Everything I have read says that Lieberman has almost always voted with the Democrats, and against the Republicans.  He is a Democrat, but one with glaring flaws.  So, of course, if he manages reelection he will vote with the Democrats as he has always done.  And, if he wins reelection, he will not be turning his back on anyone, he will be running for and winning reelection. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Correct. Further, the fact that liberals praised people like Jeffords for leaving the Republican Party isn't really the point. In politics, you want to encourage movement in your direction and discourage movement in the opposite direction. Lieberman may have the right to run as an independent, but he doesn't have the right to be praised by liberals.

Further, remember that as an independent or as a Democrat, the problems with Joe Lieberman are the same-- he is a sactimonious, dishonest, warmongering phony who sells out the poor in favor the credit and insurance industries and spends too much time stroking himself in the limelight about what a great bipartisan compromiser and supposedly "moral" man he is. Meanwhile, he has personally contributed to causing the death of 2,500 American servicemen and women, and despite his supposed piety, he doesn't give a crap about them and indeed continues to give unqualified support to the disasterous war that he sent them into and the President who has proven himself incompetent to conduct that war.

The fact is, we should care less about what caucus this turkey will hypothetically vote for and more about getting him the heck out of the Senate, so he can sit on the board of some amoral insurance company in Connecticut and preach his sanctimonious bunk to his fellow board members rather than the public.

That is my observation as well. Jeffords changed for ideological reasons. Joe will change for rather common ones.

He just wants to win.

In Vermont, the voters told Jeffords they wanted him representing them regardless of whether or not he was a Republican. If Joe loses the Dem primary, the voters will be saying they don't want him, whether he is a Democrat or not.

That's quite a LARGE difference .If he were honest, he'd change now.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I agree. There is no evidence to support the idea that he will caucus with anyone other than Democrats should he win as an Independent.

Does he actually have to leave the party now? Carolyn McCarthy a Democratic Representative from New York who ran and won on an anti-gun platform after her husband was killed in a mass shooting spree was a registered Republican until her second or third term in office; she is a registered Democrat now.

"Democracy" says that you have a right to campaign and vote to have your views and issues represented. It doesn't say you have a right to win. "Democracy" is not being told to shut up and march in line be it by a Schumer or a Rove or anyone else. If nothing else, I hope this sends a loud message to the national party. If you don't want a replay of 1968, you better make room for your own base in your "big tent".

I think the question is, why on earth should the Democratic Party give Lieberman one more dime?

If Lieberman doesn't need the Democratic Party's help to get elected, the Party should say, "Thanks, Joe. We'll give it to someone who does."

-- 

-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --

Even though I vehemently disagree with Lieberman about his support for the conflict in Iraq, what matters to me more is that he, as a self-apppointed oracle of morality, was all too willing to publicly excoriate former President Clinton for his admittedly questionable conduct in the Lewinsky afffair, but he is unwilling to call Bush on his lies, even though the underlying conduct is far more serious.

As a result, I'm not sure that Lieberman has the requisite integrity to continue as a U.S. Senator, although I readily acknowledge that if the same standard was applied to his colleagues, not many would pass the test.

There are fewer than 50 Democrats in the US Senate. There are many hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters in the state of Connecticut. Those voters appear poised to tell Lieberman that they don't want him. Yet he has no intention of respecting those wishes - and of course it is his "right" not to do so. But if Lieberman is already so disdainful of the wishes of Democratic voters of his own state, why should we have the slightest degree of confidence that he will seek to fulfill the wishes of those voters, or national Democratic voters, when he is a Senator?

Joe will do what Joe wants. He will vote with the Dems when his holy "conscience" tells him to do so, and he will vote with the Repugs when that little voice in his pious head tells him to do that instead.

By the way, if he selfishly runs an independent campaign, divides the state's Democrats, and hands the state to a Republican, it won't much matter with whom he was planning to caucus now, will it?

God Damn! What does it take for national Democratic pundits and leaders to circle the wagons and get into tar and feather mode? A man talks openly about betraying the party for his own purposes, turning his back on that party's loyal rank and file, disdaining and disrespecting their judgment, and playing a selfish game of Russian roulette with a Senate seat - and top Dems rattle on about his precious "right" to be a renegade?

Hey Joe. If you lose and you're still a loyal Democrat, then do the honorable thing - stand down! Otherwise just fuck off, become a Republican and get it over with.

deleted

Hoppy is right. Dilan Esper doesn't know much about insurance except what he or she must have read in Pravda.

One of the pleasures of the Lieberman meltdown in Connecticut is, we are finally seeing the utter incompetence of the DC Democratic consultants in a Dem vs Dem race. Lieberman's campaign has been an embarrassing joke (that cartoon will be his epitaph) while Lamont's has been polished and professional. One possible benefit of a Lamont win is that there might be some questioning of why Lieberman's campaign was such a fiasco.

And that is what is really worrying people in DC about this Lamont campaign.

Pathetic, isn't it?

Fine Sage. But Lieberman claims to be a Democrat. So let the Democratic voters in Connecticut decide. And when they do decide, is it too much to ask that Lierberman, who has fed from the Democratic trough for decades, would have the dignity and loyalty to accept their judgment?

Sage,

We usually don't call each other "jerks" on these boards, just because we might disagree. This is blogofascism, man... the word is "wanker." Get it right. And, uh... be more polite.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Lieberman is using the Jacob Javits tactic. Javits stayed in the senate too long, but refused to quit, so in his last run it became a three way race. If you get two Dems in a three way race the Republican wins and vice versa.

What Lieberman is doing is threatening that if he doesn't win the primary he will throw the seat to the Republicans. It's electoral blackmail.

You can debate his motivations, if you wish, but just assume a large ego and a feeling of being indispensible should be adequate to explain his actions.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Of course he has every right to run as an independent, but by his own words that is not what he is doing. He will not be running as an independent, but as some sort of made-up "petitioning democrat". As such, he will yet again provide more cover for Republicans and their pundits to bash Democrats, and he will cause confusion in the general election.

If he wants to run as an independent, fine. He has my best wishes. If he wants to jump to the Republicans, fine, he has my respect.

But to create havoc in Connecticut and to run as a Democrat after losing the Democratic Primary? That is bogus, and he has by derision and lost any support and good will he ever had.

(Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Mr. Lieberman unseat a sitting Democratic Senator in a Democratic primary to win his first term in the Senate?

If so, what exactly is his complaint about someone running against him in a Democratic primary?

sPh

"Lieberman's position on Iraq is not substantively different than all of the Democrats who voted for the resolution"

You are right, it isn't. Lieberman's ATTITUDE is.

Opposition to Lieberman is not due to his position on the Iraq war. It is due to his arrogant, sanctimonious attitude. Lieberman doesn't just support the war, he shows open contempt to those who opposed it. He accuses critics of Bush of borderline treason. He demands blind loyalty to Bush on foreign affairs. He goes on Sean Hannity's show to trash his Dem colleagues. He writes op-ed in the rabid right WSJ accusing Dems of disloyalty to country.

No other Democrat does this. Not Clinton, Edwards, Biden..........not even conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu.

Lieberman is hurting the Democratic party across the country.

Let's take it easy with the straw-man arguments. Who has ever denied Lieberman the right to run as an Independent?

Here's the bottom line. This tactic directly undermines the Primary process. You can't complain about turnout "on a hot August day" or for any reason. This is the system and it is what it is. The same can be said about State, Local, and Federal elections. In these cases turnout votes can be said to not be representative of a great mass of the population that does not vote. I don't ever hear this argument in that instance.

What we have here is Lieberman wanting to stay as part of the Establishment and hold on to his committee positions. If he feels so confident that he can win then he should just run as an Independent. Using the Democratic party to get elected in a blue state is simply lame.

By the way, the Pro-Lieberman crowd needs to give it up with the GOP talking points calling this a one issue race. Lieberman has many issues that are way out of the Democratic mainstream like Social Security, Drug prices, free trade, and of course the war. Everytime the GOP needs a Democrat for some backdrop Joe Lieberman trips over his own feet to put his mug in the camera shot.

This from Hillary via Atrios:

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for re-election if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

She still has a long, long way to go (for me), but maybe, just maybe she is (finally) moving in the right direction.

Nicely done. Hillary gets it.

As all Dems will -- in and out of the Senate.

Basically if Lieberman wants to go the "third-party" route when there's also a Democrat in the race -- he's damaged goods and nobody'll touch him.

Hillary figured this out quite quickly -- but so will the rest of the Dems.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Why indeed Reed?

Lieberman's grotesque offerings to BUshLieter for the War on Iraq is the effective cause of his present troubles (may they increase hourly) but let's face it, from the Bush Hijack of Lieberman's Homeland Security Hearings (bad legislative sense) to his possum act on Enron (bad legislator, corrupt legislator) to social security privatization, cuts in social programs, tax cut support, Joe Lieberman has betrayed his Party and does not deserve its nomination.

 Let him organize with the GOP. Better yet, may the voters of Connecticut send him a one-way MetroLiner ticket Union Sta to New Haven.

Joe Lieberman is not only an unapologetic NeoCon and vicious Israel Lobbyist, he isn't a very good legislator either.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

So much for principle. Is he a good democrat who DemoWack activists have punished for BushWar Lust yet despite their calumnies he sticks to a "prinicpled" stand"? Or is he just Holy Joe of the Inurance and Credit Card companies who manages to shovel just enough into the Union Trough so that the working man won't notice how much Joe's doing to Eff him? Or is Joe just another Senate GasBag in the pocket of banks and insurance companies whose "principles" are better served in the Knesset, Likud Party. Lieberman's the labor favorite that's for sure but the question is why does CT labor sell itself for so little? You hate Weiker and by assocition Lamont. Lieberman's position on Iraq is reason enough to dump him. The greatest strategic disaster in US History has done more harm to the working-man and indeed to all Americans than Lowell Weicker snd his "toady" ever have....Social Security Privatization, the DHS hijack plus the abolition of worker protection and all round whore for banking and insurance companies??? But as I said, the Lixard of the Senate is not just maginal talent,  he is a Bushevik WarMongering NeoCon Likudnik , and for crap like this, he desrves a humilating capston to a mediocre political caeer, a principled farce. Working men and women of the Nutmeg State he's a whore for Big Business and Banks....DUMP him ..

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9249

Lieberman's support for the war is an albatross hung around his neck, but apparently, like any true ideologue, he is willing to go down for the sake of "principle" – in this case, the principle that we can and must spread "democracy" at gunpoint throughout the Middle East. As the co-chairman of the revived Committee on the Present Danger, Lieberman serves as front man for the most radical wing of the neoconservative movement: such preeminent warmongers as James R. "World War IV" Woolsey, Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, Frank Gaffney, and Midge Decter, among many others.

At the founding meeting of the CPD, Lieberman inveighed against "defeatism":

"The terrorists can never defeat us militarily. But they can divide us and defeat us politically if the American people become disappointed and disengaged, because they don't appreciate and support the overriding principles that require us to take military action. The same, of course, is true for our allies in Europe, Asia, and throughout the Muslim world. They need to better understand and embrace our purpose and what it means for them.

"What we are fighting for in Iraq and around the world is freedom. What we are fighting against is an Islamic terrorist totalitarian movement which is as dire a threat to individual liberty as the fascist and communist totalitarian threats we faced and defeated were in the last century.

"What we are fighting for is an expanding worldwide community of democracies. What we are fighting against is the prospect of a new evil empire, a radical Islamic caliphate which would suppress the freedom of its people and threaten the security of every other nation's citizens."

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Someone correct me for I may have some of the details wrong, but this is the first time that he has ever stood for election in a Democratic Primary for USS nominee. CT's Senate nominees until recently had been chosen by convention. It is only because the Party introduced limited democratic "reform" (candidate challengers can force a prmiary by meeting a threshold minimim support at the State Convention) that Lamont's "well-organized" minority was able to enjoy the fruits of democracy in the Democratic party.

As for Move-On, its 50,000 CT members is small but as you say, well-organized. And Labor? Larger,not as well organized, not as motivated, and they back Lieberman. So your point is what? Only the disinterested votes count?

Thanks to that well-organized minority, the minority CT Dems (Independents are the largest) will have an election and the chance to work their will hopefully on his back side.

This is also how NY ended up with Alfonse D'Amato

sphealey, You should keep up with the news on your own rather than rely on members of the TPM Cafe to keep you informed if you plan to continue to participate "seriously" in discussions about current events. Information about Joe Lieberman is widely available on the internet.

You should not expect anyone in the TPM Cafe to spend time researching your questions. If you want to know about Joe Lieberman's political history, look it up yourself. You could then make a valid contribution to the discussion.

Well, ok, but Lieberman IS running for election again. And if the candidate were chosen by convention he would certainly win the nomination and certainly win the election by a large majority.

The idea of a CONVENTION is to choose the candidate most likely to appeal to the general electorate -- in other words most likely to win in November. With the onset of the internet, the PRIMARY election can do the opposite -- give great power to a small well-organized minority, who may emphacize ideological purity over more practical concerns (like winning).

And ok we must play by the rules, primary election it is. I just gag at the sanctimoniousness of all of the posters who villify Lieberman for going against the will of the people. He just wants to get elected again, like any good politician.

Unless you are as strongly against the war as Lieberman is for it. No one is forcing Lieberman to refuse to represent his constitutents.

As I was saying...

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

Exactly. Lieberman made himself vulnerable by taking several policy stances that aren't representative of the will of a good number of his constituents. It's his right to do that, of course, but it carries risks. One of the risks is that his constituents might choose to back a candidate more to their liking. Everybody keeps saying that joe's stances on the war, or the bankrcupty bill or the judicial nominations or on wanting to censure Clinton over sex lies but not Bush over war lies are "principled." Well, maybe they are. But they're no more principled than the beliefs that Lamont and his supporters hold.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com