Lieberman can’t have it both ways

July 5, 2006

If you’ve been away from your computer this week, here’s a quick recap: [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag]’s campaign officially began the process of collecting signatures for an independent campaign for Senate, in the event he loses the Democratic primary. Lieberman subsequently referred to the strategy as his “[tag]insurance policy[/tag].”

In trying to garner support from those same Dem primary voters he just offended, Lieberman is having a tough time with a mixed message.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman tried to reassert his commitment to the Democratic Party today, after announcing on Monday that he would run independently for reelection if he loses the state [tag]Democratic[/tag] [tag]primary[/tag] next month.

“I have one goal, and it is to be the Democratic nominee and win this primary,” Mr. Lieberman said after an Independence Day parade in this eastern [tag]Connecticut[/tag] town, where he marched with a few dozen people, drawing both cheers of support and shouts of opposition.

Lieberman’s “one goal” is to win the primary? That’s obviously not true. His principal goal, in the short term, is to beat [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag], but Lieberman is, by his own admission, hedging his bets. His “one goal” is keep his job. His “one loyalty” is to himself.

Similarly, Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels told the AP the senator is working “with a single-minded focus to win the Democratic primary.”

Does the Lieberman campaign not appreciate how silly this sounds? When a candidate runs in a primary while also making a contingency plan in the event of a primary defeat, that’s the opposite of a “single-minded focus.”

It’s quite an awkward pitch: “Vote for me in the Dem primary — and would you mind also signing my petition to help me run as an [tag]independent[/tag]?”

[tag]Lieberman[/tag] and [tag]Lamont[/tag] will have their first debate tomorrow. It should be interesting.

It’s the classic “divide and conquer” tactic—but unlike Don Quixote, Joe-Lie is both the jouster—and the windmill. Then again, maybe instead of “jouster,” one might refer to him as “jester….”

  • It would be nice if we could focus on taking seats away from Republicans before we pile on Lieberman. If someone guarantees that Lamont will win in November and the Dems keep this seat then I’d feel much better about this discussion.

    Then again, since we are talking about mixed messages, I should remind everyone that this kind of spin is not surprising from old Joe Mentum. Remember when he was a distant 5th place in Iowa in 04 (or was it NH?) and he celebrated being locked in a “three-way tie for third place”? Absurd.

  • Don’t worry Chief. Despite some Republican officeholders (governor and Congress), Connecticut is a very blue state.

  • Ah, nothing says confident like hedging your bets. That’ll inspire voters.

    It would be nice if we could focus on taking seats away from Republicans before we pile on Lieberman. -Chief Osceola

    We are taking a seat away from a Republican. He just happens to wear Democrat clothing.

    I think it’s harder to work on external problems when there is rot on the inside. Best to take care of structural damage first.

  • I can’t believe that some Democrat leaders don’t tell him to decide right now!! As far as I am concerned Joe needs to go but I also think our leaders are letting us down by not stopping this. Joe sucks!

  • What truly bothers me are those Democratic leaders who are saying they will consider supporting Lieberman if Lamont wins. I have opposed Lieberman since 2000 — even wrote to PFAW complaining that they were giving him a free pass on stands they would rightly excoriate Republicans for. What saddens me is that Republicans have so manipulated the political dialogue — aided by Democratic cowardice — that Lieberman can be considered ‘centrist.’
    As long as Democrats run from the word ‘liberal’ and hedge on things like flag-burning and gay rights and economic issues, the Republicans will be able to tie them into knots. What saddens me is that the positions the Democrats hedge on don’t convince the opponents of anything but Democratic insincerity, and turn off true Democrats.

  • I believe that Lieberman is true to this country and not political enough to survive the politics of this election.
    The Dems want to win big, keep the party to the left and run this country till 2008 by blocking all that Bush is doing. They cannot stand anyone who is truthful and so they are trying to unseat Lieberman all by themselves.
    We should stand & watch them self immolate but they are toying with our country & the republic is above all else.

  • “The [Democrats] cannot stand anyone who is truthful and so they are trying to unseat Lieberman all by themselves.” – geronymous

    Which, strangely, happens to be their right in a two party system. You got a problem with that? Try running moderate Republicans sometime.

  • You might want to take a look at a contrary view. Joel Connelly, in today’s Seattle P-I, argues that Lieberman differs from the Democratic Party on a few issues only: Iraq war, extreme support for Israel. Otherwise he’s today’s equivalent of Henry “Scoop” Jackson.

    That’s as may be — grown-up politics involves many compromises — but it does seem to me that Lieberman goes out of his way to offend mainline Democrats (e.g., the gang of 14). I’d be happy to see him retire.

  • Lieberman is free to run Independent as this country believes in Pluralism.
    I can see the headlines now, “Democrats lose because Joe split the democratic vote”. Just like Perot split the party vote when he ran independent.

    I hope Joe runs Independent and still wins as this will silence his crtics.

  • “I have one goal, and it is to be the Democratic nominee and win this primary,” Mr. Lieberman said after an Independence Day parade in this eastern Connecticut town, where he marched with a few dozen people, drawing both cheers of support and shouts of opposition.

    We have a word for that. It’s called “lying.”

  • I read that article, Ed, and frankly, Lieberman’s steadfast opposition to ANWR drilling isn’t really enough to sway me.

    Connelly takes jabs at both Al Gore and liberal bloggers. His accusation of Gore being a “fair-weather friend” and a “weather vane” was absurd. Aside from insulting to the base, Connelly is making a broad assumptions. Gore is under no obligation to support his former running mate, especially when some of Lieberman’s views have strayed so far from the party’s.

    Connely asks “Does his inflexibility on Iraq cancel out or diminish Lieberman’s contributions in a host of fields ranging from the environment to human rights?”

    Yes, because right now, that is the number one issue. People are dying everyday. On this issue, we need real leaders, real fast, and Lieberman has shown he’s not up to the challenge.

    We can find someone who has the right view on Iraq AND the environment, civil rights, etc.

    Connely’s disdain for the democratic system is disgusting. A primary is not a free pass for an incumbant. If his view is not representative of the people he is supposed to represent then he deserved to go.

  • “On [Iraq], we need real leaders, real fast, and Lieberman has shown he’s not up to the challenge.” – doubtful

    Oh, Lieberman is a leader on Iraq, with a clear, consistent policy. He is just not leading the American People or the Democratic Party. Nope, he’s busy marching along with the Republican’ts.

  • A primary is not a free pass for an incumbant. If his view is not representative of the people he is supposed to represent then he deserved to go.

    I hope the Lamont team is reading this. The above quote is 100% accurate and should be addressed to Lieberman directly immediately after referring to his team’s work on collecting signatures to run him as an independent.

  • For what it’s worth, I believe Holy Joe was wrong on a bunch of cloture votes, such as the new bankruptcy bill and a host of federal judges (since January 2005, maybe since January 2001).

  • “Which, strangely, happens to be their right in a two party system. You got a problem with that? Try running moderate Republicans sometime.”

    Leiberman is a moderate Democrat and you are trying to purge him. So you want the Republicans to do something you aren’t willing to do.

    Whatever you want the Democratic party to be in the future, the fact is that Lieberman’s positions are well within the moderate/liberal range of the party until the last few years. Lieberman isn’t more conservative than Clinton, who wanted to depose Saddam but didn’t have the political capital (he got accused of “wag the dog” just for the paltry actions in Somalia). Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq is almost identical to Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was unanimously passed by Congress.

  • According to a NYT article, in the same speech that CB quotes, Joe also said that, if he lost the primary then won the seat as an Independent, he’d stil caucus with Democrats.

    Pfui. I wouldn’t let him use my toilet, never mind my meeting hall.

  • I voted for Lieberman in 2000 when he was running for vice president of the United States because I felt he had similar progressive views. Though not a citizen of the state of Connecticut and, therefore, not able to vote for or against him in the upcoming primary, I’d advise Lieberman to accept and abide by the wishes of the majority of Democratic voters in his state’s primary. To do otherwise, would mean Lieberman doesn’t respect the wishes of his state’s Democratic voters and, likewise, doesn’t respect the democratic (lowercase) process.

    If he strongly disagrees with the views of the Democratic Party and the majority of its adherents in his state, and feels he now more strongly agrees with the Republicans’ principles instead, he should resign as a Democrat and reregister as a Republican, which would be his right.

    May the best Democrat win the Democratic primary of the state of Connecticut.

  • “Leiberman is a moderate Democrat and you are trying to purge him.” – Yehudit

    Actually, the Connecticut Democratic Party is trying to replace him with a Senator who would be more representative of their views, particularly on Iraq. geronymous was trying to suggest that it is not democratic for the Democratic party to choose Lamont over Leiberman as their nominee for the Connecticut Senate seat. That’s bull. The Connecticut Democratic party has the right to decide who their nominee will be, and usually anyone vying for that nomination won’t attempt to undercut their opponent if they lose.

    Joe is obviously not playing by that rule. If he wants to run as an independent, let him drop out of the Democratic Primary NOW and gather up his signatures in an honest fashion.

    And Joe is not really a moderate, clearly.

    • Comments are closed.