If it weren’t a 51-49 Senate, Democrats would have to take away Joe Lieberman’s committee chairmanship, block him from attending caucus meetings, and tell him he can forget ever putting a “D” after his name again.
It is, however, a 51-49 Senate, so there are no consequences for Lieberman saying things like this.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party’s White House nominee in 2008.
“I’m going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country,” Lieberman said Sunday.
“So I’m open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there’s a strong one. Stay tuned,” said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
In fact, Lieberman was quite chatty on the subject. When Fox News’ Chris Wallace said, You’re saying you might vote Republican in 2008?” Lieberman responded, “I am.” He added, “I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy.”
Oh, Joe, what are we going to do with you.
Think about this: the Senate Democratic majority, left with no choice, has made Lieberman the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, despite the fact that he publicly admits he disagrees with the Senate majority on the issue. And if party leaders tried to correct this mistake, they wouldn’t be in the majority anymore.
I was also struck by this comment: “Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that’s the basis that I will decide whom to support for president.” In context, Lieberman sounded as if this would be the first time he’d consider putting the national interest first. Someone should probably ask him, “Looking back, who do you prefer, George W. Bush or John Kerry?”
But it’s looking ahead to 2008 that was the real problem for Lieberman. Wallace mentioned Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, all of whom have been critical of the president’s policy. Asked about the leading Dems, Lieberman said he’d consider voting GOP because the Dems’ position on the war “troubles” him.
With this in mind, it’s probably worth reminding the senator of what he told voters just a few months ago. Here’s Lieberman from July:
“That’s why I say [Lamont] is running a single issue campaign. Every campaign, as President Clinton reminded us, is about the future. And what I’m saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance, to make America energy independent, to save your jobs and create new ones. That’s what the Democratic Party is all about.
He is a single issue candidate who is applying a litmus test to me. It’s not good enough to be 90 percent voting with my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus. He wants 100 percent. And when a party does that, it’s the beginning of the defeat of that party….
I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that.”
Unfortunately, Lieberman didn’t mean a word of it. He was doing what he always does — putting himself first, and shifting on a dime if it suits his purposes, even if that means abandoning his stated commitments.
And, just as an aside, if you’re thinking that Lieberman is positioning himself for a nice gig in the next GOP administration (McCain’s running mate?), then we’re on the same page.