C'mon, Baby, Joe Didn't Mean It

Well, the Democrats are going to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I can’t say this comes as much of a surprise, although I find it disappointing. I’ve never much cared for Joe Lieberman, and his actions in the campaign this year should have resulted in some sort of substantial punishment from his erstwhile compatriots. Would he really have started voting and caucusing with the Republicans on issues that he had heretofore voted liberally on simply out of spite? That’s hard for me to believe, which makes the Democrats unwillingness to punish him all the more frustrating. See Steve Benen on the case for stripping Lieberman of his chair.

All that being said, I also understand why the Democrats have done it (see Ezra Klein for the case). Having (possibly) sixty caucusing votes is a whole lot different than fifty-nine, especially as conservative Democrats like Max Baucus and moderate conservatives like … uh, the Maine Senate delegation and Arlen Specter are going to be under intense pressure to not be the 60th vote to break a filibuster.

All of that may be true, but it’s unsatisfying and leaves the door open for Lieberman to pull this kind of nonsense whenever he wants. Perhaps, if that’s the case, the Democrats can take action down the road. Let’s just hope that Reid has Lieberman on double super secret probation.

RNC Day One and a Halfish

It’s telling that Bush spoke to the RNC from the White House. I know that Gustav gave him the excuse, but there must have been a sigh of relief from the McCain campaign. You can’t exactly ignore the sitting president, but that being said, the last thing McCain (or anyone in office or running for reelection, something that the RNC is notably lacking this year) wants is to be seen having your picture taken with George W. Bush this year. Bush’s speech was about what you’d expect – did you know John McCain was a POW? – with this delightful slap at the left: “Fellow citizens, if the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will.” It’s unbelievably galling to hear a man who authorized torture to compare his political opponents to torturers. The eagerness of the Republicans to get Bush back behind the curtain as quickly as possible almost – well, not really almost – makes me feel sorry for him. But then I see those beady shark eyes and remember his unshakeable sense of rightness and exactly why I can’t wait for January.

Fred Thompson brought more of the red meat for the party – did you know John McCain was a POW? – and I once again find myself asking, “Fred Thompson? From Law and Order?” I remember the Fred Thompson boomlet from the winter and spring and still find myself kind of surprised about it.

Ah, Joe Lieberman. What can you say? He’s a hack, and he’s a hack who’s about to lose his committee assignments.

Admittedly, this convention was not aimed at me. The Republican Party is split and right now it seems like the only thing holding it together is Sarah Palin. In a way, it was a smart move on McCain’s part. He’s never been beloved of the Christian Right. Nominating one of their own, even if she is dangerously ill prepared is one of the only ways I can see of him overcoming their antipathy. The problem, of course, is that in nominating a dangerously ill prepared Christian cipher, he’s undercutting the other part of his base – the perpetual war, American hegemony wing of the party that rode George W. Bush into the Departments of State and Defense. Palin is George W. Bush without the daddy issues and without the steady, guiding hand of Dick Cheney whispering in his ear.

Kids (and Old Men) Say the Darndest Things

In 2004, Bush was able to find a few winning lines that pushed him past the finish line, phrases that were so ubiquitous as to be nauseating. These phrases flare up like a herpes outbreak in our political culture, and then fade away, never to be heard from again. It amazes me that the media – and here I mean mostly the cable news networks and their pathetic, sycophantic lap dogs, the national networks – every year takes a handful of signifiers and stock phrases, drives them straight into the ground and then beats them to pieces. But when the next election cycle comes around, we’ve already forgotten them, we’ve moved on to the next handful of phrases and ideas that stand where thinking should be. For John Kerry, the ideas that road him to a lost election, were the ginned up image of him as being “too French,” that his military service was under some sort of question, and of course, his much reviled status as a “flip flopper.”

Four years later, we don’t hear much about flipping or flopping, despite the fact that McCain has done plenty of both. And we certainly don’t hear much about McCain’s military service – only once or twice a minute, from his supporters or himself. And, of course, despite his claims to be Georgian, we haven’t heard much about McCain’s Frenchness.

The McCain campaign is having a hard time finding a winning line of attack for Barack Obama. They’ve tried out a couple, but none of which have had quite the staying power of the classic “flip flopper.” McCain’s celebrity ads are a weird example. He’s running two ads discussing how popular Obama is among all sorts of people. If someone can explain to me how this is an attack, I’d be very grateful. As far as I can see, isn’t this what we want in a presidential candidate?

Still, the Obama campaign seems to have found it worrisome enough to produce a video of their own, claiming that McCain is the real celebrity. I think this claim has a bit more credibility, since McCain has, I dunno, hosted Saturday Night Live. McCain has also tried with tire pressure gauges, apparently implying that Obama doesn’t have a fully thought out energy plan. But the latest line of attack may just be a winner: McCain puts America first, and Obama does not.

Delivered by Joseph Lieberman, everyone’s favorite ex-vice presidential candidate, it’s a pretty disgraceful little line. The reasons why need hardly be enumerated, but my question is: is this going to be a winning strategy for McCain? Or is this the beginning of the end? It seems absurd to me that McCain is trotting out this kind of nonsense in the middle of August, when we still have a little less than three months to go. And, is there any way to counter this kind of attack with out being dragged down into a cesspool of jingoism? Is there anything to be said to someone who believes that someone running for president doesn’t love their country?

Joltin' Joe -- A Reader Comments

Reader Dom writes:

I think the only thing you are missing is that Joe (if he stays in the caucus and runs in the democratic primary again in 2012) has lost a primary before... but was still able to throttle Ned in the general with the votes of republicans and those democrats who are still loyal to him (a shrinking number from latest polls, but still could be possible) Even if he runs independent it could still happen.... he might just think he is too electorally safe for the Dems to do anything to him.

I'm very skeptical that could happen again. Clearly he wasn't the flavor de jour of Conn. democrats in 2006, but he still very narrowly lost of Lamont in the Democratic primary, 52-48. Even in the general he only beat Lamont by 10 points, in a race in which the Republican candidate got absolutely no endorsements, support, or votes from his own party. And, remember that was two years ago. He's really alienated a lot of members of the Democratic Party since then. Lieberman presumably carried nearly half of the voting Democrats in the general election. How many would he carry today against a legitimate Democratic alternative (which I think Lamont was)? Remember, there aren't enough Republicans in Conn. to put him over the top without some really significant Democratic support, and I'm just not sure he would get it. If he did actually get booted from the Democratic caucus and joined the Republicans, I really can't imagine Conn. sending a Republican senator to Washington. Dom could be right, but I just can't see his electoral position in Conn. to be anything but precarious.

Post Script: I can't believe I neglected to consider this in my first post, but if McCain is elected, Lieberman's position in the Democratic caucus is a moot point since McCain will give him a cabinet position.

Joltin' Joe

After watching Joe Lieberman’s appearance on Meet the Press yesterday I think it’s worth revisiting his future within the Democratic Party. For quite some time the party line among senate Democrats was that Lieberman was worth having in the Democratic Party because his only consistent and substantive difference was in regards to the War on Terror. However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that as Lieberman becomes a more active surrogate for the McCain campaign that he’s crossing party lines on more and more issues, illustrated yesterday by his endorsement of increased coastal oil drilling.

One could legitimately expect that he’s not done with his policy metamorphosis, and that as he continues to campaign for McCain (a certainty), and gets a heavyweight position at the Republican national convention (quite likely) his positions will only move further away from those held by the Democratic members of Congress.

Yesterday, John Kerry insisted that he’d always have a place in the Democratic caucus. Most political commentators talk about how, if the Democrats want to attain or approach a 60 filibuster proof majority, they’ll need every member they can get.

What I think is getting lost in the equation is exactly what kind of a member Lieberman will be, particularly if McCain is elected. Surely, in that event his cloture vote could never be counted on to advance a Democratic legislative agenda if it were in any way at odds with the White House (which one would assume would be very often). I cannot possibly imagine how having him in the caucus for a McCain presidency would be an asset.

I think his odds improve with an Obama win, but I’m still not convinced it’s strategically sound to keep him around. His relationship, not with Democratic senators, but with the party in general could not be worse. Obama seems to see him (legitimately) as a turncoat after McCain asked (or pleaded depending on who you believe) Obama to campaign for him during the Conn. Democratic primary (which he subsequently lost of course), and though I think Obama is more strategic and calculating than grudge holding, it’s not inconceivable that he could lean on his party to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, 60 seats be damned. No Democrat anywhere will be headed up to Conn. to get him reelected in 2012. In fact with Conn. being so liberal I’d imagine you’d see very organized opposition to his reelection from party officials. Kicking him out of the caucus might be a way to maximize your chances of seeing someone liberal emerge out of the state in 2012, as I have a hard time believing that he’s got much of a shot at reelection out of Conn. if he’s caucusing with the Republicans.

What do people think? What am I missing? How and why does he stay in the caucus from a pragmatic standpoint?