It’s not just the war — redux

May 22, 2006

In light of Sen. [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag]’s poor showing at the hands of his fellow Connecticut Dems Friday night, the NYT’s [tag]Paul Krugman[/tag] raised a point today that’s bothered me for a while: the discontent over [tag]Lieberman[/tag] extends well beyond the [tag]war[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag].

What happened to Mr. Lieberman? Some news reports may lead you to believe that he is in trouble solely because of his support for the Iraq war. But there’s much more to it than that. Mr. Lieberman has consistently supported [tag]Republican[/tag] talking points. This has made him a lion of the Sunday talk shows, but has put him out of touch with his constituents — and with reality.

[tag]Krugman[/tag] notes multiple instances from recent years in which Lieberman not only broke party ranks on issues of significance, but repeated the GOP line, lending credibility to bogus arguments on issues including Iraq, Social Security, Terri Schiavo, and Clinton’s impeachment. I’d add a few items to the list, including Lieberman taking the lead among the “blame Hollywood” crowd, and backing GOP initiatives such as faith-based funding, school vouchers, and tort “reform.”

In each instance, Lieberman has not only separated himself from his party, he’s offered credibility and cover to Republicans with misguided ideas. The hostility and frustration among Dems for Lieberman has picked up because of the war — I recall Lieberman congratulating himself at one ’04 presidential primary debate for not getting booed by a [tag]Democrat[/tag]ic audience — but it’s part of a pattern in which the senator has let the party down.

Is this just a case in which a “centrist” senator is staying true to his principles? Krugman’s not buying it.

[Hi]s Bushlike inability to face reality on Iraq looks less like a stand on principle than the behavior of a narcissist who can’t admit error. And the common theme in Mr. Lieberman’s positions seems to be this: In each case he has taken the stand that is most likely to get him on TV.

You see, the talking-head circuit loves centrists. But a centrist, as defined inside the Beltway, doesn’t mean someone whose views are actually in the center, as judged by public opinion.

Instead, a Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points, even if those talking points don’t correspond at all to what most of the public wants or believes.

But this “center” cannot hold. And that’s the larger lesson of what happened Friday. Mr. Lieberman has been playing to a Washington echo chamber that is increasingly out of touch with the country’s real concerns. The nation, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 simply because he was there, has moved on — and it has left Mr. Lieberman behind.

For months, it seems as if Lieberman doesn’t quite understand why he’s having so much trouble with his party’s base. Maybe this Krugman column will help explain the situation a bit.

How did he vote on cloture for the bankruptcy bill and on Alito? I thought he pimped the common man on both of those votes as well.

  • This is great stuff, and very perceptive, too. The only thing Krugman left out is the part about Lieberman being a sanctimonious piece of shit.

  • Lieberman’s wrong on the war and disgusting in his Bush apologism, but that’s not the biggest problem with his politics.

    It’s that, on issues from Alaskan drilling and abortion to regulating corporate shenanigans on the Enron model, he’s an interest-group panderer, responsive within his political universe to the biggest lobby with the deepest pockets. On green issues, he’s happy to accept the endorsements and money from the Sierra Club, with the added bonus that doing so gives him some notional “liberal” bona fides. In Connecticut, that’s what he can get away with. When it comes to regulating the Ken Lays of the world, though, he’ll let them off the hook–as he did in 2002–and trust that they’ll favor him with support later on, as they have.

    While Holy Joe is repulsive stylistically and tragically wrong on many of the issues, starting with the Splendid Little War, his worst transgression as a Democrat is his eagerness to perpetuate the Balkanized politics that lead so many to regard the Dems as an amalgamation of interest groups rather than the champions of a real vision for the country. That’s why he’s gotta go.

  • The only thing Krugman left out is the part about Lieberman being a sanctimonious piece of shit.

    Farinata X, you beat me to it. All of his talking during the 2000 election about observing the sabbath was noxious to me. This goes to the yesterday’s discussion group. When Democrats pick candidates in order to pander to those outside their core this is what they get.

  • When will Krugman win a Pulitzer? His writing is so good and so clear. Today’s column is surgical in its precision. Krugman delivers a major smack-down of Holy Joe. Senator Clinton was mentioned in the column; are you listening, Hillary?

  • Rege, I agree (this is becoming a habit): the only thing the Democrats have to fear this year is the temptation to follow Lieberman’s pandering path. Hillary Clinton comes to mind. We should state our case as a party (it’s in line with 2/3 of the electorate’s preferences, for Christ’s sake) and live or die with that.

  • Well, the Democrats in Connecticut had better start beating the drum if they want to win the primary with Lamont, because as I understand it, Lieberman still got about 2/3’s of the vote at the convention.

    Still, I won’t miss him if he goes.

  • As far as I’m concerned, Lieberman is Zell Miller Lite. Plus, I can’t stand his voice.

  • To think he was almost our VP.

    Whoever it was who decided that Holy Joe was presidential material, if they’re still anywhere near the levers controlling the Democratic machine, they should be forced to shut the hell up for a couple of cycles. Just STFU. The man has such weak Democratic credentials, I only imagine how disgusted the democratic base would be with him by now if the supreme court hadn’t coronated the chimp. I would rather have a pious Republican-lite VP than the hell we’re in with Bush, but the man’s voice has always made me sick.

  • His writing is so good and so clear

    His columns of late have been just outstanding, like that one of unhealthy America and the other on conspiracy theories.

    When will the NYT grow tired of so much talent in one and replace him with another bloviating windbag like Thomas Friedman who does win Pulitzers.

  • Lieberman is to the Dems as McCain is to the GOP—both abandoning the goals and ideals of their individual bases for the meat-n-gravy of the Reich. They’re both identical in another way—they don’t realize that the feeding trough they’re sidling up to is a mirage. They’ve both forsaken their followings. Lieberman, if he wins his primary, will provide the opportunity to give Connecticut a Republikanner—and McCain is NEVER going to be a presidential contender….

  • I really hope Liebrerman bites the dust, even if it means a Republican replacement in October, as a shot across the bow of the Wall Street Wanker wing of the Democratic party. At least you’d know your senator was “the enemy” that way.

    While we don’t need to become a monolithic party like the Republicans, we do need to say “this is what being a Democrat means at a minimum,” and Holy Joe doesn’t get close.

  • I disagree with my friends at CB. For the most part Lieberman has done what he thought was right. He supports the war in Iraq and thinks that it is important to support the President in that war. I may not agree with him, but I don’t think this is sufficient to drum him out of the Democratic party. This kind of ‘with us or against us’ attitude concerns me. Isn’t there is room for dissent or must we all prove our purity by passing some litmus test?

  • Is Lieberman even IN the Democratic Party? I didn’t like the moralizing little b*stard when Gore mistakenly chose him to run for VP and I like him even less in “war” time. Thanks for commenting on Krugman, C.B. He’s the only thing I miss fom cancelling my Times Select.

  • NeilS, I don’t think anyone would question Lieberman’s right to act on his beliefs in whatever way he feels suitable. Our discontent stems from the fact that the beliefs he chooses to support are not those of the party to which he claims affiliation, and which have proven more and more each day to be harmful to our nation and its people.

    For this reason we think he is not the best choice for the office he holds and must be replaced if his state and our nation are to prosper.

  • Curmudgeon et al.

    re: “…the beliefs he chooses to support are not those of the party…” I assume that we are largely talking about Lieberman’s postion on Iraq, but…

    What is the Democratic Party’s position on Iraq?

    I don’t know that the party has an official postion.

    I know that Lieberman has supported some really bad legislation on bankruptcy and regulation of the banking industry, but I have always attributed this to the preponderance of commercial interests in the state of Connecticut and regarded it in the same way as I do the ‘support’ of the atuo industry by otherwise good Democrats in my previous home state of Michigan.

    Regardless of the lies, stupidity and deception of the Bush administration in getting us in to this war, the next president (hopefully a Democrat) will have to find a way out of the conflict that does not make things worse than they already are. We can’t turn back the clock, so what do we do now?

  • To add to Curmudgeon’s comments, it is also his penchant for getting on every talk show and chastising and lecturing his own party that is earning Dem disgust with Lieberman. If Lieberman merely acted on his beliefs and spoke out about his beliefs on such topics, I could accept that. But when he turns coat and lectures Dems because they have differences of opinion, and basically calls Dems traitors for speaking out against the maladventures of the Sadministration, then he has gone well across the line.

  • Thanks for this post, CB. I tried to send Krugman an email this morning and, of course, numerous attempts failed as the NYT site froze the transmission. This is what it said: “Mr. Krugman–I admire you and your columns so much. I send them to my friends, always with the sign-off “Krugman for President.” Thank you again, this time, for saying all that needed to be said about Joe Lieberman, so perfectly, so completely. I can only hope that all of Connecticut was reading. Why do you think that you and Frank Rich are the only people at the NYT who have the courage to speak out or the ability to see what is happening in our country? Please keep it up! Hope is in such short supply that there will be anything left to salvage of our country by the time the Bushites are through.”

    I practically cry when I read his and Rich’s columns. Some Baggers here too, on many occasions, so eloquently express what I’m thinking that I often have no need to comment.

  • NeilS: Please read Krugman’s column and some additional specifics mentioned by Bagger’s here, to see why Lieberman is no Democrat and must go. It is not simply his voting is conscience on Iraq or contituents’ banking issues, it is the repeated transgression of repeating Repug talking points and taking Repug positions on virtually everything. He is the cover for this criminal regime to declare most Dems out of the mainstream and extreme and place Joe in the center. Joe is in the center–the center of the Republican party. That is why he literally KISSED George Bush (on the cheek in public, on the ass at all other times). He needs to go…before too many more appearances before the press touting the reasonableness of Rethug policies.

  • Let me get this clear:
    He voted to censure a Democratic President for a personal matter.
    He will not vote to censure a Republican president for shredding parts of the Bill of Rights.
    And he wants the support of the Democratic party?
    I guess he’s never heard of “taking one for the team.”

  • I can’t access Times Select, but I am a big fan of Krugman and I’m reading his Peddling Proserity right now. I’ve read Brad DeLong and Greg Mankiw on Krugman’s crticism of Lieberman’s argument. I agree with Krugman and DeLong. I would probably call Lieberman’s use of the $600 million dollar figure misleading and stupid, but I wouldn’t call him a liar.

    CB’s references were a bit old (from 2000), but they generally reflect his social conservatism on issues of Hollywood, vouchers and fait-based funding. On Hollywood, I think that even Hillary has taken a few shots. Vouchers and perhaps faith-based funding may reflect the high concentration of Catholics in Connecticut (see: http://regionsofmind.blog-city.com/mapping_religion_in_america.htm)

    Censure for lying to the grand jury would have been a reasonable course for handling President Clinton. I’m not interested in censuring or impeaching Bush. I want the Senate and House to investigate and actually oversee the administration. And then I want to get rid of Bush forever. Dustbin of history comes to mind. Government by impeachment is not good for the country. It was bad when the Republicans did it, and it would be bad if the Democrats did. Furthermore, has any Democrat except for Feingold and possibly Feinstein supported censure.

    Tort reform is a disgrace. He represents big money. No doubt about it. Unfortunately so do many/most Democrats.

    But I don’t want to make excuses for Lieberman. I disagree with a lot he says and does. Nonetheless, Democrats should battle for the center of the country. When we last did this we won and the policies, though not perfect, were far superior to the outrage that we now see in Washington.

  • I’m amused that there seem to be more posts on Lieberman and Jefferson than the Republicanite topics on TCR today.

    Of course, I’ve just made it more so 😉

    I suppose, rightly, we are more concerned with policing our own than on the misdeeds of the opposition.

  • NeilS, you can’t win the center by pandering and supporting Republican talking points. Voters repect strength of character–regardless of ideology.

  • NeilS
    Don’t confuse the anti-lieberman crowd with the ideological purists who would purge someone like Ben Nelson from the party. Ben Nelson doesn’t go on t.v. and call his own party members “traitors” even though he may not agree with some of the things other democrats do.

  • I will pay closer attention to Lieberman’s comments in the future. I don’t recall him calling anyone a traitor, but I agree that strength and pride in one’s positions in important to winning support in elections.

  • If Republicans were facing a serious political party in 2006, they’d be in trouble. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, they are facing a political party that actually thinks that 2006 is a good time to purge an incumbent that Republicans have no chance of beating, Senator Joe Lieberman, for the unforgivable sin of appearing to be too sane too often in print and on television for the modern Democrat Party.

    I stand by my prediction that despite all the polls, all the MSM “news” coverage, and the historical trends, Democrats not only won’t recapture either house of Congress, but will actually manage to LOSE seats in both houses. No other political party could possibly do it, but Democrats are uniquely qualified both by virtue of their “leadership” and their political positions:

    Lose the war.
    Stop spying on our enemies.
    Scream about Republican corruption and hope that no one will notice the corrupt Democrats.
    Raise the taxes.
    Raise gas prices (by opposing drilling and slapping extra taxes on oil companies).
    Block the judges.
    On illegal immigration, make it clear that you are the “open borders” party.
    Hint loudly and repeatedly that you will spend the next two years attempting to overthrow the President if voters are crazy enough to give you control of a house of Congress.

    ROTFLMAO!

    • Comments are closed.