The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain)

The McCain campaign blasted an email from none other than CT's own Joe Lieberman today.  In it Lieberman explains his endorsement of John McCain calling him "no ordinary candidate."  If the email sounds familiar that's because this is nothing more than Joe Lieberman's best hits: digitally remastered and compiled on a three disc set for a bargain price.  Call now!

For Example:

In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the Presidency.

and

When others were silent, and it was thought politically unpopular, John had the courage and common sense to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq and to call for more troops and a new strategy there. And when others wavered, when others wanted to retreat from the field of battle, John had the courage and the common sense to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge in Iraq, where we are at last winning.

Unity, bipartisanship, courage: staples of the Joe Lieberman myth.  Lieberman's support will surely mean an influx of Independent support for John McCain, right?  But it turns out that the Independent support is also part of the mythology.

According to the NY Daily News, Lieberman's endorsement is helping McCain win over conservatives and not Independents.  

According to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released last week,
Lieberman's endorsement makes only 15% of independents more likely to
vote for McCain, yet it persuades 25% of Republicans. But the polls
only tell part of the story.

It's not Lieberman the maverick or moderate who helps McCain the most;
it's Lieberman the moralist.

The McCain campaign knows this too, which is why this email went out to their full list and not just primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The big lie has always been that Senator Lieberman is an Independent voice.  He's not.  Lieberman is just another cog in the right wing noise machine.  His hook was always that D after his name.  He was the Democrat the Republicans could like.  Now that the D is gone Lieberman has rebranded himself slightly, but the rhetoric hasn't changed at all.  

Why does this matter?  Because it's time for Democrats to stop enabling Joe Lieberman.  The CT state and national party have played a role in enabling the Lieberman mythology, but thankfully those days seem to be over.  I'm told that he absolutely will not be a super delegate at the convention this year, but the real issue is in the Senate.  Democrats need to kick Lieberman out of the caucus and strip him of his committee assignments.  We can't allow him to abuse our infrastructure to build his own brand any longer.  

I have no idea if we'll see a McCain-Lieberman unity ticket this year.  It's a possibility, probably one we can't do anything about.  What Democrats can do is insist that the Senate stop enabling the McCain-Lieberman love fest.  Without his place in the Democratic caucus Joe Lieberman will have a more difficult time peddling the Lieberman myth to voters.



Display:


Re: The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain) (none / 0)

 "Without his place in the Democratic caucus Joe Lieberman will have a more difficult time peddling the Lieberman myth to voters."

 Your sentence is correct for people who think on their own.  Foe the Repug sheep, I can see the headlines now:

 Democrats throw "Moderate" out of party. Democratic Party becomes party of only the left, or some lie like that.  He will help McCain in the Repug primaries, but I think his endorsement will mean little in the general election.


by ocdemocrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:21:26 PM EST

Re: The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain) (none / 0)

I can understand the concern.  But I'm also tired of tip toeing around this.  What has continuing this charade gotten us?


by Melissa Ryan on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain) (none / 0)

They already tried this spin once, when Lieberman lost the primary.  I don't think there's very much mileage to be extracted from it.  Nor can we run our party in constant fear that the Republicans will paint us as left-wing extremists, since they always do that regardless.

The real concern is that we probably cannot afford to boot anyone from our caucus in a 51-49 Senate, no matter how obnoxious they may be.  The organizing resolution is not written in stone.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Noplace, that's where. (none / 0)

But you already knew that.

ocdemocrat, our not having kicked Loserman out hasn't stopped them from saying that as often as possible anyway.  So why worry?

The one thing I'd wish for the Democratic Party is to stop worrying about what the GOP or the Villagers say.  They should worry about what their supporters say, and what independent voters that they might win over think.

You don't see the GOP shuddering with fear about what the Dems or Broderites might say, and that's why they continue to be more politically effective (and the Dems less so) than their relative degrees of popular support would indicate.


by RT on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We collectively shut our mouths a year ago for (2.00 / 1)

the sake of the party and getting things through the Senate.  We took Harry Reid and the rets of the caucus at their word when they embraced Joe and kept quiet fo rthe good of the party, its message, and the mission.

Well, it's a year later and how'd that all work out?  That's right, we have REGRESSED partially because of kowtowing to Joe.

Sometimes you've got to make a sacrifice now to gain something better later.  We would have been better off to have given Joe the middle finger then.  We didn't.  And now, we are not only in the exact same boat legislatively as we would have been if we waved goodbye, but we have EMPOWERED the man and made him into an asset for McCain.  And if McCain beats us in November, then that will have mushroomed into an all-time mistake.

Thanks, Harry Reid.  I told you so.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:35:00 PM EST

Re: We collectively shut our mouths a year ago for (none / 0)

Well, I'm still quite pleased that the Committee on  Environment is chaired by Barbara Boxer and not James Inhofe.

Just because we haven't ended the war, we shouldn't act like Democratic control of the Senate hasn't made a difference.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We collectively shut our mouths a year ago for (none / 0)

You don't really know the reason for my post, do you?

I am one of those lefty posters who really don't care that much about the war.  There, I said it.

I am referring to a lot of other things.  Mostly domestic.  Where's our global warming bill?  Yes, Boxer chairing the cmte is good.  But it also gives us a false sense of being in charge.  And that's a negative.

The only difference is aestetic, not functional.  The makeup of the senate won't matter until a new president is sworn-in and we have more senators.  Putting Joe effectively in charge of things just set us up to be demoralized when our supposed "majority" couldn't get anything done.  Am I right or wrong on that?


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We collectively shut our mouths a year ago for (none / 0)

I think you're right if you believe it was reasonable to expect world-altering events from a 51-49 majority.

Consider all the terrible things that have happened over the last several years with Republicans in charge of all those committees.  All of those things would still be happening if the Democrats weren't in control.  Even if we accomplished nothing of our own, which I don't agree with, we at least stopped the Republicans from continuing to pillage the government and the country.  That's worth something.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We collectively shut our mouths a year ago for (none / 0)

small majorities never ever seem to stop the REPUBLICANS from getting things done.

However, I agree.  But you and I are not the general public.  Alls the general public knows is that "Democrats control the Senate and House and can't get shit done."  That's the damaging meme that we would NOT have had if we told Joe to fuck off when we should have.

Now look at the monster we have created.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain) (none / 0)

Once Democrats get a majority, they need to throw this piece of scum out. They should go on the offensive and clearly show how Lieberman has been attacking other democrats for differing views while he pleaded for diversity of opinion when it came to his views alone.

I think the Bhutto killing, the US dollar decline, China's mischief making on a global scale for mercenary reasons, and our own domestic decline are enough indicators of how misplaced our priorities were in enabling this war in iraq. What a waste of money. What a waste of life. What a waste of time that could have been spent finding solutions for other far more pressing issues.


by Pravin on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM EST

Looking past Lieberman (none / 0)

I often wonder if Republicans find McCain as unpalatable as Democrats do Joe Lieberman.  To me it seems obvious that the only hope for the Republican party is John McCain.  But I guess he has simply violated too many of their core values to be considered a strong advocate.  Is Joe Lieberman the Democratic analogue?

Let's say for the sake of argument that McCain and Lieberman represent the same political philosophy and that Republicans have the same degree of animosity toward McCain that Democrats have toward Lieberman.  This means that the recent surge in the polls for McCain is equivalent to Republican capitulation on their core values.  In other words, the minority party may finally be a minority.


by the mollusk on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:59:56 PM EST

Re: The Myth of Joe Lieberman (John McCain) (none / 0)

Lieberman's spin said nothing about American values or the Constitution.

Lieberman is as uncomfortable with espousing American and Constitutional values as are Republicans.

God forbid that the words, "Liberty and justice for all" would ever roll off Joe Lieberman's tongue.


by Hempy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:42:45 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.