If Lieberman Loses On Tuesday...

[BrainGlutton]

@Phlosphr

However, I do believe a loss by Liberman will adversly affect his running with Gore in 08’…

I should hope, by this time, Gore would not even consider tapping Lieberman for his running mate again. Especially since Lieberman has threatened, should he lose the primary, to run against Lamont as an independent.

[BobLibDem]

He was lying? Then how come he actually did it in his second term? Was that an accident?

Huh? The war actually ended on Ford’s watch.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

He was lying? Then how come he actually did it in his second term? Was that an accident?

No, it was a choice he could no longer avoid.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

Huh? The war actually ended on Ford’s watch.

True, but Nixon started the “Vietnamization” process.

[BobLibDem]

@BrainGlutton

True, but Nixon started the “Vietnamization” process.

True enough. “Peace is at hand.”

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

Huh? The war actually ended on Ford’s watch.

We’re mixing up two things here: Get us out of the War, and Ending the War.

Nixon got us out (Mar '73) before he resigned (Aug '74). That’s what I meant, per the original post that started this little digression:

Originally Posted by spoke-
As I recall, Nixon made a promise of his own in '72 to get us out of Vietnam.

[2sense]

@Sam Stone

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.

Again: opposition to the war is the mainstream position.

Nor do I think Dems should choose candidates out of fear of Republican rhetoric. What I believe would work better for the Dems is not kowtow to GOP memes but combat them head on with their own. The GOP will say the same things about every Democratic nominee they challenge, after all. No matter how the CT primary turns out.

@John Mace

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.

From what I’ve heard opposition to Joementum isn’t restricted to his support for the war. I’ve also heard criticism about his adopting Republican rhetorical stances. If the Dems are going to change the balance of power they need people who spout the Democratic party line and not push the GOP talking points. Also, it seems he is being percieved as selfish. Actions such as refusing to bow out if he loses the primary make it seem to some as if it is all about Joe.

Just my 2sense

[gonzomax]

Not that simple. Lieberman has sided with the Repubs on many issues going against party line. This is not just about the war. Plus the beutifiul smooch that Bush gave him.

[Squink]

If Lieberman goes down, the sky will fall:

If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an emphasis on national strength. Of course, they cannot touch Hillary Clinton, who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes positioning. Not so Mr. Lieberman. He does not camouflage his opinions. He does not play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.

Ducks will also mate with sheep, and nuclear mushrooms will blossom over America’s cities.
Of course, the conservatives would just as soon every democrat were a traitor to his party. That makes their doom mongering more than a little suspect here.
If Lieberman loses, so will the lobbyists and the Washington democratic establishment. I suppose that’d be a bad thing, if those groups had been leading the country in the right direction these past few years, but as things stand, it’s hard to see a down side.

[John_Mace]

@gonzomax

Not that simple. Lieberman has sided with the Repubs on many issues going against party line. This is not just about the war. Plus the beutifiul smooch that Bush gave him.

Tim Russert was discussing this over the weekend on one of his talk shows. The statistic he showed was that JL voted with his party 90% of the time, which is a record better than 17 other Democratic Senators. No, it’s all about the Iraq War. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

[rjung]

@Sam Stone

I think it will make it easier for the Republicans to portray Democrats as lefties who are out of touch with the mainstream

And how does this differ from how the Republicans spin anything the Democrats do?

If Lieberman loses, it will simply indicate that the voters of Conneticut feel he no longer represents them or their interests. Given that 70% of CT voters are against the Iraq war, Lieberman’s unquestioning support for the Bush Administration’s war games is merely the most obvious example of this disconnect.

[rjung]

@John Mace

Tim Russert was discussing this over the weekend on one of his talk shows. The statistic he showed was that JL voted with his party 90% of the time, which is a record better than 17 other Democratic Senators.

Yeah, but he only votes with them when he knows his vote won’t make a difference.

[MovieMogul]

@Sam Stone

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.

Excerpted from Salon:

It is nothing short of surreal to listen to pundits like Roberts and Peretz insist that opposition to the Iraq war will doom the Democratic Party. For more than a year, poll after poll (pdf) has demonstrated that a solid majority of Americans oppose this war and believe it was a mistake. It is due primarily to this deep and still-growing antiwar sentiment that George W. Bush’s presidency has all but collapsed, sending his approval ratings to near historic lows.

For that reason, Peretz copies the bizarre method used by almost every pundit who wants to equate a Lamont victory with doomsday for the Democrats. That is, he devotes his entire column to a purported discussion of the politics of the Iraq war without ever once mentioning or even alluding to the most significant fact: what the American electorate thinks about the war. The reason for that omission is self-evident. Americans have decisively turned against the war that neoconservative warriors like Peretz gave us and that Beltway pundits like Roberts enabled – a fact that these pro-war commentators intently and astoundingly just ignore.

Thus, in the world occupied by people like Peretz and Roberts, only “left-wing radicals” are “antiwar” – that view is the province of Maxine Waters and crazed bloggers – while the serious, responsible, mainstream folk (like them) still support the commander in chief’s difficult though noble decision to invade Iraq and to courageously slog on with the occupation. Facts and polls – which have long demonstrated exactly the opposite – be damned.

Worse still, it seems that Peretz and Roberts have also failed – or chosen not – to notice that Iraq is rapidly falling apart. Even the administration’s top generals are now forced to concede (albeit with euphemisms) that a sectarian civil war is engulfing that country. Its elected government has far more allegiance to Iran than to the U.S., and even its Shiite population – those who benefited most from our invasion – are taking to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to stage anti-American and anti-Israeli protests. It is virtually impossible to see how this war will ever become more popular, but easy to see how it will become more unpopular still. Under the circumstances, opposing this failed and unpopular war appears to be anything but political suicide. To the contrary, emphatic opposition to this war is, far and away, the Democrats’ strongest political weapon. The war in Iraq, from start to finish, belongs to Bush and his unfailingly loyal Republican congressional allies. Strong, clear Democratic opposition to the war will enable Americans to use the 2006 election to express their anger over this war. For those who live in a world of facts and reality and not a self-contained Beltway bubble, a referendum on the deeply unpopular war is one that Democrats will win decisively…

For Democrats, there is no smarter choice, no more urgent political priority, than to stop listening to the staid, fact-free counsel of the likes of Marty Peretz and Cokie Roberts and, instead, begin listening to what the majority of Americans are saying. They long ago turned against this war and the neoconservative premises used to justify it. The defeat of Joe Lieberman will demonstrate that Democrats are prepared, finally, to take a strong and decisive stand on these issues, one that is shared by most Americans outside of the Beltway.

[MovieMogul]

@DMark

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.)

Another excerpt from Salon:

Polls notwithstanding, it is hard to overstate what a profound and monumental upset it will be if Ned Lamont defeats Joe Lieberman. There are few positions that offer greater job security than being an incumbent member of the U.S. Congress. The reelection rate for incumbents in the House is now 98 percent, a figure that would create envy even among 1970s Politburo members. It is extremely rare for a three-term senator to lose an election, let alone lose to a primary challenger from his or her own party.

For some time now, this has been one of the greatest and most frustrating contradictions in our political system. Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with, even contemptuous of, Congress, yet they continue to reelect the same representatives over and over, making reelection effectively automatic.

It is not hyperbole to describe a Lieberman defeat as an earthquake for the political establishment – which is why virtually all members of that establishment, from both political parties and from its pundit class, have been enthusiastically supporting Lieberman. More than any other factor, what enables elected officials to be so unresponsive to the views of those whom they ostensibly represent is that their incumbency advantage effectively eliminates the fear of being removed from office.

The supremacy of incumbency has given birth to a more or less permanent Beltway class that views its power as an entitlement, something that its members have the divine right to possess until they choose to relinquish it. It is that aristocratic mindset that explains the bizarre sense of anger and offense triggered among the political and pundit classes – and within Lieberman himself – by Ned Lamont’s aggressive primary challenge. The effort to defeat Joe Lieberman was considered to be improper, uncouth, even somehow undemocratic by those most entrenched in our stagnant, plodding, virtually immovable political structures.

Beyond striking a blow against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives who are responsible for it, a Lamont victory would deal a hard blow to the power of incumbency and the entitlement mindset it has spawned. It would be seen, rightfully so, as a repudiation of the Beltway pundit and political classes that, from the start and with virtual unanimity, viewed the Lamont challenge with scorn, as a distasteful rebellion by the crazed, dirty, unenlightened masses. The most important impact of a Lamont win is that it would shake the foundations of a self-contained Beltway political structure that is as unresponsive as it is corrupt at its core.

[borowsally]

I was sick of Lieberman for a long time. Whenever the GOP needed an apologist, they could count on him and Diane Feinstein. Those two always vote Democratic when it’s not a close vote and swing with Republicans when it it. I’m sure they are paid handsomely for this one way or another.

[John_Mace]

@rjung

Yeah, but he only votes with them when he knows his vote won’t make a difference.

Well, that’s not what the article you cited said, or even hinted at. It’s more of an analysis of Lamant’s spin on Lieberman than an attempt to get at the facts. But let’s look at the key charges:

He broke with the region’s Democratic senators on a key energy vote last year. He has embraced a position on Iraq that few Democrats share. He has questioned bedrock Democrat-backed programs such as affirmative action and Social Security. He voted against a filibuster that could have blocked the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

So he “questioned” AA. What does that mean, exactly? The NAACP rates him a solid “B”, along with quite a few other Senate Democrats (most of then get “A” or “B”). Most of the Republicans get an “F”, with the highest score being a “C”, for only 1 Republican: Lincoln Chafee (youknow, the guy who acts more like a Democrat than a Republican). Link

Regarding the energy bill… Only 19 Democratic Senators voted against that bill. That’s less than half. Link

Now, let’s look at the Alito filibuster. That was no indication of Democratic policy-- it was a hastely thrown togther effort by, mostly, Kerry to position himself for a presidential bid in '08. Only 24 Senators voted against cloture. Harry Reid voted the same way Lieberman did and was
[quoted as saying]
(Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia) “We’re going to have a vote Tuesday morning… Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster.” In fact, citing his vote for cloture was disingenuous at best, and down right deceptive at worst-- he voted against Alito in the final tally (as even your article noted).

Which leave us with… Iraq, just like I said.

You gotta check the facts when you’re using editorials for cites, rjung.

[John_Mace]

Oh, I get it with the energy bill. I missed the part where Lamant said Lieberman broke with “the region’s Democratic Senators”. IOW, he isn’t a Northeast Liberal Democrat. But we knew that! And it may very well mean he isn’t liberal enough for CT. But your insuation that he’s a closet Republican, rjung, just doesn’t fly. He’s a solidly Democratic Senator who made the mistake of supporting the Iraq war. Now, I frankly think that’s a BIG mistake, myself. But it doesn’t change the fact that Lieberman is a Democrat. This is all about the Iraq War, baby. And, like I said: Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

[Captain_Amazing]

Here’s Senator Lieberman’s interst group ratings:

Vote Smart | Facts For All

He generally gets high ratings from groups representing “liberal” interests, and low ratings from groups representing “conservative” interests.

[RTFirefly]

If the good Democrats of the Nutmeg State vote Lieberman out, the implications for democracy could be staggering.

Why, who knows what will happen next - residents of other states, maybe even of both parties, might get the same idea - that incumbents don’t have to be re-elected as long as they choose to run. How could we possibly save democracy in America if that were to happen?

Why, next door in Rhode Island, another incumbent Senator - another moderate, appropriately enough - is facing a primary challenge from a more extreme member of his own party. How can a guy like Laffey - why, even his name is a laugh - dare to try to drive out a good moderate like Chafee? Doesn’t he know that democracy is at stake?

Geez. Next thing you know, candidates will run viable challenges to incumbents in the general election. What is this country coming to??

[RTFirefly]

@Captain Amazing

Here’s Senator Lieberman’s interst group ratings:

Vote Smart | Facts For All

He generally gets high ratings from groups representing “liberal” interests, and low ratings from groups representing “conservative” interests.

At least one writer suggests that that’s part of the problem, in a way:

It’s a great expression of the Democratic Party of 1996: You got your enviros, you got your minorities, you got your women. Each group has one issue. For the enviros, it’s ANWR (the most trivial of victories, but the one that raises the money). For the minorities, affirmative action. (Likewise, of minor relevance to the actual structure of economic opportunity for most African-Americans and Latinos.) For women, it’s all about “preserve abortion rights.” There are a couple others, but those are the basic buttons you press to be credentialed as a good liberal Democrat. After you press them, you can do whatever you want.

But has Lieberman failed to press those buttons? No! In fact, he’s been pounding on them like that guy at the elevator who thinks that if he presses “Down” hard enough and often enough, eventually the elevator will recognize how important and how late he is.

But it’s not working. Why? Two reasons: One of course is that Iraq, and the constellation of foreign policy and security failures it represents really is huge. And while Democrats can accept a fairly wide range of viewpoints, roughly from Biden’s make-it-work to Murtha’s get-out-now, only Lieberman’s stay-the-course is ridiculous. It’s pretty difficult to look at ANWR and Iraq and conclude that a good position on ANWR more than offsets a bad one on Iraq. (Especially if there’s no reason to think that Ned Lamont has a different position on ANWR or the other three buttons.)

The second reason is that Lamont supporters actually aren’t ideologues. They aren’t looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They’re looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don’t have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman’s support for the bankruptcy bill – because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that’s what blows the mind of the traditional Dems. They can handle a challenge from the left, on predictable, narrow-constituency terms. But where do these other issues come from? These are “elitist insurgents,” as Broder puts it - since when do they care about bankruptcy? What if all of a sudden you couldn’t count on Democratic women just because you said that right things about choice - what if they started to vote on the whole range of issues that affect women’s economic and personal opportunities?

But caring about bankruptcy, even if you’re not teetering on the brink of it or a bankruptcy lawyer yourself, is part of a vision of a just society. And a vision of a just society - not just the single-issue push-buttons of a bunch of constituency groups - is what a center-left political party ought to be about.