Time for him to go.
That's it. I'm convinced. There's not enough red-state-moderation, damage-control strategic value lurking in all that poor-me-I'm-a-victim-of-my-party's-ideals self-pandering to justify it. Not a single instance where the Senator slips in a quick, under-the-radar defence of his party or its leaders, other than that vague reference to "the issues on which I agree with Democrats -- health care and education": distant, harmless bread-and-butter topics over which a few of Hannity's listeners might have a vaguely Dem-leaning view but over which nobody in his orbit, bombarded by Hannity's incessent talk of the "far left" and national security, will actually cast a vote. Lieberman wasn't even willing to come out and deny that, had he been the deciding vote, he might have cast it for Alito.
It's not even that the interview in itself is terribly damaging. It's a self-selected audience of rabid sanctimonious conservatives who are already lost to a robust partisan-liberal message and Lieberman is simply playing to that particular base. The problem is just that: he's just playing, just indulging himself, and perhaps, more damagingly, he's indulging the possibility that he might someday have to become a political independent if he angers too many activists and donors in his party of first choice. Either way, the big problem is how little substance there is anymore to fill in the yawning gap between this sort of interview and those he gives his more progressive hometown papers, to justify the constant playing of both sides.
It wasn't, I argue, always so. Once, Lieberman was closer to Russ Feingold than to Chuck Grassley in his "principled" idiocyncrasies, directing his considerable legislative and strategic energies toward certain ideals: maintaining funding for federal regulatory agencies in the '90s, say, or giving the Dems a loud voice on homeland security post-911 (however misguided his attempts on that issue turned out to be), or harnessing John McCain's clout toward pushing a politically viable alternative to start hitting Kyoto targets, or just generally being a walking tribute to the idea that progressive pluralism isn't incomptable with classic American puritanism (a more important idea, I'd say, than we non-puritans are willing to admit).
The trick, however, is using one's "bipartisan" credentials to redefine the "partisan" issues you care about as common interests and move on them. Hillary Clinton has famously been indulging in this sort of across-the-aisle, changing-the-tone prudish moderation schtick. You might balk at the strategy itself (I do), but it's hard to doubt that HRC is strategizing as someone whose personal futures and loyalties are harnessed irrevocably to the fate of the Democratic Party, and whose goals must coincide to some extent with those of the interest groups who form the "progressive" agenda in the U.S. and give the Democratic Party its lifeblood. The same can be said for Dianne Feinstein, who might want to tangle with the Constitution over burning the flag, but who also supported the Alito filibuster when enough of her constituents asked her to. It can be said for any number of red state moderates who opt to be Democrats even though it would be far easier to get elected and then to get rich afterward as Republicans.
That's no longer certain regarding Liebs, who seems more dilletantish, more self-pitying, and less attached to his party's hierachy of interests all the time. I don't subscribe to the whole list of sins that pile up against him on various blogs, and maybe to some extent it's a vicious cycle between Liebs and his activist detractors. But if he's has done anything "interesting" since his disgraceful vote against preserving habeas corpus for Gitmo denainees (including their right to challenge the US decision to send them back to their home countries upon release -- which at times could be little more than code for rendition), besides slipping his most recent party leader the shiv on his attempt at leadership during the Alito filibuster (and bragging about it on Hannity!), I've certainly missed it.
So I guess, with some sadness, it really is time for him to go. Although, of course, when it comes to this sort of thing, it's always important to put first things first: taking out "Club For Growth"-Democrat Henry Cueller in the TX-28 primary. This could be one seriously exciting midterm.
It's not even that the interview in itself is terribly damaging. It's a self-selected audience of rabid sanctimonious conservatives who are already lost to a robust partisan-liberal message and Lieberman is simply playing to that particular base. The problem is just that: he's just playing, just indulging himself, and perhaps, more damagingly, he's indulging the possibility that he might someday have to become a political independent if he angers too many activists and donors in his party of first choice. Either way, the big problem is how little substance there is anymore to fill in the yawning gap between this sort of interview and those he gives his more progressive hometown papers, to justify the constant playing of both sides.
It wasn't, I argue, always so. Once, Lieberman was closer to Russ Feingold than to Chuck Grassley in his "principled" idiocyncrasies, directing his considerable legislative and strategic energies toward certain ideals: maintaining funding for federal regulatory agencies in the '90s, say, or giving the Dems a loud voice on homeland security post-911 (however misguided his attempts on that issue turned out to be), or harnessing John McCain's clout toward pushing a politically viable alternative to start hitting Kyoto targets, or just generally being a walking tribute to the idea that progressive pluralism isn't incomptable with classic American puritanism (a more important idea, I'd say, than we non-puritans are willing to admit).
The trick, however, is using one's "bipartisan" credentials to redefine the "partisan" issues you care about as common interests and move on them. Hillary Clinton has famously been indulging in this sort of across-the-aisle, changing-the-tone prudish moderation schtick. You might balk at the strategy itself (I do), but it's hard to doubt that HRC is strategizing as someone whose personal futures and loyalties are harnessed irrevocably to the fate of the Democratic Party, and whose goals must coincide to some extent with those of the interest groups who form the "progressive" agenda in the U.S. and give the Democratic Party its lifeblood. The same can be said for Dianne Feinstein, who might want to tangle with the Constitution over burning the flag, but who also supported the Alito filibuster when enough of her constituents asked her to. It can be said for any number of red state moderates who opt to be Democrats even though it would be far easier to get elected and then to get rich afterward as Republicans.
That's no longer certain regarding Liebs, who seems more dilletantish, more self-pitying, and less attached to his party's hierachy of interests all the time. I don't subscribe to the whole list of sins that pile up against him on various blogs, and maybe to some extent it's a vicious cycle between Liebs and his activist detractors. But if he's has done anything "interesting" since his disgraceful vote against preserving habeas corpus for Gitmo denainees (including their right to challenge the US decision to send them back to their home countries upon release -- which at times could be little more than code for rendition), besides slipping his most recent party leader the shiv on his attempt at leadership during the Alito filibuster (and bragging about it on Hannity!), I've certainly missed it.
So I guess, with some sadness, it really is time for him to go. Although, of course, when it comes to this sort of thing, it's always important to put first things first: taking out "Club For Growth"-Democrat Henry Cueller in the TX-28 primary. This could be one seriously exciting midterm.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home