Will American democracy survive Joe Lieberman's TREACHERY?

Joe Lieberman- we're here to document the inevitable TREACHERY...

TREACHERY, thy name is JOE LIEBERMAN. While the entire Democratic Senate caucus is kissing Lieberman's keister, we take this moment to remind that being stupid enough to name Joe Lieberman as his running mate COST AL GORE (and the Democrats) the presidential election in 2000.

AS we've written elsewhere, Joe Lieberman was THE Democratic leader who MOST VISIBLY and PUBLICY approved of the Republican IMPEACHMENT of President Clinton, based on the $70 million Ken Lay/Paula Jones "elves" PERJURY TRAP that the prosecutor sprung on Clinton (involving PUTTING MORE FBI AGENTS on interrogating Monica Lewinsky and other women about their sex-lives, than the FBI under Director Louis Freeh put on investigating AL QAIDA TERROR CELLS in America.)

Having established that it wasn't really Joe's fault that Gore was stupid enought to select him as VP nominee based on "moral values" baloney, Joe Lieberman DID SABOTAGE the Gore campaign in 2000 in at least three different ways:
#1. Lieberman, given the singular HONOR of being the Democrats VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, REFUSED to give up his senate race to put his all in running for Vice President! Historians will undoubtably realize that Al Gore ALLOWING his running mate to serve two campaign masters was a terrible FLAW in the Gore campaign... the sort of wishy-washyness that Gore's critics jumped on all summer long. (See NY Times editorial writer Maureen Dowd's pathetic "earth tone wardrobe" screeds against Gore, and equally pathetic "Clinton LEGACY" editorials, from all summer long that year.)
#2. Lieberman ran the most wishy-washy nondescript campaign one could ever hope to see. In his one and only "debate" against Republican VP candidate Dick Cheney, Lieberman all but polished apples for the former Halliburton CEO. FAT CHANCE that Lieberman used the opportunity to ask TOUGH QUESTIONS of Cheney, such as "WHY DID YOU SUPPLY WMD-precursor technologies to Saddam's Iraq in the 1980s while you were Secretary of Defense, and WHY did you continue that pattern of ARMING and SUPPLYING a murderous dictator when sold Iraq OIL DRILLING EQUIPMENT while avoiding the UN embargo on that nation in the late 1990s, via your Halliburton European subsidiaries?" [Note: that Israel supper-lobbyist Lieberman would give Cheney a "FREE PASS" on arming Saddam's Iraq with WMD precursor technologies in the 1980s demonstrates how closely the neo-con and neo-confederate agendas are allied in the 'muscular', not to say aggressive exercise of US foreign policy.]
#3. And, of course, as the clueless Al Gore was trying to collect all his LEGITIMATE VOTES in the Florida recount debacle that unfolded in the first hours of election night, Joe Lieberman practically took a position on the FOX 'news' board of directors by ACCEDING to the Republican projections that George Bush & co. had "won" the election.. WITH THE HELP of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and "throw in the towel" Joe Lieberman.
#4. And, what the hell, IF you wanted any one person to be THE face of "cowardly Democrats BETRAYING their own minority voters DISENFRANCHISED by the Jeb/Katherine Harris illegal VOTE-PURGING efforts in Florida, you could not ask for a better example than JOE LIEBERMAN: Clearly, Al Gore was in no position to SIGN ON TO THE Black Congressional Caucus DEMANDS for a SINGLE Democratic Senator to SIGN their petition for a Congressional Investigation into vote fraud in that election.
So there you have it: possibly THREE or four BETRAYALS of the Democratic MAJORITY- POPULAR VOTE MAJORITY nationwide, and almost certain popular vote majority in Florida - by Senator Joe Lieberman, as cozy as a grub in a rotted log in his new 6 year term in the senate.

Ooops! But we don't want to forget ELECTION 2002! That was the one where the Democrats, under the 'leadership' of hapless Tom Daschle, LOST THE SENATE MAJORITY to the Bush-Republicans, only to have it RESTORED to them when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords COURAGEOUSLY QUIT the Republican Party, in protest of the dictatorial "My way or the highway" DICTATES from the Bush-Cheney White House (and the Tom DeLay Congress).

SO WHAT did Joe Lieberman do with his NEWLY RESTORED CHAIR in the Senate Govt. Affairs Committee, a chair that he did practically nothing to earn, that was GIVEN to him by Senator Jeffords????

-answer: Lieberman, as Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, PROCEEDED TO ROB Democratic candidates and voters of their BEST ISSUE in the 2002 election, by QUASHING a meaningful, thorough, and energetic INVESTIGATION into ENRON FRAUD, and the LINKS between Enron FRAUD and President Bush. Enron had only been George W. Bush's NUMBER ONE CAMPAIGN DONOR through TWO Texas Gubanatorial elections, before Bush ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000... where ENRON CONTINUED their role as Bush's number one campaign donor. Enron repeated that role in the 2000 general election campaign, in the 2000 Florida recount battle, and in the 2001 Bush-Cheney inaugueration galas. Not only did Lieberman's committee REFUSE to INVESTIGATE AGGRESSIVELY Enron's fraud leading up to their 2001 stock and debt meltdown, not only did Lieberman as chair "WET BLANKET" any investigation in the close relations between President Bush and Enron Chairman Ken Lay, BUT President Bush practically grabbed Enron executive THOMAS WHITE out from the fires of the collapsing company... and installed him as SECRETARY OF THE ARMY in May of 2001!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0216-04.htm
ALL the above with NO effort - much less aggressive prosecutorial zeal - by Enron investigation Chairman Joe Leiberman to pursue an energetic investigation of Enron's illegal conduct and, surprise, the Democrats LOST CONTROL OF THE SENATE in the 2002 midterm elections, ROBBED as candidates and voters were of the opportunity to TIE President Bush to that Enron debacle.

JOE LIEBERMAN: at the HEART of the Democratic election FAILURES of 2000 and 2002, and thereby Lieberman should be practically synonymous with President Bush's SUPREME COURT picks, FEDERAL COURT picks, cabinet nominations, budget shenaningans, and of course the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz MARCH TO WAR using "Enron accounting" standards intel (i.e. intel manipulations).

Which, given America's current flirtations with rigged elections, foreign wars, dispensing of civil and legal rights, and draconian, dictatorial powers, leads to the question: "Will American democracy SURVIVE JOE LEIBERMAN?"

This blog is intended to give historians a "Heads Up" on where our government and our rights went missing.

JOE LIEBERMAN: TWO FAILED DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS _ALREADY_ on his scalp-belt, and working on turning election 2006 into a Democratic NIGHTMARE still!

===========================================
Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman
By MARK LEIBOVICH
November 15, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/us/politics/15lieberman.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman strode into a Democratic caucus gathering like he owned the place or, at the very least, like someone who is a flight risk and could leave at any minute, taking the Democrats’ new majority with him.

In other words, everyone was extra-special nice to the wayward Democrat on Tuesday.

“It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon marveled, “One senator after another kept coming up and shaking his hand.”

And Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas noted, “I gave him a hug and a kiss.”

Mr. Lieberman received a standing ovation at a caucus luncheon after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is poised to become the majority leader, declared, “We’re all family.”

All of which is particularly touching in light of recent history. It was, after all, just three months ago that Mr. Lieberman became something of a party pariah after losing the Democratic primary in Connecticut but continuing his re-election bid as an independent.

Mr. Lieberman won re-election last week without help from most of his Democratic Senate colleagues, who backed Ned Lamont, his Democratic rival, over their “good friend Joe Lieberman.”

These would be many of the same good friends “who were happy to leave my dad by the side of the road,” as Mr. Lieberman’s son, Matthew, put it in an election night speech. These, presumably, would include “friends” like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, all Lamont supporters.

“It’s clear that the Democrats need him at this point more than he needs them,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, whom Mr. Lieberman genuinely does consider a close friend. “How sweet is this?”

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Mr. Lieberman could have emerged better from last week’s election. He was re-elected comfortably, and the Democratic Party he still belongs to is now in the majority, assuring him the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

Yet that majority is slim enough, 51 to 49, to turn Mr. Lieberman into arguably the Senate’s most influential member. If he defects, the Senate would effectively be under Republican control because Vice President Dick Cheney would cast tie-breaking votes.

“It was very painful to him to have all these people he thought were his friends embrace his opponent,” Ms. Collins said. “They just threw him overboard. But now, not only is he re-elected resoundingly, but he is also the key to which party controls the Senate.”

Mr. Lieberman’s situation underscores the precarious calculus of political friendships. People close to him say he remains miffed, if not bitter, about what he considers the betrayal of allies who supported an unknown, untested and unfamiliar candidate.

In recent months, Mr. Lieberman has frequently invoked the Harry Truman maxim that if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Mr. Lieberman has suggested he has felt especially wounded by Mr. Dodd, Connecticut’s senior senator, with whom he had shared a close bond since arriving in the Senate in 1989. Mr. Dodd had supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary, but endorsed Mr. Lamont after he won. Mr. Dodd’s appearance with Mr. Lamont at a Democratic “unity” rally and in a campaign commercial infuriated Mr. Lieberman, friends said.

Mr. Dodd said in a brief interview Tuesday, “We all make decisions, and those decisions have consequences.”

Earlier in the day, he attended a Capitol Hill news conference that drew every Democrat in Connecticut’s Congressional delegation except Mr. Lieberman.

Friends said the strains between Mr. Lieberman and his Democratic colleagues show.

“It will take a little time for the room to really warm up from both ends,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, one of the few Senate Democrats who supported Mr. Lieberman in his general election campaign. “I would not be forthright if I didn’t say there was some healing and work that has to be done.”

During the campaign, Mr. Lieberman said repeatedly that he would continue to vote with the Democratic caucus, but there were calls from the left for the Democratic leadership to strip him of his seniority and committee assignments if he won.

But as Mr. Lieberman claimed a healthy lead in polls, Mr. Reid reached out to him. Over time, Mr. Reid’s and other Democratic leaders’ support for Mr. Lamont became half-hearted, or nonexistent, according to Mr. Lamont’s campaign.

Mr. Lieberman classifies himself as an “independent Democrat” and has said that recent events left him feeling “liberated” and “unshackled,” not exactly reassuring words to Democrats.

He stirred more anxiety Sunday, when in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he refused to rule out becoming a Republican (while adding, “I hope I don’t get to that point”).

In brief remarks to reporters Tuesday, Mr. Lieberman said he had refused to rule out switching parties largely because Tim Russert, the show’s host, “kept pressing me on it.”

But Mr. Lieberman also said that while “most of my vote clearly came from independents and Republicans” in Connecticut, “it’s fair to say that I couldn’t have won without Democratic support.”

Mr. Lieberman restated that it was possible he could join Senate Republicans, but he added, “I’m not going to threaten on every issue to leave the caucus.”

Clearly, friends say, he is relishing his sudden ascent from Democratic reject in Connecticut to Senate kingmaker in Washington. “He is just sitting there in the catbird seat, and it must be delicious for him,” Ms. Collins said.

Mr. Lieberman was asked Tuesday if he viewed his position as similar to a swing vote on the Supreme Court, a role often played by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The parallel had not occurred to him, Mr. Lieberman replied, but he considered it “a complimentary analogy.”

He beamed as he said this, as he did for much of the day.

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.