CT-Sen: Lieberman Views Campaign As Revenge For Party Democracy

by Chris Bowers, Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 07:41:43 AM EDT

Yet again, it is all about Lieberman:Foxnews asks "Will Connecticut senator's independent run help embattled GOP candidates?"

Joe's response? "Well, they should have thought of that before they had the primary."I have watched the video, which is difficult to stomach and which I will not reproduce here since it is Faux News, and there seem to be two ways to read this quote. One reading would be that Lieberman thinks that instead of voting their conscience, Democratic primary voters should have instead capitulated to his threats to leave the party. The other reading is that the party establishment, which gave their complete support to Lieberman during the primary, should never have allowed the primary to happen in the first place. Either way, Lieberman clearly views his run as revenge against Democrats for actually engaging in party democracy. So, either voters should be swayed through threats, or votes should not be allowed to take place. No matter which reading is accurate, Lieberman's sheer disdain for democracy is overwhelming. As far as he is concerned, democracy is only useful as long as it allows you to remain in power, and now he is just a tough parent punishing bad children who actually had the gall to vote for someone else. This is pure, arrogant, aristocracy, through and through.

Connecticut Blog has more on Lieberman's arrogance

Tags: CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Party Democracy, Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

40 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Use it against him

Then your exact points and this appearance need to be in a Lamont ad, pronto. People don't take well to politicians lecturing them, especially when they're arrogant about it.

by adamterando 2006-08-30 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Use it against him

Sorry, I hate it when people respond to the first comment just to get a post through, but this is pretty important.

You misquoted Joe in your analysis.

"Well, I guess I should say that they should have thought of that during the primary, but here we are!"

Very different meaning. I do agree that he's a shady bastard for this, but we really should quote him correctly.

by MtMan900 2006-08-30 10:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Use it against him

I think the full quote is more damning. It clearly shows that "we are here" only because Joe's actions, not because of what voters should or should not have thought about during the primary. That tells me it is punishment for not paying attention to his threat. He is worse than you make him out, as he meant to be threatening AND he means to punish. It is a specific cause and effect that he puts the cause for his actions on someone else.... even though he has total control. makes sense that he is supported by the GOP.

by Steve Talbert 2006-08-30 02:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

And the third possible reading is the obvious one:

That if Lieberman's challengers had weighed the foreseeable consequences of the challenge in their entirety, versus their own perceived political interests in their entirety, they might not have undertaken the challenge.

Too late now. Lamont's not going anywhere. Lieberman's not going anywhere. The scene must play out.

It is what it is.

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 08:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And the third possible reading is the obvious

That sounds like the same as the first reading to me. The foreseeable consequences were Lieberman's sabotage of the party, so deciding on the assumption that he was going to follow through with the threat would have been giving in to blackmail.

by KCinDC 2006-08-30 08:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: And the third possible reading is the obvious

The forseeable consequence being Lieberman's decision to reject the decision of the democratic primary? This is the consequence they should have foreseen and to which they should have reacted? That is the same as the first reading.

by allastair 2006-08-30 08:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Forseeable consequences

It was a given that Lieberman would try to keep his seat. People don't win those seats easily, and they don't give them up easily. Lieberman was a seasoned incumbent, energetic (but eccentric), showing no signs of weariness with the Senate, and remaining popular with the general electorate. (Plus, he told you what he was going to do.) Foreseeable.

The challenge was going to jeopardize House pick-up opportunities no matter how the primary turned out. The primary result and sequel in progress are close to maximum likelihood, and close to worst-case. Foreseeable.

Blaming other actors for the foreseeable consequences of your own actions is morally irresponsible.

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 08:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Forseeable consequences

And that girl was just asking for it. Look how she was dressed.

by Bill Rehm 2006-08-30 09:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Your analogy turns the lesson on its head

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

RonK: Wrong for the 99th time

By God, it's RonK again, who has been wrong about everything concerning this subject from the beginning.

RonK before the primary: No way Lamont will win the primary. Why Joe is creaming him 65% to 19% (or whatever it was). You people are nuts.

RonK before and after the primary: No way Lamont will even come close in the general, even if he does win the primary.

RonK now: You people caused this. Live with it.

Hey Ron, who's going to win in November? Always love to have your opinion, a good index of what not to think.

Wrong. Every. Fucking. Time. A stunning record really.
.

by MikeB 2006-08-30 10:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Got a cite for that?

"No way Lamont will win the primary"?

I do expect Joe to crush Ned in the general, and to become even more independent, more powerful -- and a bigger PITA -- in a closely-divided Senate, while the race may cost us House seats in CT (and elsewhere), Senate seats elsewhere, and Democratic adherents nationwide.

We discussed all these forseeable effects ahead of the primary, and nobody wanted to take them into account. Now you've got them, and you're complaining about it, and calling it Lieberman's "revenge"???

But this is small stuff, and still in play, while my record of being right on the big stuff is pretty stunning.

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 12:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Got a cite for that?

Ron as a long-time ally in the brutal hand to hand combat in the anti-war effort on dKos back when few people really understood what a clusterfuck Iraq was likely to be (i.e. late 2002 and early 2003) I am going to uprate this one. Because political opinions not matter how misguided should not be troll rated and hidden.

But frankly your political judgement is sorely lacking here. Joe might win, but unless he jumps right into the Republican caucus he is going to be marginalized at best, and the notion that his sidelining will "cost us House sets in CT (and elsewhere), Senate seats elsewher, and Democratic adherents nationwide" flies in the face of reality. Joe has been trashing the Democratic Party, that is becoming known, and the delusion that Democrats and Independents are going to swing in line behind Republicans because Joe has been sidelined is fanciful at best. Nobody cares except the AIPAC faithful.

by Bruce Webb 2006-09-02 10:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

A stunning example of the 'bad hominem' argument

You claim people should disregard what I say here, on account of your claim that I'm always wrong.

You support this braod claim with one specific claimed instance.

And that one specific claimed instance is just plain wrong.

How bad an argument is that?

Excuse me, I have to go blow up a bridge somwhere to prove ... I'm not sure exactly what ... but it seems to be the fashion hereabouts.

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 01:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Your analogy turns the lesson on its head

But incumbents aren't supposed to run as Independents (or Connecticut for Liebermans) when they lose their damn primary.

How often has that happened in a US Senate race? When was the last time?

Lieberman is the bad actor here, not the voters of Connecticut who participate in little-d democracy.

by Bill Rehm 2006-08-30 12:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Forseeable consequences

Right, but Ron, the whole point is that his threat amounted to a rejection of party democracy. You're saying that voters need to take responsibility, but you seem to think that Lieberman's actions were pre-determined; Lieberman is the one blaming Democrats for an action which was always entirely up to him.

If Lieberman had threatened, not to run as an independent, but to blow up the George Washington Bridge if he lost, and he lost, and he blew up the bridge, no one would think that Connecticut voters had any culpability in that.

by tomemos 2006-08-30 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Party democracy?

Is "party democracy" an accepted virtue? Is it an American tradition ... or more of a euro-parliamentary norm? Is it even a MyDD value?

I thought we were populists, asserting the primacy of the People over the institutional Party. (We'll see what the next poll says, but as of the last one out, Lieberman still had the People on his side of the rumble.)

And if Lieberman is truly not a Democrat (as most here would agree), what possible claim can be laid against him for failing to abide by "party democracy"?

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 12:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Party democracy?

"Is "party democracy" an accepted virtue?"

If not, then why have primaries at all?

"I thought we were populists, asserting the primacy of the People over the institutional Party. (We'll see what the next poll says, but as of the last one out, Lieberman still had the People on his side of the rumble.)"

We are (for the most part) Democrats. Which "people" are you referring to, here? The "people" that Joe has on his side are now mostly Republicans.

"And if Lieberman is truly not a Democrat (as most here would agree), what possible claim can be laid against him for failing to abide by "party democracy"?"

How about being a duplicitous, self-serving asshole? He calls himself a "petitioning Democrat," or an "independent Democrat." How about adding hypocrite to the list? Why did he bother to run in the primary at all if he knew he was not a Democrat?

Finally, why do I have to explain this to you? It seems so self-evident.

by mjshep 2006-08-30 01:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Party democracy?

RonK believes that Lieberman has a right to his Senate seat, and that the fact that the voters of his own party in his own state disagree with that belief can only be held against the electorate, and not the candidate.

Too bad Lieberman doesn't believe in democracy. And he claims to want to help it spread???

by RickD 2006-08-30 03:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Very strange interpretation

Lieberman has every right (under the laws of Connecticut) to face the voters in an attempt to win a 4th Senate term.

The votes of the whole state (the electorate) supercede the votes of a single party.

Lieberman's decision may be an offense Party discipline, but it's clearly the more democratic course of action.

Lamont has no greater claim on the office than Lieberman; it would be undemocratic to insist that the more popular candidate (Lieberman) stand down; and the unfortunate side-effects belong to the faction that made the contest (Lamont).

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lieberman had every right

to leave the Democratic Party and run as an Independent. God knows I love Bernie Sanders. But having it both ways?

Either you are a 'D' or a 'C f L' (Connecticutt for Lieberman) But in the immortal phrase "shit or get off the pot".

Lieberman left the Democratic Party. It really is as simple as that.

by Bruce Webb 2006-09-02 10:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Party democracy?

IMO, if Lieberman was so intent on keeping his seat, don't you think he should have just left the party before the primary and run as an independent? Right now, he looks ridiculous. He's trying to have it both ways. Well if you won't vote for me in the primary then I'll make you vote for me in the general. He's like some kind of crazy stalker.

As far as the down ticket races go, well, there are usally a lot of ticket splitters.

by Ga6thDem 2006-08-30 05:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

In hindsight, it's obvious

Post hoc analysis of the primary indicates that Lieberman would have won if he'd just kept his big mouth shut about running as an independent in the general.

But that didn't happen. Lieberman is entitled to exercise all of his options, and should not be expected to do anything different.

The favorite is not obligated to drop out of a race just because his presence is inconvenient to the challenger.

It's not ridiculous, and he's not threatening to "make" anybody vote for him in the general. They can vote for him, or vote for Lamont. A very few will vote for Schlesinger.

Liebermans is not a spoiler -- his presence won't dump the race to Schlesinger -- and he's not threatening anybody or extorting anything.

"Crazy stalker"? That sounds to me like crazy talk. Emotional arguments arising from an unfortunate circumstance ... not dispassionate analysis, either ethical or practical.

by RonK Seattle 2006-08-30 07:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In hindsight, it's obvious

RonK
After all this time, I would hope that you "know" me better than to think I'm overly emotional. The stalker comment was facetious.

Anyhow, I wasn't a big promoter of running a primary opponent against Lieberman because I thought a lot of it was bitterness over the attacks he made at Dean back in the primaries.

Now that the primary voters have spoken I think he should drop out. Of course, I know that he isn't going to do that. It truly is all about Joe. He doesn't seem to really be representing his constituents all that well.

Yes, he ran a bad primary campaign and he doesn't seem to be running a general election campaign any better. He seems to be making everybody mad except for the Republicans. Do you realize how ticked off the republicans in the rest of the country are over this move? People here in GA are calling their representatives wanting to know if they are supporting Lieberman. They are calling Liddy Dole and asking her why she isn't supporting the GOP nominee. That's one aspect that I never hear discussed on the "liberal" blogs.

I guess you and Kos had a falling out from some of the posts on this subject. I'm sorry to hear that.

I've said my peace now.

by Ga6thDem 2006-09-01 04:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Forseeable consequences

Blaming other actors for the foreseeable consequences of your own actions is morally irresponsible.

Er, isn't this exactly what Lieberman is doing in the above quote? He is blaming Lamont and those who supported him for his independent run hurting downticket Democratic candidates. But this is entirely a result of Lieberman's decision to run as an independent.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that you and Lieberman are making - that this was foreseeable at the time, and that perhaps the primary challenge was a bad idea, from the perspective of the party's broader interests. But surely Lieberman, of all people, has no right to make this argument.

by jlk7e 2006-08-30 09:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Forseeable consequences

I'm a Connecticut Democrat, and I am SICK TO DEATH of people deciding what "should" have happened in Connecticut for "the sake of the party."

I've been waiting for eighteen years for this moment to happen, for someone to mount a credible challenge to Lieberman from the left. And it's happening. And Lieberman won't matter one bit if NED LAMONT WINS. So let's stop navel-gazing about what it will mean if Joe wins as an independent and MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! Show him as too left for Right, and too right for the Left, too whiny sore-loserish for the middle, and he'll be going home.

There's an idea.

by da0802 2006-08-30 11:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Forseeable consequences

Fortunately, most incumbents, regardless of their seasoning, do not run as independents when they lose primaries. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having primaries.

And Lieberman is not a rabid dog or a hurricane, or anything else that has no moral sense. He is responsible for his own actions.

People who refuse to give in to blackmail are not the ones to hold responsible when the blackmailer strikes.

by KCinDC 2006-08-30 10:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman Views Campaign As Revenge Fo

Lieberman is clearly going to switch parties if he wins.

by dataguy 2006-08-30 08:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman Views Campaign As Revenge Fo

oe's response? "Well, they should have thought of that before they had the primary."

In fairness to a man I disdain in a big way---he said the word "during" ---not "before".

That changes the whole context of the quote.

by trumad 2006-08-30 08:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman Views Campaign As Revenge Fo

I don't think it does. He's still saying,

"You knew I threatened you [Democratic primary voters] by saying I was going to run as an independent if I lost, and you still voted for Lamont. Now I'm following through on my threat. Democracy and the Democratic Party be damned."

by adamterando 2006-08-30 09:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Mary Landrieu watch

If you go to the CTBlog link, it will talk about how Liberman, who is always quick to criticize a democrat about his/her middle east stance, remained silent during the whole Katrina tragedy. I personally thought he made a few perfunctory comments, but even if I am correct, I do not think they smacked of any outrage.

Yet Mary Landrieu supports this guy. Democrats in Lousiana are one fucked up bunch (No offense to you Vikas).

by Pravin 2006-08-30 08:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman Views Campaign As Revenge Fo

I really don't like Lieberman. He makes my skin crawl...

by dayspring 2006-08-30 08:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Democrats who backed Lieberman...

...during the primary should have thought about the likely outcome. Had they not intervened, Lieberman might have been crushed in a landslide, which definitely would have hurt his prospects now. I's still not too late. Given that, at this rate, Lieberman is going to singlehandedly give control of the House to Republicans -- Democrats really need those three seats -- the DSCC and the DCCC should throw their weight and very big money behind Lamont.

Or, perhaps the DSCC could help matters by offering Lieberman charter flights in small planes.

by expatjourno 2006-08-30 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

DING DING DING!

We have a winner!

The thing is that Hadassah Lieberman's value as a lobbyist will decrease sharply once her husband is no longer a United States Senator. So there are two jobs, not one, on the line in their household.

by Phoenix Woman 2006-08-30 10:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: DING DING DING!

But Joe's value as a lobbyist will be higher than hers is now. He'll be able to make more money on his own as a lobbyist than the two of them together pull down today.

by KCinDC 2006-08-30 09:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

The rEal Lieberman

The 3 gop congresspeople (Shays, Simmons, Johnson) have been able to remain in power with the help of Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman has been hurting the Democratic party for a long time. Enough voters have finally caught on to the fact that Lieberman is a power hungry, senator for sale, hypocrite who will say or do anything for power.

The key is to make sure more voters see it. True independents and moderate republicans have far more in common with Lamont than they do with Lieberman.

by bigdavefromqueens 2006-08-30 09:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Weasels at the Top

Lieberman is such a shocking weasel that it takes my breath away. And when we have so many weasels at the top who bully and cheat from Bush to Rumsfeld, to Abramhoff to Limbaugh to your boss, our kids all want to grow up to be weasels and Gordon Gekkos. I see it in every state I've lived that once men get into power they prefer the bully approach to reason. They hate democracy and prefer the back room deals. And they surround themselves with cronies who are loyal, but not necessarily smart. They hate "The Wisdom of Crowds". We have got to put up a united front against bullying and blackmail like this in every place it rears its ugly head. And especially in Connecticut where it couldn't be more clear that Democracy is in grave danger.

by Feral Cat 2006-08-30 10:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Is Anyone Surprised?

This is the guy who in 2000 refused to allow a perfectly good local Democrat to run for his Senate seat while he ran for VP. He thus set up a situation where had Florida not been rigged, he would have allowed CT's Republican governor to pick his replacement -- and the replacement probably would have been Philip "Baby Raper" Giordano.

by Phoenix Woman 2006-08-30 10:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman Views ...

Wow. My jaw hit the ground when I heard his quote. The arrogance this guy displays is dispicable.
America's Least Wanted

by budpaul 2006-08-30 12:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CT-Sen: Lieberman

Lieberman is a whiny, sniveling weakling. He gives off a whiff of death, of decay, of entropy. I can smell his stink from watching the damn video. Ugh.

by Nezua Limon Xoloquinta Jonez 2006-08-30 03:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Just Desserts

What I see is Lieberman's arrogance. The Connecticut voters have spoken - they want him to take a hike.

Joe's hanging on because of what Phoenix Woman said about his wife's value as a lobbyist. She won't have very much if he's no longer a U. S. Senator. And I also understand she's behind his "Indy" push.

I'm convinced if he wins, Joe will turn ReThug, so what difference will it make to the Democratic side of the Senate if that happens?

Additionally, I think that at worse, Joe turns into Zell Miller for the Democrats, and I'm confused as to why Harry Reid wants to continue providing him cover to behave this way.

The State of Hawaii's Democratic Party already laid into Dan Inouye - told him if he continued to back Lieberman, the state Democratic party would discipline his ass. Something to do with adhering to State party rules, and that would include endorsing and supporting the winner of any Democratic primary. Inouye has since backed off, and many of the members, including those who trekked to Connecticut to support Lieberman, have now taken Hillary's lead and are backing Lamont in the general election. Hillary's throwing money and support into Lamont's coiffers, so that can't do anything except help Lamont and eviscerate Lieberman.

Should Lieberman regain his seat, and by some miracle, the Dems take back the Senate, Lieberman should not be rewarded for his treachery with any Chairmanship positions. Period. He should be stripped of his seniority and have to start over as a Freshman.

by Political Junkie 2006-08-30 05:19PM | 0 recs