Jump to content

Impending Lieberman defeat


Recommended Posts

It's looking more and more like Joe Lieberman is going to be defeated in the dem primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont. I'm positive there are going to be arguments from the usual suspects that this proves that the democratic party is now a party of communists and left wing radicals.

 

But I argue that this is democracy. Connecticut is a solid blue state. It's as "liberal" as Texas or Montana are "conservative." There has been no single effort by the grass roots of the democratic party to unseat more senators who are just as conservative as Lieberman if not more-Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota , Ken Salazar of Colorado. In fact a pro-life dem is being heavily supported in Pennsylvania, a swing state.

 

Lieberman just became way too cozy with a president that is not very popular in CT. And now he gets his just desserts.

 

Of course, Lieberman could pull this out in the end.

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- If the latest Quinnipiac University Poll is right, three-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman is headed for defeat Tuesday in Connecticut's Democratic primary, and Iraq -- more specifically, his steadfast support for that war -- is the big reason.

 

But it's not the only reason, which is something those looking for broader lessons from this primary campaign might keep in mind.

 

Yes, of course rival Ned Lamont would never have mounted so daunting a challenge to Lieberman without the Iraq issue, but take a look back to the key "use of force" resolution passed by Congress in October 2002.

 

Of the Democratic presidential wannabees who were in the Senate back then, just about all of them -- Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd -- also voted for the resolution empowering the president to use force against Iraq. Among presidential aspirants, only Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold voted "no."

 

But Lieberman's backing was different: It lasted far longer and was far more full-throated. As late as last November, with conditions in Iraq producing a massive dose of second thoughts from one-time war-backers, he wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal hailing "visible and practical" progress, and celebrating the spread of satellite TV and cell phone use.

 

President Bush often quoted Lieberman as evidence of bipartisan support of his policies. Most memorably, at the 2005 State of the Union speech, Bush embraced Lieberman -- a moment known scornfully as "the kiss" to the senator's foes.

 

But it's important to remember that Lieberman's problems with Democratic constituencies go back further. He has often taken positions at odds with his party's base. For instance, he supported vouchers for public school students so they might attend other schools -- a position public school teachers' unions strongly oppose. This year, both Connecticut teachers' unions have endorsed Lamont.

 

In the past, Lieberman has questioned the value of affirmative action. Ten years ago, he said: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended."

 

It's not exactly a coincidence that prominent African-American politician Rep. Maxine Waters of California and the Rev. Al Sharpton are supporting Lamont.

 

And last year, he supported federal intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a long legal battle over whether she could be taken off life support, thus aligning himself on that issue with religious conservatives. Schiavo's husband is campaigning for Lamont, and those Democrats generally unhappy with the power of the "Religious Right" gained another reason to oppose the incumbent.

 

Then there's lingering unhappiness over Lieberman's decision in 2000 to run both for vice president and his Senate seat. Had Al Gore won the White House, Lieberman's replacement would have been chosen by a Republican governor -- costing Democrats control of the Senate and fueling the idea among some that Lieberman cared more about his career than his party.

 

And his promise to run as an independent if he loses the primary might complicate Democratic efforts to take two or three House seats in his state from vulnerable GOP incumbents.

 

So though a Lieberman loss will be interpreted as a signal that the party's base will demand an anti-Iraq presidential candidate, don't forget the special circumstances that Lieberman is facing.

 

One more question: Although polls suggest Lieberman could win in November running as an independent, wouldn't that course be a lot harder for him to follow if he loses the primary in a landslide?

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/gre...rman/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lieberman got too cozy with Bush... Wow, I love how Democrats who claim their serious about taking the Senate, are willing to undermine a man who's been loyal to the Dem's through and through, except on ONE issue. Their's been few in the Senate, who've been more loyal to Labor than Joe, which the Democratic Party once stood for, and cared for more than anyone.

 

But if you're not rank and file, I guess you can't count on the support of big city liberals, who live in their own little world/bubble, and are so far out of touch with the Real America it's ridiculous. Keep these whacko's away from my party, it's people like these who are holding this party back. They have no connection with middle America, their's some who look down upon us.

 

Where Democrats are finding success is where they have Canidate's who gets and relates to most of America(Tester, Casey, the most prominent examples), where they're faulting where they shouldn't is when they pull sh*t like this and in Nevada, where Carter is beyond pathetic.

 

When will they wake up, and realize it doesn't work when you let a**holes like these dicate politics. If Lieberman loses this primary, the Democrats don't regain the Senate, period. They're struggling in Arizona and Nevade, and can't afford two Independents winning in Democratic States(Bernie Sanders in VT, is already a sure thing, CT, could very well be)

 

The Democrats have really made strides for this upcoming election, it's just a shame, they still have a few rats as stowaways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you're not rank and file, I guess you can't count on the support of big city liberals, who live in their own little world/bubble, and are so far out of touch with the Real America it's ridiculous. Keep these whacko's away from my party, it's people like these who are holding this party back. They have no connection with middle America, their's some who look down upon us.

 

Very very true statement and its the reason why they have been in a funk at the voting booth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa now.

 

First off it isnt just Iraq. The article points out school vouchers, affirmitive action(which I wont fault him for but the black community can), and definitely the religious issues. And you can't just dismiss Iraq as just one issue. It's the issue that has been the dominant issue in this country.

 

Second, what big city liberal is doing this? Last time I checked, the democrats in Connecticut get to decide who their nominee is and they are doing that. How are big city liberals responsible for this? This is a movement that was born out of the state and not in NY or LA.

 

Third, those rats you speak of are heavily responsible for Tester winning over the establishment candidate in Montana. They also fought heavily for Paul Hackett. They have a list of veterans who are running for Congress who they actively support. They support Jim Webb out here in Virginia. I can go on and on. The establishment dems like Lieberman have pushed for bad candidates like Carter. And like I said, what other Senator have they even questioned?

 

Fourth, this happens many many times. Would it be questioned if a liberal republican from a conservative state didnt win the nomination? Of course not.

 

Fifth, Bernie Sanders is more liberal than most democrats. I wouldnt worry about him. And Lieberman running as an independant has to tell you something about how much more he cares about his own political success than he does about his party.

 

Here is the reality-Lieberman decided that he did not have to be held to values of those people that elected him. He became an establishment democrat. He became a politician. He is the one that doesnt have any connection with the pulse of the average person. He didnt just vote a certain way. There is a reason Bush continues to turn to him and not other conservative dems like Nelson.

 

I cant understand the whole "in touch with the average man" argument. The more conservative you are the more touch you are with the average man? How about guys like Conrad Burns, Randy Cunningham, and Tom Delay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I don't know why quotes aren't working, so bear with me

 

Whoa now.

 

First off it isnt just Iraq. The article points out school vouchers, affirmitive action(which I wont fault him for but the black community can), and definitely the religious issues. And you can't just dismiss Iraq as just one issue. It's the issue that has been the dominant issue in this country.

 

While he's been semi- supportive of Vouchers, it's not like he's been out there hailing them as the solution, in fact he has a very high rating from the NEA. and was opposed to Bush's voucher program. I don't know exactly where they get off painting Joe, as someone opposed to AA, the dude has supported Reperation, marched with Dr. King, has a a very clear voting record when it comes to AA,he's always supported Minority causes in terms of employment. The only possible kink I see in his record, is the fact that he's in favor of phasing it out as Minorities, begin to expand economically, which is certainly reasonable.

 

The Religious issues, again liberals out of touch with the Mainstream. Yeah, he's a faithful Jew, and has been very open about that, but he also has a clear record on his support for Roe V Wade, and while though againsst Gay Marriage(like most Americans), he has been a vocal supporter of punishing those who discriminate including adding Gay Bashing as a Hate Crime. Yeah, he's a real Holy Roller.

 

 

 

 

Second, what big city liberal is doing this? Last time I checked, the democrats in Connecticut get to decide who their nominee is and they are doing that. How are big city liberals responsible for this? This is a movement that was born out of the state and not in NY or LA.

 

It's been very well established the blogosphere(DailyKo's, and other PACs like Moveon, have been Lamont's puppets from the start, which have helped him tremendously. You have groups whose views are on the far far end(Big City Liberals, applies to anyone on the extreme at this point, because it's the views of Major City politicians, that they generally align with.

 

You have sites, that don't represent what most middle American Dem's would subscribe to, and you have a blue blood running, whose campaign is mostly financed by Granddaddy's inheritance which has sett him up quite well to make his run for office, and run a smear campaign against a man who's revered in just about everywhere, the old guard of Democrat's remain(whenever talking to the old school Union members who are rank and file, including my Grandfather, they have nothing but praise for Joe).

 

How does this prescribe, to the Democratic Message? Use money, you didn't earn to smear an honest man?

 

Third, those rats you speak of are heavily responsible for Tester winning over the establishment candidate in Montana. They also fought heavily for Paul Hackett. They have a list of veterans who are running for Congress who they actively support. They support Jim Webb out here in Virginia. I can go on and on. The establishment dems like Lieberman have pushed for bad candidates like Carter. And like I said, what other Senator have they even questioned?

 

Um, I don't exactly understand where Webb comes from, he has their support by Default. Many far left liberals, were strongly backing Harris Miller in the primary. Why, because he was a clear rank and file Democrat. They mistrusted Webb, who had a better chance in the general election. If you look at the primary results, it was Rural areas where Webb won the primary. More liberal haunts like Alexandria, was where Harris won most of his support.

 

Also, Hackett, while a hell of a guy, certainly did not subscribe to mainstream political views, he was a loose cannon(You can't go around highlighting the fact you believe Bush, was a cokehead, in a state wide elction)

 

While Morrison, was certainly establishment, Tester was the same. I find it hard to call a guy outside the establishment, when I don't know, He leads the Democrats in the Senate. It also didn't help Morrison, when Scandal rocked his campaign right before the primaries, which up until that point, the race was a dead heat. Tester following the scandals, won in a landslide.

 

Any support they got from the far left, was default. Webb couldn't count on it, during the primaries, Hackett was certainly far from mainstream, and Tester ran a grassroots campaign, at home, hailing his State Senate record, and blue collar roots, while at the same time reaping the benefits of an opponent in the process of a scandal.

 

But let's go to my home state, I read several blogs, imploring me and fellow PA residents, to vote for a true Democrat, Chuck Pennachio. No suprise, he was crushed in the primary, because unlike a certain CT canidate, he couldn't count on the support of old J.P. Morgan money(where Lamonts Grandfather made his money)

 

 

 

 

Fifth, Bernie Sanders is more liberal than most democrats. I wouldnt worry about him. And Lieberman running as an independant has to tell you something about how much more he cares about his own political success than he does about his party.

 

Of course, Bernie Sanders is more to the left, he's an admitted Democratic-Socialist, the fact is, I doesn't go in the Democratic Column next January, regardless of his political opinions. If, your employee cuts you in the back after years of loyal service, except on one main issue, are you going to be very happy with him. While I don't support his choice, it's very understandable, to be just a bit sour.

 

 

Here is the reality-Lieberman decided that he did not have to be held to values of those people that elected him. He became an establishment democrat. He became a politician. He is the one that doesnt have any connection with the pulse of the average person. He didnt just vote a certain way. There is a reason Bush continues to turn to him and not other conservative dems like Nelson.

 

I cant understand the whole "in touch with the average man" argument. The more conservative you are the more touch you are with the average man? How about guys like Conrad Burns, Randy Cunningham, and Tom Delay?

Huh? The Values of the people electing him? Um... Lieberman still runs away with the election at this point, whether he wins the primaries or not. Seems like CT, seems just fine with his values. It's just those on the far end of the spectrum, that have a problem with him, and are willing to pour in money to a blue blood, rather than a man who has fought his hardest, for the working man in this country, a demographic, the Democratic party has forgotten about.

 

Union's used to be Democratic through and through, I remember all my Grandfather's buddies down at the UMW hall, always telling me that "The Worst Democrat, is still better than the Best Republican", these were guys who worked their asses off Mon - Fri, for guys who would be fine paying them substandard wages, and then went to church Sunday, and yes had some socially conservative/hawkish views, but always came back to the Blue's because it used to be ok to have those views, and still be a Democratic. The Democratic Party needs to be a big tent party again, like it used to be. We need to welcome back people who are getting screwed by the Republicans when it comes to taking care of their family, and you know what if they support the Iraq war? Who cares, it's one issue, we can work through it, the Democratic Party has worked through a split party before, and in the end was able to win elections. We'll win this election, by the sheer incompetence of the Republicans, and a little bit wiser Democratic Party. If we're to take back America, for the long term, even if the Republicans wise up, we need to be a big tent party again. The Republicans have reaped success in that way, why can't we do it again, as well?

 

 

 

q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. I want to give you a more detailed response but I have to wake up early tomorrow. But just a few points.

 

1. One of the biggest blue bloods in US history was the most popular president among the average man-FDR. I wouldnt judge a guy by where he comes from.

 

2. While Joe isnt a staunch conservative, he is losing support from groups in the state because he isnt as consistent on the issues as those groups would like him to be. Thats democracy and thats the way American works in this day and age. A guy who is in touch with rural Pennsylvania might not be what is best for the state of Connecticut. While you might think the rest of the state will elect him as an independant, he is in trouble now because his support network is not very strong in state and will only get weaker once he is no longer a democrat.

 

3. I support those sites because they've finally given the democratic party some, to quote accord, testicles. Since 1994, this party has pretty much been taking it in the ass from the right in every which way. You can try and blame the dailykos contingent and such but they came into existence only in the middle of Bush's first term. Then who is responsible for the dems losing Congress in 1994 and the Republican dominance of congress ever since? The left was not running the party when it went into and remained in its dark ages. They cant always blame the left every time something goes wrong.

 

The supposed average man jumped ship a long time ago and it had nothing to do with the left. It had everything to do with an extremely effective conservative machine that, up until recently, refused to compromise what it stood for for short term political gain. That's finally what the new groups are giving the dems.

 

Also, take note of the fact that it is dailykos and the DNC under Dean's leadership that is finally pouring money into red states like Alabama and Mississippi to try and win them back. The centrist dem leadership under and following the Clinton years took this horrible swing state only approach and that is a major reason red state America stopped paying attention to dems.

 

In addition, with the centrism of the party comes the globalization position and hence the anti-union position of the party. If union people would prefer a Republican that busts down on unions but also busts down on gays and flag burning, what can the party do? Union support in and of itself is a left leaning issue.

 

In terms of Webb, Kos actually endorsed him and not Miller as did many other groups. They love Mark Warner because he isnt ashamed of being a democrat. Hackett is a huge NRA supporter, not a leftist anti-average man issue.

 

I think this is the key thing to know regarding these groups: Ultimately the biggest thing for these groups is not necessarily political viewpoint but that they people get to have their voice hear-people power politics as they like to say. So called political compromises like the bankrupcy bill and the prescription drug benefit were primarily for the benefit of corporations and big businesses and banks. They came about because so called political compromise on the part of the moderates helped pass the bills. These political leaders really abandoned the people in favor of lobbyists. Thats what bothers them more than anything. You can be conservative, but be beholden to the voters.

 

4. Yes, I agree, the party should always be big tent but it isnt the lack of a big tent that hurt it. And part and parcel to having a big tent is not marginalizing, insulting, or ignorning the bread and butter dems. I like guys like Nelson and Casey. Yeah some blogs liked Pennachio and were against Casey. But it never became a unified position the way supporting Hackett and Tester were. If they really felt like it, they could have gunned for Casey too. It isnt just Lamont's money. It's the enthusiasm and ground game that has been created. They didnt give that to Pennachio not because he had no money but because they knew Casey was a viable candidate for his state and they preferred to take down Santorum.

 

Frankly, Id probably prefer if they put their resources into taking down Republicans and not Lieberman. My original point, which I foolishly abandoned, was that this is not an indication that the democratic party is only a liberal one. There are still moderate and conservative dems and there are still ones who get support from the left.

 

And with that, my response ends up not being brief. Good discussing the issue though. No name calling was done. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where Democrats are finding success is where they have Canidate's who gets and relates to most of America(Tester, Casey, the most prominent examples), where they're faulting where they shouldn't is when they pull sh*t like this and in Nevada, where Carter is beyond pathetic.

 

When will they wake up, and realize it doesn't work when you let a**holes like these dicate politics. If Lieberman loses this primary, the Democrats don't regain the Senate, period. They're struggling in Arizona and Nevade, and can't afford two Independents winning in Democratic States(Bernie Sanders in VT, is already a sure thing, CT, could very well be)

 

The Democrats have really made strides for this upcoming election, it's just a shame, they still have a few rats as stowaways.

 

 

How does a possible primary loss by Lieberman doom the Democrats chances of retaking the Senate when Connecticut is a liberal state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where Democrats are finding success is where they have Canidate's who gets and relates to most of America(Tester, Casey, the most prominent examples), where they're faulting where they shouldn't is when they pull sh*t like this and in Nevada, where Carter is beyond pathetic.

 

When will they wake up, and realize it doesn't work when you let a**holes like these dicate politics. If Lieberman loses this primary, the Democrats don't regain the Senate, period. They're struggling in Arizona and Nevade, and can't afford two Independents winning in Democratic States(Bernie Sanders in VT, is already a sure thing, CT, could very well be)

 

The Democrats have really made strides for this upcoming election, it's just a shame, they still have a few rats as stowaways.

 

 

How does a possible primary loss by Lieberman doom the Democrats chances of retaking the Senate when Connecticut is a liberal state?

Their's not many seats in the Senate in play(Thanks to Carter in Nevada, and a so far, weak campaign against Kyl in Arizona), which means the Democrats can't lose any seats. If Lieberman runs as an independent, he may very well win, which means the Democrat's lose a seat, which doesn't bode well when they essentially have to be perfect in the Senate campaign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm glad to see Lieberman in a tight spot right now. He has been cozying up to the Republicans and the current administration way too much as of late.

 

Plus there's the fact that for whatever reason, he supports the Iraq war. I can't understand why both he and Hillary continue to do so. Nobody likes the war anymore, and it's just going to cost a Democratic candidate if they support it.

 

I have never liked Joe on many issues, ranging from the many odd conservative agenda bills he has sponsored, to his hypocrisy on a range of issues.

 

Lamont looks like an interesting candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...