Senator's Plan B Creates Quandary for Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Jul 4, 2006.

  1. Stephanie

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Jul 11, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Oh Boy! This is rich.. Not only is the NYT's quoting the idiot from the Ko's site...But watching the Democrats, eat one of their own because he wont toe their agenda, with Iraq... We all know what their going to be running on now in Nov.... I'm sure we will start seeing a slew of stories about our military and how bad things are in Iraq, in the coming months.. They don't care about our soldiers, they just want things to go bad in Iraq, so they can use them to try to win back their power......Too bad for them, IT WONT WORK

    Published: July 4, 2006
    Six years ago Joseph I. Lieberman came within a hairbreadth of the vice presidency after the Democratic Party chose him as a moderate face whose support for family values and a stronger military might attract Reagan Democrats and independents.

    Lieberman Plans Independent Bid if Primary Fails (July 4, 2006)Yet when Mr. Lieberman sought the party's presidential nomination in 2004, rank-and-file Democrats relegated him to the B list, behind Howard Dean and John Kerry, in large part because of his strong support for military action in Iraq.

    Now Mr. Lieberman faces the prospect of rejection by the Democrats who know him best, the party faithful in Connecticut. Once more the problem is Iraq. But this time it is not only Mr. Lieberman who is being challenged; it is the national party leadership, as it faces a grassroots push to toughen its stand against the Iraq war and distance itself from a senator who supports the war.

    Leaders of the national Democratic Party, like Mr. Dean, the chairman, and Charles S. Schumer, who is leading the effort to regain control of the Senate, may have to choose between Mr. Lieberman and an antiwar Democrat in the fall, when they had hoped to make Iraq squarely the president's problem.
    Mr. Lieberman is making contingency plans to run as an independent in November if he loses the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to the antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont. A Lieberman loss in the Democratic primary would put national Democrats in a bind. Many of them are longtime colleagues and friends of Mr. Lieberman's, and he has said he will vote with the Democrats if he is re-elected as an independent. Democrats are trying to hold onto all of their seats and pick up six Republican seats to regain control of the Senate.

    Senator Schumer, a strong supporter of Mr. Lieberman's, has been careful in recent days to limit his endorsement of his colleague to the primary race. "We are supporting Joe Lieberman in the primary, and we're not going to speculate about things afterwards because that undermines your candidate," Mr. Schumer said on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We're supporting Joe. He's going to win."

    Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said the party would support its nominee this fall, whether it is Mr. Lieberman or Mr. Lamont.

    Another party official, Donna Brazile, said yesterday that she supported Mr. Lieberman's candidacy but was concerned that his contingency plan would "hurt more than help his candidacy." She explained: "I think Joe Lieberman could have really scored with the Democratic voters if he'd said that he was a Democrat, would run as a Democrat and would honor the wishes of the Democratic voters."
    Public opinion polls put Mr. Lieberman ahead of Mr. Lamont at this point, but some Democrats say Mr. Lamont is on the upswing. The challenger, a Greenwich businessman, has deftly turned the Senate race into a proxy fight over the war, to the chagrin of national Democrats who want to batter the Republicans — rather than each other — over Iraq this fall. One Lamont commercial shows Mr. Lieberman's face morphing into President Bush's as an announcer says, "Joe Lieberman may say he represents us, but if it talks like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush, it's certainly not a Connecticut Democrat."

    Mr. Lieberman's troubles also reflect the force of the evolving antiwar movement. His support for the Bush administration's Iraq policy initially galvanized the opposition of left-leaning Internet habitués, focusing national attention on Mr. Lamont as a viable antiwar alternative to the senator.

    A flood of money then poured in to the Lamont campaign, both from grassroots donors and from big-money backers like George Soros and Barbra Streisand, allowing him to mount a vigorous advertising push.

    "We think it's outrageous that Lieberman would hold himself above the democratic process with a small 'd,' " Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal group, which is backing Mr. Lamont, said in an interview yesterday. His group reported raising $267,000 for Mr. Lamont last week.

    Democratic antipathy toward Mr. Lieberman is nothing new his support for both Persian Gulf wars, free trade, and religion in public life has long made him suspect among some liberals, and he has clashed with teachers' unions in his support for limited experiments with school vouchers. (Oh my, the man has some morals and values) He should be shot.):duh3:
    Yet with Iraq a dominant issue this summer, Republican leaders could not be happier to see a Democratic incumbent, even a sometime ally of theirs, hoisted on that one issue. Nothing would delight Republicans more than having Lieberman and Lamont candidacies split the Democratic vote this fall and possibly help Republicans cement their control of the Senate — although polls show the Republican candidate for the Connecticut seat, Alan Schlesinger, far behind.

    Markos Moulitsas, the founder of a widely read blog, the Daily Kos, and a supporter of Mr. Lamont's, cut to the chase in a posting yesterday about which of the two Democrats would draw support from the national party this fall.

    "An interesting kind of 'Democrat,' Lieberman thinks he is," he wrote. "One who doesn't respect the wishes of his state's Democratic voters, one who will split his state's vote on the left and potentially hand the election to a Republican."
  2. musicman

    musicman Senior Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    The Democrats will absolutely run on an anti-war platform. It's all they know, really; it is their shining reminder of the bygone glory days - their holy template for the acquisition of power: war/scandal, war/scandal, war/scandal. What they fail to see is that three principal differences between the '70s and now make this approach a guaranteed loser for them:

    1. The baby boom generation - some of them, at least - have grown up, and abandoned the self-obsessed hubris of their youth. They recognize the War on Terror as absolutely legitimate.

    2. The MSM/DNC no longer enjoy a monopoly on the dissemination of information, and can therefore neither create and direct scandals as efficiently as in the past, nor remain immune from scandal themselves.

    3. There's no draft.

    Their only serious hope for success is Clintonian triangulation - which the Republican Party is certainly stupid enough to allow to happen.

Share This Page