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.
I beleive that the only Americans the terrorists want
at this time is Gorge W. and crew (Cheney,Ashcroft,
Romsfield) If we get them out of office in November
we will have a chance of getting our country back at least to a low security threat level. We have not, nore will we ever be totally free from the threat of terrorists plotting against us. But the ones that are really hated by the terrorists groups of today are listed above.
If the American people put them back in office in Nov.2004, then we are all in a lot of trouble. I Pray America is Smarter than That.
By the way, I think WaPo columnist Jim Hoagland explains (without recognizing it himself-) the problem with”Shrub’s” claim about being the only candidate who is “serious” about the War on Terrorism. It is no longer credible… Sure, there has been lots of resolute firebrand rhetoric and swagger since 9/11, but the actual DEEDS betray the convinction. If the terror war really is about the survival of western civilization, shouldn’t this Administration have been a little more reluctant to push for tax cuts for the rich etc. while favoring less divisive politics at home in the name of bipartisan unity against the Great Enemy abroad?
—
Heck — Churchill reportedly made concessions to Labour left and right in the late 1930s. What, exactly, did the Republicans do in 2001-03? Things like suggesting moderate NC Senator Max Cleland was in cahoots with Osama and Saddam for insisting that civil servants working for the Homeland Security department have the same workplace rights as other civil servants! The GOP has consistently tried to use the War on Terror to advance partisan goals at home, and that is probably who Democrats and independents no longer believe the Administration’s arguments about Iraqi WMDs, the Saddam/Osama connection, prison torture etc..
MARCU$
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35558-2004Jul7.html
[…]
“The lengthening period since Sept. 11 has created a sense of virtual emergency. President Bush mobilized the armed forces to fight the war on terrorism.”
“But he has not mobilized society on a similar war footing at home. He has not conscripted soldiers or factories and other national economic resources as most wartime presidents have. He leaves the impression that the nation does not need to devote all its resources to confronting an immediate, specific threat of destruction, whatever his rhetoric.”
Another encouraging statistic from the PoolKatz blog. It seems the much-anticipated “Bush bounce” is now over!
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif
There was indeed a positive bump the size of a molehill in “Shrub’s” approval ratings in early June. Fortunately the Chimp seems to be back in 40-45% territory again, though, if you check the last data points on the graph. Hooray…
MARCU$
From my perspective, a major terrorist attack on US soil between now and the election would be the final nail in W’s coffin: about the only thing he has going for him (apart from “nice guy”) is that he has thus far protected us from another attack. When/if one comes, he will have proven himself to be a miserable failure yet again.
I do think that Kerry has an important reason to continue to “pile on” to his national security creds. ONLY an significant national security event, such as an episode of terrorism or the capture of Osama, would stand much chance to change Bush’s poor prospects in the upcoming election.
I suppose it’s way to late in the game to weigh in on this point (not that it makes much diff anyway), but this would be all the more reason for Kerry to select Wes Clark as a VP candidate. If nothing major happens between now and the election, Kerry will have a great chance to win with virtually ANY VP; but if national security is kicked out of its current stasis, only a very strong Dem national security team will do well against Bush and Cheney.
I think that a terrorist attack now will have a net negative effect for Bush. People will not think of him as the light in the storm, the steadfast commander, etc etc etc. Rather they will think “strike three” or possibly “two”, if they don’t count the Iraq Attack as a calamity for our soldiers and the country. The problem for Bush will be, should such an attack take place, that he will necessarily have to argue that he’s the one who can prevent the next attack. This isn’t going to be a position of strength, not even to the most willing suspender of disbelief.
I don’t know about the questions concerning al Qaeda’s positions on Bush or the election. It seems to me that al Qaeda is not really too concerned about American electoral politics. Al Qaeda is focused on rejecting and ousting Western/American culture and influence from Muslim countries. Bush, because of his religiosity and shallowness, has become an icon more to his backers here than to his enemies elsewhere, I think. The fact is that al Qaeda will continue its attacks on American interests and operations in Iraq and elsewhere no matter who is elected here.
I just saw a wonderful poll result on today’s Gallup homepage: Can Kerry and Bush Handle the Responsibility of being Commander in Chief?
Bush
Yes 61%
No 35%
Kerry
Yes 61%
No 30%
A critical confidence barrier met and exceeded!
Now watch to see if Kerry gets convincingly ahead after the looming Democratic Convention!
I remember how completely most people had written off Kerry back when Dean was surging and got Al Gore’s endorsement. He wasn’t even 2nd by most people’s calculations — behind Clarke as well.
This game is played in such a way that you can’t tell luck from strategy from the outside, and they will never tell you which it is. In either case, Kerry’s best shot is clearly to build up now, then go for shock-and-awe after the convention.
With one caveat: “don’t attack an opponent who is committing suicide.” By all evidence the Kerry folk seem to understand this. And boy I can’t figure out how those Bushies stand upright after shooting themselves in the foot so many times.
Marcus, you wrote:
“On the other hand, local Iraqi insurgents may well think a Kerry presidency would be more likely to pull out simply because there would be a perceived mandate for ending an increasingly unpopular occupation. I think this group would be more likely to ramp up the violence in Iraq rather than taking the fight to America soil, though.”
Much to the frustration of many who want him to, I haven’t heard Kerry give a date for pulling the troops. Nothing he has said so far suggests that if he wins it is, as of now, a mandate for removing our troops.
Personally, I can readily understand why he would take this stance at this point, from the standpoint of what is the right thing to do. How can either Kerry or Bush know enough, so early after the transfer, how things are likely to play out and therefore how we should think about the question of troop deployments and withdrawal?
And though I’m very much not a political pro, it also seems to me to be the politically smart thing for Kerry to do at this time. If he differs with a decision or course of action on Iraq he can, if he wants to and feels he can do so in good conscience, choose to do so later in the campaign when more is known about how the transfer is going–and, not incidentally, when the Administration will have less time to react before the election.
I think he has much fatter and lower risk foreign policy targets to shoot at now–the conduct and results of the effort against al qaeda, the pre and earlier postwar conduct of the war in Iraq including the Abu Ghraib fiasco, the overextension and mismanagement of our troop commitments, the treatment of our troops by their civilian leaders, and probably North Korea come readily to mind.
Of course the terrorists would say a terrorist attack would hurt Bush!
Remember John Kerry has a secret line to Osama and they’re in cahoots!
This question is a bit more complicated than it seems. I think Al Qaeda almost certainly would prefer to have a “good enemy” (=someone who offends Arab sensibilities, who proves they are right by invading Islamic countries because of WMDs and alleged connections that just didn’t exist). After all, Osama bin L. would be in much greater trouble now if “Shrub” had focused all efforts on waging a reasonably popular and relatively non-controversial war against him in Afghanistan…
On the other hand, local Iraqi insurgents may well think a Kerry presidency would be more likely to pull out simply because there would be a perceived mandate for ending an increasingly unpopular occupation. I think this group would be more likely to ramp up the violence in Iraq rather than taking the fight to America soil, though.
MARCU$
My answers:
1) Unclear. How the public would respond I would think is inevitably a great unknown. I am wondering to what extent mainstream media will voice and discuss these kinds of concerns that I think many Americans privately share. It could be that the more these concerns are discussed the more ready the public will be if there are attacks near or at election time, and the more likely swing voters will be able to think through in advance what is going on and how they will respond.
2) Who can know how they think about this? Al qaeda certainly has demonstrated a highly sophisticated ability to exploit security vulnerabilities of the US. I dunno–have they hired an unemployed pollster or political consultant to advise them on how to play the election here? Have they assigned someone to monitor and report on the political blog scene? My guess is they would think they’d have nothing to lose if Bush is trailing late.
3) Of course. This one is a no-brainer. Kerry would actually represent a serious threat to them because he is by far the candidate in the race with the greatest potential to effectively rally the international community to combat al qaeda.
4) Probability of them trying it? High. Probability of success to me should be high–I mean, how can we cover absolutely every possibility here? But we’ve got some exceptional people down the food chain who are going to be giving body and soul to trying to stop them between now and then. It would be foolish either to discount the possibility of successful terrorist attacks or successful efforts to thwart them.
Speaking of Kerry, I am hoping that his low profile in the media of late is entirely deliberate, that what is going on is that the campaign is getting all its ducks in a row for a great convention and fall ad and ground campaign. Fence-sitting indies I know perceive him to be almost in hiding of late–they are clearly wanting and expecting to hear from him and a little confused (and unimpressed) as to why they aren’t hearing much from him of late. Which may make it easier for him to get their attention at the convention and from here on out. Let’s hope.
1. Not sure – probaly depends on the attack. Large scale helps Bush, small scale probably hurts.
2. Helps
3. How could they not? – he has been almost a total pawn of theirs. Even they probably could not have wished for an internationally unpopular war in the middle east that significantly increased recruits.
I think they will certainly try. However, the incompetence of Bush and his administration has not yet spread to all of the career service people whose job it is to protect us — so we have a decent shot of preventing it.
OK, three hypothetical questions:
1. Would a major terrorist event on U.S. Soil help or hurt Bush?
2. Which answer would “the terrorists” give?
3. Do the terrorists want Bush to remain in office?
From the answers above, what is the probability of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil between now and November?