An Open Letter to Joe Lieberman
Dear Senator Lieberman,
We’re reporting on the news tonight about your meeting earlier with majority leader Sen. Harry Reid about your future as part of the Senate’s Democratic caucus. You emerged from the meeting to say only that you would be thinking over what Reid had to say and what your options are.
Joe, I’m just guessing here. But it seems likely that the “option” Senator Reid suggested to you isn’t, as they say, anatomically possible. And, really, were you expecting it go any other way?
Dude, you endorsed the opponent of your party’s consensus presidential nominee. And not just endorsed. You were by John McCain’s side almost as much as his wife in the final weeks of the campaign. And not just by his side. You actively spoke out at rallies and in interviews, calling for the defeat of Barack Obama. You kept it up right to the bitter end, even after it became clear to pretty much everyone that you had taken the phrase “bet on the wrong horse” to a whole new level. Why, Joe, why? I know John McCain and you are close friends, but there are a lot of friendships that cross party lines in the Senate. It was clear that some Republican senators, like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, weren’t upset at the prospect of an Obama presidency. But you didn’t see them up on the stage with Obama running down John McCain. You completely turned on your party, Joe, and, not incidentally, you also turned on your constituents in Connecticut who voted for you believing you were essentially a moderate Democrat.
As we all know, this course you chose began in Connecticut when you were defeated, fair and square, by Ned Lamont in the 2006 democratic primary. It all started getting very weird after that. Lamont was out in front on reading voters’ growing antipathy toward the Iraq War, and he beat you by running on an almost entirely anti-war platform. You ended up beating him in the general election when you ran as an independent, but it seems like you never got over the primary loss. Rather than absorbing and considering the obvious anti-war views of a large part of your democratic constituency, you got MORE pro-war than ever. Only you can say if that was because you believed so fervently in the Iraq mission, or if you were just having your revenge against the war opponents who successfully worked to defeat you in the primary. If it was the former, you at least deserve respect for sticking to your guns in the face of opposition. But if it was the latter, you deserve every bit of the smackdown you’re about to get from Senate democrats. There’s way too much at stake anymore to let one legislator’s hurt feelings drive his political agenda.
As for your future, don’t get too used to being called “Mr. Chairman” anymore. Senate democrats had to deal with you when their caucus only had a 51-49 edge. Now that number is 57—maybe more—and that makes you expendable. But again, it’s so puzzling; everybody knew the democrats were going to make significant gains in Congress last Tuesday. Didn’t you? I suppose you could have been telling yourself that you’d just switch to the Republican party, but who would want to switch to a party that had just plummeted from power?
Just eight years ago you were the democratic nominee for vice president. That sure seems like a long time ago. Now it looks like you’ll finish out your final four years in the Senate as a backbencher. What a shame for the people of Connecticut. But you brought it on yourself. For your sake, I hope it was worth it.
| Search Blog
|
Comments: 15
Not so fast, big guy! With 57 Democrat votes and 3 contests undecided, Reid, and thus yourself, may be underestimating Lieberman's remaining leverage. If the three all go Democrat, the Connecticut rogue can name his price for keeping that magic number of 60 intact. But if he really acts out of spiteful indignation, as you are suggesting, he could still jump parties, leaving Reid the title of biggest fool! Perhaps the Nevadan should have exercised more of a Westerner's rather a New Yorker's patience.
Hi, Mike, thanks for writing.
You make a good point. If votes add up the right way for democrats in Minnesota and Georgia (alaska's not looking to likely for them at this point) they'll be right on the verge of 60.. I just question if senate democrats will allow Lieberman to hold this over their heads anymore after his apostasy. Just a sense I have.. but I think they're ready to say to him, "fine, go over to the minority, I dare you." If Lieberman would be willing to do that as one last act of spite, as you put it, toward the party he's been a part of all his life, then I'm not sure democrats would want him anyway, 60-votes or not. I don't think he's got much leverage left. Besides, I think dems are planning on plucking off one or two moderate republicans to vote with them from time to time. Any moderate gop senators up for re-election in two years wouldn't want to be seen as obstructionist to what might be a popular Obama administration (at least for a while.)
Any way, it's interesting to consider the possibilities. Thanks for checking in.
Jim
Hey Jim you suck! Much much love from Cliffside Park Nj
Obama is an anti-Israel, anti-Semite. How any Jew could back Obama in good conscience is beyond me.
But of course, CW 11 will eventually come around, much like Charlie Rose and Brokaw to admit that they too have no idea what Obama stands for. Anything for good news, right?
Click on newwwsssssssssssssssssss, and tell sal he's gota close that phone of his before goin on airr
Thanks for your prompt and elaborative response to my 9:17 posting, Jim. We really cannot know if Lieberman has been threatening party-jumping at ANYtime since the '04 primary. The Homeland Security Chairmanship was probably both a courtesy offering for the post-primary rejection of him by numerous Senate Democrats and a bribe to keep his vote for their razor-thin majority. Often the line between blackmail and bribery is too vague for even the parties to distinguish, let alone outsiders. I was only suggesting to you that an angry and threatening Reid today could have UNDERSTANDABLY backed Lieberman into that proverbial corner of feeling like the outcast with little choice but to defect - with or without a stated threat. Again, we weren't there. What we probably agree on is that if the Democrats will resist overreaching and the Senate Minority overobstructing, the exact number of 60 becomes less critical and the fate of Joe Lieberman falls more under the guidance of the temperament of the parties to the discussion - not the least of whom should be the President-elect! He can end this tiff in one phone call with an appeal for reconciliation.
Thanks again for getting back to me, Jim.
Mike
Hey, Mike.. an absolutely excellent response. Beautifully written. This is what's great about this whole blogging thing to me.. I get to throw out a few ideas to a relative handful of folks who are nice enough to take the time to read these pieces... and I get responses that expand my own understanding of these critical matters. Ya can't beat that.
To Melissa.. re Obama as an anti-semite.. If that's true, that was a very puzzling move he made today naming a Jewish person to be his right-hand man and chief of staff.
Melissa and her ilk seem to forget that Semitic people are also known for having black skin. In fact all the Jewish people I know have black skin. Odd how when Europeans move to the Middle-East they insist upon disfranchising black skinned jews and claiming the ancient semites as white only. Surely then, Melissa doesn't think Obama hates Blacks.
But this is about Joe Lieberman who is another embarrassment to this 'indirect' government that we have been saddled with. The simple ruse of 'divide and conquer' has destroyed us yet we remain stubbornly and proudly ignorant trusting anyone who calls himself a politician to do the right thing and step aside - they don't. And we are so far removed from government, we don't know how to get rid of him. What a powerless bunch we've become.
Yes CHANGE is necessary but throughout the government not just in the White House.
Thanks for your kind words, Jim. Keep blogging!
Dear Jim,
Firstly, I am USA-citizen, but from former USSR, so my English not so good, sorry.
Secondly, from the beginning of our new life in this beautiful country
My family love channel 11(“Cheers”, “Seinfeld”,”Friends” and “News at 10”).
Well, and above all, you wrote in particular:
“You kept it up right to the bitter end, even after it became clear to pretty much everyone that you had taken the phrase “bet on the wrong horse” to a whole new level”.
This phrase a little surprised me. In your opinion Senator Lieberman should have been hypocritical to change its view and you would have to respect him for that?
Actually we were taught in childhood that “lying is not beaten”…
Hi, Leonid... I see what you're saying. Perhaps I was guilty of seeing things through too much of a political prism. Certainly Senator Lieberman's steadfast support of John McCain, even after it had become clear that McCain was going to have a hard time winning, could be seen as sincere loyalty to a friend and colleague, not to mention ideological agreement with the "horse" he chose to bet on. I guess I was focusing more on the self-defeating aspects of this course of action, both for his political future and for his constituents.
Thanks so much for writing..
Thank you and "see" you at 10. Say hi to Kaity and Mr. G.
P.S. Keep blogging!
Jim you just confirmed what I always thought of you that your viewpoint is that of a liberal democrat. Its a shame that in todays media we are subjected to such partisan opinions. News should be neutral. Now I know this is your blog so its your personal opinion and I can respect that but when I see you on the news you can tell where your loyalities lie.
When Obama won I swear you loked like you were going to break out the party hat and start throwing confetti.
Hi, Harry, thanks for writing.
I've included a link below to Mike Lupica's column today in the Daily News.. (he's often a sports guy, but also does news columns)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/09/2008-11-09_with_obamas_win_prize_went_to_a_real___s.html
I don't think anyone would see Lupica as especially partisan one way or the other. But he certainly has a legitimate right to make observations and write about them. He happened to be writing here that Obama and his people ran a smart, contemporary campaign that was successful. I don't think that makes him in the tank for Obama for noting the obvious.
As for Lieberman, there is no partisanship in saying to someone (in an open letter format) that going the opposite way of your party at such a crucial electoral juncture would be viewed as apostasy by party elders, and that sanctions, shall we say, are in the offing. Further, it's not partisan to say that a demotion in seniority and committee assignments hurt the constituents back home, many of whom voted for him not expecting him to go the route he did. As I mentioned in the piece, had Chuck Hagel stood up on stage next to Barack Obama and questioned John McCain's credentials as a real american, Hagel would have suffered the wrath of his party, as well.
Finally, perhaps what you saw in me on election night WAS excitement, but it was excitment about being able to broadcast the news of such a historical event. You can dislike Barack Obama and his policies intensely, and still recognize that this was a unique and pardigm-changing moment.. even John McCain and President Bush talked about that.