Lieberman and the possibility of a filibuster

January 12, 2006

This may be the rumor of the day, but I’m a little skeptical.

To summarize the buzz, Joe Lieberman met with some activists from Democracy for America yesterday, and when the subject of the Alito nomination came up, Lieberman “said that a filibuster was on the table for him.” (The quote reflects the DFA rep’s description of the meeting, not an exact quote of the senator.)

Of all the people to raise the specter of a filibuster, Lieberman seems like an odd choice. Indeed, Lieberman was one of the 22 Dems to vote for John Roberts’ nomination in September. I can see Lieberman feeling enough heat in an election year to vote against Alito on the floor, but a filibuster? Lieberman?

To be sure, earlier this week, Lieberman spoke to a student group from Yale, all of whom opposed the Alito nomination, and told them that a filibuster is “still a possibility,” though he had “no idea” whether it would happen.

These reports give the impression that Lieberman thinks Alito might face a filibuster, but not necessarily that he’d be the one leading the fight. I can think of a few million people who’d be impressed to see him get out in front in taking Alito on, but until that happens, I wouldn’t count on it.

Wow. That is really heartening. He’s a conservative Democrat so he’s hardly the left-wing liberal conservatives love to vilify and marginalize as obstructionist, and he can say he voted for Roberts to hold up his reputation of being willing to support the president on good nominees.

  • Maybe he’s getting nervous about a primary challenger and is trying to mobilize the Democratic base.

  • I think he’s probably just playing good soldier, knowing nothing will come of it, and trying to deflect some of the criticism he’s been taking from the base. Of course, if the dems had any sense of strategy, maybe this would still be more of a possibility. If DFA asked him this directly, there really isn’t any other answer he could give that wouldn’t further alienate him from those who can back a significant primary challenger. If only he felt this heat all the time. Democrats would never have a problem with him.

  • Sorry folks, but this whole thing here is hopeless, and as it appears to be going, the country by 2008 will be hopeless as well. I really had no idea things were going to go so steadily downhill in just 5 years. This is starting to look eerily similar to Japan in the late 1980s on the economic front, and Germany, politically, in the late 1930s. I wonder how far we can lurch to the right before more Americans wake up and realize what we have lost, and what a pathetic nation we have become. I weep for the future…

  • Lieberman talks the big talk. Then he kisses the President and votes with the Republicans.

    Let’s see if he actually leads the party toward a filibuster. I’ll put money on no.

  • Lieberman’s only saying this because he believes there’s no chance in hell of it happening. It’s easy to spout tough words when there’s no chance that action will be required to back them up.

    Although what the Dems think they have to lose at this point is beyond me. What are they saving the filibuster for, if not for this?

  • Face it, this is the best nominee you are going to get. Given the makeup of the Senate, there is no way in hell any moderate person is going to get confirmed. Fortunately, the process will keep out complete nutterbutters like Bork, and morons like Harriet will get the boot before they even make it to hearings. But there isnt any point using a filibuster, when even if successful, you’ll just have to resort to the same tactic again, and you can’t keep that up. This is all just perfunctory at this point. All you can do now is pray that this guy has evolved somewhat from the creepy worldview of his younger days.

  • Although what the Dems think they have to lose at this point is beyond me. What are they saving the filibuster for, if not for this?

    I second this thought and question. Why preserve a right to filibuster if you won’t use it?

  • Help from Lieberman is highly suspect, especially after he spoke out that in a time of war we need to get behind our president./ I think the president would like the Dems to filibuster in a loud and losing cause, prior to the 2006 elections because …..Bush needs a smokescreen.
    It makes me wonder
    Is Lieberman being controlled, and what do they have on him.

  • >Although what the Dems think they have to lose at this point is beyond me. What are they saving the filibuster for, if not for this?

    >>I second this thought and question. Why preserve a right to filibuster if you won’t use it?

    The Dims are saving the right to fillibuster for when the Repugs are in the minority.

  • Typical Lieberman. I suspect he’ll vote no on Alito–not that it matters one whit–and will then use that purely symbolic vote to appeal to the choice interest groups to stay on his side. And they’ll do it, almost certainly.

    This is why we lose: our interest group tails wag the Democratic dog. Lieberman stays secure because he responds to money and pressure: the PACs and lobbies for choice, or against Alaska drilling, can always get on his calendar. Who can’t? Middle- and working-class Americans, against whose economic interests he’ll vote again and again, and thoughtful opponents of the war whom he’ll wave aside as wimps or America-haters. He’s the perfectly insincere pseudo-liberal politician.

    • Comments are closed.