Lieberman and Collins, sitting in a tree…

October 30, 2006

At first blush, this might sound predictable and inconsequential, but it deserves some close scrutiny.

United States Senator Joseph I. Lieberman won the backing of a top Republican in the Senate on Friday [Oct. 20] as Howard Dean traveled here to rally Democrats behind Ned Lamont’s effort to unseat Mr. Lieberman. […]

Mr. Lieberman appeared at the New London City Pier with Senator Susan M. Collins, a Republican from Maine, to highlight the need for port security — and to campaign together. Ms. Collins said her support for Mr. Lieberman, a one-time Democratic vice-presidential candidate, marked the first time she was backing a ”non-Republican.”

Ms. Collins said she admired his ability to work with both parties in Washington. ”There are certain leaders, and certain issues, that transcend partisan politics and require work across party lines, and Joe Lieberman is that leader, and homeland security is that issue,” she said.

While Ms. Collins said she wanted nothing more than to see Mr. Lieberman win, she added that she did not want the Democrats to win back the Senate, where she heads the Homeland Security committee.

”As much as I love Joe Lieberman, I like being chairman,” she said, embracing Mr. Lieberman with a laugh.

Hilarious. Lieberman is the ranking member on Collins’ committee, and in theory, would be in position to become chairman if Dems take back the Senate. Even if Dems fell short of the majority, Lieberman, if he stays with the party and keeps his seniority, will remain the ranking member of the committee, and will be responsible for representing Dems and the Dems’ interests on the committee — against Collins.

So, can someone explain why in the world he’s campaigning alongside the Republican committee chair?

The two apparently have a good working relationship. Fine. But imagine the situation come January, when Lieberman is supposed to advocate on behalf of the Senate Dem caucus for an agenda that runs counter to what Susan Collins and her party want on the committee. How effective can we expect Lieberman to be after he’s campaigned alongside the rival he’s supposed to stand up to?

I spoke with one Capitol Hill source this afternoon who told me it’s obvious that Lieberman is now “beholden” to Collins.

“[Lieberman] has just forfeited his position on the committee,” the staffer told me. “It’s impossible for him to function as the Democratic leader against Collins.”

Indeed, let’s also not forget it’s not just campaign appearances — Collins gave Lieberman $5,000 from one of her political action committees.

There are rumors that Lieberman cut some kind of deal with the Dem leadership a while back that will allow him to keep his seniority in the chamber, but this campaign appearance with Collins raises some serious questions.

Put it this way: how many prospective Dem committee leaders are campaigning alongside their Republican rivals this year? How would Republicans feel if a possible committee chair started campaigning with the ranking Dem on the committee the Republican expected to lead?

It’s too soon to say whether Lieberman is going to win next week or not, but his position in his party — or what was his party — needs some serious review from the caucus.

Sigh.It’s kind of disheartening to realize that even if we win big next Tuesday we won’t have the Democratic leaders that deserve our passionate advocacy. Dems in congress are still more congressmen than they are Democrats.

  • It’s no accident he named his “party” — Connecticut for Lieberman — after himself. No high-minded ideals or values embodied there. It’s all about Joe looking out for Joe.

    So he takes money and support for Republicans while wresting promises from Democrats that he’ll retain his seniority. Does that mean he’s unprincipled and disloyal? Hell no! Joe stuck to his principles of looking out for Joe. And we ought to be damn grateful to him, because you know he’s able to lead to a better job for his state and country than either the Republicans or Democrats. Or something.

  • CB, you neglected the most obvious explanation (maybe because it’s too obvious): Lieberman is laying the groundwork for switching parties. Or at least laying the groundwork for some really tough bargaining with the Democratic leadership if he wins and he’s the swing vote in the chamber. If he wins and if the Republicans keep their majority in the Senate, he’ll switch in an instant.

  • What a pathetic sack of crap. To Joe, any means justify the end of retaining the power of Joe.

    Um, sorry to break it to you, but it seems none too early to say that, sadly, Joe is going to win. However, if he doesnt switch parties, he should be forced to, or at least cast onto the rocks by the Dems for being a traitor.

  • So is Liebermann Yahweh’s revenge for Clinton slipping his cigar into a nice Jewish girl? Because Clinton messed around, Gore felt he had to be extra “moral” and elevated this two-bit moralist to be his running mate. And Lieberman’s been a pain in the ass every since.

  • “So, can someone explain why in the world he’s campaigning alongside the Republican committee chair?”

    In five words:

    Joe really is a Repug.

  • I’m a bit confused here and I hope someone could set me straight. I understand that Lieberman said he will caucus with the Dems, but as an Independent doesn’t he lose his seniority on the committees if the Dems win the Senate? I mean they don’t have to give the committee chair to him. OK I’m sure he’ll cut a deal, but they could just say, “Well Joe you screwed us in the general election and you’ve been pretty critical of us for a while so fuck you.”

  • So, can someone explain why in the world he’s campaigning alongside the Republican committee chair?

    Sure, that’s easy. Holy Joe won’t be a Senator much longer, even though he will handily win reelection.

    Rumsfeld is going to get fired after the election. In a show of “bipartisanship”, Bush appoints Lieberman to replace Rumsfeld and Joe accepts. The Republican governor of Connecticut then appoints a Republican to the empty Senate seat, retoring a Republican majority or creating a 50-50 tie.

    Simple.

    I wish I could take credit for this obvious insight, but Mark Kleiman saw it first: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/election_2006_/2006/10/scenario.php

  • Simple- kick him out of the party now. Inform the Democratic voters that, should lieberman be elected as an independent, he will not have any seniority rights in the Democratic caucus.

    Liberman should not get a single lever-pull from a voter wishing to vote Democratic.

  • I have to agree with Castor Troy. The party would have better told Lieberman to enjoy his independence but thank you, committee assignments are based on party membership.

  • Sorry, I meant my post to point out that the lines between the parties are being blurred by the Democrats. If they’ve cut a deal with Liberman, it’s just part of an emerging pattern. Winning, not principles.

    You’d better bet your bippy that Lieberman and some of the newly-elected Democrats will vote with Republicans on many issues. So what’s the point of having two parties? How stupid do the Democrats have to be before they learn that they’d better vote together at this critical time in history.

    I fear for my country, and the Democrats are NOT going to change anything if this is their game-plan.

    Where the hell are Democrats who will turn things around?

  • Luckily there is one Senator that’s on Collins’ committee that would do the job right, Senator Frank Lautenberg. Not only did Lautenberg bail out the Democrats in 2000, but he’s been one of the few Senators to stand in the way of the Administration. There is no way Harry Reid will let Lieberman run the only Senate committee that provides oversight to the Administration.

  • The irony is that Lautenberg should be the example of how the Senate Dems treat people who leave – Frank retired, then got drawn back in to take Torricelli’s seat, and he didn’t get *ANY* seniority. That’s *despite* saving the seat for the party, and that’s *despite* not being a sanctimonious holier-than-thou-and-thine-party fake Democrat like Lieberman.

    Reid should’ve kicked Joe to the curb *MONTHS* ago. If he fucks the Senate Dems (as Mark Kleiman suggests, and Susan Collins pretty much proves, as if there weren’t enough evidence already), it would be the fault of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Lieberman, despite his whiny protests to the contrary that the party doesn’t appreciate him. And the same senators who’d be dismayed to find their chairmanships reverting to GOP hands will have only their own petulant, Joe-protecting, asses to blame. The rest of us can blame them, too, though.

  • The quick and easy solution to this is to restore Frank Lautenberg’s seniority. Lautenberg retired from the Senate for two years and got back in to save the NJ Torricelli seat for Democrats. If you discount his two years of retirement he leapfrogs Lieberman in seniority and is either the Chair or Ranking member of Homeland security. Also, Dems are committed to passing the 9/11 committee recommendations and Lieberman/Collins are committed to a pork-based, not risk-based formula for Homeland Security. He should be stripped for that alone. If Joe Lieberman somehow wins in CT I expect the Democratic grassroots to move to restore Lautenberg’s seniority and leave Joe Lieberman’s seniority alone. That’s postive action, respectful of long service to the Democratic Party. Let Mr. Unity&Purpose say how unfair it is to fix the glitch that denied 80something Frank Lautenberg his seniority.

    • Comments are closed.