Keep repeating it and pretty soon the trope that Lieberman "called" Obama a Marxist will become true.

I don't think Iraq and friendship were Lieberman's *only* reasons for endorsing McCain, and I don't think that's what Jamie was really arguing.  If that was in fact his argument, then he's wrong, but the broader point still stands.  Lieberman endorsed the person who he thought would make the best president, and I think it was perfectly appropriate for him to do so.  I actually agree with Kirchick that Lieberman doesn't owe anything to the Democratic nominee generally or to Obama in particular.  Loyalty shouldn't have determined Lieberman's endorsement any more than it should have determined Bill Richardson's.  I have no problem with his endorsement of McCain, even though I disagree with him.

You're right about the different definitions of bipartisanship, though.  Interestingly, many Republicans have the same complaints about McCain that Democrats have about Lieberman.  Both operate on the principle of working with whichever side they agree with on a particular issue and trashing those that disagree.  There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but it's really different from the type of thing that Obama is trying to push, which is actively reaching out to the people you disagree with on an issue, listening to what they have to say, and trying to find common ground.

I can't add anything more on this that's better and more to the point than what's above by bigm and AlanSP. Well said, gentlemen.

So let Joementum be honest and become a Republican.  You can't support the standard bearer of the other side and expect to be in the other camp's caucus.

Lieberman is supporting McCain not only because he opposes withdrawal, but because he knows McCain to be contrarily honest and genuinely patriot, like he is. So no, he would not endorse Romney based only on his position on Iraq, in part because he would probably find Romney less than believable.

I'm from Mass and because I was appalled at our former governor's turn to the hard right, I followed the Republican campaign quite closely. Much of the time I thought McCain was an old fool and foolish in his Iraq stance, but at the debates and in his tedious concession and victory speeches he placed the nation above his party. To say this during the primaries certainly was a stubborn refusal to throw red meat to the conservative dogs, as Mitt did over and over. I would never vote for him, but I admire that sentiment in McCain. Even if he gets angry, he is not rabid and he does not place partisanship above the good of the country. Quite unusual for a leading Republican.

And we all know, with a bigger Dem Senate majority, Lieberman will begin his death throes.

"Perhaps if Obama called McCain a Marxist that would be the true expression of reaching across the aisle."  No, it's more like a moderate Republican, say Richard Lugar, calling McCain a Nazi or a fascist.  That would be reaching across the aisle, right?

There's reaching across the aisle and then there's being a turncoat.  What Joementum is doing is being a turncoat.  He's supporting the standard bearer of the GOP.  For two posters that liken this to being like Obama, I'll believe that bullshit when I see George Bush Sr. or even a big name Senator/House member openly back a Democrat.  Then I'd believe this was "bipartisanship".  Last I checked this hasn't happened and McBush has openly endorsed all the GOP talking points to the letter.

At a minimum the dems need to strip JL of his chairmanship(s) and throw him out of the caucus.  If you don't support the standard bearer of the party you caucus with then you have no business in that caucus, especially if you completely go to the other side.

Sometimes, bipartisanship means reaching out to the other side. . . to wrangle enough votes to pass your partisan legislation.  I can think of two Democratic candidates for president with excellent liberal voting records.   Sometimes, it means actually crossing the aisle and alienating some of your own side.  I can think of a certain GOP standard-bearer who meets that definition.  Not many people are honest when discussing bipartisanship.

I don't think Lieberman woudl back Romney for the same reasons sabatia posted.  McCain, to Lieberman, represents a good combination of being right on Iraq and a willingness to not be ideologically Republican.    Add in that Lieberman likes and respects McCain, and that Lieberman is not a Democrat, and this endorsement is not as unusual as it might seem.

Maybe I'm just not a "my side is always right" kinda guy, but I feel a bit of a shiver at the lockstep ideology that insists that party leaders must put party before everything else, even when they think their party is wrong.  I'm also left a bit cold and afraid at the idea that party leaders who think their party is wrong must resign.  These are ideas that fanatics should find appealing.  

In any case, the Democratic majority could toss Lieberman if they wanted to.  If there is outrage at Lieberman, there must be twice as much outrage at the craven Democratic response.  I am not seeing that math play out in these forums, and that says something to me about what is important to most people.  If the shoe was on the other fit and I was absolutely convinced that my party was right, and a party member (or. . . well. . . whatever Joe is) endorsed the other guy, I'd be furious with my party if they didn't toss him.  Except my party is right and those who endorse the other side of the argument should be tossed. . . except I should be furious . . . except my party is right. . .    oh dear.

NAPOLITANO (FOX analyst): Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

No, Joe, it's not a "good question" any more than you ever "hesitate" to say anything.

The only possible reasons Lieberman would in fact think that he was answering a "good question" would be because (a) he misunderstands the meaning of "Marxist," in which case he's talking out of his ass, (b) he believes Kristol's inanity that linking economics and cultural behavior constitutes Marxism, in which case he is not a Democrat, because in fact economics, particularly the very real fact of economic injustice, is central to Democratic optimism about American culture, and if he therefore is not a Democrat he is at best a hypocrite, (c) he has evidence that Obama does in fact embrace Marxism in its true meaning, in which case he should provide that evidence for the rest of us to evaluate, given that no one else has done so as yet, or (d) some combination of the above.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Lieberman doesn't think it's a "good question," but is just saying so.  Kind of like after I leave an extra $50 in the envelope, then the gal compliments me on the size of my penis.

Who cares if he would support Romney.

Romney isn't going to be the Repubs nominee, McCain is. The actual is always more interesting than the fantastic.

Why not ask if Lieberman would have supported Joe Biden? It's just as relevant and probably makes more since they have more in common than Lieberman and Romney do.

Phargle said, " I can think of a certain GOP standard-bearer who meets that definition."

The man who knows more about McCain's "bipartisanship" would beg to differ:

www.nationaljournal.com/.../no_20080418_7762.php

Three occasions in 26 years doesn't exactly sound like crossing the aisle that often.  McCain isn't a bomb thrower, that's for sure.  Reaching to the other side of the aisle, not so much.

At a minimum the dems need to strip JL of his chairmanship(s) and throw him out of the caucus. Amen to that. Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is certainly free to support or endorse who he wants, but that does not mean he is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the Democratic parties majority in the Senate. If the Senate were truly bi-partisan, then committee chairmanships would be based on a vote by the whole of the Senate, and not by party, but since it isn't, the Democrats owe Lieberman nothing, and he owes them nothing. I realize that if they did and he became a Republican, then they would have the nominal majority, but so be it. It will only be for 9 months, after that Joe can be in the minority (unless McCain wins, then he will be in the cabinet)

Over at TPMCafe, Ed Kilgore has joined the battle:

-- But Kirchick's current argument at The Plank, in an exchange with Jonathan Chait and with (most recently) Isaac Chotiner, defending the proposition that Joe Lieberman can be a "loyal Democrat" and also endorse John McCain for president, is just bizarre. ...

-- It's one thing to cross party lines to support this or that policy initiative or legislation. It's another thing altogether to oppose your supposed party in the contest that more than anything else, defines "party" to begin with. And it has ever been thus. ...

-- This is, in sum, the Line You Do Not Cross if you choose to identify yourself as a Republican or as a Democrat. John McCain surely understands that; had he followed the entreaties of some of his own staff in 2004 by endorsing--much less joining the ticket of--John Kerry, he would have been stripped of his party prerogatives instantly and eternally.

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../the_line_you_may_not_cross

Joe Lieberman does not owe Obama an endorsement any more than Bill Richardson owes Clinton an endorsement. Every person is ultimately free to back whomever they choose, simple as that.

As for whether Lieberman would have supported Romney, I must say I find that to be a rather irrelevant question at this point. I do not believe so simply because it makes no sense to me that the only criteria for choosing to support a Republican nominee should be whether they desire victory in Iraq or not. Is there a single politician, Democrat or Republican, praying for defeat? Of course every candidate wants to get out of that mesy situation victorious (whatever that may mean). No, I think pivotal reason for supporting McCain lies in their friendship as well as the conservative stance Lieberman seems to have assumed on social issues like abortion. Him deflecting to Mitt does not sound probable.

That all said, the Democratic party does not owe Lieberman anything, either. He can support whomever he desires to and they can confer positions of relevance on whom they desire to as well - and, if I were a party official, I would begin to exercise that right  as soon as that may be.

Maybe I'm a minority of one (I rather doubt it), but two people I'm really tired of hearing about (or from): Joe Lieberman and James Kirchik.  Who cares what they think?  I surely don't.

Kent Brockman:  Joe, do you give any credence to the suspicion that Obama is apt to bash his typical white grandmother's head in, and feast on the goo inside?

Joe Li:  Well that's a good question.  I've never actually seen Obama bash anything except the values of decent Americans.  However . . .

Maybe we could just have a separate blog where Jamie could voice his opinions and everyone else could disagree with him?  How about "The Snark"?

Transcripts of interviews often suck because they miss all the human nuance of speech, 'yard.

It' was "a good question" because Kristol said Obama was a Marxist in the NYT. Joe answered the question in the negative. But if you don't think many voters imagine that Obama has a more than passing familiarity with the concepts of class struggle and redistribution of wealth, and that the Republicans will put anything they can find to reinforce this image on steroids, guess again. This is going to be a major issue in November. Why not get on top of it now?

The only thing worse than a Big Government State is one in which State and Party have become synonymous. Anyone familiar with the history of the last century should have partisanship at or near the top of the Things to Avoid list.

Actually, if you look at the demographics of the poll and compare them with those of the 2006 exit poll (which was pretty much on the ball) you find that the poll was weighted in a manner favourable to  Lamont. If you reweigh the demographics of both the latest poll and those of the 2007 version in line with the exit polls, in both cases Lieberman wins by 10%.

thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/.../will-daily-kos-ever-stop-shooting-themselves-in-the-foot

thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/.../the-truth-about-the-lieberpoll

mpartridge,

Political Tipster was actually looking at the wrong question on the poll, namely the "who did you vote for in 2006?" question.  If you reweight that by age group you get a 50.0-40.8 Lieberman win, within a point of the actual margin.  The question of interest was the "who would you vote for if you could vote again?" question.  If you reweight that one using the age group composition of the exit poll, you get a 48.0-39.9 win for Lamont.  Note that with both the adjusted and unadjusted numbers, Lieberman loses about 10% and Lamont gains about 8%.

So the "biased sample" that Kirchick was so worked up about can be pretty much entirely explained by a difference in the age group composition, but even adjusting for that, Lamont still comes out ahead by 8.  There does seem to have been a real and sizable shift in opinion away from Lieberman.

So what?