Jamie
Weinstein
Read Jamie's bio and previous columns
June 23, 2008
The Defamation of Joe Lieberman
It was only eight years ago that Joe Lieberman
was the toast of the Democratic Party. As Al Gore's running mate during
the 2000 presidential election, nary a bad word could be said about the Connecticut senator. Few
questioned his Democratic credentials. Few questioned his fidelity to
the Democratic Party. Though open minded on some issues, he was a
Democrat's Democrat.
Oh, how times have
changed.
"There's hardly any
sense in which [Joe] Lieberman is an independent figure," writes
Jonathan Chait in a recent article in The New Republic magazine.
"He's become a cog in the Republican message machine."
The article's subtitle
was "The Zell Millerization of Joe Lieberman."
Time Magazine's Joe Klein has too seized upon the Zell Miller
analogy, headlining a May anti-Lieberman screed on Time Magazine's
Swampland blog "Zell Lieberman."
Attacking Lieberman in a May Salon.com article, Joe Conason
called Lieberman "a turncoat surrogate for McCain" and attributed his
endorsement of McCain for president as a gambit "for appointment as a
token Democrat in a Republican Cabinet, or even a second nomination as
vice president, on the Republican ticket."
Lieberman has not been a popular figure in
Democratic politics recently, mainly emanating from his staunch and
continued support of the Iraq War.
Because of this,
Lieberman was all but ignored when he ran for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2004. He faced a primary challenge from the
left when he stood for re-election to the Senate in 2006. Though
Lieberman lost in the primary, he soundly won the general election
running as an Independent. Lieberman continued to caucus with the
Democrats in the Senate despite labeling himself an "Independent
Democrat."
Liberals are now
further enraged with Lieberman because he has decided to support John
McCain for president over their party's nominee, Barack Obama. While
Lieberman's voting record is solidly to the left-of-center, he has made
his decision to support the Republican nominee with the belief that the
threat of Radical Islam is great and that John McCain is the best man to
deal with the challenges that the war against it entails.
Not surprisingly, as
the general election campaign gets under way, many liberals are uniting
to attack Lieberman. One common refrain, as we saw above, is that
Lieberman is nothing more than the Zell Miller of 2008. Miller, a former
Democratic senator, supported George W. Bush in 2004 claiming that the
Democratic Party had moved too far to the left.
But when you analyze
both Miller's and Lieberman's voting records, you come to understand why
the Lieberman/Miller analogy is so preposterous. Joe Lieberman actually
votes like a Democrat. Except on a few issues, Lieberman votes the party
line. An analysis of his recent voting record shows that he and the
Democratic Party are in sync more than 80 percent of the time. Over Zell
Miller's entire Senate career, from 2000 to 2005, Miller voted with
Republicans nearly 80 percent of the time on issues where the two
parties had different positions. In other words, Zell Miller was really
a Republican in all but name when he supported George W. Bush in 2004.
Joe Lieberman is a true blue Democrat who has decided to support John
McCain.
The other defamatory
charge against Lieberman, expressed most vividly by Joe Conason, is that
he is supporting McCain for opportunistic reasons. According to this
theory, Lieberman sees his support for McCain as a way to ensure a
cabinet post in a McCain administration or even another shot at the vice
presidency.
This, of course,
doesn't pass the laugh test. When Lieberman endorsed McCain way back in
mid-December 2007 – before a single Republican primary had taken place –
McCain was just at the very beginning of his Phoenix-like rise to win
the Republican nomination. A week before the endorsement, a New York
Times/CBS News poll showed the Arizona senator garnering just 7
percent support nationally, tied with Fred Thompson and trailing Rudy
Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.
Moreover, McCain must
be seen as the underdog in the general election with the Republican
brand tarnished among many voters. If Lieberman was so opportunistic,
why would he back the horse with the longer odds?
Just the opposite of
being opportunistic, Lieberman's decision to support McCain comes with
great risk. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, Joe Lieberman will find
himself not in a McCain cabinet but back in a Senate controlled by
Democrats. They will view Lieberman's support for McCain with disdain
and his likely keynote address at the Republican National Convention as
an act of great disloyalty.
While Democrats in the
Senate have placated Lieberman since his 2006 re-election so he would
caucus with them and thus allow them to maintain their one-seat
majority, no such placating will be necessary in January 2009 when the
Democrats are likely to control the Senate by a comfortable margin. And
if that occurs, their supposedly "opportunistic" friend Joe Lieberman
will likely be replaced as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee. "Opportunistic" Joe will be a man without a home with little
power to influence anything.
Despite attempts to
defame him, Joe Lieberman is no turncoat or opportunist. He is a
statesman who has made a politically risky decision that he believes is
the best interest of the country. He is a profile in political courage.
© 2008
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is column #
JW018.
Request permission to publish here. |