Yup, that sounds like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to me.
But not so fast. Lieberman warned his party back in July that, if he lost the primary, he would continue on as an independent. It should have been apparent then to DNC leaders that a potential disaster was brewing. And, while Senator Lieberman has assured Democrats he will continue to caucus with them, there is no longer any guarantee, is there?
However, if DNC leaders go whole hog to defeat the Senator, and he wins anyway, well, that could spell utter disaster. What if Senator Lieberman decides, for instance, that the GOP would be a nice place to visit... permanently?
All this in a year when Democrats seem to have their best chance since their 1994 route of regaining power. Now one man with consistent values, Joseph I. Lieberman, could be the nail in the coffin of their hopes and ambitions for 2006.
An MSNBC piece posted the other day spoke of a number of issues that contributed to Lieberman’s defeat, including his support for the Iraq war and his refusal to filibuster to block a vote on Supreme Court Justice Alito’s nomination, among other things.
Wait a minute. Were there a number of issues which brought about the Lamont victory? Everything I had heard and read in the press before the election seemed to indicate that the primary was all about Iraq, not a Senate filibuster or anything else. Now, all of a sudden, we have MSNBC reporter Tom Curry telling us that it isn’t?
In light of the astounding revelation offered by Curry, I felt it might be useful to go back and see what else this intrepid MSNBC reporter had written. On August 3, about a week before the primary, Mr. Curry wondered whether Joe Lieberman’s political obituary might read “another casualty of the Iraq war.”
Unless I'm in need of the Da Vinci code to properly translate this statement, it appears to me that Mr. Curry was singing a different tune before the primary. Just to be fair, I read the entire article and not once did I see any reference to an issue other than Senator Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and his seemingly close ties with the Bush administration.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
David,
Senator Lieberman may win as an independent in Connecticut. I do not know enough about Connecticut politics to argue intelligently about the issue. The way I look at it, the big question is whether Republicans will put their own guy on the chopping block so that Joe Lieberman can win. Good question. But his fate in the Senate, should he win, will not be good.
Now let's watch and see...
2 - Bliffle
Whatever happened to all the Iraq Happy Talk?
Lieberman was part of that. About how we HAD to invade Iraq. WMDs. How we were going to create a new economic zone there.
Now, nobody wants to talk about Iraq. Not interesting anymore. Just another mideast interneccine war.
Another GWB failure. Like Spectrum oil.
Hohum.
3 - troll
here's some Iraq Happy Talk for Bliffle
the # of 'displaced persons' has increased from >3,000 in Feb 06 to 162,000 or more - there are now refugee camps in 14 of the 18 Iraqi governorates
40% of Iraq's 'professional class' has left the building since 03 as part of 889,000 refugees
Iraqi civilians killed violently has increased from 1,671 in Jan 06 to 3,402 in July - better than 17,000 in the six month period...and the situation is so far gone that it is no longer possible to determine which of these deaths is 'crime related' vrs due to 'military action'
but hey - Iraq rates above most countries in the area on the 'Freedom Index'
troll
4 - troll
that's 7 months - can't count - need coffee
5 - gonzo marx
the Original Poster sez...
*But wait a minute, where were all these loyalist Democrats when Senator Lieberman was fighting for his political life during the Democratic primary?*
here we have a clear example of "framing" as well as a completely fallacious Postulate offered up to us as an Axiom...
to wit: remember kiddies, this was a fucking Primary!
meaning, the part of the election cycle where the Party in Question decides amongst themselves WHO is going to be their Nominee to "get behind" and show "party loyalty" for...
so, it is only correct and fitting that if constituents are nto happy with the way an Incumbent is working, they get behind another Candidate and sort it all out in the Primary...
which is EXACTLY what happened... just like it is supposed to
the second half of the Original Poster's completely false logic is shown in part two of his baseline canard when he sez...
*So, these loyalists held back during the primary, the Senator lost, and now they want him to show the kind of loyalty that they were unwilling to show? This is a classic double standard.*
well, in a Primary (as ex-Gov Dean pointed out) that's how it works...winner goes on, loser stays home , smiles grimly and backs the Candidate...
you know, just like how the GOP types applauded McCain for when he had to eat shit after being fucked over in the GOP primary in SC in '00... or like Dean himself did in '04
so the entire Post is shown to be logically flawed at the very basis of it's thesis...
don't ya just love it when the GOP spin doctors try and tell the Dems what "strategy" they should follow...
"no...don't throw me in the briar patch!"
puh-leeeEEEEEEEeeeeazzZZZzzzze... fucking spare me
Excelsior?
6 - David Flanagan
Gonzo:
Here's a question for you:
What typically is the difference between a presidential primary, when a number of candidates are vying for the right to become their party's nominee, and a state primary?
Here's the answer:
When Dean ran in the presidential primary, there were no incumbents. They were all running on roughly equal footing. But, in a state primary, where you have 1 incumbent and 1 challenger, both the DNC and the GOP have a tradition of supporting the incumbent. In Leiberman's case, he as the incumbent should have had the full support of his party, but did not. Because so many of them hope to run for President in 08, they chickened out, afraid they might alienate the angry left.
Party incumbents are, in a sense, "unionized." They work together in Washington, vote in blocs so as to increase their influence, and cooperate along a broad range of issues. Leiberman has been for quite a long time a leader among Democrats in DC. He's a member of their union, but they ran from him when the going got tough and allowed, in a sense, a non-union challenger to defeat him without giving him the traditional support that he should have received.
I know, the system stinks that way; but it is the way it is. And it works both ways.
In 2004, Pat Toomey nearly unseated Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. And Toomey would have won had the President and other party leaders not come to Specter's aid.
Don't you think conservatives like myself wouldn't have LOVED to see Specter out? We were just about drooling over the prospect of replacing the moderate-to-liberal Specter with a true conservative.
But the President's support made all the difference, and Specter eked out a win. I was disappointed, but I also understood that political parties cannot survive if they arbitrarily decide who to support and who not to.
Now Democrats are willing to support Lamont's candicacy without ever having even tried to support a long-term incumbent who has been incredibly loyal both to his party and to his fellow elected officials. I think the Brits would call that "bad form."
Finally, not all Democrats in Washington have come out in support of Lamont. The following Democrats have openly declared their support for Leiberman's independent bid to retain his seat:
Senators:
• Tom Carper (Del.)
• Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
• Ben Nelson (Neb.)
• Mark Pryor (Ark.)
• Ken Salazar (Colo.)
Representative:
• Brad Sherman (Calif.)
Thanks
7 - David Flanagan
Actually, you have not heard much about Iraq because, as Iraqi forces take control of their own territory, less Americans are in harm's way. The press loves to tell you all the bad stuff, while routinely ignoring the good stuff.
So, if you care to read the good stuff (not many do, I know), then you can read a letter from Maj. General Bill McCoy, who is in Iraq currently and is overseeing most of the reconstruction projects there.
8 - troll
other regularly updated sources for Iraq info are the State Dept and the Brookings Institute
9 - David Flanagan
Thank you Troll.
10 - troll
I'm with the good General that the MSM is worse than useless in this situation
11 - gonzo marx
well David, decent reply, and i do Understand your Reasoning
but as i stated, i see it being based on a false Premise...
in a Primary, who and what a Party are behind is far less crucial or anywhere near as IMportant as what the rank and file of registered voters think, or want...
it really IS just that Simple
and in this case, the Voters in that state chose to get rid of an 18 year Incumbent whom they decided no longer Represented their Voices in the Senate, and that Lamont did...
again, it IS just that simple
now, again note that i am an Independant, NOT a D or R
also note: i cited the examples of both Dean and McCain... two candidates who lost their Primary, and went on to back the duly elected Candidate as is traditional for both Parties
and you do not even want me to get started on the mess'o potamia that is the Iraq conflict... all i will say is that again, it appears you are using excellent Reasoning to extrapolate from fallacious premises...
Excelsior?
12 - troll
a while ago I started wondering where all the independent candidates were for this 06 election...I didn't realize that I was thinking about Lieberman
any theories on why we haven't seen more independent activity - ?
troll
13 - gonzo marx
that would be, what is "money" for $1000, please Alex...
but i digress...
Excelsior?
14 - troll
good answer - good answer!
15 - JollyRoger
Not buying it.
The MSM told us there was no way Lamont's challenge was going to succeed. Next, they promised us that LIEberman would trounce any opponent.
As of now, perhaps 5 points separate Holy Joe and Lamont, and Lamont has been utterly excellent on his public pronouncements-LIEberman, by contrast, sounds like he's channeling "Shooter" Cheney.
It ain't gona work in Connecticut-it'll hurt him. As it should.
16 - David Flanagan
Gonzo,
I agree. Good answer on the money needed to run a successful campaign these days. Lamont was able to finance much of his own campaign, which helped a great deal. I wouldn't call your answer a digression, I would call that spot on.
Now, if you want to talk about simple voter choice, let me point out that only about 15% of the voters who turned up for the 2002 election cycle wound up voting in this last primary. So giving the broader electorate a chance to vote on whether or not Leiberman should truly be out is perfectly legitimate in my opinion.
But even if you don't like that explanation, Leiberman has chosen to run as an independent candidate, which is also perfectly legitimate. Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing in the early 1900s, as have many other candidates when they felt they had more to contribute but could not get the formal endorsement of their prior party.
That is part of the normal democratic process in this country.
Now, if Democrats in Washington choose to strip him of his seniority, they are free to do so. I think they will hesitate to do this because Leiberman is favored to win in November and alienating him too much at this point might give Republicans an opportunity to recruit him to their party after the election.
Would Leiberman do such a thing? I tend to think not as he seems truly to love the Democratic Party. But if his party tossed him out wholesale, he might be tempted.
Food for thought.
Thanks.
17 - gonzo marx
fair enough, David...
i find only one Flaw in your commentary there...
the democratic Party didn't "throw him out"...
the democratic primary voters of Connecticutt did
BIG difference, eh?
thanks for the Discourse, even tho i disAgree with some of your Points and Conclusions, it heartens me to see cordial discussion under such circumstances from wildly differing PoVs
Excelsior?
18 - greybeard
He could do as most others and move to Georgia and run as a Republican as his wolves skin has slipped.
19 - David Flanagan
Gonzo,
Sorry, I should have clarified. Technically speaking, Leiberman was thrown out by voters as the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat that Leiberman now holds.
And now, of course, Leiberman is running as an independent. Here in Washington there is a lot of speculation that party leaders might strip Leiberman of his seniority and, in a sense, demote him. It makes sense considering Leiberman is no longer the Democratic candidate for that Senate seat, but, if you remember, Republicans lost power in the Senate for a while when Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle convinced Jim Jeffords of Vermont to leave the Republican Party. Jeffords had been treated rather poorly by fellow Republicans and decided to change his party status. Thus, Senate Minority Leader Daschle became, for a time, Senate Majority Leader Daschle.
So, if Democrats do win five seats in the Senate as Senator Reid predicts and Leiberman wins as I predicted, then it would mean utter disaster for Democrats.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
20 - goodgirl
not a chance. OPRAH WILL WIN
21 - goodgirl
IMPEACH BUSH NOW
22 - gonzo marx
David, i am well aware of Jeffords and that whole bit, but Lieberman has already stated his Intent to caucus with the Dems... th edeal for his seniority is probably already worked out...
one little hurdle...
he has to win, and he won't get any "machine" money for his campaign
should be Interesting, but the GOP types might as well stop drooling now...
i'm only giving 50-50 odds that Joe even makes it to November...
we will see
Excelsior?
23 - IgnatiusReilly
can't wait to read your piece about the White House and RNC Chair not supporting the Republican Senate candidate in CT.
24 - RJ Elliott
The GOP candidate in CT is a joke. Most Republicans will vote for Joe in November, as will most Independents (which is the largest voting block in CT). Most Dems will support their nominee, Lamont, but he'll still lose.
Joe will win 50-40-10 (or close to that). The only question is, how harsh will his fellow Dems be during the campaign? If they really cross the line, Joe will be obligated to side with the still-majority GOP in 2007...
25 - Clavos
RJ,
Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to describe Independents as a voting "block?"