Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
There's something hugely amusing about people who successfully ejected Lieberman from the Democratic party calling Lieberman "a traitor to his party" and saying that "there has to be some kind of penalty" for his speaking at the GOP convention. How can he be a traitor to a party you threw him out of, Jennifer Just? What possible penalty do you think you can impose on him, Martha Aasen, and by what theory do you think he owes you any loyalty? You threw him out of your party, and the voters of Connecticut told you that they wanted Lieberman, not the Democratic candidate. Lieberman owes you and your party nothing.
And yet he gives your party a great deal anyway. That's the serious issue that the story linked above raises in mentioning why the Democratic Party has wisely ignored voices like Aasen and Just:
Democrats have been leery of punishing Lieberman because it is only his informal allegiance that gives them a majority in the Senate by one vote. If he caucused with the Republicans, there would be a 50-50 split in the chamber and Vice President Dick Cheney as Senate president would tip the balance of power to Republicans through his tie-breaking votes.
Even Just concedes the force of this - and she's a great deal smarter than Lieberman, because unlike Lieberman, she can see that as soon as the Democrats don't need Lieberman's vote, he'll be ejected from the caucus.
Either way, though, the point I want to underline is this: the Senate is in the hands of the Democrats because Joe Lieberman wants it to be. Now, I appreciate that Lieberman is backing McCain, and I don't mind that he is being given a speaking role at our convention. But over and above my previously-stated views on McCain's selection of a non-GOP nominee being an abuse of discretion, can someone explain to me why we would pick someone who is personally responsible for keeping us in the minority in the Senate for the last two years and make them a part of our ticket?
Added: In the comments, Brian brings up something else I'd meant to talk about: the rumor that Lieberman may jump the aisle and join the GOP. I think that would be quite dishonorable. It's not a great deal different to what Jim Jeffords did, or what Lincoln Chafee was going to do. Jeffords was elected as a Republican and ratted; if he wanted to be an independent, he should have resigned and stood for reelection as an independent. Likewise Chafee, whose departure from the GOP after losing election would almost certainly still have happened if he'd won. It's dishonest and dishonorable, and that assessment isn't conditional on partisan utility: Lieberman was elected as an independent Senator. If he now wants to be a Republican Senator, he should resign and seek reelection as a Republican. [N.b., speaking only for myself; Tully and Pat dissent on this point in the comments. sjd.]
Post facto:
Senator Specter (D-Pa.) (4/28/09)
Representative Griffith (R-Ala.) (12/22/09)
Our RSS feed
how about
How about because
1) He can do what he wants with his position as tiebreaker
2) after the GOP loses a few more senate seats and Lieberman gets ejected from the dem caucus, he' s likely to join your team?
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
That doesn't provide any
That doesn't provide any reason for adding him to the ticket.
Using him to keep the Cannibals in a frenzy, OTOH, does indeed serve a purpose...and does not require putting him on the ticket. And it's something Leiberman can enjoy, since it's the Cannibals who threw him under the bus in the first place.
I got a laugh out of his home-state dlegates frothing at the mouth. Those are the specific Cannibals who personally did the grass-roots bus-shoving, and they still lost. Sour grapes.
don't see it
In case I've been unclear, I REALLY don't think this is going to happen. Imagine if McCain got sick or had a stroke. Like we agreed, it might be worth it if he was trailing badly, to shake up the dynamics, but he's not.
However, the fact that so many GOP folk are wringing their hands about it does speak to a fundamental distrust of the man by the party faithful. Not that they are wrong, either. McCain might just do it.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
(1) Never said he can't. I
(1) Never said he can't. I just don't see why we should reward him for using his vote to keep us out of power.
(2)(a) So in other words, he sided with the Dems when he could get the most personally out of hat, and when they decide they've no more use for him, he comes to us? That buys him nothing.
(2)(b) I think that would be really dishonorable of him. It's not a great deal different to what Jeffords did, or what Chafee was going to do. Jeffords was elected as a Republican. If he wanted to be an independent, he should have resigned and stood for reelection as an independent. Likewise Chafee, whose departure from the GOP after losing election would almost certainly still have happened if he'd won. It's dishonest and dishonorable. And that works the other way, too: Lieberman was elected as an independent Senator. If he now wants to be a Republican Senaor, I say: "welcome to the party, now resign, and seek reelection as a Republican."
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Your partisan distaste is showing
If he now wants to be a Republican Senaor, I say: "welcome to the party, now resign, and seek reelection as a Republican."
Why should he resign? As an indie, if he chooses to join a party, that's HIS business. He was legitimately elected as himself. If his constituents so dislike his choice of party alignment, they will elect someone else in response. They most emphatically chose Joe as Joe, not as a Dem or Republican, which is a facial showing that his party membership was not that relevant.
I think that would be really dishonorable of him.
No, it wouldn't. Unlike either of your examples, Leiberman did not initiate the separation, it was forced on him, and the article you link talks about more separation being forced on him. OTOH, it would be truly "little tent" and ideologically narrow of the GOP to reject him should he look for a home in the party, or simply (more likely) choose to caucus with the GOP.
Let me repeat something I have said over and over and over, both generically and also quite specifically as regards Leiberman: The primary loyalty and obligation of an elected official is NOT to their party. It is to their CONSTITUENTS. Leiberman has not only a right but a duty to work with whomever best helps him serve his constituents. If the Democrats choose to drive him out, he is still morally obligated to seek other avenues to maximize his utility to his constituents. That is his primary obligation.
That's the exact opposite of dishonorable.
The primary loyalty and
I agree with this. And that's why I disagree with the rest of your post, because his constituents elected him as an independent, not as a Republican. Maybe they would have elected him no matter what party label he ran under, but it is for his constituents to decide that, not for him to assume or us to speculate. Thus, even from your own premise, in my view, his obligation to his constituents requires his resignation if he intends to join the GOP. He ran as an independent democrat, and I would regard changing parties without seeking reelection as a dishonorable act. You're welcome to see it in a different light, but there's no sense in us arguing about this.
No, his Democratic constituents...
His Democratic constituents made it clear that they did NOT want him to be the Democratic candidate in the election. And when he ran for office anyway, I don't recall him making any concrete promises to caucus with the party who had just loudly proclaimed their distaste for him.
I agree Lieberman would be a bad pick for the GOP V-P slot, but I don't think there would be anything at all dishonorable with him deciding to no longer caucus with the Democrats. Let's not go tarring Lieberman all over the place just because we don't want him to be the V-P candidate. His is not remotely a Phil Gramm situation, nor is it analogous to Jeffords. He was NOT elected under the formal label of either party; he was specifically elected as a free agent. To hold that he must resign and run again to change who he's going to caucus with would require one to believe that a politician must resign before changing his mind on ANY political promise... As a registered independent, even if Lieberman did specifically promise to caucus with the Democrats, that's no different than any other political promise.
Bingo, Pat. He's not
Bingo, Pat. He's not betraying anything, even if he should actually join the GOP rather than just caucus with them (something I consider highly unlikely). Especially as his constituents elected him regardless of his party (or lack thereof) and not because of it.
And once in office, especially having run and won as an independent, his duty and obligation is still to use HIS best judgement in pursuing the best interests of his constitutents, wherever that may lead him. If that means caucusing with Bernie Sanders, that's what he should do. If that means caucusing with Tom Coburn, that's what he should do.
Simon would put sheer partisanship above that overarching duty, but to buy that straw man you still have to place partisanship above duty to constituency. That many pols may do that does not make them right--they are abrogating their moral obligation to their constituents each and every time they do so.
And to echo, I also think he'd be a poor choice for the Veep slot, bringing in far more baggage than he would votes.
We're going to have to agree
We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this, and I've noted such in the post, but one point raises eyebrows:
Unless you have some weird alternative understanding of the term "partisanship" in mind, Tully, this claim is absurd and borders on malapropism. My position here is at odds with my partisan interest. "[S]heer partisanship" would dictate that I support whatever gets the GOP at least another another vote in, and possibly control of, the Senate - not to reject the possibility of getting such based on a general principle.
You can disagree with me about that principle or its particular application, or about what Lieberman should do; you can even make an argument that I'm "wrong" (to the extent that there are right and wrong answers to purely subjective ethical questions). Claiming that my position on this is motivated by partisanship, however, is ludicrous.
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
OK! I'll change it to his
OK! I'll change it to his personal visceral dislike of Leiberman. Suits? :-)
And to extend the obvious principle of representative democracy that you seem to be missing, his constituents elected him precisely to make such decisions in their stead, not to resign and re-run every time he made such a decision.
No, because I don't have a
No, because I don't have a particular grudge against Lieberman. What I'm doing is putting my personal principles - whether you agree with the one at hand or not, and I recognize that reasonable people will differ on this - above and ahead of partisan interest. I believe that if you're an elected representative and you want to change parties, you need to resign and seek reelection. And I believe that that principle applies to Lieberman because for him to shift to the GOP would be the functional equivalent of changing parties.
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Had he won the Democratic Primary...
Had he won the Democratic Primary, I would agree with you, Simon, but he didn't. He lost the Democratic Primary. His constituents elected him NOT as a member of a party, but giving him free reign to caucus as he sees fit.
Had he been elected as a
Had he been elected as a Democrat, I would still not agree unless he actively planned such a switch before being elected, thereby running on utterly false pretenses, as Jeffords apparently did. That would indeed be a betrayal of his electorate AND his party, though to me only the former counts at the ballot box. Or a switch based on naked corruption, a "bought and sold" situation. But assuming you did not run on deceptively false pretenses, once elected you are obligated to do use your best judgement on behalf of your constituency, regardless of the cost to you or party. Do I really need to keep repeating that? PRIMARY. DUTY.
You do not put you in office. Your party does not put you in office (excepting the filling of suddenly empty slots between elections, bet let's avoid getting overly pedantic). The voters do. The ballot has YOUR name on it, they elect YOU to represent THEM. Their considerations in making that decision are entirely their own. It is not up to you to second-guess them, but to exercise your best judgement in fulfilling that duty to them. Your "principle," Simon, appears to me to be asking (nay, demanding) that the elected second-guess the electors as to the intent of their voting decisions, and voluntarily punish themselves AND their constituents (by resigning and turning them over to an unelected fill-in) for doing their primary duty to their constituents.
The voters always get the final say, or should. As we've pointed out, Leiberman was elected all by his lonesome to represent his constituents. The voters elected Joe Leiberman to exercise Joe Leiberman's best judgement on THEIR behalf, over and above partisan considerations. If he believes he will better serve them by moving to the GOP, or back to the Dems, or by staying indie and backing one caucus or the other, he will have done absolutely nothing wrong, evaded no moral obligations to his constituents, broken no trust with them, and shirked no inherent duty of position. Indeed, he would be actively fulfilling his duties to them in so exercising his judgement on behalf of his constituents.
(Nor did Chaffee violate that bedrock principle I have outlined. He did not leave the GOP until he was voted out of office, which was a personal decision on his part. You claim he would have left anyway if re-elected--a speculative assumption that amounts to nothing more than a rather slanderous innuendo on your part. The voters of his district had him for six years--they knew what to expect of him on issues, regardless of his party affilliation. Had he switched parties before the election, he would have assured his re-election, yet he did not.)
Well, I dunno, Tully...
We're talking morality and principle here, not law, but I think Phil Gramm did it exactly right when he switched parties mid-term.
If your voters put you in office as a member of one party, then you are violating a covenant with them, I think, if you change parties without submitting yourself to another election. That's not "second-guessing" the electorate, that's not assuming, in the absence of anything other than the official's own gut feeling, that you still command a majority support of the district as a member of the other party.
We do not, in most states, have non-partisan ballots. Yes, people vote for the official, not the party, in all cases, but they do so based in part on the formal representation of the candidate as to which party he or she belongs to. Several times I have voted for a Senator in our state simply because I wanted another vote toward a Republican majority; if they changed parties in office, without giving me a chance to vote on that until the next regular election some years later, I would feel very much that they had broken their bond with the electorate.
Chaffee did not violate the principle. Jeffords did. Lieberman would not. But you go to far to suggest that the office holder would be breaching no duties to the electorate by switching parties between elections.
exactly right
Could not agree more, Tully. If the actions that you take are legitimately taken because you feel they are what best serve your constituents, then you're doing precisely the right thing.
Here's the thing... we have a representative democracy If elected, you are elected to represent your constituents based upon the people's sense of who you are and what you stand for, and what policies you think will serve your constituents. One elected, your are absolutely supposed to exercise your judgement as to how best to achieve that. You're supposed to do that.
Turn it around. Suppose Tully is elected as a democrat. Circumstances evolve to the point where he feels he can serve his constituents' interests substantially better as a Republican, while still supporting all the same policies and having all the same views on the world and how it works. If he didn't then make the switch, he'd be failing in his primary purpose.
So unless you change your actual stripes along with changing parties, I don't see the problem. Now, if you were elected as a pro-choice, anti-war democrat, and you switched parties and said, "OK, now I'm pro-life and pro-war," and then you smash your old party's leader over the back with a folding chair, then I would say there's a legitimate beef.
In other words, it's about ends, not means.__
One more thing, before anyone says, "well why don't folks switch back and forth all the time. The answer is that the parties and the partisans would never allow this. You get one switch, so you better be sure, and you better make it count.
______
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Can't agree. I think Pat's
Can't agree. I think Pat's reply has it right, with the exception that I think Lieberman's covered by the general rule and he doesn't (which I understand and I think that's a reasonable way to look at it too).
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Of course this assumes that the Dems actually sell him out a
second time. As Simon mentioned earlier, it's clear that one of the reasons that Lieberman is still basically in good standing with the Senate Dems is that they need him, and they have him to thank, for holding the majority (making him the most powerful man in the Senate). Call me naive, but I'd like to think, despite the compicity of some of the leadership in the first sellout by allowing it to happen, that they're motivatived by more than political advantage.
That being said, if they do cut him loose, he would have the right to caucus with the GOP. If he switched parties, he would have broken his word to remain independent, but one couldn't hardly blame him.
And yeah, he didn't leave. He was basically tossed out, although not completely.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
the answer to the dishonor question
I see your poiint, but in the final analysis, I really just don;t see the dishonor.
If you can forgive the glibness, I think I'd respond to claims of dishonor by saying "what part of independent don't you understand?"
If you're independent, it means you 're your own person and know your own mind and make your own decisions. You implicitly reserve the right to do what you think is right in a given instance. If Lieberman thinks the right thing to do for him in his role as a rep of CN is to join the GOP, that's what he ought to do. Most importantly, if you are elected as an independent, you've been elected because you are your own individual brand. My sense is that CN elected Joe Lieberman because they know what he stands for and believe he has the right beliefs and principles to represent Connecticut. If he caucuses with either party, he's largely still the same Joe Lieberman with the same set of beliefs and principles, for better or worse.
I think this is especially compelling given the dynamics as curently constituted, where there are really only 2 games (caucuses) in town. If there was an independent caucus comprising a meaningful portion of the senate, then I think you might have a better argument.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Liberals trying to run Blue Dogs out of party
There was a Wall Street Journal article a short while ago about how liberal groups were targeting the conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats to try to get them out of the party, punishing them for their less than liberal views.
And I've been writing about
And I've been writing about it for years, redfish. Use our search box at the bottom left and enter "cannibals."
Not just the Dem's cannibalism, but the GOP's as well, such as the Club for Growth predictably costing the GOP several seats in 2006. EX: AZ-8th, Jim Kolbe's old seat.
The funniest thing though,
The funniest thing though, is that I think if McCain ran as an Independent and not a Republican, and picked Lieberman as a VP, and didn't pander on all of these issues to the Republican base, he would have a much easier time winning in a 3 way race than he has now.