A cold hard look at Lieberman

Joe Lieberman will be chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. That's old news, but some people are still upset about it, and it looks like this might be one of those touchstone issues that demarcates ideology and alliances. Maybe not quite that dramatic, but it will not be forgotten.

I don't care that much, but I think the issue is worth a second look because of what it says about how Obama intends to govern. One of the primary concerns about letting Lieberman keep his post is that it makes Democrats look weak. I disagree.

Lieberman will tell you that he campaigned for John McCain because he honestly believed that McCain was better prepared to deal with the war on terror. I'm willing to buy that, because it was clearly against his best interest to actually campaign for McCain. If McCain had won, which was always a long shot, Lieberman would have been in his good graces, but the rest of the Senate Dems, who control the Senate, would have been furious with him. From a political strategy standpoint, it really did Lieberman no good to campaign for McCain. Which is why I believe that campaigning for McCain was, for him, an act of conscience; he certainly wasn't motivated by cynical political considerations.

But Lieberman lost his gamble. He ended up with the worst of both worlds: McCain lost, and the Democrats won enough seats that they don't need him as much as they used to, although they still would like to enjoy his company.

He didn't just lose his gamble; he lost a lot of political capital. Even after he kept his chairmanship, he's not the senator he was before. His chances of winning in 2012 are slim at best, so he's not a long-term threat to other senators. Most important, though, he accomplished nothing with his endorsement of and campaigning for McCain. Obama won Connecticut and Florida, the two places where Lieberman's endorsement might have made a difference.

Obama approaches Lieberman from a position of seriously superior strength. Obama put Lieberman in his place just by winning. By not opposing him, Obama put Lieberman in his debt. That is not weakness; that is being aware of your own strengths.

After gambling and losing, Lieberman's grip on his status in the senate was tenuous. If he had lost his chair, he would have been rendered impotent. By saving him, Obama made him powerful again, which is why he is in Obama's debt (and Harry Reid's). He disagrees with Obama on the war, but he's slightly less likely to oppose the new, very popular president if he owes him big time. Supporting the president is a powerful motivating factor in Washington; it's going to be difficult for Lieberman to do so.

But whether or not he would even do so is a different question. At the end of the day, it comes down to policy. There are a number of things that Obama wants to do that potentially involve homeland security, but his most important goals, i.e. ending the war in Iraq, winning the war in Afghanistan, would go through Foreign Relations, now chaired by John Kerry, or Armed Services, chaired by my favorite old pro from Michigan, Carl Levin. Will Joe Lieberman be able to make trouble for Obama? Honestly, I don't really know enough about the influence of the chair of the Homeland Security Committee to make a judgment there. Does Joe Lieberman want to make trouble for Obama?

My guess there is no. He will want to engage Obama in debate, but that's fine, and even healthy. I'm sure there will be some disagreements that are stronger than others; I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman frustrates Obama now and then. But serious trouble? I doubt it.

Barack Obama was elected President in part because he promised to change the tone in Washington. Part of that means calming down the rhetoric, respecting people who disagree with him, listening to those people, and not picking fights just because you think you're right. Obama is not interested in retribution, particularly for comments made in the heat of the campaign that ultimately turned out to be meaningless.

I once read a story about Abraham Lincoln after the end of the Civil War. He met some Southerners in the White House, and charmed them. His aides were distressed; they had hoped he would punish the rebels. Lincoln replied that he not only gained friends, he lost enemies in the transaction. Joe Lieberman is much more useful to Barack Obama and the other Senate Democrats as a grateful friend than as a bitter enemy. Lieberman might be able to make trouble for Obama as chair of his committee, but he's less likely to do so, given that Obama let him keep it (I'm not going to address to what extent Obama interfered with the drama in the Senate, but I think it's clear that if he had wanted Lieberman gone, he could have made that clear, and he didn't). If he had been kicked out of his chairmanship, he would not have had as good of a position for causing trouble. But he would have been much more likely to do so.

Welcome to an administration that understands how powerful being gracious can be. It's going to take some getting used to.

Lieberman survives

Joe Lieberman has survived a vote of no-confidence from his colleagues, the rest of the Senate Democrats, and will continue as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. The vote was 42-13. Looks like I was wrong.

There's a certain amount of bitterness on blogs, disillusionment with the Senate Democrat leadership, anger at the apparent refusal to discipline the wayward Senator. I'm not in that camp; I'm not that worried about Lieberman. Looking at this from a new perspective, I have an idea why I was wrong: for most Senate Dems, the punishment does not fit the crime. Lieberman campaigned for McCain, but he didn't actually make a difference, or at least not much of one. So the Senate Dems are probably feeling like they can afford to be magnanimous. It's a slap on the wrist for an infraction that was ultimately meaningless.

It's also very much insider baseball. This is the kind of thing that, for about 230 years, went on inside the Capitol, and never saw the light of day, let alone the light of YouTube. There's that old saying that those who like politics and sausage should watch neither being made. There have protestations of outrage, followed by handshakes and people agreeing to disagree, forgiving each other, and moving on. Politics as usual. But a level of detail that most Americans have never seen before.

As for the criticism of how Lieberman actually ran his committee. Apparently he didn't do a stellar job of oversight during the last two years, when oversight of how the Bush Administration was handling homeland security would have been welcome. But whether or not he should be removed from that post because of a failure of leadership is an issue to be decided by members of that committee. And it would be decided by them if any of them decided to challenge him for the chairmanship. Apparently no one is, so that option is foreclosed. I am not as worried about oversight of the Obama administration's homeland security policies. I would like there to be oversight of Obama & Co., just on general principle, but I'm not as worried if there isn't. As for the fact that he didn't exercise oversight when Bush was in power: water under the bridge.

Lieberman disagrees profoundly with Obama on the war. A major committee chair disagrees with the president of his party. Yes, and? This is normal. And probably healthy, actually. One aspect of the Obama presidency that I am looking forward to is a healthy respect for dissent within the party. Guess what Lieberman will be providing.

Politically, there's a slightly odd logic at work. The fact that Lieberman survived this vote may, in fact, be good for the Democratic caucus, because it means that Lieberman is now indebted to his fellow Dems. That effectively makes it impossible for him to switch to the Republicans. It also reduces the tension between Lieberman and the other Dems, particularly Obama, because Obama made it clear that he doesn't hold grudges.

Get used to it, folks. This is the Obama style: no vengeance, or at least no vengeance for the sake of vengeance. Too many Democrats, progressives, and liberals are still in reaction mode against the Bush administration. Time to change the narrative, folks. Joe Lieberman is still a United States Senator, and it's easier to work with people when you actually get along with them. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. More important: whenever possible, convert your enemies into friends.

Rachel Maddow on Joe Lieberman

I love this woman.





I think Evan Bayh suggested that Joe Lieberman apologize for his behavior during the campaign for good tactical reasons that I agree with. If Lieberman doesn't apologize, which, at this point, I seriously doubt he would even consider, then Bayh and other moderate Dems have cover: they can claim that they were willing to welcome Lieberman back into the arms of the Dem caucus, they just had this one minor requirement that he apologize. If he doesn't, then they can claim that they were fair and open-minded, and he wasn't. They really have no reason to work terribly hard to try to keep him aligned with Dems.

Imagine if Lieberman actually switches sides and becomes a Republican. The one senator that I can think of who did that was Richard Shelby, from Alabama, who switched from being a Democrat to Republican a few years back. But he's from Alabama - he was moving with his constituents. Lieberman would be moving against his constituents. How comfortable is a pro-choice New England Jew going to be in a party dominated by southern Christians? The only Republicans among the Jews in the Senate are Norm Coleman, who might very well lose to a Democratic Jew, and Arlen Specter, who will probably retire soon. If he does convert, I don't think the RNC is going to be a lot of help in his next reelection campaign.

There's an outside chance that Lieberman would resign, which would mean that the governor of Connecticut would appoint a Republican, but I doubt Lieberman would do that. He could have exited gracefully in 2006 when he lost his primary.

It's nice being a Democrat and having the luxury of not really being too worried about whether or not we keep Joe Lieberman.

Democrats to vote on Lieberman's chairmanship

The Democrats in the Senate are going to vote on whether or not Joe Lieberman should keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. They're not kicking him out of the caucus, which is good. I like Obama's position - they don't hold grudges.

I would be surprised if Lieberman survives as chair of this committee. He's going to be running for reelection in 2012, and chances are not good that he will be reelected. Lots of liberals across the country are still mad at him, for lots of very legitimate reasons. By a strictly political calculus, how would any Democratic Senator benefit by supporting Joe Lieberman? Chris Dodd has a certain allegiance to him, which is perfectly understandable. But otherwise, what would be the logic for someone like Carl Levin to support Lieberman? Many of them have known him for a long time, but there are some strong arguments against him: first, obviously, he's not a Democrat, even if he still votes occasionally like one. Second, he campaigned against Obama. Third, chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee is an important post, with oversight of some key policy areas, and it should go to a Senator who will use it to enact some real change. Fourth, and finally, what does Lieberman have to offer in return? He's probably going to be gone in four years, he's just one Senator, and, assuming he loses, he won't have that much power in the Senate. Rumor has it that he will get the chairmanship of the Small Business Committee as consolation, but that won't be a post where he can do many favors for or exact retribution from people who vote against him.

The man is history. It's just a matter of time.