If Connecticut for Lieberman works, will Joe keep his Dem seniority?

July 11, 2006

Last week, [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag] formally announced that he would run as an independent if he lost to Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary next month. Yesterday, Lieberman officially got the ball rolling.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman filed paperwork Monday that will allow him to collect signatures to petition his way onto the November ballot if he loses an August primary.

Lieberman’s campaign announced the move in an e-mail to reporters.

The three-term senator faces a tough Aug. 8 primary challenge from Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. Lieberman, who has been criticized by fellow Democrats for his support of the war in Iraq and a perceived closeness with President Bush, is popular among many unaffiliated and Republican voters in Connecticut.

Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state’s office Monday to create a new party called [tag]Connecticut for Lieberman[/tag].

Creating a party became a priority because of state election law, which gives ballot priority to party nominees over unaffiliated individuals. I can think of a few more accurate names than “Connecticut for Lieberman,” but I think Atrios has it just about right when he recommended “Lieberman for Lieberman.”

As whether “Connecticut for Lieberman” will get much in the way of Democratic endorsements, The Hill newspaper conducted a survey on the Hill of Lieberman’s Dem colleagues to see who’s prepared to back Lieberman, even if he runs against the Dem candidate. There hasn’t been much change since last week — Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ken Salazar (Colo.), and Ben Nelson (Neb.) are committed to Lieberman, while Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), John Kerry (Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), and Barack Obama (Ill.) are committed to supporting the Democratic candidate.

There’s just one more angle that I don’t think has been explored much: Lieberman’s [tag]seniority[/tag].

Right now, Lieberman is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If the Dems take back the Senate, Lieberman will be in line for the sought-after committee chairmanship.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership

But this could get a little tricky. If Lieberman loses to [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag] and leaves the party, even just for a few months to run against a Dem chosen by voters, should he lose his seniority, which in turn would deny him the committee gavel he wants? Chairmanships are decided by the party’s steering committee, which is currently led by Hillary Clinton. Would she decide that Lieberman, by abandoning the party for an independent bid, forfeits his years of seniority?

Consider this: Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) retired in 2000, but, at the party’s urging, re-entered politics in 2002 and returned to the Senate. Despite having served four terms over two decades, Lautenberg lost all of his seniority and started at the bottom of every committee. He never left the party, but his brief retirement was enough.

And now Lieberman believes he can leave the party temporarily and maintain his seniority? It sounds like an issue that should be sorted now, before the election.

I knew something was bothering me about “Connecticut for Leiberman” and it finally hit me.

Shouldn’t it really be “Leiberman for Connecticut?” Him being a public servant and all? Or is Connecticut simply there to serve him.

(Thanks to Aaron Sorkin for “Bartlett for America”……..)

  • I definitely think that Lieberman must forfeit his seniority if he goes independent. If Lautenberg had to, without ever leaving the party, Lieberman definitely should!

  • This would be a wonderful opportunity for the party to use the senority system to punish a un-democratic Democrat. Not willing to accept his parties primary decision indeed!

    Let him begin again as a junior senator.

  • I’m all for Joe beginning again as a junior senator, too. But you know that will give him a reason to ally with Republicans. If the Senate is close again, the rethugs will lure him with promises of chairmanships. Then again, who cares? He’ll be where he belongs. It would be terrible, though, if we lost the Senate on account of him. Lamont just has to win the whole thing so Joe can join Faux news on a permanent basis.

  • I would explain to Boltin’ Joe that when the Connecticut for Lieberman party achieves majority status, he’ll be in line for a chairmanship.
    But seriously? There is one scenario where you’d have to let Lieberman retain his seniority: That would be if the (D) after his name made the difference in who controls the Senate. Lieberman would be in a strong position to demand this. If it put Dems in all the other committee chairs, it would be crazy not to. But, that scenario is a long bank shot. Let’s hope the clear cut Dem wins.

  • Of course he shouldn’t loose his seniority! In fact, when Con for Lie works (and of course it will) and he’s voted in with an overwhelming majority of voters (like 95% of course) he should be carried into the Senate chambers on a chair held high above the lowly Democrats he lords over. The Dems should avert their eyes.

    No one is as right or as cool as Lieberman, and there should always be some sort of way to immediately, upon sight determine that he is more important than everyone. He should be crowned prince of the senate!

    Connecticut exists only to serve Joe Lie and it is their holy duty to deliver him to the Senate, even if the two face slime has turned his back on the already faltering democratic process.

    Oh, and JoeW, I’d put my money on Lieberman switching to an R if his vote mattered for Senate Majority Leader. That’d show those lousy Democrats who tried to use the primary to choose the best candidate to represent them. Those greedy sonsa….

  • Connecticut for Lieberman – I can’t wait to see the vote tally on C-Span

    S 123 On the motion create a national Holiday Honoring the Service of Joe Lieberman to America.

    Party_____________Yea____ Nea ___ NV
    Democrats_________ 0 ____ 55 ___ 0
    Republicans_______ 40_____ 0 ___ 3
    Indepentents_______ 0_____ 1 ___ 0
    CT for Liebermans___ 1_____ 0 ___ 0

    What a dick.

  • Um…you folks are familiar with the melody for “Deutschland Uber Alles”—yes?

    ***Joe Momentum, o’er Connecticut—
    O’er Connecticut, forevermore!
    Couldn’t get his way with Democrats;
    Now he’s just a Bush-ian Whore!
    Hooked on power’s lust,
    Broke the voter’s trust—
    Now he’s just a festering sore….
    Joe Momentum, o’er Connecticut—
    O’er Connecticut forevermore!***

  • Why reward Joementum’s terrible behavior at all? Let’s say he squeaks by Ned Lamont to win the primary, and wins the general election in November. And let’s say, the Dems win a comfortable majority in the senate (it’s a long shot). His fellow Democratic Senators should not be so willing to forgive and forget. He should be denied any chairmanship or any other leadership position for the pissy snit he’s throwing. Give his position to someone who’s been loyal to his party and respects the democratic process. There’s something to be said about party loyalty, and if Lieberman has to be cut off at the knees to set an example, so be it.

  • Some what tangentially, but relevant to this weeks Sunday Discussion Group, Glenn Greenwald has a good post up today in which he explains why the Lieberman race is receiving so much attention.

    American political conflicts are usually described in terms of “liberal versus conservative,” but that is really no longer the division which drives our most important political debates. The predominant political conflicts over the last five years have been driven by a different dichotomy — those who believe in neoconservatism versus those who do not. Neoconservatism is responsible for virtually every significant political controversy during the Bush administration — from our invasion of Iraq to the array constitutional abuses perpetrated in the name of fighting terrorism — and that ideological dispute is even what is driving the war over Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat. It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one’s views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.[…]

    More than anything else, this ideological realignment is what accounts for the intense passions ignited by the Joe Lieberman Senate seat. Despite his history as a life-long Democrat and a “liberal”on the predominant 1990s issues, Joe Lieberman is a pure neoconservative, which now matters much more. On the predominant issues of the day, his political comrades are Bill Kristol, Lawrence Kaplan, National Review, The New York Sun, and Dick Cheney.

    Those who are most supportive of Lieberman and angry about the challenge he faces are people like David Frum and David Brooks. Why would hard-core Republican neoconservatives be so emotionally attached to defending Democrat Joe Lieberman? Why do pro-Bush, highly conservative Republicans such as blogger Mark Coffey proclaim themselves to be “huge fans” of Lieberman? Because far more than he is a Democrat or a “liberal,” Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative and therefore — on the issues that matter most — is their ideological and political compatriot. In the 1990s, Joe Lieberman’s positions on the dominant issues of the day may have rendered him “moderate to conservative,” but on the issues that matter most now — in light of the ideological realignment we have had in the wake of 9/11 — he is nothing of the sort. He is a neoconservative, and therefore the political enemy of those who oppose that philosophy. Why would opponents of neoconservatism possibly support the re-election of a neconservative?

  • Damn, Rege – you got there ahead of me! GMTA 🙂

    However, for those who don’t have the time to follow our suggestion to read the whole thing, here are a few more quotes from the article Glenn Greenwald postedl.

    As Glenn puts it:

    American political conflicts are usually described in terms of “liberal versus conservative,” but that is really no longer the division which drives our most important political debates. The predominant political conflicts over the last five years have been driven by a different dichotomy — those who believe in neoconservatism versus those who do not.

    It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one’s views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.

    Neoconservativsm is rarely defined but its central tenets are, by now, quite clear. At its core, neoconservatism maintains that the greatest threat to America is hostile Muslims in the Middle East, and the only real solution to that problem is increased militarism and belligerence, usually with war as the necessary course of action. Our mistake has been excessive restraint, a lack of courage, and a naive and cowardly belief that measures short of war and all-out aggression are effective in dealing with this problem. This threat is not just uniquely dangerous, but unprecedentedly so, such that Islamic extremists render prior American ideals and principles — both foreign and domestic — obsolete, and only radically more militaristic approaches have any chance of saving us from destruction at their hands.

    This is the neoconservative mentality — the bloodthirsty, militaristic, largely authoritarian world-view — which has been driving not only our foreign policy since the September 11 attacks, but also the bulk of our most controversial domestic policies undertaken in the name of fighting terrorists. Over the last five years, neoconservatism has been the central force of American political life, and it has resulted in a fundamental ideological realignment. Far more important than one’s views on traditional matters of political controversy is the extent to which one supports or opposes neoconservative theories.

    Throughout the 1990s, one’s political orientation was determined by a finite set of primarily domestic issues — social spending, affirmative action, government regulation, gun control, welfare reform, abortion, gay rights. One’s position on those issues determined whether one was conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. But those issues have become entirely secondary, at most, in our political debates. They are barely discussed any longer. Instead, what has dominated our political conflicts over the last five years are terrorism-related issues — Iraq, U.S. treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance, attacks on press freedoms, executive power abuses, Iran, the equating of dissent with treason.

    It is one’s positions on those issues — and, more specifically, whether one agrees with the neoconservative approach which has dominated the Bush administration’s approach to those issues — which now determines one’s political orientation. That is why so many traditional conservatives who reject neoconservatism– the Pat Buchanans and Bob Barrs and George Wills and a long roster of military generals — have broken with the Bush administration. And it is also why so many so-called traditional liberals — the Ed Kochs, The New Republic, and Joe Lieberman — have become some of the administration’s most vocal supporters and reliable allies. Individuals who have traditionally conservative views on those 1990s issues are considered “liberals” by virtue of their opposition to the administration’s neoconservative agenda.

    More than anything else, this ideological realignment is what accounts for the intense passions ignited by the Joe Lieberman Senate seat. Despite his history as a life-long Democrat and a “liberal”on the predominant 1990s issues, Joe Lieberman is a pure neoconservative, which now matters much more.

    In the 1990s, Joe Lieberman’s positions on the dominant issues of the day may have rendered him “moderate to conservative,” but on the issues that matter most now — in light of the ideological realignment we have had in the wake of 9/11 — he is nothing of the sort. He is a neoconservative, and therefore the political enemy of those who oppose that philosophy. Why would opponents of neoconservatism possibly support the re-election of a neconservative?

    Much of the criticism directed at the challenge to Joe Lieberman is based on the premise that dissatisfaction with Lieberman is driven merely by one little issue – Iraq. But that argument is at once both factually false and absurd. Lieberman is supportive of the neonconservative agenda almost across the board. And this ideological conflict, far from being one little issue, is really the issue, and Joe Lieberman is on the other side, politically and ideologically, from those who are opposing his re-election.

    Whether the U.S. will continue to follow the increasingly militaristic and authoritarian approach advocated by neoconservates is the predominant political question we face. More than anything else, one’s views on that question are the primary determinant of one’s political orientation. And anything which fuels a political resolution to that fundamental ideological conflict, such as the Lieberman challenge is doing, is something which ought to be encouraged by anyone who believes in democratic debate.

  • If Lieberman loses to Ned Lamont and leaves the party, even just for a few months to run against a Dem chosen by voters, should he lose his seniority,

    Yes, unless as JoeW noted above, his vote is critical to the Dems becoming the Majority party in the Senate. If not, then he should all seniority. Period.

  • I like to read “Letters to the Editor” in NYT, because, to me, they’re a better “thermometer” than a partisan blog (I come here to get cheered up). Not much better — obviously, not every letter written gets published — but…

    Today’s paper had a fairly large selection of letters on the subject of Lamont/Lieberman and it was interesting (and encouraging) to see that even people who labelled themselves as conservative or who had always voted for Lie-o-Con were disgusted with his behaviour. And that was *before* Lie-o-Con decided to form a “party” (of one), just to get himself listed higher on the ballot…

    zmulls (#1) has a very valid point; it should never have been “Connecticut for Lieberman”. I hope that Lamont’s campaign has enough sense to capitalize on that, and produces a bumper sticker which says “Lamont for Connecticut”. Just reversing the priorities would make it evident to the voters that he considers himself a servant, not the ruler of the state.

    Maybe, just maybe, greedy-guts Lieberman could be hoist with his own petard this way. Let’s hope.

    • Comments are closed.