Single Issue

Joe Lieberman says either Democrats fall in line behind George W. Bush or else he's voting for John McCain:

"I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican, or even an Independent if there's a strong one," the U.S. Senator from Connecticut told "Fox News Sunday." . . .

Asked about the current field of Democrat contenders for the presidency, all of whom have strong opposition to Bush's Iraq policy, Lieberman said, "You make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

Do I need to go drag up all the times back in 2006 when Lieberman and his supporters urged Democrats not to make too big a deal out of disagreements on Iraq? I don't necessarily think Lieberman is wrong about this. If I were in the Bush/Cheney/McCain Crazy Zone I'm not sure I could stomach voting for a reasonable candidate either.

Comments

Do I need to go drag up all the times back in 2006 when Lieberman and his supporters urged Democrats not to make too big a deal out of disagreements on Iraq?

Hey, Connecticut: you fucked up; you trusted him.

Thanks a lot, idiots.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 3:19 PM

Why do I have the feeling that Lieberman voted for Bush in 2004 over Kerry?

Posted by DonB | January 28, 2007 3:25 PM

"Hey, Connecticut: you fucked up; you trusted him. Thanks a lot, idiots."

Hey progressive opinion leaders who knew full well that nominating Lamont would inevitably lead to this precise outcome but didn't speak out because of the unpalatability of Lieberman: you fucked up; you took the coward's way out.

Thanks a lot, craven idiots.

Hey progressive opinion leaders who didn't understand that nominating Lamont would inevitably lead to this precise outcome: you fucked up; you didn't pay attention to elementary politics.

Thanks a lot, idiots.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 3:42 PM

In that interview when asked if there was a Democrat running that he could support in 2008, Lieberman joked, "is there a Democrat not running that I could support?"

Do I need to go drag up all the times back in 2006 when Lieberman and his supporters urged Democrats not to make too big a deal out of disagreements on Iraq?

I'm not even really sure this has all that much to do with Iraq. Lieberman is an attention whore and like most politicians, hungry for power. It's now clear the man will never be President so he found a new avenue for power: he caucuses with the Dems like he promised in the election, while constantly threatening to fuck over the entire party, ensuring that Democrats give him what he wants in order to keep him on their side, while Republicans can never really interfere with him in a meaningful way for fear of losing their "bi-partisan" collaborator and a potential Republican down the road.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | January 28, 2007 3:43 PM

Is it too late to start calling him Chancellor Palpatine?

Posted by Thunderlips | January 28, 2007 3:44 PM

So Petey - who do YOU think the Democratic Party in Connecticut should have nominated as their candidate? If Lieberman had been the nominee he'd still be pulling this crap, so who SHOULD have been the nominee?

Posted by NonyNony | January 28, 2007 3:44 PM

"If Lieberman had been the nominee he'd still be pulling this crap"

Obviously, he wouldn't be.

Nominating Lamont when he had no shot at winning the general election has had the entirely predictable effect of strengthening Lieberman while removing whatever party ties that previously bound him.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 3:52 PM

Obviously, he wouldn't be.

What garbage. He's more committed to the war than ever at precisely the point at which the public has come to understand that it's an unholy mess. He has six years locked up, and they'd be locked up the same way if he were the Dem nominee. He wants the war to continue and expand. Fewer and fewer Dems are committed to that policy. If wants a pro-GWOT candidate, there's a good chance he's going to vote for the Republican. If he wants to show his support for the GWOT, he has to point to the Republicans.

His win over Lamont in the general rather than the primary appears to have cost the Dems nothing except energy and attention.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2007 3:57 PM

Why is that obvious? If Lieberman won the Connecticut election by an overwhelming margin with no real challenger, why would he be behaving any differently than he is now? The party hasn't had any level of "control" over him since he ran for President - why would they start now?

Plus, the Lamont groundswell helped to change the conversation on Iraq last summer (as well as the Lebanon debacle and the ongoing chaos in Iraq) - it forced the press to acknowledge that there were groups of people who did not like what was going on and had the power to make life miserable for a sitting Senator. Lamont's victory in the primary forced Lieberman to change his spiel on Iraq and claim he was for withdrawl and having the Iraqis take over - until he got elected, of course.

I see no evidence that a cakewalk victory by Lieberman would have had him acting in any other way than what he's doing now. If you have something that says otherwise please post it - I'd love to read it.

Posted by NonyNony | January 28, 2007 3:59 PM

Shorter Petey: Democrats should never oppose killing brown people, even if they think it's wrong.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:02 PM

NonyNony,

I think you misread Petey's post.

Petey was taking a shot at dj Moonbat's 20/20 hindsight.

Nobody knew what was going to happen after the primary except that Joe was going to be Joe. BUT there's probably lots of dems who saw what happened to Lieberman, and took it as a warning. So even though the primary coup wasn't successfull in getting Lieberman out of the senate, it probably keeps some dems cautious of replicating Lieberman's antagonitic tendencies.

So for moonbat to chastize party officials for running a primary opponent is a bit pointless, just like blaming anyone for trying to affect positive change is a bit pointless.

Posted by A different Matt | January 28, 2007 4:06 PM

So for moonbat to chastize party officials for running a primary opponent is a bit pointless...

I'm not chastizing party officials for anything. I'm chastizing CT for electing this fuckwad.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:08 PM

Woah, talk about big news. Imagine a presidential candidate buttressed by Lieberman's staggering charisma and national popularity. Certain victory!

Posted by gundryggia | January 28, 2007 4:12 PM

Didn't Lamont blow it? Not raking Tartuffe over the coals in the general for his duplicitous Israel-first sell-out of America? Didn't he just rest on his good guy alderman laurels? Or are Connecticut voters just gangrenous idiots? Happily willing to choke to death on a risin cloud so they can vote in a schmaltzy "centrist". The everyday folks there gotta be the dumbest motherfuckers in the country.

Posted by Trevor | January 28, 2007 4:16 PM

"Why is that obvious? If Lieberman won the Connecticut election by an overwhelming margin with no real challenger, why would he be behaving any differently than he is now?"

Because the 99 Senators who were elected as part of a party (tacitly in Sanders' case) won't public endorse the opposite party's Presidential candidate. Even when they want to create distance, as in Lincoln Chafee's case, they still don't actually endorse the opposite party's candidate. They are bound by minimal standards of party loyalty.

Were there 100 Senators who were elected as part of a party, there would 100 Senators who wouldn't endorse the opposite party's candidate.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:17 PM

But the Lamont nomination has made him considerably more powerful, and has freed him to be a considerably larger nuisance.

Again, what's the evidence? If he'd been the Dem nominee, he'd still have had the opportunity to jump to the other side. He'd still have had his seniority. He'd still have had his position on the war.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2007 4:21 PM

And Petey, you can't say that Lieberman blowing off the Democratic party for a run in his "Connecticut for Lieberman" party was "quite predictable to anyone with an elementary understanding of politics." Well, you can say it, but it's not true.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:24 PM

Also, while Lieberman's hand has been strengthened for now, I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose quite a bit of power if the Dems pick up the kind of seats they're likely to pick up in '08.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:29 PM

"And Petey, you can't say that Lieberman blowing off the Democratic party for a run in his "Connecticut for Lieberman" party was "quite predictable to anyone with an elementary understanding of politics."

I think that Lieberman was at some risk of losing the primary, and that he'd run third-party if he did was pretty damn obvious a year before the primary.

Folks were noting CT's lack of a 'sore loser' law back when the calendar still read 2005.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:29 PM

Okay, but after comments like this (and certainly if Lieberman actually endorsed a Republican), assuming the Dems pick up another few seats in the Senate in 2008, is there any reason for the party leadership to continue to give Lieberman any power at all?

Posted by Christopher M | January 28, 2007 4:31 PM

Petey: I'm not sure you really have any evidence to back up your point. Zell Miller endorsed Bush in 2004 and Jim Jeffords up and switched parties early on in Bush's Presidency. I don't think it would be that unreasonable to see a situation in which Lieberman could have taken a similar path despite not having prominent primary opposition.

And I am surely not as prescient as you, but why would it be that unthinkable to believe Lamont had a shot? Most experts and onlookers (I'm sure not you, however) were counting the days until Lieberman dropped out. Had Lamont gone on the offensive immediatly after winning the nomination and altered his campaign for the general election (rather than seemingly re-running his primary campaign) he could have potentially been the freshman Senator from Connecticut.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | January 28, 2007 4:34 PM

"And again, this was all quite predictable to anyone with an elementary understanding of politics."

Damn, Petey, that's hella pompous. You're just in a bad mood - chill out a bit and recognize that it was in no way "quite predictable," even to people with more than an elementary understanding of politics. Why would the Lamont nomination automatically make Lieberman more powerful? A lot people who are even more knowledgeable about politics than you (imagine that! such people exist! and no, I don't mean myself - I mean people like Mark Schmitt) thought it highly likely that Lieberman would drop out if he lost the primary. So there. They were mistaken. But that doesn't make Mark Schmitt or anyone else a craven idiot. And even as Lieberman stayed in, there was a noticeable change in his rhetoric leading up to the general - not a massive change, but a distinct one, and enough to suggest he'd been chastened by his embarrassing loss - another possible outcome that a thoughtful observer might have predicted.

Besides, no one knew precisely what the election's outcome would be. If Harold Ford had won, maybe the Dems would be at 51 without Lieberman and they could threaten to drop him like a wet sock if he opened his mouth. See how that would work? Oh, I'm sorry, I must not have even an elementary understanding of how politics works.

Posted by The Navigator | January 28, 2007 4:35 PM

"why would it be that unthinkable to believe Lamont had a shot?"

If there had been a strong Republican nominee, it would have been possible, but still somewhat unlikely, that Lamont could win. But it was clear there wasn't going to be a strong Republican nominee well in advance of the primary.

"Most experts and onlookers ... were counting the days until Lieberman dropped out."

I don't think any experts were doing so. The calculation was always that Lieberman would run if he could raise the dough, and the calculation was always that he would be able to raise the dough.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:40 PM

"I mean people like Mark Schmitt"

I lost a huge amount of faith in Mark's political acumen while reading his writing about CT-Sen.

And given his current belief that Newt Gingrich will be the GOP nominee in '08, I believe my loss of faith was entirely correct.

(I still enjoy reading him enormously, and agree with him about many, many things. But as far as political acumen goes, not so much.)

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:45 PM

I lost a huge amount of faith in Mark's political acumen while reading his writing about CT-Sen.

So even Mr. Schmitt has political acumen that you would describe as less than "elementary"?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:50 PM

"Damn, Petey, that's hella pompous."

Petey's always hella pompous. But he's usually right.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:53 PM

Fine, you got that one right. But that's not the same thing as saying everybody who got it wrong was just stupid. Pat yourself on the back for being an ingenious political operative and STFU.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 4:55 PM

"So even Mr. Schmitt has political acumen that you would describe as less than "elementary"

Point taken. I'll restate:

The fact that nominating Lamont would strengthen Lieberman and create a 6 year thorn in the Democratic Party's side was utterly predictable to anyone with an intermediate understanding of politics.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 4:57 PM

But he's usually right.

Cite?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2007 5:03 PM

"Pat yourself on the back for being an ingenious political operative and STFU."

My way of thinking is that by sharing my ingenious political operative-ness with the progressive community, I can strengthen the political prospects of the progressive movement. So, I think I'll decline the kind offer to STFU.

History is a damn useful thing for navigating the future.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:05 PM

Blaming Democrats for not supporting Lieberman makes little sense. If there's going to be any objective criticism of Dems vis-a-vis Lieberman at this point, it would be because they didn't fully endorse Lamont as one of their own, early enough. Lamont was forced to conduct primarily a Netroots campaign, when visible support from big-name party actors in terms of early endorsements -- and, especially, money from the party -- might have changed the outcome. The underlying criticism of the last four years has been the Dems' lack of strong opposition leadership. Hillary falls into that basket, along with many others. That's the point.

Posted by DC | January 28, 2007 5:06 PM

I'm starting to think that Lieberman is angling to be either John McCain's VP candidate or Secretary of Defense in a McCain administration (that will never happen). There are certain advantages to Lieberman as a McCain VP. Lieberman has an enthusiasm for McCain that most Republican politicians not named Lindsay Graham can't muster. Also, nominating Lieberman would allow McCain to pose himself as a non-partisan Republican seeking to head a national unity government. I would also bet that Lieberman thinks that McCain hopes that Lieberman would be a draw among independents and moderates. Certainly, weirder things have happened.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 28, 2007 5:06 PM

Isiah for President.

Posted by ogged | January 28, 2007 5:12 PM

"Isiah for President."

Don't just say it, wear it.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:17 PM

And for SCMT, there is this.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:20 PM

"Because the 99 Senators who were elected as part of a party (tacitly in Sanders' case) won't public endorse the opposite party's Presidential candidate."

Remember Zell Miller?

Not only did he publicly endorse Bush but he spoke at their convention and trashed his own party's candidate.

I fully expect Lieberman to get a prime time speaking gig at the 2008 GOP convention.

He'll act all sad about how his party has been hijacked by soft-on-terror McGovernites, leaving him no choice but to support the GOP nominee.

Posted by DonB | January 28, 2007 5:23 PM

Didn't Lamont blow it? Not raking Tartuffe over the coals in the general for his duplicitous Israel-first sell-out of America? Didn't he just rest on his good guy alderman laurels?

I think he blew right after he won the primary. He should have jumped on Lieberman at his only weak moment and pounded the hell out of him about Iraq. Instead he went on vacation for a week.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 28, 2007 5:24 PM

"I fully expect Lieberman to get a prime time speaking gig at the 2008 GOP convention."

It's interesting. I'd generally expect that too, but at the same time, I think he won't be able to do that if HRC is the nominee.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:27 PM

What LIEberman really cares about is Israel, and sees the Iraq war as a way of keeping the U.S. army nearby. If Israel was on the other side of the planet, LIEberman wouldn't give a rat's rear end about the Iraq war.

Posted by Kafka | January 28, 2007 5:28 PM

"Remember Zell Miller?"

I don't think Miller would have been able to endorse Bush had he not been leaving office in a couple of months. If he'd been staying in the Senate, and he'd wanted to endorse Bush, he basically would have had to switch parties and caucus with the GOP.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:31 PM

This is good. Connecticut For Lieberman will almost certainly not nominate a presidential candidate in 2008, so why should he feel bound to a party of which he is no longer a member? He gets one vote and can do what he wants with it, and it's not like there's some enormous Broderite coalition out there that he'll be able to swing. Frankly, anything that separates him from the Democratic Party, without actually costing us the Senate majority, is fine with me. If he endorses the GOP candidate in 2008 and we come away with a Lieberman-proof majority in the Senate, that's the perfect time to kick him out of the caucus.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 28, 2007 5:36 PM

"I think he won't be able to do that if HRC is the nominee."

What if Al Gore is the Democratic nominee?

What if Al Gore is the VP pick?

Is Lieberman going to argue that he can't trust the security of the country in the hands of Al Gore?

Posted by DonB | January 28, 2007 5:39 PM

"What if Al Gore is the Democratic nominee?"

Even more interesting. I'd guess he'd go to the GOP convention if it were Gore, considering Gore's lack of support during the primary. He can always argue that Gore has changed since '00. But I could also see him refraining. It's not as clear cut a situation as with HRC, I think...

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 5:43 PM

The Last Honest Man.

Enjoy.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/28/lieberman-says-hell-consider-voting-republican-in-08/

He is a single issue candidate who is applying a litmus test to me. It's not good enough to be 90 percent voting with my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus. He wants 100 percent. And when a party does that, it's the beginning of the defeat of that party.

-------------------------

I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that.

----------------------------------

LIEBERMAN: That's why I say [Lamont] is running a single issue campaign.

Posted by DonB | January 28, 2007 5:48 PM

> assuming the Dems pick up another few seats
> in the Senate in 2008, is there any reason
> for the party leadership to continue to give
> Lieberman any power at all?

The underlying assumption here is that the insiders who control the Democratic Party are in any way unhappy with Lieberman. I don't think that is the case.

In fact, I think the Dem DC insiders are quite happy with Lieberman because (1) he provides them with a right flank (2) they actually agree with him on Iraq, the Middle East in general, and the dirty smelly hippies who work their campaigns.

Particularly one HRC.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 28, 2007 5:58 PM

Petey,
I just think your analysis is off.
The reason Lieberman is in the Senate today is because the White House collapsed the campaign of the republican running for Senate in CT and threw its weight behind the Lieberman bid.

The people who really need to look in the mirror are the 1/3 of Democrats who voted Lieberman instead of the Dem nominee.
What the hell did you think you were going to get: gratitude?

Lieberman has been on this path for a long time now. Ultimately it is better to have a backstabber like this outside of the party and after 2008 I am very confident that we will be able to relegate him to obscurity.

Lieberman is everything that is wrong with Washington. The partisan Dem primary voters got it right. The centrists in their own minds voters of CT got the jerk they deserved. Please remember this for next time.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 28, 2007 6:01 PM

Shouldn't the obvious question be: "Who gives a flying fuck about Lieberman's endorsement?" Outside of Connecticut and Fox News, the man isn't exactly a political dynamo; fuck, that man has the opposite of charisma. Let the Republicans put him up there in a prime time slot at the convention, and watch their guy's numbers drop five points. And who would Lieberman win over to the GOP side in '08 who wouldn't be voting Republican anyway? Is the "stay in a losing war forever" plan going to suddenly get more popular over the next two years?

The only real trouble Lieberman presents is the possibility that he could switch parties. To the extent that this represents a veiled threat to jump ship, this is obviously a problem, but I think that threat is mostly empty. Any party switch Lieberman pulls would more or less put an end to the kind of self-immolation games he loves to play, and any damage it does to the Democrats would be temporary at best, considering that Dems are expected to pick up a few seats in '08.

Posted by Christmas | January 28, 2007 6:51 PM

How can Petey claim with a straight face that Lieberman was not going to be a "Republican-Lite" gasbag ("lite" occasionally optional) after the CT general, absent Lamont, when perhaps the sole reason that Lamont was even a viable primary candidate was that Lieberman had been a Republican-lite gasbag for the three previous years?

History is a damn useful thing for navigating the future.

Indeed. But I don't think that means what you think it means WRT to this argument.

Posted by Pooh | January 28, 2007 6:52 PM

Shouldn't the obvious question be: "Who gives a flying fuck about Lieberman's endorsement?"

True. This whole discussion stinks of irrelevance.

Posted by Pooh | January 28, 2007 6:53 PM

i can't figure out petey's point nohow: either lieberman won as a democrat or he won as a third party candidate. he's an asswipe either way; what does elementary knowledge of politics have to do with this?

i'm happy that if he had to win, it was as a third party candidate, and i'm happy that lamont, at a time when there was still a mammoth level of timidity about flat-out challenging idiocy on iraq, proved that it was not a guaranteed loser to do so.

somehow, petey thinks...what, exactly? that if lamong hadn't run, lieberman would be better behaved? insofar as lieberman has more power, he has it only because the dems won a 1-seat majority, so everyone has more power (even ben nelson!).

pooh, insofar as there's a relevance to lieberman, it's that there's no shortage of opportunities for him to appear on television, unlike people who have an actual track record of knowing what they are talking about. but as far as 2008 goes, i don't think lieberman's endorsement is going to be worth a warm pitcher of spit....

Posted by howard | January 28, 2007 7:10 PM

I think anyone who is counting on Lieberman to keep his promise to stay in the Dem caucus is being a bit naive. I think he's just waiting for a sufficient excuse to bolt, like a funding vote on Iraq.

As it is, his Talk Show Quisling value is considerably diminished because of the Indepdent Dem thing.

Posted by AJ | January 28, 2007 7:18 PM

Petey: I actually think the opposite is true. If Lieberman had run (and won) as a Democrat his loyalty to the party would never have been an issue in the campaign. He would be free to switch parties as Jeffords did in '01. Because he had to promise to caucus with the Democrats during the campaign, his hands are at least a little more tied than they would otherwise be (he could have supported a Republican for president either way).

Posted by Charlie | January 28, 2007 7:36 PM

Shorter Petey: Democrats should never oppose killing brown people, even if they think it's wrong.

I know dj moonbat is trying to sound satirical, Petey has actually made precisely this argument several times before-- that the Democratic party should alienate the rational wing of the party and endorse killing people in pointless wars of choice in order to get elected in order to pursue more liberal policy initiatives on the domestic front.

Posted by Constantine | January 28, 2007 7:40 PM

A little more speculation on Lieberman. I also think Lieberman might have ALREADY struck a deal with the Republicans to work for them while still calling himself a Democrat. Lieberman and the Republican leadership may have decided that Lieberman could help the Republicans more as a War Democrat than as a Republican--somewhat like Zell Miller or Mickey Kaus of Slate in the media version of this calculation.

Why wouldn't Lieberman just switch parties? First, there would be pressure for him to resign and run as a Republican like Phil Gramm did in Texas in the 80's. That would certainly be a losing proposition in Connecticut. Second, I'm not sure that a Lieberman switch wouldn't inspire one or two Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine to declare themselves independent as a way to make their seats more secure. Third, the Republicans might not want to have a Senate majority at a time when the Republican agenda is generally unpopular. It might make things even worse for them in 2008 and that is something that Mitch McConnell (of my state of Kentucky) is smart enough to notice.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 28, 2007 7:43 PM

"Petey has actually made precisely this argument several times before-- that the Democratic party should ... endorse killing people in pointless wars of choice in order to get elected"

I was opposed to the Iraq war. I supported John Edwards in '04 largely because I thought he was the Democrat most likely to beat Bush and thus bring the Iraq war to an end.

I think the Democratic Party should be concerned with winning elections. In symbolic actions with no effect on ending the Iraq war, I think the Democratic Party should prioritize winning elections over symbolic actions. I make no apology for that.

Posted by Petey | January 28, 2007 8:10 PM

Well that's fine, though I'm not sure how it explains your LieberLove (or, to be exceedingly fair, your LieberTolerance)

You still have done nothing to explain why you think Joe would not have been an unbearable pain in the ass, absent Lamont, in the face of the type of evidence you claim to love (his recent history of being an unbearable pain in the ass). And at least now, he's a somewhat marginalized pain in the ass.

Posted by Pooh | January 28, 2007 8:23 PM

Note, by "marginalized" I mean "Lieberman said what? Who cares?" not that his caucusing with the Dems is irrelevant. Though considering Petey's above point about posturing, I'm unclear as to why he thinks that Lieberman is relevant either.

Posted by Pooh | January 28, 2007 8:25 PM

I remember Petey posting all over the place in the summer of 2006 that Lieberman would do exactly what he is doing now.
Oh wait, that was the stupid progressives who wanted to defeat Lieberman not Petey.

Posted by tool | January 28, 2007 9:38 PM

Look, several things had to happen for Lieberman to be in his current, strong position:

1) He had to lose a primary to Lamont

2) He had to blow off the Democratic Party, and go it alone

3) He had to win the general election

4) The Democrats had to win the Senate

Anybody who tells you that all of the above eventualities were obvious is 1) a liar; 2) Petey; or 3) both.

Plus, there's reason to believe that HoJo's current leverage is ephemeral. All in all, it's good Lamont ran, and good that HoJo lost the primary. It's bad that Connecticut has shit for brains.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 9:46 PM

"the Republican leadership may have decided that Lieberman could help the Republicans more as a War Democrat than as a Republican--somewhat like Zell Miller or Mickey Kaus of Slate in the media version of this calculation."

Right.

Except that there is a fine line you mustn't cross for this to work.

Case in point; I no longer read Mickey Kaus. If I want to read GOP hacks I go straight to Newsmax. Saves me time. And it's more entertaining.

Same dynamic works in Congress. Joe Lieberman was useful to the GOP at one time. He was useful to the regime back when he was a contrarian Democrat. He is no longer a Democrat. He has jumped the shark. He no longer brings bipartisan credentials to the table. He is just another unhinged neocon.

Posted by DonB | January 28, 2007 11:04 PM

DC had a key point that's worth repeating

Blaming Democrats for not supporting Lieberman makes little sense. If there's going to be any objective criticism of Dems vis-a-vis Lieberman at this point, it would be because they didn't fully endorse Lamont as one of their own, early enough.

That's the crux of the issue. As soon as Lieberman lost the primary, his fellow Democratic Senators should have run straight up to Connecticut to affirm Lamont as the candidate Democrats should vote for. The party should have thrown it's entire weight behind Lamont, and considered Lieberman just another Republican. They didn't do that, because they thought being nice to him in 2006 would encourage him to behave better for the next six years. They are the ones who fucked up really elementary power politics, they are the ones who should rethink their actions.

Thanks a lot, party establishment idiots.

The Lamont supporters, on the other hand, have been vindicated. This is exactly what they knew would happen if the party didn't unite behind the candidate. If you want a smarter liberal movement, you need a smarter party establishment.

The only thing necessary for Lieberman to be in his position of power was for Democrats to have 50 other seats. Caucusing with the other side would therefore cost him no power. He would be acting exactly the same if Lamont hadn't run.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 28, 2007 11:34 PM

Petey thinks that Isiah Thomas giving up two #1 picks for Curry was a sign of cleverness, because the two relevant drafts were weak. Why are you morons arguing with him?

Posted by Barbar | January 29, 2007 5:08 AM

A lot people who are even more knowledgeable about politics than you (imagine that! such people exist! and no, I don't mean myself - I mean people like Mark Schmitt) thought it highly likely that Lieberman would drop out if he lost the primary.

Yeah, poor, naive Senator Dodd even dropped by his old friend's house the night of Lamont's primary victory, and was denied admittance. Apparently, Senator Dodd, political novice that he is, never expected that he would be unable even to discuss the topic of dropping out with Senator Lieberman. If only he had had Petey on his staff to explain how vital it was that CT primary voters not be allowed to choose who they wished to be the Democratic nominee, being all stupid hippies or something. Instead, Senator Lieberman suddenly turned into a backstabbing, Bush-shtupping warmonger, a radical transformation of his behavior compared to his previous record.

(And yes, there was talk here in CT of Senator Lieberman jumping into the arms of the Republican party. Thing is, there was talk of that long before anyone challenged him in the primary. That was one of the reasons for seeking to primary him.)

Posted by mds | January 29, 2007 11:51 AM

If we're arguing counterfactuals, tehre are two parameters: the probability of the outcome, and its impact.

So if we think the probability of a Lamont victory, times the difference between Lamont and Lieberman, is greater, then dj Monnbat is right. If we think the probability of an unopposed Lierbman, times the differnece between the pre-06 and post-06 Lieberman is greater, then Petey is right.

Obviously, the Dems might not have nominated Lamont. Chance of Lamont winning is hard to judge, but certainly lower, so that's a point for Petey's side.

On the other hand, there would obviously eb a HUGE difference between Lamont and Lieberman, especially on the issue under discussion, whereas whether Lieberman's behavior was affected at all by Lamont's challenge is unclear. Certainly the difference between Lamont and Lieberman is much, much greater than the difference between hypothetical Liebermans who won and lost the Dem primary.

The blame-progressives view needs either that Lamont had absolutely no chance of winning the general election, or that there is a clear, dramatic & predictable difference between Lieberman's veiws on Dems and the war before and after losing the primary. I'm not seeing either. Sorry Petey.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 12:36 PM