Joe Lieberman, facing a stiff primary challenge from antiwar liberal Ned Lamont in the August 8 Democratic primary — and the stiff procedural hurdle of an August 9 deadline to petition his way onto the ballot as an independent if he loses — will begin his petition drive now, preserving the option of running as “a petitioning Democratic candidate” if Lamont beats him. In his words:
I’ve been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democratic party’s nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot.
Strategically, this is obviously the right move for Lieberman, given that a loss to Lamont in the low-turnout summer primary is entirely possible, whereas a general-election loss in November is far less likely. Polls have indicated that Lieberman would win easily in a three-way race, which is unsurprising, as he is still very popular among mainstream Connecticut voters. But, well, party primaries are not generally dominated by mainstream voters.
Of course, the good senator will get all sorts of grief for the decision, from Lamont — who previously, in a move as clever as it was transparently self-serving, urged Lieberman to sign onto a mutual endorsement pledge — and from other Democrats and liberal activists. For some, it will evoke memories of his simultaneous candidacies for senator and vice president in 2000. Others will fancy themselves clever as they say things like, “Lieberman not even a DINO anymore!”
The necessity of a “fallback” independent candidacy will make it even easier for Howard Dean’s brother and others to charge that Lieberman is not part of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Which is, of course, crap. Joe Lieberman isn’t just a great senator and a fine man, he’s a good, loyal Democrat, and he’s consistently liberal on most issues. ABC News reports: “The Liberal Americans for Democratic Action gives him a 75 percent rating. NARAL Pro-Choice America rates him as voting on its side 75 percent of the time; the American Civil Liberties Union, 83 percent of the time; the NAACP, 85 percent of the time; the League of Conservation Voters, 70 percent of the time; and the Children’s Defense Fund, 89 percent of the time.” And TNR’s Peter Beinart writes:
Why are MoveOn, Daily Kos, and so many other liberal activists so keen to find a primary challenger against Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman? The more you peel the onion, the stranger the answer becomes.
The common explanation is that Lieberman is a conservative. Or, more specifically, he’s a conservative who represents a liberal state–and, therefore, has no excuse. But, according to conventional indices, Lieberman is not a conservative. His lifetime rating from the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is 76, six points higher than the man MoveOn and Kos have encouraged to enter the race, former Senator Lowell Weicker. In August 2003 (before turning against Lieberman), Kos himself reviewed Lieberman’s ADA and American Conservative Union ratings and called the charge that he was a closet Republican “b.s.”
So why do so many liberals think Lieberman is a conservative? The obvious answer is his steadfast support for the Iraq war. For many liberals, ADA-style vote tabulations are irrelevant; Iraq is the crucible of our age. There’s a clear historical parallel. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey’s support for Vietnam made him a liberal pariah and Eugene McCarthy’s opposition made him a liberal hero–few cared that, overall, during their years in the Senate, Humphrey had been the greater liberal champion.
This notion that anyone who supported the war is therefore a “DINO” or a “right-wing wacko” is a pathology, plain and simple. It’s an illness that is unfortunately very, very prevalant on the Left right now. Liberals are, for whatever reason, in the mood for a purge. The war is their litmus test — if you have a different opinion, you’re not a real Democrat in their eyes. So much for a “big tent.”
Look, if you want to oppose Lieberman — or to disagree with other Democrats/liberals who favored the war, like for example, me — simply on the basis of the war, because you believe it is “the crucible of our age,” fine, go right ahead. Personally I think it’s dumb to do that, but I can understand how others might disagree if they feel strongly enough about the issue. But for heaven’s sake, be honest about it. Joe Lieberman is not a DINO, he’s not a right-winger, and he’s not disloyal to the party. Far from it. Joe Lieberman is, as I said, an excellent senator, an honorable man, and a good Democrat — who happens to believe (as I do) that the war in Iraq was justified and must be won. Again, if you want to oppose him on that basis alone, go right ahead. But cut the rhetorical crap.
As regular readers know, I believe Joe Lieberman is one of the finest senators in either party, and I also believe as a general matter that it’s a terrible idea for the Democrats to purge loyal party members who are consistently liberal on most issues but who refuse to tow the line on certain individual issues when their conscience forces them to honestly disagree. So, I will support Joe whether he’s an independent, a “petitioning Democrat” or the official Democratic nominee. It makes no difference to me — so long as he pledges to cast his lot with the Democrats when it comes to choosing the majority leader and such (which he has), I have absolutely no qualms about supporting him. On the contrary, I seriously wish I was still living in Connecticut so that I could vote for him!
Speaking of which, I absolutely love this slogan: “Annoy the blogosphere, vote for Joe!“ LOL!
UPDATE: Before I posted this, my dad begin “crafting and drafting” his own post about the issue. But I scooped him, beating him to the “publish” button. In order to avoid confusion and consolidate the inevitable comment-war, I’m moving his post to the “Extended Entry” section of this post. So, herewith follows my dad’s post:
Lieberman to seek independent Nov. ballot spot as hedge against primary loss
Posted by Joe Loy on Monday, July 3, 2006 at 7:17 pm MST
I hope the Blogmister & the Blogmissus :) will forgive me for interrupting the Liveblog Travelogue for this important Breaking News bulletin :> (hat tip, Bob Lutts, CT Republican Savant :) ~
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman announced today he will petition for a place on the November ballot as an “independent Democrat,” giving him a chance to stay alive politically should he lose an Aug. 8 primary for the Democratic nomination.
He probably knows [? :] that in such hideous event he won’t be actually November Ballotdesignated as “Independent Democrat” because in Connecticut, the Land of Unfettered Free Expression :), that’s Illegal. See subsection (c) subdivision (2). [Also, just for Fun, see subdivision (5 :). I wrote, or rather Re-wrote, a lot of that particular statute btw. No really, I did. Some 20 years ago. ‘No law means No Law.’ ~ Mr Justice Black, on the First Amendment. “So What?” ~ Mr Elections Officer Joe Loy :]
…”I’ve been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democratic party’s nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot,” Lieberman said. He added that he would, even if re-elected as a petitioning candidate, remain a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.
…Lieberman will need to gather 7,500 signatures to guarantee a ballot place, an effort likely to begin next week…
The signatures-filing deadline is Aug. 9, the day after the primary. Any CT registered voter may validly sign. / My Guess: Joe will likely Go with with a no-party-name petition, which (if Timely & Sufficiently filed) puts him on the election ballot designated as a “Petitioning Candidate” ~ but BELOW any candidate(s) of any pre-established (iow nonpetitioning, direct-nominating) Minor Parties for ANY office, AND also below any US Senate petitioning candidates WITH a New-Party Name with respect to such office ~ of which there Are, I am reliably Told :), potentially at least Two. / Saint Joes’s better-ballotpositioning Alternative is to Pick his Own new Party Name. As his Nemesis, Lowell Weicker, successfully did for Governor in 1990 [”A Connecticut Party” ~ a Brilliant choice]; and as the disgraced -&-unrenominated incumbent Dem Senator Tom Dodd, sire of President Chris :), had Unsuccessfully done 20 years earlier [”Dodd Independent”]. / Yeah, it’s outrageously Complicated. That is why I do Love it So. :)
From the New York Times take ~
“While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary,” Mr. Lieberman said in a news conference today, “I know that there are no guarantees in elections. I’m very confident that if every Democrat or even a majority of them vote on Aug. 8, I will be nominated by a comfortable margin.”
That’s true of course, he Would be. / But they Won’t. Not Hardly. The Highest turnout in the 36-year History of CT statewide primaries is slightly over 40%. And That was at a Republican one. For President. In 1980. :|
But Still: Go Joe! :} (In Other Good news, recently the CT AFL-CIO Endorsed our sainted Senator at their rather Uproarious convention. That should help, re Boots on the Ground August 9. / Also, Saint Joe & Lord Ned will debate Live this Thursday on WVIT Channel 30. People may send in their Questions, selected ones to be pressnted to the candidates On Air. I sent in mine already, for Mr. Lamont. Boiled down a bit, it asks essentially, ‘Would you please explain to us how much it Sucks to be You?’ ;>
(We return you now to the Liveblog from The Wabash Cannonball, as she seeks the Northwest passage to the Sea. :)
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:54:12 pm
I hope if Lieberman does lose the primary he ultimately opts not to run as an Independent. He will be handing a seat to the Republicans. I understand why he is doing this now as a way to present a threatening option for the DNC, but I hope, if he fails to win the support of the Democrats in the primary, that he doesn’t do an f-you to the party that gave him a chance to run for VP.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:54:15 pm
Read Lamon’ts Blog. Weep.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:57:34 pm
Thanks. :) Excellent solomonic Solution, there, yer Majesty :>, just Split the ol’ Page :}, vurry Commendable. / Oh & and goodluck with the search for the Hand of Frankling, too :> [just Fambly Stuff, people, doan’ Fret aboot it :]
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:25:41 pm
“I hope if Lieberman does lose the primary he ultimately opts not to run as an Independent. He will be handing a seat to the Republicans.”
Nay, not So, MM Esq. / That very Scenario ~ Lamont beats Lieberman in August, Lieberman drops his “independent” run in November ~ is precisely the ONLY one in which Republican Alan Schlesinger COULD conceivably Win the election. / With Joe In as an Independent, Schlesinger is a distant-3rd slice of singledigit Toast. :>
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:21:40 pm
“I hope, if [Lieberman] fails to win the support of the Democrats in the primary, that he doesn’t do an f-you to the party that gave him a chance to run for VP.”
Oh please. The nominee of the Democratic party in 2000, who chose Lieberman as his running mate for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, did an f-you to Lieberman when he wouldn’t even support him in the primary for SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. Gore has instead thrown his support (for whatever that’s worth) behind Lamont . . . and this after Lieberman purposefully waited to announce his candidacy in 2004 until AFTER Gore decided not to run (Lieberman wouldn’t have run if Gore did, out of respect for him). I realize that Gore and the Democratic party are not necessarily one and the same. But as Brendan points out, Lieberman is obviously getting sh*t on by myopic Democratic primary voters for whom the Iraq war is a “pathology,” and he therefore has EVERY right to “do an f-you to the party that gave him a chance to run for VP.”
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:33:10 pm
I don’t agree with half of what Lieberman says, but he’s a thoughtful, articulate and balanced man who truly cares about his principles and his constituents, and deserves to win. Lieberman is, and has been, one of the most truly honest Dems in the Senate, from a party in which those attributes are increasingly lacking. If craven and spiteful Dems are willing to boot a 75% liberal Senator like Lieberman over his consistent and eminently principled position on Iraq, then so much the worse for them as a party, and the rest of us as a country.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:51:51 pm
Anyone that supports the war with Iraq supports Al Queda. You may not know it today, but it’s the truth.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:40:44 pm
steele bleau Says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:51:51 pm
Anyone that supports the war with Iraq supports Al Queda. You may not know it today, but it’s the truth.
Your average Kossak says:
That’s gotta be true, that’s just gotta be true, or else what are we doing here?
July 4th, 2006 at 2:10:47 am
If craven and spiteful Dems are willing to boot a 75% liberal Senator like Lieberman over his consistent and eminently principled position on Iraq, then so much the worse for them as a party, and the rest of us as a country.
Craven and spiteful, i.e. those who think he is agreeing more with the Republicans than the Democrats on key issues.. and eminently principled, i.e. agrees with Bush. Look I am not saying that Lieberman isn’t more Democrat than Republican, or that his position isn’t principled, but your insinuation here seems to be the same one we keep seeing from the GOP. Either you are with us or you are clearly wrong, anti-american, craven, and unprincipled.
Isn’t it equally possible that Democrats can have a reasoned and principled position against the war? Or isn’t it possible that Democrats can believe that Lieberman doesn’t represent their views anymore? What is so craven and spiteful about not backing a candidate who doesn’t support your views? Or do you think Republicans were craven and spiteful for not throwing more support behind McCain when he ran for President? He had served much longer than George W. did but the powers that be felt one represented their views better than the other. How is this significantly different??
July 4th, 2006 at 5:02:19 am
And that would be what…cut and run? leaving Iraq a mess helps now…how? There’s a term for it…day late and a dollar short. The only way out is to finish the job.
If they’d wanted to be against the war, they should have been against the war before they voted for the war. That is principled.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:03:16 am
I see a lot of name-calling, not a lot of argument. So, I’ll base my opinion on something equally absurd: primitive name magic. Ned LaMont (as Ned is a nickname for Edward) means Wealthy Guardian (of) the Mountain. Joseph Lieberman means God Shall Add a Son Beloved Man. So Lieberman is just a beloved man, but LaMont is The Mountain. Clearly, we must vote LaMont.
Also, listening to anyone named Darth (Dark Lord of the Sith) would be a bad idea.
Yours truly,
God’s Gift Dweller by a Fish Pond
at Little Raven Lawyer dot com.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:16:06 am
The guy is scared.
It’s hillarious that in order to retain his seat, he’ll have to rely on Republican votes.
If a Democrat adopts Republican positions, we call him “a moderate.”
July 4th, 2006 at 6:26:14 am
By the way, it’s “toe the line” not “tow.” ;-)
July 4th, 2006 at 6:31:32 am
An afterthought: if this whole process means the people in Conn. end up having MORE choices in their general election, then that seems like a good thing.
And if Lieberman is the best choice and will win in a three way race, then it still seems like this whole process is a good thing: more choices, a greater political involvement by the people of the state, an airing of issues, etc.
Lieberman has seemed to express a certain disdain for Lamont– and by extension the democratic process– therefor it’s good to remind Joe he isn’t entitled to the seat because he’s held it for so long. Nothing wrong with making him work for it.
July 4th, 2006 at 7:55:50 am
“Lieberman has seemed to express a certain disdain for Lamont– and by extension the democratic process– therefor it’s good to remind Joe he isn’t entitled to the seat because he’s held it for so long. Nothing wrong with making him work for it.”
I haven’t seen Lieberman say or do anything to even imply that he has “disdain for the democratic process.” And as for not being entitled to a seat just because one has held it for so long, would that CT’s northern neighbors held that view . . . there’s nothing wrong with letting the Hero of Chappaquiddick work for his seat, too :-)
July 4th, 2006 at 9:46:15 am
And that would be what…cut and run? leaving Iraq a mess helps now…how? There’s a term for it…day late and a dollar short. The only way out is to finish the job.
If they’d wanted to be against the war, they should have been against the war before they voted for the war. That is principled.
And people say reasoned politcal discourse is dead in this country…
How about, the reasons they were given were false and the information they were given was trumped up or just plain wrong? How about they believed in the cause but disagree with how its been handled since? How about the fact that there WERE people who voted against it in congress.
So let me guess Aggie, you have never felt one way about something, learned more, and changed your mind? Oh. Wait. I guess GOP’ers don’t do that right? They “stay the course”, in other words, they stubbornly and pig-headedly refuse to admit that they can be wrong and that new information can changed a situation. Instead they keep charging blindly forward ignoring anything that is inconvenient to their argument or position. Well you know what? Thats not principled, its stupid.
Your failure to accept even the possibility that any position but your own could even be remotely possible goes beyond arrogance and shows exactly why we need the GOP out of power in both representative branches of government because it shows a lack of willingness to listen to the will of the people, you know, the job they were elected to do.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:38:58 am
I’m all for finishing the job in Iraq. However, finishing the job doesn’t consist of handing the country over to an Iranian-backed government, which is essentially what is happening right now.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:40:49 am
Just by way of review, there were twenty-three reasons stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
July 4th, 2006 at 11:01:31 am
Joe Mama-
And it looks like about 20 of them turned out to be bogus. Did the three remaining ones justify the war? Doubtful.
July 4th, 2006 at 11:37:30 am
ANMousie :), I must say your 3rd comment above makes very good points. Certainly nobody Owns an elective office (well, except We the People :), a fact which most-if-not-All longtime Incumbents (and even some Short-timers too :) tend to forget. / And certainly More choices ~ within Reason & available Ballot Space :) ~ are better than Less.
A propos of which, the CT Green Party is petitioning to put its Senate candidate, Ralph Ferrucci, an Independent Trucker and Artist :), on the November ballot along with its candidates for the six other Statewide offices.
Prediction: if Lieberman WINS the Dem primary ~ a still-distinct possibility which everybody seems to be Discounting at the moment ~ and assuming the Greenies have by then gotten sufficient signatures, a lot of the Lamontistas currently cluck-clucking about what a Disloyal Democrat Joe is will quickly Move On :) to good ol’ Keep-on-Paintin’-&-Truckin’ Ralph. / Well. That is, after the Demlefties have figured out that post-Primary is Too Late not only for the Liebermaniacs :) but also for THEM to begin their own independent petition drive ~ and then, have finished all the requisite Bitching & Moaning & Suing about That. :]
Today’s Hartford Courant reports, among other aspects of all this, that ~
But Mr. Gallo’s ecstasy is Premature, for though he Has felt the earth move, it Moveth Not in his Direction ;}. IOW The Courant’s analysis ~ presented, astonishingly, as established Fact ~ is incorrect. Republican Alan Schlesinger’s best chance ~ his Only chance ~ was a one-on-one November contest (discounting the Minors) with a primary-victorious Ned Lamont.
In that scenario, now Gone a-glimmering, the little-known Schlesinger would have gained rocksolid Republican support, a strong majority of unaffiliated voters (a huge bloc in CT, much bigger than the Repubs) ~ and Yes, a very Substantial crossover from pro-Joe Dems.
I.e., the Conventional Unwisdom that a primary-beaten independent-candidate Lieberman “splits the Democratic Vote” in November, is ridiculous. The Democratic votes he gets that way are largely Unavailable to Lamont in any case. What Saint Joe Splits ~ nay, splinters, Shatters ~ is chiefly the Republican vote (just as he always has, or at least from 1988 onward). This leaves Schlesinger with the hardcore “baseline” R vote, no more. IOW, Bupkis. Below 20%, sez I.
There is an alleged analogy to this 2006 CT Kerfuffle, from 1970, wherein the reborn Conventional Unwisdom is Rooted, rather like a Fungus :). That is the year in which Republican Congressman Lowell Weicker was first elected to the Senate with about 42%, in a 3-way, defeating antiwar insurgent Dem primarywinner Rev. Joe Duffey and the independent-candidate incumbent Tom Dodd. The Legend is that Dodd Split The Democratic Vote. The truth is that Vietnam-hawk Dodd (25%), having declined to seek D renomination due to being Disgraced by a US Senate Censure, took far more votes from Weicker, R than from the ultraliberal peacenik Rev. Duffey, D. IOW absent Dodd, Weicker would have won much Bigger. / Just as this year, absent Lieberman, Schlesinger [a candidate with much less Juice than US Rep Weicker had, 36 years back] could have beaten Lamont. / I have Spoken. :)
Upshot: Lieberman’s difficult decision may not really have been so Difficult after all. (Painful, yes.) I won’t say “guarantees”, but it renders Very Likely the following: Joe will be re-elected to a fourth term in November.
If he wins the primary, he Romps in the election: Lieberman D 60%, Schlesinger R 30%, with artistic trucker Ferrucci G (see above :) attaining the Greenie-dizzying heights of 10%. :> If Joe loses in August, November brings us Lieberman I 47%, Lamont D 37%, Schlesinger R 15%, Ferrucci G 1%. (Yes, many more Repub types will desert their man Alan for Joe-the-I than would for Joe-the-D, because they will Fear the Specter of Senator Ned & will plump for the man who Can beat him in lieu of voting for the one who can’t.)
Footnote for all politiconerds, hi Brendan :) ~ the abovelinked Courant piece also says that
July 4th, 2006 at 11:42:15 am
Someone needs to give Kos a head’s up, as there seems to be several other traitors in the Senate who proudly wear “Democrat” label and are to the right of Lieberman.
So let me guess Aggie, you have never felt one way about something, learned more, and changed your mind? Oh. Wait. I guess GOP’ers don’t do that right?
Do you want reasoned discourse, or would you rather insult me? If it’s the later, I can give you a pointer
They “stay the course�, in other words, they stubbornly and pig-headedly refuse to admit that they can be wrong and that new information can changed a situation. Instead they keep charging blindly forward ignoring anything that is inconvenient to their argument or position. Well you know what? Thats not principled, its stupid.
Ok, so how…exactly…is implementing John Murtha’s cut-n-strategy going to help? which is the correct route out? one that isn’t going to turn Iraq into a festering cesspool of Islamic terror?
What is your solution?
Your failure to accept even the possibility that any position but your own could even be remotely possible goes beyond arrogance
Mighty broad brush you stroke with, bubba. Will of the people, eh? didn’t John Kerry attempt to turn the 2004 election into a referendum on Iraq? and didn’t he lose? will of the people, indeed…
July 4th, 2006 at 11:55:40 am
PS ~ my Latter statistical forecast :) above, re the November four-way scenario which independent Lieberman wins with 47%, obviously assumes that Republican Schlesinger & his Party geniuses :> don’t see the Wisdom of Withdrawal from the race so as not to Split The Lieberman Vote :). Now if the GOP does glimpse that Light, then Joe Goes 60% (just as he will against Alan in November if Saint Joe whups Lord Ned in August, which God Send :).
July 4th, 2006 at 12:29:06 pm
“And it looks like about 20 of them turned out to be bogus. Did the three remaining ones justify the war? Doubtful.”
That’s exactly the kind of superficial and unserious “analysis” we’ve all come to expect from you, Max.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:50:17 pm
So you are saying Aggie that winning an election by even the slimmest of margins means you get to do whatever you want for four years til you lose again? You are more than welcome to that opinion of course, i think its blatantly foolish, i just want to ask if you gave Clinton the same free reign when he was elected?
As for what my solution is, thats not relavent to this discussion. You weren’t arguing that your solution was the better one, you were arguing that disagreeing at all meant you were unprincipled. Your clear point was that it was either agree with Bush or be unprincipled, a coward, and unpatriotic and frankly I’m sick and tired of hearing the same refrain “We must defend freedom and democracy, so shut up and stop disagreeing with the President!”
On a day like today, it is even more disgusting of a position to hold than ever before.
And I’m more than willing to have a civil discourse, but when you start the conversation by saying that anyone who has a position contrary to your own is a craven coward, its a little tough to do.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:27:21 pm
David, I can’t seem to find where anyone here claimed that you must “either agree with Bush or be unprincipled, a coward, and unpatriotic.” Since I know you would NEVER deliberately mischaracterize another’s argument, the fault must lie with me :-) A little help, please?
July 4th, 2006 at 2:52:06 pm
Hmm you are correct Joe Mama, that wasn’t something Aggie said, it was what YOU said. My apologies Aggie, that part was wrong.
July 4th, 2006 at 2:55:58 pm
Um, yeah . . . what the hell are you talking about again, David?
July 4th, 2006 at 3:07:11 pm
However, finishing the job doesn’t consist of handing the country over to an Iranian-backed government, which is essentially what is happening right now.
Are you suggesting we install a dictator that fits our preferences, or are you saying Iraq should revote over and over until we get a result we like? I got news for you: Iraq is 60% Shiite, so increasingly warm relations between the two neighbors is going to be inevitable the more democratic Iraq becomes.
So you are saying Aggie that winning an election by even the slimmest of margins means you get to do whatever you want for four years til you lose again?
If you win an election on the theme of staying the course, why would you adopt the loser’s policy position once you’ve won the election? What kind of foolish expectation is that? I understand you Bush-haters have gone insane, but it now seems like this mental condition of yours is draining IQ points as well.
As for the original topic, I think this is all a moot point and Lieberman will win his primary. The support of Gore and the Kossacks is the kiss of death for Lamont.
July 4th, 2006 at 4:23:20 pm
From myleftnutmeg.com:
Within the last hour yahoo news has been running an AP report stating-
“ALBANY, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.
July 4th, 2006 at 8:42:09 pm
Ryan, of course she won’t, she can’t do That, the hardline Demleft is plenty Pee Owed enough at her as it is / they think she practically IS Joe Lieberman fer cryin’ out loud :> Most Dem Bigshots, in CT & elsewhere, will Officially support Lamont if he wins in August; they Have to. What interests me more is, whether LAMONT will keep his pledge to support Lieberman if HE wins. I know that his most “activist” cadres Won’t. They will Go Green; see my Disquisition, above :}.
Which is why, Andrew, I so hope that your prediction is correct. :) [a] I always Like political Turmoil, especially when it results from people being unpleasantly Astounded by something that is Not objectively Surprising; and accordingly [b] I would Love to hear these presently strict Partyloyalist lefties ;> Howl on Aug. 9 about how the Corrupt System has Deprived them of a Choice at the Election :). I’m tellin’ ya, Somebody is going to Sue if that happens. Petition deadline Unconstitutional. Primary votingmachines Rigged. Flor-i-DUH! :) WAW haw haw! :) [all our Machines are still Mechanical btw / no Computers / unRiggable ;]
The problem here, A., is Low Turnout. CT is still not Accustomed to Primaries. CA we Ain’t. The Vast majority of nominations, including for the Statewide offices, still occur with NO Primary whatsoever.
Saint Joe is correct in saying that if a Majority of the 650,000 enrolled Democrats vote he will win. But if that happens, it will be Ten points Higher than the highest Statewide Primary turnout in Connecticut’s history ~ which was Not for an actual CT Office, but rather was our first-ever Republican Presidential (i.e. Delegate-allocation) Primary, GHW Bush vs Reagan vs John Anderson, 26 years ago last March.
[btw I voted for GHW Bush in that, Andrew. This was the Harbinger of my ideological Apostasy & Downfall. :) I TRIED to vote for Ronnie, I really did. Pushed the Pointer down & everything. No Really. But I found I just couldn’t Leave it that way. An Epiphany came upon me, to wit: this guy who has Enthralled me since The Speech in 1964 is a Silly Old Fart. :> Couldn’t do it. Wouldn’t be Prudent. Sorry. :]
Apart from that PresPrim in 1980, no Statewide-voting CT primary turnout (including all other PresPrims, both D & R) has ever even Grazed 40%, let alone Broken it. So this is Lieberman’s problem, here. Because obviously, the hardcore Lamontistas will vote even if the Good Lord’s unWilling and the Creek Do Rise. :|
July 5th, 2006 at 10:32:18 am
Yet more confirmation that the old and formerly-respected Democratic Party is basically now the Democritical Party … they can criticise what the White House and the Republicans are doing, and yet cannot seem to com up with coherent (or even incoherent) alternatives of their own …
Of course, in the light of Senator Liebermann’s decision, perhaps they *have* come up with a coherent alternative - Independent Senator Liebermann … I give him credit for announcing *before* the election, unlike “Independent“ Senator Jeffords …