by publius
I’m not exactly a huge Joe-Momentum fan. But up until now, I’ve disagreed with calls to strip him of seniority and committee assignments. As long as he cast his first vote for Harry Reid, I frankly didn’t care what he did or what he said on the Sunday talk shows. In fact, I favored giving him room to be as wankerous as he wanna be, so long as it kept him inside the tent.
But that said, actively supporting the Republican nominee for President crosses a line. If I were Reid, I would (quietly at first) tell him to knock it off. And if he doesn’t, he should be stripped of everything next term. Let his transformation to Republican become complete.
And there’s more here involved than just personal dislike for a spoiled, bitter man whose pettiness and self-righteousness knows no bounds. There’s a very real chance that John McCain will be President next year, alongside a Democratic Congress. If Dems can’t get Joe-Momentum’s crucial Oversight Committee to lift a finger against Bush, then it certainly won’t take steps against his BFF McCain.
Again, I’m not necessarily for all-out public embarrassment, yet. But Lieberman needs to understand that this choice will — if it continues — result in consequences. And if he bolts the party, let him bolt. It makes it easier to beat him next time around.
On an aside, maybe Jonathan Chait could weigh in to remind us why supporting Lamont was such a silly thing to do.
I agree but it should have already happened.
Joe won’t be running for re-election in my opinion. He knows he has no chance.
I would hope that, whoever you’re supporting in the presidential contest, all Democrats will save some love and money for the Senate candidates… simply because doing so could grant us the exquisite pleasure of kicking that sanctimonious prick out of the Democratic caucus next January.
Yep. Strip him of his committee assignments. He left our party of his own volition. We owe him nothing.
(And note: we could do this without affecting the Senate majority, under the rules governing this session.)
Are we talking about the “crushing of dissent” here?
I thought dissent was a good thing.
I forgot to mention…
Don’t we like Obama for his “ability” to reach across party lines?
We like Obama because he wants to unite us as a country, but we dislike Joe because he is actually doing it.
no, we are talking about removing institutional party privileges from someone actively seeking to cause that party to lose. enormous difference
And this goes beyond Hagel style criticism. THis is active endorsement and support for the GOP nominee. This is Zell Country
Ferraro, Lieberman…what happens to you when you are an unelected Democratic VP that makes you go totally bonkers?
(and i could be wrong, but I think Zell Miller ran with Glover Cleveland once, so that’s three examples)
Are you saying we should punish those who have opinions different than the ones we hold?
Shouldn’t we applaud the diversity of opinions and not punish those who might hold them.
If only Bush would have listened to the generals instead of firing them. Maybe the Democrats can show us how to do that properly with respect to Joe.
diversity of opinion
Publius, I think endorsing and campaigning with McCain is already well over the line, and I don’t understand why any second chance should be necessary.
“But Lieberman needs to understand that this choice will — if it continues — result in consequences.”
Ya know, it’s just possible that Joe is demonstrating to YOU that choices have consequences. In this case, the choice to hound him out of the party.
How was he hounded out of the party? He lost a primary. Happens to politicians all the time. Most of them accept the decision of the electorate, stay within their party, and continue with their careers. (Look at Dean.) Lieberman left of his own free choice.
crr: I had no idea that stripping someone of privileges bestowed by a party constituted “crushing”, or that Democrats somehow had to tolerate dissent not just on a broad range of issues, but on the specific question whether or not they should win. Who knew?
Brett: if a primary challenge constitutes “hounding someone out of the party”, even when that party has nominated the houndee for the VP-ship, then there aren’t many un-hounded people in office.
it’s cute to watch Republicans defend Lieberman, after watching them excoriate McCain for not being conservative enough.
that’s right boys, teach us dirty libs all about the virtues of dissent within the party.
More like the choice not to support Lamont sufficiently in the general, out of a sense of collegiality. Senate Democrats didn’t have much to do with Lieberman’s primary loss. That was up to the Democratic voters of Connecticut.
” In this case, the choice to hound him out of the party.”
Yes by having Bill and Hillary, Dean and just about every party bigwig go to CT and campaign for him.
Looks like the conservative rewrite of history post 2000 is in full swing!
I don’t care what anyone says, Joe Lieberman and all other incumbents are entitled to their seats in Congress for as long as they want them, without challenge. Just like Brett says.
Must go stuff envelopes, so no time to seek the answers myself, but maybe someone here will be inspired to:
Has Lieberman’s committee held any hearings at all on anything since the 101st Congress convened? If so, what?
Has Lieberman’s committee held any hearings at all on anything since the 101st Congress convened? If so, what?
their schedule is pretty busy. don’t know what they’ve actually done, though.
I’m not necessarily for all-out public embarrassment.
I am.
OT: OMFG
crr,
I regret to inform you that Mr. Lieberman is no longer participating in the Committee for General American Advancement in Bipartisan Principles and Things, and may in fact have fallen off of the corn-flake heavy diet that allowed him to resist the evils of partisanship. It is possible that he still remembers himself as a clear-sighted neutral-doer but as a member of that exalted bipartisan forum for expertise and Americanism I feel I must point out that he is no longer working in the best interest of middlish centricity, nor has he paid the substantial dues owing to the committee that would support our general efforts to immanentize a more bipartisan consciousness in American affairs. I hope that you will take this missive in the unchallengeable and unquestionably balanced spirit in which it was meant; and with heartfelt wishes for your joy in all things and your ability to split the difference between any troublesome agendas that might come your way, I sign myself,
Jenna
bipartisan expert
Committee for General American Advancement in Bipartisan Principles and Things, LLC
OT: OMFG
Didn’t watch, but I assume it’s full of all sorts racial stereotyping?
You mean like your last Lieberman electability prognostication during the 2006 elections, when you said: “All in all, I think Joe Lieberman is toast.” ??
Except the toast got an ample supply of jam spread on it, as he cruised into office, and probably will again if he runs as an independent.
Even if reminded, you won’t listen. Because his criticism of the lefty-blogger fanatics (if the shoe fits…) who supported Lamont now applies to the Obama supporters (…wear it).
Jonathan Chait: “… the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman’s sins. It’s a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent.”
But you’re probably right about this: McCain ends up as president; and hopefully, the Dems control both houses. And if McCain is elected president, you can blame it on Obama, for pushing his way into the race, and fracturing what would have been a united, unstoppable Clinton landslide into a broken mess.
It makes sense that those who view running against Clinton in a primary as an outrageous usurpation of her rightful inheritance would have similar views about running against Lieberman.
I guess I’m clear on the idea that incumbents should never be challenged, but I don’t quite understand how to definitively determine which candidate is to be treated as the incumbent when the seat is open. Is having a previous incumbent in the family the essential characteristic?
Ferraro, Lieberman…what happens to you when you are an unelected Democratic VP that makes you go totally bonkers?
Whatever it is, keep it away from John Edwards.
Didn’t watch, but I assume it’s full of all sorts racial stereotyping?
I don’t know who he is, but he majors in more than one kind of stereotyping 😉
“we need a woman to clean up the house, we need a woman in the white house.
We don’t need no bling, we just need to sing”
After that it is mainly variations of “hillary in the house, hillary in the white house”
marjolein
Oh, and just because it is nice to agree with the majority: if Joe Lieberman had been in MY party I would have voted to tar him, feather him and drive him out of the village on a pony.
you can blame it on Obama, for pushing his way into the race, and fracturing what would have been a united, unstoppable Clinton landslide into a broken mess.
You’ve got to be joking. HRC is a unstoppable force that blew a national double digit lead in polls prior to the start, had huge name recognition and experienced staff who had been through a couple of presidential campaigns and barely two and a half months later trails in the popular vote, trails in pledged delegates and won only a third of the states thus far. And in the process managing to piss off no small number of democrats who just want her to go away, and faster please.
Don’t blame Obama for the fact that HRC is a crappy canidate.
There is a story that Joe’s campaign for Senior Class President in HS was highlighted by a poster, of Joe standing on a ledge, with the caption beneath: “Vote For Me Or I Swear I’ll Jump!”
KCinDCL : “I guess I’m clear on the idea that incumbents should never be challenged”
I’m not saying incumbents shouldn’t be challenged; but everything in its time and place. And this particular challenge by Obama has fissured the party into a Humpty-Dumpty mess.
It’s the ‘you broke it, you pay for it’ theory.
Jay, let’s see if I understand you:
If Hillary Clinton had no opponents, that would be fine.
If she had opponents but they had the grace to lose quickly and quietly, that would be fine.
But a real opponent, one who does not lose easily, is not fine.
So, it’s okay to oppose Hillary Clinton, but only if you’re not a real threat.
But okay, I get it, you’re saying that in the hypothetical world where there was no Obama, Hillary would have had momentum now, and it’s bad to take momentum away. But a) I doubt her momentum would have been sufficient to beat John McCain anyway, b) if it hadn’t been Obama, it would have been John Edwards taking a lot of her votes. Maybe in Ohio and PA instead of the South, but same result, and c) why is Obama the pushy undeserving one instead of Carpetbagger Clinton?
Fledermaus: “Don’t blame Obama for the fact that HRC is a crappy canidate.”
Half the democrats support that ‘crappy’ candidate, and an equal number of them want Obama to go away – but now it’s too late, the damage is done, you and yours have screwed up the works, déjà vu all over again, to quote Yogi Berra, a party that should have (needed to be) united is unraveling like a cheap sweater.
You do realize that Democrats have only a 1-seat majority, right? If Lieberman bolts, the Senate goes Republican.
no – it couldn’t happen. the dems would filibuster. the time it happened in 2001 was a one-time deal for reasons i don’t have time to explain (am running to a talk).
basically,t he majority is secure until the next election.
Tyronen, first, I think you missed the phrase “next term” (when presumably Democrats will have a bigger majority). Second, the organizing resolution adopted at the beginning of this Congress doesn’t allow a revote for majority leader if Lieberman bolts. Unfortunately I think it also disallows stripping Lieberman of his seat this session.
The reason the rules were different in 2001 was that Al Gore was still vice president and thus the tiebreaker when the 50-50 Senate was organized in early January, before the new president and vice president were sworn in.
Half the democrats support that ‘crappy’ candidate, and an equal number of them want Obama to go away – but now it’s too late, the damage is done, you and yours have screwed up the works, déjà vu all over again, to quote Yogi Berra, a party that should have (needed to be) united is unraveling like a cheap sweater.
Why does this whiny crap from the concern troll sound uncannily like echoes of the stock excuse of the repeat wife-beater? “Now look what you made me do!”
Sorry, Jay: party politics can get messy at times: I realize you probably think democracy works a lot more efficiently with only one candidate on the ballot: after all: look how well it worked for Enver Hoxha and Kim Il-Sung! Bet they never had to listen to gripes about the “broken Party”!
So to be clear, the reason the Democrats are unraveling is having a democratic election process instead of a coronation? As opposed to the Clinton campaign making negative attacks and essentially endorsing the Republican candidate over the Democrat primary opponent?
The funny thing is that Clinton was talking so much about Democrat unity and not engaging in negative campaigning while she was ahead. As soon as she slipped behind, whoops.
Basically it seems you can only endorse Clinton’s tactics if you say that anything goes in the primaries, that we should have a rough-and-tumble fight for the nomination. But if so, what’s so wrong about putting your name on a ballot?
Whence this risible idea that Hillary Clinton would be a “slam dunk” in the general if only those Democrats who don’t want her would shut up and aquiesce? Taking as my sample size only the population of ObWi, I can name of the top of my head five people — Sebastian, von, Slarti, OCSteve and Xeynon — who have all indicated that probably vote for Obama over McCain, but would either vote for McCain over Clinton or not vote at all. (Pardon me if I’ve misrepresented anybody here.)
Now, I’m not going to pretend that this is in any way a valid sample, a trend, or anything else, but I’m willing to bet that it’s indicative of the mindset of a lot of the swing voters Clinton is going to need to win. Like it or not, there’s a lot of Clinton fatigue and hate still out there, merited or not, and if she’s the nominee, there will be a Republican GOTV effort the likes of which you have never seen.
Gotta love Jay Jerome logic. “If all the voters would only vote for Clinton, she’d win in a landslide!”. What was it Hilzoy said about trolley cars?
I’d think its more important to not make Joe hate yoru guts because his vote on cloture will be important for the next four years. And God%@#$ you, conneticut.
Jay Jerome is serious? I’d thought he was a caricature. Anyway:
Half the democrats support that ‘crappy’ candidate,
Less than half the democrats who can be bothered to go and vote support Clinton. Around a third of the democrats who can be bothered to caucus support Clinton.
and an equal number of them want Obama to go away
You made the claim. Now prove it. Hint: it flies in the face of polling data.
Um, Joe’s a wanker, but a smart one. He knows exactly what he’s doing – and what he’s getting away with by claiming to be a nominal “independent, voting with the Democrats”. (How much is he hiding, passively by preventing any investigations, actively by putting a lid on it?) He can only be surprised that he’s gotten away with it this long.
He merits no warning. The minute the fall election is over, he should be stripped of his seniority (one year?) and committee memberships. Wails of “Unfair – Opportunism!” should rightly fall on ears as that are as deaf as his.
“Around a third of the democrats who can be bothered to caucus support Clinton.”
At the Boulder County Democratic Convention yesterday, it was only about 25%, actually. A number of elected Clinton delegates couldn’t be bothered to show up, and were replaced with Obama delegates to vote for the State and Congressional District level delegates.
I will say that the Clinton delegates who did show were, to be sure, very very loud, and dedicated.
Also about 90% female. % of African-American delegates overall: well, I saw at least 10. But I think I saw just about all of them.
Damn that black racism that infests Boulder County, Colorado Democrats who support Obama because of our black racism.
A number of elected Clinton delegates couldn’t be bothered to show up, and were replaced with Obama delegates to vote for the State and Congressional District level delegates.
Does that mean that the percentage of delegates ‘won’ in a caucus can change after the voting/caucassing? Could you end up with a higher percentage of delegates voting for candidate X than assumed right after the caucas?
I have no idea how this caucassing works, we have nothing even remotely similar, hence my mayby dumb questions.