On some level, Joe Lieberman must enjoy his position: being in the limelight with a presidential candidate of one party, and enjoying a strange sense of immunity on the other party because of his past affiliations. But as this LA Times story says, that enjoyment may come to an end in about five months:
If Democrats expand their Senate majority in November, the Connecticut senator could find himself in a political no man's land. But at least until then, he holds a coveted committee chairmanship and has attracted no hint of retribution. After all, Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, is crucial to their maintaining their tenuous 51-49 Senate majority.
My question is: "Why wait?"
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find a Democract who's annoyed to the point where they want to give up a majority that's essentially cosmetic at this point (from the same LA Times story):
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
If it weren't for Joe Lieberman, we'd be in the minority.
Connecticut's Democratic Party chairwoman, Nancy DiNardo
If we start going after our people because they aren't agreeing with us on various issues, then we become the Republican Party.
Sen. Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
I'm not about to threaten anybody at this stage.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Illinois)
Joe Lieberman is a dutiful member of our caucus and provides critical votes on a regular basis.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
At some level, there is some understanding. At another level, it's awkward. And on another level, it's frustrating.
Dont get me wrong; the Senator is not an "evil" person and has done some good things. But his loyalty to John McCain is obvisiously more important than creating a Democratic majority. It's bad enough having real Republicans blocking us at every turn; we don't need someone with "a coveted committee chairmanship" making things worse.
Besides: he's just not that interested in a progressive agenda.
...Lieberman also said the Democratic Party had changed since he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000, becoming more partisan and left-leaning. Still, he said he had no interest in becoming a Republican.
Lieberman won reelection to the Senate in 2006 as an independent after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary because of his support for the war. A number of his Senate Democratic colleagues abandoned him to support the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont.
That election, in some measure, "liberated me to be totally independent," Lieberman said.
(And before anyone thinks that Lieberman is just throwing himself at John McCain, note that McCain trully values Lieberman's support and friendship. Not only that, but McCain is more than willing to give Lieberman free reign in his administration.)
Although Sen. Obama should have thought twice before endorsing someone who wasn't running under his party's ticket, it's still bad form for Lieberman to not only decide to back Obama's opponent, but to publicly attack Obama for his policitcal stances.
Besides, if the conventional wisdom says that "Democratic majority = no more chairmanships for Lieberman," why continue the charade? Why give him power when you know he's not really obligated to use it for the benefit of your party? It's like going on a blind date, finding out you're not compatible and ending it saying, "I really like your car and I hate taking the bus everywhere I go; wanna go out again?"
I think former GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee put it best:
How far can you take this independence and still break bread with the Democrats?
Amen.