SUPPORTING LIEBERMAN FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS....

[ProSense]

November 15, 2008

SUPPORTING LIEBERMAN FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS....

This morning, The New Republic published, "The case for allowing (Joe Lieberman) to keep his committee chairmanship." It was written by James Kirchick. I tried to keep an open mind.

Indeed, I've actually looked around, hoping to find a compelling argument for giving Lieberman exactly what he wants, and so I was anxious to see what Kirchick came up with. Unfortunately, he missed the mark.

Kirchick's piece makes a few basic arguments, before taking a few cheap shots at liberal bloggers. He insists that Lieberman "has been a reliable Democrat," despite evidence to the contrary. Kirchick also argues that Lieberman has been "a fine chairman of the Homeland Security Committee," despite evidence to the contrary.

But the crux of Kirchick's case is that Lieberman is a "moderate," and it would be a terrible mistake to "punish" Lieberman for his centrist ideology.

(A) political party that seeks to represent a broad swathe of the country should be able to accommodate someone (even a committee chairman) who holds slightly divergent views from the congressional leadership. For an example of what happens when a political party imposes ideological purity tests, Democrats need only cast their gaze across the aisle. The GOP is currently enmeshed in a civil war, where the conservative wing has all but destroyed the party's moderate faction. <...>

There's also the strategic case for keeping Lieberman on: Just because the Republican brand has lost some its luster doesn't mean that the Democratic Party now has the leverage to excommunicate its centrists. For the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has been most successful when it has governed from the center -- when it has governed at all. Its 2006 congressional takeover, engineered by incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wouldn't have happened if the party didn't run centrist and conservative Democrats in traditionally red states. Were the Democrats to punish their former vice presidential nominee, it could weaken the position of these legislators by making the party seem too liberal and intolerant of moderates.

Kirchick seems to have no idea why Lieberman is facing scrutiny. It has nothing to do with having "slightly divergent views," imposing "ideological purity tests," or "excommunicating" centrists. Indeed, Kirchick appears fundamentally confused about the debate itself.

The Democratic caucuses in both chambers have plenty of "centrists" whose ideologies are far from the party's base and/or leadership. Nebraska's Ben Nelson is arguably the Senate's most conservative Democrat, and he remains a member in good standing. There's a sizable "Blue Dog" caucus in the House, and none of them has faced any retribution for "divergent views." If the party was interested in "ideological purity tests," Lieberman wouldn't be the only one with a precarious future.

But he is. And why is that? Because he endorsed the Republican presidential nominee, spoke at the Republican national convention, defended down-ticket Republicans, and spent several months engaged in a smear campaign against the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee.

How does Kirchick respond to these concerns? He doesn't. He wrote a piece for publication about the Lieberman debate without addressing what prompted the debate in the first place.

More from Kirchick:

Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or expelling him from their caucus. (On the contrary, some are rallying to his defense.) The people most interested in penalizing Lieberman are a small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists, the same people who were plumping over two years ago to eject him from the Democratic Party for his supposed heresies. Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman's seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the "flagrantly dreadful" Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is "far more than Lieberman deserves," while Josh Marshall declares that offer "simply unacceptable." The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he'll "no doubt" use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate.

link

Obviously, Kirchick mind isn't firing on all cylinders: Joe Klein is part of a "small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists"?

Also, he must have written this before Senators Leahy and Sanders called for stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship.

[droidamus2]

1. Not his views

I don't think it is Lieberman's views that people have a problem with. Most of his views are on the more progressive side of things. I know my problem with him is I don't trust him. If he is so buddy buddy with McCain and the Republicans can we trust him to not pass on Democratic plans and strategies if he 'thinks its best for the country'. Joe's gonna do what he thinks is best for Joe he has no loyalties and therefore should not be given an positions of power or access to the inner workings of the Democratic caucus. If he wants to acknowledge that he has done wrong (in relation to not only not supporting the Democratic candidate but actively working against him) and being willing to take a step back and work his way back into the good graces of the Democratic party then let him go. The Republicans don't have anything to offer him. Also as somebody else pointed out the idea of a filibuster proof 60 is somewhat of a myth. Democrats aren't known for voting in lockstep like the Republicans do so even if you get to 60 Democrats/Independents there is no guarantee that they will all vote together. On the other hand you may have some moderate Republicans that will look at this election and decide being obstructionist and filibustering everything the Democrats try to do is not the way to go. So we don't need Lieberman's votes and we shouldn't trust him.