Shodan you are simply closing your mind to the key distinctions at work in understanding this hostility to Lieberman, and substitute false reasons and revealed preferences.
Ok, this isn’t about a night of the long knives against pro-Israel Likud hawkishness. There are plenty of hawkish Democrats in that category who are in good standing within the party and AIPAC so stop trying to feed this bull about it being about a big tent.
It isn’t about the war vote either. Again, there are a large number of Democrats, who also voted for the war, who are in good standing in the party and not subject to primary challenges or huge animosity.
Ok, so now that those two supremely false chestnuts are out of the way, you’ve got to honestly ask yourself why Lieberman is disliked.
The answer is easy:
He doesn’t just have disputes with the mainstream Democratic Party on foreign policy, he actually questions their motives using completely inappropriate hyperbolic rhetoric about them being appeasers.
He doesn’t just urge a constructive engagement with the Bush Administration over Iraq in the interest of his interpretation of the US’s and Israel’s national interest, he actively censures dissent against the president as being equivalent to undermining the war effort, and by extension, labels any dissenters as being against the troops. Ok, not only is that intellectual dishonest and incoherent, it is a deep betrayal of the party.
He doesn’t just support McCain whilst recusing himself from the hurly-burly of the presidential contest, in an appropriately dignified manner like Chuck Hagel, he goes to the bloody GOP convention and throws red meat to the partisan crowd attacking Obama - the very same man who supported him in the CT race.
In short, he’s a lugubrious and disingenuous blow-hard who offers nothing constructive when any question hinges on national security or foreign policy issues about which he is profoundly ignorant.
Meh. You are assuming motivations based on a yes/no position. That is not really fair.
The Democrats held enormous power over Lieberman. Now that the Senate landscape has changed, they have no more use for him. He can vote however he pleases and be responsible to no one but his constituents.
Lieberman is a decent senator with some deep relationships. These are definitely strong assets.
But to be honest, he is just not Republican enough to make a difference. He is also too Republican on exactly the wrong issue: Iraq. If Obama is going to appoint a bipartisan cabinet, he needs people with an even greater diversity of ideas (especially economic ones) and principles but a stronger commitment to consensus and collaboration. Obama needs someone with more actual Republican meat who at the same time has a more collegial brand than Lieberman. Smokin’ Joe is not a consensus guy, he jumped ship and spit in his own party’s eye. Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing depends on where you sit. But either way, it is definitely not Obama’s style. This is a Gen Y president: we aren’t looking for a maverick here.
I confess, I just don’t understand the argument and I honestly think it is incoherent. I mean, if it’s really about having more Republican input, then why don’t fiscally conservative voices, on economics, and realist voices in foreign policy count? The OP arbitrarily rules that out as SOP, without defending it in any way.
But given that, why would Obama need another socially liberal viewpoint, if the whole appeal of this idea is that the liberal world-view is already well franchised in the Democratic leadership? It doesn’t make any sense. And if it the socially-liberal aspect of Lieberman doesn’t add value, then it can only be his neo-conservatism which is supposed a needed component of diversity.
But why in in the name of everything that is good and holy would Obama want erroneous and discredited neo-conservative foreign policy? I mean, it’s not even in the vaguely serious vein of intellectual neo-conservatism, like Max Boot or the Kagan brothers, but Joe, Bloody, know-nothing Lieberman.
In the last two elections, for the first time in almost eighty years, one party has not lost a single seat, and made zero-sum positive gains in a prolific assault on the conventional electoral map. Much of that can be directly attributed to a clear repudiation of the Bush world-view of the Iraq war, and neo-conservative ideologues like Bill Kristol. So, why in hell would it be desirable to let these just-rejected ideologues, and the Lieberman poor-man version of them, to retain their hands on the levers of power in Washington?
The Dems hate Bush. Lieberman did not. When they tried to force him into line, he flipped them off, and won. Now they can’t forgive him.
Like I said, he’s independent of them.
I understand the concept of “holding a grudge”. It is darned annoying to try a power play on someone, and then have them score and laugh in your face.
But if Obama is going to say, every time he loses a battle, “there’s someone else I can never work with again”, then he really didn’t learn anything in his time in the Senate.
I rather doubt Obama means much when he uses the term “bipartisan”. I remember some letters that went back and forth between him and McCain a while ago, where Obama was making noises about bipartisanship, but then the leaders of his party told him to scrap it and he refused to discuss the bill any longer. (Was it you, Sinaijon ,who posted it?)
If Obama wants to go it solo, fine, as mentioned. He lacks a filibuster-proof margin in Congress, so I suspect he is in for some unpleasant surprises, even if he can convince Pelosi and Reid that they better fall in line behind him on whatever.
“I’ll work with anybody, except those icky (fill in the names)”. This is “bipartisan”?
Maybe he can bring it off. Or maybe he just thinks he can.
Pseudo-centrist hand-wringing? Certainly seems that way. Republicans of that disposition are never very demanding of their party, but expect the Democrats to move the earth in providing incredibly onerous real-time counter claims to every iteration of attack that comes from their cocoon of conservative-affirmation media. They then proceed to ignore said responses when they come, and act all aloof about it still needing clarification, as if it was simple fair-mindedness.
By “understand completely”, you really mean “assert the same fallacy again with no more justification than the first time”.
The reality is kind of the opposite. They don’t need him anymore, so I expect that he will be tossed aside. Perhaps Reid is stripping him of his committee assignments as we speak. He can take his vote and go wherever he likes.
Lieberman is a great example of dogged support for a deeply unpopular international travesty. It is time for new perspectives from both sides of the aisle. Lieberman just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Shodan, you’re missing the point: whether the hostility towards Leiberman is justified is irrelevant; what matters is that it is real. If Obama is going to take the political heat for stepping to the right, it needs be for something real. Naming Joe Lieberman as Commerce secretary or some shit? Does nothing, helps nothing. Hell, the conservative cause is best served by keeping Joementum in the Senate as a moderate vote. Put him in the Cabinet and you might get Lamont as a replacement. Who does that help?
Perhaps but certainly not evident from what you actually write.
Almost amusing, your moving of your goal posts. You posited Leiberman as a good example of someone for Obama to put in the new American Administration. Not as someone generically to work with - entirely a different question.
In any event, one has a hard time thinking there is an honest proposition in this area.
Shodan, imagine McCain had won and wanted to fill out his bipartisan cabinet. Surely there are Democrats you would approve of and surely there are ones you would not. Imagine he’d come into office and was going to appoint Pelosi, Shumer, and Rangel to the administration. I can’t imagine you’d be applauding this show of bipartisanship. If, however, he’d appointed Lieberman, Jon Tester, Ben Nelson, Dave Freudenthal, and similar types of Democrats. I bet you would find this acceptable and, perhaps, commendable.
Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel are more moderate, but they are still right of center. They are also highly valuable experts in their fields. Other Republicans like Colin Powell, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc are certainly on the right and certainly campaigned against Obama, but they are still well-liked. It all has to do with tone and positioning. Lieberman specifically chose to position himself as McCain’s right hand man and gave a fierce speech at the Republican Convention. He repeatedly attacked Obama and was willing to do so on national TV. It is how he positioned himself in the campaign and the tone that his words struck. Bipartisan doesn’t mean hiring any prominent figure with an opposing viewpoint. It is about hiring people with opposing viewpoints that you can work with. I highly suspect Obama’s relationship with Lieberman has been poisoned to the point he would be ineffectual as a member of the cabinet.
There’s a reason you don’t appoint a big name in every position; you have to be able to work with people. There’s a reason Hillary and McCain won’t have positions in the Obama White House–too many big egos and people used to being out in front. Al Gore could be a popular choice for Interior secretary because he’s an environmentalist, but Dave Freudenthal would be a better choice, not only due to experience, but the fact that he’s likelier to accept not always having his name in the headlines. Same with leaders from the other party. You have to be able to work with them in the end.