Lieberman, politics, and bipartisanship

Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Senator who didn't believe enough in Al Gore's Presidential bid (he was the candidate for Vice President) to give up his Senate post and concentrate on that crucial campaign, has never been a Democrat. At least not since I was living in Connecticut 15 years ago and was regularly subjected to Joe's absurdities, made more absurd only by the fact that his re-election in that New England state has never been seriously in question.

Until now, that is. Joe is up for a new campaign next year, and his recent comments on Bush's war ain't gonna help him. Lieberman is the only "Democrat" who openly supports Bush's handling of the war, a position that logically follows from the CT Senator's initial strong stance in favor of invading Iraq (in 1998 he co-sponsored with Republican John McCain the so-called "Iraq Liberation Act," which made the removal of Saddam Hussein official US policy, and arguably eventually led to Bush's insanity).

Finally, such blatantly Republican positions (not an isolated incident: Lieberman also vocally supported Bush's aborted plan to "reform" Social Security) are beginning to come back and bite Joe in his posterior. This week he was praised by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld -- a highly dubious honor -- but harshly criticized by Harry Reid (the Democratic Senate minority leader) and Nancy Pelosi (the Dems' House minority leader), not to mention by the grassroots organization MoveOn.org. An internal challenge to his Senate seat may finally begin to take shape.

Of course, Lieberman defends himself by saying that he is a "centrist," and that his critics are the result of the terrible climate of "politics" and "partisanship" in Washington and the country at large. Let's first debunk this idea of centrism. Centrism is Bill Clinton (on his best behavior), not Joe Lieberman. For someone or something to be centrist, there has to be both a right and a left, and this country at the moment has very little on the left. It is only because we got used to the insanity of people like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and so on that we can even consider for a minute someone like Lieberman a "centrist."

Second, I never understood why partisan politicians are so quick to demean the very idea of partisan politics. A bit like all these elected Republicans whose college was paid for by the government and hold elected governmental positions, and yet see no contradiction in attacking the Government (with a capital G) as an out of control monster to be reined in at all costs.

I want partisan politics; I think bipartisanship is not good. Yes, the two parties should try to compromise whenever possible, but there are good reasons why I vote Democrat and not Republican: I don't want even a single Republican in Congress, at the Senate, or the White House. Yes, this is an ideal that will never be realized (and yes, I understand that Dems aren't saints either, I'm just choosing the least of possible evils), but that's my goal. Joe Lieberman ain't helping, and he should be thrown out of the Democratic party.

And please don't tell me that this is intolerance on my part. I'm not denying Lieberman's right to express his opinions (unlike, say, what Bush does with war critics who get arrested or are given limited access to public streets when he tours the country), or go after whatever political gain he feels he can get. I'm just saying that he should be doing it squarely from within the ranks of the Republican party, where he clearly should have moved decades ago (but didn't because as a Republican he wouldn't have had a chance of being elected in Connecticut). Hopefully, next year Connecticut voters will encourage him to make such a transition, immediately after election day.