Lieberman Versus the Democrats

Would the Democratic Party please call Joseph Lieberman’s Bluff?  This isn’t a call to do much more than treat Lieberman as another Senator and not give him any more freedoms than any Democrats out of line on various issues.

Understand a party switch dissolves Lieberman, in short order, of his power and role in the talk-show circuit — the oh-so-sensible Democrat — the hero of the David Broders of the world.  Understand the power he gains from the Republican Party will probably be short-lived: the electoral map for 2008 Senate prospects is ridiculously friendly to the Democrats.  Understand that the Democrats’ power loss will be thusly short-lived, and understand that at the moment a Democratic agenda — undercut on Iraq anyways — is pretty well fili-bustered.  Surely McConnell and Lott will take the keys of the agenda, but that’s stalemated at the House.

I may as well repeat a question for consideration with Barack Obama.  Dear Barack Obama:

Right now Joseph Lieberman is using his leverage in suggesting that he might bolt to the Republican Party to stop any discussion of Iraq at Democratic Lunches. During the primary race in Connecticut between Lieberman and Ned Lamont, Lieberman floated out that if he lost by double digits, he would not pursue a run as an independent. Given that he lost by four percentage points, and given that you campaigned vigorously for Lieberman, do you believe that your campaigning swayed at least three percentage of the Democratic electorate that would have voted for Ned Lamont to vote instead for Joseph Lieberman? Further, how do you reconcile the trade-off of these club-house politics with your stated political position?

Consider Barack Obama as having pulled a double helix “Skull and Bones” trick.

Leave a Reply