Joe's Getting Ready To Jump Ship

The latest buzz in Washington has to do with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) jumping ship and joining the Bush Administration in a cabinet level position. After reading about this idea, my natural first response was to laugh it off and disregard it. Sure Lieberman is a bit of a maverick and has shown staunch support for the President's Iraq policy. But why shouldn't he? He's been supportive all along and, after an unsuccessful VP run in 2000 and failed Presidential bid in '04, it seems that Lieberman will be remaining in the Senate for the foreseeable future, especially since he remains popular in Connecticut ("all politics is local" - Lieberman work on saving the Groton Base from closure will help in his reelection bid). There would seem to be no reason to retreat from his convictions and adopt a more liberal-friendly position. He's popular enough in his own state and around the country to stick to his guns and not cave to more liberal groups. In addition, Lieberman isn't saying anything too outrageous - he's calling for more bipartisanship when dealing with Iraq. However, he does appear to be increasingly comfortable with the administration.

That has been my general line of thought. But the more I read about and watch events surrounding Sen. Lieberman and the Administration, the more I tend to put some credence in the possibility of Lieberman abandoning his party. Some of my analysis still applies - Lieberman has already tried to reach higher office within the Democratic party. Maybe he has personally concluded that his only hope of moving up is if he switches sides and tries to make a name for himself in the last throes of the Bush presidency. Furthermore, if he does take a job with the administration, Lieberman could view himself as a leader for the moderate, bipartisan movement. Somewhere between ambitiously wanting to advance his career and selflessly sacrificing his party allegiance for bipartisanship probably lies Lieberman's true motive.

Whatever his motives, the trend is clear: Lieberman has been increasingly vocal in his support for the President at the same time that other Democrats are upping the ante in the debate over the war. Reciprocally, the White House has been praising Lieberman for his leadership on this issue and quoting him during public appearances.

The rumor mill has been churning up stories of ineffectual Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld leaving his post since Bush's reelection campaign; the latest round of stories about Rummy finally leaving seem to have some credibility. The general line of thought is that he will leave after Iraq has elected its government. The convergence of Lieberman's support of the President and Rumsfeld's possible departure have produced the current buzz. Here's some of the coverage of all of these events from last week:

From the New York Times:

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said...

Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week...

Concerns about Mr. Lieberman's coziness with the administration grew this week when he had breakfast with Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Later, rumors spread that Mr. Bush was considering asking Mr. Lieberman to join the administration to succeed Mr. Rumsfeld next year as defense secretary.

From the New York Daily News:

White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said yesterday.

Rumsfeld's deputy, Gordon England, is the inside contender to replace him, but there's also speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman - a Democrat who ran against Bush-Cheney in the 2000 election - might become top guy at the Pentagon.

That's not as farfetched as it might first appear...

Rumors that Lieberman could replace Rumsfeld started flying early this week, and Bush and Vice President Cheney fanned the flames by quoting the former Democratic veep candidate's pro-war statements.

The mention of Lieberman's name prompted some Democrats to whisper that he is lobbying for the job.

"Lieberman seems to be coordinating his statements on the war with the White House," a Senate Democratic source said.

The source pointed to a news conference this week where Lieberman urged his party not to undermine Bush. The timing of Lieberman's pitch, also this week, to form a bipartisan "war cabinet" to aid Bush was cited as well.

From the Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, increasingly isolated in his own Democratic party because of his strong support for the Iraq war, today called on the White House and congressional leaders to form a special "war cabinet" to provide advice and direction for the war effort...

Lieberman cited historic figures like former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and former U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, whose call for bipartisanship after World War II helped the Allied effort to rebuild Western Europe, and tried to summon their spirit.

"We can't tolerate the kind of division that current exists in our country," the senator said. "Why are we fighting among those who have the same goals?"

All this talk of a new "war cabinet" is interesting. However, for me, it begs the question: Why can't Lieberman spearhead an effort to form a similar bipartisan group of moderates within the Senate or Congress as a whole? If the point of the group would be to discuss Iraq and perhaps recommend policy, as the Courant writes, why couldn't a bipartisan "war caucus" be formed among Senate moderates? Interesting stuff that will be fun to watch. More later.