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.
McGreevey won’t make a difference one way or the other. It’s a funny state. Tends to go Republican for Governor (Keane, Whitman), but also goes Dem (Florio, McGreevey). The tendency is to be unhappy when the Gov is Dem and content with the Repub Gov. But the legislature trends Dem and national elections, I think, trend Dem. Went for Nixon, like everyone else. Not sure where it went with the Reagan and Bush I years. But went for Clinton and Gore. Both Senators are Dem (Corzine and Lautenberg). I think it will go Dem this time. That’s my ear to the street sense talking.
To compare the various polls, go to:
http://www.fastpolitics.com then scroll down the right side column to Polling Report and you’ll see them all. It’s a great site. This morning Kerry was ahead in four polls, Bush in two, and they tied in one. :))) Most encouraging.
Isn’t McGreevey becoming more popular (or at least less hated) in Jersey? Will that keep on through November?
Rasmussen has Kerry up by 5 points in Florida as of May 20. It was tied the previous week.
Don’t worry about those California and NJ polls. Kerry has to be up by more than a point in California if you accept that Kerry is even or slightly ahead nationwide. The New Jersey poll may be reflecting some unpopularity with Governor McGreevy but New Jersey should be there in November for us. As for Rasmussen his last poll in 2000 had Bush beating Gore 49-40. So don’t take his poll too seriously.
Trent,
The news Faux News/Opinion Dynamics poll has Bush up in the swing states. They have the 3-way race 40-40-3, but Bush up 43-37 in 16 battleground states.
Consider the source, but also consider that Bush gets only 43% in battleground states in this obviously slanred poll.
So what poll was that blond Republican bimbo on ‘Crossfire’ bragging about tonight when she said Bush is ahead in the swing states?
Gropenator is not helping Bush because he is riding high right now. Plus the gropenaror will be going to trail in UK for sexual harrasment shortly.
CA is safe , period. Only a san andreas earthquake can shake loose CA for Bush.
News just in that Kerry may not accept Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention. Acceptance will be delayed to permit Kerry spending donated campaign funds, without limitation, just like Bush. This would put him in sync with Bush on the expenditure limits of the $75 million in public funds.
Presumably, Kerry’s formal acceptance of the nomination would be in Sept. about the same time as Bush’s. One of Kerry’s aides explained to the media that they have no intention of fighting with on hand tied behind their back. Way to go Kerry!
RE: California polls — thanks to the several explanatory posts above, I have now relaxed enough to slip a sliver of lime in my Corona Extra and start enjoying my weekend. Much obliged.
“Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?”
Because Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. And the poll is a CRAP poll anyway.
Yeah, getting back to NJ, no worries here either. Went for Gore strong in 2000. Major job losses in the tech industry since then. Fed dollars bypass us in a big way with the Bush regime and Republican Congress. This state is not going Republican in 2004. Only problem we could run into is McGreevey, Dem governor, is unpopular and viewed as corrupt by many, which could hurt Dem chances in many ways. But I don’t think McGreevey has big enough “negative coattails” to help Bush.
JTBLA, Thanks for your post. I do remember that Calif. poll in 2000 that had Bush within 2, which turned out to be way off the mark.
As a Calif. resident I can guarantee that Bush has NO chance to win out here. That poll is out of whack with others that show Kerry up 10+, including a recent LA Times poll. In 2000 there was a late poll that showed Bush within 2 of Gore and people freaked. Gore won the state easily.
I don’t know what CA poll people are referring to, but let’s remember DR’s consistent arguments about the incumbent’s approval rating being more important than horse-race numbers at this point. Then, with that in mind, take a look at this story from early April:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/06/MNGPO616OS1.DTL
“A new poll shows President Bush’s approval ratings in California have plummeted, even in the state’s most GOP-dominated conservative areas.”
“With the Iraq war taking a difficult turn and questions raised at home about the administration’s terrorism policy, the poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Monday puts Bush’s state approval ratings at just 38 percent, while 50 percent disapprove.”
“That’s a dramatic change from the start of the year, when 49 percent of Californians approved of the job the president was doing, and 40 percent disapproved.”
Also keep in mind that this poll was from almost two months ago, just as the deadliest month for Americans in the entire Iraq conflict was beginning, and before the prison abuse scandal. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Bush’s approval ratings in CA haven’t improved since then.
Though I think the independent voters are important. I really think that bringing out the base will be most important.
Isn’t even the Groppenfurer distancing himself from Bush in Cali?
I believe there’s only one poll that has Kerry’s lead in California at just a point. Don’t worry; there’s no way Bush will win that state. You can take that to the bank.
Interesting and VERY encouraging. Remember, the Bushies have spent the vast majority of their campaign funds so far in the battleground states. This is the best they can do. The news won’t get better from Iraq, and the general opinion around my household (for what it’s worth) is that things will get worse there after the make-believe power handover. I do not celebrate that, but I do read the tea leaves that arise from it.
Don’t worry about NJ. I’m here. I got your back.
These data are largely good news, but I echo the previously stated concerns about California, and add New Jersey to that. Further: given the power structure and the loose definition of democratic rights there, Florida should not be considered in play. By hook or, more likely, by crook, Bush will end up with its electoral votes.
I’ve wondered about California myself. With such a majority of Deocratic voter registration, this state should be the Dem’s to keep for a long time. I took the 2000 election numbers and looked at the states where W has pretty much done himself in that are swing states and came up with Kerry winning the election with 292 electoral votes. This assumes that the voting machine are not rigged for Bush. Ohio should be a slam dunk for Kerry, as should Michigan, New Hampshire, and even West Virginia. Nevada should be Blue this time as Nevadans should start to glow from nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains very soon. With all the scandal (especially the NEW torture pictures on top of the old ones), Plamegate (something I think is a major issue and should be more public this summer), deficits and spending, this guy should be sent to Gitmo for retirement.
That data is encouraging, but here’s what I want to know (and I haven’t yet seen this addressed elsewhere): Why is Kerry only up by ONE point in the recent California polls? Shouldn’t that be a slam dunk, double-digit lead for him? Is he in trouble there, possibly because of Schwarzenegger’s successes? Is it possible that he could LOSE California? Is California really in play for this election, or are these poll results an aberration? I’d love to hear from someone who has some insights into this issue.
Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?