Lieberman’s Dilemma
If he runs as an Independent, he’ll have to do so without the (at least official) blessings of the Democratic establishment. Hillary Clinton is a case in point:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.
“I’ve known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party’s nominee,” the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.
“But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary,” the New York Democrat added. “I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters.”
All the more reason that Lieberman must focus on pulling off the primary…
I think that the likelihood is still that Lieberman will win the primary. But I’d really like to know what you think is wrong with pledging to support whoever’s offered up as a candidate by the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. Lieberman’s trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Way I see it, he should have done one of two things:
1) Run in the primary and accept the results whatever they are, just like Lamont has pledged to do.
2) Take a different high road by quitting the primary race and running only as an independent from the get-go. That would allow the claim that he’s above partisan political games to actually have some clout behind it.
As it is, it really feels like Lieberman’s just hedging all of his bets at every juncture, at the expense of his constituents’ wishes. After all, the primaries are the established way of selecting candidates. What business does he have, then, denigrating their importance?
Sorry for rambling, but this is important to me. Lieberman’s campaign has claimed that if 30% of Democratic voters turn out for the primary, roughly 210,000 people, then he would be letting 105,000 people, or roughly 5% of the Connecticut electorate, determine his political fate. So why, if he has such a dim view of primaries in the first place, does he not just bow out? And isn’t Lamont claiming the high road by pledging not just to respect the wishes of the primary voters, but to support Lieberman if he wins the primary?
Well, if the idea is that Lieberman should abide by whatever the voters of Connecticut decide, isn’t the election itself the ultimate test of that? If Lamont is the choice of Connecticut’s voters, he should have no problem beating a candidate who is running as an Independent with all the muscle of the Democratic Party behind him…
If that’s what he truly believes, why not quit the primary? He’s obviously got no respect for its results. In such contentious times, I can’t really believe that if Lieberman had any allegiance to his party, he would be OK with potentially fragmenting its vote in what would be an easy Democratic win otherwise, and open the seat up to vulnerability.
But why put party above principle? That’s my whole beef with the anti-Lieberman folks…they want a purity test…Lieberman is more important to the Senate than just occupying a seat that says “D” next to it…
I’m not saying anybody has to put party above principle. I’m saying that this decision to try to have it both ways doesn’t seem very principled to me at all.
I’d like to know why you, such a stanch Bush supporter, are all of a sudden of the opinion that Joe Lieberman is so important to the Senate. Is it just because of his support for the war? Are you so quick to forget that your fellow Bush supporters saddled this very fellow, invaluable as you now claim him to be, with the monikker of “Loserman” in the wake of the 2000 election? To me, this seems to be nothing but the mirror-image of the “Anybody But Bush” campaigns. You’d oppose anybody who’s supported by the liberal blogosphere, even if it means strange bedfellows like yourself and Lieberman.
Let’s say that McCain or Giuliani fail to secure the Republican nomination because of wacked-out extreme right primary voters. Would it then be appropriate for them, in your view, to bolt the party and run as independents, promising to remain true to their principles? I understand that partisan politics is nasty, and that for the most part, to place party above principle is a base, reprehensible thing to do. But in some situations, by placing your own personal fortunes above those of your party at large, you may be doing more harm to principles in which you believe by splitting the vote than you’d be doing by bowing out quietly. Get me?
Not true at all…I’ve always supported Lieberman. I remember telling everyone who would listen in 2000 that it was a shame that the two vice presidents weren’t running for the top of the ticket, particularly after their wonderful debate…
If Rudy G. ran as an independent, he would almost certainly get my vote…
I did see a rassmussen poll that had it at 46-41, but also saw this quinnipiac poll from Jun 8, 55-40.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=922
I like Rassmussen, but would offer that a ‘primary voter’ is not an ambivalent one. They are actively supporting a candidate and already know how they will vote. Rassmussen has 14% undecided-I really don’t know what they are waitng to decide.
Quinipiac has it at 5% undecided.
Lamont had zero gain, posting 40-41%. That is all he can get. The hx of the netroots picking winners is attrocious when it comes to ANY election.
Liebermann wins with 57%, the press is just trying to stir the pot.
And to flog a dead, off-topic horse, I wouldn’t vote for McCain or Giuliani under any circumstances. Even against the Hilde-beast.