Lieberman Colleague, Friend Says No More Joe

[smoogatz]

A great little Op-Ed from the Hartford Courant...

Joe Lieberman and I have been friends and colleagues for 38 years. We ran for and won seats in the Connecticut legislature as a team of reformers in 1970. He was my state senator and I was his state representative. He rose to Senate majority leader as I became speaker of the House. With others, we formed the Caucus of Connecticut Democrats, a progressive coalition, to further the causes of peace in Vietnam and justice at home.

I have supported him in every election he has had - until now. This year I am supporting Ned Lamont to unseat Joe. Almost four decades of friendship with Joe has made this a wrenching decision for me.

<snip>

His blind support of the Iraq war, begun illegally and a continuing catastrophe, is monstrous.

And his defense of an incompetent president, a vice president who fits the dictionary definition of fascism and an extremist administration that has perpetrated torture, illegal eavesdropping and a general shredding of the Constitution is insulting to the people who elected him in the first place.

More here: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarystolberg0723.artjul23,0,1783559.story

[Nutmegger]

1. KICK for change [nt]

[Catch22Dem]

2. Great piece

Must have been extremely difficult for him to reach and write about this decision.

[Submariner]

3. Oh dear....that will make Angela sad if Joe loses

[otohara]

8. LOL n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

56. LMAO that's the funniest thing I've seen all week

And the Daily Show and the Colbert report were on fire tonight, so that's saying something.

[David Dunham]

4. It's Lieberman running as an independent that will cost us the CT seat

The following is a copy of my post from another thread, which is applicable here too:

I have copied below Kos' analysis from Dailykos today on the CT Senate race. The big problem with his analysis is that it assumes that the Republicans in CT are really dumb and really weak. Neither of those assumptions is correct. Kos assumes first (at least implicitly) that the Republicans are dumb enough to retain their present US Senate candidate, Schlesinger, who was revealed this week to have bounced checks on payment of gambling debts in Atlantic City. What I am told the Republicans will in fact likely do is wait until after the August 8 primary and if Lamont wins they will replace Schlesinger with a moderate Republican like State Senator John McKinney of Fairfield, who is known because he is the son of popular former US Representative Stewart McKinney and has a very engaging personality.

Second, Kos assumes incorrectly that CT Republicans are really weak and that there are "not enough" of them. Kos ignores conveniently the fact that CT's Republican governor, Jodi Rell, will win election this year with 65-70 percent of the vote and that Republicans will have won the governorship for 4 straight elections (16 years). More importantly, Kos misses entirely the crucial fact that if Lamont is the Democratic nominee, 1/3 of the Democrats will very likely remain loyal to Lieberman and will vote for Lieberman over Lamont in the general election. This 1/3 of the Dems in CT is not liberal and will vote for Lieberman because they agree largely with his positions. They have voted in the past for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I. More on point, in 1970, this 1/3 of the Dems voted in the general election for the pro-Vietnam War Senator Tom Dodd, who (like Lieberman) ran as an independent, over the anti-Vietnam War Democratic party candidate Joe Duffy. The result was that with the Democratic vote divided, Republican Lowell Weicker won the Senate seat and remained there for 18 years until he was beaten by Lieberman in 1988.

To illustrate the above consider my family's town of Westport, CT, which although fairly affluent has voted pretty much consistently with the rest of the state over the past three decades for president, senator, governor, and so forth. In the August 8 primary, Lamont will very likely beat Lieberman in Westport by a 60-40 percent margin (or even an greater margin). However, about 1/3 of Westport Dems (and independents) will very likely not shift over to Lamont in the general election. The result will be that in the general election the combined vote for Lamont and Lieberman may exceed the vote for the Republican who replaces Schlesinger, but that the Republican's vote total will exceed the votes for Lamont and Lieberman separately. If John McKinney replaces Schlesinger as the Republican nominee, he may even win outright majorities in Westport and other Democratic-trending towns and cities because his father was very popular in Fairfield County.

A moderate Republican running against a divided Democratic party will also make it harder for the Democrats to win any of the three closely contested US House seats in CT, which the Dems need to win at least two of to help with their chances on winning controla of the US House.

In sum, Kos and his colleagues do not understand how the Dem party voters in CT function. A significant minority of those voters are blue collar, ethnic voters who are not liberal and who basically agree with Lieberman. They will not vote for Lamont in the general election regardless of how much money Lamont spends. The likely result will be a Republican senator and the demise of whatever chances the Dems have of winning control of the US Senate this year.
--David

Kos' analysis:

The challenge for Lamont isn't just to win the primary, which looks increasingly likely, but to crush Lieberman. A small victory, while better than a loss, would fuel Lieberman's claims that the primary was decided by a bunch of people not representative of the state's electorate. A good turnout and a crushing defeat (as in Tester's win in Montana) would send a different signal -- that Lieberman has utterly lost the state's rank and file Democrats.

Given the incredible press a solid Lamont victory would generate, what little support Lieberman had would evaporate. No one wants to back a huge loser. Well, except, perhaps, Connecticut Republicans. But there aren't enough of those and they'd be just as likely to back their candidate in the hopes of stealing a seat in this safe, blue state.

With such a vote of no-confidence hanging over Lieberman's head, party elders would be more motivated to lean on Lieberman heavily to exit the race.

So polls showing the race swinging in Lamont's favor shouldn't be a sign to slack off. It should be a sign to throw Lieberman an anchor. If you have family, friends, or neighbors in Connecticut, help get the word to them about Lamont. It doesn't cost anything. And as always, please help however you can, whether it's volunteering (preferred) or contributing.

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. Latest Rasmussen poll: in 3-way race Lamont 40% Lieberman 40% Repub 13%

The way Lieberman's support is dropping, I'm beginning to think that it IMPROVES Lamont's chances if Lieberman is on the ballot as an independent in November.

[smoogatz]

10. Holy Joe has pledged that if he wins as an Indy, he'll caucus w/ Dems

The Republican has no chance in hell, according to the new Rasmussen poll. So having Lamont in the race is a win/win, as far as progressives are concerned.

[salin]

12. We have learned to trust the Senator, and his loyalty to the party...

exactly when?

[smoogatz]

15. Valid point. But he did give his word.

But you're right to be skeptical.

[salin]

22. trying to blackmail voters

is rather, well, unseemly. Rather defies the point of having a party, or having primaries. If Sen. Lieberman wants to run as an independent, than he should do so - pull out of the primary and focus on the general election.

Unfortunately this just further damages the moderate/liberal split in the party - as those on the liberal side who have been told for years that they proper way to go about getting change is to work through the system (ala primaries) and work for the winner of said primary be it the liberal or the moderate - will no longer work that line - as Lieberman - were he to act on this threat - would demonstrate that this isn't a two-way street. I watched this dynamic happen locally - and it wasn't the progressives that played "take my ball and go home" and risk losing to republicans - it was the moderates... and the republicans won (and lost the next election, for what it is worth.) But the lesson was learned. Just when we need to pull together more than ever (as we have a really good shot and retaking at least one branch of Congress) we do not need this kind of "my way or I will risk losing it for you" divisiveness. And the person playing such blackmail... sure shouldn't be taken at his word.

[David Dunham]

The Repubs will dump their current corrupt candidate

[David Dunham]

14. The Repubs will dump their current corrupt candidate

[smoogatz]

17. So? CT is a heavily Dem state.

They've got nothing.

[David Dunham]

18. No. CT has had Rep governors for 12 years straight.

More importantly, a significant minority of CT Dems are fairly conservative, not anti-war liberals like Lamont and most of us. They will not vote for Lamont in a 3-way race. No way, no how.

[smoogatz]

24. Got any polling to back that up?

[David Dunham]

30. Go to surveyusa.com Jodi Rell's popularity is 70 percent

[smoogatz]

31. Among whom?

[MarkDevin]

50. That's mainly because she isn't John Rowland.

Compared to that scumbag, anyone's an improvement!

[bullimiami]

7. if it all comes to pass and a R sits in the seat.

lieberman will have lost he seat, his party and his honor.


ive got to say it would be even sweeter if lamont beat both of them.

[David Dunham]

13. Polls will change once the Reps dump their current candidate

Once the Reps dump their current candidate Schlesinger, a check bouncer, and replace him with a better known moderate like McKinney, the new Rep candidate will bounce up in the polls especially since they realize they have a good chance to win with Lieberman running as an independent (if Lamont wins the Dem primary).

[mhatrw]

43. A strong Repuke helps Lamont because it hurts Lieberman.

[salin]

11. So to prevent this from happening Lamont should drop out? Or voters

should chose the candidate who would risk the Senate seat going towards the republican majority? That seems odd. Vote for the guy who wants to act as 'traitor' to the party (in terms of risking reclaiming a dem majority) - :shrug:

[David Dunham]

20. Bottom line: Lamont will not win over a new Rep in a 3-way race.

[salin]

23. That is up to Lieberman, if he does not win the primary.

He alone would chose whether or not to risk a republican being elected. The fact that he is contemplating such a risk demonstrates that there is no loyalty nor vision that a democratic majority is needed in the Senate. Sen. Lieberman's choice alone, if he doesn't win the primary. Let him take the heat for choosing to run a campaign strategy that amounts to blackmailing/threats (ala the dire, albeit created by the Sen. himself, scenario that you are painting.)

[kohodog]

36. I don't agree. Regardless,

Joe doesn't deserve any allegiance from any party except the Lieberman Party or the Incumbent Party. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils, come what may. I will vote for a candidate who I believe represents my concerns.

Joe should become part of the burgeoning "Incumbent Party." Joe is all about Joe and I have had enough.

[Major Hogwash]

38. BULLSHIT! Total supposition!

There are no facts to back that statement up!

You got a crystal ball?

LoL

[mhatrw]

44. First, the story line was that Lamont couldn't beat JOE in 3-way

race. Now, it's that he can't beat an UNNAMED Republican in a 3-way race?

Oh, how the mighty (dubious) have fallen!

[EST]

45. I get your point and suspect your personal experience

carries a much higher weight than most of us would like to hear. There is no way you can make your argument any more clear.
The problem is, now (kinda like the Iraq war) the die is pretty well cast and the only real thing we (well, you guys, actually: I'm out of state) can do is put the best face on it that can be and put the pedal down. Ride the donkey in the direction he's going.

[MarkDevin]

51. How the hell do you know?

Though I've only been at DU a short time, I find all this naysaying irritating as hell.

"Lamont can't win in a three-way race."

"Impeachment is a waste of time."

"Let's cede Ohio to the Republicans."

God almighty, people! The Democratic Party stands a good chance of gaining ground this year. So how about some optimism at *Democratic* Underground?

P.S. I live in Connecticut and can tell you with authority: Ned Lamont stands a very good chance of becoming our next senator!

[otohara]

6. Yewouch - Payback

is a bitch. Lieberman is obviously not the same person, he's changed and will do anything to protect his powerful position.

[Ms. Clio]

9. k & r

thanks for posting this.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Put a fork in Joementum n/t

[SammyBlue]

19. Joementum is so done, barring Republican vote tampering.

[BrotherBuzz]

27. Or republican voter cross-over....

I wonder how many republicans have reregistered Demo just to support their buddy in the primary?

[SammyBlue]

29. Most GOP in the NE would never vote Democrat. They'd stay home.

[speedoo]

21. I hope more CT Dems do what Stolberg has done.

Lieberthug is a traitor to his party and he deserves no loyalty from any Democrat.

He cares more about Israel than he does about America, IMO. (and I am not an anti-semite.. ask anyone who knows me)

I want to see him thoroughly trounced by Ned, and thoroughly repudiated by CT Democrats.

[salin]

25. I do NOT agree with your assertion

per his loyalties to nations.

I would agree, however, that he is more loyal to his own opportunism than he is to trying to change American domestic and foreign policy away from the damage being inflicted by BUsh - otherwise he wouldn't be playing the vote for me, or I will intentionally throw the election to the republicans game.

[speedoo]

26. I did not "assert"... I stated an opinion.

"IMO" means, "in my opinion".

I have followed his career for a long time. The only explanation that of his conduct, for me, is that he is blindly supportive of Israel. That's why I have the opinion I stated.

[salin]

32. fair enough.. (per opninion)

I read the Sen. as misjudging the public sentiment - and acting in 'fear' the whole "dems are weak on defense" bs line that some fall for. I think he had staked his presidential hopes on being the "strong defense dem" based on his 2003 support for bushco. And now he is stuck with that and either continues to play that (and hope it appeals to enough independents to win) or looks even more foolish. IMO (semantic point well taken that is opinion rather than assertion) it was about political calculus that he struck out on, and then playing later policital calculus to try to look "consistent".

Granted, back in 1988 his was the ONLY race in which I was rooting for the republican, as I (having just spent several years on the Hill) found his opponent to be consistently more liberal than Lieberman.

[speedoo]

33. You must be talking about Weicker.

I look back on my choice then as being swayed towards Leiberman by my local Democratic state representative, who had been strongly supported by him to win in a very rethug district. Oh well. Weicker is a good man, as is Shays, IMO. They are mong the few rethugs I still respect.

And you might be right re. his current motivation. If you are then he is not nearly as smart as I thought he was. This "consistency" position cost Kerry dearly in 04 and it is costing Clinton now, despite her slight recent shift.

[MarkDevin]

52. Weicker was the GOP's last true liberal.

In fact, when Weicker decided to run for governor of CT in 1990, he left the GOP and started A Connecticut Party. You'll note that he didn't call it, "Connecticut for Weicker."

I voted for Weicker, who was elected governor but declined to run for a second term in 1994.

[NNadir]

28. Wow. It's really picking up momentum.

I think if we can pull this off, dump Joe, all the way through the three way race, we will have sent a wake up call that will send a message through our party, inside and out.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. You know you want to click on this reply! Joe knows it too!

[Hissyspit]

35. Wow. "Monstrous" and "insulting."

Unfortunately, Lieberman has it coming.

[UTUSN]

37. Kick n/t

[fooj]

39. Yikes. That hurts.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.:sarcasm:

[Senator]

40. Yeah, ouch! ... Right in the Jomentums.

Note the pure anti-fascism.

Lieberman represents the 21st Century "Good German" who failed to stand up when he should have.

It started on Dec. 12, 2000, continued on Jan 6th, 2001, and on through war (crime) vote, the bankruptcy vote, the Alito et. al. votes, including Jan. 6th, 2005.

He is the poster boy for the beltway-bound DINO members of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

That's why the likes of Brooks and Kondracke have become his defenders.

===

[WatchWhatISay]

47. Is Dec.12th the day he betrayed all of us on Tim Russert?

I didnt know the exact date, but that is the day that I saw joe for what he is.

I'm so glad to have given Lamont a little money. Most everyone I've ever given money to here loses (Texas).

No, after doing a little research I see that it was 11/19/200. http://www.smithersmpls.com/2004/08/during-presidential-election-recount.html

[Senator]

49. Yes, that idiotic stunt was emblematic

Joe swallows the RNC/Euphemedia lie immediately and sounds the retreat.

He likely still has no clue that he did anything wrong.

--

[MarkDevin]

53. "Analstocracy"?!

:rofl:

[alvarezadams]

41. Where is the pro-DLC crowd?

Cogdis in action.

[MarkDevin]

54. Why? Do you want that badly to read a dozen...

...sneering, one-sentence posts? :evilgrin:

[wordpix2]

42. this is a good editorial, esp because no doubt Stolberg is Jewish &

he, like DU, does not support Joe's "blind support of the Iraq war, begun illegally and a continuing catastrophe, is monstrous.

And his defense of an incompetent president, a vice president who fits the dictionary definition of fascism and an extremist administration that has perpetrated torture, illegal eavesdropping and a general shredding of the Constitution is insulting to the people who elected him in the first place."

[EST]

46. The really huge point that doesn't quite get said--

is that if Lieberman runs as indie, he is really, no shit, running against the democrats.
That puts him squarely against --not for!


O K, Can I say it now? No MoJo!

[Rageneau]

48. "No Mo Jo" --- I like it!

[MarkDevin]

55. Got my NoMoJo working, and it works for Ned Lamont!

:kick: