Start Yer Petitions
courant.com | Lieberman To Start Petition Drive
It's official ... Joe's collecting signatures.
UPDATE: Of all the folks to go the most overboard on the reactions ... Sean-Paul?
The Democratic party cannot support Leiberman in this action. To do otherwise is to betray democracy. Full stop.
Betray democracy? Ummm ... really???
In reply to Sean-Paul: No ... seriously ... really??? OK, more seriously, my first question is this: what specific rule is it that *JOE LIEBERMAN* changed here? ... as you suggest he did. Now, in realizing that even S-P will come to his senses on the error of that point, I'm still trying to figure out how democracy only happens in a primary election. I mean, isn't there something to be said for putting the matter up before the largest audience of voters possible? Ya know ... for better implementation of ... democracy. Or does "democracy" only apply when the audience is a subset of the overall pool of voters? I mean ... seriously! Betrayal?
If anything, I eventually expect the Nedheads to be grateful for this moment. I think there's something to Dick Morris' analysis that a primary loss to Lamont raises his stature for November, making a win there more likely, not less. Granted, while I think the move today ensures a loss in the primary (to the extent that it was still an open question before), but the general is a different pool of voters. With an "L" pegged on him from losing the primary, he's not as invincible as anyone might otherwise expect. So, in other words ... if Ned wins in November, isn't this move all the better for the statement he hopes to take to the Senate?
Second Reply to Sean-Paul: For starters, Texas law does not provide for a timeline for Bob Gammage to be on the ballot after a primary loss. Check with Team Strayhorn on how that works. We're talking about Connecticut law here and the simple, heretofore unstated fact of the matter is this: Connecticut law allows for someone to turn in petitions after the primary. Ergo, Joe Lieberman is not changing the rules. In fact ... He's following the rules precisely and being upfront about it in the process.
Then there's this:
It is clear: if Joe loses the primary he doesn't represent the party. It's one of the bedrock customs of the country (and party) and you want to go and change it because you don't like the results?
Bedrock? Come on now. I don't want to be a
In reply to Karl-T: Believe me, I'm handling it quite well. And to resolve any mystery whatsoever, I do support Joe all the way through the end of the race. I can think of only two things that would make the GOP's day in this election:
1. To prove to America that the Democratic Party is so extreme in it's views that Joe Lieberman is no longer welcome.
2. To see leftwing bloggers borrowing Bush-Cheney taunts as their own extreme form of protest against Joe.
Like it or not, but the leftwingistan of the blogosphere now has a real concern on it's hands ... do their views on who should represent the party represent the majority even in a state that has, at times (wrongly in my mind) been classified as "a solidly blue state" (nevermind that wildly popular Republican governor!). I think a three-way in Connecticut will be somewhat close by the time it's all said and done, but it will be a dogfight that will otherwise occupy a lot more time and effort than I think even Markos the window-washer had hoped for.
I'm pretty sure the worst thing that can happen to any party is the enforced doctrine that suggests party members adapt official, standardized, poll-tested, Lakoff-approved talking points and check their individuality at the door. I mean ... would Lloyd Bentsen even pass for a Presidential-caliber Dem in today's environment? One party's already done this to itself (just substitute Lakoff with Rove). I'm in no rush to see it happen to my own party. Let the people of Connecticut (as many as care to vote in a general election) decide it for themselves, I say. Democracy ... what a concept!
Hey, don't sell Mr. Integrity short on the whole going overboard thing! No one will be able to match his childish, selfish, self-important display. It's all pretty 'overboard' in response to a simple primary challenge, doncha think?
With all due respect, there is no law saying that Joe Lieberman should not have a primary opponent.
Also, Ben Nelson in Nebraska is more conservative than Lieberman, so apparently we still have a big-tent.
Vik,
With all due respect, I've never whined about Lamont challenging Joe. Also, the Kossack-approved talking point is that Nelson gets a pass since he's in a Red State. Since Joe's in a Blue State, he's supposed to march in line and read from the script.
... so they say.
Can't say I disagree. I don't understand the argument that "Joe's left the party". He will remain a registered Democrat throughout, as permitted by CT law.
Should Lamont win the primary, Lieberman will still win the general, albeit with a bruised ego. Two consequences: (1) he'll be more 'independent' than ever, and (2) seeing the Lamont campaign through until the end will cost the netroots contributors quite a few $$ -- at the expense of local priorities. If I were posting elsewhere, I'd immediately be denounced as a 'concern troll' for this observation.
I lived 5 yrs in CT, and my impression was that the state is quite moderate overall -- a state run by financiers. To be blunt, if Lamont wins the primary and plans to be a contender in the general, he needs to develop a more comprehensive platform w/ less dependence on quick sound bites and Lieberman-bashing.
I think what bugs me is the idea that Lieberman wants two bites at the apple. He's running in the Dem primary, but in case he loses he's also gathering signatures to run as an Independent in November. If he wants to be an I, then he ought to make like Strayhorn and go whole hog. Otherwise, he should respect the wishes of the primary voters. Hedging his bets is distasteful, and frankly if I were voting in Connecticut, I'd be pretty unhappy about it.
Granted, I had no idea that Bob Dole was such a paragon of virtue to Democratic bloggers, but I do think that's a problem Joe's going to run into in spades with his decision now ... so much so that I'd put his odds of winning the primary as somewhere below 50-50. It's a hard sell he's got for the primary, no doubt.
But ultimately, Joe's point is going to be a uniquely genuine argument that he never left the Democratic Party. His voter registration will remain as a Democrat ... his beliefs and traditions will remain well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party ... and it looks like he intends to caucus with Dems if re-elected in November.
Whatever issues that even I may have with Joe, I think it says something far worse (lethally worse, if I may be so bold) to run him out. Markos himself recently complained about how Time magazine left interview footage of him on the proverbial cutting room floor because he stated his primary disagreement with Joe as being a perceived "Johnny Come Lately" to staving off the Bush privatization plan. Good reason, that ... nobody believes it. This is about Iraq ... this is about whether or not there's room in blue state corridors for a hawkish Dem (as if only such thoughts could be entertained in places like Nebraska or South Dakota and not Connecticut or California).
I think a Lamont win would be the best early Christmas present for the GOP. I'm content to let them wait till December to celebrate it just like the rest of us.
I really don't have anything against Joe Liebermann, but all this talk of "running him out" of the Democratic Party is a little overblown, don't you think? It's a primary and Joe has every advantage as an incumbent of winning it. If Joe hasn't pleased the voters, they have every right to show him the door and run another candidate. Right?
Does Joe serve under some divine right of incumbents or something? Just who does this guy think he is?
And quit worrying so much about the Republican spin. They are going to spin the Democrats as pro-Al-Qaeda whether Joe Liebermann wins or not. I'm not so sure they've got the public with them, though, on an endless commitment to stay in Iraq. The country's tired of the war and wants to find a way out.
Greg,
Actually the Kos talking point is far more specific to Leiberman than his opinion on the war. Hillary's stance on the war (or Mark Warner's, for that matter, to the extent that he has a stance) is really not different from Lieberman's, but you don't see Kossacks getting behind a Hillary primary challenge. The charge against Lieberman is that he takes to the media to attack other Democrats for being to the left of him, and uses his triangulating and centricism to get publicity boosts and favorable coverage for himself at the expense of others in his party. He does this on any number of different issues--the Alito nomination and Social Security come to mind--but clearly he has a tendency to do it most often and annoyingly on the subject of Iraq and the War on Terror. The point is that his position is not the problem. The problem is that he bashes the rest of his party for having any position ot the left of his.
So the idea that Joe is somehow a helpless martyr as a result of his hawkishness is nonsense, but even more nonsensical is the idea that he gives two shits about the party after he geared so much of his public identity toward bashing other Democrats, and then has the gall to blow off the party entirely and run as an independent, all the while claiming he is still a Democrat.
Oh, and since his Democrats-are-weak routine is very popular in D.C. media circles, he also just happens to be the Democrat that gets the most airtime--by a mile--as evidenced by the Media Matters survey a few months back. So he is indeed a problem for the rest of us to the extent that Lieberman's Dem-bashing routine is regularly presented to the public as the Democratic side of the argument.
Moderate-to-conservative, loyal Democrats like yourself and the Ben Nelsons of the world are a very important part of our coalition and need to be supported and protected. There is plenty of room for disagreement on the war within the party and certainly the hawks are well-represented at all levels of the party leadership. But we ought to be able to work out solutions that would help us win and strenthen our country's ability to reach the best possible result, and we ought to be able to do that without one side trashing the other (and I recognize that this goes both ways with the Kossacks).
But tell me this, how do you respond to digby's contention that Joe, Hillary and the DLC are simply living in the past and not facing the reality of a majority party and particularly an executive branch that has elevated partisanship to a first principle? See here:http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115161969654876273
Did you hear Delay's farewell address? He essentially said that his legacy is having turned D.C. into a partisan bloodbath, and he not wrong about that. Don't you think that there needs to be some adjustment of tactics since 1992 if the GOP changed the rules this way?
And yes, it may make it harder to win races in Texas, at least short-term, but it will make it a heck of a lot easier to win races in places like Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York, which is desperately needed in order to off-set the level of GOP dominance and consolidation that has taken place in the South over the last decade and a half. Not to mention that this same new pitch seems to be working well in places like Colorado and Montana. Doesn't that affect the old DLC calculus about running to the middle?
apparently now the rage at kos is that boxer and others wlll campaign for lieberman in the primary. boxer in particular is being slammed-Im sick of dems devouring their own. lets devour the gop's chances in missouri, ohio and elsewhere. that is where control of congress will be determined.
Greg,
I hope you don't view me as a mindless Kossack.
I do post there but do NOT consider myself a Kossack -- for a lot of reasons.
My point is that Ben Nelson, who has a much more conservative record than, than Joe Lieberman, is welcome in the party, so why would Lieberman not be welcome based on his overall record.
When Joe insists, however, that Democrats should refrain from criticizing Bush in a time of war, he shouldn't expect a glowing reaction from frustrated Democrats.
It is this statement, in my view, that sealed the deal for a primary challenge such as Lamont's to come to fruition.
I am ambivalent about this race in general.
Still, for Joe to complain about being abandoned by the Democratic Party rings hollow to me, for I felt abandoned by him well before this year.
I always find hypocrisy amusing, especially among political wanna-be's. Poor Sean-Paul is beside himself about Joe Lieberman DARING to run an independent campaign if he loses the primary. How pathetic. he will be "showing contempt for real democracy ", according to SP.
Two points:
First, Im not sure how offering the electorate an expanded menu of candidates constitutes "contempt for democracy". Hell it only takes about 4.25% of registered voters to win a Democratic Primary. The rest of us (95.75%)might like a chance to vote on Mr. Lieberman's tenure too.
Second, Mr. Lamont's mentor, Lowell Turd-in-a-Punchbowl Weicker ran for governor in 1990 as an independent...A Connecticut Party as I recall. Did Mr. Lamont or Sean-Paul (assuming he was around) object to Mr. Weicker doing so? Somehow I suspect not.