home

DC is Lieberman's Town, DC Establishment Lieberman's People

Writing about today's Connecticut Senate debate, Matt Stoller, in his fantastic piece writes:

After the debate, both Schlesinger and Lamont were mobbed by reporters and supporters outside, but Joe was nowhere to be found. Some friends here think that Joe is scared to face reporters, but I don't think that's what's going on. I think Joe actually and honestly doesn't like people and doesn't want to deal with them if he doesn't have to. That's why he doesn't like or care about doing good visibility events - his ego isn't fed by large crowds since he doesn't think much of people he doesn't know.

And Joe doesn't know the people of Connecticut. The central reality of the political creature that is Joe Lieberman is that he is of the Washington DC Establishment and of Washington, DC. Connecticut is not where Joe Lieberman's from at all anymore. This reality explains everything he does, says and yearns for.

To erase any doubt consider what Lieberman said to Sally Quinn when the Republican Congress tried to impeach Clinton, being cheered on by the Washington Establishment:

"This is our town," says Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the first Democrat to forcefully condemn the president's behavior. "We spend our lives involved in talking about, dealing with, working in government. It has reminded everybody what matters to them. You are embarrassed about what Bill Clinton's behavior says about the White House, the presidency, the government in general."

. . . Certainly Clinton is not the first president to lie. But the scope and circumstances of his lying enrage Establishment Washington.

"His behavior," says Lieberman, "is so over the edge. What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over the truth must be told."

Joe speaks from the heart there. HIS town, HIS Washington friends were outraged. But why?

For reasons they cannot understand, Washington insiders come across to the public as judgmental puritans, shocked and horrified by the president's sexual misconduct. While most people have gossiped about the salacious details as the scandal unfolded, they say this was not what has outraged them. Of all those interviewed, not one mentioned sex or adultery as a matter of concern. "Sex," says Gergen, "is acceptable as long as it's discreet." As Wilkins puts it, with a chuckle, "God knows, most people in Washington have led robust sexual lives."

Sex is acceptable as long as it is discreet? Well, then Ken Starr was the problem no? Of course not.

Similarly, independent counsel Ken Starr is not seen by many Washington insiders as an out-of-control prudish crusader. Starr is a Washington insider, too. He has lived and worked here for years. He had a reputation as a fair and honest judge. He has many friends in both parties. Their wives are friendly with one another and their children go to the same schools. He is seen as someone who is operating under a legal statute, with a mandate from the attorney general and a three-judge panel, although there are some lawyers here who have questioned some of Starr's most aggressive tactics.

It was the lying they say, but we know better after they coddled the biggest liars Washington as ever seen in the Bush Administration.

So what motivated Joe? Like Willie Loman, he wanted be well liked. He wanted his DC friends to like him. It really is pathetic actually.

And so Joe continues today. Begging for the approval of HIS town and HIS friends, the DC Establishment.

And of course Washington DC and the Republicans have rewarded him with "friendship" and support, knowing good ole Joe will continue his groveling ways so that his friends in Washington "like" him.

And so we see the sorry spectacle of Joe Lieberman lying and clawing, hissing and whining, desperate to hold onto to his seat at Sally Quinn's table. Because, let's face it, Joe Lieberman, lobbyist, won't be on TV Sundays, won't be an interesting dinner guest, won't be anything at all in DC. HIS town. HIS "friends." He'll be the pathetic person who is underneath it all. And everyone will know.

OH no, Joe can't allow THAT to happen. He'll do ANYTHING to avoid that.

< Snowball Rummy: The Shrewdest Man in Washington | FBI Joins Probe of Colo. Republican Gubernatorial Campaign >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: DC is Lieberman's Town, (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:34:26 AM EST
      I won't disagree with the asserion that Lieberman is culturally and socially "of Washington" and that whatever "connection" he once had with his "typical" constituents has largely evaporated. I will ask if ANYONE thinks this is not far more the rule than the exception among those who have served for any considerable period of time.

       I'll not mention how eerily this post echoes the Contract For America era Republicans. Maybe, in the political arena, it's not just Washington insiders who are cut from the same cloth?

    Re: DC is Lieberman's Town (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    deconstructionist beat me to it. i suspect, in this regard, lieberman is the norm, not the exception. this is probably true of anyone away from their home town for a long period of time, not just congressmen.

    Re: DC is Lieberman's Town (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 09:41:33 AM EST
    Cept, no one does what Lieberman does.

    So I don't agree with either of you.

    Which sitting Dem Senator was quoted ripping a Dem PResident and EXPRESSLY saying DC is "our town."

    Frankly, the political stupidity of it alone should give you pause.

    it proves how very desperate he is to belong to that DC club.

    Honestly, I think he loves that more than anything else.

    I'm surprised at your comments, simply because it is obvious that no  one else did what he did. Not one other politician was quoted in that story. Not a single one.

    Does that not tell you something IS different about Lieberman?  

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 10:03:54 AM EST
     No, it doesn't. I assume that when you say Lieberman is the only one "quoted" in the article you are speaking of the Quinn article. I find it rather odd for someone to claim,  because Lieberman's quote was chosen by a particular journalist for a particular story,  that makes him somehow different.

      This is particularly true when the entire story can be read as nothing other than  an assertion of the contrary position-- that "insiderism" and group identity, and the desire to belong to and protect it, defines most all in the "establishment." (not to mention that many other people are in fact quoted talking about the exiatence of the "insiderism" and how it affects the community).

      You might want to read the article more closely if you feel it provides even a shred of support for your position.

      You don't like Lieberman. We get it. Why not stick to the MANY justifiable reasons for disliking him than sacrificie your credibility with a silly attempt to attack him for something so prevalent that it can be used to criticize pretty much everyone. Such weak attempts to "get Joe" simply make me conclude people are starting to really worry he will win.


    Even a shred? (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    Lieberman was interviewed by Sally Quinn for this article and I provide you with his quotes.

    OUR TOWN!!! Can you name a single politician in the history of politics EVER to call DC "our town"?

    A shred of evidence?

    You write "This is particularly true when the entire story can be read as nothing other than  an assertion of the contrary position-- that "insiderism" and group identity, and the desire to belong to and protect it, defines most all in the "establishment." (not to mention that many other people are in fact quoted talking about the exiatence of the "insiderism" and how it affects the community)."

    How in blazes is that a contrary position? My point, slowly for you this time, is that unlike every other normal politician in America, Lieberman valued the DC Establishment MORE than his partisan affiliation.

    This imbues EVERYTHING he does - and explains why he is such a disloyal Democrat.

    I am sorry to be so harsh with you, but your insulting condescending tone, when you completely did not get the point and pursued some incomprehensible tangent - I assune there was some tangent, I could not actually tell what your point was, other than to insult me - merits it imo.

    Play nice with me and I will play nice with you.

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 10:24:29 AM EST
      I get your point. I merely dismiss it as nonsense. When I don't have to direct you to any source other than the one YOU provided, your demand for evidence is absurd. I repeat. Read the article carefully and don't just use it to cherry pick a quote. Moreover, that you would need, at this stage of your life to be advised of the realities of Washington elitism and insularism is not believable.

       Joe Lieberman puts Joe Lieberman first. He views climbing the D.C. power structure by any means necessary as the best way to advance his personal interests. All true.

       your mistake is pretending, incredibly ineptly, not to recognize that you can substitute and untold number of "_ ___"  for "Joe Lieberman without fear of contradiction from sensible and reasonable people.

     

    Re: (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by aw on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 11:39:15 AM EST
    You would think, then, that Quinn would have included quotes from other Democrats that would reinforce her outrage.  Where are they?

    Parent
    Since you actually can NOT (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    substitute ANYONE for Joe Lieberman in that quote, you make a fool of yourself.

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 12:14:18 PM EST
      You would think many Democrats would be be eager to be quoted in a context where it cannot help but be interpreted as criticcal of a Democratic president?

      I'd say the surprising thing is that as many  of them were willing to go on record considering the partisanship which drives things. It's worth recalling that more and more Democrats LATER did become unambiguously critical when it became their unavoidable conclusion that it was in their best interest to do so. (The name Al Gore ring a bell?)

    That article is from 1997 when many hoped to simply duck for cover and hope they could steer clear.

      But, in any event, I believe these folks are Democrats:

    ... Clinton's trusted adviser Rahm Emanuel,... But, he went on, "there are good people here. Decent people on both sides of the political aisle.... "when we come together as a community here in Washington -- setting aside personal, political and professional differences."

    Bill Galston, former deputy domestic policy adviser to Clinton and now a professor at the University of Maryland, says of the scandal that "most people in Washington believe that most people in Washington are honorable and are trying to do the right thing. The basic thought is that to concede that this is normal and that everybody does it is to undermine a lifetime commitment to honorable public service."

    "Everybody doesn't do it," says Jerry Rafshoon, Jimmy Carter's former communications director. "The president himself has said it was wrong."

    "This is our town," says Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the first Democrat to forcefully condemn the president's behavior. "We spend our lives involved in talking about, dealing with, working in government. It has reminded everybody what matters to them. You are embarrassed about what Bill Clinton's behavior says about the White House, the presidency, the government in general."
    "People felt a reverent attitude toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," says Tish Baldrige, who once worked there as Jacqueline Kennedy's social secretary and has been a frequent visitor since. "Now it's gone, now it's sleaze and dirt. We all feel terribly let down. It's very emotional. We want there to be standards. We're used to standards. When you think back to other presidents, they all had a lot of class. That's nonexistent now. It's sad for people in the White House. . . . I've never seen such bad morale in my life. They're not proud of their chief."

    Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton and considered one of the few "wise men" left in Washington, gives yet another reason why people take the scandal more seriously here. "This is an excitement to us, a feeling of being in on it, and whichever part of the Washington milieu we come from, we want to play a part. That's why we're here."

    "This is a contractual city," says Chris Matthews, who once was a top aide to the late Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. "There are no factories here. What we make are deals. It's a city based on bonds made and kept." The president, he went on, "has broken and shattered contracts publicly and shamefully. He violates the trust at the highest level of politics. Matthews, now a Washington columnist for the San Francisco Examiner and host of CNBC's "Hardball," also says, "There has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to."

    "His behavior," says Lieberman, "is so over the edge. What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over the truth must be told."

    Retiring Rep. Paul McHale was the first Democrat to call for Clinton's resignation. "When the president spoke last January I believed him," says McHale, of Pennsylvania. "I didn't think he would have the audacity, the lack of integrity to mislead the American people . . . but then he pervasively lied under oath. He was blatantly, intentionally untruthful. I would not accept as president of the United States a man who has lied under oath."

    Democrats find themselves in a dicey position regarding the president, and most declined to speak about the issue at all. McHale says of his friend and colleague House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, "Dick has party loyalties and personal convictions. His personal convictions are more critical [about Clinton] than he was able to state in public."

    And the wife of a Democratic senator who declined to comment spoke on condition of anonymity. "We take the issue of perjury seriously here," she said. Her husband, she said, thinks the president "lacks character and commitment. He's very clear about it."
    insider press corps has shown little pity for any of them. The feeling toward the president is similar.

      Former Democratic senator Sam Nunn, long a powerful player on the Washington scene, feels it is impossible to lead without trust. "People say that moral authority is not needed . . . but the trust factor is the single most important factor of leadership whether it be for a minister, a CEO, a senator or a president."

    Democrats as well as Republicans are very angry at the president, says retiring Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who emphasizes what he sees as a lack of respect for the office of president. "I'm angry at him," he says. "I'd like to kick his butt across the White House lawn."

    4. THEY UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES. Even as the president wins budget victories and conducts Middle East diplomacy, insider Washington feels that the scandal will ultimately take its toll on programs and policies.

    This is only bound to get worse. In an atmosphere of impeachment hearings, says former Clinton senior adviser George Stephanopoulos, now an ABC commentator, "you can't create a debate about a lot of things, you can't put other issues before the country, you can't manage a crisis, you can't negotiate."

    "Americans will be hurt by his reckless behavior," says Rep. McHale. "We might have enacted into law a patients' health care rights bill, campaign finance reform, comprehensive tobacco legislation. The president was not engaged on these issues. You can't do Paula Jones, the lawyers, tobacco and Monica all at once. Compartmentalization is a nice idea but not a reality."

    Robert Reich, who was Clinton's labor secretary in his first term, can't understand how Clinton could have taken such a risk. "In retrospect," he says, "the pattern becomes clear. It makes the recklessness less understandable. Given the danger this has posed to his presidency, you'd think he'd take extra precautions against this compulsion. It makes his apology less credible. If this is a pattern, why should anybody believe it will change?

    "We have a seriously crippled president for the next two years," says Reich. "He'll have a few good moments, he'll go through the motions, there will be adoring crowds, he'll use his bully pulpit and maybe he will have something he can call a victory. But essentially it's over."
    Privately, many in Establishment Washington would like to see Bill Clinton resign and spare the country, the presidency and the city any more humiliation.

      So, the point is?

    Re: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    I'm not sure exactly to which quote you refer. If you are talking about the the one where i said an untold numner of people could be substituted for Lieberman, I didn't say "anyone." I just meant most Washington insiders in and out of government and in both parties.

      If you were referring to Lieberman calling Washington "our town," you can't seriously be suggesting that simply because he is the one quoted using that phrase in that article that he is the only one to ever use the phrase in that manner. More importantly, you would have to be naive beyond belief to even suggest he is the only one who thinks in those terms.

      If you honestly believe I am the one appearing foolish here, maybe you are that naive.

      The bottom line is your post was  silly one in every aspect. When people start getting that silly, it usually signals desperation.

       What's even more amusing is you attack Lieberman for an unhealthy yearning to be part of the club when his opponent has reportedly spent $11,000,000.00 of his own money  to get in the same club. If you take a simple turn of a phrase in a newspaper article to be so revelatory as to Lieberman, what do you make of Lamont's spending?

    Re: (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    No, the quote from Sally Quin's article. WHO said what Lieberman said? No one.

    Parent
    Re: DC is Lieberman's Town (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    Decon...I must say thanks for posting all that archival faux outrage from the politicos concerning the Clenis. Of course, a blow job degrades the presidency in a way so much worse than domestic spying and war mongering ever could. Yes, Lieberman and his morality fits right into that place...it is definitely his town.

    Re (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:05:58 AM EST
      Big Tent:

      If your argument is, "Joe Lieberman is the only one I know of ever quoted saying Washington is 'my/our town' in that context  and therefore for that particular reason he is different from and worse than other politicians who have never been quoted using that phraseology," knock yourself out.

      If you think that is a good argument, I won't waste my breath trying dissuade you any longer. Some people are beyond reason. It's just sad and pathetic that this tripe is what so many people waste their time with when they could actually say something worthwhile.