Joe Lieberman

I've often wondered why some politicians feel so compelled to play the game within the standard two party system?

One thing I believe will be accelerating for the near future is the disintermediation of political direction from centralized authority to individuals and candidates.  This is a product both of technology, and the decline of traditional media and traditional party "leadership" to impose discipline. As we've seen, some in the DC GOP establishment seem quite offended that party members reach their own conclusions.

The wired world is a world where party members are far more likely to figure out "the score" on an officeholder, and it will be far more difficult to "talk the talk" in one's home state when one hasn't "walked the walk" in DC.

The first victim of this phenomena was CT Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. No matter how often he had supported Democrats on other issues; the rank and file CT Democratic party saw his support for the Iraq War as a dealbreaker and he lost his primary.

Lieberman is still in the Senate because he took the advice of his mentor John Droney and ran a 3rd party race; correctly perceiving that in such a "blue state" the Republicans would not seriously contest the general election. But given that Lieberman won by 10 points, it's not clear to me even a full bore Republican effort would have been successful, and the greater risk was throwing the election to squishy Ned Lamont.

Joe Lieberman is not the first or last politician whose views, while palatable to voters in general, have moved where their party will not travel.  Oddly, the Lieberman lesson was lost on two other Senators in risk of losing Democratic primaries---Arlen Specter and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Arlen Specter thrived for decades under the rubric of being "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". or, at least moderate. The stimulus vote ripped this meme to shreds and left him easy pickens to any credible Republican who filed for a primary, in this case,Pat Toomey saw his opportunity and took it.       

Arlen Specter thought he had greener pastures as a Democrat, but now he had decades of votes in favor of Republican bills and nominees to defend. Not the least being the AUMF vote on Iraq. So unless the Democrats muscled all the serious challengers out of the way, Specter was facing serious trouble.

Delaware County Congressman Joe Sestak wasn't dissuaded (hard to browbeat those career military men) and the primary between him and Specter is already on the ugly side.

I think Specter is going to lose this primary. His prior support for George W. Bush is going to be toxic. A disproportionate number of Democratic primary voters are in metro Pittsburgh, where Specter ran weakly in both the 2004 primary and general. Sestak is an unknown there now; that won't last. Maybe the huge black vote in Philadelphia turns out for Specter in a '10 primary;he garned little of it against a weak general election opponent in '04. And Specter's support among moderates in the SEPA suburbs and the "T" is likely to erode if he tries a slash and burn against Sestak; who is a Philly suburbanite and not some raving lefty.

The only way for Specter to win a Democratic primary is to tack his policies far to the left. So if he wins, then he hands Pat Toomey the issue of whether Pennsylvania is well served by a political chameleon. Not that a Republican is a sure thing in 2010 PA, but against a self-serving DC insider, well, it starts looking a lot better. And Toomey will be the "nice guy" in the race having avoided the intermural blood match.

What if Arlen had run independent?  I think he had enough residual strength among voters who don't vote in either primary to win, plus suburban/small city PA is a bigger chunk of that electorate.than the urban dominated Democrats or the rural dominated GOP. Plus, the fear of letting a vocal conservative like Toomey in the Senate would have put a damper on Democratic funding and recruitment. Could Specter have navigated the path of being an "Obama Republican"?  Not sure he'd be worse off now for having tried; and he could grab the mantle of being too concerned about policy to worry about party politics.

So, we find a party switch didn't work out so well for a Republican who was too liberal. So how is staying in her party working for a somewhat conservative Democrat? Not so well.

Kirsten Gillibrand's misfortune was to be appointed to the Senate as an upstate ticket balancer to liberal Harlem Democrat Governor David Paterson.Paterson's standing has crashed and dragged Gillibrand with it.

Gillibrand was a pro-Second Amendment; anti-bailout; border security Blue Dog. At least she was when representing a Republican leaning upstate district. Since joining the Upper Chamber she's been reeducated to modify her views to appease liberal downstate Democrats.

And she shouldn't have bothered. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a liberal from Manhattan's "silk Stocking" district, has all but announced her primary bid and tied with her in the polls. And don't think anyone who has the Citicorp HQ in her district won't be able to raise cash at will.

Gillibrand's strength and weakness is she is viewed as "the upstate senator".  Upstate NY thinks--correctly--it is the forgotten child in NY State politics.  But it cast about 45% of the vote in an off-year general election. An upstate Democrat is well positioned to win a two way statewide race given the inevitable Democratic pluralities out of the City.

But an upstate candidate is poorly positioned to win a contested nomination. Over 50% of Democratic primary votes are cast in the City, and another 20% in the suburbs. There are very few parts of the City (the 9th CD; the 13th CD; some legislative districts in Queens) where a Democrat of Gillibrand's background is going to be well received.  As long as Maloney can frame this race as the NYC liberal against the less reliable girl from Albany, she is going to win this primary...since Gillibrand will need a virtually unanimous vote upstate to offset NYC.  And , barring sudden interest by a serious Republican--Maloney wins the general election.    

Let's assume the Republicans run someone akin to a John Spencer or a Howard Mills.  And let's assume Gillibrand did a Lieberman. I doubt the Republican could garner 20% of the statewide vote under this scenario; since I think Gillibrand pulls from their regional upstate base.

Now let's assume Upstate Democrats stuck with Gillibrand. Under these circumstances she'd just need to cobble together enough soft Republicans and independents in the suburbs and outer boroughs to win. (Hmm, Bloomberg and Giuliani endorsements?) . I think there's an easier path for her to get 42% in a general election than 50% in a Democratic primary. Especially since there already is a centrist 3rd Party (the Independence Party) which is guaranteed a ballot spot for the '10 NYS general election. 

I think that centrists of both parties are going to have to come to grips with the reality that if they want to stay in office, they will have to do it themselves. It's better to stay in office with the "cup of Joe" then to be tossed out trying to be the partisan your record proves you are not. 

Perhaps MA State Treasurer Tim Cahill, planning a independent candidacy against embattled Obama clone Gov. Deval Patrick, is the start of a trend?   

 We've been told that Republicans don't make moderates feel very welcome. How welcome are the Democrats under Obama, Reid and Pelosi?...especially if you are a moderate from a blue state? 

First, a big shout out to my buds @ The New York Times. While the "Paper of Record" chose not to use my name or the name of RedState's Moe Lane we were both quoted verbatim as the authoriative voice on what ought to be done about the "Cap & Tr8-ors"

Thanks for giving this a wider audience

 "I don't think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks," a commentator on the conservative blog the "Next Right" wrote. "Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times."

Guess it still feels like John Mellencamp sang in "Small Town" "hey, look at who's in the big town"

I digress

Here's the choice for the Cap &Tr8-ors

former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman has come out against Obama's "public option" health care scheme.

“If we create a public option, the public is going to end up paying for it,” Lieberman said following an hour-long confab with public-health experts at the Ashmun Street community center of the Monterey Homes public housing complex. “That’s a cost we can’t take on"

I've disagreed with Joe frequently, but on this one he is clearly part of the "reality-based community".  Evidently "Countrywide Kent" Conrad is also not sipping the public option kool aid either.

So, here's the deal for Rep. Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, Reichert and Smith (I omitted McHugh on purpose; he's already been bought).

 You can go with Joe Lieberman and publicly break with the central element of Obamacare.  

Or you can get sent to the ice floe.

Choose Wisely. (if you you choose poorly, this will do you more good than Pac $$ and endorsements)

The price of power.

Kos:

But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

A Kos commenter:

I hope Reid is as forgiving

when we all support his primary challenger.

Stoller:

I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates.  They aren't.

Sirota:

With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head.  In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?

Jane Hamsher, on the phone with Howard Dean:

JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves.  That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.

And Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't mind Joe Lieberman that much, and feel myself getting a little excited with his name being floated so prominently at the 11th hour. I wouldn't want him picking SCOTUS nominees, but he'd be a game-changing pick to prevent the ascendancy of the Goracle of Obama.

To me, the VP process isn't about Joe Lieberman or whomever McCain selects. It's about McCain. Showing that he isn't afraid to roll the dice and throw long isn't a bad thing. As far as my vote goes, McCain's willingness to be bold would convert me from anti-Obama to an enthusiastically pro-McCain voter.

True, this wouldn't help with the base. But I have to ask: How could the base possibly be any more demoralized than it is now? McCain is not by nature a base-pleasing candidate, and he has shown no inclination of changing. Why not at least do something that would spark some organic interest and excitement in a McCain-led ticket -- even if it were more trans-partisan and anti-Obama than conservative?

The fact is it's probably not going to be possible to get conservative energy that is distinctly pro-McCain, but it is possible to get enthusiastic about the idea of beating Obama. Anything that would get McCain to a stable lead would do more to get conservatives excited than having an "acceptable" VP and the one of two days of accolades from elites that goes with it.

As I've said above, this is not an endorsement of Lieberman for president, though his judgment on foreign policy, 75% of the President's job, is impeccable. Nor is this a choice any conservative should want in an election we "should" win -- such as one that would come after a two-term Democratic administration.

But McCain is the underdog in this race. History favors an Obama victory, and he will probably have a 10-15 point lead after tonight. In that context, I like the idea of McCain rolling the dice, particularly if the alternatives -- KBH and Meg Whitman -- are just as demoralizing to the base and share none of the symbolic upside of Lieberman.

I am concerned with much of the argument about V.P. picks. It seems sadly reminscent to me of the Miers debacle, where a host of well qualified  jurists had their names floated and then saw the shots come in (too old, too young,  too hard-line, wrong gender etc. ) So we saw the sad spectacle of the Bushies trying to pass off a close friend as a top level jurist--mostly because it appeared Harry Reid sorta didn't much mind her. 

The downside of punching holes in the rationale for Romney and Pawlenty is we might well get some second tier candidate whom the McCain team incorectly thinks is a good pick because they haven't been bashed lately--perhaps because the punditocracy, the party establishment and the blogosphere perceive the candidate as so unviable as to be unworthy of criticism.

We need to "Miers-proof" this process as well as critique the frontrunners. So here are my list of very lame dark horses---the type of picks that will put Mac in a deep hole he can;t dig out of .

Some of these people are great in their field. But they would not be of any use in getting Mac elected.

1. Lindsey Graham. No redeeming social value to this pick . At all.http://rightblog.zubrcom.net/ironman/the-worst-possible-mac-veep-pick

2.  Kay Bailey Hutchison  If we want a pro-choice candidate, a non Texan might have a better shot of trying to end up in the net vote dept. Much of America says "No New Texans"

3.  Haley Barbour A great example of politics being very unfair. One of the best Governors in America, but past life as a lobbyist and an accent you could cut with a fork, well... as I said, not fair, but.

4.Fred Smith of Fed Ex : You do not want to know how hated Fed Ex is amongst the union movement. Lots of working stiffs will covertly stiff Obama in the comfort of the polling place unless we throw a red flag like this at them. 

5. John Engler. Wife on Freddie Mac board. Since I expect them to be seeing Hank Paulson with the tin cup to start Q 4....nope.......   .

6. Jon Huntsman  the Mormon Governor nobody knows. UT is our best state already.

7. Joe Lieberman. One more time. He won't flip CT, but will flip out much of the base.

Let's air the dark horses now and get this out in the open. I do not want another "Miers moment" August 29.

In all the turmoil over the alleged interest in having Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate, a thought occurred to me.

McCain could do worse than Joe Lieberman. Or Tom Ridge, or Mitt Romney.  At least I can identify some pool of potential additional voters they might bring to the table. But McCain could pick someone less helpful. MUCH less helpful. 

a.) He could pick a V.P. who had a history not of appealing to Clinton-style voters; but of taking the Clintons over the coals

b) He could pick a V.P. who had alienated conservatives on such hot button issues as judicial appointments, immigration and oil drilling.

c) He could pick a V.P. who at the same time had no issue agenda to appeal to independents and moderates, having opposed abortion rights and the Medicare prescription drug plan.   

d) He could pick a V.P. who was a white southern protestant male from a state that is never in play. 

e) he could pick a Washington insider in a year when the mantra is "change" 

f) and he could pick a V.P. with the same verbal dexterity as Joe Biden

It has been rumored that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is McCain's "BFF". http://www.slate.com/id/2197499/

Being a "BFF" doesn't bother me; the man is not on the ballot. But if there was a better way to produce mutual political disarmament by all elements of the conservative and Republican rank-and-file while netting zero new voters, I've yet to figure out what it would be.

My nickel for a Bizarro world McCain V.P. choice is Lindsey Graham. What's yours?

When I took the readership's temperature on various VP picks, Joe Lieberman did not come out on top. Far from it. At 26% acceptability, he was at the bottom of the heap.

I was one of those 26%. To me, he wouldn't be the best pick, but he wouldn't be the worst either.

There is much to commend the "do no harm" VP calculus. Lieberman wouldn't be a "do no harm" pick. If you do the static analysis (is Lieberman better than, say, Rob Portman?) it's all wrong.

The difference is that any of the conventional picks don't help McCain with his #1 priority: winning the election. Despite narrowing the gap, McCain is currently about 3 points behind. He needs a better VP pick than Obama will come up with -- and unless Obama chooses Clinton, Obama's pick will be safe and milquetoast. Lieberman is the most obvious opportunity to shake up the calculus of the race. Picking him did something for Al Gore in 2000, taking him from a sure loser to a position of strength in the fall. A conservative VP on a losing ticket is still a losing ticket.

Lieberman's endorsement of McCain was a turning point in McCain's favor in winning the primary. Republican primary voters did not recoil in horror that a Democrat would give McCain his stamp of approval. Much the opposite. It's very possible someone else would have been the nominee had Lieberman not endorsed. It's easy to see how McCain would feel a deep sense of gratitude.

Win or lose, Lieberman as the VP nominee would have the practical effect of forcing him to switch parties sooner rather than later. If you want to notch a Senate seat and prevent a filibuster proof Obama majority, this is one way of doing it. As part of the Republican conference, he'd start voting as a party line Republican most of the time, though not always.

Now, to the caveats. I certainly wouldn't Lieberman to be President. Unless the worst were to happen, there is not much chance of that. Lieberman is 65, so there is a real chance he would embrace the Dick Cheney model. But moreover, the Republican Party would never give him the nomination. In a sense, conservatives would be better off with Lieberman than with a base demoralizing Ridge or Crist as the heir apparent.

As for being pro-choice, I think we need to make a distinction between a pro-choice Democrat and a pro-choice Republican. A Tom Ridge pick could signal that the party itself is abandoing the pro-life plank. But can you say that in the same way if the nominee is not a Republican? A Lieberman pick would say nothing about where McCain wants the party to go. Lieberman isn't about the Republican Party, and wouldn't really even be in it as the nominee. He would be Switzerland as far as internal party battles go.

I'm not saying Lieberman is my favorite pick. But if McCain wanted to build buzz and throw long to win, Lieberman would be the way to do it.

ARRA Editor: While Sen. Lieberman (D disguised as ID) prides himself as a maverick and is supporting Sen. John McCain (R) for President, Lieberman not only caucuses with the Democrats, he also gives them money. He recently made a second donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in what some see as a effort to assure of keeping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee intact, regardless of the outcome in November. In addition, Lieberman has been giving money through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC to various re-election campaigns for Democrat Senators.

Glenn Thrush at The Crypt reports:

After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation. “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly — with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party . . . More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.

Thus Lieberman’s schmear campaign. Lieberman’s Responsibility / Opportunity / Community PAC, has given the DSCC $30,000 since last year – in addition to doling out smaller donations to the New Mexico Democratic party and the re-election campaigns of Democratic centrists Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor.

Did you see the 230,000 Reasons? Money Talks: Lieberman in two years gave the DSCC $100,000 + $100,000 + $30,000 to elect or keep Democrats in power.

A Quiet holiday weekend in the Land of Steady Habits, but a few items worth reporting:

a)CT to Joe. Don't Go 

Remember all the buzz that Joe Lieberman on the McCain ticket might flip CT. Well, one poll isn;t finding it.

The Quinnipiac Poll came out and it was pretty much a horror show, McCain losing CT to Obama by 21 (as bad as Bush lost to Gore), and depressed approval ratings for all incumbents.http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1190

(one caveat: it appears that in all jurisdictions Quinnipiac is making Obama look good; check the RCP averages)

Lieberman's move to McCain's side has not helped his standing.http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189. He's down to 45% approval , due to the fact Democrats are now 62% disapprove. 

As far as Lieberman running on a ticket with McCain, well it is 14% more likely to vote McCain; 32% less likely. Democrats and blacks are the predominant "less likely" so one like wonder how likely they'd ever be to vote for McCain, but there is no offsetting groundswell from independent voters akin to the surge that elected him in the three way 2006 race.

B) Hate the people, policies are , well , maybe

GW Bush is as popular in CT right now as dandruff. He is running at 19% approval, 78% disapproval. Even Republicans are split down the middle.

But quitting Iraq is not as popular as one might think.  47% of voters in this dark Blue state favro immediate withdrawal; 48% favor staying in Iraq until it is stable. 

C) Fault lines

While McCain is getting crushed with under 35 year olds and has virtually no measurable support from black voters; he is tied with Catholics and staying within hailing distance with over 35 year olds and voters outside the Hartford area.

D) Can I call you sweetheart?

CT voters stopped saying this about Dodd. He is stuck at 51% job approval and his disapproval rating is rapidly rising, up to 34%. This is significant sicen the last poll was done at what was deemed a nadir of Dodd popularity in the wake of his failed Presidential bid.

His re-elect is down to 51% and his "hard" re-elect is only 14%. On the other hand, 19% of the voters are now certain NOT to vote for Dodd.

This is particularly troubling for the Dodd camp when you consider his approval and re-elect numbers are now 5 points worse than the Barack Obama ballot test; which means he is bleeding liberal and Democrat support to some measure.

A 51%-39% re-elect number is quite similar to some now former senators in the last cycle had two years out. With 59% of the voters wanting a broader investigation of Dodd's friendly mortgage deal, there is not liable to be too many laughs in the Dodd camp, that is, unless  he finds the Sunday comic in the Courant amusing (it's not on line yet, I'll post it when it's up)

The news out of the McCain camp today...the launching of a new organization specifically to encourage non-partisan support for McCain. The group is to be chaired by...who else...Senator Joe Lieberman.

http://citizens.johnmccain.com/

My favorite part:

Tell Us About Yourself

Political/Campaign Experience
If so please describe:
Role with Clinton Campaign
If so please describe:

 So, "our" man McCain continues to cozy up to the left and now Clinton supporters in particular. Is there any love for the right? Since when did conservative voters become chopped liver? I had originally thought McCain would go with a conservative (or at least a faux conservative) VP, but now I'm wondering if he's not just going to go middle-of-the-road all the way and hope to score the win with help from Hillary's fans.