Lieberman Leaving Dems?

[August1991]

What's this all about?

With his Democratic primary challenger advancing in the polls, Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman must soon decide whether to begin gathering signatures for a possible independent run this November.

His campaign staffers contend they're focusing only on winning on the Aug. 8 primary. But Lieberman himself has not ruled out petitioning his way onto the November ballot as part of his backup plan to garner a fourth term in the U.S. Senate.

"I am not going to close out any options," he recently told reporters.

Boston Globe

I didn't know that Lieberman was facing a primary challenge, but the fact that he's considering running as an independent says alot about that party. And here I thought they might do halfway decent in the halftime offyear.

Lieberman was one of the saner ones.

[Shady]

Lieberman was one of the saner ones

Exactly. Except, I think this is a case of the party leaving him. It's one of the problems with the kook-left have such influence in the Democratic party.

[Riverwind]

I didn't know that Lieberman was facing a primary challenge, but the fact that he's considering running as an independent says alot about that party. And here I thought they might do halfway decent in the halftime offyear.

I heard rumors about a group Republicans and Democrats trying to organize an indepedent moderate 'dream ticket'. i.e. Bill Gates and Al Gore.

[Black Dog]

I didn't know that Lieberman was facing a primary challenge, but the fact that he's considering running as an independent says alot about that party. And here I thought they might do halfway decent in the halftime offyear.

Lieberman was one of the saner ones.

Ah yes, another example of the conventional wisdom that dictates Democrats need to become more like Republicans to enjoy success (a bit usually peddled by Republicans or their sympathizers). Lieberman was the poster child for that philosophy. And now that his regressive, G.O.P carbon copy nonsense isn't washing with voters he's gonna take his ball and go home, showing the same kind of self-serving contempt for the party that earned him the enimity of its base in the first place. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Liam]

Lieberman is not leaving the Democratic party -- but don't tell the right wingers because rumors like this are about all they have going for them. I mean, if they can't feel superior to someone, what good is living??

The reality is that Lieberman wants to serve another term, but the primary voters of both parties tend to be at the more extreme ends (on average) of both their parties. Lieberman has been criticized by many on the left for being too much in Bush's pocket, something I kind of agree with. But only kind of.

It's natural for some incumbents to have a primary challenger, and that's what this is. The far left has put forth a candidate of their own. The non-rumor aspect of this story is that IF he loses the primary, he may run as an independent. he is not leaving the party in a huff or because of an ideological shift (which the right-wingers around here imply by their, "the party leaving Lieberman" cr^p).

Lieberman will win the primary. And he will win re-election in a walk. As a Democrat.

[Johnny Utah]

Lieberman was one of the saner ones

Exactly. Except, I think this is a case of the party leaving him. It's one of the problems with the kook-left have such influence in the Democratic party.

The Kook-Left will drive out more Democrats like Lieberman. Moveon.org made the famous statement "They Owned the Democratic Party" and it sure seems like they do. The Sane Democratic Party of JFK, Bill Clinton is dead..

[August1991]

Lieberman will win the primary. And he will win re-election in a walk. As a Democrat.

Makes sense to me. I can't imagine radicals of any sort hijacking either the Democratic or Republican Parties in Connecticut. The place is small-c conservative.

[sharkman]

Lieberman was one of the saner ones

Exactly. Except, I think this is a case of the party leaving him. It's one of the problems with the kook-left have such influence in the Democratic party.

The Kook-Left will drive out more Democrats like Lieberman. Moveon.org made the famous statement "They Owned the Democratic Party" and it sure seems like they do. The Sane Democratic Party of JFK, Bill Clinton is dead..

This wouldn't be without precident, Reagan was orginally a Dem, but his thoughts on the matter were that he didn't leave the Democrat party, it left him.

[BHS]

Lieberman will win the primary. And he will win re-election in a walk. As a Democrat.

Makes sense to me. I can't imagine radicals of any sort hijacking either the Democratic or Republican Parties in Connecticut. The place is small-c conservative.

You're both ignoring that recent poll numbers have put Lieberman at 46% and his Kos-backed challenger at 40% and closing. That's not a walk. Those numbers are the driving point behind the speculation about him running as an independant.

August: if Lieberman does run in the general election as an independant, do you hold that he'll win against a Republican and a radical-left backed Dem?

[BHS]

I didn't know that Lieberman was facing a primary challenge, but the fact that he's considering running as an independent says alot about that party. And here I thought they might do halfway decent in the halftime offyear.

Lieberman was one of the saner ones.

Ah yes, another example of the conventional wisdom that dictates Democrats ned to become more like Republicans to enjoy success (a bit usually peddled by Republicans or their sympathizers). Lieberman was the poster child for that philosophy. And now that his regressive, G.O.P carbon copy nonsense isn't washing wih voters he's gonna take his bal and go home, showing the same kind of self-serving contempt for the party that earned him the enimity of its vase in the first place. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Look at it this way, BD. The Conservative Party in Canada faced a similar situation - unelectable do to a perceived policy preference gap with the general public. And do you know what they did? They took all of their most radical policies off the table (against the wishes of their more radical elements) and got themselves elected. At some point down the road, as they solidify and expand their base support, you can expect that some of these radical policy preferences will be reintroduced, one at a time, as trial balloons most likely. And probably, most of them will be squashed in that trial balloon phase, and that will be that. But the ice has been broken and their time in the wilderness is over. They are electable again.

The Republicans have made an absolute dog's breakfast of their base support in the past year. Liam has contended that Republican gerrymandering will see them through anyway, but I disagree. I think that if the Dems were to unhook themselves from the netroots long enough to present a common, bland front for this election they could make some serious gains. And then they could work on new legislation to rid the country of gerrymandered districts once and for all, which I personally think is a great idea. Even if it involves proposing a Constitutional amendment to do it.

Do I think that any of this will happen? No. I think the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of loosing either or both chambers, but only for the short term. I think the Dems are going to be serial second place finishers in the long run, for as long as it is their unwritten policy to turn every judicial hearing into a debate on abortion and every military action into another Vietnam quagmire and every political scandal into another Watergate. These events were all progressive "victories" but they have also have caused a lot of pain for the American people. Ripping open old scars to remind everyone of you glory days in the late 60's and early 70's was never a long term winner of a strategy, and it's getting staler and uglier as time marches forward.

[August1991]

You're both ignoring that recent poll numbers have put Lieberman at 46% and his Kos-backed challenger at 40% and closing. That's not a walk. Those numbers are the driving point behind the speculation about him running as an independant.

August: if Lieberman does run in the general election as an independant, do you hold that he'll win against a Republican and a radical-left backed Dem?

I went back to that Boston Globe article and rather than skim it, I found this:

According to a recent Quinnipiac University Poll, 57 percent of registered Democrats in Connecticut said they would vote for Lieberman, compared with 32 percent for Lamont. One month ago, Lieberman drew 65 percent to Lamont's 19 percent.

The poll found that if Lieberman runs as an independent, he would win with 56 percent of the vote, compared with 18 percent for Lamont and 8 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger. Lieberman enjoys higher ratings among Republicans and unaffiliated voters than Democrats, the poll determined. Unaffiliated voters are the state's largest block of voters, followed by Democrats and then Republicans.

IOW, Liam's right. In all likelihood, Lieberman's going to win the primary and then go on to re-election.

I think the Republicans and the anti-war crowd are spreading rumours because that's how politics are played in the US. In all seriousness, if the Democrats were about to get into a major internal hissy fit, I wouldn't look to Connecticut for the first indication. Connecticut previously had Lowell Weicker and now its got Lieberman. Connecticut doesn't have radical Senators, and despite the war, I don't think this will change.

But to answer your question, yes, I think that Lieberman would likely get elected as an independent but he doesn't have to worry about that eventuality.

[BHS]

August;

Lamont is ahead by 10 points. Care to revise your last prediction?

[Shady]

Today's the big day. It should be interesting. I'm not really sure what's going to happen, although it looks as though Ned Lamont goes into today with a 5 or 6 point lead.

[Black Dog]

I think the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of loosing either or both chambers, but only for the short term. I think the Dems are going to be serial second place finishers in the long run, for as long as it is their unwritten policy to turn every judicial hearing into a debate on abortion and every military action into another Vietnam quagmire and every political scandal into another Watergate. These events were all progressive "victories" but they have also have caused a lot of pain for the American people. Ripping open old scars to remind everyone of you glory days in the late 60's and early 70's was never a long term winner of a strategy, and it's getting staler and uglier as time marches forward.

Here's the thing: no one would talk about abortion if there wasn't one political party who's base would very much like to see Roe v. wade overturned and abortion itself swept under the legislative rug. No one would mention Vietnam if the U.S. wasn't embroiled in another ill-starred military adventure overseas. And no one would mention Watergate if there wasn't another president intent on pushing the limits of executive power. IOW none of this stuff is happening out of context. No, the Democrats will remain in the political wilderness as long as they remain a watered down version of the Republican party. Why do you think the folks telling the Dems to move to the "centre" are usually Republicans or Beltway Dems who, like Liberman, care less about the party and its values than they do about maintaining the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. I mean, Jesus Christ, when William fucking Kristol is stumping for Liberman, its safe to say that whole "the party left him" line is a load of bullshit.

[jdobbin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14228351/

Lieberman loses.

[sharkman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14228351/

Lieberman loses.

And he vows to run as an independant. I'd like to see him take a run at the oval office. That would pretty much sink whoever the Dems put up.

[jdobbin]

And he vows to run as an independant. I'd like to see him take a run at the oval office. That would pretty much sink whoever the Dems put up.

It might be enough to keep the Democrats from winning in Connecticut although it is a fairly Democratic state.

[BubberMiley]

I guess they were right when they called him "Sore Losermann."

[Black Dog]

And he vows to run as an independant. I'd like to see him take a run at the oval office. That would pretty much sink whoever the Dems put up.

How would having two Republicans on the ticket hurt the Dems? As for his independant bid, it's all to easy to hang the "sore loser" tag on him. He's clearly putting his own personal ambition above all else.

[Shady]

And he vows to run as an independant. I'd like to see him take a run at the oval office. That would pretty much sink whoever the Dems put up.

How would having two Republicans on the ticket hurt the Dems? As for his independant bid, it's all to easy to hang the "sore loser" tag on him. He's clearly putting his own personal ambition above all else.

It's pretty disingenuous to call Joe Lieberman a Republican. The guy had a 90% Dem voting record. Yes, the one issue he deviated from the far left party line was the Iraq war. That makes him a Republican? I don't think so. It's a funny thing now, since Democrats can't defeat Republicans in elections anymore, they've turned to defeating other Democrats and pretending it's a victory. I love it!

[Liam]

I was one of the guys who said Lieberman would win, so this is my mea culpa.

Lieberman lost for a few reasons:

1. His coziness with Bush. Connecticut is a moderate to liberal state and the primary voters did not like how Lieberman appeared to be an apologist for Bush during the past five and a half years. The key issue here is the war in Iraq. Up till last month, Lieberman seemed to be mouthing the White House talking points on all the success in Iraq. Lieberman should have taken a less pro-Bush position on the issue (I supported the war at its inception, questioned its validity upon learning that the basis of the war was dubious intel, and now want to hold the Bush Administration accountable for making bad choices from minimal troop levels to enabling sectarian violence).

2. It was perceived that Lieberman lost touch with his constituents. After being selected as Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman became a "US Senator", not the "US Senator from Connecticut". He was all over the talk shows, and he took positions attempting to burnish his national image which didn't play too well at home at times. He did good things for his home state, but he stopped going to the state-level party functions, stopped attending the local parades and dinners. Meanwhile, his fellow Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, also a Democrat, became the "go-to" guy for everyone. Want you Social Security check? Call Dodd's office. Your kids needs a letter of recommendation to get into the Naval Academy? Call Dodd's office. Dodd became the worker, Lieberman became the spokesman.

3. Lieberman failed to control the debate. This is perilous for an incumbent. Lieberman could have easily hammered away at the prospects for the state if Lamont won and the Dems fail to win a majority. Who would get more for the state, the seasoned Senator or the neophyte liberal from a small, liberal state? Lieberman never got on top of the issues and failed to make a strong case for his re-election. Lamont's supporters were fired up, Lieberman's went on vacation.

[Black Dog]

Quite right Liam. Liberman also exhibited an imperiousness that put many off. He seemed offended at the challenge and baffled by the prospect that any Democrat would take issue with some of his positions (on Iraq and Social Security being the biggies). In short, he exuded entitlement and an arrogance that reinforced the perception that he was G.W's soulmate.

[Black Dog]

It's pretty disingenuous to call Joe Lieberman a Republican. The guy had a 90% Dem voting record. Yes, the one issue he deviated from the far left party line was the Iraq war. That makes him a Republican? I don't think so. It's a funny thing now, since Democrats can't defeat Republicans in elections anymore, they've turned to defeating other Democrats and pretending it's a victory. I love it!

Yeah, you can tell Joe is an ardent Democrat by the way he's turning to the GOP to support his sucide-bomber independent candidacy.

[Black Dog]

Joe'n'Karl: BFFs?

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

[BHS]

Here's the thing: no one would talk about abortion if there wasn't one political party who's base would very much like to see Roe v. wade overturned and abortion itself swept under the legislative rug. No one would mention Vietnam if the U.S. wasn't embroiled in another ill-starred military adventure overseas. And no one would mention Watergate if there wasn't another president intent on pushing the limits of executive power.

I had individual responses written for all three sentences and lost them. I'm too tired to rewrite them all. It just pisses me off sometimes. Suffice it to say that I disagree and that my post the you are responding to still stands unrebutted in my estimation.

IOW none of this stuff is happening out of context. No, the Democrats will remain in the political wilderness as long as they remain a watered down version of the Republican party. Why do you think the folks telling the Dems to move to the "centre" are usually Republicans or Beltway Dems who, like Liberman, care less about the party and its values than they do about maintaining the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. I mean, Jesus Christ, when William fucking Kristol is stumping for Liberman, its safe to say that whole "the party left him" line is a load of bullshit.

I've added bolding to the phrase that interests me most here. Just what values are you speaking of? Your wording suggests a 1984-ish "'tis now and always has been" view of what the Democratic party stands for. I strenuously disagree. When Joe Lieberman was a young man (and no doubt forming his political views) the Democrats were the party of war. Before the 1960's the Democrats were also the party of racial segregation. Before the 1990s the concept of RINOs and DINOs didn't exist, because there were hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives in both parties. Saying that the highly charged partisan leftism that has taken over the Democratic Party since the failures of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, is representative of the party's broader history, is ridiculous.

In another post, you replied to Shady's statement that Lieberman's record is highly liberal by attacking him for the support he's currently receiving from conservatives, the foreshadowing of which appears above. Which, dude, is a total red herring that doesn't challenge the fact of his established liberal bona fides one iota. I'm sure that as an independant candidate he'll take support from wherever he can get it, but no one (including Bill Kristol) is naive enough to think that the company he keeps during a time of duress will affect his voting demeanor once he's back in office. And that's assuming he doesn't explicitly disavow any such support during the campaign.

In post #11 of this thread August said:

But to answer your question, yes, I think that Lieberman would likely get elected as an independent but he doesn't have to worry about that eventuality.

The eventuality has come to pass, but I think otherwise that August was correct. Lieberman will be re-elected.