Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Updated: Why Lieberman won't replace Rummy …

Posted by Joshua Holland at 2:00 PM on November 10, 2006.


Joshua Holland: It's a tempting theory, but I don't see it.
lapdog
lieberpuppy

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Like many others, when I realized what a tough confirmation Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates will -- or at least should -- have coming, I wondered if there wasn't an ulterior motive for the pick. And, also like many others, it occurred to me that if Gates' confirmation were killed, it would allow Bush to nominate Joe Lieberman, who might then take the job reluctantly, for the "good of the country" -- Joe's independent minded, you know, and always puts country ahead of party -- and that would give Connecticut's Republican governor Jodi Rell the opportunity to pick a replacement and swing the Senate to a 50-50 split with Darth Cheney representing the tie-breaking vote. The scenario has been a hot topic of speculation in so many of the Internet's tubes this week, including among our commenters.

But after thinking about it a bit, and discussing it behind the scenes with some of the other insightful writers around here, I think that's pretty darn unlikely for several reasons.

All of them boil down to the fact that while Holy Joe is a craven opportunist, a self-loathing Dem and a dedicated militarist, he's not stupid. He also has a big ego, and, like everyone in politics, wants as much power as possible.

The last two are why he'd never take the job -- or at least he'd need to be very stupid to do so. Consider:

  • He'd be giving up a six-year Senate gig for a two-year cabinet position under a lame-duck president who at this point doesn't enjoy much support from legislators in either party.
  • He'd be giving up a uniquely powerful Senate seat, the ultimate swing vote and the guy to whom everyone will have to kowtow.
  • He'd be swapping that seat for job that he knows full well will be under the microscope in the next Congress. Whoever becomes the next SecDef is going to have one of the crappiest jobs in DC, spending much of his or her time fending off subpoenas, dodging questions from the press and testifying before pissed off legislators who want to distance themselves from their own votes for the Iraq war by tearing into the administration's most prominent representative on the issue.
  • People with big egos want to be liked (I). Joe knows that his support for the War in Iraq hurt him with Connecticut voters -- hence his flip-flop during the campaign when he suddenly tried to morph into an anti-war candidate. Serving two years as GWB's SecDef as Iraq slips into further chaos would cement his legacy for all eternity as the Democrat who Supported Bush's Disastrous War More Fervently Than any Other. Nobody would even remember that he was the Veep nominee in 2000.
  • People with big egos want to be liked (II). When Jim Jeffords flipped parties in 2001, he gave the Senate to the Dems and was hailed a hero in his deep "blue" home state of Vermont. Connecticut is just as Democratic, and Bush is ten times more unpopular than he was at that time. Connecticut voters would forever remember Joe as the guy who turned the Senate over to the GOP just after they expressed their hatred for Bush and his Congress at the polls. There'd be no hero's welcome back in New Haven, and Joe knows it.
  • People with big egos want to be liked (III). Joe doesn't feel much obligation to the voters -- they're common rabble, after all -- but I imagine he cares quite a bit about how people view him within the power circles in which he travels. He cut a deal with Democratic leaders behind the scenes: in exchange for his support if he won, they'd offer Ned Lamont, the Dem nominee, only the most tepid possible support. I doubt he wants to be seen as a traitor among the DC cocktail party crowd.

Anyway, having made those last three points, let me say that I wouldn't die of shock if he simply switched parties, citing the destructive anti-Americanism of the Dems' left wing that Fox News' hosts always talk about. But he wouldn't take the worst job in Washington to swing the Senate just out of spite.

UPDATE: AP:

In an e-mail message late Thursday, Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said the senator will begin his new term as a Democrat.

With the Democratic takeover of the Senate, Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In a post-election news conference, Lieberman said he was reassured by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid that he would retain his seniority when the new Senate convenes.

Digg!

Tagged as: lieberman, senate, election06, rumsfeld, gates

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the Republicans didn't spend..sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Nov 10, 2006 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all that money and turn on their own Candidate in order to turn the Senate over to the Democrats. Tho watching very closely I can't find the joker in the deck yet But I'm originally from Missouri and I know all is not as it seems. So far my only thought is that they misjudged the voters and got blindsided.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Relationships?
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 10, 2006 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very interested to how Joe Lieberman, as (potential) Chair of the Senate Homeland Security / Governmental Affairs committee, "engages" with Ted Stevens and Lincoln Chafee on infrastructure contract abuse, John Warner on military contract abuse, and Norm Coleman on Medicare prescription drugs. And FEMA/Katrina mismanagement - lots of skeletons in that closet.

Will he dig deep enough to root out lobbyist and industry influence over contract approval process, bill writing, and rider attaching? Will he follow through on creating an Office of Public Integrity, and give it money and teeth? He definitely has an opportunity to be reborn, if he can just choose a side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New Relationships? Posted by: Joshua Holland
What about the fact that he's Jewish?
Posted by: kackermann on Nov 11, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you think that would have the potential of enraging the Iraqi's?

Not that I'd put it past the USA to make such an offensive move. We have offended and insulted in every other way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TERM LIMITS..TERM LIMITS..TERM LIMITS
Posted by: mdruss42 on Nov 11, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO BE SMART ENOUGH TO NOT HAVE PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT´S LIKE HAVING A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY
Posted by: mdruss42 on Nov 11, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF YOU HAVE IT YOU WILL DAMN SURE HAVE WARS!

WITH PROF POLS YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO STAY...

BEST JOB AROUND
GREAT PAY...AND IF YOU WANT MORE JUST VOTE YOURSELF A RAISE AT MIDNIGHT OF COURSE.
GREAT BENEFITS...AND IF YOU WANT MORE JUST VOTE YOURSELF MORE...AT MIDNIGHT OF COURSE.
WORK 2 OR THREE DAYS A WEEK. EVERYONE HANDING YOU MONEY, TRIPS, ALL SORT OF GOODIES.
EVERYONE ELSE PAYS FOR EVERYTHING, YOU PAY FOR NOTHING.....NOT EVEN DOING A VERY BAD JOB.

NOW, WHY WOULD JOE AND EVERY OTHER JOKER IN WASHINGTON DO ANYTHING TO STAY???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lieberman is a poodle
Posted by: Gregor on Nov 11, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like Tony Blair, Lieberman is a Republican poodle. His victory as an Independent was nearly totally funded by REPUBLICANS. He is a plant in the Administration. Don't be fooled, Lieberman is on the Republicans side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't trust him.
Posted by: Peacecat on Nov 11, 2006 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it's true that Joe would be giving up a six-year term as Senator for a two-year term as SecDef, Chris Dodd is running for President, and he won't be as craven as Joe was when he ran vor veep and Senator at the same time, so we can only assume Dodd will be giving up his seat when his term is up on '08. Couldn't you see it in the back of Joe's mind that, hey, I'll give up my seat for this moment in the sun, then I'll run for Chris's seat? Or am I giving him too much credit? Either way, I hope Connecticut gets a little smarter in the intervening two years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The very lack of trust...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 12, 2006 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is reason enough for a reasonable President to eliminate Joe from contention. Unfortunately, we're saddled with a President who rarely makes decisions based on reason.

So apart from the many valid points already discussed, I think the biggest reason there would never have been a "General Joe" is because it doesn't make any sense from a GOP political perspective. Joe is a thorn in Dems' side, and he's as or more supportive than Republicans in the Senate.

"Stealing" the Senate back through an appointment by Gov. Rell would trigger a revolution in a country that is at 31% approval of Bush. Even Rove sees this--better to place nice for now.

Couldn't resist a few post election jabs over at EWM

Fox in a Funk, Grief Counselors Dispatched
Election Results Puncture Propaganda Machine

...it was awful, Neal Cavuto had been rubbing his little Macaca troll doll for good luck, but when the Senate was lost, he just collapsed in sobs. I knew it had reached critical mass when I walked by the fax machine that evening saw that no one had bothered to pick up Karl Rove’s talking points,” said Roger Ailes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WATCH JOE ON TV
Posted by: ignition on Nov 12, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch Joe on Tim Russert's show. Joe is such a liar and scumbag. He is so full of himself. Remember that a sack of crap is still a sack of shit by another name.
Here in Connecticut we saw this coming when the DLC Dims like Clinton wouldn't support Lamont. We knew a deal had been cut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]