Does Lieberman's endorsement of McCain break a campaign promise?

Joementum for John?

The netroots' reaction to Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain is relatively muted, notwithstanding Andrew Sullivan's prediction that it would make their heads asplode. The king of the netroots, Kos himself, writes that it's "kind of silly" to be "outraged" about this, and in fact professes to be "quite pleased with this turn of events." He says it reveals Lieberman's true colors at last (those of a "disloyal backstabbing ass"), and renders the hated Nutmegger increasingly irrelevant.

One thing about the McCain-Lieberman ticket alliance does seem to be sticking in the lefties' craw, though, and that's the fact that Senator Joe supposedly "promised the voters of his state that he would fight to elect a Democratic Senate and president." This claim deserves some additional scrutiny.

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X has the full quote, from the July 2006 debate between Lieberman and Lamont:

"I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Ned Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that."

Kagro X refers to this as a "lie." Hmm. Well, okay, first of all, if that's supposed to be a "promise," it's pretty weak tea. It sounds to me more like a statement of present intent. Now, I know that defense might sound overly lawyer-ish, but contrast it with the true promise that Lieberman made to caucus with the Democrats -- "I've given my word that's what I intend to do. I am going to caucus with the Democrats." -- and I think the difference is clear. Similarly, contrast it with other infamous broken campaign promises throughout history. If George H.W. Bush had merely said, "I want taxes to remain low," would that have had the same impact as "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I think not.

The more important point, though, is the timing of Lieberman's alleged "promise." As Kagro X notes, it took place in a July 2006 debate with Lamont. That means it was before the Democratic Party rejected Lieberman at the ballot box on August 8. If his July 2006 statement was, as I believe, a "statement of present intent," then being effectively shown the door by his own party could certainly qualify as the sort of thing that might cause his intent to change. In other words, there is a legitimate question of just who stabbed whose back. (As Jay Reding says, "the way they treated Lieberman, it’s unlikely that he would endorse anyone on the Democratic side.")

In any event, I would argue that such a "promise" -- assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's fair to call it a "promise" -- made during a debate in which he was trying to secure the Democratic nomination, carries with it the implicit caveat, "If you nominate me...," just as promises made during an election are based implicitly on the premise, "If you elect me..." Once Lieberman lost the primary that provided the entire context for the statement in question, he should be considered free to adopt a new position. After all, he won the general election by appealing largely to Republicans and independents, so it's not at all unreasonable that his "promises" would change somewhat in that, entirely new, context. (If it were a "promise" regarding a policy position, maybe not, but we're talking about a "promise" related specifically to party affiliation, the very thing that changed utterly when Lieberman lost on August 8.)

Nor can Democrats legitimately feel "betrayed" because a man whom they rejected broke a "promise" that he made while trying to win them over. That just doesn't make logical sense. The netroots' argument that Lieberman's latest move reveals that They! Were! Right! All! Along! misses a key cause-and-effect point: if Joementum had carried the day in that August 8 primary, there is almost certainly no way this would be happening. For all his principles, Lieberman is human, and that humiliating loss -- followed by his political abandonment by nearly all of his former friends and allies -- was clearly a turning point. It was the Democratic Party's rejection of Lieberman that started Lieberman down the road to rejecting the Democratic Party. That's not to say Connecticut Democrats had no right to prefer Lamont, of course; that was their (small-d) democratic prerogative. But their choice has consequences, and this is one of them. It's ridiculous to claim that Lieberman is now "stabbing them in the back" when it is they who kicked him to the curb, and even more ridiculous to use statements that he made before his primary defeat as evidence of his alleged deceitfulness and betrayal.

Anyway, can anyone offer evidence of a similar "promise" not to endorse a Republican that Lieberman made after August 8 (like the "caucus with the Democrats" promise)? If so, I may reconsider my take on this. But as it is, I think this is a non-issue.

Regardless, Lieberman is certainly correct that:

"Political parties are important in our country. But they're not more important than what's best for our country. ... They're not more important than our future. ...

"Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America. Let's put America first again, and John McCain is the man, as president, who will help us do that."

If you watch the video clip, you'll notice that I left out one line: "They're not more important than friendship." I left it out because I disagree with it, at least as a blanket statement. Sometimes friendships might be more important than political parties, but sometimes parties will certainly be more important. I don't care if George Bush and Nancy Pelosi are best friends, it's still Pelosi's obligation to fight Bush tooth-and-nail on the issues that matter to the Democrats who elected her.

However, it is certainly true that country is more important than party, and I respect Lieberman immensely for recognizing that. Contrary to what the netroots would have us believe, all he's done is follow his conscience, which has led him into the murky seas of a very uncertain political future. If he was the backstabbing scumbag that they claim he is, he'd be a member of the Republican Senate majority (with all the perks they undoubtedly offered him to switch) or a member of the Bush cabinet by now. But Lieberman is a good man, a man of his word and of his conscience. I don't agree with him about everything, and I may or may not ultimately support his presidential choice if McCain wins the nomination. But I sure as hell respect him, and when people attack his character (as opposed to his policy choices and so forth), I believe it is a sign of poor judgment on their part.

P.S. Andrew Sullivan -- who, incidentally, has today endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination (heh) -- has more blogger reactions to the McCain-Lieberman alliance.

P.P.S. You cannot stop Joementum! Heh.

Comments

[yea]

you waste too much effort defending a man who isn't worth the effort. i think he definetely played both sides of the coin in the last election, but i don't think ct voters have any right to be suprised or betrayed. if they wanted a party-line democrat they had their chance to vote lamont. lieberman was close to a known-commodity at that point and still won the election. anyone who is suprised by this isn't paying attention.

i think lieberman, while not a democrat, is an example of the problems with the democratic party at large today. the democrats in office now are way too centrist to make a real difference and its frustrating a lot of people. people voted in democrats for a change, and it seems liek they are afraid to stand up to bush on so many things. i think the party needs to shift further to the left.

personally, this whole endorsement seems like pretty much everything else lieberman does, it seems self-serving. it looks to me like he is trying to position himself for a VP nod should a resurgent mccain get the nomination. caususing as an independent was a step to doing this. no democrat would bring him on as a vp cause of his pro-war stance, and mccain might be the only republican to consider him.

i wish you liked the seemed politicains i did brendan cause you put a hell of an effort in defending this man.

[Ken]

Of course it is a "non-issue"...nobody really cares anyway.

[Brendan Loy]

this whole endorsement seems like pretty much everything else lieberman does, it seems self-serving

Heh. Hilarious. Hi-freakin-larious.

A few examples of "self-serving" things that Lieberman has done:

* Refusing to alter his genuine stance on the war in 2003 when it became clear that the political winds had shifted due to the Dean Revolution, such that Kerry and Edwards abruptly became "anti-war" and thus remained viable candidates, while Lieberman stuck to his principles and was doomed to defeat as a result.

* Continuing to argue for what he thought was right throughout 2004-2006, ultimately resulting in his effective ouster from the Democratic Party, abandonment by his closest friends and allies, and purgatory in a political "no man's land" after he won re-election.

* Caucusing with the Democrats, in keeping with his general election promise, despite the fact that he could have switched parties and become the world's most powerful Republican -- undoubtedly with various plum committee assignments and so forth -- by switching parties

* Reportedly turning down overtures to serve as a powerful cabinet member in the Bush Administration on more than one occasion.

* Endorsing a man who appears to have about a 5% chance of winning the Republican nomination, when said endorsement has a 100% chance of further damaging whatever positive relationships he has left with his fellow Democrats.

Of all the charges that are levied against Lieberman by blind partisans, "self-serving" is by far the most laughable.

[yea]

your list doesnt really prove your point

-contiuing to support the war was necessary to keep his ties with the republicans that he had made friends with. it was a tough choice to be made either way, but i think your naive in thinking it was "principle" that made the choice. id also like to note that united technologies was lieberman's biggest campaign supporter financially. united technologies is a military contractor. many other republican friends contributed to his campaign as well.

-your second point is esentially the same as your first

-lieberman not caususing with the democrats would be political suicide and was not ever a realistic option. to change the majority of the house with a move like that, after CT voters had elected him without an indication that he would do anything like that would be disgraceful. lauding him for not switching to the republican caucus is holding him to very low standards. he kept a general election promise that if broken would ruin his credibility... how is that an example of him not being self-serving?

-his relationships with democrats are most non-existent. republicans and many of their special interests financed his campaign and that is where his loyalty lies. the endorsement of mccain is calculated to serve an objective. the thing lieberman doesnt realize is that he has close to zero national appeal. i think lieberman being such a bad vp probably cost gore the white house. it probably kept lots of progressive democrats who wernt too enthusiastic from voting, and probably drew a lot of them to nader. lieberman really didnt add anything to that ticket. lieberman's presidential run was a total flop, further showing his lack of national appeal.

resulting to name calling doesnt support your argument at all brendan and i think you'd be above that. while lieberman doesn't belong to a party, your support of him seems to be the closest thing to being blind here.

[Brian Foster]

"They're not more important than friendship." I left it out because I disagree with it, at least as a blanket statement. Sometimes friendships might be more important than political parties, but sometimes parties will certainly be more important. I don't care if George Bush and Nancy Pelosi are best friends, it's still Pelosi's obligation to fight Bush tooth-and-nail on the issues that matter to the Democrats who elected her.

Knowing absolutely nothing other than what I've read in your post, Brendan, I would suggest that perhaps what Joe meant was that friendship can, and should, cross party lines. Not that party differences should be subjugated to a personal friendship. Or, to use your example, he was saying that even if Pelosi and Bush fight tooth and nail based on their respective parties' agendas, they can still walk out the door arm in arm at the end of the day and grab a beer, like Reagan and Tip used to do.

Or something like that.

Although I guess in the context of country and future, yours may be the better interpretation, I still think that as a general matter, friendship can, and should, easily trump party politics, without negating either friend's commitment to their party or efforts to serve their party.

[David K.]

That means it was before the Democratic Party rejected Lieberman at the ballot box on August 8.

The Democratic Party did not reject him, Connecticut voters who voted Democratic in the primary did. The actual Party simply respected the results of that election. I've asked before and I've asked again, what would you have had the party do in reward for Joe having been a Democrat for X years? Ignore the election results?? Later in your post you talk about back stabbing, since when did not voting for a candidate you do not feel represents your values amount to backstabbing.

You claim that Lieberman has held to his values, which is fine, but again it shows that he was no longer in step with the Democratic voters in Connecticut, atleast not a majority n that election. Now he did garner the support of the majority of Connecticut voters, and again thats fine, he represens them, and as long as he does so they will re-elect him.

Switching parties is not an evil thing tro me, if he switched parties I personally wouldn't think much of it, he can align with whomever he thinks best fits him. But I think what annoys most people is that he seems to be clinging to the Democrat name but moving closer and closer to actually being a Republican.

Of course I wouldn't vote for him regardless of party because of his actual stances on issues, and I'm sure you would vote for him regardless of party because of his stances on issues as well.

[Joe Loy]

While the conventional analysis ~ being, as Brendan put it, that Lieberman "won the general election by appealing largely to Republicans and independents" ~ is True as far as goes, it doesn't go far Enough. For it is ALSO true that Saint Joe won the general election by remaining sufficiently Appealing to rank-and-file Democrats to receive the November vote of One out of every Three of them. Arithmetically this support "also", or if you prefer, Alternatively, provides his margin of victory. / IOW, if we hold constant Joe's overwhelming Republican, and substantial Unaffiliated, majorities but reallocate to Lamont a more "normal" share of Democratic votes for the party Nominee, say in the range of 85% instead of his anemic 66% or so ~~ Lord Neddie wins. :]

I note the above Not to delegitimize Joe's endorsement of Republican McCain, which it Doesn't; rather, just to Complete the Record and also of course to Annoy the diehard Lamontistas, hi yea :), who in consigning Saint Joe to the Outer Darkness must necessarily Banish a couple of hundred thousand Other good Connecticut Democrats along with him.

[Jim Hu]

... the democrats in office now are way too centrist ... i think the party needs to shift further to the left.
Must be one of Karl Rove's deep cover moles.

[David Ross]

Jim Hu, you wish.

The Democrats won't lose votes by tacking left. The boomers grow older and more demanding; illegal immigration continues to mount; the universities convert more children of the elites and middle classes to the hard Left. Also, evangelicals are about to return to their Populist roots with Huckabee.

Onward, comrades!

[JO]

Ummm, that picture looks like they're going to start totally making out.