1115.org

Last year when Joe Lieberman won his sour grapes general election rematch against Ned Lamont, there was a rush by his fellow Senators to toss his salad in the hopes that the newly (I)ndependent Lieberman would continue to caucus with the Democrats. And even the partisan fire-breathers, here and elsewhere, largely went along with this abhorrent pander because it was the difference between a working majority in the Senate and an effective tie with Big Time casting the deciding vote for the Republicans. That’s some catch, that Catch 22.

True to form, Lieberman has been awful, taking advantage of his TV appearances to bash Democrats and paint them as weak. He’s gone back on his word to use his committee to investigate the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. And now, the final slap in the face:

Democratic and Republican sources say that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut and fierce supporter of the war in Iraq, will formally endorse Sen. John McCain tomorrow in New Hampshire.

This isn’t the kind of endorsement that’s going to change a lot of minds, and I think even the buffoonish streak that leads New Hampshire voters to look for their “maverick” every four years will not be sated by McCain this time, in light of his sycophantic support of President Bush and his failed wars.

That’s not to say Lieberman’s pending endorsement is meaningless. Just like Crazy Zell Miller in 2004, this endorsement gives the press yet another cosigner to the “Democrats Are Weak Because War Isn’t Their Default Position” narrative. If Harry Reid and Dick Durbin don’t enforce some party discipline, Democrats are going to look doubly weak.

It’s true that any effort to strip him of his seniority — which in reality he lost in the primary defeat by Lamont — or his committee assignments would probably result in Lieberman switching sides to caucus with Republicans. And while this was seen as a worst case scenario in 2006, time has eroded that perception all the way. First, the current Senate organizing resolution guarantees Democratic control of committees. Committee control means that even if Republicans had Cheney to break ties, no votes would come to the floor without Democratic approval. So even in case of a Supreme Court opening, Democrats could keep any nomination bottled up in the Judiciary committee even without a majority in the full chamber.

But more important than tactical level details and arcane Senate rules, Senate Democrats aren’t doing anything with their majority anyway. Sure, they’ve had some moderate, watered-down success on the minimum wage and student loans, and Pyrrhic victories on many other items that went down to Presidential vetoes. Meanwhile, they have allowed Republicans to filibuster without filibustering nearly every piece of Senate business.

Senate Democrats have been unwilling to press the advantage that majority status — not to mention the 2008 electoral map and current events — gives them. They are tagged as do-nothings, and weak on top of that. Giving Lieberman the smack he so richly deserves wouldn’t cost them all that much, and might actually energize their base and anyone else who expects Congress to check Presidential power. And when 2009 rolls around, Lieberman can suffer in what will probably be a Republican caucus with several less members.