by DemFromCT
Joe Lieberman will not be the next SecDef, though he expected Rumsfeld to be fired. So says the Day (New London CT).
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., insisted Monday that were President Bush to ask him to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he would not accept the appointment.
“No, I'm not interested in that,” Lieberman said in a Journal Inquirer interview, adding that he is instead devoted to winning a fourth term in the election next November. Asked about that bid, in which the Stamford Democrat is now expected to face an extraordinary challenge for his party's nomination from Greenwich cable-television executive Ned Lamont, Lieberman said he was “ready to take my case to the voters."
I have seen no recent polls, but Joementum still is popular in CT with the general election voter, and amongst Democrats though he's alienated quite a number of Democrats over support for Bush and Iraq policy. Want an example of why the solidly Dem-voting senator drives us nuts?
Lieberman spent considerable time during the 45-minute interview condemning criticism of the Iraq war that he said was done for “partisan reasons.”
He distinguished such attacks from that by Rep. John M. Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine and longtime Pentagon ally, who ignited a political firestorm by blasting the administration's conduct of the war and demanding a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. “Jack Murtha, God bless Jack Murtha,” he said. “I disagree with him, but give him credit for stating a very clear position.
“What I'm troubled about are people who are not prepared to take that position to get out, but still continually snipe at the war,” he added. “It's more than just tactics. That hurts the war effort, and it's not in our national interest.”
Asked about a recent speech in which he warned Democrats “who distrust President Bush” to “acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years” and that “in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril,” Lieberman said he felt his statements were “either misunderstood or taken out of context.”
He's never understood how Bush uses him for partisan purposes. Bush makes a habit of taking Dem criticism (as well as Lieberman support) out of context. He's been the weakest defender of minority party rights in the Senate, and he's been completely wrong about Iraq, in case the senator wonders why he's being primaried.
Nonbetheless, Lieberman will likely win another term, so dems may just have to acknowledge that he'll be the junior senator from CT for another 6 years. That'll happen a hell of a lot faster than Dems will ever trust Bush on anything ever again.
Okay: take for granted Lieberman is almost certain for re-election -- there's a poll out today, showing he's slipped, but is at a still formidable 62% approve (the slippage, though, is dangerously within his own party). Also accept that a Democratic party fighting to wrest control of two chambers of Congress really shouldn't have as its top priority picking a fight with one of its comfortable incumbents. I know all this...
Yet...I can't help remembering 1978. A little known right-winger named Jeffrey Bell challenged incumbent Republican Clifford Case (a Snowe/Jeffords Republican) in NJ, and beat him in the primary. In the short run, this was a fiasco for the GOP: Bill Bradley easily took out Bell in November, and held the seat for 18 years. But, funny thing: two years later, another rightie, named D'Amato, took out Jake "The Institution" Javits in NY, and he and a gazillion other Republicans ended up capturing the Senate -- at the time, a far more unlikely outcome than the Dems taking it over today (D'Amato had help from the Reagan landslide, as well as Javits' staying on the Liberal line and siphoning off decisive votes from Liz Holtzman). This one election changed the direction of politics in this country -- setting us off on a course we still labor to escape today.
What I'm saying is, maybe there can be a point to sending a message to the party...making its members understand that being unresponsive to core needs -- even, in Lieberman's case, defying them -- is not a successful long-term strategy. There are things this party has to stand for, and too many in Washington seem in need of a two-by-four to the head to catch on to that. A Lieberman challenge that at least scares the guy might serve the purpose.
Sometimes, sacrificing a pawn can pay off if it leads to capturing the king.
Posted by: demtom | January 11, 2006 at 15:50
From what I hear, Joe is very aware of the fact that he's being primaried. Whether it chastens him in any way remains to be seen. I think it's a great thing to do. I just think we have to be realistic in terms of what to expect. From the interview, Joe's learned nothing useful from the experience to this point.
Posted by: DemFromCT | January 11, 2006 at 16:39
Well, my personal dislike of Lieberman is more of a personal aversion to holier-than-thou-ness. I think one of the biggest character flaws in politicians and public officials is a lack of humility.
Posted by: Newsie8200 | January 11, 2006 at 17:59
I wish I didn't have to waste any of my political donations, but contributing to Loserman's primary opponent is something I have to do.
The rest, will be spent against the Rethuglicans.
However, in Joe's case--there is no differnce.
If the Democrats were to get to 51 members in the Senate after Nov 06, Joe's the kind of Traitor who would show his true colors and drop theh pretense about being a Democrat. In this case, we'd loose the possibility of holding the administration accountable FOR ANYTHING.
Posted by: Ron Russell | January 11, 2006 at 19:20
Pew has Bush at 38. There is no 'comeback'. That story is a load of rubbish.
Posted by: DemFromCT | January 11, 2006 at 20:52
speaking of polls, this is the link to q-poll for joe.
Posted by: DemFromCT | January 11, 2006 at 21:05
The key in Connecticut is the Jewish vote. Lieberman's support for Bush's policies are based on Zionism. Can Lamont make any inroads with that constituency?
Even if Lamont (or another primary challenger) doesn't win, he or she can force Holy Joe back to the left, so it would be good for the Party.
Posted by: Susan S | January 12, 2006 at 00:11
I'm all for the primary, but the Jewish vote is diverse and not that large. CT is a small state, more conservative than many folks perceive in the sense of not liking change, and Joe's a Household Name. When we're talking primary, the GOTV part is important, since primaries don't get out a lot of vote. So, as always, seniors are a bigger key, i.e. Dem seniors pissed off at Medicare rules and drug plans, than the Jewish vote if there is one.
Posted by: DemFromCT | January 12, 2006 at 07:09
The Quinnipiac poll in this morning's Hartford Courant shows JoeMentum at 55% among Democrats falling SHARPLY over the past 12 months from a 70% rating. This is not a comparison with other candidates...this is strickly Lieberman's standing with his own party. A Democratic primary would be devastating for him at this point if he continues his support for the war. The war is becoming a HUGE issue with voters. If Weicker runs, Lieberman is in deep dodo, not so sure about Lamont.
Posted by: bboop | January 12, 2006 at 13:47
Weickers out,
But he'll be standing right next to Lamont on stage when he announces and will be all over the state helping his campaign.
Posted by: ctkeith | January 13, 2006 at 17:29