Joe Lieberman: The Unforgiven

The New York Times had a brief but valuable overview yesterday of this year's graduating class of what you might call miraculously reformed extremists -- those recidivist dunderheads who throughout the presidential campaign landed eager blows well below Barack Obama's belt, yet are now the very models of bipartisanship, brotherly love, moderation and understanding.

They're the political Jimmy Swaggarts of 2008. They had their inadmissible fun; now it's time for you to forgive and forget.

In most cases I'd have it no other way -- not because I'm some fountain of Christian charity, but only because that's how political grown-ups do it. In valedictorian Joe Lieberman's case, however, I'll make an exception.

Because Lieberman crossed from mere, eager dunderhead status to premeditated traitor. There's just no other way to put it.

Here, for instance, is a representative line from how Lieberman himself so indelicately put it time and again on the campaign trial, while traveling with the enemy: The presidential contest, he would say, was "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first … and one candidate who has not."

Even without those last, six little words, Lieberman had committed the unforgivable. He wasn't content, as a Democrat, or independent Democrat, or whatever the hell he calls himself these days, to say he harbored serious foreign policy disagreements with his quasiparty's candidate and then leave it at that.

There's even legitimate question as to Joe's political affair having come from "principle," as he liked to insist ad nauseam. Rather, it is plenty reasonable to conjecture that his fling was mostly just payback -- perhaps, even, nothing but. In Joe's morally twisted world, his party had done him wrong in 2006, so now he'd flaunt some reciprocal indiscretions publicly. That'll show 'em.

Furthermore, as the Times notes, as a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention -- yes, hard as it is to imagine, the Republican National Convention -- Lieberman thrilled in defaming Obama (entirely out of context, naturally) before millions of viewers for having "vot[ed] to cut off funding for our troops on the ground."

Why of course. What else would a flag lapel-pin hating, pledge-of-allegiance despising, madrassa-attending, fist-bumping friend of our nation's foes do? Why, that Democrat doesn't just put country second: he puts our enemies first. This, from the Democratic vice-presidential candidate of 2000.

Fast forward to the electorally inevitable. Now, says a spokesman for the principled senator, "it’s genuinely time to find unity and move forward behind the new president."

Wait a minute. What did I miss? Get behind a president who refuses to put country first? That's principled? It seems to me that now, more than ever, would be the time to stand vigorously opposed to such a man.

But forget that, because it gets even better -- and by that, I mean it got downright Swaggartesque. Which is to say, on the heels of Obama's decisive victory, Lieberman issued a statement in praise of "his historic and impressive" accomplishment, adding, with teardrops falling gently on the fax machine, I'm sure, that "the American people are a people of extraordinary fairness."

Once again, Joe was talking out of his ass, and sideways. What he really meant was: I sure hope Harry Reid proves himself a man of unwarranted fairness, because there's no doubt about it, I committed the unforgivable: I struck at the king and failed to kill him.

Thankfully, it doesn't quite sound like Harry plans on being "extraordinary" this year. Recently on CNN he said, "Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like -- if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did." No need, Harry.

So go ahead. Kick his two-faced butt out of the caucus, Harry. It seems to me that Republicans have more use for a socially liberal neoconservative than do Democrats for a traitorous warmonger.

The Times piece incorporated other rehabilitating dunderheads whose rhetorical extremes got the better of them, such as the exotically deranged Michele Bachmann and some lady from Alaska. And to them I'd say, No problem. You may be nuts, but you were only doing what you thought was your partisan duty.

But as for you, Crazy Joe? Good riddance. Or at least I hope that's what Harry finally says.