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 Let Lieberman Live

POLITICS NOVEMBER 15, 2008

Let Lieberman Live

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

On Tuesday, Democratic Senators will decide the political fate of Joe Lieberman. For the past several years, Lieberman has been a persistent thorn in their side--a relentless critic of Democratic attempts to end the war in Iraq and a no-less-vocal advocate of President Bush’s surge strategy. Relations have grown considerably worse since he endorsed John McCain for President last December and delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention this fall. Now that the Democrats have picked up at least six additional seats in the Senate, liberal activists are calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee, revoke his seniority, and possibly evict him from the Democratic caucus altogether. But to do so would send the wrong message to the country, needlessly divide the Democratic Party, and betray the principles Barack Obama stressed so eloquently in his campaign.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />


To his credit, Obama has sent signals that he wants Lieberman to stay in the caucus, and perhaps even as chair of the committee. "We don't hold any grudges," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter emailed Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on Monday. And, indeed, allowing Lieberman to stay--however obnoxious liberals might have found his dissidence--wouldn’t just be a sign of non-partisan, post-election magnanimity; it'd also be in the long-term political interests of Obama and his fellow Democrats. Because if the Democratic Party wants to maintain control of Congress and the White House, it will have to reconcile its liberal and moderate wings. Punishing Lieberman could complicate these efforts.  


First, just in terms of policy, those calling for the axe ignore that Lieberman has been a reliable Democrat. Last week, Reid said that “Lieberman is not some right wing nut case,” and, in fact, Lieberman has secured a higher party loyalty voting record than 14 of his Democratic colleagues. He’s also been a fine chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He sponsored the legislation that first created the department, and under his leadership, the committee has achieved some legitimate successes: Lieberman helped alter the formula by which homeland security funding is dispersed so that the localities most at risk receive more aid, and he crafted legislation to mandate the inspection of all air and sea cargo within three years. He has also sponsored good, progressive legislation, like a bill extending domestic partner benefits to gay federal employees.


Yes, Lieberman’s frequent and vocal complaints about the Democratic Party have irked his colleagues. But, in terms of policy, has he really damaged liberal aims more than the other Democratic congressmen and Senators who have not toed the party leadership’s line? Senator Robert Byrd, for instance, has been one of the coal industry’s greatest friends in Congress, angering environmentalists for decades with his attempts to block measures that would reduce pollution. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he has been one of the most powerful men in the Senate, and it’s not unreasonable to say that his position on the issue over the years has done more harm to the progressive cause writ large than Lieberman has. 


Moreover, a political party that seeks to represent a broad swathe of the country should be able to accommodate someone (even a committee chairman) who holds slightly divergent views from the congressional leadership. For an example of what happens when a political party imposes ideological purity tests, Democrats need only cast their gaze across the aisle. The GOP is currently enmeshed in a civil war, where the conservative wing has all but destroyed the party’s moderate faction. Starting in 1994 and continuing on through today, Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay wouldn’t allow for disagreement within the caucus, and the result has been the party’s intellectual breakdown. Moderate Republicans like Chris Shays no longer exist, and the party is given to sensational acts of overreach, the congressional witch hunt over Bill Clinton’s sex life and the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case being two of the most notorious examples.


There’s also the strategic case for keeping Lieberman on: Just because the Republican brand has lost some its luster doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party now has the leverage to excommunicate its centrists. For the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has been most successful when it has governed from the center--when it has governed at all. Its 2006 congressional takeover, engineered by incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wouldn’t have happened if the party didn’t run centrist and conservative Democrats in traditionally red states. Were the Democrats to punish their former vice presidential nominee, it could weaken the position of these legislators by making the party seem too liberal and intolerant of moderates. Leaving Lieberman alone would allow the Democrats to one-up the GOP by showing that they're the ones who believe in a big tent philosophy, as opposed to the small-minded, petty Republicans.


Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or expelling him from their caucus. (On the contrary, some are rallying to his defense.) The people most interested in penalizing Lieberman are a small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists, the same people who were plumping over two years ago to eject him from the Democratic Party for his supposed heresies. Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman’s seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the “flagrantly dreadful” Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is “far more than Lieberman deserves,” while Josh Marshall declares that offer “simply unacceptable.” The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once  doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he’ll “no doubt” use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate.


From his reversal on FISA and selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff to the news that he’s unlikely to overhaul Bush administration national security policies, Obama seems to understand that kowtowing to his party’s left flank is not what the American people expected when they elected him president. Though it may be tempting to dump Lieberman now that he needs the Democrats more than they need him, doing so wouldn’t put an end to “the partisanship and pettiness and immaturity” that Obama criticized in his victory speech last week. It would instead suggest that Democrats haven’t learned a thing about what’s currently rending the GOP apart.


James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.


SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 57 comments

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

57 comments

"the Democratic Party has been most successful when it has governed from the center" And.... you lost me.

-

November 15, 2008 at 3:01am

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

Well said. Now, if the censorship board at tnr will only process comments before the Tuesday decision time, we might have a useful conversation....naaah.

- Robert Powell

November 15, 2008 at 3:37am

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

Sorry, no dice.

- MGB

November 15, 2008 at 3:53am

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

James - have you even been following the debate over Lieberman? All of the issues you discuss are entirely peripheral to why there is pressure to oust Lieberman from his chairmanship and possibly (although far less likely) from the caucus. The issues here are two: First, Lieberman's embarassingly fawning endorsement of McCain (in an obvious effort to seek the GOP VP slot) along with his shockingly fear-mongering "criticisms" of Barack Obama that he should be vetted for Marxist beliefs, etc. Second, this has to do with Lieberman's literally awful performance as a chairman of the H/S Committee. While his House counterpart Waxman was doing his job, Lieberman was trying to establish his GOP bona fides by failing to hold any (or at least no substantive) hearings on ANYTHING. Nothing on Katrina, nothing on torture, nothing on wiretapping. Zip, zero, zilch, nada. Your article, while well written and perhaps applicable in another context, widely misses the mark here. Homer

- Homer

November 15, 2008 at 10:10am

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

Mostly well said, Jamie, but I think you're missing the main point. Lieberman faces potential retribution not for being a hawk but for actively campaigning against his own party in a presidential election. The Blue Dogs you referred to may not have constantly sung Obama's praises on the campaign trail, but they never stumped for McCain. I agree that stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship, let alone expelling him from the caucus, would be counterproductive. But there must be some accountability, and the party needs to send a clear message that we won't tolerate all-out betrayal.

- ackyri

November 15, 2008 at 10:26am

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

Well, I would agree with if only you had gotten the point of tossing Lieberman: he stinks on the key issues of our time, he endorsed the freaking GOP presidential candidate, and did nothing as committee chair over the past two years to justify retaining him in that post.

- chuck DC

November 15, 2008 at 10:42am

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

Though Jason, Michelle, and others have already adequately covered this topic, I do essentially agree with Le Enfant Terrible on this one. As I stated on an earlier thread, I concur with Sen. Bayh that before any midnight reprieve, JoeWeasel must apologize for his conduct during the presidential campaign, then pledge to work with his fellow Democratic Caucus, instead of pissing on it as he has over the past 2 years. If he does that, then I can be magnanimous as anyone.

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 15, 2008 at 10:47am

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

You know, James, you did quite a bit of writing about something that you evidently know nothing about. You completely whiffed on the point of Lieberman's 'troubles'. Ideological purity has nothing to do with it; his lack of judgement absurd campaign behavior do. I don't care where JL caucuses, but as a citizen, I do don't want him on any Senate Committe leadership position. Lieberman's constituancy is Joe lieberman; he just bet on the wrong pony and lost.

- Ken

November 15, 2008 at 11:12am

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

Lieberman must go! He made his bed, now he must lie in it. And all this talk, as though the United States of America will suffer if Joe Lie is jettisoned back to Connecticut, is bunk. This contrived dilemma strikes me as a Congresional Old Boys Club struck by what do with as errant club member. Throw the bum out. The United States Of America will not miss him...(Trust Me)

- Alejandro

November 15, 2008 at 12:03pm

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

Lieberman has got to go. The majority is close enough to the 60 needed that a well drafted bill will bring in the center. Lieberman will side with Republicans more often than not and obviously isn't to be trusted on most issues.

- John Missoula Montana

November 15, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

It's worth pointing out that this is not a "let's be reasonable" appeal from the Democratic side here - Mr. Kirchick is a pro-Iraq war hawk who supported John McCain. Maybe that's why his argument seems more like a personal plea than a logical analysis. Mr. Kirchick attempts to characterize the move to strip Lieberman's chairmanship as a left-wing purge by liberal bloggers and other typical bogeymen invoked on Fox News, but he misses two things. First, in direct contradiction to what he writes, one (high-profile) Democratic senator has called for Lieberman's replacement as committee chair - Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did so yesterday. Second, some of the names he cites even in this piece, like Joe Klein, are hardly members of the activist Left - in fact, Joe Klein is relentlessly criticized on Daily Kos and other liberal blogs. Furthermore, the whole way Mr. Kirchick sets this decision up is laughable, pretending that all Lieberman did is disagree with other members of his party on some important issues. If that was the case, of course, there would be no problem - as he points out, other members of Congress diverge from liberal orthodoxy in their votes more often than Lieberman does. The obvious problem here is that Lieberman doesn't just vote with the Republicans, he campaigns with the Republicans while harshly (and unfairly) criticizing his fellow Democrats. Joe Lieberman was by John McCain's side on the campaign trail more than just about anyone else other than Sarah Palin. He didn't just help the other side, he WAS the other side. And along the way, he accused his fellow Democrats of wanting to surrender in Iraq and accused Barack Obama of putting party above country, not-so-subtly attacking his patriotism. Let him live? Of course. Let him stay in the caucus? Sure, I hope he does. But reward him with a committee chairmanship? Absolutely not. Especially not when he has been so negligent (as other commenters have pointed out) in conducting oversight in that position in the past two years. Finally, the other element in play here is trust. In a legislative body like the Senate, trust is still the coin of the realm, and Lieberman has lost it by repeatedly lying to just about everyone. He told CT voters when he ran for re-election two years ago that he would support the Democratic nominee for president in 08 - obviously, he broke that pledge. Even after he did so, he told his Democratic Senate colleagues (the ones who will now decide his fate) that he would only promote McCain, not attack Obama. That also turned out to be a lie. If the caucus can't rely on anything he says anymore, why put him in a position of power? Joe Lieberman has tried to play both sides for his own personal advancement for too long. He supported McCain because he knew he could be in line for VP or SecDef or another good Cabinet spot if McCain won, and he gambled that if he lost the Democrats would still accept him back. It's time for the Democrats to put an end to this and send a message to their caucus that we're going to have a united front going forward - not on every individual issue of course, but at least on the fact that we are Democrats and we fight for the basic values of this party. If Joe Lieberman wouldn't stand up for his fellow Democrats even when their patriotism was attacked - and indeed, if he was one of those making such attacks - then why in the world should Democrats now stand up for him?

-

November 15, 2008 at 12:41pm

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

Lieberman has got to go. The majority is close enough to the 60 needed that a well drafted bill will bring in the center. Lieberman will side with Republicans more often than not and obviously isn't to be trusted on most issues.

- John Missoula Montana

November 15, 2008 at 12:42pm

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

Sports parallel. Many in bullpen, on bench, sidelines... more skilled and in line with sensibilities of electorate that voted for CHANGE. Give a "second tier" figure an opportunity to bring talent and judgement to the chairmanship. LIE berman has neither.

- Ray

November 15, 2008 at 1:13pm

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

This argument is patently ridiculous. As others have said the point isnt that Lieberman disagrees with the party at time. The point is he campaigned for the opposition's presidential candidate including engaging in smearing the Democratic candidate AND he campaigned for downticket republicans going so far as to go on a radio and say he "feared" for America if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Also your post was just a little early as Senator Leahy come out yesterday in favor of stripping Lieberman and independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Dems concurred. This article could almost be seen as a deliberate attempt to confuse your readers and gin up sympathy for Joe Lieberman in the event the Democrats rightly strip him of his chairmanship which by the way is the ONLY thing they are intent on doing. No Democrat is after keeping Lieberman from caucusing with them but rather is Lieberman who has promised to change to a Republican if he doesn't get to keep his chairmanship. I wonder why you didn't include that bit of selfishness on Lieberman's part in your story. Smells fishy to me!

- Steve White

November 15, 2008 at 1:23pm

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

"Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship...." Darn those press deadlines. Currently, both Sens. Leahey and Sanders have explicitly called for that, and explained why much better than you did in this piece.

- Winner

November 15, 2008 at 1:24pm

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

James -- you should update your article now that Senators Leahy and Sanders have called for Leiberman to lose his chairmanship (though Sanders is technically not a Democrat). And the many commenters above are correct that you simply miss the point of the criticism. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, he felt no need to investigate the toxic Katrina trailers, for example. Did he accomplish anything at all as chair of his committee? I have some hope that in a secret ballot the caucus will strip him of the chair position.

- davemb

November 15, 2008 at 1:41pm

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

This is the only "semi-progressive" site where I keep seeing articles on why the Dems should not retaliate against Droopy Dog for his traitorous, nasty attacks against Obama and the Democrative party during this presidential election... It makes me wonder what kind of kool-aid you guys are passing around here at TNR! Sure, the Senate leadership should "Let Lieberman Live"...he can keep his mangy flea-bitten hide....but he SHOULD NOT KEEP ANY POSITION OF POWER in the Senate where he can continue to do his dirty work! Please stop the stupidity here!

- wagonjak

November 15, 2008 at 1:50pm

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

Joe Lieberman abandoned the Democratic Party when he defeated the Democratic nominee in a general election for the Senate and he abandoned the Democratic Party when he campaigned for the Republican Party candidate in the Presidential election. Lieberman is free to vote with the Democratic Party whenever he wishes but he has preferred to vote with Republicans on the central issue of the last eight years. He does not deserve any of the rights or the privileges of membership of a Democratic Party to which he no longer belongs.

- ndmackenzie

November 15, 2008 at 1:53pm

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

Kirchick writes: "Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or expelling him from their caucus." Uh, no. Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy. Sanders said "To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country." He has that right.

- ndmackenzie

November 15, 2008 at 1:56pm

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

I agree with Robert Powell above...why do posts left here sometimes take four or five hours to post? You would get a lot more comments here, and it would help your site with visits and time spent here, if you did a better job posting comments in a timely manner!

- wagonjak

November 15, 2008 at 2:06pm

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

Ditto El Jaunty. Time to grow up, kiddies.

- Robert Powell

November 15, 2008 at 2:46pm

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

Hah! I just won a bet on which TNR writer would be the first to write the "Save poor Lieberman from mean radical leftist" article. I just know it would be Marty's favorite son, Jamie Kirchick. BTW, check your fact, please, Mr Kirchick, Senator Leahy and Sanders have came out against letting Lieberman keeping the chairmanship. But I guess they don't qualify as Senators in Mr Kirchick's judgment.

- PeterGuillam

November 15, 2008 at 2:58pm

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

Committee chairmanships should be reserved for talented Senators whose views are reliably in line with the goals and platform of the majority party and who reliably support the politicians of the majority party. Lieberman simply does not fit this bill. He campaigned for the other guy. He allowed some of the worst atrocities of the Bush administration pass by without comment, or worse with his full support. He isn't someone the Democrats can count on. He doesn't owe anyone an apology, in my opinion-- he is an Independent, and thus, should feel free to support any politician or issue he likes. However, because he cannot reliably be counted on to do this, he should not be rewarded with a chair. Simple as that. There is no revenge, retribution, or humiliation necessary. It's simply common sense. Kirchick makes the argument that Democrats should not give in to the activists (the Democratic wing of the Democratic party) in the name of bi-partisanship. The problem Democrats have with the electorate at large is not bi-partisanship; the Democrats' problem is that they appear to have no backbone. They are seen as wishy-washy pushovers and allowing Lieberman to retain his chairmanship will only buttress this impression. No clear-thinking American would expect the Democrats to give a choice position to the person who stabbed them in the back.

- Taritac

November 15, 2008 at 3:30pm

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

Well covered by Homer.Liebermann's centrist beliefs have NOTHING to do with ousting him from the chairmanship. His blatant endorsement of McCain an also Republican Senators Susan Collins and Norm Coleman have everything to do with it. Plus, he said that he feared for the country if the Dems got to 60 seats. Ther ehas to be a basic test of loyalty. I don't undertsand how making Liebermann not pay any price at all shows that the Dems are nothing but wimps on this. WHere's Liebermann going to go ? Do you really think that he'll want to run in Connecticut (a state Obama won by 23 points)in four years as a Republican ? That would be political suicide. The DEMs have the leverage and Liebermann doesn't. The Dems just need to realize that.

- Shyas

November 15, 2008 at 7:15pm

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

I second what cookie said, I also think that the time to have stripped him of his chairmanship was before the election, when such an action would have had real and negative impact on the Dems themselves as much as on Lieberman, and as such would have been seen as acting on principle, and in the spirit of a campaign (which is a peaceful war for power). Now the election is over and the Dems have won, now is the time to put aside the wartime methods. If Lieberman was good enough for the Dems before the election (when he was shooting at them from inside the tent) then he is good enough for them now since he is completely unarmed. And Bob, I agree, the threads here are terrible compared to the ones for the paid subscribers.

- blackton

November 15, 2008 at 7:25pm

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

Kirchick, you are wrong. For starters, you have misdiagnosed the problem: Leiberman is not accused of being 'moderate'. He is accused of political treason (not to be confused with actual treason). It's not that he's a hawk on Iraq. It's that instead of having an inter-party policy debate, respectfully acknowledging and disagreeing with his fellow Democrats, he instead turned and stabbed those whose greatest sin was disagreeing with him. His 3rd-party candidacy, endorsement of John McCain, culminating with his RNC speech, shows that he is not a member of the Democratic party. While the Democrats in the Senate should not prevent him from caucusing with them, neither should they reward him for attacking them, and a Chairmanship is a reward, not a right.

- Dave

November 15, 2008 at 9:01pm

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

You have put your head where the sun doesn't shine.

- Keone Michaels

November 15, 2008 at 9:15pm

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

i think you miss the point which is what would motivate lieberman to take such actions ? in my view he is a double traitor and the most duplicitous politician in recent memory. his iraq stance is solely motivated to keep in good stead with IApac (the biggest israeli lobbying pac )and his biggest financial supporter. also, when he realized ,the last week ,that mccain was going to loose he actually said some semicomplimentary things about barack . this has more to do with showing some backbone than anything .strip him of his chairmanship and tell him if he wants to caucus with the dems to make a mea culpa .

- jon randall

November 15, 2008 at 9:16pm

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

Just wow James...I left a couple of critical comments this morning, and they still haven't appeared...I have to think you're either a thin-skinned blogger who can't take any criticism, or you take days to post comments.... Either is unacceptable, and you should be more timely or accepting of critical remarks! This could be part of the reason TNR is in so much trouble these days... don't you think

- wagonjak

November 15, 2008 at 9:57pm

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

Throw Lieberman out of the caucus! Replace Dingell with Congressman Torquemada of Beverly Hills! Tell Gettlefinger the UAW has suffered enough! God help me, I love it so.

- lsernoff

November 15, 2008 at 10:11pm

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

Lieberman is a turd, nothing new about that. His video game fetish, his slavish devotion to Bush's foreign policy, he even rolled over on the recount to get a jump for a run in 2004. His support for McCain is the least of his offenses. Nevertheless, his a fairly dependable vote and growing more irrelevant by the second. As much as I would like to see Lieberman sent to the basement and given two staffers, best to keep him for the time being.

- Pat Hendrix

November 15, 2008 at 10:13pm

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

How is this even a conversation? Lieberman opposed the electoral victories that have given him his chairmanships, so he shouldn't get them.

- Dirk

November 15, 2008 at 10:23pm

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

James, I think the debate about Lieberman is being waged on the wrong turf. His disloyalty to the Democratic is a serious issue, but not the defining one for me. We need the best and the brightest in leadership positions in Congress and in the administration. Lieberman falls short by a long way when we examine his record as a legislator and a thinker. There are simply better people for the job.

- gizmo

November 16, 2008 at 12:20am

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

What are the upsides to canning Lieberman beyond party discipline and satisfying revenge? I just don't see it. Especially if times turn for the worse. I say this as a man who voted for Obama despite my impatience and alienation from those who fashion and exploit a hyphenated America. The political calculus I would expect from Obama would be to let it ride in an effort to get beyond.

- boxo

November 16, 2008 at 1:13am

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

"Because if the Democratic Party wants to maintain control of Congress and the White House, it will have to reconcile its liberal and moderate wings. Punishing Lieberman could complicate these efforts. " So it's always up to the liberal wing to cave in the name of comity. Sounds like the Bush Administration's definition of bi-partisanship: "Doing what we want is bi-partisanship, everything else is partisan.' Lieberman was the first Democrat to go after bill Clinton. He began his run for the presidency before all the ballots were counted in 2000 (remember his public opposition to the recount). He ran against the Democratic nominee in his last Senate campaign. He campaigned against the Democratic presidential candidate and said nothing when they tried to paint Obama as a dangerous black man. Lieberman cannot be trusted.

- patriotboy

November 16, 2008 at 4:11am

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

OK, let "Joe The Traitor" stay in the Dem caucus, but keep his committee chairmanship? NEVER! Lieberman got up at the GOP Convention & trashed the Dem candidate for president, Obama. Many good Dem Senators worked their hearts out for the party and Obama's election. Why should Lieberman be put ahead of any of them? Had McCain won the election Lieberman would likely be named his Sec. of State! There HAS to be consequences for disloyalty.

- frilz1

November 16, 2008 at 7:07am

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

(apologies if you saw this on another thread) As the High Executioner in Gilbert & Sullivan's "Mikado" sang: "Let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime." In the interest of bolstering Obama's pledge of bipartisanship, Odious Joe can remain a Democrat, but as punishment for his disloyalty no chairmanship of Homeland Security. He is welcome to remain as a backbencher. (And forget the apology --who cares? and who would believe it?)

- JackR

November 16, 2008 at 8:15am

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

Let me get this straight. Lieberman shouldn't suffer any penalty for his disloyalty? Yeah, sure. Jamie, your reasons are weak as water. Send wrong message? Needlessly divide? You are full of shit. Moreover, Lieberman didn't conduct one investigation into the doings of Homeland Security. To my mind, that makes him an ineffective prick. You support Lieberman because of his priority. Which doesn't happen to be the U.S. of A. Pro-Iraq War and pro-defense, my ass. Where was Lieberman during the 'Nam? Of, yes. He and Chris Shays made sure to avoid endangering themselves. I wonder. If Obama issued an executive order allowing gays in the military if Kirchick would sign up--and seek an opportunity to kick some Arab ass by becoming a grunt. I doubt it. probably because writing about fucking up some towel heads beats national security national security sure beats 15 months in the desert wondering if your head will get blown off. And anyway, the IDF takes gays--and chicks--and as yest, you haven't signed up. Do you plan to? Guess I shouldn't hold my breath. Fuck the U.S. and fuck Israel when it pedal-to-the-metal time. With hawks like you, Cheney, Lieberman, Woo, Kristol and Fieth--what am I saying? Hawks? I meant to say: Manginas. How bout growing a pair instead of merely leading the cheer. (Oh, I forgot. Dubya the cheerleader is your god.) You fucking disgust me. Now you want to quote Obama. ("Obama stressed so eloquently in his campaign. . .") Go to HELL.

- tec619

November 16, 2008 at 9:26am

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

I've got news for Kirchick, I'm a an average American from Connecticut who finds my Senator's actions these past 6 years deplorable. In the years leading up to the 2006 elections, Sen. Lieberman showed a complete disregard to the voters cries of outrage over the illegal war being fought in Iraq, and his ready and vocal support of that war. My letters and calls to the Senator's office were always acknowledged with a relatively lame response detailing why HE supported Pres. Bush, and how HE felt regarding the war. It was NEVER about what his constituents were concerned about . EVER. During the primaries of 2006 Democratic race for senate, the Senator came back to CT claiming he was for a timeline in Iraq and was unhappy with the handling of the war. He based his re-election on lies about his record on the war and while touting his majority of voted with the Democratic Party, he neglected to acknowledge the fact that the votes he dissented on were the votes that mattered most to his constituents. Sen. Lieberman lost in the Democratic primary in CT - a contest he said he'd respect if he was the loser. Well, he lied about that too. Instead, he went all out and ran as an Independent, using smear tactics against his opponent that would give even Sarah Palin pause. He lied his way back into the Senate - you can look at his record in CT during that time to see just what he did to claw his way back in. There is a LOT of resentment towards Sen. Lieberman here in CT and it is fueled by our first hand experience with his disingenuousness, lack of loyalty, regard or consideration of the people he is serving in the Senate. That said, I believe he SHOULD be allowed to remain in the Democratic Party in the Senate, but with restriction. He should be stripped of his chairmanships and any standing he has within the Democratic Senate - period. If he chooses to jump ship, then let the rat go with a healthy boot in the ass. What I don't understand is why this isn't a matter that the constituents of CT should also have say in. I plan to contact the Democratic party in CT and voice my outrage. He should be censured by his state's Party, at the very least.

- kimberly

November 16, 2008 at 10:07am

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

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com dismantles the assertions of Mr. Kirchick piece-by-piece. Quite enlightening to learn the tactics employed by mainstream "journalists" to mislead their readers.

- Dave

November 16, 2008 at 10:42am

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

This is a well argued piece by J.K. The plumping for McCain is a sticking point, but not totally adhesive. Here is where Kirchik (and Obama too) is his most wise: ...The people most interested in penalizing Lieberman are a small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists, the same people who were plumping over two years ago to eject him from the Democratic Party for his supposed heresies. Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman's seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the "flagrantly dreadful" Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is "far more than Lieberman deserves," while Josh Marshall declares that offer "simply unacceptable." The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he'll "no doubt" use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate. From his reversal on FISA and selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff to the news that he's unlikely to overhaul Bush administration national security policies, Obama seems to understand that kowtowing to his party's left flank is not what the American people expected when they elected him president. Though it may be tempting to dump Lieberman now that he needs the Democrats more than they need him, doing so wouldn't put an end to "the partisanship and pettiness and immaturity" that Obama criticized in his victory speech last week. It would instead suggest that Democrats haven't learned a thing about what's currently rending the GOP apart... My calls and wishes: no apology; Leiberman stays on: especially considering that on foreign policy he is and has been where the Democrats should have been going in, and domestically he's progressive. Let's hope the left wing nuts stalking Obama--such as Kos, Hamsher--get their rabid heads handed to them by Obama, as he, navigating and triangulating the centre, Third Way style, keeps repudiating them.

- itzik basman

November 16, 2008 at 11:13am

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

I have to say that I'm baffled by this article. It's clear to each and every American that Lieberman is a turncoat; he claimed to be a Democrat while attacking them and supporting the Republicans. Everyone I know, Republican and Democrat alike, expects him to lose his leadership positions as a result. In fact, they'd interpret anything else as a sign of weakness by the Democrats.

- Tom Human

November 16, 2008 at 11:49am

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

No one calling for the loss of his chairmanship = Sanders, Leahy, Dorgan ...

- Kevin

November 16, 2008 at 11:50am

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

What kind of political party lets someone keep the chairmanship of a committee, when that person campaigns actively for the opposing party? It's disingenuous to argue that to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship would "divide" the Democratic Party. Lieberman already went off on his own, so he essentially left the party.

- deborah

November 16, 2008 at 12:15pm

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

Dear isik basman...you've got your head so far up your ass you probably never see anything but crap.... Hamsher and KOS "left wing nuts" "stalking Obama"? These two are part of the reason I love the progressive blogs...they present reasoned, beautifully argued and fact filled posts about politics, which I rarely see from the MSM and NEVER from the right wing nut posts! PLEASE GO BACK TO INSTAPUNDIT or REDSTATE or wherever you waddled out from...we don't need your BS here! And again James...why does it sometimes TAKE DAYS TO HAVE A COMMENT PUBLISHED? This is no way to run a blog...and I hate the way you take out all line returns and run all the copy together...the comment section here at TNR SUCKS BIGTIME!

- wagonjak

November 16, 2008 at 6:25pm

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

<> The wingnuts on the left have been gunning for JL since he refused to change his position on the IRAQ war. If JL had supported Obama there would still be calls for his removal. Look at the shamefull way Democrats treated him when he last ran for his party's nomination to the Seante. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are now controlled by those who allow no compromise with the oposition and no departure from orthodoxy on important issues. Shame on the Republicans, and shame on the Democrats.

- JohnMo

November 16, 2008 at 8:04pm

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

Homer speaks for me. Decisions and actions have consequences and Lieberman must not be let off the hook. We teach our kids this, and as adults we need to practice what we preach. One hopes there will be enough adults in the Senate on Tuesday. He needs to reap and accept the consequences of his egregious statements questioning Obama's loyalty to country and his support of his fellow neocon, McCain. He has fawned so on Bush/Cheney that he abdicated the charge he was given as chair of his crucial committee. Lieberman is the ultimate opportunist and self adulating narcissist. He's a sleaze and has no place on Obama's team. I hope Obama stiffens on this one.

- Leanderthal

November 16, 2008 at 11:10pm

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

It's not Lieberman's positions so much as his Rovian smear tactics of his own party/presidential candidate, if you don't address that, you're not addressing anything.

- mmathog

November 16, 2008 at 11:21pm

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

Booting Lieberman would "divide the Democratic party"? This has to be one of the stupidest pieces of crap I have ever read. Is Kirchik trying to suggest that there are legions of Democrats who would be upset if Lieberman didn't get to keep his chairmanship? I guess Kirchik hasn't heard, but Lieberman is not a Democrat. He angled for the VP nomination from the other side, and then actively campaigned for them. They lost the election. The message that keeping him would send to the country is: Democrats are wimps. It's of course true that the party of Bible-believing Christians would never in a million years have nominated Lieberman for VP, but he fact that he was delusional enough to think they would is no reason to reward him.

- tj_emerson

November 17, 2008 at 12:23am

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

Imagine having a pet rattlesnake for several years. Also imagine that the THING has shown total loyalty and has never bitten anything other than the occasional mouse that you bring as food from time to time. The dog even stepped on IT accidentally but still IT did not bite the dog. You in fact accidentally stepped on IT early one morning as you walked down the hallway and, no, you were not bitten either. Now that 4 years have gone by safely, your wife suggest that the two of you allow IT to sleep in bed with you so that IT can stay warm on those cold winter nights. My question is this: would you get in bed with IT or would you conclude that your wife has lost her marbles ?

- da Gambler

November 17, 2008 at 3:31am

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

Name a single thing that Lieberman has done as chair of the Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee.

- shingles

November 17, 2008 at 12:56pm

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

LIEBERMAN MUST LOSE HIS COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP! End of story.

-

November 17, 2008 at 1:59pm

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

I must rise to correct the error of a previous poster, JackR. (No, not that Kirchik is ridiculously intellectually dishonest or, at the most charitable, willfully ignorant of reality--that is patently obvious). No, Jack claims that the Lord High Executioner directed that "The Punishment Fit the Crime." It was, in fact, the Mikado himself who sang that particular ditty. Oh, and back to Kirchik. Does anyone else suspect that he is in fact employed not for what he says but as a straw person who is a paradigm of the idiotic conservative blogger? That in fact the senior management of TNR, sitting in their walnut-paneled library sipping their port, chortle and say, "Surely nobody thinks we take him seriously??"

- DRW

November 17, 2008 at 3:23pm

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

It is essential that Mr Lieberman continue to represent the State of Israel, notwithstanding his membership in any political party. As such, Joe serves as a universal robot that can be wheeled about for any pro-Israeli purpose on any political stage and before any conceivable group (e.g., a caucus, a convention, a mob, a committee, a parade, a band). One Lieberman robot standing mutely behind any speaker is worth at least 8,000 votes in any state in the northeast and 9,500 votes of the aged in Florida. He simply stands there with a fixed smile and the tired look of a delicatessen counterman. Indeed, there is a certain advantage in renting a robotic Lieberman. There are about fifteen of them kept in a garage in a rural section of northwest Connecticut. At two thousand dollars a Lieberman robot for a weekend, a political party can have the "Lieberman Effect" in as many as as fifteen political meetings simultaneously held, each ignorant of Lieberman's mute, smiling presence elsewhere in the state or nation.

- Harry Reynolds

November 20, 2008 at 5:12pm

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

I assume (and hope) that the Democratic party will follow the Mossad's approach to justice: "At a time and place of our choosing."

- nathang

November 23, 2008 at 4:02pm

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

I find it most interesting that so many charge Lieberman for deserting his party, when only 2 years ago his party threw him over board during his campaign for his incumbent senate seat. As the incumbent he should have had their total support. Now he is accused of not supporting his party because he took the position that he felt was in the best interest of the country, over what was best for the party. It surprises me not, that democrats are now angry that he would not put his party before his country. You may not agree with his positions, and I do not agree with many of his positions, I do however respect any politician who is patriotic before political. Patriots do what they believe is in the best interest of their country, politician do what is best for their political careers and hold the party line no matter what. We need more Lieberman's in government.

- RickInMaine

December 11, 2008 at 1:11pm

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

Will you democrats ever take responsibility for that fact the decision to go to this "illegal war", as you call it, was in fact voted on by a majority of democrats, Keary, Clinton, to name just two prominent ones. Will you ever acknowledge that we have now freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator? I thought you were supposed to be the "human rights" activist, or is it that you are pissed that it took a republican administration to finally have the guts to follow through with what the United Nations resolution 1441 stated. I guess the removal of a brutal dictator and the freedom of Iraqis is not as significant as your hatred for Bush.

-

December 11, 2008 at 1:23pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close