The Lieberman Factor

Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain will, of course, only further serve to underscore liberals' deep, deep doubts about the "independent Democrat" from Connecticut. At the same time, I worry if it won't underscore conservatives' doubts about McCain as well. Nobody, after all, really doubts McCain's commitment to a hawkish foreign policy -- he was Bill Kristol's choice in 2000 for a reason -- and that's all Lieberman's endorsement really signifies. After all, Republican primary voters aren't going to be attracted to the other things Lieberman could praise McCain for: his reasonable-for-a-Republican stance on global warming or zeal for certain forms of campaign finance restrictions and general habits of party disloyalty.

This does, however, seem to me like something of a blow to Rudy Giuliani's credibility. After all, Giuliani is closer to Lieberman on several issues than is McCain -- abortion, guns, gays, etc. And Rudy's running as the ultimate hawk, the rock-solid guy on the one set of issues where Lieberman has really distinguished himself by staking out a far-right position. But Lieberman's not buying it. As a consummate hawk, he sees a kindred spirit in McCain and presumably recognizes that Rudy's brand of militarism is a kind of clown show; not insincere, but totally uninformed by any knowledge of the issues or the landscape whatsoever.

Comments

since being a tiny majority isn't exactly doing the dems any good, i'd say the time is ripe to kick the bum out of the caucus.

and while i won't heap opporbium exclusively on reid when this doesn't happen, he'll be a useful proxy.

Posted by howard | December 17, 2007 12:43 PM

I think Lieberman's endorsement of McCain is less about politics and more about supporting an old pal in the Senate. As a political endorsement, it's totally irrelevant.

Posted by MattF | December 17, 2007 12:46 PM

sheesh, c'mon fingers: opprobrium

Posted by howard | December 17, 2007 12:47 PM

I can't see that this affects Rudy at all. First of all, only a few of us are going to game it out to that extent - that is, to the extent of noticing that by endorsing McCain, he's NOT endorsing Rudy.

Second, even given Lieberman's hawkishness, he probably wasn't going to endorse any old Republican - and they're pretty much all far more hawkish than any of the Dem contenders. Joe's endorsing McCain because he's a kindred spirit with respect to foreign policy, AND Joe personally trusts McCain, having worked with him in the Senate for the past several centuries.

As far as McCain's concerned, the effect is pretty obvious: it's a big leg up in the Village Primary, but it hurts him with the GOP base.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 17, 2007 12:56 PM

If you buy Atrios' and Digby's "Village" concept (and I do), this makes perfect sense.

McCain and Lieberman have two of the nicest, oldest estates in the "Village" while Giuliani is still just living in a new condo on the edge of town.

Lieberman hasn't done anything for political reasons for a long time.

Posted by KEn | December 17, 2007 12:58 PM

There seems to be an implication in Matt's post that McCain's and Lieberman's hawkishness on Iraq is somehow more informed than Guiliani's. That seems at the least to be highly dubious.

Posted by Ron | December 17, 2007 1:06 PM

It's all about Israel. Lieberman has more loyalty to Israel than he does to America. Because he thinks that having a large American military presence in the middle east will commit us to perpetual conflict with arabs that this will then take some pressure off of Israel. He wants America to be as invested in the Israeli nightmare as he is.

Lieberman is sick. He doesn't care that Americans want out of the middle east as soon as possible. His real loyalties are elsewhere.

Posted by ken | December 17, 2007 1:12 PM

After all, Giuliani is closer to Lieberman on several issues than is McCain -- abortion, guns, gays, etc.

Could we stop pretending that Giuliani is a moderate or liberal on these issues? Giuliani may not care if you're gay, but he isn't "pro-gay rights". He doesn't appear to care about abortion rights one way or another, but he'll happily appoint justices who'll repeal it (which is all the rest of us should care about). His support or opposition to gun control is completely related to the voters he's trying to capture as well.

If he makes his mark on any of these issues, it will be to push the country further towards the right.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 1:17 PM

Oh, please. What MattF said above - Lieberman's endorsing McCain because they are Senate buddies. There's no reason to think it is because Lieberman has any concerns about Rudy's foreign policy.

Posted by Al | December 17, 2007 1:23 PM

Ron - I dunno about that. It would be hard for anyone's hawkishness to be less informed than Rudy's is. His knowledge of the world suffices for an argument over a beer - but only if the other guy is equally ignorant.

ken - it's hard to see that. Rudy would be just as devoted to Israel as McCain would be, maybe more so, since he lacks any actual knowledge to counterbalance his knee-jerk support of Israel.

And what Jinchi said about abortion and gays.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 17, 2007 1:26 PM

I'm not who's in worse shape at the moment, Al, your candidate or your basketball team.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 1:28 PM

In a few months, when McCain's political carcass is lying on the side of the campaign road, Lieberman will endorse the GOP nominee. 9udy Giu11ani, Romney, Huckabee, whoever. Because he holds the view that Republicans are tough and brave on national security while the Dems are meek cut-and-runners. This isn't true now, of course, and never really was true at all. But Saint Joe clings to this bit of outdated conventional wisdom like the desperate little man that he is.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM

Um, Matt, Lieberman's militarism is just as "clown show" as Giuliani's. It is perfectly clear that Iraq was a massive foul-up, yet Lieberman continues to pretend it was a great idea. Why? Because that's his political identity-- to support every single war.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM

Matt - what are you smoking?

MattF is completely right - the Lieberman endorsement is an "old boys club" endorsement. Lieberman and McCain are good buddies - both of them have been in the Senate forever, they honestly seem to like each other, and they have very similar views on foreign policy. And lately Lieberman seems to think that only hawkish, warmongering foreign policy and little else matters in the leadership of this country. So his endorsement of McCain is ONLY surprising because some expected him to be a little quid pro quo with Clinton after she stuck her neck out for him and endorsed him in the '06 primary. I wasn't expecting that - party loyalty doesn't seem to be Joe's strong suit - but others seem to have been expecting it. (And I'm not sure that Clinton would even WANT a Lieberman endorsement at this point - not before the general at any rate.)

Hell, Joe may be hoping for a Vice-Presidential nod if McCain pulls it out and wins the GOP nom. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by NonyNony | December 17, 2007 1:44 PM

Petey, I'm not unhappy with my candidate. He's doing as well as could be expected - meaning it looks like he should still have a decent enough chance come February 5. That's all anyone could realistically ask for. I just can't get that excited about all of the up-and-downs of the pre-primary season. Come this time last cycle, Howard Dean looked like a winner. That runed around in just a few weeks. Same could happened with any of these candidates. As I've said before, this 5-way race is just too complicated for simple, old me to figure out, so I really don't even try. There are just too many variables - endorsements, the money race, ads, scandals, the polls, etc. I'll just wait until the votes are counted.

Posted by Al | December 17, 2007 1:54 PM

It's just another manifestation of Lieberman's Israel ubber alles world view. The neocon/AIPAC/PNAC crowd has always wanted a large permanent U.S. military presence in the M.E. as an insurance policy for Israel. McCain's views on Iraq/Afghanistan serve this purpose.

Posted by kafka | December 17, 2007 2:13 PM

"Deep deep doubts about the 'independent Democrat'"?

Damn, they must put something in the water in DC- where I come from, if you endorse a Republican, you're a Republican.

As for the 'old buddies from the Senate' thing, well, excuse me for living, but we're talking about choosing a president- guy with finger on nuclear trigger and so forth. Not exactly hire-your-buddy-from-the-Arabian horse club territory.

The average guy in the street is supposed to study all this and make a rational decision but Lieberman can just choose an old buddy?

Sure, that makes perfect sense.

Posted by serial catowner | December 17, 2007 2:23 PM

The bottom line is that this will hurt McCain in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Schmaltz and constipated vileness don't play well there.

Posted by Trevor | December 17, 2007 4:47 PM

This will hurt McCain with GOP primary voters. There's nothing that would cement his image as a RINO in the minds of right-wing primary voters than to get endorsed by a DINO.

Posted by jonp72 | December 17, 2007 5:23 PM

Interesting theory, but I'm just as inclined to believe that Lieberman sees an angle in it somewhere, e.g., McClain may have promised him SecDef.

Posted by Trickster | December 17, 2007 10:16 PM

"...and presumably recognizes that Rudy's brand of militarism is a kind of clown show; not insincere, but totally uninformed by any knowledge of the issues or the landscape whatsoever." That is, of course, what most reasonable people think of Joe.

Posted by notJoe | December 18, 2007 5:06 AM