Why is Joe Lieberman again making headlines for stating the obvious?
“I’m going to chose whichever candidate that I think will do the best job for our country, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate,” the Connecticut senator told reporters in the state capital Hartford.
First of all, Lieberman already said this, back in January. Why is it “news” that he said it again? Can we expect the wire services to publish a new “Lieberman may back Republican” story every few months between now and the conventions?
Secondly, as I said back then, there’s nothing remotely objectionable about his statement, especially if “do the best job for our country” is defined broadly. Some would say that the party can trump the person in certain cases, but Lieberman’s statement doesn’t deny that possibility — he’s not saying the candidate’s party won’t be a factor in his decision, just that it won’t be the only factor. I’m confident that, as between two candidates whose stances on the war against terrorism are equally acceptable to him, Lieberman would choose the Democrat. But he’s not going to support someone with an unacceptable stance just because he (or she) has a “D” next to his (or her) name. In that regard, Lieberman is firmly ensconced in the majority, not to mention common sense. Whatever one’s ideology, party affiliation, or opinion about any particular issue, surely we can all agree that ultimately, country is more important than party.
The more intriguing bit is the second part of his statement:
“I’m not going to get involved until after both parties have their presumptive nominees and, frankly, to see if there is a strong independent candidate,” he said.
Hmm. Could Lieberman be angling for another vice presidential nod — on an independent ticket? Especially in light of his recent praise for John McCain, coupled with the Arizona senator’s growling struggles in the race for the Republican nomination, it’s enough to make one wonder if the concept of a John & Joe ticket could make a comeback. (Of course, in light of the current political climate vis a vis Iraq, a ticket of two pro-war mavericks almost certainly wouldn’t carry the day in ‘08, no matter how much I might like it to.* In all likelihood, such an independent candidacy would just split the dwindling conservative/hawkish vote and guarantee a Democratic landslide. In which case, shouldn’t all you Lieberman-haters be rooting for it to happen? :)
*I mean it when I say “might.” It’s not a foregone conclusion that I would vote for such a ticket. I have plenty of misgivings about McCain — and a few about Lieberman, even! Though I’d take him over most alternatives. But anyway, a Brendan Loy vote for McCain-Lieberman would not be pre-ordained. I’d love to have the option, though.
P.S. About that other potential third-party candidate, Nanny Bloomberg, Wonkette looks at the polls and concludes: “So if Bloomberg jumps in, we’ll have another tie decided by the Supreme Court, and then Scooter Libby becomes President of Earth.” Sounds right.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2008
|
July 6th, 2007 at 4:26:58 am
Why do you love Lieberman so much? While touted (by his fans) as some kind of geo-political strategic genius, Lieberman has made foreign policy decisions (and predictions) that can only be described as bafflingly foolish.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27:14 am
I don’t understand the love obsession with your home state’s senator…
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27:41 am
Unless it’s the sentimental kind of love that we Northern Californian’s feel for the Sacramento Kings… no matter how much they suck.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:49:46 am
I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed that Lieberman is “some kind of geo-political strategic genius.” I like him primarily because I believe he is a truly honest and upstanding public servant, a man of conviction who says what he means and means what he says. His political enemies constantly try to disprove this, of course, but their evidence is consistently flimsy and/or distorted. He’s not a saint, but as politicians go, he’s a good one, character-wise. His honesty and willingness to take a stand for what he believes — whether popular or unpopular, whether helpful or devastatingly unhelpful to his own career fortunes — allows me to respect him even when I disagree with him (which does happen). I can’t say that about a lot of politicians, particularly senators.
I also think Lieberman has the right instincts when it comes to the broader war on terror. Unlike many Democrats, he understands that this isn’t just a “bumper-sticker war” or a mere law-enforcement problem writ large, but rather, that it’s an existential struggle against an enemy that is suicidally committed to our utter destruction. In other words, he gets the “big picture.” Has he always been right with regard to the details? Of course not. But if your contention is that Lieberman’s staunch support for the war in Iraq “can only be described as” a self-evident mistake from Day 1, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree (though your position doesn’t seem to leave much room for disagreement, actually…) I’ve said before that I don’t quite know what to think about Iraq anymore, but broadly speaking, I truly believe the war could have been vastly more successful if it had been managed competently. Some of the obstacles we’ve encountered were inevitable, but not all of them. It didn’t have to end up like this. And Lieberman is not responsible for the many blunders made by the Bush Administration in executing the war. The Bush Administration is.
Meanwhile, as many Democrats (and now even Republicans) who once supported the war opportunistically turn against it for political advantage — without any logically coherent rationale to explain their change of heart — Lieberman sticks to his guns, acknowledging that things haven’t gone perfectly but arguing forcefully that we need to see this through to victory. Again, he sees the “big picture,” in which America’s credibility and Iraq’s future are vastly more important than immediate political gain. Maybe his prescription for victory isn’t the right one (I’m not sure if anybody has any good answers at this point), but at least I know he’s saying what he honestly thinks is best, and not just blowing in the wind toward whatever position is the most expedient. Given a range of bad options with uncertain outcomes, I prefer the suggestions that are at least offered honestly.
And with that, having pissed off half my audience, I am probably going to check out of this thread, because I won’t get any damn studying done at all tomorrow if I spend the time it would take to answer the furious rebuttals that I’m sure will come in from Aaron, dcl, David K., Angrier & Angrier, Sandy Underpants, etc. etc. :)
July 6th, 2007 at 4:51:55 am
P.S. Oh yeah, and also, Connecticut pride, baby. Can’t hide it. :)
July 6th, 2007 at 8:55:16 am
I like Joe because of his wife’s name: Hadassah Lieberman. Jewy Jewstein is a less Jewish name than Hadassah Lieberman . . .
July 6th, 2007 at 10:05:16 am
Why is Joe Lieberman again making headlines for stating the obvious?
Obvious Answer: Because of the party-shifting brouhaha last year. He may indeed be stating the obvious, and voting for “whichever candidate that I think will do the best job for our country, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate” is how people should vote.
But your reaction of “There’s nothing to see here, I don’t understand why all the fuss” is disingenuous, in that you very well know that, despite his otherwise liberal voting record, a statement by Lieberman that he might support a Republican candidate (pretty much on the basis of the war issue alone) would stir up controversy.
Yawn.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:18:10 am
I don’t know that politicians are changing their positions on the war based on politics. I think it’s more like seeing what’s happening and being honest with themselves that changes their heart.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:50:01 am
furious rebuttals
Not from me. Sometimes you just have to recognize a hopeless struggle when you see one, and move on to more winnable battles ;)
July 6th, 2007 at 12:17:53 pm
Ummm maybe they are reporting again because he said it again. Perhaps your question should have been…why is Lieberman repeating himself…or as you like to say why is he again “stating the obvious?” Is he trying to bring pressure on Democrats to move towards his positions or else fear he would support a Republican…or even change to a Republican in the Senate? Is it to enhance his position as a possible compromise VP candidate on one of the tickets? Or is it simply to get his name in the paper again while the Congress is not in session? Or (choose another answer)?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:48:42 pm
“…Wonkette looks at the polls and concludes: ‘So if Bloomberg jumps in, we’ll have another tie decided by the Supreme Court…’ Sounds right.”
Yeah, sounds about right IF the only Presidential Electors scheduled to be chosen were going to be the ones from New Jersey :) ~ see the Poll, at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q6MQ900&show_article=1
According the post it’s actually one Ken Layne who did the Looking & Concluding. :> Wonkette needs to Bring Back Wonkette ;}. Sure, Ana Marie could be maybe a littlebit mean at times but she wouldn’t have been so nasty as to extrapolate the Garden State out across the whole Nation. ;>
Actually, she might even have Picked up on the Point that if Bloomie pulls Only 18% in Joysey, he’ll be a Sure Bet to win Zero electoral votes (well, with the possible exception of New York’s).
Now as to Saint Joe ~ notwithstanding the apostate Brendan’s deCanonization of him above (”He’s not a saint, but as politicians go, he’s a good one…” :) ~ let us recall that Connecticut likes him because, among Other reasons, he Brings home (he should Pardon the expression :) the Bacon ;>. E.g., see the recent story re Senate subcommittee spending for Separation of Storm and Sewage Sewers in Enfield ;> ~
Amen :)
(btw Enfield voted for Joe not only in the November election ~ as did the large majority of the 169 towns which constitute Connecticut ~ but also in the August Democratic primary, when the majority of towns [and voters] went for Ned Lamont. / Hey, you don’t just Flush loyalty down the drainpipe y’know. Politics may be a Crapshoot but it still ain’t Beanbag. :)
July 6th, 2007 at 2:53:55 pm
Earmarks that go to my district are good earmarks. Earmarks that go to your district are obvious paybacks and pork projects.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:30:59 pm
Although Brendan has checked out on this thread, I truly hope he can at some point weigh in on the Nebraska senate primary we will see next year. Hagel is just as much, if not more, wedded to the non-war principles of his party than Lieberman was last year, but has spoken out vigorously against the war against the party platform like Lieberman. Most right-wing blogs that I’ve read (I admit I don’t read a ton of them) are strongly backing Hagel’s challenger. I wait patiently to see whether those in the MSM and certain blogs who called the D’s nut-jobs for trying to oust Lieberman, give the same treatment to the R’s for the primary of Hagel. I suspect it will not happen.
BTW…I can’t wait until after ‘08 b/c if the D’s can take just a couple of seats (OR, ME, NH, MN, etc.) Lieberman will finally be irrelevant and we can stop hearing about him all the damn time.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:53:40 pm
Very quickly, anon - it depends on the rhetoric being used in that primary. If they’re calling Hagel a traitor to his party, a Democrat in Republican’s clothing, etc., rather than simply opposing him because of an honest disagreement over an issue(s) of principle, then I totally disagree with that tactic — well, unless such rhetoric is actually justified (which it clearly wasn’t in Lieberman’s case, by any objective measure; I don’t know enough about Hagel’s case to say for sure whether it’s justified there, but I doubt it is).
As I’ve made clear numerous times before, it was the purge-like tenor of the anti-Lieberman vendetta on the Left, not the mere fact that voters supported somebody else, that upset me. Voters who disagree with an incumbent on a particular issue are obviously well within their rights to vote for a candidate who is more in line with their opinions! And, just as obviously, that’s true whether their opinions are pro-war or anti-war. But activists and campaigns should not dishonestly portray those who genuinely disagree with them about an issue of principle as being “disloyal” or “dishonest” or “scumbags” or “Bush’s best buddy” (I guess in Hagel’s case it would be “Hillary’s best buddy”?) and so forth. It was that widespread poisonous anti-Lieberman rhetoric that made me feel like the whole message of the campaign was that Democrats who agree with him aren’t just wrong, they aren’t really Democrats at all; they’re traitorous bastards who have no place in the party.
If the anti-Hagel activists in Nebraska are sending a similar message to Republicans who agree with Hagel on the war, then that’s wrong and idiotic and they shouldn’t do it. But even so, of course it wouldn’t bother me as much personally as the Lieberman business did, since a) I, personally, am a hawkish ex-Democrat, not a dovish ex-Republican; and b) I’m from Connecticut, not Nebraska. In other words, if you’re asking me to be as personally outraged by the Hagel situation as I was by the Lieberman situation, you’re being rather unrealistic, disregarding the whole nature of human motivation. Of course I’m going to be more personally upset when it’s my group that’s being “purged.” But if you’re asking whether, as a matter of principle, I feel the same way about both situations: sure, if they’re equivalent in the ways I’ve outlined above.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57:30 pm
Andrew, don’t Treifle with Joe Lieberman, I’m sure he’s never partaken of a Pork project in all his life :). But Kashrut aside: Exactly right. ;>
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28:10 pm
I don’t know that politicians are changing their positions on the war based on politics. I think it’s more like seeing what’s happening and being honest with themselves that changes their heart.
I really, really hope that was tongue-in-cheek.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34:18 pm
Understood, I suggest you pay attention to redstate and read any posts on Hagel there. I don’t have a link, but in the post on that site giving the news of the primary challenge to Hagel there were some pretty ridiculous comments. Stuff along the lines of Hagel gave comfort to al-Qaeda by speaking out against Iraq, etc., etc. I would hope if that type of rhetoric continued the MSM would catch on and portray the R’s in the same way they portrayed the D’s last summer. Somehow I doubt they will.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:33:49 pm
Loy the Elder - I doubt that many on here will have read Leo Rosten, so your “Treifle” will have escaped ‘em, most likely … *I* Liked it, once I had finished reading and digesting it … (grin) …
On an equivalently subtle note - from the Glasgow Herald Online …
“WE hear that a nurse at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley was telling friends that the airport bomber was complaining about the hospital diet of haggis, neeps and tatties.
“But what did he expect in the Burns Unit?” she added.”
Supperlative Humour, indeed, would you not agree ?
July 7th, 2007 at 2:16:43 am
Alasdair, I would Indeed :)