Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Bushmiller's Delight | Fat people still fat, vex nati... »

Monday, October 30, 2006

Lieberman: The Silver Lining

posted by on October 30 at 12:26 PM

If Lieberman wins, there will be two Independents in the U.S. Senate: Lieberman of CT. and Bernie Sanders of VT. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but this will be the first time in the modern era that the U.S. Senate will have two Is. (Watch for the Time Magazine cover with Lieberman and Sanders on it: “The Independents!”) Sure, there are Independents at the state level … most recently Jesse Ventura in MN. was a big deal. But I think a concentration of them on the national stage, two Senators, is something to applaud.

The de facto effect of a Lieberman win will be to open the country’s mind a little to the possibility of third parties.

Lieberman and Sanders, obviously, come from different poles of the Democratic Party. Sanders is a Democratic-Socialist. And Lieberman is a moderate. And people, please stop freaking out about Lieberman: His voting record is similar to Cantwell’s … (He was, in fact, a key player behind the scenes on the ANWR filibuster and a key vote against cloture on it.) I think he’s going to caucus with the Democrats. Sanders has already promised to. Yes, a Lieberman win will spoil the thrill of a full-fledged Bush referendum on Nov. 7, but I think the longer term effect of two Is in the Senate is more important.

There’s something sneaking up on us (it’s not happening the way it was supposed to) with two Is in the U.S. Senate. And it’s a good thing. The netroots wanted to upend the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party… and well…

And if I’m right and Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, I think there’s something powerful and helpful (symbolically) to that. With two Is caucusing with the Democrats (rather than the monotone GOP), it lets the public know that the Democratic Party is the anchor for the more Independent minded politicians. In a country that’s longing for less polarization and more compromise, I think that reads really well for the Democrats.

Yes, I realize it could also look like a chipping away of the Democratic Party (vs. a unified GOP), but really, the unified GOP is going to read like an embattled circle the wagons kind of unity after Nov. 7.

RSS icon Comments

1

Lieberman and Sanders are hip to the indipendant music market as well! This past March both of them were at the SXSW music festival. Joe and Bernie were seen slightly bobbing their heads and tapping feet to a band comprised of ex-Wilco/Pavement/Calexico members. Granted the Senators were a little oblivious to the younger bulk of bands at the festival, but the interest bodes well. When asked about political party affiliation, Sanders rebuffed, "Nobody mentioned a kegger to me!"

Posted by aspiring onion writer? | October 30, 2006 12:45 PM
2

I love Bernie.

Posted by sara | October 30, 2006 12:46 PM
3

"And if I’m right and Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats."

That's quite a leap considering his rhetoric lately.

Posted by Andrew | October 30, 2006 12:48 PM
4

I think it's still possible that Lieberman would remain a Democrat if he wins, even though he ran as an I. Not sure, though.

Posted by Gabriel | October 30, 2006 12:53 PM
5

I haven't really been following this campaign; so I'm surprised that you're so speculative about Joe "Indpendent Democrat" Lieberman's intentions after the election. Hasn't he repeatedly said that he'd caucus with the Democrats? He claims that Reid has promised him seniority and committee appointments.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152275/

Posted by josh | October 30, 2006 1:00 PM
6

I would think Sanders is more of Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist.

Posted by chris | October 30, 2006 1:21 PM
7

Isn't Lieberman a closer right-winger?

Another bad possibility is that R's, sensing the backlash, will run as I's to maintain their edge.

Posted by Gomez | October 30, 2006 1:39 PM
8

Or, it could mean that the Democratic party is so fucked up, that not even people that agree with them will stay in the party.

Posted by BC | October 30, 2006 2:01 PM
9

I think it's 50/50 whether he caucuses with the Democrats (or the "Democrat Party," as he's started referring to them.) He's been talking like a Republican lately, and he clearly feels slighted by the Democrats.

I think there's also an outside chance that he'll become Secretary of Defense. If that happens, a replacement Senator will be appointed by Connecticut's Republican governor.

Regardless of what happens, if he wins reelection it seems likely he'll try to stand in the way of investigations of his pal Bush.

Posted by Orv | October 30, 2006 2:34 PM
10

If both happened, maybe we'd see the decline of the silly partisanship that perpetually gums up the progress of our Federal government.

But that's also idealism and far from realistic.

Posted by Gomez | October 30, 2006 2:51 PM
11

Angus King was governor of Maine at the same time that Ventura was in Minnesota's statehouse. In fact, he was re-elected in 1998, the same year that Jesse won his only term.

Maine also had an independent governor between 1975 and 1979 (James B. Longley).

Posted by N in Seattle | October 30, 2006 3:04 PM
12

Would Lieberman have an "I" next to his name given that his party affiliation is not, in fact, independent? He's in the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.

Speculations about which party he will caucus with in the event of a victory may be moot if he is named as the new Sec. of Defense. In that case, the Republican governor would get to name his replacement, putting Connecticut back into the "R" column.

Posted by Lamontgomery Burns | October 30, 2006 3:14 PM
13

Is it just me? I can not help it but thinking that Lieberman don’t care about the Democratic Party in this country. He is one selfish self centered politician who only cares about him self first, Israel second and US Last.

Posted by Media Critic | October 30, 2006 4:24 PM
14

Um. Whether Lieberman caucuses with the Dems depends entirely on where the greatest benefit to Lieberman lies in the new Senate (if he is elected). It's that simple.

Posted by Jonathan | October 31, 2006 9:18 AM
15

Dan we love your funny politician name definitions. Santorum was a good start. Let's all do what we can to get new definitions out there. Please add Lieberman to your website. -

Lieberman - noun - A clot of blood than forms on an infant's penis if the Rabbi doesn't suck the blood away quick enough. -- The Rabbi used his tongue to dislodge the Lieberman that had formed on the penis. (There are three stages required for the performance of a ritually correct circumcision in Jewish law: the removal of the foreskin; the tearing of the underlying membraene so as to expose the glans completely; and the sucking away of the blood, m'tsitsah)see-

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm

Posted by Lieberman sucks | October 31, 2006 6:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).