Confessions of a Recovering Lieberman Lover

I was visiting my in-laws' house in Northeast Indiana when I heard the news that Joseph Lieberman was nominated by my party for Vice President of the United States. The news had me crying tears of joy -- an emotion that I usually reserve for the Twins winning the World Series or the births of my children. But this was a special moment in my life. Here was the incumbent party, the party I expected to emerge victorious, nominating a Jew to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency for the first time in our nation's history. And he wasn't just any Jew. Joe was a religious man who had the chutzpah to stand up and decry the reckless behavior of Bill Clinton when all the other Democrats couldn't forgive Clinton fast enough.

I was with Joe. As a charter member of Clinton's "saxophone club," I felt personally betrayed by his conduct. Triangulation and welfare-reform-without-a-war-on-poverty were bad enough. But the bit with Monica left me no doubt about the betrayal. Clinton took office amidst a sexual scandal, and he all but promised us that he understood the gravity of the situation and would make us proud once he took the helm and lived out his manifest destiny. I trusted that he did indeed "get it" -- the GOP would be watching his every move, and what happened to Gary Hart would never happen to him. Well it did happen; Bill forgot that he needed to live "virtuously," as middle-America defines that term, for eight full years. And then Monica kept the blue dress. So Bill's ability to govern would be stained throughout the remainder of his Presidency.

I was livid. And my frustration was compounded by the fact that on the nightly talk shows, the only people who agreed with me that the stains mattered were members of the GOP. They, and Joe Lieberman.

During Monicagate, Joe Lieberman came across as the platonic form of the earnest, independent politician. He may have agreed with the President on most issues, but he felt morally compelled to speak out against reckless conduct in the White House that can only be defended by an appeal to moral relativism, a notion that any religious Jew can't possibly tolerate. Night after night, Joe's colleagues tried to "triangulate" in their own feeble way, but who was kidding whom. They'd briefly pay lip service to how "what the President did was wrong," and then go on for minute after minute about the vast right wing conspiracy. In short, they did all they can to deflect attention away from the President and toward his detractors. But not Joe. He stood up on the floor of the Senate and told the American public not simply that Clinton let us down, but why what he did mattered. Joe seemed as offended by the situation as I was. He made me proud to call myself a Jew. And I was prouder yet when Joe got the nod to be Al Gore's running mate.

At some point during the election race of 2000, I remember hearing that Lieberman was going to run for re-election for Senate at the same time that he ran for Vice President. I thought that was a little wierd, but it didn't really bother me. Surely, I felt, it wouldn't harm the prospects of the Democratic party in Connecticut to retain that seat, should Gore-Lieberman prove victorious. The only down side was that it might deflect Lieberman's attention marginally from the Presidential race, and at the time, I couldn't possibly have thought that the election would have come down to the margin of one or two hanging chads.

Even after the 2000 election, I was still with Senator Lieberman as he retook his seat on Capitol Hill. Here was a man I wanted to serve our country. Yes, he was more conservative than I was -- or as he might say, more "moderate" -- but that's OK. I liked him because I thought he was principled and we agreed more often than not on the issues. We'd just have to wait for another day -- or another century -- before a relatively liberal Jew was elected to serve in the White House.

Fast forward now to March 2003. The United States was about to go to war with Iraq. And by the eve of war, I had come to despise the planned invasion. That hadn't always been my perspective. I couldn't help but take seriously the threat of militant, fundamentalist Islam, and if the Administration was talking about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," who was I to question that? But question it I did, and only a few weeks before the war started, I encountered a Congressman at a friend's funeral and asked the Congressman about the threat from Iraq. He responded that he had looked closely at the matter and was underwhelmed, to say the least. And so, after a bit of reflection, I decided to oppose what appeared to be a war based on questionable grounds. This was far worse than a misdeed involving a blue dress, for now lives were at stake, and I'm not just talking about American lives.

When the war began, Joe Lieberman was hardly alone in the cheering section. Every Tom, Dick and Hillary was on board.

But it wouldn't take long before the cheering ended. Fox News had stopped playing its martial music. "Shock and awe" became a term of humor, rather than pride. And "Mission Accomplished" became the precursor to "Brownie's doing a heck of a job." One after another, Democrats cut and ran from the Bush camp. But not Joe. He's nothing if not steadfast. Despite one horrible report after another from the front, Joe never wavered. "This world is better off without Saddam in power." That's what the President said. That's what Cheney said. That's what Rummy said. And that's what every Republican's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, said.

It made me sick. But that's only because the war made me sick. I didn't lose respect for Lieberman, the man. I simply couldn't stand to listen to Lieberman the messenger.

As the years passed, and even my right-wing friends began criticizing the Administration's strategy in prosecuting the war in Iraq, Lieberman began to throw out some critical words of his own. But they came across as mere lip service -- much like the criticism of Clinton on the part of Lieberman's Democratic colleagues during Monicagate. For the most part, Joe continued to come across as one of the war's most pollyanish cheerleaders. Then, one day, he uttered the famous words that struck me and my fellow war-protesters right between the eyes: "In matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

No sir. In matters of war, we Democrats protest -- unless the war is one of the exceptional situations where our pacifism must be cast aside, as with World World II, or even with the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq is no exception to the principle that wars are generally not worth fighting. This was indeed a war of choice, a war based on WMDs that never existed and intelligence that was marshalled in the most one-sided matter possible. No sir. When we Democrats protest, we don't undermine Presidential credibility. We affirm the American way of life. We affirm the idea you don't have to worship John Wayne to belong on these shores. We affirm that liberals have a right to breathe American air every bit as much as conservatives.

Truly, Canada is too cold for me. And I'm still pissed off at the Blue Jays for beating my Twins when I went to the Metrodome last week.

Even after he implicitly questioned the patriotism of protest, I never lost respect for Joe Lieberman until he announced that he would seek re-election regardless of whether he triumphed in the Democratic primary. Now, finally, he showed me his true colors. The Democratic party has a historic chance to regain a majority both in the House and the Senate, and the last thing it needs is for a large percentage of party donations to be thrown into a battle royale between two Democrats in a liberal state. But that's exactly what Joe has in mind.

Now, if you ask Democrats what's the most intriguing election in 2006, they'll answer the Lieberman-Lamont tilt. Maybe they'll donate to Joe. Maybe to Ned. But in the big scheme of things, it hardly matters who gets their change. What matters is that their money will not be going to finance battles in other states. That's where the Republicans will be tossing their coins.

Once again, the Democrats's stupidity will decide an election.

As I look at Joe Lieberman today, I don't see earnestness, I see stubborness. I don't see religiosity, I see narcissism. I don't see the hope for a Jewish pioneer. I see the realization that if you're a Jew or a black and you want to gain mainstream popularity, you'd better do it as a conservative or a moderate (for liberals need to look like they've dined all their lives on Wonderbread and mayonnaise -- plus the carcasses that they've killed with their own rifles).

But I digress. What bothers me most about Joe "the Independent" is that he's now asserting that those Democrats who would ask him to accept Lamont as our standard-bearer are trying to turn the Democratic party into a small tent. A tent in which only pinkos and their descendents can enter.

Sorry Joe. Democrats are simply saying that those who supported the horrible war in Iraq over and over again should be accountable for the mistake we believe you made. That's the way democracy should work: you screw up, you find another job.

Joe, if you want a life appointment, and you're willing to fight for one even at the expense of your party, I suggest you get a job with the judiciary system. Then you can become one of a number of judges or justices, rather than the one and only favorite Democrat of Rush Limbaugh.

Sorry. I meant favorite "Independent" of Rush Limbaugh. I'll see you on election day. My fear is that you'll win, and the nation will lose.