Joe Lieberman being urged to drop out of CT Senate race

Posted by: ST on August 14, 2006 at 10:37 am

For the ‘good of the party’ and ‘sake of democracy’ of course.

First up, there’s DNC Chair Howard Dean:

“I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but the truth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party’s nominee and I think that is what you have to do if you want to help this country,” Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The Dr. of Disology has apparently forgotten that he stayed in the hunt for the Democratic nomination well after it was clear he wasn’t going to get it.

More from Dean:

“The way to help this country is to limit Republican power.

Which makes no sense, considering that the polls show that Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger would garner only 6% of the vote if the elections were held now. The Republican party is not backing Schlesinger, and some have even asked him (prior to last week’s primary) to consider dropping out because of a gambling scandal. Schlesinger has refused to do so, but rest assured he won’t be getting any GOP support. The CT Senate race is going to be between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, and Howard Dean knows it. Not surprising that he would utilize a familiar DNC scare tactic – that ‘Those eeeeevil Republicans might retain control of Congress! They must be stopped!’ – by suggesting that Lieberman staying in the race and not abiding by the ‘will of the people’ might mean the GOP will pick up a seat. I guess he just considers CT voters too stupid and ignorant to know this.

Next, is Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy:

Demeaning Democracy
Cheney Paints Lamont Victory As Helping Terrorists

What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people – not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.


Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections – as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech – provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law – as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.

His opinion piece attacked Dick Cheney, but make no mistake about it: it was directed at Joe Lieberman, too, who has used similar rhetoric to Cheney’s in the last week in terms of talking about what Lamont’s victory could signal to terrorists. Kennedy’s implication: Joe, the ‘democratic process’ has taken place. No shut up drop out.

Finally, there’s Jonathan “I hate President Bush” Chait:

Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that Lieberman’s loss is his own fault. He was far too slow to recognize the seriousness of Lamont’s challenge. He ended the campaign with $2 million unspent. And his decision to now run as an independent was a disaster, confirming the central accusation against him, which was that he cared more about his own standing than his party.

Um, no. The ‘central accusation’ against him is that he’s not anti-war enough for the nutters in CT who supported Ned Lamont. That, and he doesn’t hate the President.

Chait again:

If he had just declared in advance that he would abide by the result of the primary, he probably would have won, and he’d have Lamont campaigning for him today.

Amazing! That’s all it would have taken? Newsflash, Chait: What it would have taken for Lieberman to win the primary is for him to assure Nutroots voters that he hated President Bush, that Iraq was a “mistake,” and that he was going to push for a pullout that would occur as soon as possible. Has Jon Chait been hiding under a rock these last few months? Is this deliberate obtuseness on his part or what? I can’t figure it out.

Once more from Chait:

Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent after contesting the primary is not illegal in Connecticut (unlike other states, which have “sore loser” laws prohibiting such a gambit), but it is poor form. The primary is an essential element of the two-party system, and the process is subverted when losing candidates feel free to circumvent it.

LOL … ‘subverted’? The ability to run as an Independent candidate after a primary isn’t a subversion of democracy. It’s a part of it.

Lastly, from Chait:

(Which is the problem with Ralph Nader-esque, suicidal third-party runs.)

Ah, there you go. Now just who is it who is trying to subvert the process of democracy here? Chait, by discouraging third-party runs via classifying them as ‘suicidal’ and equating Nadar’s third-party run with Lieberman’s for some bizarre reason. I’m not a fan of Ralph Nadar, but just how was he ‘subverting democracy’ with a third-party run? Oh yeah, third-party runs by Nadar have taken away votes that otherwise would have gone to Democratic candidates, who needed them (like Al Gore in 2000). That’s not a ‘subversion of democracy’, that is democracy. To Chait it seems, anyone who might take away votes from a Democratic candidate is ‘subverting democracy.’ What a crock.

Notice the popular theme here from Dean, Kennedy, and Chait? The ‘respect the democratic process’ angle is a subtle reminder of the 2000 presidential election, which we all know Democrats still believe was stolen by President Bush – which is the basis of the hatred we’ve seen almost everyday from the Nutroots since Bush was “selected.” By inserting subtle reminders about how the democratic process works here in America, thus making Democratic voters remember 2000, folks like Dean, Kennedy and Chait are hoping to appeal to the passions stirred up by the “stolen” 2000 elections. Bush ‘subverted democracy’ in 2000, and we mustn’t let it happen again!

The message is clear: Don’t let Joe steal the 2006 CT Senate race.

It’s dishonesty at its most potent, but did we really expect anything else from the Nutroots?

Flashback: Almost forgot – NM Governor Bill Richardson’s call last week for Lieberman to step aside:

“I look forward to supporting Ned as he fights to help Democrats take back the Senate, and I call on Joe Lieberman to respect the will of the voters and step aside” Richardson said.

“Respect the will of the voters.” Oh yeah, the DNC talking points are definately out.

Read more via Paul and John at Powerline.

Hat tip on the Reuters link: Brainster

RSS feed for comments on this post.

14 Responses to “Joe Lieberman being urged to drop out of CT Senate race”


  1. Severian says:

    Yes, once again, we must “respect the will of the voters” by not giving the voters a choice in who to vote for! ;)

    Naturally they also cast Lieberman as being in the wrong, sore loser, etc. forgetting the lawyered up temper tantrum Gore threw after losing in 2000.

    I think they believe democracy is best served by the old Soviet “single candidate” system. Now that’s offering the people a choice!

  2. Fat Tone says:

    I saw Lamont on FOX with Chris Wallace yesterday…..and I was surprised to see that he does NOT come across like the moonbat that many portray him to be…..however, I do believe that he was pandering to the audience that was for sure watching that segment. As mealy mouthed as he LOOKS, he makes cogent points without utilizing barking moonbat ad hominem attacks. Howard Dean should take a lesson from him.

  3. Dave in CO says:

    Fat Tone – I saw the segment too and must respectfully disagree. He did the usual politician two-step, whereby he answered without answering. If you can find a transcript somewhere, notice how all his answers were, basically, Bush is wrong. Regardless of the question.

    I did like his little swipe at Lieberman when he said that he, Lamont, agreed to abide by the results but that Joe was, in effect, being a sore loser by running as an independent. And did you catch the bit where he mentions all the Republican support Joe has? It is because Connecticut Republicans recognise that Joe is for a strong defense and stronger support of Israel and their guy has no shot. Pragmatism.

    Also, does anyone actually agree with him that Ack-manna-whatever can be reasoned with? And he did stick to the Leftist mantra that our presence in Iraq is the reason we have terrorism. And when did Iraq slip into civil war? A Sunni blows up a Shia mosque and it is a civil war? Un, no.

  4. Fat Tone says:

    hey Dave, yeah, he was a “Bush is wrong across the board” kind of guest…but THAT was to be expected….but he did NOT do it wrecklessly like a howard Dean or ted Kennedy…I was exepecting a mealy mouthed whiner, but was caught off guard I suppose. Do you know if he supports the Bush tax cuts ?? He said he was a strong fiscal conservative, and the tax rates in CT. absolutely suck.

  5. Lorica says:

    A US Senator has nothing to do with the tax rates of the State they represent. People need to talk to their State Representatives, not their Federal Representatives.

    I have to laugh at this article. Obviously these folks can read polls too. On Fox News Sunday they showed a poll with Lieberman ahead by 3 percent. So now all these people come out to tell Lieberman that he shouldn’t be running. I have to ask tho, What would they be saying of Lamont was ahead in the polls?? I bet it would be something like “Poor old Joe, can’t he just take a hint and enjoy his retirement” or ” This is the sad result of a desperate man”. I hope that Lieberman just brushes these comments aside. I hope that he wins, as our troops above all else need this man’s support. – Lorica

  6. MikeW says:

    The interesting thing about the issue about abiding by the results is that neither candidate had any alternative, so it was a moot issue. The law requires that they abide by the results of the primary; the winner represents the Democrats in the election. However, the law also allows independents to run if they garner an appropriate (apparently there’s also a verification of signatures requirement, however that may be done) number of signatures on a petition that is submitted with the application (filing to run). As I see it, the Dems really know that in a general election, as opposed to a primary, the turnout will be obviously higher than it was for the primary and that all voters get to vote for the candidate of their choice. As you stated, this means that the race is effectively between the two Ls. CT is pretty much not going to send a Republican to the Senate. Those Republicans who won’t vote for Schlesinger will move over and vote for Joe. The Dems don’t want to publically own up to the fact that they really believe that Lieberman is returning to the Senate, especially since he won’t have a big “D” behind his name. Tough! What ye reap, so shall ye sow. I just wonder how he will approach those of his contemporaries who’ve not stood by him. I hope he spurns them badly!

  7. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Ah yes. the warped idea of Democracy from the “progressives” that are neither Liberal, nor Democrats. We need to allow 52% of 30% ( roughly 15% of the total voter base in CT, decide for the whole state. Now THAT’s democracy folks. Yep sir. Uh huh. BS!

    – In the morning after of calm, the moonbats realize they’ve just eruditely managed to lose yet another seat in Congress, so they’re down to harrassing and begging. Losers.

    – I left a post over at LiarDogFake saying it will be fun watching Lieberman beat them like a drum in the fall. They came unglued. *snort*

    – Bang **==

  8. Dave in CO says:

    FT – You make a good point. I tuned in expecting him to pay back the nutroot support by going “howie” but he didn’t. He didn’t say anything about the tax cuts but my sense is that if he appears even remotely open to anything Bush supports, the Kos nutjobs will get medieval on his buttocks. He won’t risk it. I think between now and November it will be an unbroken string of “Bush is wrong! Civil war in Iraq! We support the troops (except when we don’t)!”

  9. Drewsmom says:

    RUN, JOE, RUN.
    This is from Forest Gump’s mother, Drwsmom.

  10. forest hunter says:

    Dave in CO: I think that they “honestly” do believe they support troops, just not America’s or her coalition’s troops.

  11. sanity says:

    If they really did respect the will of the voters, they would allow Lieberman to run as an Independent and allow the VOTERS to decide who wins.

    They are just afraid that Lieberman will win as an Independent, which so far looks like the case, saw in a poll last night Lieberman as an Independent getting 46%, Lamont 41% and the Republican Nominee 6%.

    This will allow ALL voters to vote, not just the Democrats in a Democrat Primary.

    So anytime someone says let the will of the voters speak, let them know in the final election, they will when Lieberman runs as a Independent and wins.

  12. Severian says:

    If they really did respect the will of the voters, they would allow Lieberman to run as an Independent and allow the VOTERS to decide who wins.

    If Democrats really did respect the will of the voters they wouldn’t continually attempt (and often successfully) to disenfranchise military absentee ballots.

  13. Drewsmom says:

    Sev, could you and I be brother and sister, we think alike most of the time.
    Pencil neck on Fox Sunday, this millonaire doesn’t have a clue.:)>-

  14. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    A NY Times headline of November 8, 2006?

    Growing Bipartisan Chorus Calls for Lieberman to End Senate Bid

    Leaders from both parties called upon Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to end his failing Senate bid.

    “It’s time for Joe to do the right thing – for the people of this country, for his state, and for himself,” said Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). “In public opinion poll after public opinion poll, Senator-elect Lamont has shown himself to be the true people’s choice.”

    Added DNC Chair Howard Dean, “All of the major polls for months have agreed – Lamont was the rightful winner yesterday. Why should yesterday’s vote change anything? It’s time to give democracy a chance.”

    “Lamont won the Connecticut Democratic Party primary by almost a 5 to 1 margin back in August,” noted Kevin Phillips, a respected Republican and bestselling author. “Lieberman should have quit back then. If he had, he would not today be facing these embarrassing calls to step aside.”

    “These are his Senate friends and colleagues who are asking him to do this,” added Phillips. “No one is in a better position to decide what is best for the state of Connecticut and the nation than they are.”

    With only 99% of the vote counted in yesterday’s election, Lieberman appeared to cling to a razor-thin 750,000-vote margin statewide over his popular opponent Ned Lamont. But experts discount these results, pointing out that they contradict scientific polling data leading up to the election.

    “Too many people think that voters should choose their own leaders,” said one expert analyst from Harvard University. “But when voters decide, they often make choices based upon what they wish rather than what is in their own best interest. Yesterday’s election was another sad example.”