Dear The Left: I’m sorry. You were right about Lieberman. I was wrong. I wish Lamont had won. Never thought I’d say that, but there it is.
Dear The Left: I’m sorry. You were right about Lieberman. I was wrong. I wish Lamont had won. Never thought I’d say that, but there it is.
Are you going to throw Sen.s Webb and Nelson under the bus too?
Why should I care about Sens. Webb or Nelson? I didn’t stick my (virtual) neck out for them, arguing vociferously against the meme that they were unprincipled whores, indeed sometimes harshly attacking the propagators of that meme, and defending them explicitly as principled people who represent what all politicians should aspire to… only to discover them completely changing their position on a key issue in the course of three weeks in a maneuver that can only be described as a craven flip-flop designed solely to piss off his political enemies, without regard for the policy consequences.
The cited change of heart is just the straw that broke the camel’s back, of course. This isn’t about the health care bill, whose likely consequences I don’t understand well enough to have a firm opinion on it. It’s about the man I thought Joe Lieberman was (a principled idealist who always does what he thinks is best, policy-wise), and the man he actually is, or has become (a petty hypocrite who would rather poke the Left in the eye than actually vote based on genuine policy beliefs and real world consequences — though he doubtless has deluded himself into believing that he’s acting on principle).
Joe Lieberman used to believe in stuff. He used to stand for stuff. He used to have principles, and abide by them. Whether that was still true in 2006, I’m not so sure anymore. It’s certainly no longer true in 2009. His moves these days can only be understood through a narrow, petty political lens. They make absolutely no sense if one starts from the assumption that Lieberman is acting on principle. Ergo, that assumption must be thrown out.
So, I’m out of the loop here in China. I hear Lieberman says he won’t vote for the healthcare bill, and it sounds like there are some other things that he’s done, or said, that piss you off.
Is he doing this for political gain? How does it help him? The GOP won’t magically gain a majority in 2010 (unless it involves actual magic), so he’s just pissing off the majority… unless they’re using him for cover ’cause they really want to kill the bill, but does that make any sense?
Is he doing what’s best for Connecticut? Or “what he thinks is best”? Or “what he thinks will get him re-elected” – which would probably count as being what’s “best” for Connecticut, or at least what the people want him to do.
Do you think he’s really just doing this to stick it to the party, with no regard for his political future (whatever that may be)?
What should Joe Lieberman do?
Joe Lieberman should base his positions on actual principles and beliefs, instead of personal pique and an insatiable desire to be the pivot point in every big debate — the Sandra Day O’Connor of the Senate, the power behind the throne. I’ve been slow to come around to the belief that Lieberman has become so petty, but it’s now inescapable: He’s quite clearly acting in bad faith.
P.S. He’s not doing it for political gain — nothing he does, at this point, can be for political gain, because he has no political future beyond 2012, at least not as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Maybe, maybe if he could wrangle the Republican nomination, he could hope to eke out a narrow victory, but even then, probably not: Connecticut is a solidly blue state, and Lieberman’s 2006 coalition of moderate Republicans, independents and moderate Democrats no longer exists, largely because the moderate Democrats and many of the independents have, like me, mostly soured on him, not because we’ve changed but because he has (or he’s been exposed for what he always was, if you want to take the less charitable viewpoint, though I still hold that the Joe Lieberman of 2009 is worse than the Joe Lieberman of 2006, and certainly far worse than the Joe Lieberman of 2004 or 2000 or whenever).
He’s not doing what he thinks is best, because if that were the case, it would presumably be possible to reconcile his actions with his own stated policy positions, and perceive some sort of rational, articulable evolution if those views have changed over the years. Moreover, he wouldn’t be shifting from position to position as the weeks go by, always taking the position that will most piss off the dirty hippies, regardless of whether there is any actual policy-based rationale for what he’s doing or saying.
He’s not doing what his constituents want him to do. He’s not doing what he thinks is best. He’s not doing what will help him politically. You can’t bargain with him, because he doesn’t want anything — not even a puppy — other than to make his enemies suffer… and if they’re willing to agree to a compromise, that must mean they aren’t suffering enough. He’s gone from being, in my eyes, the most principled man in the Senate, to the most petty, in three short years. Way to go, Joe.
P.S. I said “I wish Lamont had won.” Alternatively, I wish Schlesinger had won. At least then Connecticut would have an actual Republican senator, presumably acting in good faith on his principles (regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those principles), rather than a stealth Republican operating outside the realm of normal political motivations and actual beliefs, using his role as the crucial 60th vote to pursue personal vendettas instead of advancing an rational, defensible, articulable agenda to make the country better.
The de-evolution of Joe Lieberman just makes me sad. He really was a great senator once.
Well…it seems you are at the very least coming to understand how we on the right feel about Snowe, Specter et al.
Thanks.
So, basically, it’s all payback for them (i.e. the party, and Obama (which really shouldn’t be triggering the spell-checker at this point)) supporting Lamont in 2006. That’s another kettle of fish – I’d say there’s no reason for him to toe the line for the party that tried to kill his career in ’06… which they did because he was following his principles. But I’m not a Democrat, or from Connecticut (Harry Reid and Adultery Boy are my senators) – and I think taking more time on the bill is a good thing.
Lieberman would definitely put the IN NAME ONLY back in RINO, if he were to switch.
I think there might still be some confusion on why outrage is unequivocally warranted:
Lieberman most recently advocated for Medicare buy-ins and then weeks later said he would not vote for a bill that contained this.
Except that it’s not clear that Lieberman “recently advocated for Medicare buy-ins.” He was recently asked about his support of the Medicare buy-in during the 2000 campaign, and he explained why he thought it was a good idea then. What he said in 2000 does not necessarily translate to the debate about the current legislation, which, according to Lieberman, already addresses the problems that the Medicare buy-in was trying to solve because it provides for insurance exchanges. In other words, Lieberman thought the Medicare buy-in was duplicative of what was already in the bill. I have yet to the Lieberman haters explain why his reasoning is inplausible, or how such an “unprincipled whore” can end up supporting the Senate Democrats’ bill in the end.
Dear the Right: I’m sorry, you were right about Liberman when you printed those Sore Loserman 2000 bumper stickers. I wonder if I can still buy one.
I stopped following the Health Care debate closely when the dumbocrats gave up everything that made it worth passing in the first place. It’s such a bastardization of what Real Americans want that it would actually make things much worse if it ever does pass in it’s current incarnation, just like the crap and tax energy bill that the House passed during a Saturday Night Live re-run earlier this year.