Peretz and his acolytes at TNR are not Democrats (his non-acolytes over there are damn good) but Likudniks. Consistently.

Peretz endorsed Obama in the primaries for one reason. He hates Hillary. In the general, he will endorse McCain because he will conclude that the people around Obama are "dangerous" for Israel.

The Lieberman thing is all about Israel.

In fact, nothing at the Peretz side of TNR is about anything else. The rest is commentary.

Ed is so forgiving sometimes.

Lieberman crossed the line when he stayed in the Senate race after losing the Democratic primary. He turned his back on the party that made him because he thinks he deserves to be in the senate forever.

And the Democratic rewarded him for it with a cowardly response. The party should have backed Lamont loudly and vocally. Instead they tried to play it safe figuring that Lamont win or a Lieberman win would be equally acceptable even though everyone could see that a Lieberman victory with a narrow majority would put him in a powerful position.

Now he endorses McCain and you can still find Democrats willing to defend him. Lieberman does these things because he can. He can because the party let him.

What Obama is saying, an his supporters understand this, is that what Dems want for the country is what most Americans want. He is proposing taking the liberal/progressive/Democratic label off the message and just talk about Americans.

That is 100% the opposite of what Lieberman is doing. He is embracing the conservative/neo-con/Republican message and calling it bi-partisanship.

We can all understand why Harry Reid, whose Majority Leadership depends on Lieberman's current cooperation,

That's not the case. The majority/minority status is written in stone (well, on paper) for the entirety of this Congress, based on the Leadership agreement between the two parties after the '06 elections.

The reason the Senate flipped in'01 was that the agreement for that Congress was different due to the fact that there was an actual tie.

From WaPo:

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.

A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010400802_pf.html

And it's not like it would screw up votes, since the Repubs already have an effective 60-vote requirement to get anything done.

destor23:

Oh, I dunno. Most national Democrats did support Lamont in the general, and it's not clear to me that more non-CT support for Lamont would have won it for him. JIL really won the general because there was no viable Republican candidate in the race. And the Senate leadership had zero choice: it was accept Lieberman or leave the Senate in GOP hands.

It's a far different ballgame now, on many fronts, and that's one reason why an all-or-nothing attitude towards Lieberman, based on the assumption that one way or another, he's always been exactly what he is today, seems wrong to me.
I can't see into his soul, but I do know the lines he's now crossed have to be acknowledged and enforced, whether or not you think it was all predictable.

Ed Kilgore

This argument conflates "bipartisanship" with abandonment of party.

It's worse than that. It conflates Republican partisanship with "bipartisanship".

Which seems to actually be a very common error when Lieberman comes up...

Why does Reid's majority leadership depend on Liarman's cooperation? I thought there was an agreement that the parties would keep their respective ranks until the end of the current congress regardless of what happens in the interim. Am I way off base on this one?

I'm doing this post in no small part because I've never been a Lieberman-hater, a New Republic-hater, a Marty Peretz-hater, or a Jamie Kirchick-hater.

Why not? They all have deserved it. You're just now catching on? Welcome to the bandwagon.

Besides, why is TPM still linking to Peretz's skanky little danseuse from the front page. I don't get it. There's no there, there.

More broadly, Reid's unwillingness to punish Lieberman for openly working against the party sends a clear message to American voters: Democrats are weaklings who cannot be trusted to defend their own party, let alone the country.

BTW, Ed, you forgot to mention when the Democratic leadership stripped Phil Gramm of his committee seat in the early 80's for secretly sharing party budget strategy with Reagan and the GOP. Unlike Holy Joe, Gramm at least had enough self-respect to resign and win back his seat as a Republican...

Agreed. I love Specter and would vote for him against a lot of Democrats, but some of Lieberman's recent actions make me want to throw up. I'm done being a Lieberman apologist. Go join the Republicans and maybe you can regain my trust.

Not only has he abandoned the party, but he's abandoned his state and the country as well, for the Likud.

Great piece but you completely ignore the mention of Israel and the potential for "Empty-suited" Reid to act fearing blowback from AIPAC.

Frankly, Lieberman is a traitor. Why? Simple, he always puts the interests of Israel before those of America.

When it comes to money there is no limit to how much we can send to Israel.

When it comes to military costs (human, materiel and capital) there is no limit when it can be linked to Israeli interests.

And when it comes to American global prestige, Israel is more important than anything America pays.

The guy has been a disgrace even before these recent affairs. And lo to the Democrats (Clinton's, Obama and others) who failed to support Ned Lamont.

As for removing his Democratic associations; Hell yes and immediately since the Democrats haven't done anything anyway.

And while your at it remove his citizenship as well!

Mark my words: The Republican ticket will be McCain-Lieberman. This will be an exceptionally potent ticket. Lieberman will strengthen McCain's support among conservative Christians, plus he'll bring along many Jewish voters (and more importantly, Jewish activists and donors). Plus Lieberman will add an aura of bipartisanship and moderation (particularly on domestic issues) to the Republican ticket, increasing the appeal of that ticket to a large group of swing voters. And Lieberman won't alienate too many of the red-meat Republicans--a group that has already largely embraced him because of his support for Bush's war and his break with the Democrats in his Senate campaign.

This ticket will be especially strong if matched against Clinton. Clinton's base consists of Reagan Democrats and security Democrats (including the subset of security Democrats who are strongly pro-Israel). Reagan Demcrats, however, will be more comfortable voting for a man than a woman and are therefore likely to switch to McCain in the general election even if they're voting for Clinton in the primaries. And security Democrats will be attracted to McCain's military service and his strong support for the war. Lieberman will give these security Democrats an easy way to pretend they are remaining loyal to their Democratic roots while voting Republican. And the pro-Israel subset of security Democrats might like Clinton, but will have a tough time not voting for Lieberman. Matched against Clinton, therefore, McCain-Lieberman will win large portions of Clinton's base (Reagan and security Democrats), plus attract many independent swing voters. Worse for Clinton, her high negatives make it difficult for her to attract voters beyond her base. So as a significant portion of her base defects to McCain-Lieberman, there will be no other groups of voters to replace them. Clinton will be beaten handily.

Obama has a better shot of beating McCain-Lieberman, though the challenge will be great. Obama's base is not going to desert him for McCain-Lieberman. And Obama has the ability to appeal beyond his base--particularly to educated, relatively upscale suburban voters who often vote Republican. Plus Obama gives Independents and swing voters who want a sharp break from Bush's war policies a real alternative to the "two old white men" who (with Clinton) have backed Bush's war. Obama will remain a strong candidate against McCain-Lieberman, especially if he continues to motivate his supporters as he has so far and if he can successfully contrast his youth and freshness against the staleness of the two old white men. But it will be a tough contest and we may very well face four more years of men more interested in fighting wars in the Middle East than making America strong at home.

You mean Lieberman isn't really a Dem? Holy crap... why didn't I realize it sooner?

Next week at TPM: "Is Zell Miller A Little Too Cozy With The GOP?"

I thought JoeL left the party years ago, although there are a lot of people in the party (including Reid) who haven't quite learned that.

What bothers me is Reid not wanting to kick JoeL out of his cushy committee chairmanships in the next session. That's the sign of a majority leader who can't lead and won't get out of the way.
JoeL should have lost his seniority after the last election - he changed party, and that should have removed the seniority right there - but they apparently couldn't stand him whining about it and gave him back his toys. I jsut hope they stopped talking about strategy and planning within earshot of him, because I'd be willing to bet he was going away and telling all to the GOP members he likes so much.

I say, why wait for the election? Let's call his bluff and throw him out now! The Senate is already controlled by Republicans in all but name. Who cares if party control switches for a few months, given the "Democratic" majority's utter lack of spine and complete capitulation to Bush on virtually every issue and piece of legislation in this Congress.

The bottom line is that Joe Lieberman is an unmitigated asshole whose ego knows no bounds. This has always been the case, it is just that this unimpressive little man was a virtual unknown outside DC until Gore unfortunately elevated him into the national spotlight. He is and always has been a sanctimonious, self-absorbed jerk, and he couldn't care less about anything beyond himself. That's the real problem here and it always has been.

If the Democrats can manage not to find a way to defeat themsleves this year and they actually do gain a seat or two in the Senate, they should humiliate him in every possible way. They should follow up on that by literally ganging up on him if he dares to run for reelection again. He's an absolute disgrace to himself, to the Senate, and to his state.

The only thing mildly newsworthy about any of this is that there are Democrats just now starting to come to the realization that Liberman might just be a lousy Dem.

I mean, yeesh... we're halfway through the semester, but some of you kids ain't even bought your books yet!

Lieberman is 'only the chairman of governmental oversight' is one of the reasons we are in the mess that we are in now, no oversight. No oversight of the financial world, no oversight of the Pentagon (spending, covert operations, methods of war making, anything), no oversight of the DoJ, no oversight of the FEC, no oversight AT ALL over the DHS. And so on.

The problems with leaving Lieberman in his position are that the baddies will get away with what they have been doing, the baddies will keep on doing what they are doing, there will be no new oversight rules written, and so the baddies will forever keep on doing what they are doing. Is this what we want?

Strip Joe of his chairmanship. And convince a couple of Rs to vote with us - we won't have to fear the veto, so the faux filibuster will not work as often as it does now.

Maybe Lieberman could run as Hillary's vice president.

Yoiks! What if Hillary loses the party nomination and decides to run as an Independent? After her shameful and destructive campaign it would be the next logical step.