SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Irregular Joe

JUNE 25, 2008

Irregular Joe

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Watching Joe Lieberman go around the bend over the last couple years is one of the strangest things I've ever seen in politics. Lieberman was always a foreign policy hawk and a capital gains tax cutter, and he generally took enormous pleasure in staying in the right's good graces. But it is also these very qualities--his ideological moderation, his aversion to conflict, his timorous demeanor--that have made his recent apoplexy so weird.


Lieberman, naturally, sees things a bit differently. In a series of speeches, op-eds, and interviews, he has been making the case that he, Joe Lieberman, has resolutely stood behind his lifelong ideology while the entire rest of the Democratic Party has gone off the McGovernite cliff. In his telling, the party was hawkish from World War II through the early 1960s. Then it was taken over by left-wing isolationists who were "viscerally opposed to the use of military force." Under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the party recovered its hawkish legacy, but, in the last few years, Democrats-- presumably including Clinton and Gore themselves--have "resurrected the profoundly wrong and persistently unsuccessful McGovern-Carter worldview."


You might wonder precisely which ways McGovern's nefarious ideology is making itself felt. Lieberman says that Democrats, who were once "unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders," now "minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamic extremism." Lieberman prefers them to use morally confident language like this:



The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman, and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.


Oh, wait--that passage was Barack Obama, speaking last summer. Lieberman further complains, "The top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq."


This is a really sneaky formulation. Lieberman is implying that Democrats oppose expanding the military, prevailing in Afghanistan, etc. Actually, they favor all those things. (Obama has proposed adding 92,000 new troops to the military.) Lieberman's statement is literally true--Democrats put a higher priority on Iraq than those other issues-- but misleading. Just because something isn't your "top" foreign policy priority doesn't mean it isn't a high priority.


Yes, Democrats do favor a withdrawal from Iraq. They think the U.S. occupation is not helping to produce a stable government in Baghdad. This is certainly a debatable view, but it just isn't the same thing as lacking confidence in the virtues of American democracy or viscerally opposing the use of force. In Pakistan, the Democratic presidential candidate has advocated military strikes against Al Qaeda, while the GOP candidate has ridiculed such action as impractical. Imagine what Lieberman would say if it was the other way around.


Lieberman's history, which imagines a binary fight between hawks and isolationists, is woefully mistaken. In fact, during the cold war there were three camps: anti-interventionists on the left, liberal internationalists in the center, and hard-line anti-communists on the right. The left opposed the cold war. The center favored containment. The right deemed coexistence with communism unacceptable and advocated "rollback" of communism.


Lieberman's foreign policy views are in the tradition of the right, not the center. In the 1990s, he promoted "rogue state rollback," a neoconservative doctrine that's the direct lineal descendant of cold war rollback. Right-wing anti-communist hardliners opposed negotiations or arms control agreements with the enemy and, at various points, raged against Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan for their soft line.


My colleague J. Peter Scoblic's new book, U.S. vs. Them, opens with the story of conservatives in 1959 creating the "Committee Against Summit Entanglements" to express their horror that Eisenhower would sit down with Soviet premier Khrushchev. The Committee's logic was nearly identical to that which Lieberman now deploys against Obama for his willingness to meet with Iran's leadership. Lieberman tries to use this issue to show that Obama falls outside the mainstream tradition of U.S. foreign policy, but he winds up proving this about himself.


And, just as Lieberman casts himself as the sole surviving heir to the liberal internationalist tradition, he likewise presents himself as one of the few--or possibly the only--independent-minded souls remaining in a party now controlled by rabid partisan bloggers. "Instead of challenging their opinions," says Lieberman with characteristic disappointment, "far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to them." In a previous speech, he urged an audience of international-studies graduates to remain independent like him. It may hurt your popularity, he explained, but, "far more important, you will not lose your convictions about what you believe is best for the security of our great country."


There's hardly any sense in which Lieberman is an independent figure. He's become a cog in the Republican message machine. He may be independent from liberal bloggers, but the conservative equivalent--partisan shouters like Sean Hannity--are his treasured pals. Lieberman even continues to embrace lunatic preacher John Hagee--whose many daft ideas include his belief that the Holocaust fulfilled God's will--even after John McCain repudiated him.


Lieberman explains that he calls himself an "independent Democrat" because the Democratic Party's foreign policy ideals "exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has rejected them." This is a wildly egocentric interpretation. Democrats started questioning the war because the war was going badly, while Lieberman remained--to borrow a phrase--in a spider hole of denial. Most supported him in his 2006 primary fight but then endorsed the party nominee when he lost, because that's what political parties do.


Lieberman seems to think Democrats lost faith in America. No, Joe, just in you.


Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.


Click for the previous and next article in TNR’s Veeptacular. And for a full index of our 2008 v.p. coverage, click here.  

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 168 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

168 comments

Dear Lieberman Nobody loves you. So you decided to stay as close as possible to your friend mccain. But somebody should remind you that you are not elected to be loved. And maybe you should remember that those people who elected you were thinking that you could support the cause of the democratic party better then an other person. So why you are supporting those who prevented with dirty tricks that you got into the white house. Why you try to chase people down who where fighting for you. Think once over what you were fighting for in the last decades, who opposed your ideas and who you try to please at the moment.

- maz hess

June 8, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To all the Liebercrats at TNR and elsewhere: I told you so. Strip him of his chairmanship and filibuster any reorganization -- let the Senate disintegrate for the next five months; it's not like anything is going to get done anyway.

- paddynoons

June 12, 2008 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democrats = Hate

- Dan

June 17, 2008 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Chait, why did you beat up on Digby when she supported Lamont? Is your argument really that you've only noticed Lieberman's behavior in the last 2 years?

- mmathog

June 17, 2008 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman is now an independent, and for those who do not understand why he would be upset that Obama wants to meet with the President if Iran, it is because that President wants to destroy Isreal and does not reconize its right to exist. Lieberman is a Jewish man that is probably offended by that. The Democrats did not support him in the Primary that is why he lost. So it should not be a surprise that he does not support them now. His ideas are the same, but his old party walked away from him.

- James

June 17, 2008 at 12:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try at rewriting history. But you can't fool those of us who were alive and conscious at the time. Lieberman is correct that the Democratic Party has been running scared from exerting American interests and power since VietNam. Let's remember that it was the Republican isolationists that tried to thwart Harry Truman's stalwart effort to check Soviet expansionism. Let's not forget that it was Kennedy that defeated Nixon over the "missle gap." And it was Kennedy (following the lead of Cardinal Spellman) that set us on course to check "the red tide" in VietNam. The great "malaise" was not that of the American people but that of a pusillanimous Jimmy Carter who failed to step up to the challenge and strangle the Khomeini regime in its crib. That failure is the root of our current problems (and the need for our military presence) in the Middle East today. Joe Lieberman is my age and we both remember how things got the way they are. The fact is that a patriot like Scoop Jackson couldn't survive a Democratic Party Primary today. And that's what we mean when we say that the party left us and not vice versa.

- Cincinnati Rick

June 17, 2008 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I liked Lieberman until he lost that primary against Ned Lamont. He really went nuts after that. Like Zell Miller like. I cannot support him in any way, shape or form now.

- Eric

June 17, 2008 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try Jonathan, but Lieberman is right. As a former proud member of the Democrat party, I am disgusted at how the party has trampled on the nation building, forward democratic principled policies of FDR, Truman and Kennedy. Adding insult to injury, the Democrat party voted for the Iraq war in overwhelming numbers. For them to disavow our troops to win the '06 election was an unforgivable act of betrayal to our kids on the front line. Lieberman's bears witness to the disgusting conduct of democrats in '06 which Obambi continues today. I admire Liebs and applaud him for his vehemance. He represents former democrats like me.

- JAZ

June 17, 2008 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman got it right. Only the left wing of the party despises him because Joe has the gall to call them out on the carpet. Any by the way, he lost the primary, but won the election in 2006 which is equivalent to losing the battle but winning the war. People in CT like their politicians to think independently.

- Jim

June 17, 2008 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't care what anybody says, we still love you up here in Ct. Please continue to be an objective and independent voice for us in the US Senate.

- GO JOE

June 17, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The good people of Connecticut thought that they were electing a Senator to represent the State of Connecticut. Surprise!!! You really elected Mr. Lieberman, Senator for the State of Israel, the U.S.' unannounced 51st state. Perhaps the good citizens of Connecticut will reconsider when Mr. Lieberman's term of office is up. In the meantime, good citizens you can watch Mr. Lieberman cavort with the likes of Mr. Hagee (a supposed reverend) whose Armageddon death wish threatens both American and Israeli security. Mr. Lieberman is a shill, nothing more.

- Randyandy

June 17, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman and John McCain fought to keep the surge alive in Congress when every democrat wanted to run out of Iraq qith their lives. In return the democratic party abandoned him in Connecticut. Now we hear this claptrap about how Leiberman is over the deep end. Remember how the history books treated Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Charlie Wilson. Those democrats are remembered as heros because they faught for what they believe in in the face of their party. The party today is made up of whimps. Noone with a brain honestly believes a word Obama says about Israel, Pakistan, Iran or anything else. There is not one case on record where Obama has stood by an unpopular decision. Only one person stuck to his guns when the Dems hid in a hole and that was Lieberman. Until the democrats can understand what courage in the face of adversity means they will always be a second class and second rate party, forever bolden to the wine sipping whimps of San Francisco, New York and DC.

- Cb29

June 17, 2008 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman is traitorous pond scum. Hard to believe the citizens of Connecticut elected him. Dems are counting the days till their majority in the Senate is big enough to strip him of his committee chairmanships and let him wither away in the Agricultural Committee with zero to do. I can't wait till he is made as irrelevant in the Senate as he now is in US national politics.

- Dolph T

June 17, 2008 at 1:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that is the best idea i have heard in months!!!! I expect him to hand the senate to the republicans in the next month or so anyway.

- Larry

June 17, 2008 at 1:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Jon, the Democrats have gone off into McGovern-Carter neopacifist land, and their casting out of a sober centrist fp hawk like Joe Lieberman only proves it. Quoting Barack Obama sounding tough on Islamic terrorism proves nothing. Today's Democrats are ALWAYS willing to sound tough on some hypothetical fight that isn't happening. They are just not willing to sound tough on any fight that is underway, like Iraq, where they are so set on defeat that they refuse to even notice that conditions have improved dramatically in the last year. No, no, Barack wants to cut and run from Iraq, which Al Qaeda declared "the central front in global jihad" , where it is currently being badly defeated, in order to fight "the real Al Qaeda" somewhere else, like nuclear-armed Pakistan. Go figure, he wants to fight Al Qaeda by handing them an enormous unearned propaganda victory. It makes no sense until you realize that Al Qaeda isn't the real enemy for today's Democrats; Bush and the Republicans are.

- Nadine

June 17, 2008 at 1:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a republican, I would enjoy seeing the Democratic party strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and push him over the edge to caucusing with the Republicans. Three reasons why: 1) It changes the narrative of the news cycle over a three week period... Those weeks include the event itself; Lieberman's change of party; and then the designation of Harry Ried as Senate minority leader 2) The press coverage gives even more play to Lieberman's complaints about the Democratic party. 3) It seriously undercuts Obama's message of bringing "change" to the political tone and "unifying" the country - let alone his party. Obama "unifying" tactics are already starting to look like a Chicago-style political boss as it is... ... So, I echo your wishes for completely diametrically opposed rationale.

- Paddynoons

June 17, 2008 at 1:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lets send him to Afganistan to find Bin Ladin.

- Ordinary Joe

June 17, 2008 at 1:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It sounds like another reporter doing the heavy lifting for the Obama campaign. It is hard for Obama to attack Lieberman without causing a rift, but the media does a great job of that for him. Obama does not even know his view on Israel, one week he supports a united Jerusalem the next he does not support this, this new politics looks a bit like pandering to a group and then being dishonest to back away from the issue at hand.

- Chad

June 17, 2008 at 2:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democratic Party needs to strip this idiot of any responsibility. We are not safe under his care any longer. I think that what we are seeing are 2 differing aspects to Joe's personality. 1. He simply will not support support Obama. He used him when he needed him though..which is very telling. 2. He is angry that he did not gather the support when he ran for VP. Now he is going to make the party pay. I say leave him to McCain's campaign. It only helps us when someone supporting McCain comes out looking like a nut job.

- Deanna

June 17, 2008 at 2:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman is correct. Even if the Obamacons want him to go away what he says is true. I think that Obama needs to re-think some of his positions. The war has changed but Obama is still in 2006. It shows his lack of experience and ability to be flexible. Sorry this dem is for McCain.

- thicke hawkins

June 17, 2008 at 2:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, Lieberman is a LIBERAL hawk. Per TNR's own in-house (recently-hired) number-cruncher, Liberman's voting record puts him at # 32 on a scale of 1 to 100, zero being most liberal and 100 most conservative among senators. Jim Webb comes in as far more conservative, at # 44. Disclaimer: I've never liked Holy Joe much, and think he broke a pledge made to voters when he abandoned the party. But could we please stop pretending that he is not one of the most stalwart, reliable liberals in the Senate. He's much more liberal than the blogblatherers' posterboy du jour, that neo-Confederate from Virginia who makes them coo every time he does his f-you routine toward Bush.

- teplukhin2you

June 17, 2008 at 3:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you Joe. Thank you for your courage and your willingness to stand up for what you believe in, even facing the fact that the left, the left that voted for you for VP, will demonize you. Because the left is so sure that they are "right", the only way for them to explain any disagreement with them is to describe their opponents as either stupid or evil. Usually both.

- dualdiagnosis

June 17, 2008 at 4:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe, you've devolved into such a state of sad confusion that I now wish Lamont would've beaten you if only to save yourself from destroying what little bit was left of your own legacy. You aren't a democrat. I don't really know what you are anymore, but I'm ashamed that Harry Reid still lets you caucus with the Senate Dems. But don't despair, Joe; soon you'll be stripped of your chairmanship and relegated to the doldrums of nominal consequence where you deserve to spend out the rest of your ineffectual days in the Senate. Do you think Obama is going to stand for such impudence?! And one last word of advice, Joe, if you make it to 2012, don't even think about running again. You will be destroyed, humiliated, and humbled beyond recognition. However, I guess that would be a fitting, deserved end for you. Ok then, go ahead and run in 2012. What a fitting epitaph -- "He went out on the bottom." You reap what you sow, Joe.

- austin

June 17, 2008 at 4:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article and the comments show just how far the Democrats have slipped. When Obama actually does something, instead of just pandering to the discredited "War is Lost" crowd, let me know.

- RomanceWritR

June 17, 2008 at 6:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, yes, yes. To all who question the wisdom of the Obamessiah, off with your head. I find this relatively amusing, to be honest. You *must* follow the left in all of their beliefs or else you're not worth. You *must* prostrate yourself to the liberal line without thought. You *must* assimilate yourself. Resistance is futile. Oh, wait, the Democratic Party isn't really the Borg . . . or is it? Isn't the notion of 'liberal' something along the lines of enlightened and rational thought? When did it get morphed into blind obedience to the (current) thought police? Enlightened and rational, to me at least, means critical thinking, critical analysis, and, at times, seeing shades of gray. Resistance is futile . . . all hail Obama.

- cguy04

June 17, 2008 at 6:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Democrats started questioning the war because the war was going badly, while Lieberman remained--to borrow a phrase--in a spider hole of denial." And now that things are going better in Iraq it's the Democrats who are in the spider hole of denial.

- als

June 17, 2008 at 6:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama would get more traction with his hawkish rhetoric if it wasn't clear to anyone who isn't a retard that it's just bull$hit posturing, and he doesn't mean a word of it.

- sanssoucy

June 17, 2008 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has been peddling bizarre and shallow revisionist history these last two years. It's mind-boggling to consider that he was once on a ticket with Al Gore. You'd think that he would have joined Gore's transformation to the center and adopted a well-balanced foreign policy agenda so that he could also enjoy the accolades now levied upon Gore, but instead he went right--so right that Bush and Rove occasionally have to rear him in. I wouldn't be surprise to hear that he's enlisted and will go after Bin Laden on his own.

- professorf

June 17, 2008 at 7:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democratic Party has forgotten how to love their country and defend it. Protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic. Good for Senator Lierbermann. He remembers what is important. I personally don't give a rat's butt for many of the policy views attributed to the conservative movement, but I do very much care about my country and how it interacts in the world. Joe has done a great job for CT and the US as a senator. It's a shame many of his constituents don't recognize that.

- pjc

June 17, 2008 at 7:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has hardly "unraveled," nor has he gone "around the bend." Truth is, he has been steadfast in refusing to go down the road of the lunatic "Bush lied" extremists who have converted propaganda into an ideology. Go Joe!

- David

June 17, 2008 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Senator, Obviously, you are not in friendly territory here, but allow me to rebut the idiots here. The Senator was NOT elected to represent DEMOCRAT values, but the values of the people of his state, who obviously chose Joe because he more closely represented their interests and subordinated the interests of party to those of the citizens .... Edmund Burke once wrote, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Joe Lieberman is a great Patriot, and we are all richer for having him in the Senate.

- SRM

June 17, 2008 at 7:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good old Joe is always ranting about Islamic fundamentalists, as if it is his mission to kill them all. He would do the world a big favor if he would do a little ranting about Christian fundamentalists and even more if he would rant about Jewish fundamentalists. It always amazes me how people can only see the creation as defined by their lifetime. Here is my definition of fundamentalism; “the Holy Spirit entered into their hearts that they would turn their land over to the beast”. Will the blind always be blind and the deaf always deaf? Jesus performed miracles to prove to you that this was not the case, do you think the Holy Spirit will do less?

- solrev

June 17, 2008 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes, the democrats are ALL for a muscular foreign policy and vigorous response to terrorist threats! They just wanted the Iraq war run better. Please tell us more bed time stories, Jonathan. If you want to live in fantasyland at least you support the correct party in this ridiculous diatribe. If your characterization of the democratic position as being in favor of a well run Iraq war but opposed to "Bush bungling" was correct, then pray tell, why have they not come over to supporting the effort now that it is obvious to all but the far left that the strategy change promulgated by McCain and implemented by Bush has wildly succeeded? The answer, dear Jonathan, is that the far left, which is now the heart of the democratic party, is re-flexibly, unthinkingly, opposed to all things Bush and to the quaint idea that the USA is a force for good in the world. Sorry, but Lieberman is right, in more ways than one.

- Steve W

June 17, 2008 at 8:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could not disagree with you more. Joe Lieberman is a centritist Democrat swimming in a sea of far left Democrats. It is vital that the party is not polarized into being obsolete by a minority of the base. Joe Lieberman won CT. last fall because he speaks to mainstream Democrats, supports a variety of political thoughts, and stands up to the elite element of the party. Joe Lieberman is pro-family, pro-union,pro-free speech....Is the new and improved Democratic party able to be flexible??

- ford

June 17, 2008 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

joe Lieberman's supportof McCain..just like the neocons support of the invasion of Iraq is based on one thing and one thing only...their perception that Israel will be safer if the US engages in regime change foreign policy in the middle east..This is what got us into trouble in the first place..Listening to Wolfowitz, Kaen, Krsytal and company...Rumsfeld Cheney in the administration..and a President without his own independent foreign policy team

- mike

June 17, 2008 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe has one thing going...He has a brain....Most democrats lack that...

- Ken

June 17, 2008 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see, Leiberman votes straight Democratic on every bogus issue--global warming, drilling for oil, judges---but is "unravelling" because he won't take the party line on Iraq? Seems like the only one unravelling here is Johnathan Chait.

- Senor

June 17, 2008 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You quote Sen Obama, a gifted orator of miscule accomplishment, against Sen Lieberman. Lieberman is speaking to the party and if the quotes you used were the feelings and ideals of the party they would be a done deal. And, while on the topic of proposals why has Obama or one of the other Dems not proposed, in a real bill, the 92,000 troupe increase? Anyone can talk. Gonvince me with action.

- R Schuman

June 17, 2008 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has been peddling bizarre and shallow revisionist history these last two years. It's mind-boggling to consider that he was once on a ticket with Al Gore. You'd think that he would have joined Gore's transformation to the center and adopted a well-balanced foreign policy agenda so that he could also enjoy the accolades now levied upon Gore, but instead he went right--so right that Bush and Rove occasionally have to rear him in. I wouldn't be surprise to hear that he's enlisted and will go after Bin Laden on his own.

- professorf

June 17, 2008 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, Thank you for doing our bidding here at DNC Headquarters. Your check is in the mail for a job well done. We will also enclose your free Obama t-shirt. Sincerely, Chairman Howard Dean

- Howard D.

June 17, 2008 at 8:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is with you Jew hating liberals?

- Proud American

June 17, 2008 at 8:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go Joe Lieberman. The revisionist history of the left and their tortured logic is painful to watch when it attempts to destroy a good man like Joe Lieberman. Maybe not all Democrats have lost faith in America, but far too many have and it is often their voices that prevail.

- Jary from Phoenix

June 17, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe cares only about keeping his income from tax payers and what his Jewish friends feel is best for them. I have many friends of that faith but they even think that Joe is on the wrong track. He's got himself in a very unenviable position.

- Donald

June 17, 2008 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Johathan, great analysis! Liberman is a wolf in sheep's clothing, no Democrat! Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America! IT'S TIME

- Gordon

June 17, 2008 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This guy is treasonous. He puts Israel above the US. I can't wait until the Democrats strip him of his power in the Senate.

- dasox1

June 17, 2008 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe lieberman,unlike many of us,put the enterests of Israel before the enerests of our beloved nation,the USA.

- James

June 17, 2008 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's hardly an "unraveling". the national Democratic party stabbed Joe in the back just like they have done to every former DLC type or Dem with any conservative leanings. I voted Dem for 20 straight years and, like Lieberman, Z.Miller, Koch,and one can even argue Bill Clinton, the Dems have made quite clear that centrists need not apply. If you don't march along with the Moveon.org/Daily Kos hard left wing of the party, then you aren't welcome. After the way the Dems railroaded Lieberman in 2006 by backing Ned Lamont, it's a wonder he even calls himself a Democrat. His loyalty is blind and he shouldn't even caucus with Dems after they unraveled on him (with not so subtle antisemitic undertones which have run rampant in Dem circles this decade). Joe hasn't unraveled one bit. He's remained principled and consistent. I say to Joe what I'd say to any centrist or center-right politician or citizen who had loyalty to the Dems at one point - they have unraveled on us and made it real clear we cannot call the Democratic party home anymore. Stay as you are Joe. You haven't changed a bit ... it's your (former) party that has lurched hard to the left and excluded those who have not made a similar leap of faith or defined their entire political ethos with anti-Bush bile.

- Mark

June 17, 2008 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe: You just could not accept that the Democratic party would not make you their nominee for the Senate seat from Conn. You blame the bloggers for your demise but those are members of the Democratic Party and they have a right to vote any way they want. Last time I checked it is still a free country and we don't coronate kings. Frankly you are a very arrogant person. Joe you were really elected by Republicans so after November when we don't need you to maintain the Democratic majority in the Senate you will be a Senaor still but also a nobody. Your new found Republican friends will take care of you then, haha.

- moose966

June 17, 2008 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irrespective of my views on Lieberman, the last sentence of this article is ridiculous. "Most supported him in his primary fight" - if they did, he would have won it. In fact, most did not support him or sat quietly on the sidelines while the small, wealthy, left wing faction of Connecticut voters and organizations such as MoveOn.org, ran stories titled "Out with Jewberman" and other anti-Semitic filth. And the fact that Democrats were opposing the war in Iraq because it was going poorly hardly speaks positively for the Democrats. In fact, should they not have supported measurements like the surge, that were requested by the miliary for years before George W. Bush in his infinite incompetence, finally decided to give in to military men over right wing idealogues? And does it not stand to reason that now that the war is going far better, the Democrats should be encouraging it, so as to speed up Iraqis becoming more self-sufficient and allow us to start the troops pull out on our terms and because of favorable conditions on the ground and not because of some political, arbitrary set time tables?

- Dave

June 17, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh leave Joe alone is this not the grand ole USA where we have been awarded freedom to think what we want. No thought or behavior police fully rule yet at except at TNR. I do believe Joe and John have something in common they both know what it is to have their own party go after them. He supports, admires and respect McCain why should he act any differant for the Dem party that turned on him. I think he is brave, it is easy to go along to get alone but then you give up your soul.

- tusk

June 17, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aside from the issue of Iraq and his support for his long time friend, John McCain, Lieberman's voting record remains highly pro-Democrat. So the Democrats can bite off their nose to spite their face, but that would just encourage Joe, who is highly independent and very popular in Connecticut, to run as a Republican next time, win, and start casting more votes with the Republicans instead of Democrats. In other words, don't be an idiot.

- Chris

June 17, 2008 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman (and Scalia, Yoo, and the rest) belittle critics of the Administration as not understanding or appreciating the threat of another terrorist attack. Not true. In fact, the opposite is true. Most critics appreciate the threat but know that the Administration is inept, or worse. That the threat from a rag-tag group of cave dwellers with box cutters could morph into a trillion dollar stalemate in a civil war among Iraqis, my response is that it's time to show these folks the exit.

- raylward

June 17, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You see when a writer engages in this sort of nonesense I stop right there. "he generally took enormous pleasure in staying in the right's good graces." This indicates the writer has no clue as to what Liberman's thinking is, no matter what that thinking is about. People are not like this. Right, Left, in the middle. Only an ideologue constructs strawman cartoon characters on the basis of this sort of language. I've no time to go further.

- Jonathan Burack

June 17, 2008 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman is the point man for the hysteria of the Israel Lobby in the face of the unexampled debacle of Iraq, and the way it not only wasted so many tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives for nothing, but also made Iran much stronger, the exact opposite of what Israel and their neocon stooges like Wolfowitz had in mind. But what's truly driven Lieberman and the Israel Lobby nuts is the possibility of an Obama victory. Hillary stayed in the race till the bitten end because of her wealthy, fanatically pro-Israel, Jewish donors. They were the die-hards, much more than "her women." Either a Hillary committed to the "obliteration" of Iran, if necessary, or a McCain would have been equally bought and paid for by large Jewish donors. But Obama's a total wild card for AIPAC because he doesn't need Jewish money! He's raised more money on the Net from small donors than wealthy Jews have been able to contribute to Hillary and McCain combined. So, for the first time since the neocons took over Reagan's foreign policy, Israel faces a possible president who's not in it's pocket in terms of foreign policy in the Middle East. No wonder Lieberman's getting hysterical. Obama represents REAL, de facto, on the ground campaign finance reform via the Net, a reform which threatens Israel's power of the purse with regard to the whole American political system. Unfortunately, Wolfowitz and friends created such a debacle in Iraq, and strengthened the crazies in Iran so much, that the last unintended consequence of Israel's crazed Wolfowitz vision for "re-making the Middle East" is likely to be the defeat not just of McCain, but, de facto, of the Israel Lobbby itself.

- jeanrenoir

June 17, 2008 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe has certainly sold many of his ideals down the river simply to retain power. Why anyone lends him any creadance at this point in time I will never know.

- Nate is Great

June 17, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice quote from Obama. If he means what he says, Obama is absolutely correct and, to the point of your article, Lieberman would agree. The problem is that the Democratic party has taken to talking tough on terrorism because they know the electorate wants us to be tough on terrorism, but then the leadership of the Democratic party consistently backs policies that undermine that toughness. There is a chasm between the rhetoric of the Democrats and their policies. Lieberman is old school - he looks at actions not words. The democratic party focuses on words, speeches, and downplays their actions. That is why Lieberman is right and your article misses the point. If you udnerstand the vast difference between the Democrats rhetoric and their actions, Lieberman makes sense.

- Nice Try

June 17, 2008 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe, Joe, Joe. Poor fella. He has obviously lost any common sense that he has ever had. He is just a strange dude who maybe should be a part of the Green Party or others like it. His views are often irrational and he follows McCain around like a little dog. (woof woof) Why Gore ever chose you to be his VP is beyond me. Any other and that 2000 vote would not have come down to Florida.

- jedro

June 17, 2008 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What the knee-jerkers can't recognize is that Joe Lieberman is a STATESMAN who puts country above partisan politics, a rare breed indeed . If only there were more like him! God bless him.

- HSF

June 17, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Love ya, Joe. As the rest of the Democratic party has indeed jumped off the McGovernite cliff, you've remained a rock. Don't worry about the moonbats - even the phony establishment types - you're doing just fine.

- Chris

June 17, 2008 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

very saddened by what Lieberman has become but not really surprised. As a vice-presidential candidate in 2000 he performed so poorly, both in his debate with cheney and as a quitter and non-participant in the Florida recount. People may be Democrat or Republican. But all dislike a traitor. How can this man, with a history of supporting civil liberty, now support, with vehemence, a candidate who salivates at the chance to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas?

- drum

June 17, 2008 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"timorous"? "in a spider hole"? Where's JacksonDyer to call you a "Jew-hater"?

- icarusr

June 17, 2008 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has always been a complete and utter jackass. I winced when Gore chose him. There is nothing I have ever know about the man or his positions that has indicated to me that he is anything but a complete tool. I wish he'd join the GOP and get it all over with already. And there are many Republicans I far prefer to Joe Lieberman.

- Der Bingle

June 17, 2008 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! This is what the world lookks like from the point of view a standart issue liberal Jew... Welcome to the another universe...

- Jacob

June 17, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know that I am flirting with another tete-e-tete with Joementum supporter bigm but,what the hell. Perhaps most unattractive to me personally,aside from Lieberman's grating sanctimony, is his inexplicable need to kowtow to Big White Men on Campus Types. There is a need in this guy that is almost pathological, to kiss - no slobber and lick - the ass of a certain kind of male. God, I find it embarrassing and really creepy.

- thejauntyboulevardier

June 17, 2008 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the problem for lieberman is that he is an israelfirster. as an israelfirster his job is to keep the US military in the middle east. he will go to any party that will let him push this agenda. he found his dreamboy in mccain. he does seem to take it personally though that after acting like a nice guy, after putting in so much effort to look like he is something besides an israelfirster all those efforts were for naught whne the democrats dumped him over his warmongering. the dems in lieberman's view were not allowed to separate themselves from him because he had acted like a timid, nice guy for so long and that act hadn't paid off. how dare dems not buy his act of mr nice guy. now he has to be an israelfirster without the nice-guy shtick. really annoying to lieberman

- ctresident

June 17, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry Jonathan, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman have it right. You should pay attention to them.

- Been There

June 17, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democrat establishment first picked Joe as their VP candidate in 2000 because he was a "hawk", and then ditched him in 2006 for the same reason. No wonder he's pissed off. And you can't dismiss Lieberman from his chairmanship. He's the deciding vote between the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. If the Democrats throw him out, he caucuses with the Republicans and he's back in the chairmanship. Joe Lieberman is the heir to a long tradition of hawks in the Democratic Party, dating back to Scoop Jackson. He hasn't changed. It's the Democrats who've gone soft, trying to turn our nation into the Belgium of the 21st century.

- crooktooth

June 17, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe is a sellout of the worst kind. He is being used as a poster boy for the very same folks whose tactics he said he despised only a few years ago. I will use him as an example to my kids on what not to be when you grow-up....

- Herman

June 17, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It must really burn you up to see a life long liberal and Democrat criticize your party so aggressively. That's why you attack him so hard. You must marginalize him. I assume folks like you found someone like Hagel courageous, and yet for doing the same thing, you found Lieberman kooky. This is standard boiler plate propaganda, and it won't work. Here is how I analyzed it... http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/demonizing-joe-lieberman.html

- mike volpe

June 17, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman's correct - all you have to do is get into a discussion with most Dems these days and it's clear they're more rabidly partisan than those on the far right they scoff at. The Democratic Party has strongly shifted to the left, and many centrists I know question whether they still have a place at the table. If you dare question Obama policies, you're suspect, it's just not acceptable. Sounds like Lieberman's been getting filleted by these folks, and sending out warning signs that their extreme partisanship may be politically lucrative at the moment, but damaging for longer term U.S. policies/realationships.

- chris

June 17, 2008 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe - you let us all down. I am just so dissapointed in the acrobatics you have performed lately, and it appears that your whole goal is to undermine the democratic party. If there ever was a case to kick someone out of the party, this is it.

- annoyed

June 17, 2008 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman just ought to get on with it and join the Republican Conference. His views on foreign policy are well outside the Democratic mainstream. He is a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign etc. We can't filibuster reorganization, because the Republicans would just vote as they threatened to do over judges to abolish the filibuster and we'd look like sore losers. Let them reorganize the Senate: we'll take it back this fall.

- jadamsfeuer

June 17, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article. Joe is completely correct, just like Sam Nunn and others, the 'Dim'ocratic party left Joe and the others by moving really far left. you just don't get it, and you never will either. Pity, too much talent to waste.

- Rick

June 17, 2008 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

no wonder Lieberman left the Democrats! He too now realizes that their are really no Democrats - the party was hijacked by the ultra-liberals in 1976 and has REFUSED to defend the USA ever since. Kudos to Lieberman.

-

June 17, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll try again. Let's see: Leiberman has voted straight Dem on every issue from the global warming hoax to judges. He disagrees with the party line and He's unravelling? Sounds like Johnathan Chait and TNR are unravelling.

- Senor

June 17, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just think. If Gore had chosen Bob Graham of Florida for his running mate instead of Lieberman, it wouldn't have been close enough for the bloodless coup that handed it to Bush and the last eight years would never have happened. And speaking for my large extended multi-generational Jewish family of staunch Democrats, we consider him to be a traitor and an embarrassment. We'd LOVE to see McCain pick him for VP. Go ahead Lieberman and do for the Republicans what you did for us in 2000. With a few more Dems in the Senate he can be stripped of his chairmanship and ignored until he fades away to nothing but that annoying nasal whine.

- Felix

June 17, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting commentary. So why did The New Republic endorse Lieberman (with a cover story, as I remember) for president a few years back? I cancelled my subscription over it. Surely, he's the same man now that he was then, only more extreme?

- rdhunter

June 17, 2008 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Lieberman's foreign policy views are in the tradition of the right, not the center. In the 1990s, he promoted "rogue state rollback," a neoconservative doctrine that's the direct lineal descendant of cold war rollback. Right-wing anti-communist hardliners opposed negotiations or arms control agreements with the enemy" So wait. Truman was a right-wing neoconservative for wanting rollback the North Koreans/Chinese? Kennedy was a right-wing neoconservative for wanting to rollback the Cubans/Soviets? Kennedy/Johnson were right-winger neoconservatives for wanting to rollback the North Vietnamese? Who knew?

- Mike

June 17, 2008 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to Senator Obama comments as quoted in this piece. In the political world we call this "pandering."

- Kholter

June 17, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, I am a little astonished at this article. I certainly understand why some Democrats may not share Lieberman's positions, but I find this article to frankly be misleading. It is certainly a valid opinion but sorely lacks a factual basis. Using the Obama quote to characterize him as hawkish is absurd and grossly transparent. To argue that Lieberman's analysis of the Democratic party is wrong makes me think, Thou Dost Protest Too Much. If Chait is correct and the reason that the Democrat's were questioning the war was because it was going so badly (Agreed) then why is now that we are making significant strides since the arrival of General Petraus that they continue to deride any suggestion about the was that does not include a withdrawl date? Finally, I would like a source citation where Obama advocated adding 92,000 to the military. My initial thought is that this means that he wants to create military jobs, not to add troops to Iraq to secure victory.

- A view different than your own

June 17, 2008 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Lieberman had won the Democratic primary in Connecticut two years ago this wouldn't be happening. You can be sure he goes to bed every night happy with the thought that he annoyed a few thousand Democrats by grinning behind McCain on a platform somewhere. The greatest shame is that he'll be deployed to Florida to make the Israel First case where it can do Obama the most harm. Meanwhile, support your state's Democratic candidate for the Senate, because if McCain wins, Lieberman - for one last laugh - will take a Cabinet job and let the Republican governor of Connecticut appoint his successor.

- Martin Daly

June 17, 2008 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You keep going Joe, nothing like the inclusiveness and diversity of the NeoDem party. The our way or the highway crap of the modern dem party is full of sh-t. The Democrats preach of representing the people, I do believe that the people who voted for Him knew his positions before they voted for him..... Go Joe, ignore the typical Democrat garbage.

- George

June 17, 2008 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article - Thank you especially for using the word "egocentric." Webster's dictionary should have Holy Joe's face in the definition for it.

- WandreyCer1

June 17, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has always been a conservative-Republican Trojan horse. In his first Senate election (1988), he got key backing from the likes of William Buckley, in order to purge Sen. Lowell Weicker from the GOP. In 2006, Lieberman won reelection as a de facto Republican. After Novemember, the only reason to keep him in the Senate Democratic caucus would be to increase the proportion of majority seats on committees; but he'll probably have switched parties or caucus affiliation by then.

- allbetsareoff

June 17, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman is right -- the extreme left of the Democratic Party is trying to elbow the New Democrat centrist ideas out of the party. To convince (and pander to) us, the pro-Obama extreme left is attempting to make a false choice between "change" and the hated "Bush policies." Sorry, but it won't work. Look at it objectively. What we have is a choice between the extreme left candidate (Obama), who wants to roll back a reality-based, intelligent foreign policy and ignore the terrorist threat, and the center-right candidate (McCain), who wants to face that terrorist threat head-on, in a more intelligent and pragmatic fashion. As a centrist, the choice is clear -- McCain. And this time, I don't even have hold my nose to vote!

- Centrist

June 17, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama occasionally seems to be in favor of the use of American power and might, as witness the clever statement inserted in the text of the article about the war against terrorism and the rise of the caliphate, but in fact Lieberman and many others know that he has a very ambiguous record when it comes to the use of American power and the challenge of radical Islam. Obama has a long history of association with PLO members and has historically shown support for the Palestinian cause. His seeming respect for the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, of whom he takes pains to speak in respectful and reverential tones (he shows no such respect for American businessman, by the way!), justly arouses suspicion as to his motives and his larger world view. His Muslim heritage also makes him suspect and perhaps explains his inclinations. Lieberman is right to oppose him and his party's orthodoxy on Iraq where they refuse to acknowledge the tangible results of McCain's successful surge strategy. For all of them this is political, for others (Obama?) it may also betray an ideological bias. I think Obama is one of those "one worlders" who fundamentally believes that US power should be subordinated to what is good for the globe. I reject that notion. Competition among nations leads to progress. What he proposes is simply a new form of tyranny.

- Pete Kent

June 17, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the silly dems, including their mouthpieces at tnr: you wouldn't recognize a principled stand if it bit you in the arse.

- principled

June 17, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is dead wrong. Joe Lieberman is not responding to the speeches given by De,ocrat nominees but to the MoveOn / Jane Fonda / Mike Moore / Ned Lamont, elite academe / limousine liberal types who have sapped the once strong Democrat party ever since the Viet Nam years and who have now hoisted the otherwise entirely unqualified BHO into the Democrat party's presidential nomination. This group of anti-war, anti-American strength folk says that America is to blsame for the world's problems, that we deserve the terrorist attacks we're getting, that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein in power, that we should ask the world's permission before acting to defend ourselves, etc etc. I applaud Joe Lieberman for confronting this inimical Balrog head on; would that our media would do likewise, and do it early and often. But no; our media is in thrall to the anti-American left, just as is today's Democrat party.

- The_Mass_Mouth

June 17, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe's the only thing that keep the dims from being a total joke. The amusing part is the anger that engenders from the moveonistas.

- KyGuy

June 17, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama occasionally seems to be in favor of the use of American power and might, as witness the clever statement inserted in the text of the article about the war against terrorism and the rise of the caliphate, but in fact Lieberman and many others know that he has a very ambiguous record when it comes to the use of American power and the challenge of radical Islam. Obama has a long history of association with PLO members and has historically shown support for the Palestinian cause. His seeming respect for the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, of whom he takes pains to speak in respectful and reverential tones (he shows no such respect for American businessman, by the way!), justly arouses suspicion as to his motives and his larger world view. His Muslim heritage also makes him suspect and perhaps explains his inclinations. Lieberman is right to oppose him and his party's orthodoxy on Iraq where they refuse to acknowledge the tangible results of McCain's successful surge strategy. For all of them this is political, for others (Obama?) it may also betray an ideological bias. I think Obama is one of those "one worlders" who fundamentally believes that US power should be subordinated to what is good for the globe. I reject that notion. Competition among nations leads to progress. What he proposes is simply a new form of tyranny.

- Pete Kent

June 17, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, it's such a thrill to watch all those steely eyed, butch Democrats confidently speak of their plans for a safe America. Maybe Iran has talked to every government in the West for the last 30 years but by golly, they haven't talked to Obama yet! All leftists know if they can just talk to you for a little while they can get you straightened out, they just know they can!

- exelwood

June 17, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try at rewriting history. But you can't fool those of us who were alive and conscious at the time. Lieberman is correct that the Democratic Party has been running scared from exerting American interests and power since VietNam. Let's remember that it was the Republican isolationists that tried to thwart Harry Truman's stalwart effort to check Soviet expansionism. Let's not forget that it was Kennedy that defeated Nixon over the "missle gap." And it was Kennedy (following the lead of Cardinal Spellman) that set us on course to check "the red tide" in VietNam. The great "malaise" was not that of the American people but that of a pusillanimous Jimmy Carter who failed to step up to the challenge and strangle the Khomeini regime in its crib. That failure is the root of our current problems (and the need for our military presence) in the Middle East today. Joe Lieberman is my age and we both remember how things got the way they are. The fact is that a patriot like Scoop Jackson couldn't survive a Democratic Party Primary today. And that's what we mean when we say that the party left us and not vice versa.

- Cincinnati Rick

June 17, 2008 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing is very clear-Lieberman's career is over if Obama wins. In fact if McCain wins Lieberman is finished unless McCain gives him a cabinet position .The voters in the Nutmeg state probably are going to give the door. His sanctimonious statements are getting quite annoying. He has become a political non-entity.

- New Jersey

June 17, 2008 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can you say, "Nobody loves you"? Lieberman won re-election 50-40% against his Democratic opponent in a 3 way race. That is a pretty strong win. The issue is you do not understand what he is saying, or fighting for. You do not understand the real issues in the middle east - and no, you won't find them on CNN, or NBC. You just aren't making sense. Take Care

- Silence Dogood

June 17, 2008 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where was this "unafraidness" when Lieberman was draft age and obtaining draft deferments? Surely, he thought godless communism was an abomination. I guess he felt he'should make the "moral" judgments and others should make the "mortal" sacrifices. That's the John Beohner, Tom Delay, John Cornyn, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dough Fieth, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, GOP way. Joey ought to stop masquerading come out of the closet. Cast his lot with the other manginas. Who cares?

- tec619

June 17, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait's article on Joe Lieberman is the type of TNR rant that led this former long-time subscriber to seek more refined writing elsewhere. Emmett Wright Jr. Orange, VA

- Emmett Wright Jr.

June 17, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's attribution to Lieberman of "ideological moderation" is entirely undeserved. On such a key issue in American politics as ethics, Lieberman's stance is religious fundamentalism, which by definition is the opposite of being reasonable, let alone moderate. As an example, here's a quote from Jeff Jacoby's article on Lieberman in the Boston Globe (December 7, 2003): "George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'' (In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington in fact said something quite different: "Let us therefore with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'') Thus, Lieberman = Romney in that both (along with the "moral majority" on the right) have a vital need to be supervised by a supreme being whose role is to scare them into acting ethically. Ideological moderation indeed.

- Shimon Edelman

June 17, 2008 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe "Zell Miller" Lieberman is simply a bitter man in the twilight of his career. His public personna as the proverbial "nice guy" contradicts his actions and attitude. The Dems will be rid of him on Novemeber 5th.

- ASL3676

June 17, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman is absolutely correct. The "liberal internationalists" of bygone eras were indeed deserving of all the respect and praise that is occasionally accorded to them. It's just a real shame that they are not still around in any significant numbers. Does anyone remember how very poorly Scoop Jackson and Lieberman himself did when they sought the Democratic nomination for president? The author goes on to use an Obama quote precisely because a.) it contains liberal international sentiments and b.) it is uncharacteristic of Obama, who almost all the rest of the time, sounds a lot more like Ned Lamont than Joe Lieberman.

- Gus

June 17, 2008 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With Lieberman, it's not about being a Republican, an Independent or a Democrat. Nor is it about being a far right liberal, a far left conservative or anywhere in between. It is all about Lieberman! Currently fully enjoying the attention given to him because of his Senate vote by both parties, Lieberman exists in a glow of attention he has created for himself. He currently is a lpp dog for McCain and his photos from Iraq dressed in a helmet and body armor made him look like a warring midget! Joe should just go home and save us all his pretentions!

- Richard J Mullin

June 17, 2008 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman is like the Jewish traitor Josephus who in the great 1st century revolt against Rome abandoned his generalship and his people and advocated accomodation to Rome from the Roman camp outside the walls of Jerusalem. Just as Josephus had a few good points to make but was compromised by positioning himself in the enemy camp so Joe lost his credibility by embracing MCcain. Better he should have been A Jeremiah who in his day stayed within the Judean camp despite the folly he saw in the policy of the day.... lesson: depending from where you speak you are a prophet or traitor.

- talmudic scholar

June 17, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman will go down in history as a true patriot who did not panic because the murder rate in Iraq went up. Murders which were committed by animals and cowards who, for example, would use handicap women to blow up other women and children. Here's how most in the military look at it. We were and are the good guys in Iraq. The bad guys don't want a stable Iraq. The good guys were trying to keep the bad guys from committing more murders. You should be grateful you have someone to protect you from people who really mean it when they chant "death to America." You should also be grateful for people like Joe Lieberman who support them.

- Military Veteran

June 17, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When McCain opposed the Republican majority and joined with the Democrats on a few issues he was hailed by the media as a "Maverick". When Lieberman continues his tradition as a Scoop Jackson Democrat he is run out of his state Democratic party by move on and the rest of the far left. Just because he, and Bush (along with Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc) were wrong about Iraq having WMD does not make them evil or even liars. It just made them wrong. It is time for the left to practice a little civil behavior.

- MidwestConservative

June 17, 2008 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is nothing democratic about the Democratic Party. A man like Lieberman stands for what he believes and offends the far-left and is cutoff from the "free thinking/open minded" party. The "close-minded" Republican Party has not rejected Giuliani or McCain for placing the country before their party's interests numerous times. You Liberals need to educate yourselves, get some intestinal fortitude, and place your country above your sophomoric and Socialist agenda. I doubt it happens anytime soon. McCain in '08!

- Austin

June 17, 2008 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman is frustrated with the Democratic party because like McGovern was, they are now invested in the defeat of our military in Iraq. The fact that things are better in Iraq is without a doubt the most troubling issue for Democrats. Their talk of concern for our soldiers is a ruse.

- joe

June 17, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I left wing prof. what a shocker! I guess any moderate is going to scare the hell out of you. We moderates are tired of you and your right wing buddies trying to push us out of poltics. If we do not bend to the pressure of the extreme left or right you all get angry and nasty. STOP IT!!!

- chad

June 17, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's even worse are all the democrat self-hating Jewish liberals. Thats a sad sight to see.

- Robert G.

June 17, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this the same senator that ran with Gore in 2000? You think that he might have some loyalty to the party that elected him vice president. He is one component of the AIPAC corporation, showing his powerful hand to the US.

- paul

June 17, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(1) Joe is still loved by the Jewish community. (2) This is just a pre-emptive strike on Joe by the anti-Israel, pro-Barack media, because (3) They are afraid of Joe's influence among Jews who will vote for McCain in the fall, and (4) They are REALLY afraid of a Lieberman-McCain ticket.

- Michael Silvertone

June 17, 2008 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like Joe. He is a welcome respite from the two major political parties who no longer even attempt to have a meaningful discussion of the issues. In a political culture that has become dominated by the Parties dishonestly characterizing the position of the other side while becoming nothing but vapid caricatures themselves, it is refreshing to see a politician stand up for some real beliefs and not just the party line. I'm not sure how much influence such a politican can have in today's political climate, but all the same, give'em hell Joe. And best of luck!

- a centrist

June 17, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe deserves a little respect. It takes some serious nerve to disagree with your party. It takes even more to lose a primary, run as an independent and caucus with the people who turned their backs on you. He couldve caucused with the Republicans, but did not. If a few more Dems stood by their opinions and stopped acting like sheep, maybe they'd win a few more general elections.

- Ric

June 17, 2008 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'mon Marty, you know the Senator from TelAviv has one priority. And it's not the people of Conneticut.

- Nortonsmitty

June 17, 2008 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe is right, and he has the guts to stand up for what is right. The Democrats have been embarrassingly weak on national defense for three to four decades, but in the last four years they have gone to new extremes. Obama may win, and if he does, Dem (pun intended) views of national defense will prevail, to the detriment of the US, western civilization and freedom loving people across the globe. Joe is right, and because he is right, maybe he will convince enough traditional Democrats to help swing the election to McC.

- Chuck

June 17, 2008 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait, born 1972. Gotta love it when a nutjob lefty purports to rewrite history from the lofty heights of a 36-year-old's wisdom.

- ColoCdn

June 17, 2008 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe is an honorable man. His critics use slander and name-calling because they can't deal with the facts. Joe was right about the surge. Obama said he was content to watch genocide if that was the result of rapid surrender. Joe is the on who possesses honor and wisdom. We are winning in Iraq. The Iraqi people have chosen the US over Osama. "Bush Lied" is not a sufficient political argument or foreign policy strategy. Lieberman does not slander Obama in his criticism; he points out he policy disagreements. The Democratic Party has left me, not only because it is totally wrong on Iraq, but because it no longer wants to have room for different opinions. People who want us to win the war we are fighting are called traitors and worse. Being a member of the Dem Party does not entail a pledge to vote for whoever is the nominee. I am inspired by the article and derogatory comments to join Citizens for McCain. Offend thoughtful Democrats at your own peril. Give 'em Hell Joe!

- Sashland

June 17, 2008 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it humorous that repub neocons on this forum act as if liberals are the ones who have blind allegiance and are incapable of critical thought. Look around the world and see how well your conservative policies have performed and yet the majority of republicans are still trying to hold on to outmoded ideas and pledge allegiance to politicians with an R by their name no matter what. You all have been sold the "southern strategy" hook line and sinker and continue to support figures who are only looking out for corporate interest etc. while driving down the quality of life for most, and yet you have the audacity to claim that you have some sort of critical thinking skills? Please. And all this talk of "dems are whimps" etc. is so childish and uniformed that it hardly warrants a response. Democrats in this country (who aren't even close to being as liberal as they should be considering much of Europe is far more liberal and far more succesful at this juncture) are for securtiy and protection from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. It is ludicrous to state that dems aren't for security, they just believe they have better ways to achieve it, which doesn't include lying to the public or irresponsibly using the military. Conservatism is a disease suffered by those who are too lazy to find answers for themselves and are fine with being manipulated. Please don't punish the rest of America or the world because you are too inept or shiftless to find answers instead accept what the slime machine that is republican punditry forces on you.

- Ryan

June 17, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe, Joe, Joe! You are fast becoming a phony! Just like your McCain. You are seeking desperately to be his VP. So, don't go sounding off on Sen. Obama. You know, you do the "switcheroo" as much as McCain! From Democrat to Independent to well, Republican? Yes! Perhaps, I'll name a dance after you! The public won't let you, Joe spend time sending false information to Israel or your jewish supporters about Sen. Obama. The voters are going to watch you very careful... you have a way of being so sneaky! Shame on you! Sen. Obama endorsed you for one of the political positions and you do this. Joe-Joe does not deserve respect.

- challenge

June 17, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR participating in this "gang up on Lieberman vendetta". Have you no shame? It's small and it is petty. TNR should be above it. On misuse of the term neo-con. 'Neocon' has become the liberal writers substitute term of choice for 'conservative'. I think the editors at TNR need to eliminate the twenty year old misuse of the term 'neo-con' in their pages. The overuse and misuse of the term has destroyed the credibility of publications such as TNR with the mainstream of American political philosophy. If these things are done, perhaps the writing in TNR might get back to the higher plane of the old days. Until then we have "The Economist".

- D. L. Sawyer, Radnor, Pa

June 17, 2008 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've always admired Joe Lieberman. Ditto James Webb. And I'm one of those independent voters belonging to no party. But despite the education and twenty plus years of working in a Brahmin, elitist environment, I guess when it comes down to it, I'm still just a stubborn Scots-Irish. So Dems, don't tell me how to think! You're likely to loose your head or, if I'm feeling kindly maybe you'll walk away with a few wounds.

- calmwater

June 17, 2008 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen, Ric, amen.

- go_figure

June 17, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can the author of this article seriously argue that the democrats and the political left, are not demonstrably weak when it comes to use of American military force, or even conveying the credible threat of force? Al Qaeda launched multiple attacks on the US when Bill Clinton was in office - and the US response was these attacks wimpy. And the Clintons would have you believe, as the author here apparently does, that they are among the more hawkish of their party. Democrats have opposed tapping the phones of terrorist suspects. They have opposed detention of terrorists. (Enemy combatants get attorneys now...) They have opposed interrogation (and yes ANY form of pressure, torture or harsh treatment) for high value terrorist targets. In addition to opposing their detention, they oppose releasing terror suspects to their home countries for fear they might be tortured by governments there. They (now) oppose fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. They opposed seizure of suspected terrorist funds. They oppose racial profiling in airports. They oppose using intolerant language, offensive cartoons, unfair characterizations of Islam. (To a liberal, only Christianity may be freely mocked...Or maybe Judaism can be mocked if Israel is being discussed....) Democratic terrorism policy is as follows: Can't listen to them, hold them, hurt them, shoot them, rough 'em up, bomb them, mock them, release them, track them, profile them or mess up their hair. I wish liberals would care so much about the rest of us - But these are the mental gymnastics required to be a member of the increasingly loony left.

- jcambro

June 17, 2008 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought liberals thought that dissent was the highest form of patriotism... I guess that's only if you dissent from a conservative position. Otherwise, it's just "unraveling" at best or "selling out to the Jews, er, Israel" at worst. Hypocrites.

- The Juice

June 17, 2008 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It stinks like poo in here.

- csmiller

June 17, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So the two alternatives are: A) the democrats have recently gone the path of the alumnium-foiled hat crowd B) the democrats have always been the alumnium-foiled hat crowd. Either choice doesn't seem too kind. Lieberman is the one stalwart of reason in that insano welfare/health-care ward. And they're trying to get rid of him. Precious.

- JWL2672

June 17, 2008 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman is totoaly loyal to only one entity - Isreal

- Donald Jones

June 17, 2008 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

pjc said: "The Democratic Party has forgotten how to love their country and defend it. Protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic." If the Democrats were to defend the country from those who are actively engaged in destroying it, Bush and Cheney would be the first to go.

- Chredon

June 17, 2008 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see by perusing the comments that two things have happened: 1) The Iraq war has been won, yet again. (Bring down the violence for a couple of months to 2005 levels and we get to win the war again. Does that mean that if it flares up again and then settles down, that we can declare victory once again?) 2) That a thread about Lieberman can get the shouts of "jew hater" going like nothing else. And Ric, the reason Lieberman decided to caucus with the democrats was because, for one, he wanted to a choice assignment from the majority. If he still wants to keep it, he might want to rethink his attacks on the Democratic canidate.

- Pat Hendrix

June 17, 2008 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In fairness to Liberman, he is very good on the environment. Kudos to him for his statements about global warming And has kept the defense dollars flowing to United Technologies , and Electric Boat here in CT. He has ensured that the war on terror has benefited his own constituents. He deserves enormous credit for bringing billons of dollars to the defense industry in Connecticut Sure he supports American war against Saddam, but that is hardly a surprise. The protection of Israel is very important for Joe.. And he regarded Saddam as a threat to Israel. Next on the hit parade is Iran, which is also a threat to Israel. I suspect the real reason so many dislike Joe is that he comes off as sanctimonious. His manner just rubs people the wrong way, framing himself as the last pious person in the world. . There is a reason folks derisively call him "Holy Joe" Narcissism is a occupational danger for politicians and unfortunately, Joe has fallen victim to it. But he should not be judged to harshly for this.

-

June 17, 2008 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait a minute, is this the same Joe Leiberman who was the Democrats choice for VP ? And is this the same guy whose party disavowed him as he ran for his Senate seat? Lets' see VP choice, great guy. Senate choice , loser. Leibermans' positions , unchanged. Now, what was that again about what disavowing whom?

- Joel Shandalow

June 17, 2008 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I assume most of the readers/commenters are liberals and Democrats; this is, after all, The New Republic we're reading, isn't it. The impression one gets from reading the whole shebang is that this party is hopelessly split and that each faction's greatest desire is to purge the other factions. Lotsa luck Barack!

- Lou Sernoff

June 17, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. I don't think I realized how many assholes read TNR before.

- James F. Elliott

June 17, 2008 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like many Jewish Hawks, Joe Lieberman, as Al Gore told him years ago, is dead wrong about the War in Iraq. I used to be a Jewish Hawk myself. In fact, I still am. It's just that my understanding of security and global strategy have brown more nuanced in the past 6 years. Back in 2002 I supported Bush and his war. You may think that I should be embarrassed by that but I am not. I squarely blame the Democratic Party for not putting forward a compelling alternative to Bush's "Cowboy Diplomacy" doctrine. Finally, with his testimony to the 9/11 Commission and the release of his book Richard Clark formulated a highly sophisticated alternative to the Bush paradigm. Most Democrats still didn't catch on, and John Kerry's campaign completely failed to engage the issue of Homeland Security, thus losing the election... I still voted for him (or more accurately I voted against Bush) but a lot of good it did him. Lieberman and McCain may be wrong about "taking the tough road" in the Iraq War, but many high-ranking democrats were wrong in their assessment of America's security needs as well. The reason I support Obama over McCain is that I believe him to be a nuanced and innovative thinker who will eventually get it right even as some of his liberal advisers and their counter-parts on the right continue to get it wrong. McCain, by contrast, still thinks we're fighting World War II when in fact the reality we face is far more complex and cannot be won by troops on the ground alone. So please don't demonize Lieberman, or McCain for that matter. Joe is not a traitor or an "Israel First" person (and believe me, I know all about them). He's just wrong on this one, like so many of us were (are). The possibility of him agreeing to be McCain's VP is quite a scary one for me as an Obama supporter, but as I would be happy to see Obama pick a moderate Republican as his VP choice certainly McCain is entitled to the same option. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that and there is in fact a lot of things right with that. The fact still remains, that the surge notwithstanding, John and Joe are wrong in their overly simplistic approach to global security strategy, especially pertaining to the paramount importance of the American Economy to our global and military preeminence. If Obama can make that case successfully, and I believe he can, he has nothing to fear but fear itself from John, Joe or anybody else. Gobama Go! But don't demonize Joe.

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

June 17, 2008 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The writer goes after Lieberman for the same reason that he cannot accept that you could have been anti-communist without being a rightwinger. He doesn't place himself in the left, center right spectrum but I would guess he is a noninterventionist. Lieberman represents a fine tradition in the Democratic Party that is still hanging on by its nails. Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, George Meany, Lane Kirkland, Albert Shanker, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Penn Kemble, etc., were by no means right wingers. They had a democratic critique of communism that they applied universally and across the board. Lieberman, in my opion, is part of that tradition. His opponents attack much like the Stalinists of old smeared their opponents.

- Bruce Miller

June 17, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well Jon, someone is going around the bend, but I'm afraid that it's you, not Joe. You see him getting farther away on the political horizon, but it's you who is moving left, not him moving right. Your anecdotal evidence does nothing to prove or even suggest that he's going crazy or turning into a "turncoat". It's just further evidence of TNR's and the Democratic Parties ongoing lurch leftward over the past couple of years. Worst TNR column I've read since in a while. A very strange premise, poorly argued.

- Mark B

June 17, 2008 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bottm line is that the Democratic Party has lost any intestinal fortitiude it ever had. When you have people like Dean, Pelosi, Reid, and Moveon.org running your party, it's destined to not impress. Look at how the far right vets McCain. McCain is still trying to win over the far right b/c the Repubs are actually concerned with the issues, vice rhetoric and warm/fuzzies. Does the Left vet O'Bama? No b/c he never dare take a stance against the against. Taking action and sometimes making the unpopular decision is what makes this country great, not hope. Put hope aside and bring back American pride. T-shirts anyone?

- Austin

June 17, 2008 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does anyone actually pay for this rag? Chait has nothing to offer.

- The Moving Finger

June 17, 2008 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

His manner just rubs people the wrong way, framing himself as the last pious person in the world. ----- Are you sure you haven't got him confused with Al Gore?

- Cincinnati Rick

June 17, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not that difficult. Joe is now the Senator from Israel. He always has been. His first loyalty is not the U.S., but to Israel (as is the ilk of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al). And the idea that the democrats might withdraw our troops from Iraq and not finish off our surrogate war for Israel is just too painful for Joe. Not to mention the horrible thought that we might not attack Iran for the same reason. And spare me the "anti-semite, remember-the-holocaust" remarks. Israel considers no one interests but its own, and Joe and his co-horts fervently support that policy.

- Daniel Kirk

June 17, 2008 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The comment above is absolutely correct, but he in fact SHOULD, be judged harshly for this. For Joe, it's all about Joe. Not to mention, the guy is doing nothing more than carving out his own niche in the DC establishment. His whole aim is to create this image of an "indepdent voice," but if you look deeper you realize how incredibly contrived, superficial and uninspiring he is. He is such a product of the Washington establishment, it's disgusting. And the creation and subsequent perpetuation of this schtick has given rise to a cadre of wannabe "strategists"/Lieberman hacks/petty operators, guys and gals with similar delusions of grandeur and outsized egos (Dan Gerstein, Ben Josephson just to name a couple). Thank you for running this important piece.

- used to like joe

June 17, 2008 at 9:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I clearly recall living in CT when Lieberman was elected. Soon after, everyone realized that he was truly should have had an "R" after his name. The papers pointed out that more often than not, he sided with the Republicans. He was criticized, and rightly so, for being a right-wing wanna be. Nothing's changed-except he's even MORE right leaning.

- whocareswhoiam

June 17, 2008 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is such BS to suggest that the DEMS want to expand our military. You only have to turn back the pages of time to see that our military has suffered giant cuts under Democratic presidents. The Dems will draw down the troops the minute they have the power to do so.

- Kurt

June 17, 2008 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, Joe just rubs folks the wrong way. He won't fall in line with the regimented anti-American, pro-terrorist party line. How dare he not help the blood-thirsty Islamist terrorists win in Iraq. He must just be a jew lover. He doesn't even put partisan politics ahead of the safety of American soldiers and the well being of his country. What a scab.

- Chuck

June 17, 2008 at 11:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your statements are contrary to fact. The Democrats most certainly did support Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. It was only after Lieberman lost the nomination that they supported the Democratic instead of Lieberman, who ran as an independent. Get your facts straight. ps -- My father and family are also Jewish. They don't support Israel's politics. Jewish religion and Israeli politics are not the same thing.

- Keelaay

June 17, 2008 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman has kept his sanity, while the whole Democratic Party leadership has lost its. I think he will make a great Secretary of State in the McCain administration.... better than Condaleeza Rice, who has failed miserably just like Powell and Albright.

- J Baustian

June 17, 2008 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've never been comfortable with Lieberman. I feel he prioritizes the interest of Israel over the interest of America. He is also politically ambitious. He was a Democrat for the chance to be VP. I've read in the press that he appears to have a deal with McCain to get appointed Secretary of State of Secretary of Defense if McCain becomes President! Of course, he has to bring the Jewish vote to McCain and McCain has to win, first.

- PJ

June 18, 2008 at 1:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If this is a hit piece on Lieberman, it's a powderpuff beating delivered by an effete Liberal--perhaps symptomatic of what Lieberman has been talking about. The New Left in the Democratic Party isn't isolationist; it's anti-American. It isn't for a more nuanced approach to military power; it's for the dismantling of the U.S. military. It isn't for multiculturalism; it's for favoritism of those constituencies that adopt the New Left ideology (African American politicians and other left wingers) and denigrating those that don't cooperate (some seniors and women). All in all, the Democrats are an embarrassment.

- EMD

June 18, 2008 at 7:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

since joe lieberman is not a candidate (or is he brown nosing mccain for vice president) why is he allowed to go all around the country with mccain as if he was his significant other, what is he being paid for? has he even been in the senate this year?

- eve

June 18, 2008 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman is a sad, little man. Let's not forget that after he lost the Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont and became an 'Independent Democrat' he pleaded with voters in Connecticut to "look beyond their differences on this one issue" (Iraq) and support him because of their shared views on everything else. Isn't that quaint? Of course, Mr. Lieberman could have taken this same stance toward the Presidential candidates. But no, "this one issue" has pushed him over the edge - and driven him to not only support a Republican candidate who agrees with him on this issue (and may even help Mr. Lieberman achieve his real goal of boming Iran) but also to trash the Democratic Party in general and act as a vocal fierce critic of the Democratic Party candidate. Joe Lieberman has no principles. Nothing he does or says is trying to "end the partisanship in Washington." Plain and simple, he is just a sad, petty, little man.

- eric

June 18, 2008 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Americans hate Zio-clowns

- Shootingsparks

June 18, 2008 at 8:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Prior to his running for re-election he would refuse to respond to ANY email comments. I tried time and time again as each time I was told that "they" did not accept comments unless you go to a different website, form, or whatever. After perhaps 11 times trying to merely contact the man regarding his downward spiral, he and his minions made it impossible to get through to them. That alone screamed so much, so why would it take you until AFTER the election for you to notice that the man DIDN'T CARE what you or anyone else had to say? Joe Lieberman lost my confidence years ago and when it came time for his re-election, well then the game was ON.

- Sara C.

June 18, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Idiot

-

June 18, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait writes: "Democrats started questioning the war because the war was going badly, while Lieberman remained--to borrow a phrase--in a spider hole of denial." Most Democrats started questioning the war before the war was going badly. Many who voted for the resolution did not really believe that it was desirable to fight a long war but voted anyway.

-

June 18, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman went off the deep end early in his debate with Vice President Cheney, a fellow chicken hawk who blithely sends sons and daughters into harm's way without ANY sense of what it is like to serve, from personal experience. Watch him bend over backwards to flatter Dick Cheney and you will see how naively self-serving he can be. Any man or woman who believes in choice and the importance of Roe v Wade needs to remind him that his McCain support is patently offensive. Read Lieberman's NARAL speech and please explain how his FERVENT support for McCain can be squared with his FERVENT support for Roe v Wade. Be honest and explain it as follows that Iraq policy is more important to him that women's rights. Please be honest for once rather than trying to have it both ways for a change.

- VADem

June 18, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, lieberman supports his country. problem is, that country is israel.

- kathleen

June 18, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman -- out first senator from Israel.

- Sick Of It

June 18, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe-Zell Lie-Berman. Just another Arab hating maggot infested shitass fucking Jew!

- rodan

June 18, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If there are no democrats then what am I? I and millions and millions more are true democrats who stand on our principles of grasping the middle class and taxing the hell out of the rich.

- jedro

June 18, 2008 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If JFK were alive and a Democratic politico today, he would be expelled from the party. (He was for tax cuts, as well as a strong America.) Likewise, it is interesting to see that Anti-Semitism, once a quirk of the right, is a left wing enthusiasm today, even if none of them are willing to use the word "Jew". Politics has certainly changed in a half century.

- elwin9

June 18, 2008 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman has weirdly discredited himself but most conspicously appearing ,as he always has , to be a mouthpiece for AIPAC and American Zionists to the disgust of those in Israel seeking peace. His support for Bush who has followed the same line to the danger of the world for different reasons to support his fundamentalist "base" is the ultimate betrayal of his former party and the American people

- RD Reid

June 19, 2008 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't understand why there's so much clamoring to ensure war with Iran. We haven't even finished our war in Afghanistan. Or the war in Iraq. Our military is spread thin. And we have very, very few allies. To think that we can start a war with Iran and win is naive. Joe Lieberman is my senator. I voted for him in 2006, but I will not vote for him again in 2012. He has put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of his own country.

- ross

June 19, 2008 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How come you can write "democratic principled" but you can't write "Democratic Party?" I don't think you ever were a Democrat.

- Phil

June 19, 2008 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

loved by no one.

- He appeased everyone and now is

June 19, 2008 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democrats use force against terrorism? Clinton passed on Osama three times. He bombed a pharmaceutical factory. He put a blind cleric in prison like a bank robber and ignored terrorists while they were planning Sept. 11th for years during his administration. Remember the 1st world trade center attack in 1993 eight years before Sept.11th? What did he accomplish in response to it? Please! Get serious!

- jim shiely

June 19, 2008 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's really great to see that there are some Democrats commenting here who aren't the hands-over-ears "bush lied", "no war for oil", "obama is the savior" etc democrats that i'm so used to. It makes me think that I, as a libertarian-republican have a lot more in common with Democrats than I thought. To me, its not always the issues so much as the tone and the means. Democrats nowadays more resemble the tone and propaganda of the hitler youth than the republicans ever have to my knowledge. I've never seen such flag waving, closed-minded, fascist "at any cost" behavior as I have in the last few years with the Democrats vs. Bush people.

- Misanthropy Today

June 20, 2008 at 4:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Listen up, Anti-Semitic bigots. Many Israel-supporting American Jews like myself consider Lieberman a self-serving jackass. There's nothing incompatible between supporting Israel and supporting Obama. Both Obama and McCain are locked into supporting Israel despite the stupidity of the media pundits. The most important difference between Obama and McShrub is that Obama is still able to learn and grow, and McShrub has gone around the bend. Lieberman is welcome to join him. Good riddance!

- Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH

June 20, 2008 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your criticism would have a lot more validity if you hadn't been the biggest Lieberman boosters up until, oh about five minutes ago. Where are your mea culpas to all the Howard Dean and Ned Lamont supporters you vilified because they dared to go against the sainted Joe Lieberman? If Joe is a megalomaniac now, it's because people liked enabled it, singing his praises long after it was shown what a hypocricial, self-serving putz he was.

- The Frito Pundito

June 23, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So now Chait is one of those Democrats that he has hysterically been warning us against for years. Funny the comments on this thread look like something you'd find at NRO. Well, I guess it makes sense in that that's what TNR has been for some time now...GOP-lite.

- Lance Lawson

June 23, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait made shrill accusations against opponents of the invasion of Iraq, then was forced repeatedly to apologize for his bad judgment. Then he made shrill accusations against critics of Joe Lieberman, but now must concede his bad judgment. Chait has repeatedly demonstrated, not only that he has atrocious judgment, but that he is a vicious power-mad fool.

- Jim Balter

June 25, 2008 at 7:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close