Whither Lieberman?

[Ravenman]

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Democrats will retain control of the Senate in 2010, with somewhere between 52 and 55 seats, depending on who you listen to.

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with Democrats and holds an important committee chairmanship. He has also refused to rule out supporting a Republican in the race to replace Senator Dodd, and was an impediment to passing the health care bill proposal to allow early buy in to Medicare (a position he previously endorsed).

If Dems maintain control of the Senate but lose seats, will they continue this uneasy alliance with Joe Lieberman?

[Jophiel]

I'm no fan of Lieberman but I don't see much benefit in trying to push him out. That just weakens the Democratic majority and margin of votes. By in large, Lieberman is a fairly safe Democratic vote. And even in the times he made himself a pain in the ass by leveraging his position, kicking him out would have only resulted in 59 health care votes on Christmas Eve.

Has he done anything with his committee chairmanship that went against the Democratic agenda?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If Dems maintain control of the Senate but lose seats, will they continue this uneasy alliance with Joe Lieberman?

Yeah, the Senate still requires enough pragmatism that they'll work with him when they need it. Since they're down to 59 seats, he's no longer any kind of tiebreaker who they have to accommodate. If they lose a few more seats he'll still be to the left of most of the newbies on most issues.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

Lieberman is a fairly safe Democratic vote.

Except on trifles like the war and health care. But when it comes to renaming post offices, he's right there!

He won't get anything formal done to him, but Brown's election made him irrelevant, and irrelevant he'll stay. Remember that health care, watered down as it is, only passed after the Dem caucus went down to 59 votes - after they stopped having to try to cater to that egotist.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Except on trifles like the war and health care. But when it comes to renaming post offices, he's right there!

He won't get anything formal done to him, but Brown's election made him irrelevant, and irrelevant he'll stay. Remember that health care, watered down as it is, only passed after the Dem caucus went down to 59 votes - after they stopped having to try to cater to that egotist.

It passed the Senate with 60 votes. Every Republican voted against it. It would have failed if Liebermann had caucused with the GOP at the beginning of the current Congress.

It was annoying watching him try and extract his pound of flesh during the Healthcare debate, but at the end of the day chasing him off, while viscerally satisfying, would've meant no Healthcare Reform, keeping him in the party meant that we got Healthcare Reform.

He'll be up for re-election in 2012. That's the time to get rid of him and replace him with a more reliable Dem vote. Until then having him hold his current seat as a nominal Dem is far better for getting Dem priorities through Congress then driving him into the GOP would be.

[ShibbOleth]

I'm kind of hoping he withers.

[Pleonast]

I'd think the Republicans are setting an excellent example of what happens to a party that insists on ideological purity. Do the Democrats really want to give up on being a big-tent party, too?

[ElvisL1ves]

HE left THEM, remember? And not for reasons of ideology, just ego. Lieberman is not a Democrat, by his own choice.

[Pleonast]

He caucuses with the Democratic Party. The label by his name means less than that.

[ElvisL1ves]

So isn't that an example of the Dems being a "big tent party"? That they'll even let nonmembers caucus with them?

[Chronos]

He'll be up for re-election in 2012. That's the time to get rid of him and replace him with a more reliable Dem vote. Until then having him hold his current seat as a nominal Dem is far better for getting Dem priorities through Congress then driving him into the GOP would be.

Agreed. I don't think there's any chance of Connecticut re-electing him, and we can put up with him for two more years.

He caucuses with the Democratic Party. The label by his name means less than that.

Except the caucus isn't much more than a label, either. What really counts is the way he votes, and there's not much to recommend him to Democrats, there. Especially not coming from a fairly liberal state: If we had someone comparable to Lieberman from Utah or Oklahoma, it might make sense to coddle him, but from Connecticut, he's replaceable.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So isn't that an example of the Dems being a "big tent party"? That they'll even let nonmembers caucus with them?

Well, yes, that's why I implied pushing him out would be giving up on being a big-tent party.

Originally Posted by Chronos

Agreed. I don't think there's any chance of Connecticut re-electing him, and we can put up with him for two more years.

Except the caucus isn't much more than a label, either. What really counts is the way he votes, and there's not much to recommend him to Democrats, there. Especially not coming from a fairly liberal state: If we had someone comparable to Lieberman from Utah or Oklahoma, it might make sense to coddle him, but from Connecticut, he's replaceable.

I'm sure the Democrats will run someone to the left of Lieberman, but that failed once already. It might not fail next time, and then there'll be no problem. But until then, it benefits the Democratic Party to have a bigger caucus in the Senate. Trying to push him out of it simply makes the Democrats look as narrow-minded as Republicans.

[Elendil's Heir]

He's pro-choice, pro-union, pro-gay rights (including on adoptions) and pretty much a textbook Democrat on a lot of issues... but annoying and sanctimonious as hell. His embrace of Dubya, endorsement of McCain and his criticism of Obama in '08 still stick in my craw. I agree he's likely to get the boot by Conn. voters in '12 (or "choose" to retire). He was elected last time with only a plurality, and his approval rating in Conn. was a pretty pathetic 25%, last I saw. Good riddance, but not soon enough.

[ElvisL1ves]

Remember that only his ego games, leading to a very public reversal of position, caused us not to have an early Medicare buy-in in the health care bill. We do not have a public option, even that half-hearted one, solely because he put his own desire to be stroked ahead of the public interest he once claimed to represent.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

Well, yes, that's why I implied pushing him out would be giving up on being a big-tent party.

I don't think so. There's a difference between (a) being a big-tent party that can welcome people it has a lot of differences with, but that share the same basic principles, and (b) having your tent be so big that you welcome people who are opposed to your party's major long-term goals, or are opposed to your party's candidates for office.

In 2006, Lieberman ran for Senator against the Democratic Party's nominee for that office.

In 2008, Lieberman supported the McCain/Palin ticket against the Democratic ticket.

In 2010, he hasn't ruled out supporting Linda McMahon in the CT Senate race.

This guy's fundamentally not on our side. If the Dems begin January with a number of Senators that isn't particularly close to either 50 or 60, they should tell him he doesn't get his committee chairmanship* anymore, but he's welcome to caucus with the Dems if he wants to. And if he wants to walk, let him.

*BTW, it wasn't that he did anything with his Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairmanship, but that he did nothing with it. This would have been the proper committee to investigate a host of Bush-era abuses from the Katrina response to the fun and games at the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Instead, he pretty much sat on his hands, neither leading nor following, nor getting out of the way.

[ElvisL1ves]

As for his 2012 chances, check this out. Approve 25, disapprove 67.

[jayjay]

The whole concept of "big tent" was described by (I think) LBJ as "Better having them inside the tent pissing out than having them outside the tent pissing in." Unfortunately, Lieberman is generally more "Inside the tent pissing in".

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Hannoying and sanctimonious as hell

How better to provoke people to "Give in to your anger"?

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Remember that only his ego games, leading to a very public reversal of position, caused us not to have an early Medicare buy-in in the health care bill. We do not have a public option, even that half-hearted one, solely because he put his own desire to be stroked ahead of the public interest he once claimed to represent.

I don't think anyone here is saying that they love the guy. There's just little benefit to running him out of the caucus and an obvious downside to a hostile senator who didn't need to be hostile.

Had he caucused with the GOP after the 2008 elelction because Reid booted him in the rear, I sincerely doubt he'd have been a GOP vote for health care.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I love the fact that, on this board, there's a constant echo of the sentiments that the Republican party needs to embrace its centrist candidates, and expand its mindset to make it less monolithic; yet, on the other hand, when a Democratic pol is centrist, it's a sign that that pol is not on our side .

Does this suggest that the general feeling amongst leftists (the majority of the politically minded members of the SDMB, if I may be so bold) would prefer an open, big-tent version of the Republican party, and a very close minded, monolithic, Democratic party?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I love the fact that, on this board, there's a constant echo of the sentiments that the Republican party needs to embrace its centrist candidates, and expand its mindset to make it less monolithic; yet, on the other hand, when a Democratic pol is centrist, it's a sign that that pol is not on our side .

Does this suggest that the general feeling amongst leftists (the majority of the politically minded members of the SDMB, if I may be so bold) would prefer an open, big-tent version of the Republican party, and a very close minded, monolithic, Democratic party?

No.

It means that we don't mind a principled centrism that doesn't conflict with core Dem principles. We've got a Senate Majority Leader who's pro-life; we've got a bunch of Dem Congresscritters with 100% ratings from the NRA. I'm good with that.

But a lot of 'centrism' these days means either mindlessly splitting the difference (e.g. favoring the stimulus, but deciding it needed to be smaller for no particular reason), or 'hippie-bashing' - reflexively opposing an idea that progressives favor, simply because they're its most visible advocates, rather than for any rational reason. (E.g. Lieberman's already-mentioned surprise opposition to the early Medicare buy-in.)

Those sorts of bogus centrism, I'm adamantly opposed to, as are many other progressives. And I don't think it makes us any less of big-tent Democrats to be opposed to them. I think it simply makes us opposed to stupidity and obnoxiousness. Got a problem with that?

[Chronos]

I love the fact that, on this board, there's a constant echo of the sentiments that the Republican party needs to embrace its centrist candidates, and expand its mindset to make it less monolithic; yet, on the other hand, when a Democratic pol is centrist, it's a sign that that pol is not on our side .

Let's look at a moderate Republican for comparison, say Olympia Snowe. First, she still calls herself a Republican, and didn't win her seat by running against a Republican in the general election. Second, she didn't endorse the other party's presidential candidate like Lieberman did, which is pretty extreme for a politician. Third, she comes from a relatively liberal part of the country, where getting even a moderate Republican elected should be viewed as a victory by conservatives. It might make sense for the Republicans to push for far-right candidates in some place like Utah, where they can reasonably be expected to win with them, but not in Maine. Forcing Snowe out would just be stupid for the Republicans, because they're not going to get anyone better. And yet, there are a number of Republicans who are trying to do just that.

[Elendil's Heir]

Well said, Chronos. I wouldn't mind Leiberman being a centrist Democrat - hell, there are plenty of centrist Dems I like - were he not so noticeably and frequently bashing his own party and its candidates.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Those sorts of bogus centrism, I'm adamantly opposed to, as are many other progressives. And I don't think it makes us any less of big-tent Democrats to be opposed to them. I think it simply makes us opposed to stupidity and obnoxiousness. Got a problem with that?

Not in the slightest. But if's stupidity and obnoxiousness you're really opposed to, why is, say, Charlie Rangel not a bigger target than Lieberman?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Let's look at a moderate Republican for comparison, say Olympia Snowe. First, she still calls herself a Republican, and didn't win her seat by running against a Republican in the general election. Second, she didn't endorse the other party's presidential candidate like Lieberman did, which is pretty extreme for a politician. Third, she comes from a relatively liberal part of the country, where getting even a moderate Republican elected should be viewed as a victory by conservatives. It might make sense for the Republicans to push for far-right candidates in some place like Utah, where they can reasonably be expected to win with them, but not in Maine. Forcing Snowe out would just be stupid for the Republicans, because they're not going to get anyone better. And yet, there are a number of Republicans who are trying to do just that.

You make an excellent point, in practical terms. But ideologically, there's no difference between Snowe and the rest of the Republicans and Lieberman and the Dems.
But in terms of practicality, it also may help to note that when the Republican party had a large group of more liberal, Northeastern members (back in the Rockefeller years, say) the Republican party was much, much less succesfull nationally.

[Paul in Qatar]

Joe Lieberman puzzles people. I can see why. He seems to actually believe in things and act on his beliefs even when such actions are against his self-interest.

A man of principle is so rare as to cause confusion.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Joe Lieberman puzzles people. I can see why. He seems to actually believe in things and act on his beliefs even when such actions are against his self-interest.

A man of principle is so rare as to cause confusion.

I'm certainly confused. Does he believe in a Medicare buy in option?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Joe Lieberman puzzles people. I can see why. He seems to actually believe in things and act on his beliefs even when such actions are against his self-interest.

A man of principle is so rare as to cause confusion.

A Senator's job is to represent his state, and it's citizens best interests, along with the country and it's best interests. Lieberman has been no better at that than the average Senator. He was elected in the first place, and re-elected, because of his ability to 'raise money' for a political campaign. I actually like the guy myself in comparison to his colleagues, but we're still talking about a member of the US Senate, an organization for which a lack of principles seems to be prerequiste.

[Paul in Qatar]

I do not agree with Lieberman, but a man in public life ought to follow his own moral compass. Otherwise, he is simply an instrument of the mob. But consider the source, I honestly think the direct election of the Senate was a Bad Thing.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

A man of principle is so rare as to cause confusion.

For the last couple of years, his principle has been 'the Democratic party supported my opponent, so I'll fuck them over whenever an opportunity presents itself.' Which is why he's likely to lose in 2012.

[robby]

As a resident of Connecticut, I don't think that Lieberman has much chance in 2012. He won reelection in 2006 because of name recognition and his support from moderates of both parties.

Since then, however, he's done everything he can to piss off everyone in the state. Health care reform was overwhelmingly popular here, but he was against it, despite being for it previously. Lieberman was widely perceived here as holding up the whole health care bill. However, in the end, he voted for it, so he managed to tick off the conservatives in the state, too.

If Connecticut had a recall provision possible for a Senator, there's a good chance he would have been recalled last year. He is extremely unpopular these days.

Interestingly, after the 2006 election, Lieberman's supporters lost control of the party created to allow him to run as an independent, the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Today, the party's stated intent is to run candidates against Lieberman, and is actively hostile to Senator Lieberman.

[Paul in Qatar]

But you will note he took the positions he took (positions I do not support) even though he knew it would cost him. This is admirable.

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

But you will note he took the positions he took (positions I do not support) even though he knew it would cost him. This is admirable.

In health care, he supported a Medicare buy-in, then decided that he would filibuster the reform if that buy-in was included. And his reasons for opposing it never made any sense. I fail to see anything admirable. He just wants to deny the progressive wing of his own party any victory he can.

Currently, he won't even commit to not endorsing the Republican nominee for the other Connecticut Senate seat. Despite a career decrying the lack of morals in popular entertainment, he's publicly toying with supporting the former CEO of the World Wrestling Federation against his own party. Again, there's nothing to admire there.

Just because he's done unpopular things doesn't mean he's done them for a higher moral purpose. As far as I can tell, it's to out of petty vindictiveness for not supporting him after he lost his party's primary in 2006. And because he loves getting attention.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by robby

...Interestingly, after the 2006 election, Lieberman's supporters lost control of the party created to allow him to run as an independent, the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Today, the party's stated intent is to run candidates against Lieberman, and is actively hostile to Senator Lieberman.

This is just too good.

"Connecticut for Leiberman: We hate the guy!"

[jayjay]

It would be really beautiful if, because of the takeover of Connecticut for Lieberman, Lieberman had to start a NEW party for 2012.

Incidentally, the reason it was so easy to take over CfL was because there were no real members. Not even Lieberman was actually a member of CfL. Joe forgot to lock the door on his Old West storefront facade...