Joe Lieberman: Love him or Lieb him?

In 2000, Joe Lieberman received more votes than any other candidate for VP and came within 537 Florida votes of being elected to the second highest office in the land. However, in 2006 Joe Lieberman was not even able to win his own party's primary in his home state. A man once revered by his party has now become shunned by it. What happened?

Iraq happened.

There's a new article out in The Politico about Lieberman threatening to caucus with the Republicans (and thus tip the Senate majority to the Republicans) if the Democrats pursue legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq. This article troubled me considerably.

The last time a senator defected to the opposing party was in 2001 when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Democrat. This resulted in the Democrats gaining control of the chamber. Howls of protest erupted from the GOP while the Democrats welcomed Jeffords with open arms and gave him a committee chairmanship.

Now that Lieberman is flirting with the idea of switching to the Republicans, the GOP members are saying nice things about him while the Democrats are on pins and needles. The Republicans are also calling this payback for the Jeffords defection and have little sympathy for the Democrats because of it.

Is the Joe Lieberman of 2007 the same as the Jim Jeffords of 2001?

Absolutely not.

Jim Jeffords was consistently a nominal Republican in that he was a Rockefeller Republican. He was quite liberal on social issues, often siding with Democrats on those votes. He never did much in the way of grumbling about his party until he reached the breaking point over the hard tack to the right that the GOP took after the 2000 election. He had served since 1989 and won his elections as a liberal Republican in a liberal state. His switching of political parties made sense, given the realignment of the two major political parties starting in the 1960s. Switching parties is always a bit deceptive, but at least Jeffords' switch was to something more in line with how his state generally voted in presidential and House elections.

Lieberman's situation, on the other hand, was similar to Jeffords until he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. While Lieberman had the right to run again as an Independent, his doing so subverted the political process because he was originally rejected as the party nominee. What's the point of having a primary if you don't abide by its rules and all but ignore the will of the voters who participated in it? Was he running for Connecticut, was he running for Democrats, or was he running for himself?

Secondly, and more importantly, during his post-primary campaign, Lieberman consistently said that he would run as an "Independent Democrat," which one would reasonably assume to mean that he would caucus with the Democrats, but not be afraid to stray from them on issues salient to him, such as defense issues. Fair enough. That's what I would expect from an independent. They don't have to tow the party line.

Fortunately for Lieberman, he won the general election (thanks to a stinker of a GOP candidate known as Alan Schlessinger). But now Lieberman is using his vote as a way of blackmailing the Democratic Party. I think it's quite disigenious for Lieberman to campaign as an "Independent Democrat" if he could so easily become an "Independent Republican" not even four months after the election. His doing so is patently dishonest to his supporters in Connecticut, one-third of whom were Democrats. Even worse, the electorate obviously voted for "change" by allowing the Democats to pick up the five Senate seats they needed for a bare majority, no easy task. A Lieberman defection would essentially overturn the will of the millions of voters who wanted a Democratically-controlled Senate to provide checks and balances on the White House because the Repulican Senate obviously couldn't be bothered to do so.

Lieberman is lucky in that he cannot be recalled and that Senate terms are for six years. Other Democratic senators are wary of crossing Lieberman because they know they need his support more than he needs theirs. Surely Lieberman enjoys being courted by both Democrats and Republicans, but the idea that one senator could command so much power is a bit disconcerting to me, especially when he seems more loyal to himself and his own political career than to the people he represents. I think the more honorable thing for Lieberman to do now is to continue to caucus with the Democrats and simply vote with the Republicans when he deems it necessary. Continuously threatening to switch parties just because the party you chose to caucus with just four months ago takes a position you oppose is childish and patently dishonest to your constituents who were not anticipating such political manipulation on your behalf.

If the Democrats do extend their Senate majority in 2008, look for them to cut Lieberman loose. The Republicans might be giddy about having him join their ranks, but they should be cautioned that it appears Lieberman is only loyal to himself and may prove to be more trouble than his single vote is worth. Being a political independent is fine. It's actually quite commendable, given the partisan nature of politics these days. However, being an opportunistic turncoat who misleads your constituents is something entirely different.