Don't do it Joe.
The Lieberman-as-Sec-Defence rumours are swirling again (on Face the Nation no less; this isn't New York Post gossip-page fare). I didn't believe it in February, but this time it's giving me a sinking feeling. Steve Soto nails all the relevant points:
1) Would Lieberman really do this to his party?
2) Would Lieberman really make a better SecDef than Rumsfeld?
At the risk of abandoning my role as the last liberal Lieberman (semi, grudging, close-to-the-last-straw) apologist in the blogosphere who doesn't blog in the third person or impersonate an animal, I think Steve is absolutely right to answer the second question in the negative. Lieberman is, I think, sincere and idealistic on Iraq. But he's also basically a pollyannaish dilletante on the subject. (Witness this rather magnificent Spencer Ackerman smackdown of Lieberman's things-are-improving WSJ op-ed, which came out the same day the Shia death squad news broke. Lieberman's claim in the same op-ed that "while U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism" came out one day ahead of the LA Times' scoop about the Pentagon's campaign to plant US-friendly propaganda in the Iraqi media (a story that's apparently too much even for Chris Hitchens to stomach.)
There's no real reason to believe that Lieberman would provide a competence or reality-based infusion at Defence. That's assuming he's even empowered in the role. Being a idealistic neoconservative Democrat and a member of the Armed Services Committee does not make one a practical expert on the military -- though simply being a Democrat may dramatically reduce the extent to which the Bushified military brass will respect and report to you. And the most objectionable thing about Rumsfeld is the torture thing, a subject on which Lieberman has, quite frankly, been pretty damn fuzzy himself ("[Regardiing Abu Ghraib,] I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized. And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody..."). With Liebs at Defence, there's not really any reason to expect a crackdown on the sort of practices Rumsfeld has been postmodernly overlooking for years now.
The only thing Liebs at Defence would do is give Bush bipartisan "maverick" cover. David Broder would bust an artery. Which is exactly why Mr. 41% Approval Rating and Karl Rove must think this is such a hot idea.
The reason I've been a (semi, grudging, nearing-the-last-straw) Lieberman apologist is because I think the main complaint that liberals have with Liebs -- his role as a "Fox News Democrat" as Kos put it recently -- is overblown. Lots of Americans watch Fox News; lots of Americans share negative (and false) views of the Dems as coastal Godless elites. One person's Fox News Democrat is another person's Toby Keith Democrat. More substantive criticisms of Lieberman -- his refusing to give up on the false Saddam-al Qaeda connection; his appalling vote to repeal habeas-corpus for Gitmo detainees -- I can't and don't defend. Like I said, I'm at the last straw.
But even at the last straw, I still give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt of understanding -- winkingly sometimes, as in this New Yorker article on the Dem hawks -- that you don't need the approval of "the blogger types" to be a Democrat, to be pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-environmnent, pro-fiscal sanity. You don't have to toe anybody's line. In a way, that's his value, such as it is -- to fill the huge howling vaccuum between Russ Feingold and Lindsay Graham, to prove that the big tent, for all the fighting going on within it, stretches from Avedon Carol all the way to the Bull Moose.
That goes out the window if Lieberman joins the Bush Admin. He'd actually be confirming every one of those myths I thought he'd been implicitly flaunting all this time. The line -- from David Broder to Glenn Reynolds -- would be that Kos and MoveOn and the Deaniacs drummed him out of the party, pushed him into the arms of the "grown ups" at the White House. And no doubt he'd do nothing to challenge the assertion; if anything, he'd milk it like a cow.
Liebs hasn't done anything yet and I still hope (I wish I could say I think) he won't, so I fully admit I'm frontloading the meladrama. But back on the third day of the 2000 convention, Lieberman's ticket was in a hell of a lot of trouble, down in the polls about 10 points and widely expected to lose. Tracking polls showed a sharp decline in voter approval for the Dems through the first two days of festivities in Los Angeles. And Lieberman took the stage and said the following:
Our opponents are decent and they are likable men. I'm proud to call many in their party my friends. But America must understand there are very real differences between us in this election. Two weeks ago, our Republican friends actually tried to walk and talk a lot like us. Did you notice? Yeah. Well, let's be honest about this. We may be near Hollywood tonight, but not since Tom Hanks won an Oscar has there been that much acting in Philadelphia.
Zing! In case we don't remember, Liebs and his running mate went on to win the election.
So did he mean any of that? What would he say now? And if he goes to Defence, won't he be asked what it means that he's now a member of same team he once ran against? Does he really want to open the Dems up to further charges of believing in nothing, of just saying things they don't mean? (Of being de facto Republicans?) Because that will be the story. Zell Miller gave the keynote speech for Clinton in 1992 and said of himself: "That this kind of voice could travel here from a forgotten corner of Appalachia is a testament to the grace of God and the greatness of the Democratic Party." There's your bloveating asshole precedent, Joe. It's up to you.
1) Would Lieberman really do this to his party?
2) Would Lieberman really make a better SecDef than Rumsfeld?
At the risk of abandoning my role as the last liberal Lieberman (semi, grudging, close-to-the-last-straw) apologist in the blogosphere who doesn't blog in the third person or impersonate an animal, I think Steve is absolutely right to answer the second question in the negative. Lieberman is, I think, sincere and idealistic on Iraq. But he's also basically a pollyannaish dilletante on the subject. (Witness this rather magnificent Spencer Ackerman smackdown of Lieberman's things-are-improving WSJ op-ed, which came out the same day the Shia death squad news broke. Lieberman's claim in the same op-ed that "while U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism" came out one day ahead of the LA Times' scoop about the Pentagon's campaign to plant US-friendly propaganda in the Iraqi media (a story that's apparently too much even for Chris Hitchens to stomach.)
There's no real reason to believe that Lieberman would provide a competence or reality-based infusion at Defence. That's assuming he's even empowered in the role. Being a idealistic neoconservative Democrat and a member of the Armed Services Committee does not make one a practical expert on the military -- though simply being a Democrat may dramatically reduce the extent to which the Bushified military brass will respect and report to you. And the most objectionable thing about Rumsfeld is the torture thing, a subject on which Lieberman has, quite frankly, been pretty damn fuzzy himself ("[Regardiing Abu Ghraib,] I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized. And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody..."). With Liebs at Defence, there's not really any reason to expect a crackdown on the sort of practices Rumsfeld has been postmodernly overlooking for years now.
The only thing Liebs at Defence would do is give Bush bipartisan "maverick" cover. David Broder would bust an artery. Which is exactly why Mr. 41% Approval Rating and Karl Rove must think this is such a hot idea.
The reason I've been a (semi, grudging, nearing-the-last-straw) Lieberman apologist is because I think the main complaint that liberals have with Liebs -- his role as a "Fox News Democrat" as Kos put it recently -- is overblown. Lots of Americans watch Fox News; lots of Americans share negative (and false) views of the Dems as coastal Godless elites. One person's Fox News Democrat is another person's Toby Keith Democrat. More substantive criticisms of Lieberman -- his refusing to give up on the false Saddam-al Qaeda connection; his appalling vote to repeal habeas-corpus for Gitmo detainees -- I can't and don't defend. Like I said, I'm at the last straw.
But even at the last straw, I still give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt of understanding -- winkingly sometimes, as in this New Yorker article on the Dem hawks -- that you don't need the approval of "the blogger types" to be a Democrat, to be pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-environmnent, pro-fiscal sanity. You don't have to toe anybody's line. In a way, that's his value, such as it is -- to fill the huge howling vaccuum between Russ Feingold and Lindsay Graham, to prove that the big tent, for all the fighting going on within it, stretches from Avedon Carol all the way to the Bull Moose.
That goes out the window if Lieberman joins the Bush Admin. He'd actually be confirming every one of those myths I thought he'd been implicitly flaunting all this time. The line -- from David Broder to Glenn Reynolds -- would be that Kos and MoveOn and the Deaniacs drummed him out of the party, pushed him into the arms of the "grown ups" at the White House. And no doubt he'd do nothing to challenge the assertion; if anything, he'd milk it like a cow.
Liebs hasn't done anything yet and I still hope (I wish I could say I think) he won't, so I fully admit I'm frontloading the meladrama. But back on the third day of the 2000 convention, Lieberman's ticket was in a hell of a lot of trouble, down in the polls about 10 points and widely expected to lose. Tracking polls showed a sharp decline in voter approval for the Dems through the first two days of festivities in Los Angeles. And Lieberman took the stage and said the following:
Our opponents are decent and they are likable men. I'm proud to call many in their party my friends. But America must understand there are very real differences between us in this election. Two weeks ago, our Republican friends actually tried to walk and talk a lot like us. Did you notice? Yeah. Well, let's be honest about this. We may be near Hollywood tonight, but not since Tom Hanks won an Oscar has there been that much acting in Philadelphia.
Zing! In case we don't remember, Liebs and his running mate went on to win the election.
So did he mean any of that? What would he say now? And if he goes to Defence, won't he be asked what it means that he's now a member of same team he once ran against? Does he really want to open the Dems up to further charges of believing in nothing, of just saying things they don't mean? (Of being de facto Republicans?) Because that will be the story. Zell Miller gave the keynote speech for Clinton in 1992 and said of himself: "That this kind of voice could travel here from a forgotten corner of Appalachia is a testament to the grace of God and the greatness of the Democratic Party." There's your bloveating asshole precedent, Joe. It's up to you.
1 Comments:
Dear God I hope you're right. One detail issue: if he resigns from the Senate now, and the Gov. of Connecticut replaces him, doesn't that mean that his replacement would be a Republican? That would suck.
I doubt he's going to move to Defense because a) What would Bush get out of a move like that? and b) it would give people in Connecticut a reason to be pissed at Lieberman, which couldn't be good for him. So what would he gain? Seems like a lose-lose proposition on both sides.
Post a Comment
<< Home