What does being a Democrat mean to Joe Lieberman? That depends on what month it is...
On March 7, 2005, Lieberman unambiguously said:
I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Party and I intend to stay that way.
But on
May 23, 2006, when considering his options if he lost the primary, he said:
"I'm not gonna rule out any other option for now."
And on
July 10, 2006, a new political party was born:
Connecticut For Lieberman
Will Mr. Lieberman now announce that, "I am proud to be a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and I intend to stay that way"?
And do you remember this exchange during Lieberman's
recent debate with Ned Lamont?
Q: If Mr. Bailey were here, what would he say about you running as a petitioning candidate instead of supporting Mr. Lamont should you lose the primary?
LIEBERMAN: Well, of course, the first thing Mr. Bailey would do is try to stop Mr. Lamont from hurting the Democratic Party's chances of electing a Democratic senator who might help to make a Democratic majority in the Senate...
Mr. Baily was John Bailey...the former Democratic National Chairman and Democratic State Chairman in Connecticut, that Lieberman wrote a biography about in 1981. Consider this excerpt where Lieberman waxed poetic over Connecticut politics when John Bailey was in charge:
To watch him at a Democratic convention was to watch an artist at work, a true professional. Here, he brought the ornate structure together, the web of his mutually beneficial relationships...They gave their votes in return for spots on the ticket, state jobs, judgeships, legislation, state grants for towns, and the deference he gave them. His system of power was circular, and everyone who was involved benefited from it.
A web of mutually beneficial relationships where everyone involved benefited? A Democratic ideal or an early indication of Lieberman's sense of entitlement for being a part of that ornate structure?
And what is Lieberman's stance on affirmative action? Again, it depends on when you ask him. In 1995, on the floor of the United States Senate, Lieberman said:
Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans.
Yet in 2000, he made a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus and said:
I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action, and I will support affirmative action because history and current reality make it necessary.
What happened in those five years? Did he rediscover an important Democratic ideal? Or was he making a run for the White House and went with what his audience wanted to hear?
And what about a woman's right to choose? During his recent debate, Lieberman said that:
Planned Parenthood wouldn't have supported me over you if they weren't confident that I was for women's reproductive rights.
Yes, he's for women's reproductive rights...unless they are raped and need a "morning after pill." Who can forget that Lieberman suggested that hospitals should be able to refuse for "principled reasons," to provide contraceptives for rape victims because after all:
In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.
And who can forget that when the real time to protect a woman's reproductive rights...when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court...Joe Lieberman refused to support a filibuster against the man who said:
...the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion...I personally believe very strongly in this legal position.
You'll note that Lieberman touted the endorsement he received from Planned Parenthood...he didn't mention what the National Organization for Women PAC said when they endorsed Ned Lamont:
The strategy to pack the courts with right-wing judges who are committed to overturning Roe is no secret. Yet, Senator Lieberman is one of seven Democrats who have promised not to filibuster any of President Bush's judicial nominees, except under "extraordinary circumstances." Well if packing the Supreme Court with abortion opponents like John Roberts and Samuel Alito is not an extraordinary circumstance, then we don't know what is.
So what does being a Democrat mean to Joe Lieberman? During his recent debate with Ned Lamont, Lieberman was explaining why he would be on the November ballot whatever the outcome of the Democratic primary...his reason?
I want to give all the voters, including a lot of Democrats, the opportunity to make that final decision in November.
Apparently for Joe Lieberman, being a Democrat means allowing Republicans and Independents decide if he will remain a proud Democrat...because he certainly isn't interested in what the Democrats have to say about it.