Lieberman Loss: Anti-War Win?
US Senator Joe Lieberman, former vice presidential candidate and three-term incumbent lost to Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman who used a good portion of his personal wealth and voters' frustration with the current elected politician. In yesterday's Democratic primary, Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, with 99% precincts reporting.
Liberman vowed to run as an independent, stating that "for the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."
Mr. Lamont spent at least $4 million of his own money on hard-edged television commericals. One example was Mr. Lieberman's face changed into President Bush's as an announcer said the senator "talks like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush."
Lieberman's dependency on his traditional Democratic interest groups should have resulted in victory, not defeat. He had a good standing among environmentalists, abortion rights groups, and labor unions. Foreign policy usually does not emerge as a top vote factor among the populace. We could be more worried about taxes, Social Security, health care, inflation, and public services than about war.
Generally, for a Democratic or Republican member of Congress, you would earn a primary challenger if you were to oppose a powerful local group on an issue it deemed critical (NY Times). Example: If you represented a Rust Belt district, you could all but count on winning your party's nomination every two years as long you voted with the local union on trade legislation.
However, this was not the norm this time. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (Howard Dean's incarnation) bascially concentrated on the most liberal position of their platform: anti-war. They do not care if you brought more jobs to the state, help fight polluting corporations, preserve the ANWR region from drilling, and saving Social Security. If you sided with Bush on Iraq, you're not the candidate for them. The main goal of these two advocacy groups is to denounce Republicans whenever possible and to block the administration's agenda whenever possible. Bipartisanship is essentially a no-no in their book.
For Connecticut, a Lieberman loss will likely not result in a loss of a Democratic Senate seat. The GOP has a weak candidate, Alan Schlesinger, and the Party is considering whether they should continue to back their candidate, try to find a replacement to take advantage of a possible scenario with Lieberman running as an independent (though Schlesinger refuses to step down), or help finance a Lieberman's independent campaign. However, I think Bush showing up to help support an Independent Lieberman may not bring out a positive result. :) As for the state, it is pretty much a Democratic win in November. Now if this were to happen in Ohio, Michigian, or Illnois, or a swing-state then the effects would be on a much larger scale.
However, I do not see this win for Lamont, a win for the anti-war groups. The national effect will not be that substantial. I am sure other Democratic leaders that voted to authorise the Iraq war would certainly consider the opinions of the "peace" liberals, but Lieberman was probably more vulnerable during his primary loss. The public does have a short-attention span, and domestic issues could rise to the forefront of voters' minds. It is just timing. Fortunately for MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, they got it right on for Connecticut.
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: August 9, 2006 03:21 PM
How is being against the war "the most liberal" position on the Democratic platform?
Posted by: Rich
Posted on: August 9, 2006 04:17 PM
This is just another example of how polarized the parties have become, and homogenized. There is little or no room for divergence in either party, and doing so results in being shunned. The Dems should be welcoming people of different and moderate viewpoints to try and build some sort of coalition against the dominant Republicans. Now any pro-war Dems may be permanently turned off to the party.
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 9, 2006 04:51 PM
"Against the War" - most liberal. Well, that's the goal of MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. Their intent is the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq regardless of the situation. In most cases, they would usually adopt the liberal position on other issues, and you won't know if they would accept or compromise a centrist position or even a conservative position, no matter how right or wrong.
Posted by:
Posted on: August 9, 2006 05:08 PM
If 60% of Americans are against war, how is it liberal? Has American suddenly become 60% liberal?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html
Posted by:
Posted on: August 9, 2006 06:20 PM
Does support by a liberal organization automatically make an issue liberal (let alone the most liberal)
Likewise, does supporting one issue make a group or individual liberal?
In a recent poll Zogby found 23% of Republicans thought the war was not worth the loss of American lives? Have they suddenly become liberal? Or because almost 1/4 of them are against the war, does that suddenly transform "against the war" into the "least Republican issue"?
In the same poll, Zogby found 82% of Democrats did not think the war was worth it. I always believed a primary was supposed to put the best candidate for that party foward. If Lieberman was so out of touch with his consituents, shouldn't he have been ousted? While many have focused on this primary as a single issue topic, I believe this primary shows a fundamental split in the Democratic party that can't be narrowed down to one issue. In the end, Connecticut Democrats opted for a strong liberal voice, rather than Lieberman's moderate views.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/has-the-deliebermanizati_b_26636.html
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 9, 2006 06:36 PM
I don't believe Ned Lamont expounded on the other domestic issues, but focused on Lieberman being pro-Iraq and alleging through his extensive advertising that Joe was basically George W. Bush in disguise.
For the CNN poll, what great timing :)
Democracy for America is Dean's baby. Definitely the most liberal advocacy group out there, probably too liberal for me.
Another argument is whether this primary win for Lamont has national implications. Or was Lieberman just too vulnerable in a Democratic state?
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 9, 2006 06:39 PM
Ok, I shouldn't suggest that being against the war means you are a liberal. I did not really mean it that way. I am disconcerted to how MoveOn.org and Democracy for America chose that position as the liberal basis of their fight against "moderate" Lieberman. I hope that makes sense.
Posted by: Rich
Posted on: August 10, 2006 12:26 PM
The problem is that modern politics has forced us into the "liberal vs. conservative" discourse. Parties no longer have wings with different elements contained in each. For the longest time (until the 1930s) the Dems were held together, no by liberal ideology, but by a dedication to a low tarrif. All issues must go into the liberal or conservative molds. Supporting of the war does not make you automatically "conservative". People have mistaken a party line for political philosophy. How does support for a war make someone support a smaller government, the definition of conservatism? In fact, while many Republicans are conservative on social issues, on fiscal issues they come across as downright liberal (how many spending bills has Bush vetoed? 0!). The modern party system is trying to convolute a discourse of political parties with issues that dont fall into conserative or liberal thought.