The war on Lieberman

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on July 25, 2006 at 11:47 am

David Broder at the Washington Post writes today that Lieberman-supporting Democrats are pulling out all the stops in their quest to help him overcome the dark-horse candidacy of Ned Lamont:

WATERBURY, Conn., July 24 — Former president Bill Clinton joined a stage full of Connecticut officials Monday night in testifying to the Democratic credentials of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, whose 18-year tenure is threatened by the primary challenge of antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont.

Clinton headed a rescue effort disguised as a rally in the refurbished Palace Theater in downtown Waterbury — a city famous in Democratic lore as the site of a tumultuous 2 a.m. outdoor rally on the final night of the 1960 presidential campaign.

With polls showing him no better than even with Lamont, a wealthy businessman who is largely self-financing his challenge in the Aug. 8 primary, Lieberman turned to his old friend Clinton for help.

The senator recalled that, as a Yale Law School student, Clinton had volunteered in Lieberman’s first campaign for the state Senate 36 years ago, and he said he hoped this return visit would have an equally happy result — a victory. The two have remained close through the years, despite the fact that Lieberman admonished Clinton for his moral laxity in the Monica Lewinsky affair in a celebrated Senate floor speech. Lieberman made no reference to that event Monday night but instead recalled, “I was the first senator outside Arkansas to endorse Bill Clinton for the nomination in 1992.”

Lieberman did not mention Iraq or his support for the war, and Clinton touched only lightly on what he referred to as “the pink elephant in the room.”

Clinton made no effort to support Lieberman’s view; instead he said that Democrats should bear no blame for “the mistakes that were made after the fall of Saddam Hussein” and added: “We can disagree on what we do next . . . but we can fight together and we can go forward together.”

California Senator Barbara Boxer, noted Iraq war critic, has thrown her support behind Lieberman as well:

And Lieberman has campaigned with other prominent Democrats in hopes of renewing his ties to Democratic voters. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, a strong opponent of the Iraq war, was at his side for a morning of campaigning before Clinton’s arrival.

She praised Lieberman’s record on other issues of importance to Democrats. “If you want to meet a leader on the environment, a leader on all the difficult choice issues, you got one here,” she said at a campaign stop at a candy store.

What’s going on here is, I think, a war on what the future of the Democratic party will be: will it be the party of rabid anti-war types like Ned Lamont? Or will it be the party that is able to find middle ground on the issue of the Iraq war – with those who don’t think we should be in Iraq and those who supported the Iraq war and still do being able to agree that in spite of their differences we need to finish what we started there? With defeatist Democrats like House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi hailing last December the “diverse” stances the Democratic party has taken on the Iraq war, as well as a repeated failure to find a unified message on Iraq, I don’t hold out any hope that the rabid anti-war faction will unite with Democrats who insist we must stay in Iraq to complete the mission.

The Lamont/Lieberman primary next month may very well be the bellwether of this year’s elections.

Peter Brown, writing for Real Clear Politics, is on the same page:

The anti-Lieberman effort has become a cause celebre for Internet gadflies who are a rising power in Democratic politics. Among Lamont’s major backers is the brother of Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential candidate was the darling of the blogger set that disdains Lieberman for his cordial relationship with Bush.

The defeat of Lieberman, among the Democrats most conservative senators, would again raise the specter of a Democratic Party dominated by a liberal wing unwilling to tolerate dissent.

A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed among likely Democratic primary voters Lamont, a businessman spending part of his $100 million fortune on the race, was narrowly – within the margin of error – ahead of Lieberman, closing a 15-point gap in the last month.

Moreover, the data shows Lamont supporters are more energized and likely to actually show up at the polls than are Democrats for Lieberman.

Lieberman is collecting petition signatures to get on the November ballot as an independent if he loses the primary. The Quinnipiac poll found that in a three-way race against Lamont and a Republican, Lieberman would win by 24 points, although his margin has shrunk 14 points in the last month.

Connecticut Democrats have been down this road before. In 1970, anti-Vietnam War candidate Joseph Duffy knocked off incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been a supporter of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s policy. Dodd’s son Chris Dodd is now Connecticut’s other U.S. senator.

But the anti-war wing, although powerful within Democratic primaries, did not represent the political mainstream in 1970. Duffy lost the November election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who is backing Lamont against Lieberman, who defeated him in 1988.

A Lieberman primary loss might cause more heartburn for Democrats nationally than for the candidate. Democratic primary voters have different views and values than even the larger number of Democrats who vote in the November election, not to mention independents and Republicans. All of which explains the string of Republicans White House victories.

Read the whole thing.

Will the ‘party of tolerance’ finally be fully exposed this year as the party of intolerance? Stay tuned ….

Also blogging about this: Joe Gandelman, Confederate Yankee, Blue Crab Boulevard, Gateway Pundit, GOP Bloggers

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Conservative Outpost trackbacked with Lieberman going down in CT??
  • 9 Responses to “The war on Lieberman”

    Comments

    1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      Is it just me, or the the Democratic Party morphing into Hezbollah-lite? :-?

    2. Severian says:

      It’s not just you MD!

      The Democrats are beginning to realize just what a Faustian bargain they got when they sold the soul of their party to the unhinged, anti-war, netroots moonbats. At the time, it all seemed like a good idea, sign them up, stroke them, get their money and activism going to support the Dems, anything to try and unseat the Republicans. But now it’s coming back to haunt them, the older, more traditional power brokers are being stabbed in the back by the MoveOn/Kos/DU crowd, who are dedicated to ensuring that the Democrats field only ideologically pure candidates, that is shrieking anti-war, anti-Bush nutjobs, thus making sure that the Democrats never again field a national candidate that’s centrist enough to win an election.

      I’m so upset…=))

    3. Severian says:

      Man, I thought for sure I’d put a period or three in that last run-on sentence somewhere! :-"

    4. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - This is going to get deeper as time goes on. Kos has even gone so far as tyo threaten to bolt the party if him and his moonbat colonies aren’t given more voice in the DNC decisions and candidates. With both Clintons running exactly opposite to the party screeds, the line in the sand between the Deaniac’s and Clintonista’s has been drawn. Somebody make some popcorn….

      - Bang **==

    5. Paul Abrams says:

      Like rumors of Mark Twain’s death, the negative implications of a Lamont victory have been greatly exaggerated. Joe Lieberman is NOT just someone who voted for the war—as did many other Democratic Senators who have since said, “if I knew then what I know now, I would have changed my vote”. Nor is Lieberman someone who believes we still have a chance of impacting the outcome in Iraq, and thus ought to remain engaged.
      Recall: Lieberman is an ENTHUSIAST for the war, who believes that removing Saddam and occupying Iraq is good policy, worth the sacrifice of 2500+ US dead, another 12,000 seriously wounded, and the expenditure, already, of $5000 per family in the US. I do not think there is one other Democratic Senator who believes that the invasion and occupation was a good idea. Most recognize now that the policy accomplished exactly the opposite of what the (rolling)rationales claimed: we have increased, not decreased, terrorism; we have strengthed Iran; we have weakened the United States, overextending the military and bogging us down in an area that for 1400 years has never known peace. One might note in passing that Lieberman himself sat out the Vietnam War, and not a single Lieberman child has volunteered,,i.e, Lieberman is an enthusiast for “other peoples’ children” to sacrifice.
      Recall: Lieberman “warned” Demoncrats about criticizing George Bush.
      Note: Lieberman is one of the few Democrats that voted for $16 Billion in subsidies to the oil companies in a year of RECORD profits.

      Lamont’s victory will, in no way, consign the Democratic party to the “nutty left”. What is will do is send a clear signal to cowardly Congressmen and Senators that “stay-the-course” is not a winning electoral strategy, any more than it will bbring peace, democracy and stability to Iraq. Hopefully, a Lamont victory, much like McCarthy’s in 1968, will bring a more rapid end to this disastrous policy. (And, I note that, but for the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the McCarthy victory would also have led to a Democrat winning the WH in 1968.

      Paul Abrams

    6. Severian says:

      The preceding moonbat talking points have been brought to you by Krelm tofu flavored toothpaste. If you need to wash the taste of evil capitalism and warmongering Democrats out ouf your mouth, you can rely on Krelm tooth paste. Now available in refreshing May Day Mint, just look for the package with the picture of your friendly Uncle Che’ on the box. Remember, Krelm for all your anti-capitalist, anti-US needs!

    7. Lorica says:

      Well there you go, we just heard the Democrat party line, Thanks Paul. The one idea I am working on is disastous, did we win Iraq war??? I think the Answer is YES!! Are we dealing with the situations that arise from the foreign fighters that are there?? The Answer to that is Yes. Have we found WMDs in Iraq, yes. Have we shut down the rape and torture rooms, yes again. Have we brought down a tyranical dictator, yes. Did we kill his horrible children, who raped and pillage the people, yes. Did we establish an Arab Democracy the first that I am aware of, Yes. But what do we get from the Dems, we lost, are losing, and will soon be destroyed. I seriously doubt that Lieberman is going to lose to Lamont, and I don’t really care what the polls show. You are not going to win elections running around like Chicken Little. I am certain you will desire to argue this point with me, but the proof is in the pudding, and we shall see who is right and who is wrong, and November is still quite a ways away. – Lorica

    8. Big Bang Hunter says:

      The Dimbulbs win polls, the Repubs win elections. Works for me….

      - Bang **==