Joe Lieberman? (JOE LIEBERMAN?) We're supposed to feel bad because no pols want to play with the goniff* anymore?

Nostalgic for Joe? C'mon, gimme a break.

"Many commenters feel [Washington Post columnist Michael] Gerson is missing the Big Picture [in his column today, "Joe Lieberman, party of one"]. The Big Picture being that Lieberman is universally loathed and/or disrespected, and for valid reason."

-- Rachel Manteuffel, in a PostPartisan post this afternoon,
"PostScript: Why Joe Lieberman is a party of one"

by Ken

Oh no you don't, Michael Gerson. You think you can devote that entire Washington Post column to Joe Lieberman ("party of one"; I'll be damned if I provide a link -- that would only have the effect of encouraging him) to smooching on the limp dick of that giant barnicle Holy Joe Lieberman, making out that His Holiness is an above-reproach victim of his saintlike superior wisdom and "moderation" (sorry, I have to put "moderation" in quotes when it comes to an extremist like His Holiness) rather than a loathsome radical whore and rotting cesspool of ignorance and corruption, and actually get me to read it.

Well, no sale, buster! As far as I'm concerned, Mikey, you and the Jomentum Man can get yourselves a room and do whatever it is you feel you must in the privacy thereof. I don't even want to think about it. I especially don't want to think about that.

Somehow, even though Holy Joe has been pretty much "out of sight, out of mind" ever since he announced that even he could see there was no point in his seeking reelection again, it feels right to be writing about the goniff* so soon after Howie's post "DC Politicians All Want To Be The King Of K Street -- Yes, Even So-Called Democrats." What, after all, is His Holiness if not the Creature from the K Street Lagoon?

*goniff -- (Yiddish) a thief or dishonest person or scoundrel (often used as a general term of abuse); offender, wrongdoer -- a person who transgresses moral or civil law

-- The Free Dictionary by Farlex

On the plus side, the Gerson column inspired the PostPartison "Postscript" post by Rachel Manteuffel from which I quoted above. It begins:

Michael Gerson has elected to spend this strange working day between the two party conventions celebrating one guy who's unwelcome at both: Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who has at times aligned himself with both major parties but now succeeds in inhabiting, Gerson says, his own party of one.

Lieberman, who attended the 2000 Democratic convention as the VP nominee and the 2008 Republican convention as a supporter of McCain-Palin, is left out, Gerson says, because a mega-polarized Congress no longer tolerates legislators who cross party lines, no matter what the issue. The in-betweeners used to have enough power and clout to get legislation passed, but now nobody feels the need to be nice to them. We would all rather elect stronger partisans who don't get anything done than compromisers who would . . . compromise.

Which Gerson says is a shame. Both parties should see enough of themselves in Lieberman to want to court him -- he's actually in a unique position of power somewhere in between the parties, and by rights both sides should be baking him cookies. Also, because he's a good guy.

Here's a hint for anyone who's inclined to take the cookie-baking option. If you're baking for His Holiness, you would do well to find ways of stuffing large quantities of cash in the baked goods -- I'd say five figures' worth as a starting bid. It's really the only thing that can be counted on to get the senator's attention, unless you count criticism of Israel of any kind, regardless of how outrageous its behavior. (I guess it's proof of the degree of your loyalty when you can defend the object of your devotion when its behavior is the most indefensible.)

Of course the Holyman has made a great show throughout his political career of being an Old Testament moralist, when what he really is an Old Testament kvetch who uses his fake morality as a cloak for his real interest: defending megacorporate America against any challenges to its rightful hegemony over Americans.

In her PostScript post Rachel M doesn't formally take sides; she quotes pro-Joe commenters as well as the smarter Joe-haters. But could anyone fail to see which way the balance of justice tips?

joachim1 tells us how he really feels:

Ending up alone is what happens to traitors who sell themselves to whichever side offers the most at the moment. This man who professed to believe in much, demonstrated he believed in little. Other than his AIPAC-fueled Israel-first mantra over his career, Lieberman stood for little that was not for sale or trade. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to the Republicans as a propaganda tool, they, not surprisingly, have no more interest in him. Nor do Democrats, those that elevated him to be the first Jew to be nominated VP. The man is disgusting, and it is unlikely that even large rocks will grant him space under which to hide.

sober1 likewise understands why nobody wants Lieberman around:

Lieberman has lost credibility with both parties due to his inconsistencies. He wasn't elected by Independents, yet he claims to be one, just as he's claimed to be a Republican and a Democrat in the past. What he is now is anybody's guess, though a loose cannon comes to mind as most accurate.

Whereas the pro-Joes have arguments like this one from Walter16:

I find my views to be far closer to those of Senator Lieberman than to those of either Romney or Obama. Presently, I am favoring Obama in the next election but I am not happy with the choice.

What can that mean, to have views that are "far closer to those of Senator Lieberman" than to those of anyone else? "Views"? What views? You mean, like: If it's not nailed down, it's meant to be stolen."

In the end, Rachel does sort of tip her hande, concluding:

PostScript sees no reason why Lieberman can't have his own convention. He could even invite all the other people nobody wants in their party: George W. Bush, Al Gore, PostScript, Bernie Madoff, Snooki, etc. Okay, now PostScript sees the advantage of being a party of one.

It's true that the Senate as newer-fangled models of creeps and thugs. But even as the Jesse Helmses and Strom Thurmonds of yesteryear have given way to Jim DeMints and John Kyls, that's hardly grounds for nostalgia.

#