Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Dave Lindorff: Lieberman's an Albatross: Cut Him Loose

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 11/17/2006 - 3:20pm.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment"

If the Democratic Party were a real opposition party -- a party of principle filled with fighters -- I'd say maintaining control of the Senate, even with by a margin of a single, fragile vote, would be important and valuable.

But that's not what we have.

The Democratic Party, particularly the actual elected congressional delegation and the leadership of the party in the two houses, is so washed out, so gutless, so calculating, and so self-serving, that it hardly rates as a second party.

Because of this, the role of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, recently re-elected by the voters of Connecticut while running as an independent after losing his own party's nomination to an upstart anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont, is dangerous in the extreme.

Lieberman, who won re-election by stealing the votes of Connecticut's Republicans from the GOP's official candidate (Lieberman only won about a third of the Democratic vote), has been a closet Republican for years. He was a Republican in all but name when he ran as Al Gore's vice presidential partner in 2000, and since helping that campaign go down in flames has been one of George Bush's most stalwart supporters in Congress.

Let's look at the Lieberman record:

Absolute and wholly uncritical support for Israel's right-wing governments and for Israel's most incendiary and repressive policies towards the Palestinians.

Wholehearted support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and for continuing U.S. military involvement in that unmitigated disaster.

Full support for Bush's criminal policies of torture, kidnapping and stripping away of Americans' historic right to habeas corpus.

Full support for the Patriot Act and its even worse offspring, Patriot II.

Advocate, along with Lynn Cheney, of government intrusion into universities, and of the undermining of academic freedom, in the name of rooting out alleged "traitors" on university campuses who might have the temerity to question the official story on 9-11, or to challenge the so-called War on Terror.

Support, even, for former Attorney General John Ashcroft's mad plan for 20 million citizen spies in an Operation TIPS to spy on their neighbors.

Having Lieberman on your side in a narrowly-divided Democratic Senate is like having a nest of termites on a wooden ship.

As the crucial 51st vote that gives Democrats majority control of the Senate, Lieberman is able to hold the entire party hostage to his and Bush's crazy, right-wing, war-mongering and Constitution-shredding agenda. Absent any fighting spirit and any real principles, the Democratic Party leadership will give Lieberman everything he wants over the next two years, just to keep him on board and themselves in power.

It's a bad bargain.

America, and the Democratic Party, would be far better off if Democrats in the Senate gave Lieberman his marching orders: either support the party caucus on issues like the war, civil liberties and challenging Bush's unconstitutional abuses of power, or forget getting any key committee assignments. If he doesn't like it, he can come out of the closet and become an honest Republican.

So what if that means the Republicans take control of the Senate? They still won't be able to pass any legislation, with Democrats in control of the House. They still won't be able to overturn Democratic fillibusters. And in any event, a Democratic House and Senate won't be able to pass any progressive legislation in the next two years anyhow, with Bush in the White House, casting vetos and issuing his signing statements.

Lieberman in the GOP will be a nobody -- a welterweight from a tiny state, out of touch with his own voters. He will be toast in his next election, when no Democrats will vote for him.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party will be cut free of one particularly noxious albatross.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Dave Lindorff, a native of Connecticut, is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, June 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net, and at www.counterpunch.org.

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Lieberman in the Dem majority

Submitted by rjcrane on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 12:12pm.

I can't agree more with all of the reasons Lieberman should have been cut loose by the Dems except for one: He couldn't have been cut loose if it would have cost the Dems control of the Senate. Here's why. Regardless of the many spineless Dems and there were about 16 spineless ones who refused to support Lamont or actually supported Lieberman after the primary, control of the Senate means control over the Committees and the legislation that is taken up and what gets investigated. Would we rather have Inuofe or Boxer in charge of the Environmental committee? Or Specter instead of Leahy? Are we more likely to see a change in direction in Iraq with the Dems in control of the Senate or the GOP? Will the red state Dems like Landrieu and the Nelsons with Lieberman.et. al. continue to work with the GOP to support bills like the Military Comm. Act and give Bush a green light on Iraq now that they aren't in the minority party anymore?

But that said, I think this discussion needs a different focus on reality as I don't think Lieberman holds any real cards now. I think the premise is somewhat off base in this article. If the Dems caved into Lieberman threats to leave the Dem caucus after the election the Dems were stupid to have allowed it. The truth is that Lieberman could not have switched parties. WIth his 35% of Dem support in the election and heavy backing by some of the unions he would have been a dead man walking if he switched parties and caucused with the Dems after promising everyone in the campaign he wouldn't do that and ran as if his seniority with the Dems were a done deal. Also Lieberman didn't just win because of GOP support . He also took a majority of the Independent vote too by deceptively campaigning as if he would bring the troops home.

There are many Senate Dems I would like to see purged in another election including Lieberman but the main focus should always be on ensuring a Democratic Majority even if this is only the lesser of two evils.

I also would expect many Dems NOT to give Lieberman a warm welcome despite all of their media photo ops to the contrary. Lieberman was a loser in the Dem. primary and didn't get the backing of the vast majority of Dems in CT. He also jeopardized the parties chances of taking back some House seats with his Independent run putting self interest ahead of party interests. He also took lots of support and money from Bush and the GOP in order to win and anyone with a brain should know he can't be trusted and eventually will pay the GOP back for this support. So I think the Dems will use Lieberman as much as they can without giving him much back. RJ

»

Why stop with Lieberman?

Submitted by stevehigh on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 12:21am.

If the goal is a Senate with a strong, honest-to-god Democratic caucus, we have to believe that each of the following could be defeated in a primary, which is preposterous, and that the Democratic primary upset winner would go on to beat the Republican.

Here are the 14 Senators who voted to enable the odious bankrupcy bill:

Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Assuming that each could be purged from the Democratic Party, how many of these seats do you think would go Republican? Ten? Twelve? All fourteen?

The situation is even worse in the House, where only 125 Democrats could be said not to be "washed out, gutless, calculating, and self-serving."

Lieberman's record on choice, labor, civil rights, and many other important issues not mentioned above is a good one. But if we are prepared to "cut him loose," let's get rid of the rest who are as bad or worse and live with absolute Republican rule for decades.

Inasmuch as I am 59, I oppose destroying our new-found majority. I like the sound of "Speaker Pelosi," and "Majority Leader Reid." Although I am healthy and my family long-lived, I don't think I'd survive to see the Democrats in power again unless I can figure out how to live until I am 109 or so.

»

Twaddle

Submitted by sofa-ist on Fri, 11/17/2006 - 9:17pm.

What a load of twaddle!

For crying out loud! Why stop with Lieberman? Maybe we should just get rid of the new Senators while we're at it - after all, the majority of them are considerably to the right of center, and they obviously don't fit this lunatic's political purity test.

You know, this sounds like the same crap we heard from the Greens in 2000, when they ran around shouting that Al Gore was indistinguishable from George W. Bush.

But we learned that lesson, didn't we? Or do you want to get fooled again?

Actually, I suspect this idiot is a Republican troll who has copied the kant in order to sound like a leftie. But his real intent is to do damage to the progressive left and the Democratic Party.

Don't buy his bullshit.

The Sofa-ist
Seattle Washington

»

Not far enough

Submitted by mgrello on Fri, 11/17/2006 - 5:42pm.

I am sure there are several Republican Senators, who like Lincoln Chaffe, can see the writing on the wall. Senator Chaffee recognized too late that the winds are changing in America, and clung to the Republican party, even though it no longer matched his, or America's ideology. Well, in two more years a whole new batch of Republican Senators stand poised to loose their seats, and I am sure there are some others that are ideologically more progressive than even some of the Democratic Senators we have today. A discrete invitation might yeild a little bit of breathing room... you get my drift?

»