# Why are the democrats "weak willed" or "cowards" for not punishing Lieberman? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532 "2008-11-19T21:43:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/1 "2008-11-19T21:43:50Z")
I’ve seen them called cowards on this board, now Nate Silver at [fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com) is, to put it finely, declining to dispute a characterization of them as “weak-willed.” Why is this an apt characterization? If they are cowards, then there is some threat they ought to be facing up to but which they are avoiding instead. What’s that threat? If they are weak-willed, then there is some immediate but less valuable gain to be had by not punishing Lieberman, where punishing him would lead to less immediate but more valuable gains. What are the two gains here? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/2 "2008-11-19T21:50:15Z")
Could you point to where Nate Silver agrees that this is “weak willed”? I believe he says he was trying to remain agnostic on the issue and that he thought the writing was on the wall anyways. His post seems to point out that Lieberman stayed because Obama said he should stay. I would interpret that as following a strong leader. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/3 "2008-11-19T21:55:01Z")
> [@howye](#): > > Could you point to where Nate Silver agrees that this is “weak willed”? I believe he says he was trying to remain agnostic on the issue and that he thought the writing was on the wall anyways. His post seems to point out that Lieberman stayed because Obama said he should stay. I would interpret that as following a strong leader. I said Silver is declining to dispute the characterization. Here’s the immediate context: > [@](#): > > But Obama’s signal last week to extend Lieberman a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card was the immediate cause of that decision. Conversely, Obama could probably have engineered the opposite result if he’d wanted. (Nor is this to dispute the characterization of the Senate Democrats – and particularly the Majority Leader – as being somewhat weak-willed, but the practical implication of that is very different when you have a Democrat rather than a Republican in the White House.) The rest can be found at his website. (Not sure how to link to individual entries. Right now it’s at the top.) Silver’s not agreeing that the democrats are “weak-willed,” rather he’s declining to dispute that characterization. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/4 "2008-11-19T21:55:02Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If they are cowards, then there is some threat they ought to be facing up to but which they are avoiding instead. What’s that threat? They are afraid of being seen as divisive by anyone and everyone. It’s the same reason they voted for Bush’s Iraq invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/5 "2008-11-19T22:05:27Z")
[Sean Quinn was singing a bit of a different tune two weeks ago.](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/senator-you-can-have-my-answer-now-if.html) He doesn’t speak for Silver, but it’s an interesting contrast. “Cowards,” I can’t see. The idea that they’re weak - well, Lieberman was nearly the Republican VP choice, campaigned against Obama, and campaigned against at least one Democratic Senate nominee. Their response to all of that was minimal. They took away a minor position but let him keep his pride and joy post. Some posters here and elsewhere were screaming for Lieberman’s head on a stick, but politically, it’s probably the smart move to leave him where he is. Silver offered the most compelling reason not to punish him that I have seen so far: nevermind the stuff about caucuses and filibuster-proof majorities, this avoids a counterproductive distraction. There would have been endless discussion of whether or not Lieberman would quit the caucus, whether the Democrats were being intolerant, if this contradicted Obama’s inclusive message, blah blah blah. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/6 "2008-11-19T22:07:08Z")
While for those who are actually trying to participate in governing this country an imperfect friend may be preferable to an embittered enemy, to someone bloviating on the Internet there is no real downside in being an uncompromising idealogue. In fact, it generates more hits and gives them more to write about than saying, “Glad we finally put that behind us, let’s move on!” ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/7 "2008-11-19T22:35:23Z")
The Senate Democratic caucus members are neither weak-willed nor cowards for declining to punish Senator Lieberman. They are being pragmatic and realistic. What benefit does punishing Mr. Lieberman confer? Why deliberately screw up their thin majority, particularlyas they will need every vote they can get to deal with their opponents’ likely filibusters on domestic policies, for which Mr. Lieberman is a reliable ally? Expelling him from the caucus is all but giving him to the other side; so is strippng away the chairmanship he most values. His candidate lost, and Sen. Lieberman may well face costs in the next election for his defection. Why borrow trouble? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/8 "2008-11-19T22:41:32Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Expelling him from the caucus is all but giving him to the other side; so is strippng away the chairmanship he most values. Interesting that he hasn’t done jack shit with that chairmanship. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/9 "2008-11-19T22:50:49Z")
[Nate’s point](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/dear-democrats-if-you-must-blame-blame.html) mainly is that this went down how Obama wanted this to go down. > [@](#): > > Obama could probably have engineered the opposite result if he’d wanted. … to Obama’s mind, kicking him out would have been a giving both the Washington press corps and the Republicans a sort of shiny red apple, creating a huge distraction and requiring a significant expenditure of political capital. > > So how you feel about Lieberman should ultimately hinge on how you feel about Obama, and how you feel about Obama should ultimately hinge on your opinion about whether he is liable to put that political capital to good use. A fair analysis. Mind you I was expecting a bigger slap on the wrist. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/10 "2008-11-19T23:00:45Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > What benefit does punishing Mr. Lieberman confer? Because if you don’t punish disloyalty, there’s no reason for people not to be disloyal. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/11 "2008-11-19T23:02:36Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because if you don’t punish disloyalty, there’s no reason for people not to be disloyal. There are subtler ways to punish him for being disloyal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/12 "2008-11-19T23:11:12Z")
If there’s a rash of Democratic “disloyalty” in the next couple of years, I guess we can point to this decision as the reason. (The Senate tends to be less partisan than the House anyway, I think, although that gap may have narrowed in the last few years.) But I don’t think a rash of disloyalty is very likely. Things being the way they are right now, you’re more likely to see Republicans like Collins and Snowe crossing party lines. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/13 "2008-11-19T23:16:36Z")
Are the Congressional Democrats going to be called weak-willed every time they follow Obama’s lead? Obama is wise enough to rule from the political center. He wants to get things done, not purge the party. Cutting out another centrist politician because some partisans want to enforce loyalty is short-sighted. Think long: Lieberman now owes political capital to Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/14 "2008-11-19T23:28:01Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > What benefit does punishing Mr. Lieberman confer? It sends the message that you don’t go around stabbing the Democratic Party in the back if you want the Democratic Party to support you politically. Conversely, letting him keep his gavel sends the message that the Democratic Party will cave in to threats and bluster even coming from someone who is in no position to back it up (there is simply no way a Republican, or GOP-aligned independent, is going to win a Senate election in Connecticut anytime soon). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/15 "2008-11-19T23:29:49Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Think long: Lieberman now owes political capital to Obama. Lieberman owed political capital to Obama after Obama supported him rather than Lamont in 2006. We know how Lieberman paid him back for that; I see no reason to assume that he will pay this back any differently. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/16 "2008-11-19T23:31:24Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Are the Congressional Democrats going to be called weak-willed every time they follow Obama’s lead? They’re going to be called weak-willed every time they do anything. That’s what people say about Democrats when they’re not saying they hate America or whatever. If you believe Obama is being big about this, he’s being REALLY big about it, because he endorsed Lieberman in 2006 when he was running as an independent and campaigned for him. When they had their famous conversation on the Senate floor a few months ago, I imagine Obama said something like “this is how you repay me? Thanks a fucking lot.” Several times. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/17 "2008-11-19T23:43:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because if you don’t punish disloyalty, there’s no reason for people not to be disloyal. I can’t really think of an upside to party loyalty. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/18 "2008-11-19T23:48:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you believe Obama is being big about this, he’s being REALLY big about it, I guess I’m still in the honeymoon, then. I think Republicans are foolish the way they enforce party discipline. Being magnanimous and effectively telling the partisans to sheave the knives is what I hoped Obama would be like as a leader. The post-partisan, big-tent stuff we were promised. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/19 "2008-11-19T23:53:45Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I can’t really think of an upside to party loyalty. Party loyalty means that the party leadership can get their agenda through. If you want Obama and the Democrats to actually do the things they promised, you’d better hope they can get the party rank and file to go along. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532/20 "2008-11-19T23:54:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because if you don’t punish disloyalty, there’s no reason for people not to be disloyal. Yeah, maybe that works in the Klingon Empire. It ain’t an ideal environment though. I prefer people that take a stand based on some motivation other than mere party loyalty. If the party is wrong about something…or for that matter, if a member sincerely believes the party is wrong about something, that person should be allowed to speak his mind in honest debate. The needs of the country outweigh the needs of the party. heehee. Opened and closed a response to a thread in GD with Star Trek references, yet remained on reasonably on topic . 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-weak-willed-or-cowards-for-not-punishing-lieberman/473532.md?page=2)