Lieberman is a POS

The first question for the week is to determine whether or not Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. I suppose he would tell you that he is not, but I think that most of the available evidence leans towards saying that he is - much to the chagrin of other members of the Democratic party-in-government - actually a Democrat. Aldrich notes that legislation is dependent the formation of voting majorities in Congress (p195) and the only clear expression of this is the voting records of particular members. The model he offers for determining a "party vote" accepts the fact that there is a lot of missing information - the data will not tell us why a member voted the way they did or what other forms of the legislation did not make it out of committee, among other subjective factors (p196). Nonetheless, a voting record is the best available data for determining preferences in comparison to other members of Congress. Turning to Lieberman specifically, his voting record is strong in terms of party votes with Democrats on a broad range of issues (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278). Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently put the number for Lieberman casting Democratic party-line votes at about 90% (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/dean-applauds-move-to-kee_n_144667.html) - with the glaring exception of the military and national defense issues that have become more prevalent in recent years, causing the well-publicized rift between Lieberman and the party that ultimately resulted in him losing the Democratic primary and subsequently leaving the party in 2006.

Lieberman continued to caucus with the Democratic Party, and retained his seniority with regard to committees in the last session of Congress. When compared to all members of Congress across the entire spectrum of congressional business, it is difficult not to categorize Lieberman as a relatively liberal Democrat - it is only when taking into account his support of President Bush and the Republicans with regard to particular miltary and national defense issues that the case can be made otherwise. Quoting DNC Chairman Dean from the above article, "Why not allow him to vote with us on 90 percent of the stuff?" I think it is hard to make a case that someone who has a long and relatively high-profile history with the party that he votes with 90% of the time, changed his party affiliation to "Independent Democrat" rather than simply "Independent", and continues to caucus with other party members is not a member of the party-in-government as defined by Aldrich, or based on any objective criteria whatsoever.

That said, the aforementioned clashes with other Democrats and party leadership, and Lieberman's ardent support of GOP presidential candidate John McCain over the past year, many in the party feel that some sort of retribution may be in order. The question of what the Democrats should do with him appears to already have been answered - they decided by a comfortable 42-13 margin to allow Lieberman to keep his seniority and his committee chairmanship (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/blogtalk-the-lieberman-vote/), perhaps due in party to the support of President-elect Obama and concerns that his message of bipartisanship could be undermined by the Democratic Senators marginalizing a veteran (albeit Junior) Senator as a form of political retribution for supporting McCain. Not all in the party were satisfied with this decision, particularly in his home state of Connecticut where Democrats are concerned with the down-ticket effects on others of allowing Lieberman to go "unpunished." There are legitimate concerns on behalf of the state Democrats which add another dimension to what it means to be a part of the party-in-government - the way in which a particular party member is seen, especially at such a high level, can have serious ramifications for other party members. I do not think at this time that those concerns outweigh the previously discussed qualities that make Lieberman a member of the Democratic party-in-government. I think that when he is up for re-election again, that will be a dimension of the contest that voters will decide upon. But under no circumstances do I believe that the party should unilaterally force someone who votes with them, on almost every possible issue except one, out of the committee or caucus system based on publicly supporting the opposing party's candidate in one race. Whether it will cost him his seat is, again, for the voters to decide.