Loyalty to Lieberman vs. loyalty to Dems

July 6, 2006

I don’t intend to write about the [tag]Lieberman[/tag]-[tag]Lamont[/tag] primary every day, but it’s worth taking note of the extent to which Lieberman’s fledgling independent campaign is dividing the party.

It started subtly, with Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck [tag]Schumer[/tag] hedging a bit about whether he would (or could) support Lieberman, even if Lieberman lost a Dem primary. [tag]Hillary[/tag] [tag]Clinton[/tag] stepped up on Monday, saying she would support the winner of the primary, no matter who it is.

Yesterday, it started getting messy.

Sen. Ken [tag]Salazar[/tag] (D-Colo.) became the first Dem senator to formally announce he’d support Lieberman’s independent campaign. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Mark [tag]Pryor[/tag] (D-Ark.) said he would do the same. Sen. Ben [tag]Nelson[/tag] (D-Neb.) made the same commitment.

On the other side, Sen. John [tag]Kerry[/tag] (D-Mass.) announced yesterday that he would support whomever Dem primary voters backed (Kerry also ruled out endorsing Lieberman before the primary). His announcement brings the total of Dem senators who are willing to put their faith in the voters to four: Clinton, Kerry, Russ [tag]Feingold[/tag] (Wis.), and Bob [tag]Menendez[/tag] (N.J.).

And what about the [tag]DSCC[/tag]? The campaign committee seems to be coming around, slowly but surely.

Following Sen. Hillary Clinton’s lead, the Senate Democratic leadership will jettison Sen. Joe Lieberman if he loses the August primary, and support the party’s nominee, Democratic sources confirmed yesterday.

The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, headed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), will say as a matter of principle that it has to support the winner of Connecticut’s Democratic primary, even if it isn’t Lieberman, two senior sources confirmed.

We’re reaching a point in which every Dem senator is going to be pressured to commit to one or the other. If Lieberman beats Lamont next month, none of this matters. If Lamont wins, and more senators join Salazar, Pryor, and Nelson in bucking the party’s nominee, it’s going to get ugly.

Undercutting primary election results by Democratic legislators demonstrates that the Good Old Boy’s Corruption Culture Club is not limited to Republicans.
All politicians who are unresponsive to the people must go.

  • There’s no choice: back the winner of the primary. Otherwise party means nothing. As is apparently the case with Salazar, Pryor and Nelson – something I hope the Party and its finance committees will remember when their turn comes up.

  • If Lamont wins, and more senators join Salazar, Pryor, and Nelson in bucking the party’s nominee, it’s going to get ugly.

    Unfortunately Lieberman’s already assured that it will get ugly now. I’m a CT voter, but if I was a Democrat in Colorado, Arkansas, or Nebraska, I’d be thinking long and hard about what Salazar, Pryor, and Nelson’s actions said about their respect for the voice of the Democratic voter. It may be easy for them to ignore and insult Connecticut’s Democratic faithful, but doing so reveals the sad reality about their low opinions of all Democratic voters.

    Salazar, Pryor, and Nelson haven’t picked sides between Lieberman and Lamont, but between Lieberman and the people of Connecticut.

    Thanks for the link.
    Matt

  • Good- it’s time to draw the battlelines and clean up the Democratic Party. Ultimately, if we spend the next two years still out of power, we can, at least, take advantage of that time to reorganize, and get the Republican wing out of the Democratic Party.

    (besides, I am not sure how enamored I really am with coming into power this year. The next couple of years look to be a real mess no matter who is in control, and it might be nicer to be on the sidelines for that one)

  • I have no problem with individual senators being free to endorse a friend if they wish (although I’m also fine with them paying a political price if such an endorsement upsets their supporters). There are legitimate reasons for a party machinery to reject its own official nominee – these include countering mischief caused in open primaries, or instances of fraud, death, misrepresentation, or newly discovered scandal or malfeasance on the part of the candidate. Throwing official support behind an independent on the grounds that the independent might be able to win and might serve the party’s interests better than your own nominee is a decidedly gray area, where the party is liable to win battles but lose wars. However, none of those rationalizations seems valid in a Lieberman / Lamont / Republican nominee contest: Lieberman is of mixed benefit to the Democrats, and wouldn’t his campaign as an Independent just split the vote and get a Republican elected? On the whole, a political party should endorse the choice of the party’s membership, if for no other reason than to keep the loyalty of the people who care enough to vote in the primaries.

  • Sorry, Castor Troy, but you just set off one of my pet peeves. “Giving up” an election because things look tough is a truly awful idea. First, it is the proper job of politicians to solve crises, not to run from them or cause them. Second, the way a crisis gets resolved sets those solutions up as the standard way of doing things for the next few decades (think 1929 and the New Deal). Third, voters remember who stepped up to solve a problem (or, failing that, on whose watch problems finally resolved themselves), and that usually set the tone of political dominance for quite some time thereafter. Fourth, I have faith that Democratic principles can resolve problems where Republican principles can’t, therefore, I want Democrats working on solving the problems. Crises are often opportunities, and even when they aren’t, doing something about them remains our responsibility.

  • I just wrote my Senator (Salazar) and asked him if, at some point in the future, the Democrats of Colorado voted for someone else in a primary, would he respect the the decision of the party, or would he put his own ambitions above the will of the people?

    Salazar, Pryor, and Nelson haven’t picked sides between Lieberman and Lamont, but between Lieberman and the people of Connecticut.

    Seriously.

  • I’m with my Senator, Salazar, AND Liebermann.

    Folks this is nuts!

    We aren’t even in power and we are purging those who don’t toe the party line. By the way, what is the Democratic party line?

    Change comes incrementally. We won’t get everthing we want or a candidate who will agree with everthing we believe. In fact, I can’t think of a single candidate I’ve voted for who was ‘perfect’

    I’d surely trade Senator Allard for Liebermann anytime.

    Politics is the art of compromise. Up with moderates!

  • Does anyone else out there believe that Ned Lamont is an absolute zero, has no clothes, and other than his anti-war vote which hardly means much in the context of a powerless legislative branch, would be a lackluster Senator – as opposed to say, the guy who the Democrats put up as their Veep just six short years ago…….And isnt the good old boy stuff pouring it on just a little thick given the fact that one candidate in this election is the orthodox jewish son of a liquor store owner and the other is worth between 75 and 300 Million dollars……for starters……..

  • Re: #8

    1. Lieberman is a big part of the reason why Democrats are not in power. He undercuts the party left and right, making the party look weak and vascillating. The party will be enormously strengthened by his replacement with a real Democrat.

    2. Democracy is more important than being a “moderate”. The people of CT have a right to be represented by their senator. Lieberman barely knows how to find Connecticut on a map. It is the Senate, not the House of Lords.

    3. The idea that the party is being purged of people who don’t toe the party line is both wrong and insulting. The people of Connecticut are being offered the opportunity to choose someone who (may) better reflect their values. It’s called democracy. We need more of it in this country, not less.

    4. Lieberman is not a moderate.

    5. Moderates don’t win elections. Extremists do, or hadn’t you noticed that the Republicans hold the White House and both houses of Congress?

    For some reason it just drives the inside-the-beltway types NUTS that the hoi polloi dares to make their desires known. They’re supposed to vote for whom they are told to vote for, and STFU.

  • And stand behind those who stand behind the beloved leader in time of war and terror.
    I need a yellow magnet sticker…
    support democracy only when it supports the president.

  • They are nuts. This isn’t their private fucking club. The people of Connecticut decide who they want to send to Washington. Joe Lieberman is not bigger than the Party, and the PArty is not bigger than the votes of its constituents.

    Any Dem who subverts the will of the voters in a Democratic primary deserve to go.

  • Lieberman is a moderate. Who has not yet lost the primary. And who, like any politician, perhaps a little bit too proudly, is not going to say long to three decades in public service because of the way the winds are blowing, and so he’s keeping his options open. His primary duty, as inconvienient as it has become to everybody in our beloved blogosphere, is not to the democratic party but the the people of Connecticut, that “hoi polloi” of all stripes who have supported him OVERWHELMINGLY for the better part of that career. And are likely, if he runs as an independent, to elect him once again.

  • N. Wells- I am not trying to say we should ‘give up’ an election, but more that winning the election at all costs might just cost us our souls. And, frankly, I’d rather have the souls right now than replace the Republicans with a set of Democrats-in-name-only.

  • First of all, it is so sad to see otherwise intelligent people view the Lamont-Lieberman battle as some sort of purge of moderates from the Party. Many self described moderates back Ned Lamont because they believe he will be the sort of Senator they can be proud of. Not because he is anti-war or anti-Bush, but because he believes in something more important that compromise, and that is VALUES. Holy Joe has shown, throughout the course of his career, that his animating force is a desire to bend over backwards to reach compromise with an increasingly right wing GOP and screw his fellow Democrats.

    Second, I do not put much stock in polls showing Lieberman winning the general as an Independent. Those numbers are driven by their timing. The average CT voter is not fully engaged in the process this early. The early primary polls showed Lamont trailing badly, but once Democrats got to know more about the race the numbers have moved dramatically. The same thing will happen if/when Lamont wins the primary and general election voters become more engaged. Face the facts, as much as the GOP loves Lieberman, they are not going to support him in the fall. And most, if not all, Democrats will pull the lever for Lamont. So, that leaves independents as the key voting group. But keep in mind that many independents are registered as such because they feel neither party represents them, insofar that they believe that it is all a good old boy network. So, you tell me who those folks are most likely to support- the incumbent tied to the plutocrat in the White House, the GOP nominee whose in bed with the plutocrat in the White House, or the person who is not tied to DC at all?

  • I’m with my Senator, Salazar, AND Liebermann. -NeilS

    I think the party should pledge to stand with the people of the great state of Connecticut.

    Lieberman is wrong on Iraq and always will be, so if the people who vote in the primary choose not to have him as their Democratic candidate than not one single Democratic dollar should go to him.

    The reason the Democratic party is imploding is because of people who want to circumvent the system to maintain their power. Sounds a lot like some other folks currently running the country.

  • I’ll support anybody that the Connecticut Democrats put up. But I think that Liebermann is fine and I can’t understand the feeding frenzy of Democrats going after him.

    Bush and the Republicans are our opponents, not moderate Democrats. Liebermann is not the reason that Democrats are not in power. There are many reasons for that.

    Russ Feingold is perhaps the politician I most respect. Until his death, Paul Wellstone was. Both were/are steadfast in their beliefs, but neither was/is likely to ever be elected President. They are too liberal AND honest for that.

    Some extremists win elections. But they can’t govern. I have no interest in being governed by extremists, Republican or Democrat.

    Idealogues can be dangerous to your health.

  • Joe Lie speaks of “his single focus being the Democratic primary” and simultaneously speaks of “running as anIindependent if he doesn’t win the Democratic primary.” Thus, Joe Lie speaks with a forked tongue.

    It’s simple. If Joe Lie were a REAL Democrat, then he’d accept defeat graciously, offer his congrats to Lamont, and do everything within his power to help Lamont win in November.

    But—Joe Lie is no longer a REAL Democrat. This isn’t about one singular issue—the Iraq War; it’s about openly declaring that “what Joe Lie wants” is more important than the Will of the People. Even if he were to blow Lamont clean off the political map next month, his declaration to ignore the Will of the People, should it be somehow contradictory to what he wants that will to be, is sufficient reason to remove this particular individual from his Senatorial position. It is no differwent than arguing the cause against the current administration, based on the credible evidence that “they” have long flouted the Will of the People for their own ideological gain.

    Or are people going to excuse Joe Lie of his transgressions, simply because he’s a Democrat? If that’s the case, then Democracy is truly dead in these United States….

  • I really don’t understand why Schumer has allowed this to blow up into a big issue. He could have just said when first asked, “Of course the DSCC will support the winner of the Democratic primary.” If he really wanted, he could even have added “And we fully expect the winner to be Lieberman.” There would have been no story there, and I can’t see how it would undercut Lieberman. Instead, Schumer has let the situation fester for weeks, and presumably hurt DSCC fundraising.

  • NeilS, what do “extremists” have to do with the Connecticut primary? Do you really think Lamont is an extremist?

  • KCinDC

    That was in response to this comment

    “5. Moderates don’t win elections. Extremists do, or hadn’t you noticed that the Republicans hold the White House and both houses of Congress?” by shargash

  • 22 comments in 2 hours and 12 minutes. Boy, do we ever love to rip on our own. Like rats eating their young.

    Do we even have time to tear into the Republican’ts like Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum or George Felix “Dude Ranch” Allen, Jr. ?

    Save some venom, folks.

  • Happy July 4th to all of you. I just made a flash game where uncle Sam is seen throwing knives at Joe Lieberman called Back Stabbing Lieberman. Check it out at my site here: http://zenwire.com/flashmedia-lieberman.php. There are also other games there: bush rampage, bush-rice-terror, bush shootout, dancing bush and Blair and other political games as well. Feel free to comment for I plan to make more.

  • First of all, no venom from this quarter. Justin makes some good points about Liebermann in a general. And regrettably, merleallen, Joe pays nothing – not that I would be particularly interested in his money. You dont need the Iraq war to be a liberal conflicted about the guy who long before he was the Veep nominee was taking easy pot shots at those evil hollywood liberals degrading our culture…….I guess I am just resigned that nascent political movements always go after the low hanging fruit, and Lieberman is just too easy, and too misguided a target this time around…..He is probably bewildered by his current fate and perhaps rightfully so…….As for the real democrat stuff though steve, who are we kidding? Who are the real democrats these days? I need some examples.

  • It’s really important in this discussion for Lieberman supporters to make it seem as though this inter-party division is about the substance of Lieberman’s and Lamont’s views. As far as I can tell, that’s why they make the mistake of thinking it’s at all relevant to talk about what a (supposedly) bad idea it is to turf an incumbent because of this or that issue.

    But the inter-party division CB is talking about has *nothing* to with substantive policy positions. It has *everything* to do with (small-d) demoncratic procedure. Clinton, Kerry, et al. are *not* committed to supporting Lamont. They are committed to supporting whoever the Dem voters of CT choose as their candidate. That says nothing about any particular issue, but it says everything about these senators’ respect for the institutions that make the Dem party itself small-d democratic.

    On the other side of this division are those senators who are pledging to support a particular candidate regardless of who the Dem voters of CT choose. If Cindy Sheehan was a senator and she pledged to support Lamont no matter who won the primary, it would show the same disregard for the idea that the party itself should be small-d democratic.

    So, look. Either nominees get chosen by the party members they represent, or they don’t. If you want to argue for the latter, come right out and say so, and don’t hide behind spurious (to say nothing of just plain silly) claims about “purges” and “litmus tests”.

  • I don’t understand what all the controversy is about. Love Lieberman or hate him, people are supposed to vote for those who most closely represent their views in representative government. If Liebermann does not represent the views of the majority of Connecticut dems in the primary, he won’t represent them in the general election. Similarly, members of parties should support their party’s nominees–either actively or passively. That’s the point of being in a party.

    This isn’t about the divine rights of incumbent Senators or about crony friendships. If Lieberman thinks he represents the majority of Connecticut citizens (but can’t get the majority of Dems) then he should run as an independent and be shunned evermore by the Dem party who will take the hit when he splits the Dem votes. It’s very simple really. The Senators who are for him no matter what (Nelson, Salazar and Pryor) are afraid to be “purged”, whatever that means. If they don’t represent their voters, they will be “purged”, no matter what the party thinks. That’s democracy, folks. For the party to support someone who can’t win the primary is ludicrous–again, whether you hate him or love him is not relevant.

  • “I don’t think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said ‘thank you for being a patriotic American.'” (Lieberman on the Bush kiss)

    The kiss of death for this Democrat. If Lieberman supports this president, then he’s simply gotta go. Lieberman’s political survival would be spun as popular support for W.

  • Scott E. is mostly right – and I read CB the same way. What gets me is the faith you are both dumping into small-d democratic procedure – the kind of “procedure” that lets a self funded multi-millionaire latch on to the hottest political phenomenon of the day and ride it to victory – and if you kind of suggest, wait, lets hold the phone here for a minute – well there is something about the big picture you are missing. All this stuff about respect for institutions and the party – I don’t really think you are on terra firma there……I dont think any of us are any more, which makes this all so interesting……..

  • Sully, Lieberman is outspending Lamont and has refused offers from Lamont to have a spending cap on both their campaigns. The “millionaire” issue is silly Lieberman spin.

  • The ability to spend money means you have to raise it, and to raise it, for better or for worse, you have to cultivate diverse interests over time……some of which address grasp a broader range of issues than civic boards and the CT state investment council…..Lamont hasnt started from where you or I would start if we were running for Senate, KC, for all of our democratic activism……and Lieberman has been at this for a while……

  • For me, this is not about Lieberman’s position on Iraq or his position on anything else.

    My hostility towards Joe is that he seems needlessly hostile towards his own party. Long before this Lamont challenge and the surrounding dust-up, he was openly praising the Worst President Ever, often at the expense of his own colleagues. Now, some Blug Dog Dems may do the same thing, but at least they can argue “in my Red State, I have to do that to survive.” Joe doesn’t have that excuse. He just likes the rewards – a little peck on the cheek from Dumbya – of selling out his own. I find that disturbing, and unworthy of party support.

    (And now that the Lamont thing has come up, I find his cartoon bear advertisement insultingly stupid, and shamelessly below the belt. But I’m not in Conn, so my thoughts dont really matter much on that issue. What matters is that I dont want my Senator or the DSCC helping anyone who bails on the party. I dont see how that position amounts to favorign a purge. I’m not saying run Joe out; I’m saying if he chooses to leave, use our cash for someone who is on the ballot as a Dem. If anyone has a rational argument against that I’d love to hear it.)

  • I think that the comments by other Democratic Senators is to blunt the criticsm of Liebermann from members of his own party and to prevent Liebermann from going Independent when he is re-elected to the Senate. They are also trying to hold on to kind of party unity. In a sense they are trying to prevent Libermann from doing what Jeffords did.

    Liebermann will win both the primary and the general election. The question is how good will his relations with the Democratic party be at that time.

    Schumer and Liebermann opened a can of worms with their ‘pre-emptive’ remarks about independent candidacy.

  • Sully @ #30:

    The procedure may not be perfect, but it is the procedure we have. As for financing I have no doubt that Joe will raise and spend more than Ned. He is hardly some poor pauper with no resources to fight with.

    In the end I go back to something that was on TPM the other day: Joe could’ve taken a strong position that he was a dem and would abide by the process come what may, or he could’ve taken a strong position that he was no longer representative of CT dems but was representative of CT as a whole and jumped fully on board the indy bandwagon – instead he reinforces his “weasel factor” problem by trying to play it both ways.

  • NeilS, I think you give some of these senators too much credit. I just saw an article where several (Biden among them) will be in CT campaigning for Joe L between now and the primary. I suspect this is in part because they know that Lieberman winning the primary makes the whole thing moot and the whole nasty issue goes away — getting their hides off the hook.

  • Zeitgeist, I don’t mind individual senators campaigning for Lieberman in the primary — though obviously I disagree with them. The problem comes if he loses the primary and they continue campaigning for him.

  • Salazar, Pryor and Nelson all give a new definition to the term “DINO Traitor.” But they are being loyal to the Corporate-Buggeree bend-over-and-spread wing of the DLC.

  • Has anyone fielded any polls regarding who has a stronger chance against whomever the GOP candidate is? As I see it, if Lamont polls 25% to 75% against candidate X, and Lieberman polls 75% to 25% against candidate X, we need Lieberman to win. So what if he’s a DINO? At least he caucuses with the Dems and will vote with Dems on party-line votes. That’s better than nothing.

    Now, if they’re both equally electable, by all means. I would rather have Lamont, who more likely represents my progressive values.

  • This is very silly. I can only see one position: the person who wins the primary election is supported by the party. Chuck Schumer has the old foot and mouth disease. He needs to take that foot out of his mouth and stand back until the election is over. I won’t shed one tear if Lieberman is gone, but that is for the voters of his state to decide. If Lieberman can’t win in the primary, then he should spend more time with his family. All of the other so-called Democrats should respect the will of the voters and help the winner. Period.

  • So who is more of a “Republican”, Hillary or Lieberman? Certainly Hillary on Immigration and Lieberman on Iraq, but on the rest they seem to have about the same views. They present themselves differently, Lieberman says we are on the right track but need a bit more of this or we are on the wrong track all together, and Hillary says everything was designed perfectly, but then Bush F@#$ed it up one this one piece….It is very interesting that the Democrats are probably going to have two Republicans running for president. Then we have John “I have awesome hair” Kerry and Russ “look what I did” Feingold. Who are too far out there on the issues to gain support. The Democratic party needs a better contender, although Hillary is strong, she just isn’t a true Democrat and is very closely tied to Wal-Mart….

    • Comments are closed.