Run, Joe, Run!: A Connecticut Conundrum Conjured
Joe Lieberman has been a mainstay int he Democrat Party for some time, now. He was the foil to Gore's failed campaign in 2000--giving the liberal a moderate voice. And he has been steadfast in matters of national security for the nation; one of few within his party that has put partisanship aside in favor of nationalism. And no, that's not "bad" nationalism. We are America. We were attacked. We have determined who our enemy is, and what must be done to them. (Here's a hint for the Democrats, it's not cut-and-run, guys.)
But David Broder's new column in the WaPo lays out what Joe Lieberman might have to do to pull off a victory in November. As his party has already tossed him overboard, there's little risk in upsetting them now.
Jump forward to May 2006, another Democratic state convention and another challenge to a party favorite, Lieberman. Wealthy businessman and onetime town official Ned Lamont, a critic of the senator's support of the Iraq war, musters one-third of the votes. But since 1970, Connecticut has offered a primary to candidates who can garner even 15 percent of convention support, so the Lamont-Lieberman battle goes on to a showdown on the awkward date of Aug. 8.
In an interview, Lieberman sounded a note of nostalgia for the old days. "John Bailey genuinely believed that primaries were not only divisive but often didn't pass the ultimate test of finding the candidate who could win," he said. If Bailey were alive, his attitude would be, "We have an incumbent senator who is quite popular in the state; we have an opportunity to elect three Democratic congressional challengers; we have a very tough race for governor. Why would we want to challenge an incumbent senator who could lead the other candidates to victory?"
The answer is simple: the war, which has lost support among Connecticut voters, especially those likely to vote in a Democratic primary in the heart of summer-vacation season. Lieberman says he is not surprised.
"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."
That last line is powerful, and it's one that has left the Democrats stinging for about 48 hours now. Since the Kerry Amendment went down in flames, and Murtha's idea was shot right out of the sky yesterday, a problem within the party has developed. America sees the Democrat leaders--Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc.--as cowards. Those willing to sell out victory to score a few political points. Worse yet, the Democrats seem to be banking on their delusion that America is sick of the war, and it's all the Republicans fault.
After these last two votes, I'd be wary of standing on a platform that has already burned them twice. It lead to a clear majority in the Senate in 2002, and an even greater edge in the House. In 2004, the majorities grew again; this time around, the GOP nearly achieved a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This time around, if the Democrats decide to campaign on this issue, they are going to be hung on it.
Look at what is happening, and ask yourself if they have a leg to stand on? The Democrat party, as it stands now, is barely maintaing its imitation a flamingo. Joe Lieberman does have a leg to stand on solely because of how strong he has been on the GWOT. And that is where our conundrum has occurred. The Democrats seem to be pushing another candidate in Connecticut for the primary--Ned Lamont. No one expected Lamont to garner so much attention in the caucuses, but he has, and he seems like he will be someone who could unseat Lieberman. If that happens, and Lieberman still wants to fight for his seat, he'll have to try to as an independent.
It's a certainty he will irk the Democrats with such a move, but at this point Lieberman reminds me more of Zell Miller than anyone else. Zell knew full well what was going to happen to him with his keynote address to the RNC. Lieberman knew that his stance on the war was going to collide with the current ideology of the Democrat party, and its pitiful leaders. And now, it seems that Joe Lieberman is at an empasse.
If he runs as an independent, he is likely to pull the center-left votes away from Lamont. This will either net him his victory, or make it much easier for a Republican to win the seat. If he is reelected as an independent, he will become a new version of Jim Jeffords. Only he won't have waited until AFTER the vote to jump. Lieberman will have done it to continue serving the people of Connecticut, AND to contiue giving the president the support he needs on the war in the Senate.
And that's the point of what he said. This war goes beyond partisanship, and the Democrats might want to pay attention to that wisdom. Otherwise, this election could be costly to them, and this is no time for them to be losing seats if they are to try a comeback in 2008.
Publius II
Joe Lieberman has been a mainstay int he Democrat Party for some time, now. He was the foil to Gore's failed campaign in 2000--giving the liberal a moderate voice. And he has been steadfast in matters of national security for the nation; one of few within his party that has put partisanship aside in favor of nationalism. And no, that's not "bad" nationalism. We are America. We were attacked. We have determined who our enemy is, and what must be done to them. (Here's a hint for the Democrats, it's not cut-and-run, guys.)
But David Broder's new column in the WaPo lays out what Joe Lieberman might have to do to pull off a victory in November. As his party has already tossed him overboard, there's little risk in upsetting them now.
Jump forward to May 2006, another Democratic state convention and another challenge to a party favorite, Lieberman. Wealthy businessman and onetime town official Ned Lamont, a critic of the senator's support of the Iraq war, musters one-third of the votes. But since 1970, Connecticut has offered a primary to candidates who can garner even 15 percent of convention support, so the Lamont-Lieberman battle goes on to a showdown on the awkward date of Aug. 8.
In an interview, Lieberman sounded a note of nostalgia for the old days. "John Bailey genuinely believed that primaries were not only divisive but often didn't pass the ultimate test of finding the candidate who could win," he said. If Bailey were alive, his attitude would be, "We have an incumbent senator who is quite popular in the state; we have an opportunity to elect three Democratic congressional challengers; we have a very tough race for governor. Why would we want to challenge an incumbent senator who could lead the other candidates to victory?"
The answer is simple: the war, which has lost support among Connecticut voters, especially those likely to vote in a Democratic primary in the heart of summer-vacation season. Lieberman says he is not surprised.
"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."
That last line is powerful, and it's one that has left the Democrats stinging for about 48 hours now. Since the Kerry Amendment went down in flames, and Murtha's idea was shot right out of the sky yesterday, a problem within the party has developed. America sees the Democrat leaders--Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc.--as cowards. Those willing to sell out victory to score a few political points. Worse yet, the Democrats seem to be banking on their delusion that America is sick of the war, and it's all the Republicans fault.
After these last two votes, I'd be wary of standing on a platform that has already burned them twice. It lead to a clear majority in the Senate in 2002, and an even greater edge in the House. In 2004, the majorities grew again; this time around, the GOP nearly achieved a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This time around, if the Democrats decide to campaign on this issue, they are going to be hung on it.
Look at what is happening, and ask yourself if they have a leg to stand on? The Democrat party, as it stands now, is barely maintaing its imitation a flamingo. Joe Lieberman does have a leg to stand on solely because of how strong he has been on the GWOT. And that is where our conundrum has occurred. The Democrats seem to be pushing another candidate in Connecticut for the primary--Ned Lamont. No one expected Lamont to garner so much attention in the caucuses, but he has, and he seems like he will be someone who could unseat Lieberman. If that happens, and Lieberman still wants to fight for his seat, he'll have to try to as an independent.
It's a certainty he will irk the Democrats with such a move, but at this point Lieberman reminds me more of Zell Miller than anyone else. Zell knew full well what was going to happen to him with his keynote address to the RNC. Lieberman knew that his stance on the war was going to collide with the current ideology of the Democrat party, and its pitiful leaders. And now, it seems that Joe Lieberman is at an empasse.
If he runs as an independent, he is likely to pull the center-left votes away from Lamont. This will either net him his victory, or make it much easier for a Republican to win the seat. If he is reelected as an independent, he will become a new version of Jim Jeffords. Only he won't have waited until AFTER the vote to jump. Lieberman will have done it to continue serving the people of Connecticut, AND to contiue giving the president the support he needs on the war in the Senate.
And that's the point of what he said. This war goes beyond partisanship, and the Democrats might want to pay attention to that wisdom. Otherwise, this election could be costly to them, and this is no time for them to be losing seats if they are to try a comeback in 2008.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:56 PM
1 Comments:
Ole Joe Lie ber man remains a democrat. He made his choice and he must live with it. Decision have consequences. Surely he knows that. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home