Mickey Kaus ponders something that I too have pondered:

So if Lieberman wins as an independent, and the Democrats pick up six seats in November, doesn’t that mean Lieberman gets to decide which party controls the Senate? And if so, do the Democrats really want to take Kos’ advice and piss him off? Just asking!

Lieberman says he’s running as an “independent Democrat” and has pledged to organize with the Dems. I don’t believe he will change his tune on that — and he certainly wouldn’t do so for petty personal reasons, or in response to psuedo-bribes from the Republicans; Joe is better than that — but I would absolutely love to see Lieberman as the 51st member of a Democratic majority, because although he wouldn’t actually jump ship, just the threat that he might do so would make him a very powerful man in Washington. Not only that, but on individual votes, he certainly wouldn’t have any reason to be beholden to the Democratic leadership, and could frequently be a “decider,” as Dubya would say. And of course, last but not least, the whole thing would make Kos look dumb, which is always a positive in my book.

In other Joe-related news… as Dane mentioned earlier, the New York Times’s David Brooks published a provocative — and, alas, subscription-only — column today in which he argued that there is a subsurface “McCain-Lieberman Party” lurking beneath the bipolar, red-blue veneer of American politics, just waiting for its opportunity to cast off the surly bonds of partisanship and touch the face of Joementum… or something like that.

Apparently Brooks has been reading my blog, considering I’ve been talking about “McCain-Lieberman” incessantly since Tuesday. (E.g., here, here, here, here and here.) Or, uh, maybe he and I, and about a gazillion other people, all had the same freakin’ obvious idea at the same time. (Again I quote Casey: “Man, at this point the Lieberman-McCain ticket is like those two friends from school who have been eyeing each other all year and just seriously need to knock boots. Do it for America, John and Joe. Make some fruity purple babies and fix the freaking country already.” Heh.)

But unlike Casey and me, Brooks isn’t talking about McCain-Lieberman ticket, per se. Rather, he’s holding up John and Joe more as symbolic representatives of an idea whose time has come. And, contra Andrew, he think it’s an idea that just might work. But just what is the idea? Here’s an excerpt:

The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.

The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.

But the experience of DeLay and the net-root DeLays in the Democratic Party amply demonstrates that means determine ends. Hyper-partisans may have started with subtle beliefs, but their beliefs led them to partisanship and their partisanship led to malice and malice made them extremist, and pretty soon they were no longer the same people.

The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.

On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.

On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.

On globalization, the McCain-Lieberman Party believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.

The McCain-Lieberman Party sees Democrats in the grip of teachers’ unions and Republicans who let corporations write environmental rules. It sees two parties that depend on the culture war for internal cohesion and that make abortion a litmus test.

Hey, I could join that party! Read the whole thing, if you can. (Hint, for those of you with free Lexis-Nexis accounts… it’s on there.)