The tide turned in Lieberman's favor, sources say, after two events in recent weeks. First, President-elect Obama told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. Later, in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman told him it would be "unacceptable" for him to give up his gavel. That was considered by some as a veiled threat that Lieberman would jump to caucus with Republicans if he was forced to give up the gavel.
While Lieberman did not publicly threaten to bolt to the Republican Party, another party aide said he was keeping all his options open.
What I think is remarkable in this whole affair has been the universal assumption that if Lieberman is substantively punished, he will not only bolt the caucus but that he will start voting with the GOP on key domestic issues. That has been the club held over our heads, that "we need Lieberman's vote" to get things done. But the question I ask then is:
What, if anything, does Joe Lieberman believe in?
Aside from the war stuff where he already votes indistinguishably from Republicans, the line was always "he votes with us on domestic issues." But by promising to leave the caucus (which no one should care about in the least since control of the majority is not at stake), and the implied threat of voting with the GOP on non-war related issues, we end up with the proposition that Joe Lieberman will vote against his own beliefs to punish the Democrats if they take away his chairmanship.
I know we all knew Joe Lieberman is this contemptible already, but it does surprise me that this, in essence is his trump card to keep his gavel: "We all know I'm a snivelling wretch who will do anything for power, so if you punish me, I will get revenge by voting with the GOP on everything."
It is a revealing incident in his career, to so publicly out himself a base sociopath. To basically admit his liberal voting record (a lacklustre 46th most progressive lifetime score) was all just to keep his constituents from kicking him out. The moment he would have nothing to gain from it anymore (those constituents will almost certainly kick him out in 2012 anyway), he can regress into a full bore conservative and help the GOP filibuster the Democratic domestic agenda.
I know we are all cynical or at least realistic about politics, but that cynicism usually does not extend to such naked expressions of cynicism by the politicians themselves. Usually a self-serving vote or position is given a fig leaf of some kind of principle, but if nothing else, this situation has robbed Lieberman of any plausible morally defensible rationale to behave this way. He is supposed to be socially liberal, and to want things like more health care, better schools, an equitable tax system and so forth. His constituents certainly want those things, but Lieberman is prepared to vote against his supposed beliefs and their interests if he doesn't get his way on a committee matter. That's not how it is supposed to work, and yet this is all passing without comment, because we all know (and I mean everyone, including the CW-purveyors) that Lieberman really doesn't have any integrity, that he really is this petty and small.
While I have little faith Lieberman's vote can really be counted on for key cloture votes on domestic and social issues important to the Democrats, I could understand what the Democrats are futilely trying to do here. I think it is the wrong thing to do, but I will be happy to admit I am wrong if this manoeuvre buys Lieberman as the 60th vote to get card-check, ENDA or a tax increase on the wealthy through the Senate.
After all, you can't expect him to vote his conscience, he has just told you he doesn't have one. |
