I actually agree with JK on one important point. Lieberman is Lieberman and, aside from his little "loyal" bit during the election, has been a steadfast Republican-Lite for years now. He was the running mate of Gore precisely because his stance on Bill Clinton was believed by someone in the Gore camp as mitigating Bill's penis problems. Since that time you could count on him to advocate war at every turn, accuse his fellow democrats as being naive at est and treasonous at worst, you could know with mathematical certainty that e would defend the idiotic strategy of the Bush camp, rail against video games and to generally provide cover for the Republicans. I say fine. But if he wants to be an "indy," do it in the minority. Go take an office in the basement, give up your added staff and give up that chairmanship. I mean damn, would the Republicans accept this? Not on your life.

First off, Jamie, the phrase "supporting American victory in Iraq" means positively, absolutely nothing.  Your implication is that people who holds views on Iraq unlike McCain's and Lieberman's do not support "American victory." That's a vicious slur and you can shove that bit of Rovian wordplay right up your ass.

Second, this particular Obama supporter - and many, many others - has been sickened by Holy Joe Lieberman since long before I'd even heard the name "Barack Obama." Starting back during impeachment with his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou speech on Bill Clinton's private life. And then in the 2000 race when he rolled over and kicked his legs in the air while Dick Cheney scratched his belly during their debate - that was disgusting. (I'll never forget the oh-so-concerned look on Joe's face as Cheney bullied him into apologizing for a harmless joke Larry David made at a fundraiser.) Then, of course, when the GOP was in the process of stealing Florida from Gore, Holy Joe aided and abetted.

Third, Lieberman has done more than support McCain over Obama. He made it clear that it's a worthwhile thing to wonder whether Obama is a Marxist. Joe McCarthy was looking up from hell with a beaming smile over that.

This is a sincere counter post by Kirchick so I will refrain from my usual dismissive Kirchick rapid response mode and approach this in a serious manner.

Bipartisanship comity is fine but it is animated by mutual expectation and execution. If Kirchick defines bipartisan magnamity as allowing for almost unfettered opposition to your own parties best interest, then this must be an expectation of both parties. This is tricky because it is hard to imagine any GOP congressman or senator giving a Democrat any support, even a peretzian scintilla, in any instance. Hell, if a GOPer strays from the party line on taxes, they're banished, by the entire GOP church.

So, what Kirchick is suggesting is really an impossible mutual expectation, and one that really only ever applies to times when Democrats support Republican ideas, proposals, or candidates. Given our current level of divisiveness, I cannot imagine any Republican even contemplating doing the things that Lieberman is doing.

And Lieberman ran as an "independent Democrat" whinged and whined until Bill Clinton came out to support his sorry ass and when Bill did it, was practically putting his tongue all the way into Bill's ear canal in gratitude. I remember seeing that ghastly tableau on the news.

Jamie - in what way is Joe Lieberman bi-partisan?  You can just name one instance.  Can you?

He can like McCain, I like McCain too.  That isn't remotely relevant.

Most Democrats could do without his calling us pussies and terrorist lovers for the last several years  - saying we're undermining the commander in chief because we have an issue with torture isn't bi-partisan Jamie, it's fighting words.  I'd gladly slug him for just those two things alone.

Slobbering over Rush Limbaugh (who called women Nazis among many other highlghts of his disgusting career) isn't my favorite bi-partisan move either.  Saying Obama's views are out of the mainstream of America isn't really bi-partisan either - its a lie. Please point to one view of Obama's that the polls don't say is the majority opinion. I'd say *offering* to speak at the Republican convention is a tad overboard as well.

You're delusional on this one Jamie.  

The greater the Democratic advantage in the Senate, the more Lieberman recedes in the rear view mirror, waving his arms and jumping up and down--"But what about me???"--as the Chevy gets up to speed, anointing him in smoke and dust. We are only having this conversation because Joe is needed. His vote gets a lot smaller after November, when the Democrats can loosen their belts, maybe kick off their shoes for a bit.

(Which begs the question, does McCain need Lieberman--as something other than a foreign policy mistake-eraser, that is? Which electoral votes, exactly, follow Lieberman to the GOP ticket? Connecticut? Not so much.)

Also, how is supporting the war in Iraq "supporting American victory"? An inconvenient myth, at best. Supporting the war only makes success (a less silly term than victory, I might add) more elusive. If we want success in the MIddle East, dumping blood and treasure into a toilet of ethnic hostilities where, in fact, we have no dog in the fight (other than oil), while by doing so disabling our ability to preserve our security by maintaining or increasing our presence in other more important venues (can you say "Hi, Taliban!", boys and girls?), is not the way to get there. Being unable to see this or, worse, unable to admit you were wrong in the first place may be "bipartisan" but it's also stupid, as well as against the interests of your constituents.

(If Lieberman wants to dumb-down "victory" to mean that the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces can get out of Iraq in a reasonable amount of time without wholesale genocide breaking out, well, then we can talk.)

So, give Joe props for "supporting American victory" if you must. I judge someone by the consequence of his actions, not his intentions, of which the road to Hell is paved.

and my unsolicited advice is that Chait ain't Ron Paul and a clealy overmatched Kirchick really should fold it up before it becomes too embarrassing, even more someone who, given his wretched oeuvre, seems constitutionally incapable of being embarrassed...

Let's learn about words, Jamie.

"Bipartisanship" -- bringing members of two parties together to get something done -- is occasionally to be applauded, if the goal is worthwhile. It is a legislative word; it is nonsensical in an electoral context. It is also not the same as "nonpartisanship." And "nonpartisanship" is not something to be praised in a member of a political party. It is a betrayal of party membership; to be "nonpartisan," run as an independent.

There is no "bipartisanship," no "bringing members of two parties together," in a two-party presidential election! This is a contest between the parties over who will lead the executive branch for the next four years. You can't "bring the parties together" on which of them ought to be in the driver's seat. This is sheer nonsense. If you don't trust Democrats with control of the nation's agenda... hey... you're not a Democrat. End of story.

Joe Lieberman is not acting in a bipartisan way; he is a Republican partisan. He was not elected as a Democrat. He was not elected as a member of any legitimate party at all. He has betrayed his promises to the people of Connecticut, including an explicit one not to endorse a Republican candidate in 2008. By his own words, he is a traitor.

Once again, Jamie repeats a charge against the survey that multiple people have explained.

The fact that respondents do not accurately indicate their votes in past elections in survey research is well-established.   The survey is not "weighted" unfairly by reporting the actual respondent results of that question - it's simply what the respondents said.  If Connecticut was 10% African-American, and the survey was only 5%, that would in fact be an indication that the survey is less accurate, but prior voting behavior questions are NOT demographics.

People say how they wish they voted. Thus, that 5 point swing is simply an additional sign that the original point of the results is true - Joe Lieberman has lost significant support among CT voters.

After Jonathan also pointed out this information, the way Jamie is sticking to his guns on this point  reminds me rather a lot of how the administration operates, but the results of this survey live in a reality-based universe.

Now go home and get your shinebox.

Like Cookie and everyone else said, when Lieberman endorsed McCain he should have done the honorable thing and switched parties by becoming a Republican, or at least resigning from his committees and stop aligning himself with Democrats. If he had joined the Republican party or aligned himself with them, he probably could have kept his committee seats since the Senate would then be 50-50, and if he was non-aligned the Dems. would have had the lead, but he would have shown his honor.

I believe the non-alignment would have been most honorable, but his becoming a Republican at least admits where he stands. As it is, the current state is basically disgraceful. Shame on Reid too for not enforcing party discipline.

The Dems should banish Lieberman now when it is against their own self-interests to show they are willing to uphold principle, Besides, if McCain wins Lieberman will be in the Cabinet so we won't have the opportunity to banish him, and if Obama wins, why start it off looking petty and vindictive.

And James has a bizarre view of non-partisanship. Non-partisanship is looking for common ground with members of the other party to advance the interests of the nation, it is not applauding someone who ran as a loyal Democrat in all but name endorsing wholesale the positions of the other party. That would just be stupid.

Kirchick's point is incorrect.  It's manifestly clear that Lieberman has lost support in Connecticut.  

At the same time, Lieberman's support of McCain does help McCain.   As I have noted, Democratic crossover for hard partisans like Bush in 2004 was high - 11%.  McCain has stronger crossover appeal, and Lieberman represents the small slice of Democrats who are hawks.  Lieberman's endorsement won't help sway the echo chamber (what will?), but it can't _hurt_ McCain when it comes to attracting moderate and hawkish Democrats like me.  It won't bring Connecticut, but if Bush got 11% of the Democrats in 2004 and McCain gets 12% of them in 2008, that will make a huge difference in states like New Mexico, Wisconson, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire. . .

Democrats could address the underlying math of the issue, or we could keep flailing our arms and demanding that Kirchick be tossed out of TNR - a metaphor for the Democratic party's trouble with its hawks.

I still think you're misusing the numbers.  Is the sample slightly at odds with the actual vote? Yes, although as you admit it's well within the margin of error.  But does that mean the poll's finding is bogus? of course not.

Let's look a little more closely at the numbers.  Unfortunately, the poll doesn't provide crosstabs of current preference by 2006 vote, which would make this easy.  Still, about half of the difference in the reported '06 votes in the poll and the actual '06 vote can be explained by different party composition.  According to this 2006 exit poll, www.cnn.com/.../epolls.0.html  the party breakdown of voters in '06 was 38-26-36 Dem-Rep-Ind, while in the current poll it is 35-19-46.

If you adjust those numbers to the '06 composition, you get a 48.8-41.7 Lieberman win in '06 and a 48.2-39.4 Lamont win if people could do it over.

The composition of the poll can't explain away the results.  There's been a real shift among Connecticut voters in their opinion about Lieberman since 2006, whether or not you think such a shift is justified.

Lieberman called Obama a Marxist. End of story.

Jamie, for once I agree w. you. What happened?

Assume, as Kirchick argues, that the survey was biased towards Lamont, that it sampled too many actual 2006 Lamont voters (not those who now say they voted for him).  

The bias is still clearly small enough so as to not effect the poll’s overall conclusion that Lieberman would lose to Lamont by a significant margin if the vote were held today.  Whether Lieberman loses 51-37, as the poll says, or 49-39, or 48-40, he’s still clearly losing, and by a large margin--and after winning by a large margin less than two years ago.  You can argue that Lieberman’s current unpopularity is irrelevant (and I’m sympathetic to that argument), but to deem the poll questionable because of a tiny Lamont bias is ridiculous.  

phargle,

you are assuming that one, kirchick is a democrat, and two, posters objections to him are based solely on politics. I would strongly suggest that issues of temperament, lack of maturity and inability to self reflect, and most compelling, competence animate the anti kirchick feelings, more than straight politics.

In other words, I rather doubt that kirchick is a democrat and I think his jejune posting habits and temperament, combined with an adolescent approach towards discourse, and an almost infantile inability to process criticism and self reflect, topped off by a glaring competence deficit outweigh his conservative politics. Kirchick, as a journalist, does not measure up to the tnr standard and it appear, at least to this observer,  that his relationship with the editor in chief is the primary reason that he hasn't been shown the door.

In Round III of his dispute with Jon Chait, Jamie writes : Lieberman won re-election in 2006 with a 10

Polls are often stupid, but it's hard to imagine one stupider than this. So, Lieberman might only win by 5% today if he hadn't already won by 10% two years ago? And?

Lieberman did NOT call Obama a Marxist, or even close. He laughed at the idea.

Lieberman has a solid, middle of the Democratic road voting record. On Iraq, he took the same position as many millions of other Democrats, including large numbers in Congress and virtually the entire Clinton national security team. Very few of these people, and none of the honest ones, say it was because they were tricked by Bush. Joe could easily have tap-danced around the issue like Hillary and Obama, focusing on Bush mistakes and promising to "end" a war that, as an actual war, ended years ago. It would have been far more politically expedient to do so, but Joe's an honest guy.

People like Lieberman are important for the Democrats. Allowing the left wing of the party to be the leading voice on national security is the electoral equivalent of a suicide pact.

Robert,

Lieberman is not important to the Democrats at all, except as a thorn in their collective side. You know why that is? Because HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. Just ask him. He is a Connecticut for Liebermaner who will most likely be the toast of this year's GOP national convention.

And please, don't insult your fellow TNR readers' intelligence by saying "Joe's an honest guy." This "honest guy" claimed the dirty liberals blew out his campaign Web site back in '06 when in fact it was his campaign's own competence that took it down. That's a minor point, but still proof of a lie. As noted above, he also paints Obama's stands and policies as far to the left of mainstream America. That, too, is a lie - a much bigger, much more damaging lie.

And he has lied about Iraq dozens of times. Maybe he has stopped lying about the Middle East, because I can't remember the last time he bothered to try to hide his fervent, borderline-lustful desire to go to war with Iran. But he is not an honorable man.

Oh, and let's not forget that when Joe ran for re-election as Connecticut for Liebermaner he vowed to investigate all sorts of Bush admin wrongdoings as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, a panel that has a pretty sweeping jurisdiction.

Guess what he didn't do?

What he said he would.

So he lied.

it's not politics, it's stupid: THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs: Obama talks about bipartisanship. And so I find it ironic that his supporters -- who tout this talk and his ability to "transcend" this, that, and the other -- would

Exactly, Hans.

Woody, random remarks about a website blunder don't stack up very well against a career-long record of support for solidly mainstream Democratic policies. Check the dictionary--one is not lying if he's saying things he believes to be true. You can disagree with whether or not the things in question are actually true or not, but to lie one has to know they are untrue when he states them. Joe is an honorable man, for a politician.

I'm an Obama supporter, voter, and contributor. I trust he will overcome the concerns about excessive leftiness as the campaign progresses, and there should be no doubt about the fact that he will need to do so. I'm neither surprised that Joe is supporting McCain, nor do I hold it against him. I still expect we'll win.

Robert,

I mentioned the Web site issue simply because it was in the news this week as the latest example of Lieberman's struggle with the truth. Much more important has been his dishonesty over the Middle East and his 2006 campaign lies. Once he proved himself unable to accept the will of Connecticut Democrats and cooked up his own political party, he had to say a lot of things to convince a lot of people that he was still good ol' Democratic Values Joe, even if they disagreed with him on Iraq. To do that, he told lies. Not honorable, even for a politician.

Also, you should really follow Hans' link before you high-five him. I don't think his post means what you think it means.

I'm all for bipartisanship, believe me, and I'm glad it's one of Obama's goals. But my side of aisle has been duped time and again by alleged "bipartisanship" - there are countless examples, so I'll stick to two that directly involve Lieberman. The first is the Gang of Fourteen, that great Senate compromise under which Democrats let Bush's terrible judicial nominees through unmolested and not filibuster, and in return ... in return ... well, what was the compromise, again? Bill Frist restored Democrats' bathroom privileges? (And now that the Dems run the Senate, of course, the threat of filibuster has prevented votes on a vast array of important matters.)

The second is the much broader, more general brand of "bipartisanship" under which people like Joe Lieberman and his Republican buddies feel free to paint people who have foreign policy differences as naive, stupid, traitors, terrorist supporters and haters of America and its military. Never mind that people like Joe Lieberman have been wrong at every turn; the hatred and vitriol from these allegedly serious people has done more to heighten partisanship in this country than anything MoveOn.org could dream up on its best day.

So surely you'll excuse me if I don't embrace Joe's continued crapping on the Democratic Party as some noble effort of conscience.

And with that: Good day, sir. I said, Good day!

Just because "people like Joe Lieberman and his Republican buddies feel free to paint people who have foreign policy differences as naive, stupid, traitors, terrorist supporters and haters of America and its military" doesn't mean such people don't exist.

And a Good Day to you as well sir!!

Bob, even you have to admit that Liebermans continued feeding at the Democratic trough by aligning himself with them to get his committee chairmanships, all the while endorsing McCain, is not an honorable thing to do. He is an independent, if he aligns himself with the Republicans, then treat him as such and strip him of his chairmanships. (I realize that will give the Republicans nominal control, but let Lieberman fight with the Republicans for his committee chairs)

Everybody read Yglesias on this before you go any further:  matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/.../the_liebershift.php

He documents that Lieberman spent the election disguising and soft-pedaling his pro-war views.  To say that he's just doing now what he  told CT voters he would do if elected is just plain wrong.

blackton--

Lieberman is in almost every policy respect a moderate Dem. It's to the advantage of the party to have him chairing a committee far more than it is to Joe personally. You're advocating cutting off the party's nose to spite its face.

As a Lieberman voter, I can assure dwarren that absolutely no one in Connecticut was left in any doubt as to Joe's position on Iraq. It's been consistent for decades, and its the main reason I and others like me voted for him in the first place.

He did have some complaints about Bush's conduct of the war, which I think is both fair and refutation of the slur against Lieberman that he advised Dems against criticizing Bush. What he did advise Dems against was reinforcing lies about the Administration in time of war, which I think is sound advice.

Robert,

You are re-imagining Lieberman's comments about "fellow" Democrats to suit your argument -- to unslur his slur against them.  That is not what Lieberman said at all.

If it is not Lieberman's embrace of the Republican party that has turned CT sentiment away from him, then, if one accepts Mr. Powell's argument, it can only be due to a strong increase in anti-war sentiment.

I think it is exactly "due to a strong increase in anti-war sentiment."  Connecticut is a very sensible state. It has more Independents than Democrats or Republicans, and those who do belong to the major parties tend to be sincere moderates who come down on different sides of the partisan divide on different issues. That's the main explanation for the pitiful showing of the one-trick-pony Lamonsters.

What Lieberman said exactly was, "Democrats who undermine the credibility of the President in time of war do so at their, and the nation's, peril."  This is, objectively, a true statement. As you have pointed out, roi, Bush has proven entirely capable of undermining his own credibility. It's wildly counter-productive for Democrats to invest in the "Bush lies sent us to war" trope when millions of people not blinkered by partisanship know differently.  That doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that Bush can't be criticized--God knows there are plenty of legitimate grounds for doing so. And Lieberman simply didn't say that. Truth counts.

Well then, those sensible Nutmegers who have now abandoned the war in Iraq are onto something.