What a difference a few years can make. Back in 2000, incumbent Vice President Al Gore had found the perfect running mate. Looking to put a little bit of distance between himself and President Bill Clinton, Gore had hoped to find a Democrat who could help reinstill public confidence in the dignity of the Oval Office. He would ultimately settle on an experienced Senator whose outspoken criticism of the outgoing president offered the opportunity for Gore to disassociate himself from the political powder keg the Lewinsky scandal had ignited.
Despite the ticket's ultimate failure to secure enough electoral votes to keep the White House in Democratic hands, the next four years featured a notable rise in the stock of moderate Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. When control of the Senate shifted to the Democrats in June of 2001 (upon the defection of GOP Senator Jim Jeffords), he became the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Just three months later, the 9/11 attacks would make that committee one of the most important and influential in Washington. Simultaneously, party bosses made him chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
But by 2006, the political winds had changed. Two wars and a massive federal budget separated Lieberman from his ephemeral stay among the most respected leaders of the Democratic Party. His continued support for the Iraq War had sparked a primary challenge from Ned Lamont, a Connecticut billionaire unafraid to spend his own money in the statewide midterm election. Running firmly to the left of Lieberman, Lamont emerged the victor from the hard-fought primary. His defeat notwithstanding, Lieberman refused to withdraw, running without party backing in a three-man general election race.
Lieberman's decision to buck the results of his party's primary cost him friends in Washington. With the help of his loyal supporters in Connecticut, as well as Republican voters who feared what they perceived as an overly-liberal agenda in Lamont, Lieberman managed to keep his seat. But having won without party backing, he took his seat in the Senate the following January as an Independent. After Democrats promised to award him the Homeland Security chairmanship (that had been lost to Republicans, but regained by Democrats in 2006), he pledged to caucus with his former party, officially securing a tentative Democratic majority.
But since that time, the chasm between Democrats and Lieberman seems only to have widened. His outspoken support for a number of GOP-favored issues has drawn the ire of party leadership. He's remained constant in his support for the Iraq War and increased defense and homeland security budgets. He's sided with Republicans on issues ranging from free trade to immigration, No Child Left Behind, and bringing George W. Bush's judicial appointments to floor votes. His record has earned him repeated praise from top officials on the other side of the aisle, including the president himself.
Perhaps adding insult to injury, Lieberman has effectively turned his back on the ticket that featured his name just eight years ago. His support for GOP presidential nominee John McCain has been among the most valuable of the Arizona Senator's resources. And his vociferous criticism of Barack Obama has been amplified by virtue of his position as a former member of the party.
Already, back room whispers in Washington are suggesting that Democrats may move to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanships if the party manages significant gains in the Senate in 2008. The move would almost assuredly prompt Lieberman to caucus with the GOP. But with a potential majority of 55 or more in the Senate, can Democrats afford it?
Ultimately, an expulsion of Lieberman might be to the detriment of Democrats, at least in the short run. For better or for worse, Lieberman will remain in the Senate until the end of his term in 2012. On a range of domestic issues, Lieberman still tends to side with his former party. He's reliably pro-choice, opposes Social Security privatization, is a strong advocate of gun control, and carries exemplary ratings from environmental and gay rights groups. In other words, Lieberman's vote on the majority of issues is going to be the same whether he is an independent, a Democrat, or a Republican. At this point, his relationship with Democrats, while icy, still functions to pad the party's Senate majority.
Kicking Lieberman out now would amount to settling a political score, but fails to render any real benefit to the Democrats except to purge the party of an unreliable vote. But at the same time, it also hands the Republicans one more. If Lieberman is still around in another four, eight, or twelve years, he could very well be the independent vote that tips the balance of the Senate back in favor of the GOP. Moreover, his banishment might send a message that conservative Democrats have no place among the party rank-and-file, a notion that runs antithetical to the "big tent" approach that others have advocated.
The more practical question before Democrats is how to deal with Lieberman come 2012. Certainly, Democrats will explore the possibility of heavily backing a primary challenger who is willing to toe the party line. But at that same time, the GOP may also make a push to recruit him to run as a Republican, fearing that if they can't, any other GOP candidate may siphon enough votes from Lieberman to hand the election to a Democrat. On the other hand, they could move to bring him back into the party- but it may come down to a question of cost. And more than that, it fails to address the fact that Lieberman sides with the right on foreign policy issues.
