Choices Have Consequences -- Unless You're Joe Lieberman
It is an inescapable truth of adult life that our choices do have consequences. And each of us must live with the consequences of the choices we make. Each of us, that is, except for U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
The Senate Democratic caucus, with which Lieberman regularly meets and which has rewarded him with the chairmanship of the Senate Committee of Homeland Security, reportedly wants to make nice with Lieberman, who basically kicked the Democrats and the Democratic president-elect in the teeth by endorsing Republican John McCain for president last December. He then spent the next year playing an inseparable Tonto to McCain's Lone Ranger, including a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., where he all but canonized McCain while openly criticizing Barack Obama.
During the campaign, while introducing the GOP nominee to a Pennsylvania rally, Lieberman called the 2008 election a choice "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put country first, worked across party lines to get things done and one who has not."
In a televised interview while conceding that Obama had labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, Lieberman added: "But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Sen. Obama really does raise the question why. And it suggests the difference between these two candidates."
Let's get this straight: The difference between the Democrat and the Republican presidential nominees in 2008, according to the man whom the Democratic Party in 2000 honored with its vice-presidential nomination, is "explained" by an unnamed flak for Hamas? Does anyone hear echoes of the late, unlamented Joseph R. McCarthy in that argument?
Speaking of the 2000 campaign, Lieberman, as Democratic VP candidate, was much less aggressive and decidedly more gentle in his criticism of his Republican opponents, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, than he was in 2008 in his public censuring of Obama. In fact, in the 2000 vice presidential debate, Lieberman disappointed Democrats by failing to even mention the facts that Cheney had been one of only 10 House members to vote against Head Start and one of four in the House to vote against banning plastic guns from airplanes, and even had voted against a congressional resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela from captivity.
Joe Lieberman is not the first member of the Democratic caucus to endorse the presidential opponent of the other party. In 1964, Mississippi Rep. John Bell Williams, a Democrat and an all-out foe of federal civil rights laws, endorsed Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Rep. Albert Watson, a South Carolina Democrat, did the same thing. Mississippi and South Carolina were among two of the six states Goldwater carried that year. When House Democrats convened in January, however, they abided the maxim that choices do have consequences, and both Williams and Watson were stripped of their seniority in the House.
The question now before the Senate Democratic caucus is: Do Senate Democrats in 2008 still believe that choices have consequences? If so, Lieberman will be removed from his committee chairmanship. This is not personal. Lieberman has many admirable qualities and is frankly likeable. But to ignore his blatant betrayal of the Democratic presidential nominee — especially when elected Democrats in more marginal states and districts put themselves at some political risk by openly backing Obama-Biden — would be to punish those Senate colleagues, junior to Lieberman, who were faithful. It would sabotage party cohesion on Capitol Hill — forget about any party discipline. Democrats will soon find out that their choices do have consequences.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
9 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;... Joe Lieberman's campaign slogan should be: "count me in; but don't count on me. That is what a guy I used to work with liked to say. But I really could count on him... If it had rained all night in October, and the mud was two feet deep, and the crust of ice wouldn't hold your weight, but you coudn't bust it with your hand, I could count him to not show up, and to leave me to hook on alone with wet and muddy arms and knees all day long... The worst thing in the world to have to see when you are pissed at some guy, is his sunny smile...I'll bet Mr. Lieberman's sunny smile has lost its charm... I don't know why the democrats put up with it... I don't know why I put up with it.... I could tell them that some times the way to have friends is not to be friendly...If you let people kick you, they will make a habit of it, and I guess I've proved that a few times... But we do not send people to Washington to get kicked...If those people went there and came out with a few bloody noses and fat lips then maybe all the grief wouldn't come back home to us... We get the dirty end of it... They agree, and are civil, but when they come home, it is all -those dirty democrats and those dirty republicans holding up progress... I am not saying they all have to agree... I am saying they should not just try to win on a majority vote, but push always for an understanding, and consensus... And if they are in no position to tell the truth, to accuse, because they are guilty too, then what good are they??? I don't know why they put up with Mr. Lieberman.... I don't know why we put up with them...Mr. Lieberman may be the exception in actually going over to the other side, but every single one of them is the best advertizement possible for the other party... If I have a democratic representative I look for every reason to vote republican... Is it possible we could do worse??? The choice is of appearance, and not of substance... They are all the same...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Sir
My wife's uncle, a former Inspector General under Carter and Reagan, and an Infantry Lieutenant in Korea used to judge the people he knew in Washington by one standard: would he want to be in a foxhole with that person? Senator Lieberman, despite his many admirable qualities, is clearly someone you would not want to be in a foxhole wiith. Which, of course, begs the question of why John McCain, with his years of service, would decide to have Joe in his foxhole.
Thank you for all your good work. You are a regular part of my family's Friday evening on Newshour.
Jeff
Comment: #2
Posted by: Jeffrey Sedlack
Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:48 AM
|
|
|
|
I could not agree more Mark. Obama is right to try to bury the hatchet with just about everyone he can and help us grok the concept of a government that models the adult behavior and teamwork this country needs to survive. But there does come a point where tolerance of blatant disregard, not only for one's own party but for the very soul of our country, becomes off limits as an option. There is nothing wrong with principled disagreement and vocalization of such, even to the point of supporting the opposite party's candidate. But the slurs Lieberman directed to Obama are on record, and that record now memorializes how he views the President of the United States. In fact, those things he said, along with the entire scorn, ridicule, and disinformation machine lead by the McCain campaign and fellow travelers, were an insult to the voters, the country, and the democratic process regardless of who ultimately won the vote. There are only two ways to play the meaning of Lieberman's statements: Either he really meant them, or he was just saying what he thought he had to say in order to bet for his place in the administration of the horse he was backing. Option two means he is not fit to be in any position as a leader, and option one means he is irreconcilably an enemy of the President of the United States and every American who voted for him. Lieberman has earned the disrespect of an awful lot of folks, independent and partisan alike, and just trying to Alzheimer's away the past is going to make it awfully difficult to establish any meaningful sense of teamwork whenever he's around.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Jeffrey Sedlack;...Sir, .. . I don't even want to be in the same country with Mr. Lieberman... It is only because he acts like Israel is his first and only priority... If they are not sending Senators to America already, then why isn't he putting his state first, his country a close second, and Israel some where down the list???I know that Israel is supposed to be our Ally; but I don't think any of our people ought to be taking a government check to work for them...It smells like Gefiltefish... And Matzos....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Shields has his history right, his argument and his recommendation.
This tests whether Senate Democrats stand for party accountability. The principle is straightforward: if you get the benefit of the caucus (Lieberman chairing Homeland Security) you can't support the {residential candiate of the opposition. Liiberman should be denied the chairmanship. nothing less will do!
David Cohen
Washington, DC
Comment: #5
Posted by: David Cohen
Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:39 PM
|
|
|
|
He was one of the keynote speakers at the Republican National Convention. On the campaign trial stumping for the McCain-Palin ticket, he repeatedly blasted untruths and lies about Obama-Biden. The question of chairmanship for Senator Lieberman should be a no-brainer. If the Senate leadership has any doubt about what to do in this case, the should get clips of Senator Lieberman on the campaign spouting the Republican smear tactics that happily the American voter did not buy. Why the good democrats of Connecticut don't call for a recall of this turncoat is beyond me.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Jeff Beall
Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
We teach our kids that decisions have consequences. As adults we must practice what we preach. Let's hope there are enough adults in the Senate onTuesday. It's a shame the vote has to be secret. Lieberman should have to watch and listen as his colleagues pass judgment on his betrayal by voting to kick him out of the caucus, and strip him of his chair. He already kicked himself out of the party, in name first, and in actions since. Not only did he insult Obama during the campaign, but as chair he didn't hold the Bushies accountable for anything.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Lee N. Lindeman
Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lee N. Lindeman; Sir/Ma'am/whatever... Government has power without responsibility... For example...When Janet Reno did the assault at Waco; which was not necessary in the least; she said: I take full responsibility... What on earth does that mean??? Was some one going to go and arrest her for Murder??? It is a meaningless statement, and even obscene, because their power excedes the reach of law which requires the drive, and interest and enthusiasm of all people for justice... We all accept law because we fear violence, and we forget how law without justice is nothing more than violence... The terror of the Oklahoma bombing grew out of the denial of Justice at Waco... And understand; I don't like the idea of religious fanatics running around with weapons, but if some one is hiding behind a bunch of children, it is time to relax the parimeter, and keep relaxing until people come out to play... The more force you put on the dime, the sooner it will be spent to buy success... But, there will be no retribution of Mr. Lieberman... He ain't spit as a human being, but he was elected by the people of his state, and no one interested in building a tenuous majority will slam the people of his state by taking an opportunity to slap Mr. Lieberman down... Left on his own, given the coldest of shoulders and all public respect, he won't last long... He has dishonored himself, just as he has always done with his right or wrong support of Israel...So... Much like that poor ghost once said: consequences are for little people... So is responsibility...We have to live with our choices even when our choices are between bad and worse... The people who elected Mr. Lieberman have to live with him... I hope they are proud...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #8
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:57 AM
|
|
|
|
THANK GOODNESS NOT EVERYONE IS A BLIND FOLLOWER !! SEN.LIEBERMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ANYONE HE BELIEVES IN ! THE DEMOCRATS COULD COUNT THE VOTES, AS WELL AS OBAMA !! THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO THROW SEN. LIEBERMAN OUT !! UNLIKE YOU OR #8, YOUR PARTY SHOULD NOT ALWAYS COME FIRST, USE WHAT LITTLE BRAIN- POWER YOU HAVE !! EVEN OBAMA DID THAT !!
Comment: #9
Posted by: R.C.Davis
Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
