Nov 16 2008
Freedom of Speech and Responsible Governing. Part I: Joe Lieberman’s Senate Challenge
It is a truly notable day when a great American leader is being challenged solely for thinking of his country’s best interests, instead of his own. In a series, we will discuss freedom of speech, the proper way in which modern leaders are responsibly and thoughtfully exercising that right, and examples in which leaders may not be acting thoughtfully and carefully. Most importantly, though, I will strive to get to the bottom of the real stories, not just what the media has been telling us. Our first story belongs to the ages, much like Senators Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. Senator Lieberman’s story started long ago, but today, the wise senator is at a crossroads, as his old Senate “friends” attempt to vote him out of his well-deserved Senate chairmanships, solely for his backing of Senator John McCain for President, rather than Barack Obama. In an ironic twist, Senator Lieberman is a registered Independent now, as his party refused to back him in his 2006 bid for re-election — the very same party that now seeks to censor him for acting the Independent in his support.
In our first installment, the topic centers on the recent results of the 2008 Presidential Election, and Senator Joseph Lieberman. During the primaries, Senator Lieberman supported and campaigned for his longtime Senate ally and friend, Senator John McCain. Lieberman, who is now an Independent, and formerly a Democrat in name, still caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Senator Lieberman raised what he felt were sincere concerns over the election of Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill. Apparently, his candor and personal concerns upset some of his colleagues, as before the election itself, Senator Reid noted that it was possible, come November 4, that certain actions could be taken against Lieberman, who currently chairs a number of important and powerful Senate committees.
True to his word, almost immediately after Senator/President-Elect Obama’s victory, Reid met with Senator Lieberman to discuss Lieberman’s future within the Senate. What is unknown at this point is exactly on what grounds Senator Reid could punish Senator Lieberman, and exactly what sort of a precedent that could set for the future. And of course, we prize leaders with extraordinary governing skills and the ability to fully understand the long-term consequences of their actions.
Whether or not stripping Senator Lieberman of his official committee chairmanships in the Senate is seen as petty malfeasance or justified, responsible or reprehensible, remains to be determined. At this time, it is still unknown what changes, if any, will take place in the Senate, that concern Senator Lieberman. If Senator Reid does take seemingly punitive action against Senator Lieberman with little more rationale than a telephone-like-game of he-said-this-and-he-said-that, then it certainly may stand to help Republicans more than Democrats, ironically, by appearing as the winning party with little concern for the underdog. However, what is forgotten is that America is the country that always roots for better, nice and more decent . . . not to mention, the much-maligned but ever loved, underdog.
In the newest twist in the epic tale of Joe Lieberman, it is now quietly being reported that a handful of Democratic senators are turning against the mounting Reid tide, and sticking up for fellow senator, Joe Lieberman. According to Politico, the four senators in question are Bill Nelson, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and most surprisingly, Chris Dodd. Dodd, as you might recall, left Lieberman high and dry during his last campaign, instead electing to support the Democratic nominee, a New York millionaire who lost to Lieberman, as Connecticut’s first elected “Independent” candidate.
Dodd, a fellow Connecticut senator, must have something significant at play, if he is willing to switch allegiances once again. Perhaps he seeks the asylum of Lieberman, long known as the conscience of the Senate. When the housing market began to fail and the dust settled, fingers soon began pointing at Dodd for his sweetheart deals with failed lending giants. Perhaps Dodd is just looking for an old face, to tell him everything is a-ok. Either way, this development means there is still hope that some form of conscience lives on in the Senate — either that, or Lieberman’s got some excellent dirt on Dodd. At this point, the Republican Party may be looking quite good to the Independent senator who owes nothing to old friends, and has the wind of the world in his sail.
How sad that all it takes to turn on one’s friends is a simple and cold political calculation. No one knows this better than Senator Joe Lieberman.
6 Responses to “Freedom of Speech and Responsible Governing. Part I: Joe Lieberman’s Senate Challenge”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
The wind of the world in his sail?
Really?
He’s facing censure from his state caucus, losing his “precious” chairmanship where he’s been nothing but a mouthpiece for the failed “strategery” of BushCo, facing certain defeat in his next Senate race, the Republicans can’t stand him, the Democratic caucus will vote to reprimand him this week, and he’s on tap to become the biggest pariah in Washington. The wind of the world must blow ill.
I will be disappointed if the good ol’ boy network keeps Lieberman in his Chairmanship of Homeland Security. They’d have to be out of their minds to do that. Looking at what actually came out of L’s mouth during the campaign, much of the Dem base will be very angry if the Dem leadership doesn’t remove him. Even though he proved to be a traitor in our midst for meetings during the election season, I’d be okay with letting him stay, just not with that position.
And looking at voter polls in his state, less than a third of his voters say that they would vote for him again, if they could re-do their last election. He took a big gamble and lost bigtime. He will have to pay for that for the remainder of his career.
There is an old saying in Washington: “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog!”
In politics, there ARE no friends, only allies, and politicians change allies like my teenaged daughters changed underwear.
One cannot really blame the DNC for not backing Lieberman as an Independent, there was another man who had won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut, and it would be bad form for the DNC to back an Independent against their own Party’s candidate! You make it sound as if it’s the other way around!
The Democrats didn’t leave Liberman, HE left the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, today, Reid is an idiot if he tries to “punish” Lieberman for acting, as an Independent, in his own interests, which is what Senator L. did in backing McCain. Perhaps he was convinced that Obama couldn’t win, so he backed the wrong horse, in hopes of keeping his Chairmanships if the Republicans won.
Bad choices get made every day.
But Reid would be making one if he removes Senator L. from his chairmanships, as L. will leave the Democratic Caucus and caucus with the opposition, which would make it harder for the Democrats to reach that magic number 60.
Obama has made it plain, both in public, and to Reid in a phone call, apparently, that he is still urging a bipartisan course, and such a move would certainly NOT encourage that image. I’d bet that another phone call to Reid from Obama’s pet pit bull Emmanuel will, or has, backed up that quiet urging, as we’ve heard nothing else from Reid on the subject, other than speculation from the press over what the Caucus itself may do. We’ll see what Reid’s position is at that time.
Dumping Lieberman to the Republicans would be a HUGE mistake, and a news article (I can’t remember where) noted yesterday that at least four Democratic Senators are backing Lieberman’s efforts to remain in his chairmanships posts.
Hopefully, this is one mistake they won’t make!
Thing is though, all of our national representatives have a duty to represent not only their constituencies, but to also represent the best interests of the nation as a whole. For Joe Lieberman, that clearly meant supporting things that his party did not necessarily feel were important, but that he strongly felt were important. Is it not the duty of the senator and the President to buck the trend of party politics, and instead let their conscience, and the best interests of the nation as a whole, guide them? Forget for a minute the particulars; the gist is that a senator decided to break ranks, for what he felt was the common good, and now he’s paying for it… actually, he paid for it two years ago, when his party refused to even renominate him (a great slap in the face, as he has held the same Connecticut seat for over 20 years). After winning as an Independent, he still chose to forgive and forget, and caucused with the same people who turned their backs on him. And now to take it one step further, via Senator Reid, is simply bad sportsmanship. And it can be inferred that when one’s own failures are glaring it’s easier to blame a scapegoat.
Joe Lieberman is the worst kind of political opportunist. The people in CT. were unhappy with the job he was doing for their state, so they didn’t choose him in their primary. That’s what primaries are for- to vote for the person that would best represent the interests of your state. Out of spite and power lust, Lieberman ran as an Independent and squeaked by with 36% of the vote…hardly a mandate. Democrats in the Senate welcomed him to caucus with them, and he repaid them by trashing their Presidential nominee every time someone would allow him on camera, campaigning for McCain, and lending his time to actively campaign for both Norm Coleman and Susan Collins.
“(a great slap in the face, as he has held the same Connecticut seat for over 20 years)”
And where does it say that seniority automatically makes one deserving of re-election? If the Democratic voters in his State decline to renominate him for another term, well, that’s life, and NOT the fault of the Party leaders in Washington! If he then decides to strike out on his own (which is what going Independent is), well, then that’s on his head, and he must take his licks where he gets them.
I do agree, however, that it is right for the Democratic Caucus to swallow their pride and make a deal with this “devil”, if they want to have a better chance of hitting that 60 vote mark.