The Insignificance of Lieberman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 12:58:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As readers of this blog know, I was quite committed to defeating Joe Lieberman. Mostly due to his kowtowing ways to Bush and the GOP. Also due to his horrible role on Iraq. And finally due to his role as moralizer and criticizer in chief of Democrats - the Fox Democrat.

But Joe Lieberman won. But it is a hollow victory for him. He is no longer a Dem. His voice on Iraq is no longer relevant due to the big Dem win yesterday. His role as a Fox Dem is no longer operative.

Yes Joe will chair some committees and do nothing on them and no one will pay attention to them. Frankly, no one ever did. Joe is not a leader in the Senate, not a leader in the Democratic Party nor a leader on Iraq.

Joe is now basically going to be a pork barrel politician bringing home bacon for Connecticut. He has no national role and no Party role.

He is the equivalent of say, John Ensign or Norm Coleman. Except he will vote for Harry Reid as leader. A big except. Joe won't be happy and may try to squirm out of his commitment. We'll have to watch for that.

The Bullmoose does not realize this yet. He deludes himself:

The Moose gloats and kvells. There is great joy in Mooseland. The nutroots have struck out. Joe Lieberman has prevailed. The vital center is victorious! . . . "I will go to Washington beholden to no political group, but only to the people of Connecticut and my conscience," Mr. Lieberman told supporters in his victory speech Tuesday night at the Goodwin Hotel here. He said his victory was "a declaration of independence from politics of partisanship," adding, "I will be an independent senator, but I will not be alone."

Actually Joe, you will be alone. Joe was not head of any vital center because it only existed in the figment of their imagination. That was our point. You'll find out now, when the Republicans have no use for you.

< Nuclear Option Defused | A Conciliatory Bush? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Insignificance of Lieberman | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Insignificant How? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 01:51:25 PM EST

He was so insignificant that every dem leader was campaigning for Ned Lamont to secure victory for the party. I recall seeing all of them out there stumping for Ned, in fact I am quite surprised that he lost with all the support he rec'd from HIS party.

They were afraid of Joe winning then and they should be more afraid now. Every dem is not going to vote along party lines and they will count on Joe to help. Will Joe help out of his conscience or will he stick it back to the dems for not supporting him.

Being that the dems did not support Lamont out of fear that Joe would win, perhaps they can dangle that out in front of him. But Joe is holding the cards in a 51-49 senate.......

: Every Dem leadet (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:21:26 PM EST

Yes you followed the race closely I see.

BTD, You don't think... (none / 0) (#1)
by TomStewart on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 01:12:49 PM EST

That the Dems will bend over backward to keep Joe happy? They will have a majority of one in the Senate, and Joe will be making noises and batting his big eyes at the repugs to get the point over how much they need him to keep that majority.

I'm betting the Dems will take him back and try to keep him happy by giving him what he wants, but then, where will he go? It's true that Joe looks out for Joe, and with the repubs out of the majority, Joe will want to be back with the Dems and maybe start acting like a Dem.

I think I just argued myself out of my own posistion...

: I suspect Harry Reid (none / 0) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 01:24:10 PM EST

will be actively courting Snowe and Collins on issues where they may vote with the Democrats as Lieberman insurance.

: N ope (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:24:12 PM EST

They just won't give him an excuse to flip.

re (none / 0) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 02:35:01 PM EST

Actually he came out of this MORE important than if he simply won the Democratic primary and coasted to an easy win over a token Republican. Like it or not, the Democrats have to suck up to him because he holds the balance of power and can essentially reshuffle the deck if he doesn't like the cards given him. On top of that, he will get a lot more media attention than he would have otherwise and he can portray himself as the guy who stood up to the onslaught and not only won but has the plaeasure of making those out to get him bury the make nice.

The best spin you can reasonably put on it is that he will never be a viable candidate for President in either Party but he really had no shot at that before this year so that's not a real loss for him.

As per usual, BTD your analysis is absurd.

I agree (none / 0) (#6)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 02:51:07 PM EST

From the left, I am still waiting for BTD to provide intelligent insight to this site and truth be told I have yet to see it.

BTD - It is easy to say "republicans suck" but the why is where analysts earn their money. I would like to see some thought in your posts instead of pure emotion and in some cases, drivel.


Heh (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:20:57 PM EST

You need analysis to know that? And you say you are of the Left?


I'm with you, Jl. (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:46:19 PM EST

For the past month or so, I've felt as though this site has been hijacked by BTD, election politics and BTD's unpleasant ways.

imo, he's only marginally above the level of that guy PINLA that got banned a while ago, and some other similar types. If any of us acted like BTD, we would be banned.

Since the big election is over - and I assume JM will now be able to spend more time on her site like she used to - will BTD go somewhere else?

Or will BTD stay and, I think literally one-handedly, TL to devolve into a same-old-same-old political fight site?

It would be nice to see TL return to it's professed purpose, ie., "The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news."

Maybe something to bring up on the next open thread...


Bad news (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:50:18 PM EST

I'm staying and will likely hijack the site again for the 2008 elections.

See, sometimes there are these things called elections and they happen every two years and . . .

See Sarcastic, that's called humor. To act like me you need to learn that.


TL's professed purpose (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:56:09 PM EST

For the past month or so the Midterm elections have been dominating all news. You don't see the actions of the Bush administration and the gop the past few years as "crime-related political and injustice news" and Talkleft as providing Liberal coverage of those actions?


Edger (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:08:57 PM EST

I understand what you're saying and I don't dispute it.

My point is that this site has undergone a fairly strong change in focus over the past month or so due to BLD, and because of him TL become a much less interesting and much less civil place, imo.

I don't think I'm the only one to recognize this.

I liked what TL had to offer up to a month or so ago much more than what it offers now. What can I say?

I know, I know, I can scroll by his (multitudeness) threads or pack my bags and leave, hey, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out, blah blah blah.


"the politics of crime" (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:16:29 PM EST

Well, no. Really it only seems to have "undergone a fairly strong change in focus over the past month"
because of the elections. TL herself has repeatedly made clear that her site is psartisan in nature and will stay that way, and because of that partisanship the elections have been only one of many opportunities to focus on the "crime-related political and injustice news".

Lately there has been less threads about nonpolitical crime, I'll grant. But Tl's tagline is still "the politics of crime".


Well, (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:18:40 PM EST

Edger, I suggest we agree to disagree. Won't be the first time. :-)


OK :-) (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:24:49 PM EST

You're right there. Won't be the last either, I'm sure.

Either to agree or disagree. We've done both many times, after all. ;-)

You've given me much to think about in the past, Sarc. I hope I've returned the favor here?


Edger (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:22:49 PM EST

Yes, you've given me much to think about as well.

With BLD there are two main things that I dislike.

The first we've discussed and disagreed on :-), the second is his truly stunning lack of common TL-type civility.

He's often personally aggressive and abrasive, and often doesn't even attempt to engage in reasonable and substantive dialogue. Yet he's one of the 4 head honchos here.

His actions are in stark contrast to the other 3 honchos here - JM, TChris and LNILR - and in stark contrast to most of us as well...mostly, I think, because as "little" people we know we'd be banned if we were as confrontational as he.

And I think the reason for this is that BLD is anonymous while the other three biggies are not.

We know their names and their bios. They have careers on which public BLD-type internet churlishness would reflect badly, while BLD is just some anonymous know-nothing blowhard blogger like the rest of us.

Perhaps if he were not anonymous like the other 3, he might think a little more before he typed?


well, (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:33:32 PM EST

Buy him a beer. He'll probably buy you one right back. Do it again a few times till you'er both a little blurry, then go out back and kick the snot out of each other. Then help each other back into the bar, and have another round.

It'll hurt like hell, but you'll both feel better in the morning.

What do you think? ;-)


: I think (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 07:04:44 PM EST

it's late. Good night Edger. :-)

I agree (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:00:02 PM EST

In my opinion BTD has done nothing but damage the credibility of this site. I cannot imagine why Jeralyn would give carte blanche to him. I hope he's not merely her hatchet man saying things she herself thinks but is too wise to actually utter.

I'm certainly hoping that now that the election is over we can be spared his incessant nonsense.


Well... nonsense. (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:09:38 PM EST

Can you point to anyone else who agrees with what you just said?

So far as I have seen Big Tent has only "hatcheted" dumb or trollish comments or "incessant nonsense", and does not engage in ad hom's.

I must admit I get tired of "incessant nonsense" myself, so I can't blame Big Tent. :-)


Edger (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:34:01 PM EST

Judged by my detractors, I think of myself as highly acclaimed.

I enjoy their silliness. Rather boring.

Roy is more fun, he has game.


Silliness (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:39:16 PM EST

Sarc too, Big Tent. I've had some really good discussions with him. I think I understand his frustration today - he genuinely does get into the more non political topics. Jl, too.

I get pretty farkin' silly myself sometimes. You know that. ;-)


Isn't everyone? (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:41:57 PM EST

Met a guy in a bar one day. He was wearing a hat that said on the front "One of us is an A$$hole".

I sure am sometimes. Isn't everyone? ;-)


: Personally (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:44:41 PM EST

Most of the time.

I've never had any (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:44:02 PM EST

I have only had attacks from him and rather obtuse ones generally.

Perhaps he has a better side.

But I expect he will attack the length of my Tester post or some other such silliness. Because that is all I have ever seen from him.

He certainly never joined my Hofstadter posts, or my originalism Dred Scott posts or anything like that.

I have written about the election in the runup and he has done nothing but complain about it. That, to me, is simply stupid.


: Yeah. (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:57:36 PM EST

Heh, I don't know what to say. There are some people I can never find a way to get along with with either. Human nature I suppose, and the nature of politics too?
In twenty or thirty years will anything any of us say today matter?
And People Call Me a Pessimist. ;-)

re Joe (none / 0) (#7)
by ding7777 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 02:56:12 PM EST

If Joe wants a chairmanship he'll caucus with the Dems. Other than that, Joe voted with the Republicans before yesterday anyway (Iraq, Alito, bankrupcy, Social Security, etc)


As usual Decon (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:23:15 PM EST

Your disagreement makes me feel right.

The Nutroots cost the Dems big in this election right Decon?

How'd that prediction work out for you?

I wish I had soe smart people challenging me.

Where's Roy?


Speaking of Norm Coleman... (none / 0) (#5)
by chemoelectric on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 02:41:40 PM EST

Norm Coleman (empty space surrounded by skin and clothing) probably has considered changing party again.

It's gonna be interesting... (none / 0) (#30)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:53:00 AM EST

To see who switches sides in the Senate. If a Republican switches then Joe loses his relevance. Look for the wooing to be applied to some northern Republican senators in the near future by the DNC.