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.
Kerry is putting it away tonight.
Kerry is competent again, and Bush is uneven and has made some big mistakes. He really blew it on immigration, religion, and Social Security.
Looks like Kerry is now up in LV’s too in the WP poll, and gained a bit in LV’s in the ABC poll (the two polls use the same data, but interpret it differently based on their own formulas).
Lets hope Kerry can put it away tonight.
Alan,
This does not seem like a likely answer. The Republicans are certainly engaging in dirty tactics but it seems implausible they would tell Gallup what they are up to and the number of Dem votes they are trashing.
I have not seen a good answer to the question of why Gallup (and other polling orgs) are skewing their results so strongly to the Rs either in LV/RV or in party identification. So, anyone? Alan’s thought is maybe just too disgusting for me to want to believe. Also, the sheer amount of the skew is too large to be accounted for by dirty tricks in some swing states. Is Gallup hoping to scare Dems into fight harder? Do they want a close race to improve news ratings (my fave since news orgs buy the Gallup results)? Is Gallup hoping to get more Repubs into office by creating making them appear stronger than they really are?
I am surprised to see Alan Abromowitz stating that GOP turnout has exceded Democratic turnout in recent Presidential elections. I thought that Democratic voters had exceeded Republican voters by about 3 points in recent presidential races.
coldeye and gabby,
Marshall has followed up with this link to a report from Oregon, confirming what coldeye wrote:
http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x47627&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530
The head of the canvassing group used to be executive director of the Arizona state Republican party. Reports are that the GOP funded his group, though the Oregon state GOP denies that he worked for them. There’s a report that the same organization (Voters Outreach of America) is also active in West Virginia.
From a link posted on TPM:
Bush concedes PA?
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001039.html
Those of us here in Pennsylvania may not have George W. Bush to kick around anymore — at least not in person. The New York Daily News — which
is traveling with the President in Arizona today — says that no Pennsylvania TV markets were in Bush’s top-ten spending list last month, and an aide has told the newspaper that no visits from W. to the Keystone State are in the works anytime soon.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Gallup’s methodology on LV. After all, they probably know what the Republicans voter suppression strategies are. In term of voter turnout, this analysis is likely correct. However, many of the democaratic voters who turn out may end up not being able to vote, and many of those who do vote may not see their vote counted.
Gallup is probably relying on Republican inside information in coming up with its LV numbers.
News flash — the Chicago Tribune released separate polls today for the midwest battleground states (IA, MN, WI, OH). They show Kerry ahead of Bush by 2pts in OH and MN, and 4 pts in WI! He is behind by 2 pts in IA. Plus, there were 5-8% undecided in each state — that basically translates to an extra 2-4 points on Kerry’s side of the margin. Plus, these results are for LVs — can’t find RV results, but those are very likely even better, since Kerry has been stronger among RVs than LVs all season.
Only one set of polls, but still VERY encouraging — are the Cheeseheads finally coming home?!
Midwest Meg, I think Ruy has said the last week or so is the time when the LV is most useful, but only as the race actually closes.
Tony, that news is truly distressing. They’ve always engaged in dirty tricks, but this time the army of Bush brownshirts is a reflection of the men at the top. This time they flaunt the law in a cavalier fashion which reveals their true nature as anything but American.
Tony,
We’ve seen the same tactics here in Portland, OR. Groups collecting registrations and throwing out the Democrats.
Ruy-
Thanks for the RV data. I tried looking for RV info online yesterday and could only get LV.
Various-
This will be somewhat off topic, but speaks to some of the challenges we’ll face on election day.
I just got this from Josh Marshall’s http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com site. Apparently the GOP has paid some people to go get registration cards from potential voters, and then they tear up those who register Democratic. There’s some evidence of this from Las Vegas. This strikes me as the sort of dirty trick that could get very intense attention very quickly.
Marshall got the report from this site:
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe
Here’s a quote from the article:
“We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me,” said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.
Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.
In Ruy’s opinion, at what point in the campaign are LVs the more reliable polling group than RVs? Two weeks from election day? A week before?
Or does conventional wisdom not exactly apply in this election, which looks like it will draw a huge number of first-time or occasional voters?
Does anyone know whether the polls pick up or distinguish how many people voted early? I remember reading articles about several states where people could vote as early as the beginning of September. If that vote was heavy, when Bush had his huge bounce, it could matter. Is there any data?
Who actually performs this poll? Is it Zogby, who I respect? Interesting article on Zogby in new New Yorker.