Elections have consequences, but not for Joe

11/16/08

If nothing else, Joe Lieberman is a survivor.

The Democratic leadership has every right to toss him to the curb. But in the name of bipartisanship, not holding grudges or maybe self-flagellation, he's likely to stay on as chairman of the Senate committee on government oversight.

Funny how when Republicans win elections they aren't expected to cater to the other party's loudest supporters.

For a year, Lieberman was maybe the most vocal backer of John McCain in Washington. And that alone wouldn't have been a big problem -- Democrats wouldn't have liked it, but if he'd simply endorsed his candidate and made a few speeches, everyone would have been able to get over it.

It didn't go that way, of course. Lieberman, who reportedly begged Barack Obama to come to his rescue in the Senate primary two years ago, proceeded to attack Obama -- in that ever-so-polite manner of his -- at every opportunity.

In April, he was asked, "Senator Lieberman, you know Barack Obama; is he a Marxist?" Responded Joe: "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question."

Isn't it, though!

In May, he said: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, 'Why?'"

Why, indeed?

In August: We have a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."
Marxism, terrorism and treason -- in Joe's world, that counts as fair criticism.

The president-elect, being a magnanimous type, has signaled he wants Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. No one has suggested kicking him out, but if he loses his committee chairmanship -- the caucus will vote on that this week -- it's widely thought he's done with the party.

It bears repeating -- if Lieberman leaves the Democratic caucus, it will be because he chose to do so. He will gain nothing from switching to the Republican side; they have nothing to offer. It would be the senatorial equivalent of taking his ball and going home.

And still, the best reason to remove him isn't about settling a score, or meting out punishment. It's because he's bad at his job. In charge of government oversight, he saw no reason to hold hearings into a raft of Bush administration scandals and disasters, deeming "divisive" the idea of probing the response to Hurricane Katrina.

It's up to the Democrats to decide his future, and signs indicate he'll get to stick around. But however it turns out, let's dispense with this notion of "betrayal." Lieberman ran against his lifelong party's chosen nominee in the 2006 Senate race; he can't be surprised some people weren't thrilled with the idea.

He campaigned endlessly for the Republican ticket this year. He vouched for Sarah Palin and told the world how ready she was -- "She's so strong, she's so capable, she's so competent," he said. This about a person who stands for everything Lieberman has supposedly fought against throughout his career. Like in 2006, he repeatedly denounced the Democratic candidate and strongly implied that choosing not to listen to him was unpatriotic and would put lives at risk.

And apparently there are still people mad that mean old Al Gore didn't call before bypassing his ex-running mate and endorsing Howard Dean in 2004. These are adults we're talking about, right?

The Senate being what it is, Lieberman will probably stay right where he is, which means four more years of Sunday morning talk shows. That, truly, is what it's all about.

Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.