Democrats Face Lieberman Dilemma

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) poses a problem for the Democratic Party. Having run for vice president as a Democrat in 2004, he spoke at the Republican convention this year and openly supported Senator McCain's campaign. While it will be tempting to punish him, the Democratic leadership would be wise to temper any actions with a modicum of mercy. They may well need his vote on a regular basis.

The current unpleasantness stems from the war in Iraq-Nam. While a social liberal, Mr. Lieberman is a hawk and an ardent one at that. When Ned Lamont, a peace Democrat, beat him for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2006, Mr :Lieberman ran as an independent. The Republicans ditched their own candidate seeing a chance for mischief. Mr. Lieberman won. It was his vote, along with independent socialist Bernie Saunders of Vermont, that gave the Democrats control of the US Senate. At the same time, he has been rabidly pro-war.

Having picked up a handful of seats in the recent senatorial elections, the Democrats don't need Mr. Lieberman's vote to maintain control. However, there is the matter of the filibuster. The Democrats don't have 60 seats to break one. They will need to pick up a couple of Republican votes to get anything done. If they turn too harshly on Mr. Lieberman, they will only make it harder on themselves.

Mr. Lieberman has a distinguished record, and this journal admires his accomplishments and his service to America. That said, this journal also endorsed Mr. Lamont in the 2006 election because of Mr. Lieberman's stance on Iraq-Nam. Having left, or perhaps been kicked out, of the Democratic Party, Mr. Lieberman has an odd position in Congress. His vote is needed, but his recent behavior violates the basis of senatorial trust.

Currently, he is chairman of the Homeland Security committee and is a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. He should not be forced out of the caucus, but losing the chairmanship is reasonable. Some other chairmanship would be appropriate, for example, the committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This would allow Mr. Lieberman to pursue his domestic agenda, which is definitely Democratic, while demonstrating to him and others that the leadership is not well pleased with him. And since Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is chairman of that committee, it seems only fitting that he take over Mr. Lieberman's slot. Mr. Inouye is a hero of WWII and is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor – the highest award a soldier can earn. Surely, the defense of the nation should be in hands like his.

© Copyright 2008 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home