Camp followers

Look, I don't have a clue what to do about the rebellion in Libya, though it seems a pretty fair bad idea to invade a north African country and relying on air strikes seems pretty limited against ground assaults by pro-Qaddafi forces. But this once again proves that if there is an opportunity to invade another country, McCain and Lieberman are all in.

The most vocal camp, led by Senators John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end decades of dictatorship.

It is hardly an effort to impose American will in the Muslim world, Mr. Lieberman argued in an interview on Monday.

“We have to try and help those who are offering an alternative future to Libya,” Mr. Lieberman said, sounding much like Mr. Obama at the White House on Monday. “We cannot allow them to be stifled or stopped by brutal actions of the Libyan government.”

But even the critics acknowledge that the best outcome would be for the United States not to go it alone, but join other nations or international organizations, in particular NATO, the Arab League or the African Union.

Mr. Lieberman and others argue that the risks of waiting may be far greater than the risk of an early, decisive military intervention. He acknowledged that as in Iraq, the United States might unleash an uncertain future of tribal rivalry and chaos, in a country that has no institutions prepared to fill the vacuum if Colonel Qaddafi is driven from power.

Yet, he argued: “It’s hard to imagine any new government growing out of this opposition that is worse than Qaddafi.”

It's funny, only a few months ago, Qaddafi was seen as "brave" for forswearing nuclear weapons; now Joe Lieberman considers potential chaos and civil war preferable.

Family ties

How much money has the Lieberman family earned from the health care industry?

At the time she joined the public relations and lobbying conglomerate in the spring of 2005, she expressed the touching hope that she would somehow be able to help those in need. "I have had a lifelong commitment to helping people gain better healthcare," she said in a press release. "I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal." Less than a year later, having pocketed $77,000 in salary, she quit without explanation -- just as her husband was facing a tough primary that he would eventually lose. Throughout the campaign, Hadassah Lieberman, her husband and their spokespersons explicitly refused to discuss her professional activities, except to note that she had not been required to register as a lobbyist.

To be fair, Hadassah no longer works as a health care lobbyist. That's not the case for another "centrist" who may vote to filibuster a health care bill.

The best that can be said about the Lieberman family's conflict of interest is that it appears to have ended in 2005 -- while the Bayh family continues to collect enormous amounts of money from the same health insurance and drug companies that will benefit from her husband’s actions. Indeed, the smell of ethical rot arising from the Bayh household is even worse than the self-serving aroma that surrounds the Liebermans.

Susan Bayh was invited to join the board of Wellpoint back in 1998, when the Indiana-based company was still called Anthem Insurance and had not yet completed the mergers that made it the largest health insurer in America (and gave it monopoly status in many regions of the country). According to her official biography on Wellpoint's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, her qualifications to sit on the board of a billion-dollar corporation were minimal, to put it politely. She was 38 years old, teaching law at a local university, with limited experience as a corporate attorney at Eli Lilly & Co., the big pharmaceutical company that is also headquartered in Indiana. But then her husband, Evan, after two terms as governor, had just been elected to the United States Senate.

Hadassah, Conason notes, is now an "ambassador" for Susan G. Komen for the Cure. So you'd think that covering uninsured women who are most at risk from breast cancer would be something important to her. But, as we learn repeatedly, the Liebermans' moral compass often points in the opposite direction of Joe's ambition to be both the GOP's BFF and a weekly guest on the Sunday Idiot Shows.

Joementum

I should be floating on air given the Yankees' gritty, gutty win last night (and reminder #4,758 that there is only one Mariano Rivera), but, christ, Lieberman pisses me off.

Lets not forget, Joe Lieberman opposes the public option, opposes the public option with an opt-out compromise, opposes the public option with a trigger compromise, opposes the Baucus plan that had no public option whatsoever, opposes even working on comprehensive reform at all this year, and is prepared to use a filibuster tactic that he used to think shouldn't exist.

"Confidently we have no choice"

Tip of the day: President Obama, if you find yourself in agreement with these guys, you may want to reconsider your options.

Liebermans

Throughout the Israeli election melodrama, I kept thinking, ugh, another Lieberman. Who would have guessed?

Loathing Lieberman

I couldn't even make it halfway through the seven minute video. Sweet Jehovah he's a tool. His whining voice, his presumptuousness, his preening, and then he says...

I want to help make him the kind of president our country so urgently needs...

and I want to reach out, grab him by the throat, and squeeze.

Holy Joe

Sorry for the paucity of posts lately, but I've been in a series of conference rooms the past few days discussing...

Anyhoo, I'm sure, Dear Reader, you've been waiting impatiently for my take on the Lieberman lallapalooza (or lap dance, depending on your point of view). Truth is, I pretty much figured out how it was going to go when Dean announced the other day that Obama had asked Senate Dems to show mercy.

Nate Silver looks at it from a couple of angles, one positive and one nefarious, but I mainly see this: Obama is a pragmatic and canny politician and would, at the end of the day, prefer to hold his enemies and (in Lieberman's case) his enemies' tools as close as he can. While punishing Lieberman would have held more satisfaction, it wouldn't have advanced Obama's issues. Iraq -- Lieberman's main difference with Obama and Dems generally -- is an argument that has moved well beyond their differences and Lieberman won't have a Bush to support anymore. Iran may still cause tension and I have no doubt Lieberman will be on the Sunday Morning Idiot Shows at the first provocation to denounce his fellow Dems for appeasing Ahmadinejad. But on important domestic issues, the differences are not so great and Lieberman adds another reliable vote.

But the main thing is, I think Obama's public call for forgiveness was a good way to give cover to Dems who might look weak in not punishing the asshole for being...an asshole while maintaining an even more forbidable coalition.

Or maybe I'm just willing to contradict myself at my master's bidding.

Yep. That must be it. Sigh.

Lieberman watch

Last night, watching Evan Bayh on Rachel Maddow's show, he kinda sorta had me convinced.

This morning, Steve Benan provides a useful correction.

This, in other words, would be a conditional chairmanship. There are at least two main problems with this approach.

First, it extends Lieberman a benefit of the doubt that he clearly hasn't earned. What makes Bayh, or anyone else, think Lieberman will suddenly start acting sensibly, especially after what we've seen of him over the last two years?

And second, I wonder what happens if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look? An independent senator starts asking pesky questions of a Democratic president and White House allies decide to sack the one doing the asking?

The rumor swirling around Westchester, NY Republican circles is that fellow Westchester resident, Hillary Clinton, is going to lead all kinds of investigations into Obama's campaign financing. Why they believe that, I have no idea. After all, what would she gain? Revenge for not helping her unload her campaign debt?

Lieberman, on the other hand, has all kinds of incentive (ego, bitterness, anger at the party, etc.), and his perch on Homeland Security gives him incredible latitude.

Strip him of the chairmanship, but let him stay in the caucus and keep his seniority. If that generous compromise pisses him off and he leaves, fine, but I suspect he will stay and will begin focusing on his own reelection. If he wants to snipe at Obama and his fellow Dems -- again -- fine, as long as he doesn't have much power to launch witch hunts. Such sniping will get him on the Sunday Morning Idiot Shows. It won't help him get reelected.

And Bayh's fear that Lieberman would retire and CT Gov. Rell would then appoint a Republican just shows Bayh doesn't know Holy Joe very well.

UPDATE: And yes, Rachel Maddow is worthy of worship.

Lieberman

Exactly right.

"If you wield a congressional oversight gavel, and your buddy's in the White House, you might just conduct exactly zero investigations into presidential wrongdoing," says Brian Beutler. "But when the election comes, and your other buddy loses to a guy you don't really like, you might think about becoming a real pest to the new administration."

Dump him, Harry.

"Unacceptable"

Holy Joe, Joe!

"Senator Lieberman's preference is to stay in the caucus, but he's going to keep all his options open. McConnell has reached out to him and at this stage his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable."

I think much of what Lieberman did over the last year was inexcusable. But magnanimity in victory is always a virtue. So I don't think it's necessary to expel him from the caucus. And perhaps there are some perks of seniority he could be allowed to keep. But allowing him to keep his chairmanship is simply unacceptable. It's a position the Democrats hold because of the joint efforts of Democrats across the country pulling together to support Democratic policies and ideals and elect Democratic candidates. For Lieberman to enjoy the fruits of that labor after working so hard to stymie that effort would be unconscionable.

I don't really care much about the caucus numbers at this point seeing as how Dems have a strong majority but aren't likely to make it filibuster-proof this cycle. But, frankly, I would really enjoy watching Lieberman sniff and take his ball and join the minority party.

We seem to like our Senators of the Democratic flavor here in Conn. So watching Lieberman (R-CT) run during an Obama reelection campaign would be sweet and satisfying.

Hating the troops

The Fact Checker fact checks Lieberman's claims, so you don't have to.

Joe Schmoe

Jonathan Chait exposes Lieberman's inner lunatic.

My colleague J. Peter Scoblic's new book, U.S. vs. Them, opens with the story of conservatives in 1959 creating the "Committee Against Summit Entanglements" to express their horror that Eisenhower would sit down with Soviet premier Khrushchev. The Committee's logic was nearly identical to that which Lieberman now deploys against Obama for his willingness to meet with Iran's leadership. Lieberman tries to use this issue to show that Obama falls outside the mainstream tradition of U.S. foreign policy, but he winds up proving this about himself.

And, just as Lieberman casts himself as the sole surviving heir to the liberal internationalist tradition, he likewise presents himself as one of the few--or possibly the only--independent-minded souls remaining in a party now controlled by rabid partisan bloggers. "Instead of challenging their opinions," says Lieberman with characteristic disappointment, "far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to them." In a previous speech, he urged an audience of international-studies graduates to remain independent like him. It may hurt your popularity, he explained, but, "far more important, you will not lose your convictions about what you believe is best for the security of our great country."

There's hardly any sense in which Lieberman is an independent figure. He's become a cog in the Republican message machine. He may be independent from liberal bloggers, but the conservative equivalent--partisan shouters like Sean Hannity--are his treasured pals. Lieberman even continues to embrace lunatic preacher John Hagee--whose many daft ideas include his belief that the Holocaust fulfilled God's will--even after John McCain repudiated him.

Lieberman is no longer merely embarrassing. He's become an eyesore. So you may find it strange that I can't wait to see him do his Zell Miller act at the Republican convention.