"Lieberman's Eroding Base"

by DemFromCT

That's the title Joe and his pals get to read this morning in the WaPo.

Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee and a major player on Capitol Hill for years, seemed invincible until a few months ago. But an insurgency fueled by liberal anger over the senator's support for the Iraq war, coupled with an agile, well-financed campaign by Lamont that capitalizes on that discontent, is threatening to topple Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Connecticut Democratic primary. If he loses, Lieberman is likely to run as an independent in November, drawing on his popularity with Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Yet the stunning turnabout is a cautionary tale of how quickly a political career can unravel.

The strain shows. At campaign events, Lieberman at times appears subdued and weary. He projects little of the cheerful enthusiasm that marked his long-shot presidential bid two years ago. "It's difficult personally," Lieberman said last week of the defections by party veterans such as Stolberg. "I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."

In an editorial published today, the New York Times endorsed Lamont over Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a "warped version of bipartisanship" by supporting Bush on national security.

Lieberman is accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, and can be combative in his own defense, as he showed during a recent debate. But he said he has been jarred by the intensity of Democratic anger toward Bush -- and, by extension, toward him. Liberal bloggers have called Lieberman a "liar" and a "weasel."

We're not that rough on him. We're just in agreement with the NY Times rather than the Hartford Courant. Both papers note Lieberman's long service, good domestic voting record, etc. but the Times gets it right:

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

One gets the impression, as Chris Matthews points out, that a vote for Joe is a vote for uncritical war (present and future). There are other reasons for Joe's erosion, of course, but until he addresses the 'pink elephant in the room', his base will continue to erode.

And for those who do not understand the significance of a Lamont challenge, the point is that win or lose, the issue of the Iraq War and its descent into chaos, and the enablers in DC who refuse to deal with its reality, become front and center in a political campaign. That's where it has always belonged. Lieberman's eroding base is the war's eroding base. Finally, we may get to have the debate on the war we never had... and it's not going to be pretty for the people that took us there.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

how do you continue to run away from this?

Partisan Divide on Iraq Exceeds Split on Vietnam

Joe wants a kumbaya non-partisan Washington... with George Bush in the WH. That lapse of judgement alone gets him in trouble.

[eCAHNomics]

C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning had a half-hour call-in for CT residents only. In their usual manner they alternated between Lamont supporters & Lieberman supporters. About half the callers on the Lieberman line were Republicans. Sez it all.

[recentdemocrat]

As a 'left coast' resident, I have no insight into this primary other than what I read. IF Joe loses the primary, will he indeed mount an independent bid? If he loses by a blowout to Ned, would that have an effect on his decision to stay in? If it's close?
My sense from watching the videos and reading the reports is Joe seems dispirited and really isn't enjoying campaigning. I don't think he has the fire in the belly to run as an independent, especially after all his DC friends drop him like a hot potato. Am I engaging in wishful thinking? I would appreciate any insight the Connecticut contigent could offer. (And yes, I realize a Ned victory is not a sure thing).

[slink/js paine]

" the point is that win or lose, the issue of the Iraq War and its descent into chaos, and the enablers in DC who refuse to deal with its reality, become front and center in a political campaign."

no i suspect
not

only if lamont goes on to win the primary
can phase two kick in
the war debate

unlike lbj after clean gene shaved his NH win to a stubble
this egregious momma's boy joe
ain't gonna just go away
by pulling out

after a close win in what should have been a walk over
he'll
fight on
and in aan obscenely short time
this lamont challenge
will be an anecdote
not a pivot of history

lamont should have run straight off
as an indy in the general election
then you'd get your debate on the war for sure

[Mimikatz]

Support for the Iraq war is dropping, but so is support for foreign adventures generally, particularly in the Middle East.

A majority said the war between Israel and Hezbollah will lead to a wider war. And while almost half of those polled approved of President Bush’s handling of the crisis, a majority said they preferred the United States leave it to others to resolve.

Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East.

It is something for those involved to contemplate, especially if it is true that the US is pushing Israel to attack Syria. The problem of the last 6 years has not been US disengagement from the conflict between Israel and its naeighbors; it has been physical disengagement while we eagerly supported everything Israel did.

The default position of much of this country is still isolationism. Partisans in this battle underestimate the growing weariness of the rest of the population with this struggle, and need to contemplate what true isolationism and disengagement from the region would mean.

[DemFromCT]

here's a US News piece from today on the point I was making, for the doubters.

Democrats and Defense

The Lieberman race is forcing a referendum on national security that party leaders don't want

[eric]

Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee and a major player on Capitol Hill for years

The groundswell I see and I hope is supported (if in fact I'm not delusional) is that there are the makings of a backlash against Capitol Hill's major players in general. I think this is why the Clintons and Republicans aren't exactly getting on the underdog's side in the CT race. Think about it: the war, the environment, taxes, corruption...these are what someone once called "the folly of princes". They are the chits by which political players establish and retain their power. If more good underdogs spring up around the country, there could be real change in the country and there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who are not able to countenance such a future.

The real strength of Lamont is not that he stands up for women, against the war, or any of the individual issues. His strength is that he represents the ability for constituents (you and me) to overthrow entrenched power players.

[Kagro X]

There are a lot of referenda the party leaders don't want, but they'll be handed anyway. We can leave their hats on the pegs and invite them to stay, if they like. But we're happy to hand those back, too.

A quarter of the state Democratic party organizations have passed impeachment resolutions in defiance of the leadership (often at both the state and national levels), be it "off the table" or not.

[DemFromCT]

recentdemocrat, many in CT think Clinton was here to pull the plug on an indie run should Lamont win.

The odds are Joe runs, but it's not by any means assured.

[DemFromCT]

good article in the Globe by a Rutgers jornalism prof:

Lieberman is at risk today not because of Internet-based leftists (except insofar as they publicized Lamont's challenge) but because of rank-and-file liberals like those who turned out for the state party's convention in May-where they awarded Lamont enough delegates to force the primary in the first place. These mainstream Democrats have simply grown uncertain whether to return to office someone whose politics no longer seem to reflect their own.

No grass-roots insurgency is implementing a ``purge" in the Democratic Party; purges aren't imposed from the bottom up. Lieberman's possible exit from the Democratic Party is closer to a mutual parting of the ways, a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. Connecticut Democrats may decide-through a democratic vote-that they don't want him, and he may decide that his true support in the state lies with independents and Republicans.

[Kagro X]

Here's the part of the USNews article that jumped out at me:

The Lieberman camp, meanwhile, says it's trying to save the Democratic Party from its own liberal flank. "The left has been so consumed by opposition to Iraq that they've left the impression they don't care about the jihadist threat or ... that our party is opposed to the war on terror," says Lieberman adviser Dan Gerstein. "If that's the message the broad middle takes away, hope of becoming the majority party is shot."

No, Dan. That's not the message the broad middle would take away. That's the message you're trying to sell them.

And the message is strikingly similar to the message the Republicans are selling.

Which is why both the left flank and a significant portion of the broad middle would like to be rid of you and your man.

[freepatriot]

what if we were motivated by LOVE OF COUNTRY instead of "hate for bush"

wouldn't that be a worthy and morally just point of view ???

so it works like this, we are against george bush because we love our country and we hate what george bush is doing to our country

ann coulter hates the NY Times and the 9-11 widows. What is behind ann's hatred ???

only by understanding the underlying cause of hatred can one understand the true nature of the debate here

and guess what folks, America is beginning to discover and share our love of country and our hatred of george bush

the bottom rail is on top again, and the repuglicans are afraid of the bottom rail

[freepatriot]

what if we were motivated by LOVE OF COUNTRY instead of "hate for bush"

wouldn't that be a worthy and morally just point of view ???

so it works like this, we are against george bush because we love our country and we hate what george bush is doing to our country

ann coulter hates the NY Times and the 9-11 widows. What is behind ann's hatred ???

only by understanding the underlying cause of hatred can one understand the true nature of the debate here

and guess what folks, America is beginning to discover and share our love of country and our hatred of george bush

the bottom rail is on top again, and the repuglicans are afraid of the bottom rail

[freepatriot]

waaaaa ???

a double post, how'd that happen ???

and what's up with the "comment verification" stuff ???

am I on probation ???

you really think I'm a machine ???

[Rick B]

The problem in Washington is that politicians who consider opposing the Iraq War remember what the Repbulicans did to Sen. Max Cleland just by painting him weak on security for voting against DHS. That has been the danger of opposing the White House wars. There has been no corresponding danger to the position of agreeing with the White House until this Spring win Lamont against Lieberman, and everyone is aghast that the world has changed so much so quickly.

Now for the election in November there will be a clear danger from the voters for whichever position a Democratic politician takes. They are going to have to decide which is more dangerous to them being treated like Clelland or like Lieberman. A lot are going to try to weasleword it just as they now do Social Security Privatization.

Someone needs to put a website up that covers every Congressperson and every candidate for Congress (House and Senate) and shows their position on the war in Iraq. That would be a lot of work, but would be a real force for honesty in this upcoming election.

The problem woud be collecting the positions. There aren't more than about six or seven generic possible positions. Make the chart sortable by Party and by Positions, and some statistically minded person might even show who is closer to Bush/Cheney and who most opposes them.

I'd help, but I don't have the computer skills and blogspot doesn't offer a template.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Wow: "The left has been so consumed by opposition to Iraq that they've left the impression they don't care about the jihadist threat or ... that our party is opposed to the war on terror," says Lieberman adviser Dan Gerstein.

So we're supposed to let the Powers That Be oppose the "jihadist threat" by subverting the Constitution, failing to properly equip our military in iraq, handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton, ignoring environmental problems, refusing to deal with US energy dependence, letting John Bolton be our rep at the UN, and inflaming public opinion over 'gay marriage'?

What planet is this guy inhabiting? This is very, very sad.

[shrill left wing blogger]

Our democracy is busted, and Lieberman is just one of the symptoms of what's wrong with it. We the people are merely spectators standing on the sideline of a tragic comedy. The corporations and their lobbyists are writing the rules, and their emissaries Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld are executing the game plan.

Lieberman's fault is that he hasn't recognized what is going on, and is guilty of being an enabler of the Bush agenda.

[Bloviator (a CT voter)]

Here's the money quote from Joe:

"I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."

Here he actually comes out and admits that the most difficult part of the CT electorate for him consists of the voters who are registered Democrats. He's right, actually, but he's such a love-stricken Bush follower he doesn't have a clue about what he's saying.