by hilzoy
So Joe Lieberman has made it official: he’s no longer either a Democrat or a democrat. He may say that he has been and will remain “a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat”, but now we know better. A loyal Democrat doesn’t decide to disregard the party’s primary just because he’s afraid he might lose. And a democrat accepts the will of the people, whether he likes it or not.
Lieberman’s statement is completely disingenuous. He says that he’s worried that Lamont might outspend him:
“what if my opponent, who says he is worth somewhere between $90 and $300 million decides to write bigger and bigger checks in the last weeks of the campaign?”
That’s just laughable. Last I heard, one of the main reasons Lamont didn’t do even better in the state convention was that Lieberman brings in a lot of campaign contributions that other people in the party depend on. But I decided to check with OpenSecrets to see whether Lamont’s fundraising had outstripped Lieberman’s while I was busy reading Hamdan. But no: as of June 1, Lieberman had raised almost ten times as much as Lamont, and had spent $3,929,450 to Lamont’s $597,279. Despite spending nearly seven times as much as Lamont, Lieberman continues to drop in the polls. Somehow, I don’t think that money is Lieberman’s main problem, nor do I think that what he’s really worried about is Lamont outspending him by so much that it somehow blocks the will of the people.
Lieberman says that he’s worried about turnout: “no one knows how many Democrats will come out to vote on August 8th, and few think it will be more than 25 or 30 percent.” Well, too bad. Ned Lamont is not preventing people from showing up. He’s not barring the doors of polling places, or locking Lieberman’s supporters up in their houses, or sapping their will with evil mind rays. If Lieberman’s supporters cared enough, they would brave the heat and vote for him. If they don’t, well, that’s called “losing”, and in a democracy, the possibility of losing is one you have to accept.
A somewhat more revealing statement comes later: “I want the opportunity to make my case to all the voters in November”. Who, one might ask, are these voters who will not be able to vote for Lieberman in August? Those who are not registered Democrats, that’s who. Connecticut has a closed primary system, in which registered Democrats pick the people they want to be their nominees. If Lieberman doesn’t like this system, he could have changed it — he has, after all, been one of the dominant figures in Connecticut Democratic politics for decades. Oddly, though, closed primaries didn’t seem to trouble him before now. It’s only now that he might actually lose without Republican support that he decides that members of his own party aren’t entitled to pick their nominees, and that election laws that he has been living with for decades are fundamentally unfair.
Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is not willing to accept the nominee of his party whether or not his party nominates him. Nor is he a democrat: if it looks as though his constituents might make what he regards as the wrong decision, he won’t accept that either. He’s someone who has somehow gotten the idea that he is entitled to represent the people of Connecticut. If those people disagree, well, they’re just wrong, that’s all.
At bottom, Joe Lieberman is not a loyal anything. He’s just selfish. At least now he’s done us the favor of making it clear that he doesn’t care about the party, or the will of the voters, or any of those trivial things. Joe Lieberman cares about himself.
***
You can donate to Ned Lamont here.
I’ve basically ignored the Lieberman-Lamont kerfuffle, so color me uninformed, but Lieberman votes D when it comes to control of the Senate, and it appears that if he won the D primary he would easily win the general election (Lamont no so much, no links, sorry) is it worth risking his seat if it would be a swing vote that gets the Senate out of R hands? Or is Lamont a shoe-in if Lieberman declines to run as an independent?
Ignorance is bliss, and I refuse to search google and/or Gary’s place.
Ugh: Connecticut is a very Democratic state. (At least, for the Senate. Why they sometimes elect Republican governors is a mystery to me.) Betting is that Lieberman will win if he runs as an independent. Lamont would win if Lieberman wasn’t in the race and he was the Dem. nominee. The Republican is seen as very, very, very unlikely to win.
If I’m wrong on any of this, I’m sure someone will correct me.
His sense of entitlement annoys the small d democrat in me, as does his combination of outward sanctimony and deep-down selfishness. (If anyone wonders what I’d be doing about, oh, the DeLay machine or corrupt televangelists if I were a Republican, just take my attitude towards Lieberman and transpose parties.)
As luck would have it, I just ran across some actual figures:
Bear in mind the name recognition issues, etc.
I’m reluctant to disagree with your assessment here, since in general I find it so reliable. But, absent a law forbidding the loser of one party’s primary from running in the general election (a law which exists in many states and which I would tentatively support if for some reason I was voting for or against it,) I don’t see what’s anti-democratic about someone who is not the choice of a subset of the population putting themselves on the ballot so that a larger set of the population has the opportunity to elect them or not. It may be problematic in other ways, and your point that he could have changed the election system might point towards those ways, but I can’t get to the “he’s not a small-d democrat” from the facts here.
Previous statements he’s made (and you’ve quoted, I believe) in which he said that if the voters didn’t choose him it says bad things about them and the Democratic party’s ability to handle dissent had more of an anti-democratic, or at least confused about what democracy is, slant to them, but even those don’t get all the to the claim you make in the post.
Oh, and if I were a Conn. resident I would vote for Lamont in a heartbeat.
” Betting is that Lieberman will win if he runs as an independent. ”
The result will probably depend on how much the voters think Lieberman looks like a sore loser if he loses the primary and runs as an independent.
(And I wonder if the GOP will bring out the 2000 election “Sore Loserman” slogans)
Hilzoy, I think any poll numbers we have at this point for the three-way race are meaningless. People’s perceptions will be changed greatly by Lieberman’s leaving the party (even if he claims he’s not). Also, the numbers will change if the national Republican Party decides it’s worthwhile to put resources into what it had previously viewed as an unwinnable race.
Currently Lieberman is more popular in Connecticut among Republicans than among Democrats. If he runs as an independent, will that lose him more Democrats or more Republicans? I can see reasonable arguments for any of the three candidates to win a three-way race, but they’re based on handwaving more than polls.
I do wish that Lieberman would just leave the party if he can’t accept the primary outcome, though. Having him win as an independent who still caucuses with the Democrats (like Jeffords) would be far preferable to having him win as an independent but still end up being a Democrat. If he were an independent, Republicans and the media would no longer be able to point to his latest Bush-supporting or Democrat-bashing statement and say “Even Democrat Joe Lieberman says….”
Lieberman’s view that he’s senator for life and entitled to the seat, voters be damned, fits in well with his support of King George.
Something good from Hillary: She’ll support the winner of the Democratic primary. Let’s hope it catches on. Maybe she can knock some sense into her fellow New York senator, who doesn’t seem to understand the concept of primaries even though (or because?) he’s head of the DSCC.
This reminds me of New York in 1980. Jacob Javits was defeated by Alfonse D’Amato in the Republican primary. Javits was on the Liberal Party line and ran in a three way race with Liz Holtzman as the Democratic candidate. What did that get us? Three terms of Al D’Amato.
I’m with washerdreyer — feel free to disagree with his votes and statements, but Lieberman’s playing by the rules just as much as Lamont is. And this seems like a stupid battle to pick: Lieberman is almost certainly going to win in any case, and the Republicans can use this fight to paint the Democratic party as unwelcoming to moderates and beholden to its left flank.
As to how Republicans win statewide elections here in CT: they run to the middle. And they can do that more convincingly than the Dem candidates because they don’t have to tack right for the primaries nearly as much as the Dem candidates have to tack left.
Randy, Lamont seems to be playing the D’Amato role in your scenario, so it sounds good to me.
Unsurprisingly, Marshall Wittmann “salutes Joe Lieberman for a taking smart stand” and goes on to attack “Deaniacs, kossacks and the MoveOn crowd”.
Interesting points. However, going with my heart, I think Lieberman needs a strong dose of reality and he would ideally represent a example pour encourager les autres. Perhaps this is just my anger that is finding an outlet on poor old Joe, but Lamont seems like less a Dem tacking left to undercut a centrist movement, but more a representative of those who are just fed up, regardless of their location on the spectrum.
“People’s perceptions will be changed greatly by Lieberman’s leaving the party (even if he claims he’s not)”
I think they’ll be affected by his hedging his bits, and he might lose, but I don’t think everyone would think that his behavior (and I, too, would be voting for Lamont) meant he was leaving the party; I don’t believe it means he’s leaving the party, so I’m convinced not everyone else would believe it, either, given, that, you know, he’s not leaving the party.
I’m happy to see Lieberman slammed for all sorts of things, but as usual I tend to object when legitimate objections get stretched or distorted into, you know, untruths.
“I do wish that Lieberman would just leave the party if he can’t accept the primary outcome, though. Having him win as an independent who still caucuses with the Democrats (like Jeffords) would be far preferable to having him win as an independent but still end up being a Democrat.”
Apparently you don’t think he’s leaving the party, either.
“Javits was on the Liberal Party line and ran in a three way race with Liz Holtzman as the Democratic candidate.”
Liz Holtzman was my Representative for many years; I worked as a volunteer for her (despite some differences of opinion, as is inevitable; I could never get her to not be hostile to the space program, for instance; she was a stereotypical Dumb Liberal about insisting it took money away from poverty programs, as if somehow that’s where the money would go instead).
“Randy, Lamont seems to be playing the D’Amato role in your scenario, so it sounds good to me.”
The odds that in a three-way race Lamont will win seem sufficiently low as to be letting fantasy interfere with reality. I could, of course, be wrong. And it’s a while til November, as well.
D’Amato, of course, by the way, had run the Long Island machine for umpty years before running for the Senate; Lamont is about as in a comparable position as he is to Lincoln; that is: none at all.
There’s leaving the party and there’s leaving the party. If he’s refusing to honor the party’s primary, then he is in some sense leaving the party. I have no doubt he will remain registered as a Democrat, but then even Zell Miller (who I hasten to add is a completely different case) did that. I didn’t say that everyone would believe he’s leaving the party.
Yes, the Lamont-D’Amato parallel is ridiculous, but so is a Schlesinger-D’Amato parallel, isn’t it? I was having trouble seeing what Randy was getting at. I guess it’s just a Javits-Lieberman parallel, being a cautionary tale about running as an independent when you lose the primary. Fair enough.
“I guess it’s just a Javits-Lieberman parallel, being a cautionary tale about running as an independent when you lose the primary.”
I assume so; a number of people have made it.
washerdreyer et al: no, he’s not being undemocratic in the sense of, oh, trying to ban elections, or refusing to concede defeat in a fair election whose votes had been honestly counted, etc. And he is playing by the (letter of the) rules. And I was probably reading this in light of some of his earlier comments.
That said, I think there is something undemocratic (in spirit) about thinking: OK, I’m going to lose the primary fair and square, but the tremendous importance of ME! being in the Senate means that I should not just accept that outcome like everyone else. Maybe I should say: in the same way that Tom DeLay didn’t actually suspend democracy when he decided to redistrict in the middle of the decade, when everyone normally just does it every ten years, because he thought he could improve on the outcome of the normal process, but still (I would argue) was gaming the system in a way that’s not particularly respectful of democracy (in which you gain seats by, you know, making a better case and winning); so here.
I think a lot depends on how successfully Lamont “nationalizes” the election, to capitalize on disgust with Bush particularly and the GOP generally.
Leiberman’s hedged his bets before, running for his Senate seat at the same time he was Al Gore’s running mate. Since he’s doing it again, it’s fair to ask if Leiberman has any deep commitment to anything but his own ego.
And, unlike Holtzman or Javitz, who stayed true to their constituencies, Leiberman can’t offer any compelling reason for Democrats to vote for him, unless “Now That Zell Miller’s Gone, I’m the Neocons’ favorite Democrat” can be considered a compelling selling point.
“That said, I think there is something undemocratic (in spirit) about thinking: OK, I’m going to lose the primary fair and square, but the tremendous importance of ME! being in the Senate means that I should not just accept that outcome like everyone else.”
Still, setting aside my displeasure with Lieberman (and I’ve been annoyed with him for many years over other stances of his on video games and language and music and his generally sanctimonious responses and advocacy, although his willingness to lend support to Bush trumps even his wimpiness in the 2000 post-election debacle), there’s hardly anything unusual about a politician striving to get re-elected by whatever legal maneuver is necessary.
And I definitely think that what DeLay did with the redistricting was vastly more radical and unprecedented (though the SCOTUS says it’s legal; who knew?) than merely trying to go the independent route; there’s tons of precedent for the latter, and nothing particularly abnormal about it; it’s certainly a heck of a lot less objectionable than, for instance, getting elected and then jumping party, which has become, unfortunately, all too normal in the last couple of decades.
I’m not trying to suggest anyone shouldn’t be mad at Lieberman, mind; I’m just doing my usual annoying perspective thing. 🙂
“Leiberman…Leiberman”
Lieberman.
“…Leiberman can’t offer any compelling reason for Democrats to vote for him….”
As I said, I’d vote for Lamont, but I feel I have to note that except for the war and a few sporadic other times Lieberman seems to feel compelled to Support The President, he’s a pretty standard-issue liberal Democrat for the most part. Certainly far more so than far more conservative Senate Democrats from far more conservative States, such as Ben Nelson; if you think otherwise, I have to suggest that perhaps you’re misinformed.
“Javits,” by the way.
“Certainly far more so than far more conservative Senate Democrats from far more conservative States, such as Ben Nelson; if you think otherwise, I have to suggest that perhaps you’re misinformed.”
If you think Lieberman is as relatively good a Democrat given his state’s leanings as Nelson, I have to suggest that perhaps you’re misinformed.
Correction on the fundraising numbers
I took a closer look at the numbers from opensecrets.org and have decided that saying Lieberman has outraised Lamont by an order of magnitude is probably inaccurate. I say probably because opensecrets.org only has numbers from the April 2006 report. …
Sorry to disappoint, but Joe Lieberman is very much of a mainstream Senate Democrat … at least if you believe that a Senator’s voting record is what counts.
Poole and Rosenthal are the standard source here: they track and analyze Congressional voting patterns back to 1789.
P&R mainly summarize an individual’s voting record on a right-left scale. On that scale, 16 Senate Democrats fell to Lieberman’s right and 31 to his left in the last Congress. Pretty mainstream.
http://pooleandrosenthal.com/
pireader, did you miss “given his state’s leanings” in rilkefan’s comment? It’s not surprising that he’s more liberal than senators from South Dakota or Louisiana. I actually thought Lieberman’s voting record was more liberal than you’re saying, but I still oppose him.
This isn’t so much about his voting record, and it’s certainly not “just about the war” (as we keep hearing from various Lieberman defenders). It’s about what he says and his political instincts. He’s constantly saying things that support Bush and bashing his fellow Democrats (using Republican talking points). He’s the Democrat that Bush can point to to demonstrate that his message has “bipartisan” support. And a lot of us are tired of that. The fact that his voting record is as relatively conservative as you say, even though he comes from a reliably Democratic state, is just an additional reason we need a change.
Well I notice Hilzoy said “he”. That makes sense because there is no way she could have used “she” without condemning her own behavior.
That statement coming from someone who has worked so hard to undermine the Bush administration is quite rich. It’s difficult to fathom how Hilzoy could have made a more hypocritical statement.
The road Hilzoy walks just isn’t good enough for Joe Lieberman to travel down. Her dissent is patriotic and sincere. Her nearly constant undermining of the Bush administration, who was elected by the will of the people, is acceptable. What’s good for her is too good for Joe Lieberman.
But then later maybe you did top yourself…
Can you say Al Gore? Can you say John Kerry? Can you say Democrats in Ohio?
I don’t see how you can make those kind of statements with a straight face. You can condemn Lieberman, but not all of those other Democrates. What they did is okay because it was against Bush. I can only guess this is all just a big joke to you.
I place no premium on party loyalty — being a “loyal” Democrat or Republican is no accolade in my book. So I can’t muster Hilzoy’s sense of indignation. Nor do I see how Lieberman is a bad democrat; however he runs, he is clear favorite among the CT electorate. Denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him because the part of the local Democratic party that votes in primaries is in a snit hardly seems a hosanna to democratic choice.
Color me unimpressed with this one, Hilzoy.
KCinDC,
I’m sorry that I didn’t make it any more clear (FWIW I thought it was obvious), but yes, Lieberman would be playing the Javits role.
Javits stubbornly insisted on running on the Liberal Party line and even had some of the major Republican figures of the time like Howard Baker do campaign ads for him. D’Amato won with 45% of the vote, while Holtzman had 44% and Javits 11%.
CTRL:
No doubt Karl Rove spends many minutes worrying about how Hilzoy has “worked so hard to undermine the Bush administration.”
Talk about hyperbole . . .
Yes, Randy, I get it now. Sorry for the confusion. I still think Schlesinger can’t be compared to D’Amato. If Gary is right about the idea of a Lamont win in a three-way race being a fantasy (and if Lamont is starting at 18% to Lieberman’s 56% that’s probably true), I think the same can be said for a Schlesinger win (since he’s at 8% in the same poll).
You’re probably right, but IIRC no one gave D’Amato much of a chance either.
Denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him because the part of the local Democratic party that votes in primaries is in a snit hardly seems a hosanna to democratic choice.
I have to disagree. What I find despicable about Lieberman is his telling Harry Reid that if wins as in independent, he wants to remain in the Democratic Caucus.
In other words he wants to abandon the party when he loses fair and square, but play a role in it should he be elected as an outsider. That’s the very definition of a hypocrite.
Denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him because the part of the local Democratic party that votes in primaries is in a snit hardly seems a hosanna to democratic choice.
who’s “denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him” ?
If Joe wins, but not as a Democrat, he shouldn’t be on any democratic committees.
Joe’s official voting record may be not too bad, but when the really important votes come up, he’s consistently on the wrong side. For instance, on every significant filibuster vote in recent years, Joe has voted with the Republicans on cloture, then turned around and voted with the Democrats when it didn’t matter anymore. He gets to take credit for being on the Dems’ side, but he really helps the Repubs win.
From lamontblog.blogspot.com, the latest news ….
* England loses to Portugal on penalites in the quarterfinals of the FIFA World Cup, but coach Sven-Goran Eriksson pledges that his team will play France on Wednesday anyway as a “petitioning semifinalist.”
* Andy Roddick loses in the third round at Wimbledon in straight sets to an upstart challenger, but reserves the right to play in the fourth round so that “all the Wimbledon fans can see him play.”
* The Kansas City Royals, 28 games out of first place in the American League Central, announced today that they are “taking out an insurance policy” to ensure that they will be able to play in the World Series if they happen to miss the playoffs.
I have to disagree. What I find despicable about Lieberman is his telling Harry Reid that if wins as in independent, he wants to remain in the Democratic Caucus.
Why? Would you kick Jeffers out of the Democratic Caucus because he’s an independent?
Look, I’m no Democrat, but this is simply insane. By any empirical measure, Lieberman is an asset to the Democratic party and — with the exception of the war in Iraq and portions of the war on terror — a believer in the Democratic party’s ideas. He was the vice-presidential candidate in ’00. This talk of tossing him overboard is itself dispicable; to suggest that Lieberman is somehow honor-bound to abide the wishes of the tossees seem just foolish.
who’s “denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him” ?
Hilzoy and Randy Paul would, out of some Gilbertian/Sullivanian sense of duty.
von: “the the part of the local Democratic party that votes in primaries” is not a fixed, limited set. It includes any Democrat who thinks it’s worthwhile to vote. If not enough of those people think it’s worthwhile to get out and vote for Lieberman, as I said, that’s called “losing”.
When someone “loses” a primary, normally the rest of the electorate does not get a chance to vote for them in the general election, except by write-in. Does this amount to “denying” people the chance to vote for those candidates? I don’t think so.
When someone “loses” a primary, normally the rest of the electorate does not get a chance to vote for them in the general election, except by write-in. Does this amount to “denying” people the chance to vote for those candidates? I don’t think so.
And why shouldn’t the losee have the right to run as an independent? By what standard do you hold it OK for a losee to campaign for a write-in vote, but not to actually get on the ballot?
The fundamental mistake being made here is the equation of “two party politics” with “democracy.” The two are not the same; they’re not even close.
von: I don’t want to toss him overboard. I leave that decision to Connecticut’s Democrats. Had Lieberman not started saying that he would not respect their wished, and had he not started saying that people who plan to vote against him are on a “crusade or jihad“, I’d regard him the way I regard, oh, Melissa Bean: as someone with whom I disagree on things.
Look, I’m no Democrat, but this is simply insane . . . This talk of tossing him overboard is itself dispicable; to suggest that Lieberman is somehow honor-bound to abide the wishes of the tossees seem just foolish.
Given that you’re not a Democrat, perhaps it should be left to them to decide who is and is not an asset to their party? A radical notion, to be sure, but I’m certain — even being not one myself — that the Democrats have had quite enough of conservatives, Republicans, and Bush voters (draw the Venn diagrams yourselves, kids) telling them that they need more Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers in the party.
It is a bit unnerving to have extremists from the other political party supporting candidates, they consider loyal, in my party.
Von, I’m unclear on what empirical measures would demonstrate Lieberman to be an asset to the Democratic Party, particularly since he’s been so important in many of the actions that drive the party further and further out of touch with the measurable concerns of the public and away from productive confrontration with the Republican Party. He’s certainly an asset if the goal is to keep the Democrats a perpetually second-place echo of the Republicans, but many of us who support Democratic candidates hope for more than that.
Von, I’m not sure that it’s relevant that Lieberman “is clear favorite among the CT electorate.” First off, his polling largely reflects the length of his term in office and his generally high profile. Second, if we want to use polling to determine the choice of the electorate, we don’t need to bother with elections. And elections have rules. Lieberman’s hypocrisy is that he’s had no problem with these rules until it looks like they are about to work against him, whereupon they suddenly become a threat to will of the electorate.
Joe can go ahead and run as an independent, as far as I’m concerned, but he insists on this ridiculous “petitioning Democrat” nonsense. The rules are, to run as a Democrat, you have to win the Democratic primary. You can make the argument that an open primary is a better system for determining candidates, but that’s not the way it works in CT. Lieberman wants to have his cake and eat it too, just like he wanted to be vice president without risking his Senate seat.
Lieberman’s view that he’s senator for life and entitled to the seat, voters be damned, fits in well with his support of King George.
I sincerely doubt Senator Lieberman holds the view that he’s “senator for life”. Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by “voters be damned”. He’ll obviously need to win over a plurality of Connecticut’s voters in November, which means the latter will have the opportunity to agree with you and fire him. That it is likely they won’t do so doesn’t mean they’re “damned” — rather it simply means they possess a different opinion about Lieberman’s worthiness to serve than you or Hilzoy.
It would perhaps be accurate to describe the Senator’s strategy as “Democratic party machinery be damned” or “Kos netroots activism be damned”. I suspect a plurality, and maybe even a majority, of Connecticut voters will agree with him this November. Heaven forbid a powerful, incumbent US Senator should fail to realize Kos is now dictator. The nerve of that Joe!
When someone “loses” a primary, normally the rest of the electorate does not get a chance to vote for them in the general election, except by write-in.
Right. And that’s because the candiate losing the primarly “normally” doesn’t possess Senator Lieberman’s clout, bankroll, name recognition, and voter esteem. Joe has all these things. Which means we’ll again get to see what a pathetic lighweight Kos is (how those royalty checks coming, Markos?). Bring on Hillary in ’08. It’s ticklishly entertaining watching the socialists strengthen my beloved party of Lincoln. We were heading toward a veritable election disaster a couple of months ago. Republicans have enough sense to disown and throw wayward souls overboard (google “Delay” and then “Abramoff”). Democrats show up at their conventions.
You think the “Democratic party machinery” is supporting Lamont? Can you name anyone who’s part of such machinery, because it looks to me like the party insiders are supporting Lieberman. They can’t even pledge to support the Democratic nominee.
How does allowing the Democrats of Connecticut to choose the Democratic nominee equate to making Kos a dictator? Having primaries rather than having Chuck Schumer choose the nominee is somehow dictatorial?
Von: Denying the CT electorate the option of chosing him because the part of the local Democratic party that votes in primaries is in a snit hardly seems a hosanna to democratic choice.
Joe is essentially telling the CT Democrats “I know better than you who should represent our party in this election.” If he’s unwilling to abide by their nomination, then the somewhat honorable thing would be for him to drop out of the Democratic primary and simply run as an independent. He’s not doing that, and Hilzoy is right to call him a weasel, in so many words.
Why? Would you kick Jeffers out of the Democratic Caucus because he’s an independent?
The comparison doesn’t really apply, since Jeffords didn’t decide to run against his state party’s fairly-nominated candidate. Anyway the Republicans, just loooove Jim, don’t they? I mean, he played by the rules, why would they harbor any grudges?
By any empirical measure, Lieberman is an asset to the Democratic party…
I’d say this is a contention in serious dispute, especially (as rilkefan noted above) given the general temperament of the CT voters and Lieberman’s wretched performances since the 2000 election.
von: By any empirical measure, Lieberman is an asset to the Democratic party and — with the exception of the war in Iraq and portions of the war on terror — a believer in the Democratic party’s ideas.
Well, yes, Von, but you’re a Republican.
I know nothing about Lieberman beyond this: his grassroots support all seems to be Republican. Politically active Democrats don’t seem to care for him. He may well be an “asset to the Democratic party” by the empirical measures that lost the Republicans the last two Presidential elections, but why should Democratic activists care what “assets” Republicans would like to lumber them with?
Not but what I agree with you: Lieberman is free to run as an Independent and get the Republican vote. That’s what democracy means. Of course, as Slartibartfast has repeatedly pointed out to me, the US is not a democracy.
DNFTT, kids. Particularly the cowardly, anonymous drive-by ones.
I wouldn’t take any punitive actions against Lieberman if he ends up back in the Senate as an I: he’d get the same privileges as Jeffords, provided he’d vote with the caucus on leadership issues, and when it’s all-hands-on-deck.
Then again, I’m not spending much time thinking about Senate races where I can’t vote. (Not that I blame KC or Jes for being interested in Connecticut, since their Senators are less than shadows). Hil and I live in the same state: who do you like in our primary?
Why? Would you kick Jeffers out of the Democratic Caucus because he’s an independent?
Talk about apples and oranges. Your comparison is so bogus, Von. If Jeffords ran as an independent candidate against a Republican candidate, won and then asked to participate in the Republican caucus, I certainly wouldn’t blame them for telling him to take a hike.
That’s an accurate analogy.
Hilzoy and Randy Paul would, out of some Gilbertian/Sullivanian sense of duty
Pure pernicious poppycock. They are welcome to vote for him in the primary. If he loses, they are welcome to write him in the general election. If he loses, he should have the class as most primary losers do to bow out gracefully.
No one’s denying the electorate anything, Von. You’re being disingenuous here.
Charley: (Not that I blame KC or Jes for being interested in Connecticut, since their Senators are less than shadows).
*g* I actually composed a longer comment earlier comparing the position of Lieberman to Livingstone, and then decided this was presumptuous Britishness on my part and dumped it.
For the sake of accuracy, Von, Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, that’s why I feel your analogy is bogus.
He was never Democrat.
Charley, I agree with you about no punitive actions if Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats. The thing I’m not so thrilled about is that he’s planning to come back as a D, not an I, even if he loses the primary. I’d be much happier with Lieberman if he did exactly what he does now but was an independent. Of course, he wouldn’t be appearing on TV as a representative of the Democrats then.
And at least Jes doesn’t have to pay taxes that are spent by the Congress she doesn’t have a vote in (though obviously she, like the rest of the world, is affected by the US government). Still, I figure that makes it perfectly acceptable for me to interfere in any election I choose, especially in Connecticut, where lived for a while.
“When someone ‘loses’ a primary, normally the rest of the electorate does not get a chance to vote for them in the general election, except by write-in.”
Clearly you’ve never been a resident of New York State.
KCinDC wrote:
“pireader, did you miss ‘given his state’s leanings’ in rilkefan’s comment?” (KCinDC at 8:58 am above)
The reference is to:
“If you think Lieberman is as relatively good a Democrat given his state’s leanings as Nelson, I have to suggest that perhaps you’re misinformed.” (rilkefan at 12:52 am)
Yes, I noticed rilkefan’s comment. It’s just a mistake on his part, and on yours. And a deeper problem with this whole thread, where commenters keep comparing Lieberman’s politics to their own, instead of to Connecticut’s.
rilkefan suggests that the measure of being a “good Democrat” is standing as far to the left of one’s constituency as one can get away with. And by that standard, Nelson is a lot “better” than Lieberman.
Which is fine, if you’re evaluating a politician’s views against your own.
But if you recognize that Democrats span the left/center spectrum, then a more-useful definition of “good Democrat” would be “represents the left/center of his constiuency” and fits within the party mainstream.
Lieberman obviously falls within the party mainstream (as my last post pointed out). So where does Connecticut stand? It’s true that the state voted heavily for both Gore and Kerry. But it’s also true that the state elects Republicans to Congress; and those Republicans vote conservative. Consequently, the state’s overall position in the House is somewhat right of center.
This suggests that Lieberman’s center/left position is actually in tune with the center/left of his constituents–a view that his resounding electoral majorities support. (And he obviously thinks so too, if he’s prepared to run as an independent.)
People who protest that Lieberman mostly votes the Democratic line tend to forget that on some truly crucial votes involving matters of bedrock Democratic principle, Lieberman’s been a turncoat. There’s the war, of course, but his role in the bankruptcy “reform” disgrace was particularly slimy as well.
An earlier comment mentioned that thoroughly predictable drone, Marshall Wittman. Wittman’s remarks about bankruptcy “reform” and Lieberman illustrate why the “Moose” is more bullshit than “Bull”. Wittman posted a number of essays attacking (correctly) the bankruptcy bill as a major betrayal of liberal principles, as well as an egregious example of legislation for sale. Then, within a day or two, after Lieberman’s cloture vote became public knowledge, the “Moose” devoted a column to explaining why we shouldn’t take all this ideology and principle stuff too far.
That was the last Wittman column I ever read. If he wants to follow Lieberman into oblivion — great!
So, KC, who do you like in the Md Dem primary? How about you Jes?
Jes, you might not have known that for a time — still? — DC had ‘shadow senators’ including the Rev. Jackson. A DC shadow senator is somewhat less influential in US federal policymaking than backbenchers from Wales. (That’s measuring the influence of BBFW on US not UK policymaking).
Hmmm, no particular dog in this fight because as long as the winning candidate has a “D” next to his or her name, I have a little extra skip in my step.
Von voted for Kerry in 2004 and it really doesn’t concern me that his vote might have been swayed by a shortage of purity in Bush Administration policies.
But I would like to point out that we live in a political world created by Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay and Karl Rove, the political strategists, which dictates that utter, impregnable, uncompromising loyalty to not just winning but ideology (entertainingly named “ideas” by Republicans) is the new political discipline.
I liked the old idea of political parties as circular firing squads, but the Republican Party had other ideas.
Hey, it worked. Which means that rancor shall continue until Democrats (me) get their yayas off with some really unfair, diabolical legislative rule-making (with accompanying cackling and chair-swiveling) once they regain a majority somewhere, anywhere please or an executive branch which uses the Bush “interpretation” of the Constitution to mean that the folks on the other side should be moved against by the State for “undermining”, the meaning of which we can make up when the time comes.
Should be fun, if the Republic is still standing.
CharleyCarp: I’m not advocating punitive measures if he’s elected. I’m just, um, expressing disdain for the explanations he’s given for what he’s doing.
As far as our present primary: I have no view. (I often do this when I think two candidates are basically OK.) Periodically I ask people to tell me why I should support one or the other, and mostly they just say things like: um, no reason really.
But if you have a view, let me know — I’m on the lookout for good reasons.
John: I quite like the hybrid idea of rancor and division within the party, with two qualifications: (a) a few votes require unanimity (e.g., if Bush had ever gotten around to proposing an actual plan for privatizing Social Security, that would have been one of them. I think the Bankruptcy bill should have been another.) (b) No playing along with such Republican talking points as: criticizing the President is ‘undermining our Commander in Chief’.
Other than that, I think we’d be a lot better off if we let a thousand flowers bloom.
Other than that, I think we’d be a lot better off if we let a thousand flowers bloom.
’cause we all know how well that turned out the last time.
[Yes, yes, it’s not quite the same, but what’s an order of magnitude between friends?]
Anarch: I thought of that as soon as I posted it. Oh well.
I suppose I might argue, pedantically, that it would have worked out a lot better had Mao continued to let a hundred flowers bloom, rather than suddenly deciding to, um, mow the national lawn; and thus that it wasn’t that policy per se that failed, but I think I’d rather not get into this argument with an Asian historian’s kid 😉
“’cause we all know how well that turned out the last time.”
But the Hundred Flowers campaign was one of the few good spots in Mao’s rule. And citing the Cultural Revolution as if somehow its horrors support the notion that the Hundred Flowers was bad makes absolutely no sense whatever.
It’s like saying that Reconstruction was bad, and providing a link to the Jim Crow movement to prove it.
“but I think I’d rather not get into this argument with an Asian historian’s kid….”
Whereas I have no shame nor fear.
I’m on the lookout for good reasons.
As am I.
sglover wrote:
“on some truly crucial votes involving matters of bedrock Democratic principle, Lieberman’s been a turncoat. There’s the war, of course, but his role in the bankruptcy ‘reform’ disgrace was particularly slimy as well.”
On the key bankruptcy vote (cloture), Lieberman was one of 13 Democratic Yeas vs. 31 Nays. Can it be a “bedrock Democratic principle” if 30% of the Senate’s Democrats disagree? Looks more like a left/center split to me.
CharleyCarp: let me know if you find any. I’m happy, for now, to let two good people fight it out, but if there really is a good reason to support one, I’d rather know it; and of course at some point I will actually need to vote for one of them.
Just now, it seems to me that my energies are better directed towards informing my PA friends about Curt Weldon, and so on, but I always worry, when I decide not to pay attention to something, that I’m missing something hugely significant (you know: one of them is actually a convicted serial killer, or has advocated a return to the barter system, or is a member of the KKK, or something.)
But the Hundred Flowers campaign was one of the few good spots in Mao’s rule.
In its aims, assuming it was on the level, sure. [There is, AFAIK, still some dispute on that matter, although I tend to the opinion that Mao was simply naive enough to believe that his version of Communist rectitude was overwhelmingly popular.] Regardless, the outcome of the Hundred Flowers campaign was massive anti-intellectualism — in the literal as well as the ideological sense of the word — which IMO was a, if not the, direct cause of the Cultural Revolution.
[To be a little more precise, it was the immediate cause of the Anti-Rightist Movement (? that’s what Wikipedia calls it, I seem to remember a different name) and IMO a/the direct cause of the Cultural Revolution some eight years later.]
And ftr, I never said that the Hundred Flowers campaign was bad, I said “’cause we all know how well that turned out the last time.” I’d assume you’re hip to the distinction, yes? And also that it was not intended with the utmost of sincerity, but perhaps the subtlest tinge of irony and, dare I say, levity?
“In its aims, assuming it was on the level, sure.”
Yes, it’s true that we don’t absolutely know. But I’m inclined to take it at face value, at least in its early part, until it’s proven otherwise.
“And ftr, I never said that the Hundred Flowers campaign was bad, I said ”cause we all know how well that turned out the last time.’ I’d assume you’re hip to the distinction, yes?”
Yes, but I was inclined to interpret your words as indicating that therefore the HF campaign was a bad thing and shouldn’t have been undertaken, whereas I’d view it as one of the few fleeting and passing signs of sanity, for a moment, in the general chaotic set of totalitarian errors that was Maoism. (Though admittedly China would have been largely ungovernable, at least in any fair and consistent way, under pretty much any other system, as well.)
Bottom line is that as a general rule, letting a hundred, or thousand, flowers bloom, tends to be a good policy, not a bad, in my view, and citing Mao or the Cultural Revolution doesn’t prove otherwise.
That I missed levity and irony on my stolid way tromping to that point, I apologize for.
Hilzoy:
“…my energies are better directed toward informing my PA friends about Curt Weldon….”
Well, in his case I relinquish the circular firing squad metaphor and fall back on the traditional firing squad metaphor — with one guy in a blindfold (Weldon) facing numerous others lined up with guns (paintball guns would be sufficient).
Mao should have started a “let a hundred jokes bloom” campaign with earnestly funny young clowns scouring the countryside for insufficient irony and levity. Laugh, or else.
There would be severe tickling reeducation therapy and forced Henny Guangjung impressions.
Bottom line is that as a general rule, letting a hundred, or thousand, flowers bloom, tends to be a good policy, not a bad, in my view, and citing Mao or the Cultural Revolution doesn’t prove otherwise.
I tend to view that if the policy is announced with any kind of fanfare, it generally suggests after you have let your flower bloom, someone is going to come along and take your flower away (or worse). If the power that be states that now, heterodoxy is acceptable, you have to wonder ‘why was it not acceptable before? And why should I assume that it will be down the road?’
But it’s also true that the state elects Republicans to Congress; and those Republicans vote conservative.
Christopher Shays? Not necessarily.
Lest anyone think that I’m a knee-jerk Democrat, I’ll give you one shining example as to when I would have voted for a Republican: when William Weld ran against John Silber for Governor of Massachusetts. Silber is such a sleaze I could not stomach voting for him.
“If the power that be states that now, heterodoxy is acceptable, you have to wonder ‘why was it not acceptable before? And why should I assume that it will be down the road?'”
In other words, you’re opposed to Maoism and totalitarianism. Me, too.
Randy: “…when I would have voted for a Republican: when William Weld ran against John Silber for Governor of Massachusetts.”
Ditto. In the interests of seeing Governor Eliot Spitzer in NY, it’s good that the Republicans nominated a somewhat extremist little-known candidate who is a party loyalist. In the sense of wanting to see better candidates all around, it’s a bit of a shame that they rejected and squeezed out Weld, although a) admittedly that whole presiding over a corrupt school episode was unimpressive; and b) quitting his last office as governor for a job he didn’t get was unimpressive; and c) it is a bit odd to try to be Governor of two different States, though it would have made an interesting modern historical footnote if he’d succeeded.
Gary,
Regarding c), he would have been one of two.
On the other hand seeing the way the wingnut right as personified by Jesse Helms treated him when he was rejected as ambassador to Mexico, one wonders why he remained a republican.
“On the other hand seeing the way the wingnut right as personified by Jesse Helms treated him when he was rejected as ambassador to Mexico, one wonders why he remained a republican.”
My understanding is the same reason that the two Senators from Maine, and Christie Whitman, and similarly-minded Republicans stay Republicans: unwillingness to surrender their party fully to the nutbars, but preferring to stay and fight as best they can. Seems generally admirable to me, if not precisely immediately successful. But who says everything needs to be done only for the short-term?
Randy Paul wrote: “Christopher Shays? Not necessarily” [a conservative]
Randy, you’re missing my point.
Connecticut has elected three Republicans among its five representatives (Shays, Simmons, and Johnson). Granted, all three are among the left-most Republicans; but that’s still pretty conservative.
All three (including Shays) vote more conservatively than any Democrat. As an example, all three voted for the bankruptcy bill that sglover denounced so vehemently upthread. And their voting records make Joe Lieberman’s look pretty liberal.
That’s why I wrote “the state elects Republicans to Congress; and those Republicans vote conservative.” It’s true.
LJ: I tend to view that if the policy is announced with any kind of fanfare, it generally suggests after you have let your flower bloom, someone is going to come along and take your flower away (or worse). If the power that be states that now, heterodoxy is acceptable, you have to wonder ‘why was it not acceptable before? And why should I assume that it will be down the road?’
Because you view – and, more importantly, believe that the power that be views – the direction of history as being linear (rather than circular) and this moment as being on some kind of cusp between the restrained past and the glorious future.
That, at least, would have been the reasoning in 1957, when the first “Hundred Flowers” campaign was launched. The CCP had struggled for decades against incredible odds to rise to power in 1949, and much of the next few years was devoted to building socialism from scratch and eradicating what they regarded as poisonous feudal/capitalist elements from the past. All of this justified (they argued) tight party discipline and severe restraints on all manner of freedoms.
It was thus not unreasonable, IMHO, for Mao to declare, and people to believe, that after 8 years in power the revolution was secure enough (at least from internal threats) so that they could afford to loosen up and breathe a little. It was wrong, but it was not, under the circumstances, unreasonable.
After 1957 in China – and perhaps at different times in different places – it would have been unconscionably naive to believe in the sincerity and liberality of The Power That Be. Fool Me Once, etc. …
I take it that you, like I, are now in the latter situation. We are jaded cynics, and perhaps you (like I) have always been one. But I’m inclined to cut a little slack for the foolish optimism of those who have witnessed, or taken part in, what they perceive to be a glorious one-time revolution: The World Turned Upside Down.
PS: Can we then, with Gary F, rejoice in the idealism of the “Hundred Flowers” in principle, ignoring the sad reality, or must we all now, with the wisdom of cynicism and/or hindsight, reject all such campaigns as inherently flawed, like original sin?
PSS: Do you have any idea how hard it is to commit a truly original sin?
“Do you have any idea how hard it is to commit a truly original sin?”
I only say that I do my part in the Great Exploration.
I live to serve.
Randy: The only time I really voted for a Republican was, in fact, Weld v. Silber. I spent a long time wondering what to do, since truth be told I didn’t like either of them, but decided that while Silber might have it in him to go national, Weld did not.
Silber was awful. What’s odd is that he was a really good Kant scholar. (The point being not that being a good scholar makes you a good person, which is clearly wrong, but that his field was Kant’s moral theory, which one might think a preson could learn something from.)
When I say “the only time I really voted for a Republican”, I mean to distinguish that from the time I became a Republican to vote for Anderson against Reagan. Also, the next GOP primary when I hadn’t remembered to re-register as a Democrat. I wrote in my sister for President and the ex-love of my life for Congress (he’s not a US citizen, and was then on another continent entirely, but I think he enjoyed the absurdity of having been voted for), and voted for Elliott Richardson against some bad person for Senate.
The first time I voted for a Republican over a Democrat was voting for Weicker over Lieberman in 1988. (No doubt 99 believes I was influenced by mind control from Kos, who at the time was not quite old enough to vote — and so not yet registered as the Republican he started as — and was getting ready to join the army.) The only other time was the 1994 DC mayoral election, when Marion Barry made his comeback.
Charley, I haven’t formed an opinion on the Maryland Senate race. Locally I’ve been paying attention to Virginia, since my parents, siblings, and siblings-in-law live there, and of course DC, where I’m overwhelmed by the sheer number of uninspiring candidates (5 for mayor and, insanely, 10 or more for Ward 3 councilmember).
From what little I do know in Maryland, I’m worried about Mfume’s appeal among whites and about Cardin’s appeal among blacks when running against Steele. I met Lichtman last week at a Drinking Liberally event, and he seems like a nice enough guy but of course has no chance of winning the primary.
“No doubt 99 believes…?”
Who is 99? (Doesn’t involve Maxwell Smart, I assume.)
99 was the drive-by commenter further up the thread, who says the opposition to Lieberman all flows from Kos the dictator.
“99 was the drive-by commenter….”
Ah; forgot about that immediately after reading it. I don’t think the idea that DeLay (I love people who can’t even spell the name of their own party leaders) has been “disown[ed]” by the Republican Party is well-supported by the statements of the members of Congress and other leadership.
I am not sorry to say that I’ve not yet been compelled to vote for a Republican. Dumb luck, probably.
PSS: Do you have any idea how hard it is to commit a truly original sin?
I’m perfectly fine meandering through some of the played-out areas, thanks.
The thread has moved on, but I wanted to say something about the comparison between losing a primary and running in the general and a mid-decade redistricting. I think, as a vehement gerrymandering opponent, that it sheds more heat then light. Lieberman’s planned actions are arguably more similar to running for Congress in a district which someone else re-drew in an unfair way, without personally having had any involvement in the drawing.
On gerrymandering generally, an impossible thing that will never happen and I’d still like to see is, if a Democrat wins the 2008 Presidential election, unilateral disarmament on the creation of gerrymandered districts by state legislatures with Democratic majorities following the the 2010 Census.
Washerdreyer, I realize you say it’s impossible, but I don’t even understand your fantasy. Democrats take over more state legislatures, refuse to gerrymander, and then what? The public, overwhelmed by the righteousness of the Democrats, gives them the legislatures in the other states as well?
In the real world, of course, the Republicans, with the new legitimacy granted by the recent Supreme Court ruling, will be gerrymandering like mad. If the Democrats unilaterally disarm, there really will be a permanent Republican majority in the House (as well as the state legislatures in question). Mark Kleiman’s California nuclear option starts to look good then.
Yeah, if a larger number of states than currently have them could move to an independent commission setup, and it works, respond to anything any Republican in any race says with, “Why are you opposed to letting people (effectively) choose their representative? Why is your parties electoral success a higher priority than making sure the voter’s voices are heard, and their choices effected?”
I don’t say that there’s currently a large constituency who really cares about these issues, but maybe one could be created. And there’s basically only a once a decade chance to do this, so I’d like it done sooner than later.
Having not read last week’s gerrymandering case I’m not sure what new things it tells us beyond Vieth except for these two things: once a decade only isn’t constitutionaly required (which might change my previous point, if redistricting becomes as regular as is now allowed) and Alito and Roberts don’t differ on this issue from Rehnquist and O’Connor.
I can’t take the California nuclear option seriously, in significant part due to my experience living in a state which is fairly close to 50-50 in state-wide elections, but generally the state office candidates I support don’t win.
On the other hand, I would like to see some serious turnabout on this issue. If the Democrats end up winning the governorship and both state legislative chambers in NY and IL this fall (as currently predicted), the states should be able to be re-apportioned to make up for the losses from Texas. PA’s legislative districts are so badly drawn to favor Republicans that I am hoping for the Democrats to sweep the state legislature and do so there, as well.
pireader:
Rilkefan did nothing of the sort.
Since 70% of the Senate’s Democrats agreed, the odds are quite good that it most definitely is.
Setting aside the question of who voted which way on it, however, we have to deal with the question of whether the bedrock principles of the party that brought us the New Deal and Great Society include supporting greater opportunity for those who have (or are in danger of becoming) fallen through the economic cracks, or whether they support lassez-faire policies that are more likely to leave poor people in the lurch. Historically, it’s been the former rather than the latter.
Now, returning to Lieberman: The man is displaying hubris rarely seen outside of Greek drama. It’s one thing to say that you plan on running as an Independant if the primary voters are too wrongheaded to make you the party nominee, but to then go on to say that if you then win as an independant, you want to stay in the Democratic delegation?
Looks like the “Sore Loserman” jokes were half-right. I’m just saying.
See, here’s Gary in a perfectly beautiful mixed metaphor kind of thing –
“I think they’ll be affected by his hedging his bits,” (from GF way back near the beginning of the thread, July 3 at 10:10)
Hedging his bits? That’s classic. Mixing up the thoughts of bridles and control with risk management, or maybe it’s a keeping the sensitive “bits” out of harms way kind of mixed metaphor. In any case, it’s a great bit, Gary. Keep up the good work!
Jake
“Hedging his bits?”
It’s a typo for “bets,” actually.
So which bits is he taking the hedge trimmer to? Inquiring minds want to know!
Relevant article about current Democratic likely policy regarding re-gerrymandering.
Pireader,
Chris Shays and the other CT republicans are probably more like Rockefeller Republicans and along with Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and many NE republicans (Weldon, Santorum, Peter King and Chris Smith being notable exceptions) have precious little in common with the recent Republican Party Leadership as exemplified by Frist, Delay, Gingrich, Blount and Armey.
I have to address Von’s comment about empirical evidence indicating that Lieberman being an asset to the Democrats. Let me turn that around and mention that by any empirical measure, Lincoln Chaffee is an asset to the Republican party. Think about how self-serving it is for me to make a statement like that.
Say, speaking of Curt Weldon, here is a bit of news:
So much for Labor allegedly always supporting Democrats (which, of course, has never, ever, been remotely true; but Republicans claim it a lot).
I recommend reading the whole article for more info on whom organized labor is supporting in various races.
Chris Shays?
But there’s a bunch more.
Crap! I meant to only add the last paragraph! Darn it!