Lieberman's Hold on the Party

by Matt Stoller, Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 12:24:42 PM EST

The most significant of these? His financial hold on the party apparatus. Lieberman provided nearly $1 million to the state party in 2000, the year he ran simultaneously for reelection to the Senate and as Al Gore's running mate. The senator is up front about the consequences a primary would have on the state party's treasury: If he must fend off a challenger, money just won't be available to Connecticut Democrats for their own campaign operations, their May convention, or for tough, targeted House races against Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons. "A credible primary challenge would make that difficult," Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith says.
Lieberman, said one state party official, has been "incredibly generous" to the party in the past -- a generosity the hierarchy clearly would like him to sustain.

Connecticut politicians are scared of a party without Lieberman, because Lieberman's been on the top of the ticket since 1988. Fear mongering throughout the campaign is going to be a hallmark of Joe2006. It's a smart strategy, because it plays to Lieberman's strengths. Lieberman is a congenial man with a long history in Connecticut politics, and the 'devil you know' line is going to resonate with a lot of traditional Democrats. It's similar to Kerry's strategy in Iowa in 2004 where he muddled the differences between him and Dean while arguing that he was a safe choice. I remember hearing him on the stump where his resonant line in Iowa was something like 'Democrats shouldn't just send a message, we should send a President'. That's how Lieberman is going to play this campaign.

Will it work in 2006? My guess is that it won't. The dynamics of the current environment are very different from 2004. Trust in the party is broken, and it's almost impossible at this point to sustain the tension between claiming the progressive mantle while standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush.

Tags: Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

25 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

Connecticut is not the only state with this problem.

Coordinated campaigns are a bitch, huh?

phat

by phatass 2006-03-29 12:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

The correct URL for the Prospect story...

...is this.

by skeptic06 2006-03-29 12:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

My guess is that you are wrong, that Lieberman will win and Democrats will remain just another de facto Republican Party. There seem to be more liberals in the Republican than Democratic Party.

Exactly why should liberals vote for a Clinton or even a Spitzer here in New York, let alone a Casey in Pennsylvania or a Lieberman in Connecticut?

If Lamont wins then maybe one can indeed look forward to a real difference.

I won't hold my breath but I sure wish you luck.

by terryhallinan 2006-03-29 12:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Thanks for your hard work

by Teaser 2006-03-29 12:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

I was always proud of my counterline

"Don't send them a haircut, send them a president."

Never got picked up.

Sorry O/T.

by texas dem 2006-03-29 12:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

Let me get this straight, Lieberman is threatening to derail the party's national standing, unless he gets his way, including allowing Shays and Simmons win? I say let him go, he's already abandoned the Democratic Party. What is he going to do when the progressive activists learn about his gun to the head of the state party and make his "contribution" look trivial? If the state party made a national appeal because it was being held hostage by a detested scumbag, they might be surprised. I bet Joe would too.

by VizierVic 2006-03-29 12:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not Exactly....

If Lieberman looses in the primary, the Connecticut Dem Party looses the major source for their party funding. Lieberman has set himself and the interests that like him as the biggest state contributor(s).

What he is saying is that if he looses the primary, Connecticut Democrats probably loose the state due to a sudden lack of funding. (Yup, he's gonna be a sore looser and take all of his marbles {$$} home).

The people currently in control of the party apparatus DO know where most of their money comes from. I'm betting that they won't bolt too quickly. However, this guy went to hardball fairly fast though, signs of a serious problem for him.

by NvDem 2006-03-29 08:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not Exactly....

...If Lieberman looses in the primary, the Connecticut Dem Party looses the major source for their party funding...

Not exactly. If he loses the primary the big money donors go in search of the winner. Big money abhors a power vacuum - see for instance the aftermath of the Missouri gubernatorial primary in 2004.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-30 02:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Liberal first, Democrat second.

I must say, it is a very tight race in CT-4. When I was researching donors for Diane Farrell (Dem challenger in CT-4), most donors had also given to Lieberman at some point in the last 6 years. Lieberman, and his past supporters, are definitely needed in this race.

I think the stakes in the Senate primary are greater though. It will be a fight between the entrenched party and the new party. I think the risk is worth it. We will send a message that we hold our elected officials accountable for their votes. If all this primary does is make Joe think twice before voting with Bush and pals, then perhaps that's a gain. Getting Lamont in the Senate is like gaining a seat. And if Lieberman stops supporting the CT Dems, I think it's a price worth paying. Lamont's reelection PAC would simply replace Lieberman's in the future races. I just gave my donation to Lamont last night, and my support remains behind him.

by John Nicosia 2006-03-29 12:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

You see the risks....

and the rewards. Laser like insight into the problem. Good for you! Good Luck!

by NvDem 2006-03-29 08:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

If we spent half the time

attacking Republicans as we do Lieberman, we would have a majority in the House and Senate by now.

by jkfp2004 2006-03-29 12:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Myopic.

That's like saying we should focus all our efforts on the enemy's front and give up weeding out double agents within our midst. Lieberman is a double agent who damages our national credibility--subtlely, I should say--way more often than he brings anything to the table.

I say go after the guy. This is way bigger than two or three house seats that may not get daddy Lieberman's juice this cycle.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-03-29 01:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman votes for Reid for Majority Leader

That's the biggest vote a Senator can make. Waste resources on defeating somone who also casts the vote we want is only helping DeWine, Santorum, and DeLay. Those guys are 100x worse than Joementum could ever be.

by jkfp2004 2006-03-29 01:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman votes for Reid for Majority Leader

Maybe. I'm inclined to think that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not like all the volunteers in Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Virginia are going to make a mass pilgrammage to Connecticut and abandon their local races for 4 months.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-03-29 01:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If we spent half the time

How do you feel about Israel?

Do you oppose attacking Lieberman b/c you basically agree with him about Israel?

by Carl Nyberg 2006-03-29 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

If Lieberman spent ANY time...

...attacking Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, we might have done a heck of a lot better in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

by Tony Soltero 2006-03-29 05:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

Any liberal or democrat who doesn't turn out in November is handing the election to the Republicans. Any liberal or democrat who doesn't vote is shooting themselves in the foot.

by Illustrious 2006-03-29 12:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

How do you figure?

I'd say leaving GOP-lite Dems in there just enables the GOP to go further hard-right. You know, presenting a rightward drift of the party as false moderation, slowly shifting the terms of US political discourse decidely to the right. One decade we're building the great society, couple of decades later we're buying into the GOP's playbook on welfare and working with them to dismantle it and, in so doing, delegitimise folks who think there was still quite a lot of envelopes to push to fulfill the initial promise of that Great Society.

IMHO, this is the primary reason why US political spectrum is extremely out of kilter with the rest of the Western democracies. The Mainstream of the Democratic party is actually to the right of most CONSERVATIVE parties in Europe.

Why do you figure this is?

I got a hunch that the GOP isn't solely to blame. The DLC Democrat phenomenon is equally to blame.

So when is it we get off the bus?

by redstar66 2006-03-29 01:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

...November...

You failed to notice the operative word - either that or you believe the republicans retaining control is better than a Democratic House or Senate checking their power?

I wrote this parody elsewhere a long time ago:

There is no difference?

"There is no difference" represents the epitome of a lack of understanding practical reality and the ramifications of the choices one makes. It is the smug self-rightiousness that there is only one true way, and that we do not have to accept responsibility for that choice. It tells us that to achieve one's pipe dreams we can make others suffer for our hubris. It tells us that only we matter and those less fortunate are, well, out of luck.

"There is no difference" tells us that we can move furniture in the living room while the house is on fire and in danger of burning down (or, if you prefer, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it's sinking).

"There is no difference" is patently false and very much like every clueless high school busybody who put on a Christmas pageant for the poor to brighten their day, ignoring the fact that they were ill, homeless, hungry, and cold.

"There is no difference" doesn't bother to stick around to find out what happens, and doesn't care.

"There is no difference" is the hand that grabs the last match as it is lit, letting the self generated wind extinguish that last hope for a warm fire because, well, they read about this really cool way to set the sticks when you build a fire which may, in certain circumstances, make your fireplace draft more efficient except we're outside and it's below freezing and that was our last match because at the last campsite there was "no difference" either and playing with the fireworks in Florida was so much fun...

[Timeout: people who are naive and unsophisticated should be mocked.]

"There is no difference" says that no loaf is better than 39 out of 40 slices. And besides, the people that won't give us any bread will cause the hungry masses to rise up and change the system overnight.

"There is no difference" says not making a choice relieves one of any responsibility when the truly bad choice triumphs.

"There is no difference" worries about their own souls, but can't fathom the suffering of others because, well, it's good for their souls.

"There is no difference" is where one goes to hide because they were too lazy to do anything but pontificate in the abstract and didn't want to soil their souls doing the hard work of planning, organizing, educating, and getting out the vote at the precinct level.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-29 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

The best response to this is to quote one of my brothers' old bosses. It seems my brother went to him and complained that he wasn't being paid enough, and asked for a raise.

My brother's boss peered over the desk and made a show of looking at my brother's ankle. After about 20 seconds, my brother said it started to feel a little weird so he said something.

The boss replied, "I was just looking for the ball and chain, that's all."

If you're dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, then get behind liberal candidates in the primaries. If they don't get elected, then consider a third party. But don't sit there and whine. It really doesn't work.

by cwilson 2006-04-01 03:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

You can't really criticize lieberman for this. Do you expect him to fundraise for the party or for himself if he is in danger of being knocked off in a primary? There are three house races in CT that we want to win, and I think that's more important than knocking off joe.

by ItsDrewMiller 2006-03-29 12:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

I'm definitely not a fan of Lieberman and would almost certainly vote against him in the upcoming primary if I lived in Connecticut. That being said, I'm not particularly outraged or surprised by his campaign tactics. I mean, what incumbent politician facing a primary opponent wouldn't use every threat available to them to try and undercut their opponent? IMO, when it comes to survival instincts, I don't think there is anything unique about Lieberman at all.

by HSTruman 2006-03-29 01:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

the condition of taking the money

How much of Lieberman's money comes from people that are fundamentally Israel-hawks, opposed to any peace with dignity for the Palestinians?

If a staunch segregationist was bankrolling the Mississippi Democratic Party, would you hesitate to defeat him in a primary because of the financial considerations?

by Carl Nyberg 2006-03-29 02:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lieberman's Hold on the Party

I don't see Senator Lieberman's comments as a threat, but a statement of reality. If he has a tough primary race, he has to spend his money on his own race, and not on other races. That is a real problem with primarying an incumbent; instead of helping other candidates, the primaried incumbent has to fight for his own survival. Whether you like Lieberman or not (and I'm not a big fan), you can't blame him for spending his own money to win his own race.

by nascardem 2006-03-29 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Fearmongering from the DLC wing?

Fear mongering throughout the campaign is going to be a hallmark of Joe2006.

Fearmongering is always an effective tool to manipulate fools. NeoDems have been keeping too many liberals subserviently in line with it since 1994 and before.

Hell, just read the Chis Bowers post which follows this one to see the same old garbage about uniting around "winning" issues rather than important ones. People see right such too-cute-by-half nonsense and say to hell with supporting or voting for such transparently manipulative Democrats who preach fear of losing rather than boldly winning on issues which matter.

by Sitkah 2006-03-29 04:50PM | 0 recs