Lieberman As An Independent? More Likely By The Day
When I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and it appears more and more likely that my consistent pooh-poohing of Ned Lamont’s chances of mounting a successful primary campaign against Joe Lieberman, a man of high integrity and a credit to the U.S. Senate, was mistaken. In a David Broder column today that is sure to spread joy among the Nutroots®, Lieberman again makes it plain that if he has to run as an independent, he will:
“I didn’t know who the challenger would be, but I felt there was a very good possibility this would happen,” he said. “I told people at my fundraisers last year there could well be a challenge from the left of the party. In 2003 and 2004, when I was visiting the primary states [running for the presidential nomination], I saw the growing intensity of the feeling about the war. So, if I was not surprised, you might ask why I didn’t alter my position.
“I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result,” he continued. “Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war.”
That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president’s announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. “It was decisive,” Lamont told me in an interview. “Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong.”
“My opponent says it broke Democratic unity,” Lieberman said. “Well, dammit, I wasn’t thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest.”
Sources in Connecticut tell me that momentum in the campaign is mostly with Lamont. Lieberman insists he can win the primary. But he has another option. Connecticut law says that he could run as an independent, but he would have to file 7,500 signatures the day after the primary.
He says he knows of no effort to gather signatures now. But he also says, “I want to put my whole record before the whole voting population of Connecticut” — clearly implying an independent run if he loses to Lamont in August.
How refreshing it is to hear a Senator talk of national gain over partisan gain, of making a principled stand even when it may cost him his seat – and a reminder once again of how incredibly stupid the ‘progressive’ world is:
“I know I’m taking a position that is not popular within the party,” Lieberman said, “but that is a challenge for the party — whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that.”
Let’s assume the worst – that Lamont wins the primary and beats Lieberman, running as an independent in November. What then? I say George W. Bush should make one of the most popular moves of his presidency, and move Lieberman into the cabinet. Where? I don’t really care – but the move would singlehandedly raise Bush’s popularity ratings by five points, it would be a bold stroke for bipartisanship, and it would put a fine patriot in a position of power that he richly deserves.
Go ahead, Nutroots®, do your worst – Joe’s gonna land on his feet no matter what…
How would it singlehandedly raise his approval ratings 5 points? Who would comprise those 5 points? The Democrats who ousted Lieberman? The Republicans who so cleverly gave him the name “Loserman” in 2000? I don’t get it at all.
You got to see this take on the nutroots:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sendecide0618.artjun18,0,4802795.story?coll=hc-headlines-home
“One ally has no doubts: Lieberman’s old friend and Democratic state chairman, John F. Droney Jr., is publicly urging Lieberman to skip the primary, saying “every single weirdo in the left wing” enraged by Lieberman’s support of the war in Iraq will turn out.”
Which really begs the question, if Howard Dean is really making outreach to state party officials,will he respond more to the state or to the national web?
This would be the ultimate rejection of moderates in the democratic party and would have national implications, beyond even .
Bush liked Toomey, but stayed with Santorum. If Dean is going to keep his chair, he’d better pray Liebermann doesn’t go, or he is going to face a groundswell of national dems who realize that Lieberman is one of the last dems with broad appeal on National Security.
Losing a democrat, a respected democrat, puts them from 44 to 43 for committee chairs/majority.
Dean is way too late to save his credibility and losing Liebermann, while trying to maintain a ‘strong on defense image’ sends a damaging message.
This might produce some of the most dramatic campaign commercials for 06. Rove is licking his chops.
Comrades,
Giving Lieberman a cabinet post would certainly be an excellent move, similar to Lincoln’s decision to replace Hannibal Hamlin (Republican from Maine) with Andrew Johnson as the VP candidate in the 1864 election. Johnson was a war Democrat, and Lincoln felt that the time was right to show unity of national interest over political interests, and gambled that Johnson (a southern Democrat, from Tennessee) would bring in many Democrats on his side. He was right, and won reelection.
Democrats who had tired of the appeasement policies of Northern Democrats (who ran Army General George B. McClellan as their candidtae, eerily similar to Wes Clark) and of the whole Copperhead anti-war ballyhooing (some things never change, eh?) flocked to support Lincoln, a forceful repudiation of the “Peace At Any Price” ticket that enunciated the 1864 Democrat Party. It could happen again.
Heck, imagine a ticket with Condi Rice for president and Joe Lieberman for VP? Talk about the left being in a pickle…..
Respects,
Gwedd
mtl, Bush liked Toomey but stayed with Specter, not Santorum. Santorum is up this year, sadly.
So just where is Lieberman going in the Cabinet? Who would Bush ditch in the name of “bipartisanship”? I’m sorry, but I don’t see it happening. Of course, I’ve been known to be wrong.
I should have just called it the ‘Wellstone moment’, times 10.
Comrades,
Can you see Lieberman as SecDef? Talk about a howl from the left…. they want Rummy’s blood now, so Bush could accept his resignation and put Lieberman in there instead. What a field day for the press and the Nutroots (R in circle) then…….
Respects,
Gwedd
GCB-
thanx for the correction.
I am overrun with glee, and in my exuberance, gaffed.
Right state-wrong guy.
gwedd-
I saw some of the footage of Condi at the sbc.
It is a home crowd, and she is somewhat awkard in large speeches, but she seemed to feed off the crowd. Something genuine.
I don’t think she should run, but would always support her if she was nominated. Feedback from those there seems to indicate that the crowd was very, very immpressed. She has the highest approval numbers in the admin, 58-60, and now would appear to have won over the religious vote.
I still don’t think she should run, but she may have gotten the ‘bug’ after doing the speech.
Fargus, just think of the press coverage…it would be front-page news, make the covers of all the newsweeklies, and be the talk of all blogs, talking-heads shows, etc…
Don’t forget Lieberman is extrememly popular among centrist Democrats (i.e., among most Democrats)…
Liebermann is going to force a litmus test on the whole party. This is worse than the house vote that just took place.
Clinton, Kerry, even Gore will be asked an opinion. Somebody is going to support Lieberman, just wondering which of the 08′ers will.
Initally it will be deflected by those sympathetic to the nutroots:
“Ct politics is their business…”
But the comeback will be, “but the money and support are coming from national(ie California and Soros) locations.”
Rove is going to turn this into a case of where national libs are playing politics in local states. 06 may actually prove to be more of a referendum on democrats than the gop.
Bush got Zarqawi?
Hell, we got Liebermann.
Lieberman’s state approval numbers:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=5b2ae37d-ddb3-43ce-9ef4-f463f260dbe9
60% is his average, currently at 59%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/ConnecticutPrimary.htm
Primary numbers?
46-40 with Nad Lamont.
Still sample size is only 218…usually Rasmussen is better in polling sample. Can’t wait to see the press spin when he runs as an indy. Explaining his low opinion in the party, in the face of a 60% approval number.
My check for Nad is in the mail.
mtl,
Forget the polls. Those who vote in dem primaries have MoveOn.gonzo on their Favorites list, and all of Michael Moore’s movies in their dvd collection.
No man knows the future, but how can a man who refuses to kowtow (in the original sense of the word) to the Anti-American wing of the party win a blue-state primary?
One of those “can’t get there from here” things.
Am I going too fast?
Sane people do vote in primaries, and one would think in a majority.
I kinda hope that holds true in CT, but who knows.
A three way race though would be the ultimate standard for judging the left in politics. I put Lamont’s over under in that 3 way race at about 19%.
I don’t want Lieberman at SecDef. He is a Democrat, you know, with a lifetime rating of 17 from the ACU (his 2005 rating was 8; his ’04 rating was 0!). I would much rather simply have Lieberman ride off into the sunset if he loses than have him clutter up the Bush Cabinet. Lieberman for Rummy is not a good trade.
Comrades,
Gulf Coast Bandit writes: “Lieberman for Rummy is not a good trade.
”
Perhaps, and yet, in politics, perception in many cases IS reality.
I have no qualms with Mr. Rumsfield. I truly believe he has done a remarkable job, especially considering he has had to fight both the terrorists and the MSM, and sometimes it’s hard to decide who the greater enemy is.
The question is what might be gained by having Rummy replaced by Lieberman. The leftards are screaming for the SecDef to be replaced, and they are foaming at the mouth to deny Lieberman another term, so what the hey…. replace one with the other. Lieberman is supportive of the war and it’s overall goals. he CAN’T do any worse than Rummy has, and may well do better. Then what are the leftards to do? They’ve gotten both wishes… Rummy is out, and so is Lieberman….. and by having his opponent run for the Senate, it virtually guarentees a Republican will take the seat… but I digress…..
Like I said, sometimes the apearance is worth more than the actuality…… Maybe Karl Rove is the new Kurt Vonnegut???????
Respects,
Gwedd
Rummy is the best thing they have going.
The press likes to call it loyalty, hiding the fact that Rumsfeld is still the best person for the job.
When I hear the congress trying to give orders to the military, I roll my eyes. If Rummy was in a uniform, he’d be the greatest thing in the world. He happens to be the higest ranking civilian that all can be blamed on, he takes it, and keeps going.
Love the guy.
I hope that Joe Lieberman stays in the Democratic Party and is renominated. We need a center in both parties and I don’t want to see the Moveonner Left gain total control over my party.
Ever since the campaign started, I’ve been hoping Lamont would win — though I was finding encouragement by his initial poor performance. I suppose it’s a win-win situation. A win for Lamont would be a loss for the Democratic Party, further forcing the moderates out of the DNC.
Maybe I’m way off base here, but would it be too late for Leiberman to just drop out of the Democratic Campaign and enter the race as a Republican? I’d think that the Connecticut GOP would be glad to take him.
gwedd, I’m with you on the tactical implications of Lieb for Rummy but I don’t think one can say that Joe can do Don’s job up to snuff. Now, it could well be that we are at a point where we can take some down-side in SecDef day-to-day and it might be worth it if it did bring the Dems at large on board but I don’t think that is happening soon. The Dems are not ready; not hardly. The best thing long term for the Dems would be a Lamont victory in the primaries from a low-turnout, then a Lieberman trouncing as an Independent (this guy is one of few Senators with true national name rec) whereafter he rejoins a now slightly more educated Democratic party. The Dem base needs yet another mugging to drive home the true insanity and electoral stupidity that has grasped and throttled so many of their brothers and sisters. The worst outcome for the Dems is the one they long for so desperately: Lamont crushes Lieberman wall to wall. Then the “lesson” to the nutters is “STAND ON THE GAS!” The ensuing Presidential will be near a Reaganite 48 stater from a shocked and dismayed populace. Of course, that’s still a good result from where I sit.
If Lieberman would be so awesome for the perception of Bush, why didn’t Gore win in 2000? I mean, his mere presence on the Gore ticket should have brought moderates to the voting booths in the thousands…
If Bush did this, it would literally make me lose any respect I have left for him. It would be a blatant political move with no actual bipartisanship involved. I don’t understand how you can think that if Lieberman loses somehow the Dem party is way too far to the left? Hell, they just ran that awful ad where they claim Lamont agrees with the president 80% of the time.
Nothing about Mark’s logic here makes any sense. This would be a terrible move for Bush. Lieberman would be a defeated Democrat (running as an independent), not an actual Liberal. If Lamont wins it does nothing to the moderates in the party. They say, “oh well, Lieberman was a basketcase anyway”. I think you all are placing a little bit too much significance on this race. It’s politics like it ought to work, i.e. an incumbent candidate challenged on merits and in a primary and if he loses he should lose gracefully. If Lieberman changes to Independent it is how politics ought NOT work.
Knowing that you (Mark) would not only approve of such activity by Lieberman, but reward him with one of the most important jobs in the country at this time, especially to someone that just voted showing his desire to attack Iran, makes me question your commitment to the actual security of the nation. A political move like this for the lame duck president in a time when the security of the country matters most would be absolutely disgusting in my eyes.
Mike, what is disgusting in your eyes is of no consequence. Lieberman is a basketcase? How? Why? No hoss, it is the Kossacks and their ilk who are the basketcases and the baskets are woven and beckoning. The foundation of your statement (to the extent one is discernible) is based on the rectitude of the Dems position on the war apposite Lieberman and the Bushies. Sorry, that just doesn’t work. First off we have to have a coherent position from the Dems and that we have awaited since pre-Kerry days. Maybe you can elucidate. But that is just the first step. THEN we have to contest the two positions. You presume you are right on security, right on the politics and right on the “merits” of Lamont v Liberman. Mere presumption it is, perpetually wrapped in dire denunciations as lacking in fact as the “merits”, never described. You question “commitment to the actual security of the nation.” on Mark’s part and I dare guess, many others? I question yours and the basic seriousness, if not decency, of anyone who votes Democrat today, knowing what we know. Don’t like it? Don’t do it.
I’d also add that popularity, or lack thereof, in 2000 means nothing in 2006.
Well, mike, I’m going to ignore your comment about my ‘commitment to the actual security of the nation’ as beneath contempt and below your standards. You’ve been a good contributor to the comments, so I’ll assume you were in a bad mood and didn’t really mean to suggest something so heinous of me.
In any event, I certainly won’t try to defend myself from such a ludicrous statement…
I’m not saying I’m right about national security or that the democrats are right. I’m saying that if someone uses Democratic Party funding for a number of years (including this year), then, when realizes he won’t win in a primary, switches to become an independent and then loses he should be publicly ridiculed, not granted a cabinet position to make a political statement, especially one so important at this time. Say what you want about Rummy’s policies, but he did have experience in the area, something which Joe lacks.
Why, hypothetically should they be publicly ridiculed in this instance? Because it is obvious they care not about what the party they represent (or have claim to represent) wants, they care about retaining power. If they are so ego-driven that they think the very voters that would have voted him out of office (had he stayed democrat) are incorrect, why should any of the people that actually want him out of office trust him in a cabinet position? It’s basically a slap in the face at the hard left (who would be the ones supposedly voting Lieberman out?), not a bipartisan move. Also, if he lost as an independent, especially by a large margin, there is no ground to claim moderates would even consider giving him a cabinet position a good idea. It would also show they think he is to the right of them, further discrediting the notion that it would be seen as a “bipartisan” move. It would be just the opposite.
Mark, I’m very serious about my comment. On what basis would he deserve that cabinet position after showing such contempt for his party? I have nothing but disgust for people that change political parties during an election. I mean, it’s all well and good for someone to “play politics”, but to be so blatant as to say “I want the moderate vote on both sides so I’m changing parties, and by the way, I know better than you who should be elected” is not only comical, but sad. Also, saying that I’m questioning your commitment by no means implies that I came to the conclusion you are not committed. I just had to question it upon reading such a statement. Only trying to let you know how strongly I feel about this particular issue. I’ll be the first to tell you it’s a logical fallacy (emotional appeal), but I don’t care in any event. I’m not trying to argue the point per se, but just commenting.
I wasn’t calling Lieberman a basketcase, just trying to use an example of a dismissive comment that one might use. I could just as easily have said “Oh, well, big deal”, but I like the word “basketcase”. I haven’t come across many moderates in CT that really like him. Could you point me to a link with emails or comments from people living in CT who are moderates/liberals that think Lieberman being challenged isn’t a good thing or that really think Lamont is awful?
Aaron: True, but it’s something to consider nonetheless, especially claiming a 5% boost from someone who shares his views on Iraq (and apparently Iran).
mike, Joe Lieberman has been targeted by a group of activist progressives for one reason only: because he supports his president in his decision to go to war in Iraq (and he is your president, and Kos’s president, and my president – we only get one at a time). He is routinely castigated as ‘Holy Joe’ because he is an orthodox Jew, and all sorts of abuse is heaped upon his head – because he stands by the principle that a man should vote his conscience.
If you find that worthy of ridicule, you had better check your premises.
My admiration for this man, and my opinion that he would make a fine cabinet member (and you’ll note I didn’t say Secretary of Defense, I said cabinet), has absolutely nothing to do with ‘my commitment to national security’. Again, I won’t attempt to defend myself from such a ridiculous charge, no offense to you…
So, party above all? That is the paragon of ethical conduct? You must have really had a mad on for Jim Jeffords. The not-so-sad truth is that political parties have NO recognized place in our Constitutional order and Adams, Madison and Jefferson would certainly have said that they had done all they could to PREVENT parties from even forming. Parties are a vehicle merely. Certainly there is much to be said for loyalty but that is AFTER consideration of the merits. Has Joe failed in this? Maybe so but you can’t tell from anything any Democrat has said. Is there no truth in Zell Miller’s complaint that he did not leave the Dems but they he? He did produce a book length treatment of this subject. It was a bit vitriolic for my tastes but was fact based and honestly reasoned. That is no small part of why it is ignored by frankly partisan Democrats.
And Mark, I don’t know why you go out of your way to give “no offense” as you enjoy no such scruple from the other side.
[...] Decision '08 [...]
He is routinely castigated as ‘Holy Joe’ because he is an orthodox Jew
You left out a word before ‘orthodox.’
mega: People can choose to take comments as personal affronts, but that doesn’t mean that was the intention. Questioning something doesn’t mean a conclusion has been drawn. See: Socrates. If the argument goes circular, I have no qualms. Also, for someone that has embraced party support and used the system to his advantage in the past to then say ‘to hell with those liberal swine’ and run independent and not be expected to be called out (nah, given a cabinet position) is just way too much ask…
I don’t like political parties the same way I don’t like other large groups of people claiming to have the same goals (i.e. religion). However, when someone embraces their political party and then turns their back because the water is a little choppy certainly shows something about their commitment to the people they supposedly represent.
Mark: Actually, now that you mention it, I did think you said Defense…I think someone else mentioned Rummy. Yeah, it was Gwedd. My fault. Either way though, rewarding him for being a political whore is exactly what is wrong with the country. Also, Joe has been castigated for a number of reasons. Rape victim plan B pills (can’t be too far to a hospital that actually let’s you take one), his attitude towards Iran is remarkably similar to Iraq, his involvement in the “gang of 14″, same sex marriage, etc. Don’t pretend Lamont has support because of one issue. This may explain why you’ve been wrong about how this election is shaping thus far…
Does anyone have a link to an email or blog or some other such item that shows a moderate who is upset that Lamont is challenging Lieberman? Even if there are extreme leftists involved, it’s a damned election. Let the people vote. Geez.
Indeed, let the votes have the last word. Of course the Democrats have not really adhered to that nostrum lately. They don’t seem to like the outcome of elections in Iraq or at home, hey, who can blame them?
“the water is a little choppy” hardly describes the events. I’m always suspicious of metaphors when details abound. This one seems to imply that the distance between Joe and other Dems is meager and trivial which is in stark apposition to the End Times vitriol above. Is this division serious or isn’t it? Is it reason based or not? What a larf? But for a guy who claims to not like political parties conceptually you sure want some serious party line loyalty from elected officials, no? Oh, it is to laugh. Do you know the Democrats are the longest lived political party in human history? All good things must come to an end. Not that they’re any good.