests, and he will happily switch sides if it suits his ambitions. He views his Senate seat as an entitlement, not a privilege---something that was apparent during the senatorial debates when he became irritable every time one of his opponents questioned him. Lieberman is still upset that most Democrats supported the candidate who was nominated for their party's candidacy by Democratic voters, and he is just petty enough to make them pay.

Later in the interview, Russert explored the possibility of Lieberman switching sides:

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Jeffords of Vermont crossed over and joined the Democrats.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And they gave—they gave him his committee chairmanship.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re, you’re not ruling that out at some future time?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I’m not ruling it out, but I hope I don’t get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, “We’re doing this because we, we want you to switch over. We want you to do what we think—what you think is right, and good for our state and country,” and I appreciate that.

So he's not ruling it out. In Lieberspeak, that translates as "I'm planning to hold this threat over the party's head and will give control of the Senate to the GOP if I don't get all my own way". I wonder if the 33% of Democrats who voted for him last week would have done so had they known he might hand control of the Senate back to George W. Bush. In a blue state like Connecticut, he could never have won without the support of that 33%, which is probably why he waited until now to attach conditions to his party allegiance.

Lieberman supporters might contend that he is unlikely to ever join the Republicans, but he could have easily killed any speculation by rejecting the idea. He pointedly did not do that. Therefore, one can only conclude that he is prepared to hold the Democratic Party hostage just because the party has injured his considerable ego.

Now the initial euphoria of Tuesday's victory has faded somewhat, I am becoming very uncomfortable with the idea of Democrats controlling a 51-49 Senate. Here is why. In the House, Nancy Pelosi wields tremendous power to pass progressive legislation that benefits the American people. But much of that legislation will probably become tied up in the Senate, where at least three Democratic Senators are busy positioning themselves for a presidential run and where Joe Lieberman is essentially holding the Democratic majority hostage.

If Democratic bills become stranded in the Senate---which will certainly happen if Joe Lieberman has anything to do with it---then Republicans will be able to accuse Democrats of being ineffective, the GOP being absolved of blame now they are in the minority. That will be a powerful campaign message for them in 2008.

Therefore, I propose a radical approach that will no doubt be unpopular with many Democrats. Let's call Lieberman's bluff. Ignore him completely, shut him out of the decision-making process and dare him to switch sides. If he follows through with his threat and hands the Senate back to the Republicans, it's not as big a deal as it seems. After all, it's much more important for us to control the House, where most legislation is initiated. And as I pointed out yesterday, Republicans have to defend so many vulnerable Senate seats in 2008, we will probably win back the majority in any case.

I would rather us not control the Senate than have a whiny little primadonna like Joe Lieberman hold the entire party hostage. If he loves the Republicans so much, then let him join them. And then the Republican-controlled Senate can explain why they are not passing popular Democratic legislation. As for Lieberman, his name will become poison here in Connecticut and he will never hold elective office in this state again. He will forever be remembered in this ultra-blue state as the traitor who gave the Senate back to George W. Bush.

Lieberman might want to ask Jim Jeffords how his career panned out after he switched sides to hand over control of the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a tough old political slugger. I can't imagine that he will let himself be intimidated by Lieberman's whiny threats. Perhaps he might even tempt a GOP moderate like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe to join the Democrats. If one of them were to switch, we would have a 52-48 majority, which would make Lieberman's taunts irrelevant.