Joe Lieberman: A Horse’s Ass
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, center, an independent, with two
Republican colleagues Wednesday: John McCain, left, and Lindsey Graham.
By KATE ZERNIKE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — It came as little surprise that when Senate Republicans
blocked debate Monday on a resolution that would have opposed President
Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, erstwhile Democrat, sided with them.
But Mr. Lieberman also went
further, accusing Democrats of giving strength to the enemy and
abandoning the troops, and arguing that an alternative resolution that
he and many Republicans backed was “a statement of support to our
troops.”
That was too much even for one Republican member, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a sponsor of the bipartisan resolution against the president’s policy.
“I
forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops,” Mr.
Warner said tersely. “And there is no suggestion that one is less
patriotic than the other.”
Defeated last year in the
Democratic senatorial primary in Connecticut but then elected as an
independent to a fourth term, Mr. Lieberman has kept a promise to
caucus with the Democrats, giving them a majority of only 51 to 49 and
earning for him a designation as “the most influential man in the
Senate.”
But on Iraq, the issue that made the last year the
most difficult of his political life, he has moved farther and farther
from the party, winding up to the right of many Republicans who now
embrace what six months ago was almost solely a Democratic position on
the war.
Mr. Lieberman’s enthusiasm for the troop
increase has become a talking point for Republicans trying to shore up
support for the president’s plan. It infuriates the bloggers who
first tried to defeat him. Some of his best friends on either side of
the aisle take issue with him publicly. But given his importance as the
lawmaker who ensures Democratic control of the Senate, members of the
majority say there is little they can do.
Joe Lieberman, independent, sees himself as Joe Lieberman unchained.
“I feel liberated, free somehow,” he said during an interview in his office.
“As
I look back,” he said, “I have always tried to do what I
thought was right, regardless of where a majority of members of my
party are. But there’s always pressure on you. I just feel free
of that pressure. And I think my Democratic colleagues know that
I’m not going to do — on this, of all questions which I
think is so important to our country’s future, to our success in
the war on terrorism — I’m not going to do anything here
just to be a good member of the team.”
His forays across
the aisle have begun to extend past the Iraq debate. When he was asked
on Fox News recently which Democrat he would support in 2008, Mr.
Lieberman, the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2000, offered
instead that he might vote for a Republican.
“I would not have said that three years ago,” Mr. Lieberman said. “No chance.”
Even
Democrats who have come to expect his siding with the president on the
war thought this was going a bit far. “Did you see that?”
one Democratic senator asked, incredulous. But he, like others,
criticized only privately. “The bottom line,” the senator
said, “is we need him.”
To those who supported Ned Lamont, the victor over Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, this is an “I told you so” moment.
“He
was re-elected because he fooled enough people into believing he really
was against the war and not for an escalation, but I think this is his
true colors,” said David Sirota, a Lamont consultant who recalled
that during the campaign, Mr. Lieberman said he wanted to bring the
troops home “as fast as anyone.”
“It’s
everything Ned Lamont was saying: that you can’t listen to this
guy’s words, you have to watch his actions,” Mr. Sirota
said. “I think it shows a disdain for the public. It’s like
the public to him is just a nuisance, an obstacle for him doing what he
wants to do.”
Mr. Lieberman’s talk of supporting a
Republican in 2008, Mr. Sirota said, suggests that he is still toying
with the idea of switching to the Senate Republican Caucus.
Mr.
Lieberman could always prove to be an unpredictable ally for the
Republicans, too, as when he suggested last Thursday a “war on
terrorism tax” to make Americans understand the sacrifice that he
said the fight demanded.
Still, Republicans have missed few
opportunities to embrace his support. Mr. Bush said in a recent speech
that he was acting on “the good advice of Senator Joe
Lieberman” in proposing a bipartisan Congressional working group
on Iraq. (Democrats scoffed that the president had already had plenty
of ways to consult with Congress and had never shown much interest in
doing so.) The president and Vice President Dick Cheney also quote Mr. Lieberman in arguing the White House’s view on the troop increase, and the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, repeatedly notes how happy the minority is to have Mr. Lieberman’s backing.
“I wish I were being quoted by some Democrats, too,” Mr. Lieberman said.
But he does not seem very worried about appearing cozy with the other side. When one Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, squabbled with Senator Carl Levin
of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at a hearing
about the troop increase, Mr. Levin abruptly walked out. Mr. Lieberman
walked over and chuckled with Mr. McCain, patting him on the back.
At
hearings on Iraq, Mr. Lieberman frequently leads witnesses to testimony
in support of the president. Isn’t it true, he asked Gen. George
W. Casey Jr., the departing commander of American forces there, that
over all, the policy in Iraq has been a success? Doesn’t Mr.
Bush’s strategy offer “a higher probability of working than
any other plan?”
Such arguments have prompted friends like Senator Susan Collins,
a Maine Republican who opposes the troop increase, to challenge him
publicly. Still, Ms. Collins said in an interview, “the fact that
he takes a position that’s contrary to the vast majority of the
members of his caucus I think speaks to his strong principles.”
“I
enjoy seeing him in this position of power, given the very difficult
political year he’s gone through,” she said. “I think
he’s enjoying this.”
The midterm election, Mr.
Lieberman argues, was a call to bipartisanship, and his mandate is to
get Democrats to look beyond party lines.
Yes, he concedes, the
election was also a call for a change in Iraq; he just believes the
president’s plan offers the best chance of that.
“I’m
a feisty, happy warrior,” he said. “And I’m going to
continue to fight for what I think is right for the security of our
country.”
::Tullycast:: 