Lieberman Again
When last I considered the Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman question, Jonathan Chait was trying to convince me that I should support Lieberman even though he's a bad Senator in order to help strengthen the overall position of Democrats who favor the Iraq War. Since, like the overwhelming majority of Democrats, it doesn't seem to me that one should favor the Iraq War, I found this unconvincing. Recently, the DLC gave it another shot.
They make two kinds of arguments, one about electioneering and one about the merits. They quote Barak Obama last fall arguing that "When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive 'checklist,' then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems . . . by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority." This is reasonable enough. The DLC further emphasizes that "a party with no room for Joe Lieberman -- or for that matter, such occasionally lonely dissenters on the left as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders -- is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice."
I tend to agree. Lieberman, whatever one might say about his television appearance, is clearly a more-progressive-than-not dude and I don't have any objection in principle to nominating candidates of his degree of conservatism in constituencies when that seems appropriate to the sentiments of the local voters. Connecticut, though, isn't a place like that at all. A Democratic Party with no room for roughly Liebermanish views is going to really struggle to win a national majority, but a Connecticut Democratic Party with no room for roughly Liebermanish views will win majorities and generate substantively more progressive policy outcomes.
Which brings us to the merits of the case. Even the DLC won't really defend Lieberman's thinking on Iraq, though they won't come out and quite say what their disagreements are. So count that against him. We read that liberals are mad at Lieberman "for standing up against corporate-sponsored trash culture on behalf of families struggling to control their kids' values and upbringing."
I don't really care to get into that whole debate again, but suffice it to say that once again I think Lieberman is wrong on the merits. I also think I should take an aside here to express my intense annoyance and frustration at the attempt to co-opt the left's rhetoric ("corporate-sponsored") and turn defenders of free speech into corporate whores. When it comes to public policy questions where major incumbent media firms actually have a large financial stake, the DLC is firmly on the companies' side, as is Lieberman himself. So spare me the populist posturing.
We're told that Lieberman detractors call him "Holy Joe" because they're "angry at him for championing the expression of religious faith in the public square." I always thought people called him "Holy Joe" because he's sanctimonious but I must say that I have very wishy-washy views on church-state issues, especially for an atheist.
So I lean anti-Lieberman. It seems to me that if Lamont supporters would just agree that this is basically a referendum on the war, I'd eagerly join their side. But they keep denying that that's what it is, which leaves me feeling a bit confused.
Here's my April 2005 article about the dump Lieberman movement. I credit this movement's existence with keeping Liberman on the true path of righteousness in the Social Security debate and, therefore, with a good chunk of the credit for having saved Social Security. (This business in the DLC release about how "principled" Lieberman is was silly and false; and it's a good thing it's false, too -- since Lieberman isn't especially principled it's possible for worthy interest-groups to stop him from defecting when he shouldn't and he winds up with a pretty good voting record notwithstanding his antics).
Ya know, I ain't principled at all. Maybe I am just not a big tent Dem. I am tired though.
The guy voted for the bankruptcy bill, for Alito, and says obnoxious things about abortion and then claims to be a Democrat.
Fuck him.
I would rather not have him in the party and have the Dems forced to find and make deals with honest and honorable Republicans, than have to listen to his crap and see the party and our goals get withered away.
And Biden? Mr. Bankruptcy Bill, white teeth, and no net neutrality? Fuck him too.
There's a difference between welcoming diversity, and not having any standards whatsoever.
If you want others to respect the Dems, it is long past time for the Dems to respect our own values.
Of the people, for the people, by the people.
June 14, 2006 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I am really tired tonight. I rag on you Matt because you are an avowed tree killer. But I actually do very much respect your ability to untangle many complex issues and then communicate your thoughts regarding them.
But I just don't get it. Lieberman provides cover to the worst fucking president in our history. That's not my opinion. Apparently lots and lots of people thing Bush is the worst.
And with every kiss on his cheeks, I get fucked in mine.
As a democrat, Lieberman has done NOTHING for me, and made it very difficult for people that do work in my interests to succeed. So fuck him.
As a Jew, I am appalled with Lieberman's record on Iraq, on Bankruptcy, on pretty much everything but whoring out is Orthodox credentials. So fuck him.
Fuck people that provide cover for evil-doers.
Cut out the rot, cut out Lieberman, and maybe we can pretty teeth Biden to do the right thing in regards to net neutrality.
June 14, 2006 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Joe is among my least favorite Democratic Senators for reasons long predating the Iraq war. But I'd vote for him over Lamont without any reservations if I were a Connecticut resident. Trippi-ism is the Democratic Party's greatest enemy going forward, not hawkish blue state Senators.
"I credit this movement's existence with keeping Liberman on the true path of righteousness in the Social Security debate"
Nonsense. Lieberman can be relied upon to stay within party discipline when party discipline is imposed. If a bunch of Democratic Senators had wanted to sell out SS, and if Harry Reid had signaled that this was a free vote, then Lieberman might well have joined them. But he was never going to go against a unified caucus.
"A Democratic Party with no room for roughly Liebermanish views is going to really struggle to win a national majority"
That's understating it...
"but a Connecticut Democratic Party with no room for roughly Liebermanish views will win majorities and generate substantively more progressive policy outcomes."
In a certain sense, this is true. But at the same time, imagine if some right-wing crazies decided to primary John McCain or Chuck Hagel. They both come from red states, and their successors would almost definitely be to their right. But does that mean it's a smart thing for the right-wing crazies to do?
For a variety of reasons, many of them pretty obvious, I'd say no.
Political parties are brands. Actions like this have consequences on the brand.
Defeating Lieberman in a low-turnout primary will not only result in a Democratic Senator likely being replaced by an Independent Senator, but also will result in a message being sent to voters outside of Connecticut about the size of the tent of the Democratic Party.
June 14, 2006 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is he really an opponent of Free Speech? Has he ever sponsored or endorsed a bill that would limit speech? He's an old man who thinks pop music with lyrics about commiting crimes & degrading women & video games where the object is to steal cars, commit crimes & murder prostitutes might not be kosher (literally). He has never tried to ban or limot the sale of such material.
That in fact has been (up til now) Lieberman's political genius. With the occasional (much publicized) break with his party & the occasional ol' fuddy duddy routine regarding popular culture, He has garned a reputation among many republican voters as being a conservative, despite the fact that his voting record is almost twcie as liberal as the mote liberal republican in the Senate.
The problem is, not only did he convince conservatives he was conservative, he convinced many liberals as well.
June 15, 2006 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Is he really an opponent of Free Speech? Has he ever sponsored or endorsed a bill that would limit speech?"
Of course not.
Matt writes: "When it comes to public policy questions where major incumbent media firms actually have a large financial stake, the DLC is firmly on the companies' side, as is Lieberman himself. So spare me the populist posturing."
But, of course, Lieberman's populist posturing on this topic isn't on economic grounds. It's populist posturing on moral grounds. Just like the grandstanding Senate speech on Monica-gate.
The focus on the marketing activities of major media companies isn't out of hostility to those companies. It's because they're the only possible target for good government types who aren't into censorship. It's the same reason the goo-goos go after tobacco company marketing activities to express their disapproval of smoking.
I'd guesstimate that easily a majority of parents in this country have reasonably serious concerns about sexual material getting into the hands of their children. What's the problem in Democratic politicians pandering to those parents short of censorship?
Given the increased post-Monica problems the Democrats have on issues connected to sex, this kind of pandering is a no-brainer for Democrats.
June 15, 2006 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . keeping Liberman on the true path of righteousness in the Social Security debate . . . .
That a Democratic Party leader was even contemplating privatizing Social Security says all that needs to be said.
Dump Joe Lieberman!
June 15, 2006 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He's an old man who thinks pop music with lyrics about commiting crimes & degrading women & video games where the object is to steal cars, commit crimes & murder prostitutes might not be kosher (literally). He has never tried to ban or limot the sale of such material."
To be fair, I don't recall the point of Grand Theft Auto to ever have included killing prostitutes as an objective, it's like a sideline and they tend to not have that much cash on them.
Holy Joe is, as Charles Taylor once called him in Salon, a constipated scold. And, yes, he is called 'Holy Joe' because of the sanctimony, not the religion. I don't recall anyone called Gephardt 'Holy Dick' just for an example. Loving the Iraq War was forgivable in 2003, maybe even 2004.
The American people seem to require a little moral outrage at their popular culture before they can properly enjoy it and it's smart politics for the Dems to provide some.
That said, nobody nationally should put anything into defeating Lieberman. It's a low priority, especially considering that it's almost impossible for the Dems to take the Senate this year.
June 15, 2006 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That said, nobody nationally should put anything into defeating Lieberman. It's a low priority"
You obviously have different priorities than the loonies. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say they'd rather defeat Lieberman than take back the Senate this year.
And, of course, if they do manage to beat Lieberman in a low turnout primary, we'd still have him back in the Senate, but this time as an independent with even looser ties to the caucus - assuming, of course, that he does the expected an continues to caucus with us. It'd be bad news for Democrats, but you know the loonies would be celebrating this bad news.
June 15, 2006 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Petey, that's pretty weak. No left-of-Lieberman Dems, in any state, should ever mount a primary challenge, solely (or, primarily) because of the message it might send to voters outside of that state? How about John Breaux, assuming he had been from a liberal state - we just should have sat there and done nothing about his corrupt politics, ever?
I think you're just letting your frustration at the lefty activist types get the better of you. Yes, they can be annoying when they place ideology over effectiveness and treat politics as merely an expression of their own purity. But, as you sort-of implicitly acknowledge, some Senators deserve to be replaced - and CT is a safe place to do it.
You're greatly exaggerating the effect of a New England primary challenge. Some voters in other states might hear something about it, but whatever muted "message" they might receive will be fully drowned out by the noise of their own state's election. If Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and Tom Carper get renominated, as they will be, voters in Nebraska and Arkansas and Delaware will understand full well that the national Democratic party remains a big tent - and voters outside those states will get a message just as clearly as they will from any Lieberman defeat.
June 15, 2006 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has formidable discipline, and it has formidble top-down strategies for silencing dissenters. However, it by no means renounced primaries, and primary battles have often involved challenges to incumbents who strayed from dogma.
Perhaps parties themselves are regrettable features of life, although they will not go away. As long as we have them, however, democracy, which hinges on a little thing called voting, will not not include only election campaigns. It will also allow primaries. I can't discern the difference between "let's all support the party choice" from "let's all go back to a system of back-room deals by corrupt leaders." That old system may have served both parties and may even have got us JFK's win through corruption in Illinois. But it's not going to play today.
For now, a primary has the role of involving more people in party politics, of aligning more candidates with the majority, and of forcing candidates on all sides of issues like Iraq to articulate their views, which alone is helpful in winning over independents later given the media stereotype of Dems as flip-floppers.
Sure, it can alienate party followers, the way too many sat out in 1968 or 2000 and cost us the most critical elections of my lifetime. But we can maybe agree we're not going to let that happen again. In fact, here the only one who isn't playing by that sane rule isn't the radical but Lieberman, who threatens to bolt if he loses! And meanwhile, we'll fight for a part of the the candidates and ideas we actually find important.
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 15, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Come on, Petey, that's pretty weak. No left-of-Lieberman Dems, in any state, should ever mount a primary challenge, solely (or, primarily) because of the message it might send to voters outside of that state?"
I'm opposed to primarying Lieberman for about seventeen different reasons to Tuesday. But one of them sure is the effect on the overall Democratic brand.
Lieberman has a national profile, and operates as a small bit of outreach to persuadable non-Dems. He holds the same kind of position for non-Dems that Hagel or pre-2004 McCain might hold for some weakly aligned Dems.
And, of course, if the primary works, the PR nightmare will be even worse. Lieberman gets re-elected as an independent, showing the Party out of touch with the electorate even in a solidly blue state.
"But, as you sort-of implicitly acknowledge, some Senators deserve to be replaced - and CT is a safe place to do it."
Some Senators deserve to get replaced, but not when we only have 45 fucking Senators. This kind of stuff is a luxury to play around with when you have a solid majority - witness the current GOP frivolity in going after first Spector and now Chafee.
When you've got 45 Senators, you nominate folks like Bob Casey who Philly liberals have to hold their nose to vote for. You don't fuck around with a popular incumbent who is slightly odious but mostly hews to the party line.
June 15, 2006 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Several of the comments assume that a Lieberman primary loss will lead to Lieberman's victory as an independent in the general election. Why would anyone think that? Are there some polls to support that view?
In a 3-way general election, you'd have a Democratic primary winner Lamont against (presumably) a pro-Bush pro-war Republican and a pro-Bush pro-war Lieberman, who in addition would look like a sore loser. Is the pro-Bush pro-war vote in Connecticut so large that you can split it and still win?
June 15, 2006 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
If only Bush had made him SecDef. Now we have to spend good money to rid ourselves of the Lizard of the Senate.
So be it.
June 15, 2006 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Want more than anti-war?
Don't let him off the hook on Social Security but don't forget that while he was committee chair he let Lay and Enron slide and he is responsible for probably the greatest government reorganization debacle in 40 years - DHS.
Everyone is less secure thanks to Joe Lieberman
June 15, 2006 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I'm going to be the lonely, lonely, voice of dissent and suggest that Lieberman shouldn't be dumped even if we had an 80-20 majority in Senate. I realize that I'm just about on the right edge of the Party, but there are Democrats out there whose views closely parallel Lieberman's.
In any case, it seems like the left and right wings of the party hate each other more than they hate the Republicans. As long as that's true, I fear we're destined to remain in the minority.
Noel
June 15, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Are there some polls to support that view?"
Multiple polls showing Lieberman winning by 40 points as an indie.
June 15, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two points: one can't ignore the behaviour on the Sunday morning talking heads fests. As annoying and useless as those show are, they do help set the tone for the traditional media insiders for the upcoming week. And for the last two years Lieberman has consistently used his many invites to those shows to undermine progressive positions and other Democrats. Along with kissing George W. Bush, I find it very hard to understand that in the context of being a Democrat.
Second: as I have said in these threads before, experience shows that teams that get a bye in the first round of a playoffs because of their supposed strength then lose to the battered, bruised first round victor. Because fighting and winning makes one stronger, not weaker. For that matter so does fighting and losing, as opposed to sitting around in back rooms cutting deals.
Bankruptcy bill anyone?
sPh
June 15, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why Lieberman's likely victory as an independent would make supporting him in the primaries more important. Sure, it nominally adds a Democrat, rather than an independent. Perhaps it stir a few additional warm feelings in his heart toward his old party. Most likely, however, he'll just continue to vote a more or less Democratic agenda, with continuing dissents on the issues that truly annoy us. Unless you seriously think he'll be so angry he'll start begging to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court and maybe hire an assassin for Justice Breyer to get the process going, what's the point?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 15, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
To hell with the DLC and everyone else's strategerizing. Remember Kerry the Electable?
Don't like Lieberman Nutmeggers? Don't vote for him.
June 15, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because fighting and winning makes one stronger, not weaker. For that matter so does fighting and losing"
Funny. You sound a lot like George Bush.
No matter what the circumstances, just keep fighting, and imagine everything will magically turn up roses.
Hell, why don't we primary Ben Nelson? It'd make us stronger. Why should Bob Byrd get a free ride? Beating him up would make us stronger too. And Iran is looking at us funny. Let's get stronger by fighting them.
June 15, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Connetticut is an interesting state. It has had Republican governors and an Indepedent in Lowell Weicker. Westport perhaps the most Democratic town in Fairfield County is represented in the House by Christopher Shays a moderate Republican.
Connectticut, to be more precise Hartford is known as the Insurance capital of America. The result is that both Lieberman and Chris Dodd are very pro-business and pro-creditor.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 15, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Connectticut, to be more precise Hartford is known as the Insurance capital of America. The result is that both Lieberman and Chris Dodd are very pro-business and pro-creditor."
Lieberman isn't being primaried over the Bankruptcy Bill.
I think we all know that.
June 15, 2006 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
2500
June 15, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion is that there should be primary challenges to all incumbants. Tenure should count for something, but not be a free ride. There needs to be accountability. If someone is doing a good and staying true to the views of the majority of their constituents then the challanges will go nowhere, but it will keep people on their toes.
If Lamont were just part of the mythical "looney net-roots left" that Petey loves to attack so much then he wouldn't be polling at 40%+ among Conn. Dems. If Joe were just opposed by that same Looney left then he would be cruising to primary victory.
Sure there are plenty of Dems nationally that are closer to Joe's views, but he isn't running for Senator at large, he is running for Senator from Conn.
June 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, petey's really on a rating tear today. Kinda rich when he is defending a guy who questions the patrioism of anyone who questions our "Commander-in-Chief".
sPh
June 15, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. The only people who will have this affect the brand for them don't vote for us anyways. Hard right wingers and evangelicals who would rather stab themselves in the eye than vote Democrat will wail about what a small tent we are. Meanwhile, no actual swing voters outside of CT will even notice.
Where the hell does this idea that non local voters notice primaries come from anyways? Has any actual swing voter in the history of the U.S. had their vote affected in this manner? Are we actually proposing that swing voters in, say, Ohio are going to go to the ballot box and think, "man, I was totally going to vote Democrat this time around, but after what those meanies did to poor Lieberman, I just can't do it." Really?
We damn well SHOULD fuck with incumbents from blue states whose exceptions to the party line happen to be on issues like Supreme Court justices and wars.
June 15, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, sphealy, why should most of us care who jerry wants to see fucked and how angry he is tonight?
Imagine if this whole site starts getting filled with comments with that kind of venting and ranting. Would you then find it a useful place to spend your time? I suspect that one group that might find the site more attractive if that happened would be conservative trolls.
don't get me wrong, I do get something out of hearing people's personal opinions on candidates and other political figures, but when it starts getting to the level of rant or of base political cheerleading--well, lets put it this way--this site is appealing as an alternative to places like dkos....
June 15, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Lamont were just part of the mythical "looney net-roots left" that Petey loves to attack so much then he wouldn't be polling at 40%+ among Conn. Dems."
Lamont isn't polling 40%+ among all CT Dems. He's polling 40%+ among CT Dems who pass through a tight likely primary voter screen. Dude's got a shot at winning a low turnout primary.
And I've said nothing negative about Lamont, to the best of my recollection. I know little about him and I've got nothing against him.
June 15, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wow, petey's really on a rating tear today."
Two ratings don't make a tear, do they?
A bit too many repetitive "fuck you"s and gratuitous ass fucking descriptions for my taste. Judgement call, of course.
-----
"Kinda rich when he is defending a guy who questions the patrioism of anyone who questions our "Commander-in-Chief".
I'm not defending Holy Joe very much. I don't like him. Never have. Probably never will.
(That doesn't mean he never does anything right. I think I applauded the politics of his bold stance against selling naughty video to teens elsewhere on this thread.)
I'd just vote for him were I a Nutmegger, and I think all good Democrats should be voting for him too.
Politics ain't self-expression. There's real stuff at stake.
June 15, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know there is an undercurrent of resentment up here about this attempted "intervention" by parts of the left (not even from CT) to take out our democratic senator, when there are soooooooo many good republican "targets" in this country. But go ahead spend all that time and money to make an "example" of Joe Lieberman.
Sometimes the political left has the same amount of common sense as a Garden Slug...
June 15, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh please. The only people who will have this affect the brand for them don't vote for us anyways. "
We're the minority party.
We've held the Presidency 8 years out of the last 26.
We've held the House and Senate for basically 0 years out of the last 12.
We need some of the people who "don't vote for us anyways".
June 15, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Lamont a progressive on the issues beyond Iraq?
I agree with the anti-Lieberman sentiment on the basis of his role in enabling republicans and bush generally AND also Iraq policy. Similarly for his role in a series of issues that should be democratic unity issues such as bankruptcy protection and tort (non)reform.
We should try and get the most progressive folks that we can get elected. That is to the left of Lieberman in CT. It may not be to the left of Nelson in his state. Breuax was just corrupt and Dem in name only and needed to go.
But as I gotta say... I pretty left, and loathe Lieberman & Hillary in general... but as a public health doctor and father two pre-teen children, there is an argument for stuff like ratings and labeling, and even regulating sales of of commercial violence and hate to minors (like alcohol, tobacco and guns). Remember the Tipper Gore wars. :)
June 15, 2006 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who don't vote in a primary are in essence voting by not voting, they are saying they don't care for Liberman enough to bother voting to keep him on the ballot.
June 15, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already seem to be working on turning the Presidency into an inherited office. Are Senatorships now to become sinecures as well? Could we have a discussion first, please, including a discussion of who gets to fill the sinecure?
Thanks.
sPh
June 15, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
National profile? Lieberman? The guy who couldn't make it to the Iowa caucus? I have great admiration for his personal character and being true to himself and his personal priorities, but he never made a connection outside of his east coast comfort zone and apparently that isn't even a very wide zone in CT.
That said, it's up to the people of CT to choose who they want to represent CT. The people of CT shouldn't have to bow to any national "brand" that seems to be more intent on taking the blue out of the blue states than it is on turning red states blue.
June 15, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between say Lieberman and Nelson of Nebraska. Nelson of Nebraska is in many ways a gift to Dems, in the sense that it is kind of amazing there can be a Democratic senator from that state. Therefore we can cut someone like Nelson a break, as long as he votes for the right Senate majority leader.
Lieberman has no such excuse. Even though he's from a "blue" state, he consistently backs the disastrous Bush foreign policy. As has been pointed out, he consistently uses his TV appearances to undermine Democratic positions. In my mind, this is one of his worst sins, since Democrats in general have a very hard time getting air-time. To have someone who readily gets that airtime use it to undermine his colleagues....... As a former Lieberman aide recently posted on mydd, he has lousy political instincts (e.g. see setup of DHS). As Josh Marhsall recently wrote, he is more interested in wheeling and dealing than with rising to the extraordinary challenges of the modern state of American politics (e.g. see his flirting with Social Security phase-out). As far as his voting record, recent votes make one wonder how much that voting record counts, for example, voting for cloture on the Alito nomination and then casting a hopeless (but recorded for his voting record) vote against the nomination.
How many people are aware that Lieberman originally got to the Senate by running to the right of Lowell Weicker, with the help of William F. Buckley?
The great thing about Ned Lamont is, he is genuinely a very good candidate. He realizes that the Iraq war is central to modern politics, because it is quite simply pulling the country over the cliff in terms of economic and military resources. As a business owner, Lamont also realizes that US industry is going down the tubes fast without some form of universal healthcare.
BTW I will make a prediction: if Lieberman hangs on to his Senate seat, no matter whether as a Democrat or an independent, he will be VP nominee for any McCain run for the presidency in 2008, be it GOP or an independent ticket (see the Unity08 charade).
June 15, 2006 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second jerry except that I would say "retire him" rather then a four-letter word that is so much less precise.
I would not be so pessimistic about Lamont's chances in the general elections. Not so long time ago, polls were giving Lamont ca. 15% of the primary voters (Democratic). Then, it was believed that Lamont would not get 15% of the votes at the Connecticut convention of the Democrats. Lamont has momentum, and Lieberman, after loosing in the primaries, will have a serious momentum problem.
Finally, running as an independent after loosing in the primaries is highly unusual and people may expect more profound reasons for doing so than "I am good enough, I am smart enough and doggone, people like me". Once Lieberman is presented in this light, his candidacy may wilt -- the reasons that Lieberman can put forth are not particularly popular.
June 15, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
5 ?s
1. Do we want to have Pat Leahy in charge of the Judiciary committee from Jan 07 until 08 ?
2. Have we a non trivial chance of regaining a senate majority this fall ?
3. If Joe is the democratic candidate is he certain to be re-elected ?
4. If Ned is the dem- can is he certain to win ?
5. If the answers are yes ,yes, yes and no why are we even discussing this?
.
June 15, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing I wanted to add...
You don't see the GOP supporters coming up here and targeting Chris Shays for removal for disagreeing with the president or "breaking ranks" from the official party line...
June 15, 2006 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, you make some good points. How about a compromise. You keep your senator from voting on anything affecting me and I will stay the hell out of your election. Libertine makes it quite clear we should ask his permission before we participate in the democratic process. May we?
June 15, 2006 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Joe Lieberman represent you in the US Senate? I take deep interest in everybody who I can chose to represent me. John Larson, Jodi Rell, Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and George W. Bush are the only ones I have a direct say about.
Despite his stance on the war Lieberman is well respected in CT for his service to the state (and a bit of civic pride in being a Vice Presidential candidate coming from our small, humble state). He's represented us well...lately, and most noticeably, playing a pivotal role in saving the sub base. He enjoys high approval ratings with democrats, independants and republicans. He will win re-election rather easily if he is the democratic nominee or runs as an independant...we do elect independants up here (re: Lowell Weicker).
If you want to get involved in CT politics feel free (like I said earlier, even if snarky)...but try to understand CT politics if you do.
June 15, 2006 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a strange reading of Libertine's comment. It's not "clear" at all to me that that is what Libertine thinks, Libertine is not telling us what he/she thinks about it, rather, I just read it as Libertine reporting what he/she sess going on in CT.
I'm commenting on this because I find it a very irritating practice in the blogosphere when one is always judged to be blasting their own personal views, reading far too much into analytic or reportorial comments, by the types who prefer to use the blogosphere to blast their own personal views...heart on sleeve not good enough. Some of us really aren't much interested in that kind of "sharing" at all, don't see much benefit. Your comment expresses anger at Libertine ala "kill the messenger." I, on the other hand, am grateful he/she is sharing his/her perception of what is going on in CT. One of the main things I come to the net for is precisely info. like that. What one single individual's emotional opinion/rant about something is of far less worth; it's merely infotainment.
Note to Libertine: it's interesting in that it reminds me of the fracas over that British thing before the presidential election, I don't remember whether it was a paper sponsoring it, but Brits were emailing Americans in a campaign trying to persuade them to vote against Bush. The angry response back came from across the political spectrum, i.e.: how dare you?
June 15, 2006 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if I recall correctly, that has not always been the case with the Rovian machine? I can't give names, but I recall reading of some pretty nasty threats of primary challenges, if not actual challenges, from the national GOP when they weren't happy with this guy or that, sometimes through covert means. Am I correct, can anyone back me up on that with more specific examples?
June 15, 2006 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure there are nationwide examples from the GOP side artappraiser. But the GOP is smarter in their targeting...they know that a social conservative will NEVER get elected in CT-4 so even if they wanted Shays out they would never get their type of politician elected. They seem to have a good grasp (maybe better than the political left?) "lay of the land" politically up here...
EDIT:
(oops...wanted to reply to atrappraisers post and did a stand alone comment by accident. That tells me it's late and time to go to bed, lol.)
June 15, 2006 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I was trying to give an overview of where CT is at politically artappraiser...I guess with my love of snarkiness it can invite "reading between the lines" on occasion.
Your last paragraph is a great example of what most of the people are thinking up here... ;)
John
June 15, 2006 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just because I feel like giving them VLazlo, and I never mind giving my views lol, here is my personal views on this...
I HATE Lieberman's stance on the war but don't view his candidacy through a one issue prism. Right now I am leaning towards Lieberman with my support (and the one vote I represent). But I am not sure right now. But I will support either Lieberman or Lamont because bottom line the person has to be a democrat or caucus with them...a republican won't be an option.
June 16, 2006 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is relevant difference between rhetorical battles and the real kind. It is plausible that forcing a real debate makes both sides stronger, since they have to come up with good ways to defend their position, and this is a particularly useful commodity for the Democrats.
The problem isn't Lieberman, it is the DLC. Primary him out and there will be another Democrat in name only to take his place to undermine real progress. You have to expose the leadership of the DLC for what they are, show that their arguments are terrible, and convince people that there are more important things than short term electoral success. Lots of people are getting too worked up about individuals and not enough about the structure of the party.
June 16, 2006 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Political parties are brands'
I think you hit on the core difference of opinion here. I, and other loonies like me I think, tend to think of political parties as the institutional apparatus for social and political movements. If you look at them that way I think it does make no sense to keep Lieberman in the party. Big tents are good for having lots of people in a tent. Big tents are bad when you don't want to let bad people into your tent.
June 16, 2006 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there are two ways to do that. One is to water down the message so that they vote for you right away. The other is to stick with the message, and just try your best to change their minds about the issues. This will take time, so it is not good for the 06 victory. This strikes me as a more sustainable strategy to keep the majority.
June 16, 2006 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only "swing voters" who are going to wail about the small tent of the Democrats if we replace old Joe are the same people who tell the story of how Bob Casey was prohibited from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because of his stance on abortion. It's pure bullshit. It's an excuse for people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat in a thousand years to slam the party.
There's a sizeable nuumber of actual swing voters in this country, and their opinion of the Democrats won't be altered one bit by a primary in CT.
The Republicans hold the majority while sending candidates to speak at Bob Jones University, accusing rival candidates of being pedophiles, push polling to insinuate McCain has an bastard black baby, etc. And yet here we've got Democrats sitting around thinking we're going to somehow damage our "brand" by holding a primary in CT.
June 16, 2006 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for telling me your personal views. I am of course interested, but in terms of the discussion that is not what we were talking about. I was talking about the Lieberman supporters in Connecticut (apparently unconcerned about the money and support Lieberman rakes in from Republican and DLC (right wing national support) for his primary and his future independent Senatorial campaign). Those right wing guys are so much smarter than the garden slugs,that Libertine can find only the old shadowy, secretive, and conspiratorial left "intervening" (great word that by the way...I mean "participating" does not capture it) in the "wholly" Connecticut process (with exceptions granted under special provisions by Libertine).
June 16, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you re: the tent, but you cannot ignore the branding/marketing issues around politics today.
Politics are a media-based process. Branding matters.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Links?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not in any numbers, certainly not when it comes to Iraq.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off I never said the "intelligence" of a Garden Slug I said "common sense"...big difference.
Second, are all you people who feel compelled to tell us who will best represent us going to be as interested the next time Bush tries to hose our nice little state by trying to close the sub base or gut Amtrak funding? Are you going to come running to help us? I know Joe Lieberman will...maybe Ned Lamont will but he has no track record. On top of it Joe has been around the Senate for a bit and has attained a level of power that helps him look after the best interests of our little state which often gets overlooked because of our size...I say this paying homage to the "reality based commentary" of the author of this thread.
Third...The DNC was not looking to repleace Lieberman. That is why Schumer said the party won't necessarily endorse Lamont if he wins the primary. So the party didn't want to replace Lieberman...the voters of CT aren't interested in replacing Joe...only a bunch of mostly out of state single issue interventionists who could probably give a rat's a$$ about the best interests of our state are.
Bottom line is I really don't think you will have this level of interest about CT and it's residents after this election is over no matter who wins...
June 16, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
only a bunch of mostly out of state single issue interventionists who could probably give a rat's a$$ about the best interests of our state are.
Polls show Lamont's supporters are growing. I don't think you can continue to paint this as an out-of-stater movement.
You make fair points above, but Joe's Iraq policy looms over all.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really do think this an out of state movement because if it weren't for the national "anti-war" movement nobody would even know who Ned Lamont is, cscs.
But the point taken on Lamont's growing support. I can't argue that point. But even with that growing support Lieberman remains popular with rank and file democrats in CT. And his support with independants (like me) and republicans is extremely impressive (almost mind boggling)...he is popular because overall most all of us think he has done his job very well. No matter how much we oppose the war the struggle to put food on our tables, health care costs, the economy, etc. all trump the war. I am sure we will give Lamont a chance to make his case why he should represent us in the US Senate. But bottom line is he has to convince the voters of the state what he would do to better represent us than Joe would and warrant the change to be made...that is going to be a very tall order and differing with Lieberman on the Iraq War probably ain't gonna cut it on it's own.
The people of Connecticut will be listening to Lamont let's see if he can convince the people of the "Land of Steady Habits" to make the change...
June 16, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure we will give Lamont a chance to make his case why he should represent us in the US Senate. But bottom line is he has to convince the voters of the state what he would do to better represent us than Joe would and warrant the change to be made...that is going to be a very tall order and differing with Lieberman on the Iraq War probably ain't gonna cut it on it's own.
Absolutely. But there's nothing wrong, or undemocratic, about a primary challenge.
The real problem here as I see it, is that Lieberman is threatening to run as an Independent if Lamont wins. So far, I haven't heard anyone say that if Lamont fails to get the nomination, they won't support Lieberman.
We all agree CT should have a D representing the people.
So, the real question is, just because Joe threatens to take his ball and go home, should no one ever run against him in a primary?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I object to the term 'branding' more than anything. I realize that if you are generally thought of as weak on something, it will not matter much that you are strong on it. So I understand that you have to take steps to make sure there is a good perception of you and your party. What I don't like is the idea that this should happen in the way that brands develop a good perception. Nike built itself as a brand not because its shoes were higher quality, more comfortable, or less expensive, it built it through a kind of advertising which did not engage any of the adult capacities of those they were advertising to.
It might be that I am reading too much into the term 'branding' by associating it with this kind of appeal, but I do notice people (especially in the DLC camp) thinking alot about appearence without once thinking about how to effectively make the argument that they are right. When your attempts to change the perception of the party go through the kinds of non-rational appeals common to the mass-media, I feel it sells everyone short.
June 16, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I understand that you have to take steps to make sure there is a good perception of you and your party.
Yes, that's what I meant. Did not mean it should be done in a superficial or dishonest manner. But what's the message, where do we stand, how is it different from GOPs, and what is each elected D doing to further the brand.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree cscs...nothing un-democratic at all. But it wasn't something the people of CT initiated but we are the ones who have to deal with it. "It" being a bitterly divided democratic party in CT...which might even lead to republican gains on the state and local level.
Well the rub is the Democratic party and Joe Lieberman want a D representing CT...and that would Joe Lieberman. I think many people of CT would support Lieberman as an independant if he promised to caucus with the D's.
It's a shame that the D's are so distracted with the Lamont insurrection...I am guessing it is taking away focus from going after Rell, Shays, Johnson and Simmons. But it is what it is and that is why I am an independant...albeit an independant who is farther to the left than 90% of the dems, lol.
June 16, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the points you make are very good, and also very persuasive. But surely Lieberman himself "hurts the brand" considerably? He voted for the Bankruptcy Bill. He would probably have voted for Social Security privatization if he'd ever got the chance. He was all for the Iraq War, refuses to see what a shambles it now is, and will happily vote for the Iran War too, anytime.
I don't think he pulls any Republicans into voting Democrat - if they support all of the above then they're staying with Bush 'til the end. But for Democrats, and more importantly for the unalogned people in the middle who want a change, he symbolises the myth of how the two parties essentially pursue the same policies on everything except abortion.
June 17, 2006 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Big tents are good for having lots of people in a tent. Big tents are bad when you don't want to let bad people into your tent."
Big tents are good for winning elections.
From 1932 to 1968, Democrats had a big enough tent to govern this country. And with Democrats governing, an enormous amount of progressive change was able to come about.
There were bad people in that tent from 1932 to 1968.
If you want effective social and political movements, you've got to have majorities. And if you want majorities, you can't be quite so picky about who you let into the tent.
You simply make a big tent even if you don't love everybody in the tent. That's how you get allowed to govern.
June 17, 2006 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you want majorities, you can't be quite so picky about who you let into the tent.
This is correct to an extent, but obviously there's a limit that is reached, where you lose what the party stands for.
The "bad people in the tent" should be the exceptions. And, in any case, there's nothing about a big tent that's incompatible with running primary challenges like in CT.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 17, 2006 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is correct to an extent, but obviously there's a limit that is reached, where you lose what the party stands for."
How exactly, does letting 'bad people' into the tent lose what the party stands for?
The GOP is an anti-abortion party. They've assiduously welcomed pro-choice voters in their tent. It hasn't made them lose what they stand for, but it sure has helped them win elections.
"And, in any case, there's nothing about a big tent that's incompatible with running primary challenges like in CT. "
Of course there is.
This primary, like the unsuccessful attempt to primary Jane Harman, (who unlike Joe, I'm a fan of), is an attempt to purge the Party of its hawkish wing.
It's about telling hawkish politicians and hawkish voters that the flaps of the tent are not open to them.
Politically, that's really, really, really, really dumb for Democrats and anyone who cares about implementing lefty policy goals. If we chase the hawks out of the tent, we're simply not going to have majorities to govern. If we don't chase the hawks out of the tent, we'll still be a primarily dovish party in a bigger tent - we won't lose what we stand for anymore than the GOP has lost the fact that they stand for being anti-abortion.
It's politically dumb even at the height of an unpopular war. And if not rejected by the good Democrats of Connecticut, these efforts will affect the Democratic brand for years to come.
The foreign policies of George Bush seem to have driven many lefties crazy the way Clinton drove right-wingers crazy. The driven crazy lefties are so desperate to deliver a symbolic defeat to Bush's foreign policy that they don't even care if they're hobbling their own electoral coalition to do it.
-----
The anti-Lieberman crusade is the stupidest crusade since Iraq. Both felt good for their supporters when the troops were marching in, and both are strategically disastrous.
June 17, 2006 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly, does letting 'bad people' into the tent lose what the party stands for?
To use your example, if Democrats become the anti-abortion party, then we lose a piece of what we stand for. You can only remove yourself so far from the base of the party. As I said, the "bad people" should be the exceptions.
It's about telling hawkish politicians and hawkish voters that the flaps of the tent are not open to them.
The essence of democracy is taking your case to the people.
If Joe can't convice CTers that he's worthy of their vote, then he doesn't deserve the seat.
Jack Murtha is twice the hawk that Joe is. He just bases his decisions on reality, not fantasyland like Joe.
Somehow your reading "chasing all the hawks out" into a single state's primary. That's not what Lamont's campaign is about. Plenty of other Democrats are still willing to "stay the course," and they're not being challenged.
Lieberman is just way too far removed from reality. His constituents are questioning his judgement.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 17, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"To use your example, if Democrats become the anti-abortion party, then we lose a piece of what we stand for."
Then you miss the point of my example.
Democrats can welcome a pro-life minority into our tent while remaining a pro-choice party.
Democrats can welcome a hawkish minority into our tent while remaining a dovish party.
Purity is for religions, not political parties.
Republicans have welcomed pro-choice people into their party without losing a piece of what they stand for.
"Somehow your reading "chasing all the hawks out" into a single state's primary."
No. I'm reading it from the Harman primary, the Liberman primary, and now the noises to primary Steny Hoyer.
Lefties benefit from a big, big tent by having the opportunity to govern. We'll still be the largest faction in a big tent party.
Think strategically. That's how reality-based folks get to determine US government policy.
June 17, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's a Eunuch and Harman's a Geisha -- two Bush Administration enablers, senior Democratic Party members who gave Bush cover in his war on the Constitution and our civil rights.
A vote for either is a vote for Bush.
June 17, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink