I was sorry to learn of the sudden death of 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. But his long and stormy career did offer some important lessons about party loyalty, which I wrote about at New York:
Joe Lieberman was active in politics right up to the end. The former senator was the founding co-chair of the nonpartisan group No Labels, which is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign on behalf of a yet-to-be-identified bipartisan “unity ticket.” Lieberman did not live to see whether No Labels will run a candidate. He died on Wednesday at 82 due to complications from a fall. But this last political venture was entirely in keeping with his long career as a self-styled politician of the pragmatic center, which often took him across party boundaries.
Lieberman’s first years in Connecticut Democratic politics as a state legislator and then state attorney general were reasonably conventional. He was known for a particular interest in civil rights and environmental protection, and his identity as an observant Orthodox Jew also drew attention. But in 1988, the Democrat used unconventional tactics in his challenge to Republican U.S. senator Lowell Weicker. Lieberman positioned himself to the incumbent’s right on selected issues, like Ronald Reagan’s military operations against Libya and Grenada. He also capitalized on longtime conservative resentment of his moderate opponent, winning prized endorsements from William F. and James Buckley, icons of the right. Lieberman won the race narrowly in an upset.
Almost immediately, Senator Lieberman became closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The group of mostly moderate elected officials focused on restoring the national political viability of a party that had lost five of the six previous presidential elections; it soon produced a president in Bill Clinton. Lieberman became probably the most systematically pro-Clinton (or in the parlance of the time, “New Democrat”) member of Congress. This gave his 1998 Senate speech condemning the then-president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal as “immoral” and “harmful” a special bite. He probably did Clinton a favor by setting the table for a reprimand that fell short of impeachment and removal, but without question, the narrative was born of Lieberman being disloyal to his party.
Perhaps it was his public scolding of Clinton that convinced Al Gore, who was struggling to separate himself from his boss’s misconduct, to lift Lieberman to the summit of his career. Gore tapped the senator to be his running mate in the 2000 election, making him the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate of a major party. He was by all accounts a disciplined and loyal running mate, at least until that moment during the Florida recount saga when he publicly disclaimed interest in challenging late-arriving overseas military ballots against the advice of the Gore campaign. You could argue plausibly that the ticket would have never been in a position to potentially win the state without Lieberman’s appeal in South Florida to Jewish voters thrilled by his nomination to become vice-president. But many Democrats bitter about the loss blamed Lieberman.
As one of the leaders of the “Clintonian” wing of his party, Lieberman was an early front-runner for the 2004 presidential nomination. A longtime supporter of efforts to topple Saddam Hussein, Lieberman had voted to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, like his campaign rivals John Kerry and John Edwards and other notable senators including Hillary Clinton. Unlike most other Democrats, though, Lieberman did not back off this position when the Iraq War became a deadly quagmire. Ill-aligned with his party to an extent he did not seem to perceive, his presidential campaign quickly flamed out, but not before he gained enduring mockery for claiming “Joe-mentum” from a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire.
Returning to the Senate, Lieberman continued his increasingly lonely support for the Iraq War (alongside other heresies to liberalism, such as his support for private-school education vouchers in the District of Columbia). In 2006, Lieberman drew a wealthy primary challenger, Ned Lamont, who soon had a large antiwar following in Connecticut and nationally. As the campaign grew heated, President George W. Bush gave his Democratic war ally a deadly gift by embracing him and kissing his cheek after the State of the Union Address. This moment, memorialized as “The Kiss,” became central to the Lamont campaign’s claim that Lieberman had left his party behind, and the challenger narrowly won the primary. However, Lieberman ran against him in the general election as an independent, with significant back-channel encouragement from the Bush White House (which helped prevent any strong Republican candidacy). Lieberman won a fourth and final term in the Senate with mostly GOP and independent votes. He was publicly endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, among others from what had been the enemy camp.
The 2006 repudiation by his party appeared to break something in Lieberman. This once-happiest of happy political warriors, incapable of holding a grudge, seemed bitter, or at the very least gravely offended, even as he remained in the Senate Democratic Caucus (albeit as formally independent). When his old friend and Iraq War ally John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Lieberman committed a partisan sin by endorsing him. His positioning between the two parties, however, still cost him dearly: McCain wanted to choose him as his running mate, before the Arizonan’s staff convinced him that Lieberman’s longtime pro-choice views and support for LGBTQ rights would lead to a convention revolt. The GOP nominee instead went with a different “high-risk, high-reward” choice: Sarah Palin.
After Barack Obama’s victory over Lieberman’s candidate, the new Democratic president needed every Democratic senator to enact the centerpiece of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act. He got Lieberman’s vote — but only after the senator, who represented many of the country’s major private-insurance companies, forced the elimination of the “public option” in the new system. It was a bitter pill for many progressives, who favored a more robust government role in health insurance than Obama had proposed.
By the time Lieberman chose to retire from the Senate in 2012, he was very near to being a man without a party, and he reflected that status by refusing to endorse either Obama or Mitt Romney that year. By then, he was already involved in the last great project of his political career, No Labels. He did, with some hesitation, endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. But his long odyssey away from the yoke of the Democratic Party had largely landed him in a nonpartisan limbo. Right up until his death, he was often the public face of No Labels, particularly after the group’s decision to sponsor a presidential ticket alienated many early supporters of its more quotidian efforts to encourage bipartisan “problem-solving” in Congress.
Some will view Lieberman as a victim of partisan polarization, and others as an anachronistic member of a pro-corporate, pro-war bipartisan elite who made polarization necessary. Personally, I will remember him as a politician who followed — sometimes courageously, sometimes foolishly — a path that made him blind to the singular extremism that one party has exhibited throughout the 21st century, a development he tried to ignore to his eventual marginalization. But for all his flaws, I have no doubt Joe Lieberman remained until his last breath committed to the task he often cited via the Hebrew term tikkun olam: repairing a broken world.
Sometimes I wonder if T. Bevans really believes all the shit that he shovels on RCP. I almost fell off my chair when I read that one. But its not just that, RCP is full of ludicrous claims, childish ad homimen attacks on anyone who deigns to challenge Bush on anything and unsupported claims (i.e. Bush has MORE volunteers than Kerry, just look at the Bush04 website!!!). We should all do ourselves a favor and boycott the damn thing. I know I won’t be looking at it anymore. The commentary, if any, on RCP is right wing tripe. The polls you can get on Pollingreport.com (without “analysis” explaining why the fact that kerry is up 5% in a GOP leaning state is a sure sign of a Bush win in that state) and the editorial links are available elsewhere on the web.
I tend to believe that today’s Bush/Sharon annoucement was made in large part due to short term political factors., i.e. in one stroke Bush firms up the Christian dispensationalist wackjob base, which was getting antsy about Iraq, and splits off a significant portion of the Dem-leaning Jewish vote.
Plus, as a bonus, as an absolutely unmistakeable “f___ you” provocation to the entire Arab world, any subsequent terrorism only benefits Bush as the nation will tend to rally around the president as they did post 9/11.
Do anyone think this was a factor behind today’s announcement?
Uh, I would like to advise those who take Rasmussen seriously to look at this:
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/11/000020.html
Tuesday, November 7, 2000
The final Rasmussen poll has Bush 49, Gore 40, Nader 4.
And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on? They don’t say, but it is worth noting that this represents a considerable lowering of the bar for Bush (just keep it at 45 or above and even 40-44 isn’t so bad!) compared to earlier Republican claims about his approval ratings.
It gives cover as they try to force though legislation the next 7 months.
While I’m sure the Republicans would like to run on the controversial social issues again this time around, it’s going to take a back seat to the more high profile Iraq and terrorism issues for the near future. It looks like we might even have a decent foreign policy debate as part of a presidential campaign. I can’t recall the last time that happened!
For what it’s worth, toward the end of Bush’s remarks last night, I could’ve sworn he said, “We need to have a debate about whether we’re going to take the lead in the world or whether we’ll share responsibilities.” Listening to it again (I had taped it), it was clear he said, “shirk responsibilities,” but the way I had heard it seems more appropriate…
My impression is that gay marriage has been a complete dud for W as an issue. His shameless pandering has turned off moderates, his ham-handed announcement has angered fellow Republicans and the 9/11 commission has completely pushed it out of the papers. In addition, Kerry has managed to take what appears to be a moderate ground that will not let Rove portray him as a radical. At the same time, he has been low-keyed enough about it that he has not angered the gay and lesbian community.
Of course, I live in Massachusetts. I would be interested in hearing if people in battleground states feel differently.
Polling within African American communities indicates less than the margin of error difference in expressed intentions re: 2004 and the way the vote stacked up for Gore in 2000. If anything, the voter intentions among Hispanics are more favorable to Democrates than 4 years ago. (Though different Hispanic Communities have different patterns.)
I think Peter is completely wrong. Blacks are not abandoning the democrats over gay marriage or any other issue. Ditto for hispanics. I haven’t seen any data that remotely supports his case.
Alan, it’s the same-sex marriage issue that is making blacks reject Democrats. Hispanics and blue-collar white Democrats will probably do the same soon, unfortunately. The GOP has played this brilliantly.
I just looked at a Battleground Poll (tarrance.com) and while the poll shows a 1-Point lead for Kerry (49-48), the underlying numbers do not look good for Bush basically because the numbers in the Battleground states are worse for Bush than his national numbers. The one negative note for the Democrats so far is that it appears the African-American community is not energized at this point.
Hopefully they will become so but I must say that if you can’t be energized now when can you be? So as of today Kerry would probably win narrowly but this underscores the importance of Registering and Turning out OUR Voters especially in the Battleground States.
Does anyone know how Bush’s speach has been received by the general public? People on blogs say about what yu would expect them to say. Bush haters think he tanked, Bush supporters think he was inspirational. Did his speach make any difference in anyone’s thinking?
“And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on?” – RT
Perhaps 40-44 percent is within Diebolding distance. Any smaller percentage, and they won’t be able to steal the election undetected.
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election w/ an approval rating BELOW 50% in JULY of the election year?
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election during a RECESSION?
I think the answers to both are no, but I’m not positive.
As for a president’s approval rating, I don’t see how a president with an approval rating of 40-45% can be in a close race. I know approval ratings aren’t “who would you vote for,” but if less than half of RVs don’t like the job Bush is doing, that is automatically a problem for him.
Rasmussen Reports tells you to go to that site to assess presidential approval ratings. I wonder what to make of this.
In head to head match ups, when can Kerry be said to have an advantage? Lets say they’re running, 55 (Kerry) – 45 (Bush), is that still just a dead heat? Does Kerry have an advantage at 60-40? I can already see the cries of “Liberal Media Bias” When commentators announce Kerry is leading at 60-40
They’re worried, OR
they’re getting us ready for the “magic” of electronic, touch-screen, sorry no recount possible, voting.
A disconnect between honest polls and election returns will be our only clue that the election has been stolen.
REMEMBER: only the paranoid survive
“A 40% – 44% job approval for the President would translate into a dead heat race, and below 40% and you would have to give the advantage to Kerry.”
Wow, if Bush is down by 10%, you have to admit that Kerry has an advantage?! They sure are giving a lot, aren’t they. This is ridiculous, 40-44 is a dead heat I would love to be a part of.
Rick P., that Rasmussen tracking poll fluctuates a lot (although neither Bush nor Kerry rarely ever has a lead of more than 4 points), and as Ruy has said, a tracking poll of likely voters this far in advance of the election doesn’t make a lot of sense. The bottom line is, this is a close race, and that bodes well for Kerry because incumbents who aren’t comfortably ahead at this point lose.
Tuesday’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Bush and Kerry tied at 46%. More importantly, “[e]ighty-three percent (83%) of Bush voters say they are ‘certain’ they will vote for him. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Kerry voters are equally ‘certain.’ Based on the firmness of support, that translates into a 3 to 4 point lead for Bush. Using a crude yardstick, Kerry will need to be up by five points or better to beat Bush.
The Kerry campaign needs to get into third gear and advertise more. The Iraq issue is out of everybody’s hands, but he should be slamming Bush on the environment, federal spending, and other issues.
One non-controversial promise that Kerry could get a lot of mileage out of:
Pledge to hold a full press conference at least once every calendar month for the duration of his Presidency, with no advance vetting of reporters or questions.
The contrast would be dramatic.
What I’m afraid of is that these assertions are being put out there to lay groundwork for going on the offensive when they’re accused of stealing the election via the electronic voting machines this fall. With numbers in the low 40s, a win for such a candidate would ordinarily give rise to a prima facie case for strong suspicions of tampering — they’re campaigning to weaken that presumption. Just a little conspiracy-theorizing.
This is one bar that I don’t mind them lowering because it is based on self-delusion. If they choose to commission polls and then completely misread them, well, more power to them.
–Dan