Lieberman Defeat in CT Dem Primary Could Help GOP Nationally
As the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee faces an unexpectedly tough challenge in his party’s August primary for another term as United States Senator from Connecticut, a former Democratic state chairman in the Nutmeg State and close ally of the Senator is urging Senator Joe Lieberman to “run for re-election as an independent and not trust his career to left-leaning Democratic primary voters in August.”
With at least one poll showing the three-term incumbent’s margin over left-wing challenger Ned Lamont to be in the single digits, some see a chance of Connecticut Democrats rejecting Al Gore’s running mate. John F. Droney, Jr., the former state chairman says it would be “total insanity” for Lieberman “to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population.” Staffers on Lieberman’s campaign “distanced” themselves from Droney’s suggestion.
Given that many liberal activists are furious at Lieberman for his general support of the war in Iraq, they’re certain to vote in the August primary when more level-headed Democrats are focused more on summer vacations than politics. A low turnout primary clearly favors this challenger.
Eager to see the angry left repudiated, many conservatives are rooting for Lieberman to best Lamont; it would show that even Democrats understand the stakes of the war in Iraq. Or at least aren’t one-issue voters. An angry-left victory in Connecticut, however, could further imperil the Democrats’ increasingly shaky chances of taking control of either house of Congress this fall.
Maybe we should think twice before choosing sides in the Connecticut race. The good news of the past week has reenergized the GOP, with one poll showing Republican approval of the president jumping over 10% in the past month.
Meanwhile, the Democrats’ chances in November seem dependent on bad news.
Even with more bad news, the Democrats could still lose this November. If the American people see them as unfit to govern (as the Brits saw Labour in 1992), they will likely vote to keep the incumbents in power.
Which brings me back to Joe Lieberman. If Democrats in one state reject such a prominent figure as Joe Lieberman, the party’s Vice Presidential nominee just six years ago, a man who while supportive of the President on Iraq has a generally liberal voting record (he voted against the confirmation of both of the president’s picks for the U.S. Supreme Court), the American people will likely see them as beholden to the far left. A view which will only accent the prominence of the party’s left-wing leaders, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Right now, Joe Lieberman faces the dilemma of whether to make contingency plans to run as an independent or stake it all on winning the Democratic primary (which would make him a shoo-in for re-election). And I face the dilemma of whether to root for his victory as a sign the opposing party still has some sense or to hope for his defeat in order to strengthen my party’s hand in the fall elections.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Calarato’s rule of American politics:
Anytime your hopes for victory rest on the hope of bad news, or BAD things happening to America… you’re screwed. You’ve already lost.
Comment by Calarato — June 15, 2006 @ 7:57 pm - June 15, 2006
What makes the American political system great is the Two Party system. In order for that to work, you need two strong parties. So I\’d root for Lieberman to succeed. It is highly unlikely that the Republicans could win Connecticut. I\’d rather have a Lieberman there than a Lamont.
As much as I dislike the Dems, I still have hopes that the looney left, is just that, and not the mainstay of the party.
Comment by Leah — June 15, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - June 15, 2006
“Given that many liberal activists are furious at Lieberman for his general support of the war in Iraq”
That’s not the main reason we’re pissed at Joe. There are many Dem Senators who support the war and many who arguably are MORE conservative than Lieberman and we’re not going after them in a primary. The problem with Joe is he deliberately undermines the Democratic party at every turn while sucking up to Bush and the Repubs. Now his challenger has committed to supporting whoever wins the primary but Joe refuses to do the same and instead toys with the idea of bolting the party and running as an independent. Why should Dems support him when he shows so little support for them? BTW, you Repubs are doing EXACTLY the same to Chafee in RI with HIS primary challenger. Interestingly enough, I hope Chafee loses.
Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - June 15, 2006
Disagreeing the Democrats on one key issue counts as “deliberately undermining the Democratic party” and “sucking up” to the president? Hmmm…. Lieberman supported his party in opposing the president’s two Supreme Court nominees. Doesn’t look like a suck up there. And has criticized the president (and the GOP) on a number of domestic initiatives.
Joe Lieberman is merely a traditional Democrat, strong on national defense, liberal on domestic issues.
I’m willing to support Republicans despite their support of the MPA. Looks like Democrats like you can’t abide a man who is so outspoken in defense of the Iraq war. You may claim it’s more than that, but Lamont cited Lieberman’s Wall Street Journal piece on Iraq as the impetus for his candidacy.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 15, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - June 15, 2006
#4: “Lieberman supported his party in opposing the president’s two Supreme Court nominees.”
He voted with the GOP on cloture for Alito. That was the key vote. Now he is refusing to support the Democratic nominee if it’s not him. How would YOU feel if a liberal Republican Senator refused to support the party nominee if it wasn’t him?
He also did not oppose privatizing Social Security. Whatever you think of Social Security, keeping it as a government plan is a core Democratic plank.
Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - June 15, 2006
In 1980, Al d’amato defeated in a primary the liberal Republican senator of New York, Jacob Javits. Javits ran as an independent in the general election.
d’amato won, and Republicans swept the Senate and won the White House.
If this didn’t hurt the Republicans in 1980, it’s hard to imagine it will be a huge burden for the Democrats now. Most people know that anything can happen in a state, and aren’t going to lash out at a national party because of what the voters in one state did.
Comment by Carl — June 15, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - June 15, 2006
Lieberman is destined to win. Why? Because Kos has endorsed his opponent, and so far Kos has had a perfect record of picking losers. So far, what, 0-19? 0-20?
Comment by Amber — June 16, 2006 @ 12:20 am - June 16, 2006
#7: “so far Kos has had a perfect record of picking losers. So far, what, 0-19? 0-20?”
Wrong. Obama, Herseth, Tester and Webb all were supported early in their primaries by Kos. So please retract your ignorant comment.
Comment by Ian S — June 16, 2006 @ 1:23 am - June 16, 2006
Well, now we know Ian S’s source–the DailyKos–as I read the very argument when I recently read that blog.
As to the cloture vote in #5, that’s a silly issue to raise for it shows how far the left has sunk. That they would make a key vote a procedural one. That they want to prevent the elected members of the United States Senate from fulfilling their constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.
If this is a key vote for the Democrats, then they have clearly become the party of obstruction.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 16, 2006 @ 2:30 am - June 16, 2006
#9 GayPatriotWest — June 16, 2006 @ 2:30 am - June 16, 2006
As to the cloture vote in #5, that’s a silly issue to raise for it shows how far the left has sunk.
This is a joke, right? Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that the Senate’s filibuster/cloture rules, which have been in place for longer than you or I have been alive (although the % of the vote required for cloture was reduced from 67 to 60 a couple of decades ago), effectively mean that a 60% tally is required to push anything (well, almost anything) through the Senate.
It isn’t a recent development.
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 8:04 am - June 16, 2006
#3 Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - June 15, 2006
Interestingly enough, I hope Chafee loses.
He probably won’t lose to his primary challenger–he comes from a long line of RI Republicans, back when the Republican party in the Northeast was moderate-to-liberal, but he may very well lose in the general election.
Chafee talks moderate, but, when push comes to shove (that is, on votes) he generally falls into the Republican party line.
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 8:07 am - June 16, 2006
raj baby writes; “He (Chafee) probably won’t lose to his primary challenger–he comes from a long line of RI Republicans”.
Plus, the double bonus is he’s one of the few members of Congress from Rhode Island who drives SOBER and didn’t make a career out of earning frequent flyer miles for repeated trips to Mayo Clinic’s Drying Out Tank.
That says a lot if you’ve ever been in Rhode Island. Yikes.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 16, 2006 @ 8:25 am - June 16, 2006
-Plus, the double bonus is he’s one of the few members of Congress from Rhode Island who drives SOBER-
There are 4 members of Congress from Rhode Island. Patrick Kennedy drove drunk. I don’t remember hearing that James Langevin or Jack Reed ever had.
Comment by Carl — June 16, 2006 @ 9:12 am - June 16, 2006
#12 Michigan-Matt — June 16, 2006 @ 8:25 am - June 16, 2006
Plus, the double bonus is he’s (Chafee) one of the few members of Congress from Rhode Island who drives SOBER…
Oh, you’ve driven with or behind him, I suppose?
Have you taken your Evidence course yet in law school?
Comment by raj — June 16, 2006 @ 9:25 am - June 16, 2006
raj baby, on the Evidence Course… sure, any 1-L student could have told you that. lol
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 16, 2006 @ 10:38 am - June 16, 2006
Yes, but raj in #10, my point was making the cloture vote a “key vote.” It shows the Democrats are focused on obstruction, not debate.
Oh, and check Chafee’s voting record, it’s a little to the left of center, hardly the GOP party line.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 16, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - June 16, 2006
here is a clear case of stupidity on the part of the extreme left. it is okay to hat JL for his unabashed support of the war in Iraq, but facts are this ain’t no congressman or senator worth his weight not do whatever he can to support the troops in war. yeah bush was stupid to go to war, but once in you should not just walk away. and if these nutjobs think that a new senator will be better, they are bigger nuts than i thought
Comment by ralph — June 16, 2006 @ 10:05 pm - June 16, 2006
#16 GayPatriotWest — June 16, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - June 16, 2006
Yes, but raj in #10, my point was making the cloture vote a “key vote.” It shows the Democrats are focused on obstruction, not debate.
This is another joke, right? Just how many Democratic proposals have the Republican leadership in the Senate refused to bring to a vote of the chamber?
Let’s understand something. In order to get something through the Senate, you need 60 votes, not 50, if there is a threat of a filibuster. It isn’t an obstruction, it’s your rules.
If you don’t like the rules, there is a simple solution: change them. Although, if you do get the rules changed, and if the Democrats ever win control of the Senate again, there will be no possibility for the Republicans to filibuster, either. And that’s probably one reason that the Republicans aren’t in a particular hurry to change the rules now. It really is as simple as that.
Comment by raj — June 17, 2006 @ 10:01 am - June 17, 2006
raj writes: “… and if the Democrats ever win control of the Senate again….”
OK, NOW that’s a joke. You’re doing that “me-b-funnie-in-Germany” thing. Thanks for the morning laugh, raj baby.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 19, 2006 @ 10:05 am - June 19, 2006
“BTW, you Repubs are doing EXACTLY the same to Chafee in RI with HIS primary challenger. Interestingly enough, I hope Chafee loses. ”
“…by Ian S”
I believe the RNC and Bush are officially $$$$ supporting the liberal Chafee as they suported the liberal backstabber in Pennsylvannia - Arlen Specter. I am no fan of Lieberman (partial birth Joe - Supreme Court legislating law Joe -gun control is good Joe) but I merely have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Hand-wringer (for attention) Joe gets my vote. I do believe he supports the Iraq war because he is an loyal Orthodox Jew and understands well the real world of Islam- unlike our other liberals.
Comment by DL — July 2, 2006 @ 11:38 am - July 2, 2006