Does Lieberman Want to Win?
I was kind of thinking Joe Lieberman just might win the general election. But I hadn't realized he kicked his bid off by saying this: "My opponent says let's get all our troops out by a deadline. I saw that will be dangerous for our troops, disastrous for the Middle East and really make America vulnerable to another terrorist attack like 9/11."
This isn't some crazy fringe view of Lamont's, it's a belief that a lot of the people whose votes Lieberman needs in order to win share. It's common -- very common -- for voters to support someone they disagree with about something or other, but Lieberman is going to need people to vote for him even though they agree with Lamont about Iraq, and here's Lieberman insulting everyone who disagrees with him.
Joe has completely bought into his own "I'm too good for politics" hype. It's a shame the Democrats will have to spend money beating him, but you're right: if his attitude is that all he has to do is steadfastly demand that people join him in his delusional "mainstream," he's toast.
August 9, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
and here's Lieberman insulting everyone who disagrees with him
Why does Matthew think that Joe is insulting those people??? It's a disagreement about the consequences of a pullout, not an insult.
August 9, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s not as though he’s quoted as saying anyone who disagrees with him is stupid or crazy. He merely stated his belief. It’s not insulting to state your belief. In fact, it’s good to state your belief, and if people take offense at that then they’re way too easily offended.
August 9, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine the gall of the man; standing up for what he believes in. Why can't he just follow Matt's advice to Dems on gay marriage and lie to win votes. Really Matt. Come on! There was a time you wanted politicians to have convictions.
August 9, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having convictions is insulting. Especially to people without convictions.
August 9, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Matt is expressing himself sharply here. The substantive point is not that Lieberman is "insulting" people with whom he disagrees on the Iraq war by expressing his views forcefully. Rather, it is that in order to convince the Connecticut electorate that he should continue to be represent it, Lieberman should stay away from giving the impression that the most important reason why he will run is the issue of the war. The war in Iraq is *precisely* the one issue that voters in Connecticut are likely to disagree with him on, and Lieberman is giving the impression that it is the intensity with which he disagrees with voters on the Iraq war that motivates him to seek to retain his seat as Senator. This is a strategy sure to backfire, and I believe this is the point Matthew is making.
August 9, 2006 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe has learned his habit of insulting people from his good friend Hannity. Since Joe has fired his staff, I look for some of the Swiftboat fools to become part of Joes new staff, and maybe even Hannity as his new manager. He already has Tony Snow and Karl doing such good things for him.
August 9, 2006 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Dangerous for our troops"? Really? More dangerous than, say, leaving them in the middle of a civil war? Or "really make America vulnerable to another terrorist attack like 9/11."? Is Joe speaking from conviction here? He actually believes a civil war in Iraq will somehow facilitate a bunch of foreign nationals infiltrating the U.S.?
Well I call bullshit. Joe's not stupid, and he knows exactly what he's doing here. He's tarring people who want our troops out of the middle of a bloody conflict with no resolution in sight as weak on security. How very original.
And yeah, it's insulting.
August 9, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not that surprised that he'd say something like that. I imagine he'll be appealing to the right and the center (where 'center' means those people who don't pay close attention to politics and will absorb the inevitable portrayal of Lamont as a wacky pacifist). Keep in mind that the Republicans are running a very weak candidate, probably on purpose.
August 9, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, people who disagree with Joe don't have convictions? Or are you just talking about Matt?
Lieberman has been pretty consistant with painting any questioning of the President's handling with Iraq as placing the US in peril. Sure, its great that he doesn't beat around the bush about his conviction that people who disagree with him are trying to destroy America. But that doesn't necessarily make those convictions admarible.
Zarquai and Bin Laden are both men of strong convictions, as were Ghandi and Dr. King. That the first two are psychotic murders, while the second two are moral giants shows that the content of your convictions and how you decide to act on them are kinda important.
Lieberman feels that people who disagree with him are placing America in Peril. 60% of Americans disagree with him. So, him saying that loudly isn't particularly good marketing.
August 9, 2006 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that the Republicans are running a very weak candidate, probably on purpose.
So won't Lieberman simply split the conservative vote? My guess is that plenty of Republicans will be shy about voting for Al Gore's running mate, especially one who claims to be an "independent Democrat". I'd also guess that most of the voters who voted in the Democratic primary will decide to vote for the Democratic nominee. Lieberman has no shot. Now that he's officially a loser, he'll dive in the polls and bow out before the general election.
August 9, 2006 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it will work. But conceivably he'd be splitting the conservative vote, getting some of the center, and to some degree splitting the Dem vote - he got about 48% in the primary, and I expect some chunk of that will stick with him in the general election, even though most Dems will just vote Dem. On these terms, he's actually got some kind of shot. The main thing I see overcoming this is people simply writing off and ignoring Lieberman because the stench of death is now on him.
So I agree with you, though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't bow out even if/when his numbers become abysmal - he seems to be kind of going off the deep end on this.
August 9, 2006 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink