Here is an MSNBC link to the background of a possible (likely?) loss by Lieberman in the upcoming election.
Personally, although at one point I liked him and would have voted for him a few years ago in the Democratic Primary, I didn’t like his tirade on the Hollywood film industry, but that is off the point for this election.
It seems I am not the only liberal Democrat who wants to hold other Democrats up to the light when it comes to their stance on Iraq.
At any rate, how do you think a loss by Lieberman will effect the upcoming mid-term elections, and do you think, as the article implies, this bodes well for Al Gore running again? (Any other comments are welcome.)
I think it will make it easier for the Republicans to portray Democrats as lefties who are out of touch with the mainstream - a charge that has been used to great effect in the past.
The Democrats moved to the left and took a strongly anti-war stance with McGovern during the Vietnam war. Look how well that worked for them.
His opponent in CT is Ned Lamont - a wealthy businessman from Greenwich. As a CT resident and tax payer I actually like Joe but for future of our state in terms of economic outlook etc…etc… I’m voting for Ned Lamont. However, I do believe a loss by Liberman will adversly affect his running with Gore in 08’…
The press will play the story as if it has a ton of impact, and in the end they will act as if it means a lot more than it does. Lieberman did support the war, but that’s not his whole problem. I would say he’s more conservative than the average Democrat on a lot of issues, and that he has supported President Bush more strongly than most Democrats would be comfortable with. Supporting the invasion is one thing, but if he’s generally taken up the Republican Party line on “things are going great in Iraq,” that’d be a bigger problem.
The anti-war position is solidly mainstream now (deal with it, Sam), and Lamont is there. Lieberman has not campaigned on the issues or his stands, oddly for a multi-term incumbent, but only on personalities, and his support is slipping rapidly. If Lamont wins on Tuesday, he wins in November, and as part of a pro-Democratic (rather, frankly, more anti-Republican, but it works) groundswell. What happens to the 2008 presidential field depends on how soon afterward the US troop pullout from the Iraqi civil war takes place as a result of that.
I actually hope Lieberman loses. I would like to see more moderate Democrats and Republicans but Lieberman has too many issues that I do not like. So far Ned Lamont sound like a better choice. Who is the Republican candidate anyway?
It’s not just the war in Iraq. The Republicans will use it to paint the Democrats as soft on defense in general, in the thrall of the extreme left, yada yada. You know how the game is played. They probably won’t even mention the Iraq war, because as you say, it’s a political loser for them.
And I think it’ll work. But I’m rooting for Lieberman precisely because I think the Republicans deserve a spanking from the Democrats, and the only way that can happen is if the Democratic Party stays firmly positioned near the center of American politics. Bow too much to the KOS kids, and you’ll lose the middle. And the elections.
McGovern had a bunch of problems. One of the biggest was that he had to change VP nominees after it came out that his first choice, Thomas Eagleton, had checked himself into mental hospitals a few times and undergone electroshock therapy. McGovern flip-flopped a bit and changed VPs on August 1.
The Republican candidate is named Alan Schlesinger and will be lucky if he pulls 20% of the vote in November. He has no name recognition and gambling problems–he was sued by a couple of New Jersey casinos to collect money he owed and used a fake name to gamble at a Connecticut casino. I’m in CT and don’t know anyone–including a number of registered Republicans–who intends to vote for him. Most intend to vote for Lieberman in November and one guy is going Libertarian, simply because he’s never in his life voted for a Democrat and doesn’t want to break his streak. I also know plenty of registered Democrats who say they’re voting for Lamont tomorrow but Lieberman in November. GWB pulled 44% in 2004 so I tend to think Lieberman wins in a three-way race come November.
Which party controlled the House from 1955 to 1995? If McGovern hurt the Democrats, it took 23 years to take effect.
Personally, I think Libermann isn’t going to lose. Either way is positive news for Democrats. If he wins, it means that the Democratic Party is a big enough tent that we will support one of our own even if we disagree with him on a single important issue of the day. Taken as a whole, I think he has done far more good than harm and perhaps we should not toss him out over one issue. If he loses, it means that support for this war is the kiss of death for all that have embraced it. That would also be good news for the Democrats.
The pundits are playing this as the first skirmish in the battle for control of the Democratic party between the incumbent mainstream Dems and the “Netroots” types like the DailyKos. We’ll see. I hardly think CT is a microcosm of the US, and this primary is going to see very light voter turnout.
The Republican isn’t going to win no matter what, and I don’t see how the Pubs can use a Lieberman loss in CT to any real advantage. Lieberman is being marginalized because of one thing and one thing only-- his stance on the Iraq War. Support for the war keeps dropping every month, and is only at something like 20% among registered Democrats. He’s just way out of touch with his party on this one issue, but it is the national issue this time around.
I was in HS when McGovern ran against Nixon, and he was seen as a far-left liberal-- rather like a nutty proffesor in many respects. I doubt the Dems will be nominating someone like that in '08 with or without Liberman in the Senate.
That and the fact that, although political leaders might not have learned much from the Vietnam experience the people did. We learned not to let foolish military interventions that cost a constant dribble of casualties drag on indefinitely.
I was moderately heartened when Sen. Warner said that it might become necessary for the Congress to take a look at what was actually authorized in the resolution that GW is relying on to sustain his policies. Now we’ll see if ole John was just blowing smoke in a passing comment or if he meant it.
And in '68, too. My Dad, who was in Vietnam at the time, talked my Mom into voting for Nixon for that reason. Nixon was lying both time, of course – he never really intended to end the war on any terms that could not be considered an American victory.