Lieberman Leaving Dems?

[Black Dog]

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.

I didn't intend that at all. I'm simly saying Lieberman is out of touch with the party of today. (As an aside, I find it interesting that term slike "highly charged partisan ----ism" are used only to describe the Dems. Telling stuff. I'd also dispute the assertion that "highly charged blah blah blah" has taken over the party.)

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.

Here's a question: if Lieberman is such a good Dem and such a liberal guy why the fuck are so many right-wing GOP partisans going to bat for him? IMV you can't sing hossanhs about his "bona fides" without answering that question.

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

Assuming he first finds the money to run.

[Liam]

I accidentally posted this to the wrong thread this morning:

<<Lieberman's problem is going to be financial, not getting votes. Running a senatorial campaign, particularly in any state whose population abuts a major media market (something like 30% of CT voters live near or in the Greater NYC media market), is extremely expensive. With the Democrats closing rank behind Lamont, putting the national party machine behind him, lining up the labor votes, using the fundraising power of the national organization, etc. presents an enormous burden on Lieberman.

There will be a lot of spending and campaigning on Lamont's behalf and without the party structure behind him, Lieberman will be hard pressed to wage a strong battle. The GOP knows this and are doing what they can to prop up Lieberman. I cite as examples Rove's overtures to Lieberman, GOP chairman Ken Mehlman's tacit endorsement of Lieberman and his refusal to openly support the GOP nominee in the race. Mehlman was on TV last night practically asking Republicans to donate to Lieberman's campaign. The GOP wants to keep Liberman as viable as possible because it creates the image of a civil war within the Democrats over defense/Iraq/war on terror issues. The GOP has no hope of winning the CT seat, but they want to use any perceived internal strife among the Democrats as a national talking point hoping it can help them pick up some desperately needed polling percentages in other races they ought to be winning easily (i.e., the Tennessee, Missouri, and Ohio senate races).

The telling moment for Liebeman will be mid-September when the first real polls come out. If Lieberman's number show weakness at that time, I would be surprised if he didn't withdraw.>>

[Black Dog]

The GOP wants to keep Liberman as viable as possible because it creates the image of a civil war within the Democrats over defense/Iraq/war on terror issues. The GOP has no hope of winning the CT seat, but they want to use any perceived internal strife among the Democrats as a national talking point hoping it can help them pick up some desperately needed polling percentages in other races they ought to be winning easily (i.e., the Tennessee, Missouri, and Ohio senate races).

What's the word for someone like Lieberman in this situation? Ah yes: "useful idiot."

Oh and speaking of "highly charged partisan" shenanigans: Michigan Congressman loses party nomination

Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost his party's nomination Tuesday, falling to a staunchly conservative challenger in a primary race dominated by a struggle over GOP principles that attracted more than $1 million in spending by outside groups.

...

Schwarz, who was backed by President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain, was forced to defend his views on social issues along with taxes, immigration and spending.

The first-term congressman accused outside groups of trying to buy a seat in Congress by helping Walberg pay for TV ads. He said the primary was ''probably a victory for right to life, anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell groups but it's a net loss for the Republican party because it just pushes the party farther to the right.''

I wonder if the latter point will be pushed as hard in the "liberal MSM" as the current hysteria over the Democrats' alleged leftward tilt. I'm gonna say...no.

[Shady]

I'm simly saying Lieberman is out of touch with the party of today

I disagree. I'm simply saying that Lieberman narrowly lost his primary over one issue. One cannot deny his record. He's been a strong democrat for 18 years. Apparently one issue over a 2 year period erases all of that. I never heard the same complaints made against John Kerry in 2004. In fact, during the campaign, he stated the following:

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.”

CBS

Quick, somebody morph Kerry into Bush!

if Lieberman is such a good Dem and such a liberal guy why the fuck are so many right-wing GOP partisans going to bat for him?

Because they know, like him, pulling out of Iraq prematurely, would be an absolute disaster for America and the world.

[Black Dog]

Because they know, like him, pulling out of Iraq prematurely, would be an absolute disaster for America and the world.

Pulling out prematurely may be a disaster in some situations (might stain the sheets), but it's an open question whether or not the bigger disaster would be to stay. And, given how wrong you and the GOP have been on pretty much everything to do with this war, well, let's just say I wouldn't risk any money on what they and Liberman "know."

[jdobbin]

Because they know, like him, pulling out of Iraq prematurely, would be an absolute disaster for America and the world.

Pulling out prematurely may be a disaster in some situations (might stain the sheets), but it's an open question whether or not the bigger disaster would be to stay. And, given how wrong you and the GOP have been on pretty much everything to do with this war, well, let's just say I wouldn't risk any money on what they and Liberman "know."

The Generals have already acknowledged that if it looks like full scale civil war, they will have no choice but to immediately pull out.

The question is whether the Bush government would ever recognize a civil war.

[Shady]

Rasmussen Reports began polling the Ned Lamont-Joe Lieberman general election match-up last night. After 375 interviews, preliminary numbers show Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 3 percentage points. Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger is a non-factor in the single digits.

The last Rasmussen survey of a three way general election found Lamont and Lieberman tied at 40% with Schlesinger at 13%. It appears Lieberman is gaining ground primarily among GOP voters.

Political Wire

Uh oh.

[jdobbin]

Rasmussen Reports began polling the Ned Lamont-Joe Lieberman general election match-up last night. After 375 interviews, preliminary numbers show Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 3 percentage points. Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger is a non-factor in the single digits.

The last Rasmussen survey of a three way general election found Lamont and Lieberman tied at 40% with Schlesinger at 13%. It appears Lieberman is gaining ground primarily among GOP voters.

Political Wire

Uh oh.

Still an early result. I don't expect Republicans are going to side with liberal Leiberman on social issues.

[Shady]

I don't expect Republicans are going to side with liberal Leiberman on social issues

Maybe, but these are Connecticut Republicans, not Texas Republicans. Socially, they tend to be less conservative. Which is why northeastern Republicans look more like Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee and maybe, in a sense, Joe Lieberman. Republicans may be developing into a big-tent party.

[Black Dog]

It appears Lieberman is gaining ground primarily among GOP voters.

Who would, of course, have the best interests in the Democratic party at heart.

[jdobbin]

Maybe, but these are Connecticut Republicans, not Texas Republicans. Socially, they tend to be less conservative. Which is why northeastern Republicans look more like Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee and maybe, in a sense, Joe Lieberman. Republicans may be developing into a big-tent party.

Many Republicans have attacked these two Republicans this year for being admanantly against deficit spending.

As far as Leiberman getting all of the Republican vote, it is just not likely. It will pick up again. All the publicity has been on the two Democrats.

[Shady]

As far as Leiberman getting all of the Republican vote, it is just not likely.

Of course Lieberman won't get all of the Republican vote, but he'll get some of it. When you mix in strong support from Independants, as well as strong support from some Dems, it's easy to see why he still has a very good chance to retain his senate seat in November.

Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each

Link

[jdobbin]

deleted.

[jdobbin]

deleted.

[Shady]

OH DAMN!

Lieberman leads opponents in new poll

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

Link

Wait, shhhh, I think I can feel it. What's that you ask? It's JOEMENTUM!!!!

[August1991]

I'm simply saying that Lieberman narrowly lost his primary over one issue. One cannot deny his record. He's been a strong democrat for 18 years. Apparently one issue over a 2 year period erases all of that.

I generally agree with you Shady but you have to agree that in the US context, it's a mother of an issue.

The fact is that the Connecticut Dem Primary Process was taken over by the lunatic McGovern fringe. These people are well-organized and as stubborn as anyone whose mindset hasn't changed since 1969. But this is a pyhrric victory for them and the smart Democrats are as wary of this result as the Republicans are gleeful. If the Dems were smart, they would take Lieberman's defeat as a major wake-up call.

Officially, the Dems will close ranks around Lamont (they have to) but I think Lieberman has a good chance of winning. The US has a strong tradition of electing independent candidates at the State level.

Krauthammer had good column on this:

With the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, antiwar forces are poised for a takeover of the Democratic Party. Tuesday's exhilarating victory, and the elan and electoral legitimacy gained, may carry the newly energized Democratic left to considerable success in November. But for the Democratic Party it will be an expensive and short-lived indulgence.

Washington Post

[jdobbin]

It's funny how the Republicans would support a candidate and a policy in Iraq that continues to push them downward in the polls.

I still think the state is too close to call this close to the election.

All I know is that there are two more American deaths in the last two days in Iraq. There are over 100 people a day dying in Iraq over all these last months. It's civil war and the ability of the U.S. to stop it is becoming less and less a certain thing.

[Black Dog]

The fact is that the Connecticut Dem Primary Process was taken over by the lunatic McGovern fringe. These people are well-organized and as stubborn as anyone whose mindset hasn't changed since 1969. But this is a pyhrric victory for them and the smart Democrats are as wary of this result as the Republicans are gleeful. If the Dems were smart, they would take Lieberman's defeat as a major wake-up call.

So, just to be clear: the defeat of a pro-war candidate in an anti-war state in a country where the majority of people now oppose the war and where the war will be a key issue in the upcoming election is somehow bad for the victors. I think I'm going to lie down now, all that recycled conventional wisdom is making me sleepy.

Again: when electoral or ideological opponents who depend on the Democrats failing start falling over themselves to warn that a particular strategy will have diasaterous consequenses for the Democrats, chances are that strategy is a winner.

And now, a different view.

The irate moderates' revenge

The rebellion against Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as America has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Chill guys - it's CONNETICUT!!! About as liberal as you can get - hardly a bellwether for the country although the left media is all over this one, praying we don't have another 4 repub years in the whitehouse.

Just like the new england dems - snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and scurry home.

[jdobbin]

Predictably, the Lieberman's large lead has narrowed. As I said earlier, the state is too close to call. The joy the right had about Lieberman winning big was wishful thinking when it comes to Iraq. There is a lot ill feeling towards the war now and it is going to felt on election day.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/23082006/6/n-us...al-narrows.html

[Shady]

The joy the right had about Lieberman winning big was wishful thinking

Really?

Zogby poll: Lieberman still ahead by 10 points

Zogby found U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a New Haven Democrat running without his party's endorsement, leads Democratic nominee Ned Lamont of Greenwich 49.4 percent to 39.4 percent, with 2.1 percent going to the Republican nominee, former Derby Mayor Alan Schlesinger. Lieberman held a 12-point edge over Lamont in an Aug. 17 Quinnipiac poll

Link

Now, obviously, polls can change, but you might not wanna speak too soon.

[jdobbin]

Now, obviously, polls can change, but you might not wanna speak too soon.

Zogby polls are being discounted. There were three polls last week that had things a lot closer.

"Zogby doesn't use a random sampling process and that...questioned only about half the number of "likely voters" surveyed in another poll."

This was from your own link.

[Shady]

Zogby polls are being discounted

Be realistic. We all know that Zogby is a well-respected poll, that's been very accurate for many years. You're just attacking the messenger. Don't worry, your guy Lamont may be down a little right now, but I'm sure it'll tighten up again soon.

[jdobbin]

Be realistic. We all know that Zogby is a well-respected poll, that's been very accurate for many years. You're just attacking the messenger. Don't worry, your guy Lamont may be down a little right now, but I'm sure it'll tighten up again soon.

Lamont isn't my guy. I have no idea who he is really.

My comment is that the polling numbers from Zogby have been questioned by *other* polling companies. There have been some accusations of polling companies in Canada not getting a good enough sample when releasing their info or skewing questions. Some of it can just mudslinging but when several polling companies comment on another companies results, I start wondering what the actual number is. That is why I have been looking at how close the overall polls have been.

And so what if Lieberman wins? He will caucus with the Democrats anyway. Two years of him and others supporting the Iraq war could lose the Republicans the presidency.

The U.S. has quietly boosted the numbers in Iraq to 140,000 again. They said six months ago that they'd be around a 100,000 and heading downwards.

[Shady]

Looks like your guy's still losing, although the Zogby poll shows a closer race.

Poll: Lieberman Leads Lamont in Conn.

HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday

AP