"No Tenure for Joe Lieberman" (Steve Clemons, TWN)

[swag]

The Washington Note, June 18, 2006

Some speculate that Lieberman will gather the signatures in Connecticut needed to run as an Independent if he loses his primary race to Lamont. The signatures would have to be filed the day after the primary.

I feel the same way about Lieberman running as an Independent as I did about President Bush appointing John Bolton to the UN via a recess appointment. That's ok. Lieberman has the right to do that -- just as the President has the right to end run the Senate on appointments -- though they can only last through a single Congressional term.

But what is irritating is that other Democrats like Dick Schumer have the arrogance to act as if politics is a "top-down" arrangement and that those at the helm are really just a stacked deck of leadership annointed personalities.

Schumer hinted at the possibility that if Lamont succeeds in forcing Lieberman out as the carrier of Democratic aspirations in Connecticut, that the DSCC might support Lieberman as an independent.

This is outrageous. Schumer needs to be told in no uncertain terms that if he works to protect the inbred qualities of a Democratic leadership that has been inchoate and thus far unimpressive in its response to Bush-led Republicanism, then he has to go as well. Schumer is trying to stop change inside the Democratic Party, and that is what the party needs most.

. . . more

[burythehatchet]

1. I believe that netroots need to explicitly state

that if Schumer or any DSCC member supports an indy against a dem, they WILL BE TARGETED IN THEIR NEXT PRIMARY. This should be stated in no uncertain terms.


This should be done now instead of later.

[Vidar]

3. Good idea.

[justgamma]

2. These people infuriate me.

Have they learned nothing from the Pukes! You don't see them trying to run to the middle. They pander to their base and know which side their bread is buttered on.

[salin]

4. What makes me irritated is the idea that *some* centrists push - that

the problem is that the left-wing of the party is more likely to bolt than to support the party if they don't get their way. The cry is to run through the primaries, let the party as a whole decide, and then support the D candidate (in order to get/maintain a majority - or get/maintain a big enough of a block to prevent a repub majority from running roughshod). This is a two way street.

Locally there was a county council race about four years ago which taught many a lesson. The Council run the purse strings for the local govt - rather important. The democrats controlled the Council. In the primaries both traditional dems and self-declared 'green dems' ran for the democratic ticket. One dem Council member was retiring (so one of the races was for an open ticket.)

In the primaries the open seat went to the green dem, and one sitting Council dem was defeated by a green dem. Lo and behold the retiring dem and the defeated (in the primary) dem starting working against the primary winners. Before long there were letters to the editors by these two, and later they were headliners at the republican candidates fundraisers. The issue of dem control of the council that they had sat on, did not matter.

With the two 'green dems' being demonized by the two dem council members not running in the general election (one due to retirement, the other due to primary defeat), the republicans were energized. And the republican candidates took the two seats - AND CONTROL of the County Council.

Whenever I read that the threat to the party, due to bolting, is from the left wing of the party (that is regular party members who lean progressive, not independent liberal voters who sometimes vote dem) - THIS is the case I think about. The case that I know of - where the exact opposite happened. Where the lack of loyalty came from 'entitled dems' who when their own will did not occur - worked for the repubs and resulted in the republicans taking control of the elective body.

The current case of Joe Lieberman's reluctance to rule out running as an independent IF he were not to win in the primary reiterates my sense that the threat from within the party - is not the left - or if it is the left it is not ONLY the left.

When the story first ran more than a month ago, even though I am not a fan of Sen. Lieberman, I read it closely and saw his response (at that time was very vague), and I defended him - as in he hadn't implied that he would run against a Dem/and risk the seat for the party. That it seemed in the initial reporting that the words were being put into his mouth. Clearly that is not the case.

That said, I can not believe that Lieberman is willing to continue playing a game of chicken, without realizing the cost to him (because clearly he no longer cares about the cost to the party, as his keeping this option open suggests dem rule of the Senate is not imp to him.) I think that he doesn't intend to do it - but that the threat hanging out there is meant to 'threaten' dem voters in the primary... as in if you don't vote for me now, and keep the seat dem (because you vote for me now), then I will run anyway and if I run later - I will DEPRIVE you (the dem voters) of the possibility of a dem majority. Meanwhile, that doesn't inspire Dem loyalty it inspires on somelevel a bit of contempt. Asking for a dem. candidacy in the general elections, while trying to threaten 'risk' to a dem majority in the senate (if one doesn't vote for him in the gen. elections) isn't exactly underscoring any allegiance to democrats, to democratic policies or anything at all except to the political fortunes of Joe Lieberman.

And then there is that ridiculously amateur campaign ad against Lamont on the Senator's website (is that really airing in Ct media? I hope not as it is such a joke of an ad.) The Wiecker Bear Cub ad. What the heck?

[cliss]

5. This is a fun race and I'm willing to pay

for the entertainment. I'm going to send Ned Lamont some money, grab the popcorn and watch the fur fly.

It will be like 2 cats in a clothing hamper. Guaranteed to get ugly.