Joe Lieberman: Emperor of the Senate?

Great Debates
161

I think by asking for this kind of evidence, you’re barking up the wrong tree. What exactly is the question at issue here? It’s not what Lieberman’s objective status on the liberal-conservative scale is.

If what you’re really interested in is the answer to this question:

You’re not going to get the answer by analyzing how conservative Lieberman is compared to other Democrats or to the Senate as a whole. You’re

It’s not an issue of Lieberman being the most conservative Democrat. It’s not about objective words criticizing liberals or fellow Democrats. It’s about Lieberman using his face time in ways that, mostly by implication, make liberals or other Democrats look bad. It’s about one Democrat making it harder for fellow Democrats to pursue their policy goals, most of which he agrees with. It’s about being a media hog in a way that doesn’t help move the ball in the Democrats’ direction.

It’s not only that he, like many other Democratic senators, supported the war initially. It’s his dare-to-be-stupid continued support of the war in the face of debacle. It’s his implication that criticism of the president is disloyal. (December 2005: “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander in chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.” Also (don’t have the date for it), criticizing Democrats for being “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than in winning the war.)

When it came time for all men of good conscience to be outraged at our troops’ behaviour at Abu Ghraib, Lieberman took the opportunity to be Rumsfeld’s apologist: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” He supported Gonzales’s position on torture and unreviewed detentions.

Lieberman voted to confirm Roberts, Gonzales, and that pinnacle of incompetence Condoleeza Rice. He lectured Democrats who voted against Rice in a bizarrely sentimental way while still coming off self-righteous: “In times like these it is important that the world not only knows that this secretary of state has the ear of the president, but that she has – if you will allow me to put it this way – America’s heart.” He voted against the filibuster of Alito. He voted for the Bush energy bill.

After John Murtha (not exactly your father’s left-winger) concludes Iraq is a disaster, Lieberman says everything’s peachy. (“Our Troops Must Stay,” editorial by U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Nov. 29, 2005.)

When rumours circulated that Lieberman would be the next secretary of defense, Lieberman pointedly failed to say in a clear and unambiguous manner the one thing any conscientious Democrat should have said: “I will never accept a job in the Bush administration.”

And the capper on this is his defying of the Connecticut Democratic party’s will and running against the party’s endorsed candidate.

Personality wise, Lieberman’s a dick and a weasel. He cancelled an appearance at some ethnic-related event and when asked why he said something like – Don’t write about it or if you do say it was my staff’s fault.

162

He has said he’ll caucus with the Dems something like a dozen times since he won. Three times in just that interview*. Over & over & over. How many times does he need to say it?

His “coyness” was one hypothetical answer to one hypothetical question, in the midst of three statements soldily confirming he’ll stay loyal. Odd that you choose to ignore those three non-hypothetical statements and can only see that one hypothetical answer.

Here is something like NINE times that Sen Lieberman has made it clear he will caucus with the Dems:
*"*MR. RUSSERT: You will caucus with the Democrats?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I will caucus with the Democrats. I said that to my constituents throughout. I’m going to caucus with the Democrats …MR. RUSSERT: And yet you’re caucusing as a Democrat.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, it’s, it’s for the reasons that I’ve—that I’ve stated. But it also explains why I consider myself to be an Independent Democrat…SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I, I’ve already given my commitment, and I said to my constituents during the campaign that I would organize with the Democrats for the reason I said…"*

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/0...fV5P1iXNyo9W9yw
"Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who was re-elected as an independent after losing his Democratic Party primary, is staying in the fold.

Lieberman said Wednesday that he is “definitely going to organize with the Senate Democratic caucus.”

After talking with Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Wednesday morning, Lieberman said he was assured that he would retain his seniority on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and be named chairman if Democrats control the chamber.

“To maintain my seniority, you know, you’ve got to join a caucus,” Lieberman said. “I’m going to organize with the Democrats.”

Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, also signalled that Reid would support Lieberman for the top Democratic post on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — a move that Reid refused to make before the election.

“I expect Senator Lieberman to be the next chairman,” Manley said.

Lieberman reminded reporters that he has such a good relationship with current Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, that she campaigned for him.

In a congratulatory call, Lieberman said, “She said, ‘Now the only thing I’m worried about is that you actually might end up the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.’ ”"

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/new...local-headlines

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/n...ics&oref=slogin
"Mr. Lieberman said he spoke Wednesday morning to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and that Mr. Reid assured him that he would retain his seniority despite having bolted the party after losing its primary in August to run on his own party line. …There were no calls from the White House, Mr. Lieberman said, or offers to court him away from the Democratic caucus in the Senate. And even if there were, Mr. Lieberman said, he would not accept. Asked if there were anything Republicans could do to persuade him to switch parties, Mr. Lieberman responded with a sly smile.

“There’s a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it’s too serious,” he said. **“The answer is no.” ** Indeed, though Mr. Lieberman’s news conference was completed moments before President Bush’s announcement that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would resign, he went out of his way to make it clear, again, that he was not interested in that job — or any other post in the Bush administration.

“I would reject any offer, which has not come, and, I believe, will not come,” he said.

163

One of us understands what ‘hypothetical’ means, and it isn’t you.

It’s got nothing to do with who is the rightmost Dem. It has to do with which Dem attacks his own party far more than any other Dem elected to national office.

I’m quite aware that Ben Nelson’s votes are more conservative, on the whole, than Loserman’s. But Ben Nelson isn’t going to accuse persons in his own party of betraying America simply because they disagree with him over a major issue.

164

No, because I never said they said that in so many words, and I wasn’t being specific to Joe at that point anyway:

Emphasis not in original.

But here’s what Lieberman said the day after the primary, just as one for-instance:

165

Neither has Sen Lieberman. That quote that acsenray gave ": “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander in chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.” is hardly an accustation of “betraying America”. It’s a fact- GWB *will * be the CinC for (now) two more years. And, it can be dangerous. But of course, the main problem is that it’s taken out of context. The rest of the quote: “It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war. It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration.” And, no matter how I try, that’s all I can get. That line has ben quoted over and over and over and over (something like 10000 hits for that exact wording!), never in context I can find. Sen Lieberman has said zillions of lines, it’s funny how that one line is quoted over and over and over, and none of the others.

Joe was lambasting both sides, and said we all need to work together to solve Iraq. That is true- both parties DO need to work together on this, even if I dislike Joe’s ideas on how to solve Iraq.

Do I like Sen Lieberman’s support of Iraq? No. That doesn’t make him evil.

166

So, it “basically” amounts to it, but it doesn’t actually amount to it? Who was it above who accused Lieberman of using weasel words?

Surely you can think of at least one more ad hominem to ad to that argument, can’t you? Three makes for a pretty weak argument.

167

An ad hominem argument is directed to the arguer, not to the subject. If, for instance, I were to make some reference to your gambling problem as a means to undermine your position, that would be an ad hominem argument. Which I would never do, of course, since I do not make such of dishonorable arguments.

Neither am I easily offended, or I would resent your implication.

168

Wanna bet? :smiley:

Seriously, it needned be directed at the arguer (emphasis added):

169

Again, you ignore the implication. The fact that Lieberman felt he had to remind liberals, Democrats, Americans everywhere of the simple constitutional fact of Bush’s term is a slap in the face to our intelligence, logical capacities, and a strike at our integrity.

No, that’s not a problem at all. It’s irrelevant that he’s also criticizing Republicans. A Democrat criticizing Republicans does no harm to Democrats. The act of holding Democrats and Republicans equally culpable is an insult to the facts (Democrats controlled nothing so could not be responsible for policy errors) and undermines the ability of an opposition to effectively oppose errors on the part of the administration. It’s exactly the same thing when the media reports Republican wrongdoing and immediately (and unjustifiably) supplements it “but Democrats are just as bad.” It effectively lets the wrongdoers off the hook.

In other words: “Abandon your own position on the war and help the president pursue his policy goals, because anything else is hurting America.”

Why is it funny? It’s the most blatant example of Lieberman actively working against his own party.

Another truism that is entirely content-free for its literal meaning but significant for its implications. What it means implicitly is “Abandon your own considered opnion, that the war is a mistake and even if it wasn’t the administration has botched it through incompetency, corruption, and general immorality and instead help give the administration cover, like me, the wonderful bipartisan angel that I am.”

Evil? Who ever said “evil”? It is, however, a very good reason to wish that he had lost his bid for re-election.

170

Huh?? I meant what I said. You seem to have imputed more to that particular part than I actually said. “Basically amounts to” as in “Basically” and “amounts to” with the latter being roughly synonymous with “sums to.”

I try to use words precisely, which is exactly what I’m accusing Lieberman of doing: meaning what he says.

BTW, I was trying to explain to DrDeth why a lot of Dems are mad at Loserman. At this point, we’ve had this “why are libruls mad at Loserman” discussion on this board probably seven or eight times. This is in fact why I’m mad at him, and why a lot of others are mad at him. You want a cite that lots of others are mad at him for similar reasons to mine, I’ll be happy to direct you to appropriate threads at DailyKos, Firedoglake, Eschaton, and other popular liberal blogs.

What I’m claiming here is that I and a bunch of others are mad at Lieberman, the DLC crowd, and their fellow travelers, because of X, Y, and Z. The claim’s about why the hostility, not whether the hostility is in turn point-by-point justified.

Besides, we’ve been over that ground in some of the previous “why are libruls mad at Loserman” threads, and I see no need to do that yet again.

171

OK, you’re right: Lieberman’s now a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party, whose members are Hadassah and himself. I guess he hasn’t made those accusations about either himself or his wife; he made them about Democrats. See the last quote in post 164.

172

And, furthermore, anyone in opposition should object to this as a guiding principle of office.

From January 2003 to January 2007, the Democratic party has controlled exactly zero branches of the federal government. That means every action of every legislative or executive agency was effected by Republican ideals, goals, reasoning, and decision-making. The Democrats could make no executive policy decisions and could pass no legislation (without the assent of the Republican majority).

So the Democrats’ only function during this time was as opposition. And what power, what responsibility does an opposition in a democratic government have? To shine light on the majority’s erroneous decisions and deeds and speak out against them. What does Lieberman’s call for bipartisanship mean? It effectively means, “shut up and get with the program.” It’s effectively a call for the end of open democratic debate on the part of members of his own party. Can you not see what the difference is between President Bush saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” and Lieberman saying “Even if you think he’s wrong, you’ve got to help him out”?

173

You lost me. You seem to be saying that because you are talking about a group of people and why they think thusly, you don’t have to provide cites for it even though you are part of that group. But let’s look at each claim individually:

While it’s technically possible to prove or disprove this, no one is actually going to do so because you’d have to sit down and analyze every time he “aims his guns”. Frankly, that smacks of the 1th commandment-- thou shalt not criticize a fellow Democrat. We need more self criticism in both parties, not less.

I think the exact opposite is happening. You are trying to decide how liberal a person must be in order still to be considered a “real” Democrat. Lieberman is sipmly arguing for a big tent, not saying that everyone must stand with him in the same corner of that tent. Kick out the centrists and the DLC members, and the Dems will be a minor, regional party.

No, because Lieberman himself often criticizes the GOP. Again, I think it’s the fact that he dares to criticize his own party that gets your gander up.

This may be true in the one narrow instance of undermining Bush’s credibility wrt Iraq policy, but not on anything else. You’re making an unjustified sweeping generalization.

174

The CT Constitution doesn’t appear to have a recall provision. Not that it would be likely to happen, since his support seems to be more personal than partisan.

So how *do * the Reps feel about knowing their support of a faithless egoist has cost them control of the Senate agenda? Was that Evil Genius Rove’s idea?

Attempting to drastically narrow the subject matter sufficiently to have a superficially-defensible position is a **Bricker ** tactic. You’re simply wrong. Deal with it, okay?

You want a medal for doing that once in a while? It’s what’s *expected * before one posts, if one isn’t sure (or even if one is).

175

Narrow? I suppose, in the sense that criticizing Dr. Lecter for his dining peculiarities might be considered “narrow”.

Iraq is the big issue, it clouds the sky, it blocks out the sun. We progressives are going to be in the ghastly position of being unable to apportion moneys for worthwhile and worthy causes because the money is gone, pissed away in the Godforsaken Desert. You will recall, I am sure, that none of the money squandered actually appears in the budgets, its all borrowed. How much? I don’t know, you don’t know, and they ain’t about to let us find out.

We’re going to take some big goddam hits. Iraq is almost certainly going straight to Hell, the only question is whether our own people go with them. That is a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow we must. And you know as well as I that the first words out of the Bushiviks mouth is going to be: “Well, we would have won, but the Liberals wouldn’t let us, they tied out hands, just like in Viet Nam…”

And we will have to raise taxes. We will have to, there is no other option. And they’re going to shit on us for that too. We needed Joe to put his shoulder to the wheel, and he elected to pour sand into the axle grease.

We needed him to be a team player. His *country * needed him to be a team player. We don’t trust him, and we have good reason.

176

We go over this every time. Fine, then say he aims his guns left on the issue of Iraq and that he thinks the Dems are wronghead on Iraq and that he needs to oppose the GOP on Iraq. **RTF **made those comments in general, not just about the issue of Iraq. I have to wonder, though, if he’d agree that it’s just Iraq.

177

Regardless of whether a state allows recall elections, a member of the U.S. Congress may not be recalled as there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for such.

178

That’s an unusual interpretation of:

IOW, cites provided on demand.

179

But not of:

Which was in the same post.

180

This New York Times article emphasizes that Democrats are definitely feeling the need to kiss up to Lieberman, and that there are some hurt feelings here.