comments_image -

Dead Dem Walking

It's not just Joe Lieberman's support for the war on Iraq, or his steady backing of the Bush agenda. There are many reasons why Joe must go -- and now.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

As any Mafia watcher knows, when a family member commits an act of betrayal, out of self-interest, stupidity, jealousy or greed, eventually he must pay the price. And since the betrayer is family, any Sopranos or Godfather fan will tell you, justice may take years and the timing and location must be well-planned. Luckily for Joe Lieberman, politics is less violent than the mob, but for Joe, the time has come. And while most progressives want his head for support of the Bush administration's Iraq war, his true betrayal was far more devastating and happened a long time ago.

The night was Oct. 5, 2000. The night the Democrats lost the 2000 election. The night that every Democratic fault of the last 20 years -- timidity, naiveté, chumminess with power, lack of emotion and policy wonkishness -- was on full view. The night when Joe Lieberman betrayed his party and his country by choosing to protect his self-image as a gentlemanly politician, instead of warning America that the man sitting across the table was a dangerous and unprincipled man. The night when Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman had their one and only prime-time debate for vice president of the United States.

Joe Lieberman knew. It was the only night that Americans were going to see, hear or learn about Dick Cheney. And while Dick Cheney had a long career in Washington -- 11 years in Congress, secretary of defense for the first President Bush and chief of staff for Gerald Ford -- to the man on the street he was a blank page.

Joe Lieberman knew. Anyone who was anyone in Washington knew. There was a long record of controversial votes, private sector decisions, and neocon policy papers from which Joe could have chosen. During the first Bush administration, Cheney and his neocon gang were even known as "the crazies" around the Beltway. We have now seen the results.

Joe Lieberman knew. It has always been the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate to wield the hatchet and keep the presidential candidate above the fray. It was Joe's job to go for the jugular -- especially in light of Dick Cheney's' cleverly constructed persona as the grandfatherly, unassumingly reasonable old man. Dick's low-key style concealed a ruthless, uncompromising, hard-edged conservative. It was absolutely essential to Gore, the campaign and viewers at home that Joe stand on his chair and shout to the rafters that Dick Cheney was a dangerous man.

But Joe was only thinking about Joe. And nothing is more important to Joe than to show the world what a reasonable, mature, thoughtful and gentlemanly politician he is.

Revisiting that night is to relive a left-of-center political nightmare. The press was in major sucker mode and celebrated the "civilized" proceedings. AP characterized the night as a "gentlemanly debate of campaign understudies." Jack Tapper at Salon.com said "two candidates show their younger bosses how to keep it clean." The San Francisco Chronicle called the debate a "civil and cerebral conversation." Translation -- total victory for the Bush campaign and not even a paper cut for Dick Cheney. Thanks, Joe.

It's not surprising that Joe Lieberman has been defended of late by David Brooks of the New York Times. In a recent column on the "liberal inquisition" of Joe Lieberman, David describes Joe as a "heterodox politician who distrusts ideological purity, who rebels against movement groupthink, who believes in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity."

But I have a different categorization for David and his pal Joe. They are not "heterodox" -- they are "rational elitists." A "rational elitist" revels in the gray area and the long view, sees both sides of virtually every issue, never gets angry enough to "blow his or her top," hates shouting and recognizes, as the mature and wise fellows they know they are, that compromise and slow change are the realities of the world. They are "elitists" because their acute self-knowledge, wise and thoughtful ways allow them to continually look down on those of us who just can't seem to control our anger and frustration at the injustice, greed and moral compromises we see around us.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
$6.2 Million Settlement for Protesters Arrested at 2003 Iraq War Demonstration

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Running Out of Oxygen? Gingrich Loses Crucial Campaign Donor

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly Political Animal

 
 
FBI File Chronicled Steve Jobs' LSD Use

By Hunter R. Slaton | The Fix

 
 
Will Millennials Back Obama in 2012?

By Bill Moyers | BillMoyers.com

 
 
Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Bachus is Investigated for Insider Trading

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
White House Announces Birth Control "Accommodations" for Religious Groups: Insurance Companies Will Pay, So Women Will Still be Covered

By Jodi Jacobson | RH Reality Check

 
 
Is the Catholic Church Just a Super PAC in Robes?

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Amid General Strike, 7,000 Protest Austerity in Greece, And Violence Erupts Between Demonstrators and Police

By AFP

 
 
Must-See Video: WA Republican Debates Gay Marriage with Profound, Personal Speech for Equality

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
"Emotions": Santorum's Sexist Explanation for Why Women Shouldn't be on the Front Lines

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]