Lieberman's "Suckers"

A few months ago, I speculated in this space that unless Democrats won exactly 60 Senate seats next month, Joe Lieberman would face strong punishment from Senate Democrats upon his return to the Senate. Lieberman, who has spent a good part of the last year campaigning side-by-side with John McCain, also committed a cardinal sin by speaking in primetime at the Republican National Convention and using his speech to assail Barack Obama despite promises to Senate Democratic leadership that he would refrain from any attacks on the Democratic nominee. While many Democrats were angered by Lieberman's work for McCain, his Obama-bashing was seen as the last straw for some and it immediately stoked talk that he would be stripped of his committee chairmanship and perhaps even booted out of the party.

For the most part, I agreed that this would likely happen. Of course, had John McCain won, he would have likely tapped Lieberman for his cabinet, and the Connecticut Senator would have been able to give one final "screw you" to his former colleagues as his replacement would have been selected by Connecticut's Republican governor.

Alas, that did not happen, and Lieberman began his uncomfortable return to the Senate last week. In his first major statements, his apprehension was clear, and I think that after the election it really sank in to him that he was in trouble and that his behavior would end up costing him a very powerful position. In response, he basically threatened that unless he was given his gavel back he would bolt the party.

Yet surprisingly, rather than call Lieberman's bluff, Majority Leader Harry Reid seems inclined to sit on his hands. In fact, while we can know nothing substantive right now as caucus does not meet until next week and internal matters are not discussed publicly by members of Congress, it is appearing increasingly likely that nothing serious will happen to Lieberman despite his behavior. (I define serious as either losing his chairmanship or being kicked out of the caucus). There are three reasons for this.

First, while Democrats remain upset with Lieberman, the main black mark against him -- his speech at the RNC -- happened so long ago that Democrats' fury from it has faded some. Sure, people are still upset, but they are not flaming mad. This plays into Joe's ability to get back into his colleagues' good graces.

Second, is that to be perfectly honest, Senate Democrats and their leadership are mostly weenies. Faced with an awkward decision to strip one of their longtime members (and friends) of power is a decision most of them would just like to avoid entirely. And while Lieberman's active work against his party's presidential nominee should be unforgivable, the leadership does not want to make that determination if it can do anything at all to avoid it. By not calling Lieberman's silly bluff -- and yes, it is silly considering he has zero leverage to make demands -- the leadership empowered and emboldened the Senator. Also, by not taking a harder line immediately after the election against Lieberman, the leadership has also allowed rank-and-file Democratic Senators to waver and hem-and-haw on the matter.

Third, is apparently the President-elect himself, the man Lieberman said was not ready to be President, Barack Obama. Word has seeped down that Obama is calling on his soon-to-be-former colleagues not to overly punish Lieberman:

With President-elect Obama’s fingerprints seemingly everywhere, momentum appears to be building among Senate Democrats to let Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“The overall atmosphere is toward reconciliation,” said one Lieberman supporter, who noted that Obama “has in a large sense set the tone” by calling for Lieberman to remain a member of the Senate Democratic Conference[...]

Support for Lieberman appears to have been growing since Obama began making calls to several top Democrats to discuss the Connecticut Senator’s status. Since then, several senior Senators began making statements that seemed to indicate a willingness to let Lieberman retain his gavel.

In addition to telling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would like for Senate Democrats to find a way to keep Lieberman in the Democratic fold, Obama has had similar conversations with other top Democrats – including Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Lieberman’s home-state colleague, Dodd, sources said.

So, eager to make a fresh start in 2009, Obama does not want Democrats to make the high-profile move of stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee chairmanship. As one aide quoted in the article noted, this is tremendous magnanimity on the part of the incoming President.

I am a bit conflicted on this turn of events. Initially, I was very surprised at the weak tone of Reid and others regarding Lieberman. But really, the more I have thought about it, the less shocked I am. This is the Democratic Party we're talking about: they're wimps. Does anyone have any doubt how the other side would have handled the situation if one of their powerful chairman from Tennessee -- like Connecticut a reliable party state -- had endorsed Obama, campaigned with him, and then bashed John McCain in a primetime address at the DNC in Denver? He would have been stripped from his chairmanship and booted from the caucus entirely before the day was done. Heck, maybe his house would have been burned too. I have zero doubt of this (well, maybe just a little regarding the third point).

However, the Democrats are different. They are weak personalities, and they don't know how to play hardball. In this case, the call is an easy one. Lieberman spent a year campaigning with the Republican nominee for President. He was very critical of the Democratic nominee, one of his colleagues. And while he gave money to the DSCC, he donated to and supported two Republican Senators facing tough re-election fights this year. In a party and profession where loyalty should matter above all else, Lieberman should be severely punished.

I have tremendous respect for Obama here. As someone who has called for him to be more magnanimous -- with the Clintons, specifically -- in victory, I think it is a good thing that he wants to be nice to Lieberman. Enough victors are not magnanimous in any field, especially politics, so Obama's move here is good on its face. That being said, I think Obama is dead-wrong, and Democrats should show some backbone for once.

This was not a single or small transgression. Lieberman's behavior as a Democrat should be seen as unacceptable. The only reason he was not booted from the party this summer was because Democrats needed his vote to remain in the majority. That is no longer the case. The caucus appears likely now, depending on how Alaska and Minnesota end up, to have 58 or 59 Senate seats. Georgia will be lost in the runoff. In other words, getting to 60 is very unlikely, and to my mind, there is little difference between 59 and 58 or between 58 and 57.

One might argue that Joe would go to the GOP caucus and vote to uphold Republican filibusters. If I was a Senator, I would say "let him!" Lieberman is a liberal at heart, and his emotional (and petty) disputes with his party notwithstanding, he would have a very tough time sticking it out with a caucus whose members he disagrees with on more than 95% of important issues. Frankly, I think seeing him in that predicament would be a delicious proposition for Democrats, considering the glee Joe took in sticking a pin in Democrats' eye all year, knowing they could do nothing to him.

Additionally, while Obama is now going to be President, and Senators should accord him a great deal of deference, that does not mean that they should mold their internal policies and structure to the President's wishes. The last time I checked, the Senate and the President were parts of two different branches, and we still have that magical thing called "separation of powers" in this country. In 2002, President Bush essentially installed his own man, Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader, and we all know how that went. Frist was a cipher, and more or less a stooge of the White House. His bend-over-backwards accommodation for the President and his staff was not only bad politics, but it also damaged his very institution by making the legislature subservient to the executive. I realize it is difficult for a Senator to say 'no' to the new President -- and something weenies are unlikely to do period -- but they should. What to do with Lieberman should not be the President-elect's decision.

Some moderate Democrats who support Lieberman are trying to forge some sort of "compromise":

However, Democrats still say they are exploring options for penalizing Lieberman in other ways for his disloyalty to the party during the 2008 election cycle. Those options might include stripping him of two plum subcommittee chairmanships, or taking away his membership on either the Armed Services or Environment and Public Works panels.

I am not sure how you could punish Lieberman and at the same time let him hold his chairmanship. His slot on EPW? Some crappy subcommittee gavel? Who the heck cares? That is a slap on the wrist. And no, I am not trying to be too punitive here.

But I find this line of though comically similar to a classic bit on the Simpsons in one of my all-time favorites, the Itchy and Scratcy Movie episode from Season Four. In the episode, Bart breaks Grampa's teeth (the old man was babysitting and fell asleep, allowing Bart to commit all kinds of mischief). When his parents return, Marge wants to punish Bart by sending him to bed without supper. Homer believes that judging from Bart's (faked) hang-dog expression "he's learned his lesson," but eventually he relents from Marge's prodding. However, later that night, we get the following exchange:

Lights out. Bart sits on his bed. "Gee, maybe they mean it this time. From now on, I guess I'd better straighten up and fly..." Homer comes in with a pizza box. "Don't tell your mouth. Just promise me you'll try to be good." Bart does so, but once Homer leaves, he chuckles, "Sucker!"

I think Harry Reid and the Democrats are stupid Homer here, and Lieberman is Bart, who has just been bad, and in the end is not only not punished, but he is essentially rewarded for his behavior. Sometimes art imitates life, even in politics.