Why Lieberman Will Lose Tuesday's Primary

Joe Lieberman in December:

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril,

Joe Lieberman yesterday:

What I don't think is right, as I've said over and over again, are many of the Bush administration's decisions regarding the conduct of the war. The fact is I have openly and clearly disagreed with and criticized the president. ...

I not only respect your right to disagree or question the president or anyone else -- including me -- I value your right to disagree.

Though I eagerly supported his vice presidential candidacy in 2000, I won't miss Sen. Lieberman when he loses Tuesday's Connecticut primary and is defeated in the general election (or drops out beforehand).

Lieberman lost the primary when he said he'd run as an independent. This announcement legitimized the possibility he'd be defeated by challenger Ned Lamont, showed disloyalty to his party and indicated he's a sore loser. This gave his opponent all of the joementum, and Lieberman's been in free fall ever since.

I keep reading how angry Lieberman has been over Lamont's opposition, which demonstrates one of the reasons he's in such trouble. A three-term senator with all the advantages of incumbency, he can't get over the fact that this election wasn't just handed to him.


I also had a change of heart with Lieberman. The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a "zero tolerance" attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to "throw the bums out". Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates - most notably on the topic of "earmarks". I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman's brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark "pork", completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which - full disclosure - I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video commentary on youtube and a transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question"

Lieberman and Miller -- two Democrats who agreed with, and continue to support, the war on terrorism...

That's it -- that's the reason these two are "traitors" to the running-yellow-dog-democrats... because they aren't in favor of assisting the terrorist's goals by withdrawing from Iraq and, or blaming Israel for the crimes of the human sacrificing Islamic fascists.

You craven, lockstep Democrats actually think Israel is in the wrong for being attacked by Hezbollah!

You'll adopt any ends-justifies-the-means stance/propaganda/lie in order to advance your party over the security and goals of the ENTIRE nation ...


Why is running a bad thing for a dog? Or yellowness? I should have paid more attention in school.

Those two statements aren't exactly oil and water, he could have said them one after the other with an "on the other hand" between and not raised even your very tight, very sexual eyebrows, Rogers. As strange as it sounds, politicians have complex thoughts and see shades of gray.

I'd be angry too if I was running against a guy whose internet consultants, desperate for a win, abandoned any residual dignity and perpetrated one of the ickiest mudslinging campaigns ever seen in American politics.

Why Lieberman Will Win:

Jerome Armstrong and the Daily Kos.

Who's even ahead at this point? Is it time to tell the world about my secret shame with Ned Lamont in a Tallahassee truck-stop shower?

i think the democrats are out to defeat this country to help the terriost. sen lieberman is one of the finist senators in his party

i think the democrats are out to defeat this country to help the terriost. sen lieberman is one of the finist senators in his party

Classic. Apparently Republican understanding of the dictionary is nearly as strong as their understanding of foreign policy.

Unfortunately, the failed policy in Iraq has greatly benefitted Iran - a leading sponsor of Hezbollah. Sadly, the ongoing civil war in Iraq was predictable for anyone with a modicum of experience/knowledge regarding the history of Iraq and the Middle East. Leaders should be mindful of the law of unintended consequences, otherwise their policies may generate more terrorists.

I hope you are right, Rogers, that CT boots the bum out in tomorrow's election, and no doubt Lamont will be a breath of fresh air, but I was disappointed by his knee-jerk support of Israel to "defend itself". So, he is kinda anti-war; against the US ocupation of Iraq, but when Israel goes totally beserk in Lebanon it is a different matter, as it always is for American pols.

Ah well... Not that it will help the Lebanese civilians much in the coming days, but it is pretty obvious that the Israeli-American military adventurism in the Middle East is finally, thankfully, running out of steam. Pity about all that oil there, but maybe our future Chinese and Indian lords will share a few drops with us.

Anyone that supports Americans killing Arabs in the middle east, supports terrorism. No president has done a better job recruiting new terrorists than George W. Bush. Al Queda and Republicans are one and the same.

This one doesn't ThinkSmart says, "Unfortunately, the failed policy in Iraq has greatly benefitted Iran - ..."

What has "benefitted Iran" is the Leftist/Democrats who attempt to shape reality, in Iraq, into a worldwide catastrophe. This effort to spin reality is made in order to gain political advantage against Bush/Republicans, and not in any way an attempt to defend and protect our country or its security.

This is easily seen in a simple comparison between Iraq and the Bosnian/Serbian war which Democrats were 100% supportive of. In Bosnia, the war was entered into to save a populace from genocide and to preclude any chance that the situation might evolve into another major war in Europe.

Both those reasons were the same for the invasion of Iraq and the deposition of Saddam Hussein...the "policy in Iraq" was NOT failed, and nor has it failed as yet!

Indeed, the very attempt to twist reality so that those goals seem NOT achieved (deposition of a genocidal tyrant and democratization of Iraq) is a literal subversion of the truth -- a lie which not only discredits the United States but assists the terrorists by providing them with encouraging support within their enemy's camp!

... And, here you are, along with your ideological ilk, providing the information that Iran is HELPED by your claims of failed policy, etc.!

"Sadly, the ongoing civil war in Iraq was predictable for anyone with a modicum of experience/knowledge regarding the history of Iraq and the Middle East."

Sadly, your efforts to subvert the success of a Republican president has assisted those who foment civil war in Iraq and encourage Iran in its support of terrorism. Your party's virtual treason during this war has undermined our success and damaged our image around the world.

You Democrats exercise your freedom of speech, daily, in discrediting the war, its planning, its conduct and its goals; all of which would help the United States and those who pray for democracy and freedom in the Middle East. You actually think that muckraking the political arena for votes is "patriotic" during a time of active combat, and where your arguments and calumny actually lend aid and comfort to our enemy!

"Leaders should be mindful of the law of unintended consequences, otherwise their policies may generate more terrorists."

Your party's propaganda war against Republicans has damaged the ENTIRE country's security by encouraging terrorists to resist our fight against them!!!

You are, all of you, so very, very stupid in your arrogance and selfish partisanship during active war ...

Stupid, stupid stupid to the Nth degree...

I enjoyed this column:

If Lieberman loses, it will not even be because he supported the war. Almost every leading Democratic politician and foreign policymaker, and many a liberal columnist, supported the war. Nor will he lose because he opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Most top Democratic policymakers agree that early withdrawal would be a mistake. Nor, finally, is it because he has been too chummy with President Bush. Lieberman has offered his share of criticism of the administration's handling of the Iraq war and of many other administration policies.

No, Lieberman's sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong. He didn't turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn't claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn't try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn't claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce.

Robert Kagan's take on this seems delusional to me, Mike. I can only hope he's another Lieberman pal like David Gergen who's sticking up for a buddy.

Lieberman's strength of support for the war depends entirely on whether he's up for re-election. I know you don't like Daily Kos, but here's a diary that shows how two-faced he is on the subject. He's in trouble because he's a fake.

I think those who have said that there is more going on here then the war have hit the nail on the head. As Lieberman has become more and more of a national figure there's been a growing feeling that he has been more concerned with his standing on the national stage then he has with his standing amongst those that he is supposed to represent. Combine that with the fact that this is going to be a generally anti-incumbant year and that Lieberman is seen as an 'establishment' senator (I really agree with that first comment) pretty much dooms him from where I'm sitting. I also wanted to point out that Lieberman alienated a lot of younger voters years ago with policies that many in that group see as pro-censorship. While I must confess not to be a huge fan of either canditate in this race I'm always glad to see it when incumbants who have begun to treat thier office as a birth right are forced to come to terms with the fact that it is not.

Tadowe I heard these same arguements thirty-five years ago.If you don't support the war, You're a traitor It didn't wash back then and sure as the hell doesn't Now!

the problem isn't just that the republicans have criticized the CT Dems for being too partisan; the problem is that everyone's frame has effectively been focused to see democrats, generally, as weak on defense. people are endlessly influenced to see hawks like lieberman as the salvation for the party. instead of questioning this dishonest frame, instead of focusing on the increase in terrorism worldwide and the unnecessary radicalization of the middle east, observers have been permitted to comment in a fashion that takes war as a given for those serious about protecting americans. hawkishness doesn't work. regardless of its immoral aspect, it doesn't work any moreso than torture yields useful intelligence. the harder darth vader squeezed, the more star systems slipped through his grip. the answer isn't to kill everyone that disagrees with us, but to hear the Liberman supporters, you would think that no conflict was ever resolved without utterly destroying the enemy. as though no other approach could work. as though peace can not be attained without deliberate murder and death. well, Democrats should be proud of their more intelligent approach to world affairs. one need not be a red-knecked, mouth breather to protect oneself. why must this be so in order to protect one's contry? time to grow up, america.

"This is easily seen in a simple comparison between Iraq and the Bosnian/Serbian war which Democrats were 100% supportive of. In Bosnia, the war was entered into to save a populace from genocide and to preclude any chance that the situation might evolve into another major war in Europe.

Both those reasons were the same for the invasion of Iraq and the deposition of Saddam Hussein...the "policy in Iraq" was NOT failed, and nor has it failed as yet!"

Hey moron (tadowe), the genocide in Iraq has only just begun, and it has occured because we invaded with no effective plans for occupation. we didn't start this war to prevent genocide. furthermore, by invading we made more likely the occurence of a major war in the middle east. it's now more likely, not less likely. by giving iran a leg up over the sunnis in iraq we removed a natural enemy of our bigger adversary, Iran. you talk about reality but your own post shows you don't have a clue.

our national security was harmed greatly by those who couldn't employ effective diplomacy if their lives actually depended on it (as opposed to the soldiers they sent to their deaths instead). idiot.

Well of course it seems delusional to you. You're a hopeless liberal kookyhead with a well-documented history of gay ocean mammal matrimony advocacy.

We hear a lot about the Pres not being nuanced enough. We (well, you) praise leading Dems for reversing their positions on the war and telling a different story now than they did then because it's evidence of complex and subtle minds. But when Lieberman expresses nuance without reversing his position (and despite reading the entirety of the DailyKos diary, I still don't see what's wrong with making valid but seemingly opposite points - not to mention that quoting single paragraphs from entire speeches isn't exactly open-and-shut evidence of anything), he's a fake. Well fine, but don't expect me to sign on to that reasoning. It's the old "my side is fair and reasonable when they do it, but yours is crazy, lying and stupid" trick.

Why can't Marty Peretz, David Gergen and Robert Kagan be saying exactly what they mean? And how is Ned Lamont better anyway? If he does win, it could well (as Cokie Roberts says - you heard me, Cokie Roberts) be a disaster for the party. You're welcome to the results (I can't get excited about this race, just the arguments thereof), but what's the proposed upgrade here exactly, assuming you're not part of the "rape gurney Joe"/blackface crowd? I can't be the only one who noticed the dismal failure of "anybody but Bush," can I? I have yet to hear anything to recommend Lamont other than he's not Lieberman.

As a moderate Democrat, non-connecticut resident, and one who is hoping our flawed policies on the war can be harnessed into someting constructive really soon - I hope Lieberman wins today. Lamont has shown us nothing (OK he is rich - so he will understand the plight of the average millionaire...great). If Uncle Joe loses it will reflect on the anti-war sentiment that is mounting in the country and the very liberal and anti-bush state of connecticut. I know people keep arguing that musings of iconoclastic liberal democrats are the only thing proping up the reistance/insurgence/terrorists in Iraq right now, but I find it hard to believe. The last thing we need is an annual update from Dick Cheney each year saying "OK...OK now THIS is definitely the last vestiges of resistance and by this time NEXT year we will see peace in Iraq." Unfortunately for poor Joe, he may need to get get Bush to send him the last vestiges of his mission accomplished banner to hang over campaign head quarters if he loses.

Lieberman's troubles started when he hedged his bets in 2000 by keeping his political options open. Imagine there are some that still remember his Milquetoast response to counting all the votes in FLA. There is a laundry list of Lieberman foibles. Iraq is the most recent and glaring in the minds of CT voters. After this evening, he may soon become a footnote in history, unless GWB, makes him SoS.

The conservatives sure are mouthy around here. Hey you guys, this is a liberal site, so go ahead, say your piece, but remember, this a LIBERAL site, you knuckle-dragging peckerwoods, and don't act so shocked that someone expressed liberal sentiments here (the horror!). This means you, Uncle Mikey, and your broke dick alter ego, Tadowe.

Lieberman has no shade or color in my book, because he's a non-entity to me. He's a silly-putty replicant. He's whatever he thinks you want him to be, if it's politically expedient. To me he's nothing, and I smell the soul of a plastic man.

Conservatives are no good for sex, and the so-called neo-cons are the worst. They're so focused on their 'goals' that nothing good can happen in the boudoir.

You want some good sex? Go find yourself some sweaty worker, with a little bit of BO. Now, that's what I'm talkin' about.

Those 'neuter'-cons that hang around here are so lame, it's pathetic. They have no musk, you know what I mean?

Senatorship becomes a disease. Many well-meaning men (would I could say women too, or no) have succumbed to the blandishments of entrenched office.

Somehow, the marble ruins of a once great civilisation seem to put it all in perspective, like a well-done painting.

Lieberman the Chameleon. No surprise there. He changes shade to match the surroundings. Now if only the right-wing residents of this blog would give up the blarney, and lay some of those grievances to rest. Lay a little hoodoo on 'em, and they might even be able to get up in the new morning.

I can't tell you how happy I am to read broke dick here on Workbench. I can die now.

In Miles Davis' autobiography the single phrase that stands out in my memory after all these years is "clean as a broke dick dog." It means nicely dressed, apparently, but it does roll off the tongue.

But anyway. Not really shocked until now, because it's shocking to be called shocked. I thought we were just yakkin' away on the internet. I mean your people no harm. By the way, what are you wearing?

Late Night Movie, the fantasy of liberal sexual primacy is solidly debunked by the fact that no Democratic Convention has attracted half the prostitutes that a Republican one always does. I'm pretty sure I read that in a porno magazine, so there. And when you really think about it, how liberal is your average manual laborer?

Hey look, he lost. Good call Rogers

I take it back, Uncle Mikey. I can smell your dirty broke dick yellow dog musk from here. Even if your average manual laborer were a conservative, he wouldn't call himself that--he knows they have a bad rep in that department. What you say about the Republican convention attracting more prostitutes is true, because the Republicans have all the money, the slimy bastards. Everybody knows though, that the great majority of them are into bondage and discipline.

Besides, when it comes to fiscal matters, these 'new' conservatives are anything but conservative, as you've so kindly demonstrated. My people? Who are they? I'm flattered that you would ask what I'm wearing, but I'm naked. I never wear clothes when I'm on the internet, if I don't have to. Very suspicious that you would ask. Were those gay porno mags you were looking at? Because the gay escort services do a booming business when the 'publicans are in town. They call them Lincoln Loggers (don't they wish).

But listen, I want you to know right now that conservatives aren't allowed to mention Miles Davis (it's in the rule book somewhere). It's just not right.

Now that I've devastated everything you had to say, you can curl up and die. Just don't think about me. Think about that cute dog around the corner.

GeeHowdy gets historical, "Tadowe I heard these same arguements thirty-five years ago.If you don't support the war, You're a traitor..."

As I mentioned, all of you Democrats are as intransigently self-blinded as are the Islamic fundamentalist inhuman sacrificers!

I have NEVER said, "...if you don't support the war, you're a traitor." What I have said is that Democrats have been attempting to use any, and all the negative rhetoric and propaganda they can discover or INVENT, in order to gain political advantage DURING THIS WAR!

You are faithless, childishly stubborn, purposefully ignorant PARTISANS, trying to PROFIT FROM THIS WAR!!!

Over 4 years now of weekly, daily and hourly calumny attempting to blame Bush/Republicans for this war STARTED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!

When Republicans tried to object to starting a war in Bosnia -- Democrats called them unpatriotic for disagreeing to stop GENOCIDE!!!

The Republicans didn't continue to propagandize and PROFIT FROM THAT WAR by weekly, daily and hourly efforts to cause this war to fail, or that we should SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS BY WITHDRAWING AND LETTING THEM SUCCEED!

No... the Democrats have become the party of treason, surrender and cowardice in the face of the enemy ...

Disgusting partisan trash ... only interested in your "Gang" and not all of the United States ...

Scum ...

If the war in Bosnia had lasted as long as the war in Iraq, Republicans out of power would have called attention to mistakes made in the pursuit of that war. It's called politics.

In a democracy, the party in opposition has an obligation to cast light on the mistakes of the party in power. This obligation is exceptionally important in wartime, because mistakes in war cost American lives.

Future comments in which you call anyone here a traitor or scum will be deleted. I'm not interested in providing a forum on my personal blog for such inflammatory and hostile flamebait.

Fox News commentator Cal Thomas wrote in his August 10 nationally syndicated column that Ned Lamont's victory over Senator Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate election primary "...completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing."

I know this is an ad hominem response, but I've just never credited male media figures or politicians who dye their hair and their eyebrows, as did the 'Great Impersonator', Ronald Reagan.

But Lieberman will win November 7th!

Add a Comment

All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).