Why can't we find toy Republicans to show off during our conventions?

OK, I don't like Joe Lieberman anymore either. (And, truth to tell, if Republicans want to put the man who lost a debate to Dick Cheney on the stump, I say godspeed.)

But assuming McCain is our next president, what would be the optimal position for Lieberman? Discuss.

(And no, "guy who stands behind the president and corrects him when he gets important facts wrong, except on Saturday" is not an actual job.)

I think McCain might just be enough of a passive-aggressive bully to consider Lieberman for SecDef, in order to saddle him with the blame for our coming Gandamak-esque withdrawal. Then he could fire Lieberman after the 2010 midterm rout and wash his hands of the Iraq disaster while the rightwing media remembers that Lieberman is really a Democrat and blames Dems generally for "losing" Iraq. My only question would be whether Lieberman might even be willing to knowingly take that bullet for his friend and his new party. Zeal of a convert and all that.

"As an Independent, it doesn’t bother me at all to be honored at the same dinner with Rush Limbaugh."

Well, as a human being it would bother me to be in the same room - city, state - as Rush Limbaugh.  I guess we have different standards.

"Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger."

Yeah, if you figure his heart is bloated with sausage, drugs, and Shame.

What's he hoping for? Sec of Def?

Bone - "sausage, drugs and shame" sounds like a good name for an album.

Loyalty to whom, just exactly?  I invite you to consider that "I" in front of the "-Conn" after his name.  Maybe he still harbors a little resentment about why that's no longer a "D".

Limbaugh is a buffoon, but smart Dems shouldn't be so quick to disregard Lieberman. It's entirely likely that independents and swing voters will determine the election, and a lot of what Lieberman's been saying and running on for the last few years resonates very strongly with us.

I've been a Lieberman voter for many years, in fact since he was first running for office after leading the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, a Ralph Nader outfit. He's done a great job of representing the large part of Connecticut's electorate that doesn't care for knee-jerk ideology of either currently fashionable flavor.

About a year ago this magizine did a series of articles apologizing to its readers about the Iraq War. Some of it was lame, some ok, most of it sparked a pretty healthy debate about the progress of the war. I think it's time for the editors to lay prostrate and beg all of us - well, those of us who disagreed and disliked Joementum - for forgiveness. This isn't new behavior or uncharacteristic. The reason he got to be Gore's running mate is because he savaged Bill Clinton. Just wrap your mind around that: he got the nod because he added bipartisan weight to the Republican attacks. God, no wonder we never win presidential elections. We're just plain stupid.

ackyri: Senator Webb was Reagan's Sec. of the Navy and a long time Republican. I don't begrudge any politician changing parties or endorsing anyone, but Lieberman was the Democratic parties nominee for Vice President. That would have given him a lifelong status within the party and he could have become an elder statesman, now he has just pissed it all away and he will never be at home anywhere. Serves him right.

dhauck,

If that's the case, then he should be stripped of his chairmanship. I've noticed he isn't bitter enough to give up his added staff, better office, committee assignments and chairmanship. Perhaps he should put his considerable ass where his considerable mouth is and join the Republicans in the minority.

Boneill - isn't it a bit unrealistic to presume Rush has the capacity for shame?  What good does it do him, since he can neither make it cry or slather it in barbecue sauce.

If talk-back were a party, this would be the time to pass around the old Lieberman endorsement issue of TNR from 2004. I know, I know, it's just salt in TNR's many wounds, but this one is especially funny.

Why did Obama support him Chris?

Even back then people knew he wasn't a Democrat (I'd argue he's not even an Independent), isn't that why he was forced out in the first place?

Doesn't that show bad judgement on Obama's part? Doesn't that show he can make mistakes by reflexively reaching out to the perceived "centre" of the day? If I'm not mistaken TNR was very protective of Lieberman during those days as well.

Hopefully, he'll learn from this.

mpatrickhendri  if he switched parties, Republicans would then be in control of the Senate since Cheney would be the tie breaker. At this point, I don't care if he did, the Dems will pick up a bunch in November so the semi-minority will be very shortlived.

black, given that our nominee, whoever he (or she) may be, is in the Senate, as is theirs, Senate control (and with it control of the legislative schedule), is important for the fall, since it means one side can put up "gotcha" bills to make someone take a legislative stand on issues.  Drumming out Lieberman is cutting off your nose to spite your face (and frankly, he's like the Hulk: The more we anger him the worse he gets:  If people had chilled on him before '06, we wouldn't be in this mess and, by the way, we could have had a far more productive Democratic year here in CT by focusing on getting the Governorship back after a decade and a half out of power instead of wasting time pushing our own Senator out of the party).

At the time that Lieberman said these nice things, Rush Limbaugh was supporting a very worthy charity.  

Lieberman should point out that yes, Rush is execrable and has said disgusting things, but Lieberman can no more disown Limbaugh than he could disown his own grandmother.

These things have really gotten a lot easier in the last month or so.

Chris-

"Joe Lieberman vowed again and again and again during his independent run that he was a 'loyal Democrat.'  Hence the title of the post. "

That's interesting.  I did a search and couldn't find one time he said that he was a "loyal Democrat" after he was defeated in the primary.  You might want to come up with a new title for this post.

He did, of course, assure the voters of Connecticut that he would caucus with the Democrats if elected and he has kept that promise.  And, as Majority Whip Durbin pointed out, he has been a very reliable Democratic vote for the caucus on almost all issues.

"(And that's apart from his truly astonishing personal disloyalty to Barack Obama, a man who went out on a limb to endorse him and whom he now slanders as a "far left" figure who "might be" a Marxist.)"

Er, Obama endorsed Lamont in the general election against Lieberman.  Lieberman no doubt understood Obama's decision to abruptly change his mind as to who was the best candidate for CT to send to the senate, but I'm pretty sure that Obama's endorsement switch served as a reset button for any further loyalty that Lieberman may owe him.

Speaking of misquotes, by the way, I don't see where Lieberman said that Obama "might be" a Marxist.  I apologize if I missed it.  I did see that he would "hesitate to say that" Obama is a Marxist, which means, of course, that he doesn't believe that he is.

As Toady Lieberman campaigned in the fall 06, he had Bill Clinton come out - the toad was nearly jumping out of his skin as I rememer - and it was BC who told everyone that Joe Lieberman was a loyal Demcract and Joe was beaming and hugging and practically wetting his panties with joy.

Lieberman is now, quite simply, a Repbublican. When the chips fall this November, the Democrast, irrespective of their numbers, must give him the heave ho and turn off the porch light...

and btw, the only time I ever voted Republican was in 1998 when I pulled for Wiecker over Toad. Couldn't stand the sanctimonious little pischer then and now...

bigm,

Give me a large break. When you're asked a question about whether someone is a Marxist and your response includes "that's a good question" and "I would hesitate to say that," you're pretty much saying that that someone "might be" a Marxist.

Harry Reid should have jerked Holy Joe's chairmanship months ago. Who cares, at this point, if they lose a "Democratic" vote? Lieberman votes on the wrong side of every Middle East issue, and nothing is getting done in the Senate anyway with its new "60 votes required" atmosphere. Sadly, I read somewhere earlier (sorry, no link) that Reid plans to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship even if the Dems increase their Senate margin this year. That is inexplicable and outrageous. Seriously, I think Hillary should run for Majority Leader after the elections.

make that 1988...my, that was 20 years...and 15 pounds ago...

Chris-

Nice try.

You said that Lieberman said "again and again and again" during his independent run that he is a loyal Democrat.  This obviously was not true.  It would have helped if he even said it once, like the one or two times that he said that he is a "devoted Democrat" during his independent run.  Maybe I misunderstand what "again and again and again" means.

All people cared about then was that Lieberman would not hamper the Democrats' efforts to take back the Senate.  He promised he would assist in that effort by caucusing with the Democrats.  That was the loyalty and devotion sought, and promised, and it has been delivered.

Speaking of getting things wrong, you're wrong about the level of courage that it took to endorse Lieberman in the primary.  Virtually the entire Democratic party establishment endorsed Lieberman in the primary, with the notable exceptions being John Edwards and Wesley Clark.  Oh yes, and Maxine Waters.  If supporting Lieberman in the primary was a "risky endeavor" for fellow Democrats, as you state, than I am stunned by the risky behavior of Senators Hillary Clinton, Mark Pryor, Evan Bayh, Tom Carper, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ken Salazar, Ron Wyden, Ben Nelson,  Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Bob Menendez, and Chris Dodd.  What a risky bunch!

As for your parsing about the Marxist charge, and your reliance on the "that's a good question" response, you truly are grasping at straws here.  Let's ignore for a second that a politician starting a response with "that's a good question" is a fairly standard stalling technique.  Even putting that aside, Lieberman was asked two questions.  The ridiculous Marxist one and the "elitist" one.  The "that's a good question" comment, of course, came right after Napolitano asked the "elitist" question and right before Lieberman actually answered that question, before turning to the Marxist charge.  He then denied that Obama is a Marxist.  Isn't "hesitating to say" a synonym for "deny"?  I don't think the Liebermanphobes here would be any less outraged if he said "He's not a Marxist but he's got some positions far to the left of me . . ."  

I particularly encourage you to listen to the audio of the interview that was posted to in the earlier Plak post.  Here it is:

thinkprogress.org/.../lieberman-its-a-good-question-to-ask-if-obama-is-a-marxist

Listen to Lieberman as he says "I wouldn't, I hesitate to say he's a Marxist."  He did not pause and carefully consider the "Marxist" charge.  You can hear him laughing off this ridiculous charge.  As with email, sarcasm and facetiousness apparently does not show up well in interview transcripts.  Anyway, the point is that it is hard to actually listen to that interview and think that Lieberman was suggesting that Obama is a Marxist.  Quite the opposite.

The point is that you're truly stretching if you're arguing that the statement "that's a great question" in response to two questions (including the almost conventional wisdom that Obama is an elitist, which is largely a good thing after our failed, non-elite current president) somehow makes the term "hesitate to say" mean other than what it means.  All Lieberman did was point out that some of Obama's positions are to the left of his and that both men claim to speak for mainstream America.

Thank you for doing the best you can.

I had little admiration or respect for Dead Ned Lamont, but Liberman's bait and switch was disgraceful. He ran as a lifelong Democrat, got elected as a Democrat, and then abandoned the Democratic Party. Did the voters who provided him his margin of victory assume that he would do this after the election? If not, then he has defrauded the voters.

The man should have had the grace to at least switch parties before running for re-election, not after.

He gives "independent" a bad name, and reminds me why it's important toretain your party affiliation. Even if your party keeps nominating for president irritatingly smug newbies who can't connect with the working class.

bigm - didn't see your post when I put forward mine. Your argument is plausible, I'll keep an open mind and try to educate myself as to what Joe actually promised the voters during the campaign re his post-election loyalties. Thanks for the post

tep--

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste. Joementum's voting record on practically everything is solidly centrist to left-centrist Democrat.  He's a reliable Democratic vote.

On the Middle East, he's more sensible than the Democrat consensus which, while annoying to people with a simple partisan take on the subject, it very much in the interest of the party when it comes to the Independents and swing voters who will determine the next, and probably the next few, elections.

Chris-

I'm glad to agree to disagree.  

For your information though, I did follow the primary and general election race extremely closely at the time.  (I think my lengthy responses demonstrate my "devoted" attention to the topic.)  To the extent that I use Nexis (not Google) now it is to confirm (or disprove) my recollections now.

I agree that it would have been accurate to state that Lieberman described himself as a loyal Democrat in the entire reelection run, particularly when he was challenged so stridently in the primary for his perceived lack of loyalty to the Democratic cause.  Once he was running against a candidate from the Democratic party, I think he recognized that it was not easy to make such a claim and the most that he could argue was what folks were most interested in:  wresting the Senate from the Republicans.

You may or may not be right as to the effect that a clairvoyant statement about endorsing McCain would have had on the voting public.  After all, Lieberman clearly owed his reelection to Republicans (90% of which supported him) and Independents (which make up the largest plurality of CT voters).  I simply can't imagine that Lieberman got any significant support among those who placed a premium on loyalty to the Democratic party.  (That said, I do think speaking at the RNC convention is a whole 'nother kettle of fish and could be the final straw for Lieberman.  It depends a bit upon whether his speech is an attack on the Democrats (like Zell Miller) or whether it is respectful and limited to a disagreement on a single issue (like Ron Reagan Jr.) but we'll see.)

I understand that you think I'm wrong about the amount of courage it took Obama to endorse Lieberman in the primary, but you're arguing from your sentiment not the empirical facts.  If it was really so difficult, how come barely anyone else did it?  Dodd, Kerry, Clinton, Biden.  All of these senators who planned to run for president endorsed Lieberman in the primary.  Plus, was the netroots' power really so evident before they toppled Lieberman?  They would argue otherwise.  That is their principal argument for why turning the CT senate seat  from Lieberman (D) to Lieberman (I) was nonetheless a success.  They said that the primary campaign showed the power of the anti-war left and netroots and made the rest of the country take notice.

Finally, I agree that we may both be parsing about the transcript to the Marxist" response.  (I think we would also likely agree that the real malfeasors are Kristol and Napolitano for making and repeating such an idiotic charge.)  But I once again urge you to listen to the audio of Lieberman's comments.  He audibly and unmistakably laughs at the suggestion that Obama is a Marxist.