Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Lieberman loses in Democratic primary

18 year Senate veteran Joe Liberman conceded victory to Ned Lamont in the Conecticut primary an hour or so ago; it has all got me a bit worried.

Lamont basically ran againt Lieberman's support of the Iraq War and of the President. Now as anyone can tell you, I'm no backer of Bush or of the war. But I get a little nervous when a man who sponsored tough, bi-partisan climate change legislation, is endorsed by NARAL because of his pro-choice views, is fighting for lobbyist and campaign finance reform is being villified as some kind of Republican stooge. Also, his close association with President Bush has allowed certain pundits to paint him as a hardcore social conservative. This is the same guy that the Christian Coalition awarded a score of ZERO on their 2004 Senate score card, the same score as Hilary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

We all need Senators who can reach across the aisle, not to mention guys like Lieberman who are smart and usually on the progresive sides of the issues. The Democrats will dig their own grave if they try make themselves over into a single issue (anti-war) party and purge their ranks accordingly. Keep that tent big.


  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger jbreitling said…

    This reminds me of a recent Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) blog post about how he hopes the world is actually run by a secret cabal, because sometimes the electorate (I am paraphrasing here) is stupid. Think it was linked off BoingBoing if you wanna hunt it down.

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Kurtis of Rambis Manor said…

    Fellas! Lamont's win only meant that Connecticut Dems were fed up with Lieberman's sanctimonious, self-serving pose. It has a lot to do with his position on the war (no daylight between him and Bush on Iraq until he realized it might be costing him votes), but I think it has just as much to do with his attitude, which was perfectly summed up in that "we undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril" baloney he was spewing about debate over what to do in Iraq. His position on Terry Schiavo played out much the same way, as did his position on emergency contraception in CT hospitals. Repeatedly, publicly tsk-tsk'ing your party isn't a good way to build support (at least within your party).

    I think he also probably lost his edge when he announced his backup plan to run as an Independent, which confirmed for many what's implied above-- that he's in it for himself.

    I think he's also tried to be a "moderate" while a pretty extreme administration (and congress) have shown no taste for moderation. What's the point in being one of very few moderates when there's no one left to work with? The center just drifts further to the right to compensate.

    Nationally, I think the Dem Party tent is and remains plenty large. There's a lot of room between Russ Feingold/Barbara Boxer and Bill Nelson/Max Baucus.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home