From a kernel posted at TheCrossedPond
The story this week from the Democratic caucus is, clearly, what to do with Joe Lieberman. The day of reckoning finally draws near, but more and more signs point to the probability that Reid reckons he doesn't have to do anything at all. And in it all, the cover being advanced on Joe's behalf is that he agrees with and votes for the Democrats 90% of the time. Lieberman, really, is 90% a Democrat, and only 10% troublesome.
That sounds pretty darn good...but what about that 10%?
Look, parties are inherently formed around a notion of self-interest. They are not constitutional organizations, nobody has any "rights" to a party doing anything. A party organization is, by definition, partisan. It's about playing for a team. So I find whining about how Democrats should put _ over party to be strange (and usually, it's little more than code for expecting the Democrats to take a partisan hit so somebody else’s interests besides their own can be advanced).
Also, Americans have voices. Voters have wills. And while we keep being told otherwise, elections have consequences. And Joe Lieberman has been at the wrong end of every single election cycle since 2002.
In 2002/2004, Lieberman was as responsible as anybody for creating an atmosphere in Washington that equated dissent with treason, and provided bipartisan cover to the GOP caucus as they ro0ted out Democrats on the basis of national security and Iraq. Nobody asked him to be on Fox News to talk about health care. They shoved forward a soapbox on which Lieberman was expected to talk about that 10%, and Lieberman was more than happy to oblige. Joe Lieberman felt like, of all the issues he could speak about, that 10% on which he disagreed with his party ought to take 90% of his energies.
In 2006, voters in his own state chose to kick him out of the Democratic caucus. They did so because the voters felt, by and large, that Lieberman's 10% heterodoxies were more salient than his 90% procedural votes. This was not the Democratic party structure ousting him, this was Lieberman’s constituency, the Democratic voters of Connecticut who decide, 100% of the time, whether a candidate has proven themselves worthy of taking the party's nomination, with all that entails, or not. Voters decided Joe Lieberman was not worthy. 90% of the time, that means you don't get the trappings of party ID anymore.
But Joe then chose to run against the party’s candidate, and defeat him. Joe didn't feel compelled to run because Ned Lamont was unacceptable on immigration reform or social security. After all, presumably Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont could be expected to agree 90% of the time. But for, as he stated, it would be "irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles" to not run against the Democratic nominee. Presumably, he was only talking about 10% of his principles.
In 2008, Joe had a very simple decision to make. He could support the nominee of the party he wanted to belong to on the grounds that he and Barack Obama agreed 90% of the time. Or he could go with the guy, and the party, with whom he only agreed on 10%. And guess which way Joe Lieberman chose? Lieberman apparantly decided that that 10% was more important, that it was worth more than the 90%, and Joe not only endorsed the guy running against the Democratic nominee, but actively campaigned for him, was his highest-level surrogate, and spoke at the other party’s convention arguing that Americans ought to vote against his party and his party’s nominee. Why? Because those 10% of issues outweighed the other 90. He spent this entire campaign season arguing just, and exactly, that.
And now, Joe Lieberman is threatening to bolt the party if he's not given command of his favored committee. Why is it his favored committee? Is it because with it he can work for the 90% of issues on which he and the Democrats and new President agree? No, it's because it's the seat of power for that 10%. Any other committee, any one falling under that 90%, would be unacceptable to Joe Lieberman. And not just unacceptable, but it would cause him to join a party with whom he only agrees 10% of the time. Because fuck that other 90, says Joe Lieberman.
In 2006, voters sent a clear message that, on that 10%, they agreed not with Joe Lieberman, but with 99% of the rest of the Democratic caucus. They came out in even greater numbers in 2008 to send that same message. Both times, the blowback against the Republican party was in huge measure predicated on the 10% of issues on which George W. Bush, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman stand as one. Joe himself states 90% of the time that that 10% is the #1 voting issue, and ought to trump all others.
If Joe Lieberman thinks that the 10% of issues on which he and the Democratic party disagree are 90% of the ballgame...
Why should we weigh it any differently?