Centerfield

If he loses he will run as an Independent -as I thought he would. Morris suggested he skip the primary and go straight to Independent but I do like Lieberman reminding Democrats what was once a crucial part of Liberalism. Rove must love this fight.

A look at potential Independent outcasts from future extreme warfare: McCain Leiberman? This pair might create an oratory black hole. Bloomberg Leiberman? This might really promote more cabal conspiracy theory. Clinton Leiberman? This might draw a Democratic boycott.

Independent is always the third option for people more headliner than Nader or even Perot. I guess Gore and Leiberman don't talk much anymore....

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 3, 2006 05:09 PM

That'll irritate the kossacks no end. Happy Fourth of July, Markos! ;)

Posted by: Simon at July 3, 2006 05:37 PM

Max;

Rove must love this fight.

Must we always assign Democratic Party in-fighting to the evil machinations of Demon Rove? Wouldn't a centrist Democrat love this fight also? (particularly if Leiberman lost the primary but won the general election.)

Posted by: c3 at July 3, 2006 05:54 PM

Unless a centrist Democrat thought that the Democratic Party should be a Centrist Party.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 3, 2006 06:02 PM

c3: Rove can love it even though he had nothing to do with creating it. And doubtless does.

Posted by: wj at July 3, 2006 06:09 PM

As usual, it's all about Joe!! Should he lose the primary, he will muck up the general to ensure a Republican victory instead of letting the Democratic voters of Connecticut decide their nominee. Why have party primaries if you believe in entitlement and smoke-filled rooms?? Joe Lieberman, a closet Republican to the bitter end!!

Posted by: ascap_scab at July 3, 2006 06:37 PM

I would love to see this happen in 08, but why does everyone always place Leiberman as the vp? Everywhere I see references to __ and Leiberman, I would much rather see him in the number one spot and I don't think it maters who he runs with.

Posted by: Bernie at July 3, 2006 06:45 PM

Upstart antiwar is going to decide that Lieberman isn't "democratic" enough for the party? They say it is not being loyal to the Party if he were to split the Left’s vote by running Independent. What a laugh. He will take it to the people, not a Party Leadership under siege by ideological insurgents with lots of money and time on their hands. When I said Rove must be laughing, I meant, for all the demonization of his Machiavellian tactics, Rove’s ideological doppelganger unleashed behind enemy lines is leading the zombie Democrats into a three peat. So C3 got it right.

The anti-Bush/War at-all-cost wing of the Democratic Party's resume can’t be compared to the Centrist/Liberal’s hard-fought Democratic credentials. So these politikos wrap up veterans-against-the-war in flags and promulgate some get tough talking points to attempt victory (are we that stupid?). This is their great plan while the present administration has to prepare for military action against a known terrorist-supporting regime and active wmd seeker engaged in a globally denounced nuclear enrichment program. Reality exists despite the nonsense of the anti-action Left (which is hardly Democrat in plank). These people think they can place a litmus test on Iraq and national security based on their confused perceptions. And they criticize the Right’s litmus tests? Ooopss, I hear Rove snickering………Will the real Kerry stand up and denounced Iranian enrichment programs?

The lie is that the Far Left wants Democrats to become the New Left instead of what Progressive Democrats were when the Liberal Consensus ruled and guided American to Liberal victory. Today’s Democratic Party is victim (who let the dogs in?) of the far Left who promotes a millionaire running with a "cut and run" policy on Iraq and not much else. Lieberman’s resume is long and CT (a wealthy State AND Liberal) gets quite a bit from MIC taxes. Only the Democrats could lose New York and CT with all those intelligent liberals.

It's all about Joe? No, I thought it was all about Sheehan. Imagine a Republican standing up to Far Right and threatening to become Independent. Or did that already happen to the relief of the Democrat's glee? When a democrat stands up to Party Death-Wish III, he/she is derided. Yes, boo McCain and Kerry off the stage. Throw some tomatoes at Clinton. And Unity shouldn’t be an option?

A Democrat who supported the general bi-partisan design of a "war on terrorism”,
Joe Lieberman supports planning for action. You could call him a Democratic Internationalist. He also supported Kerry's promise “to never allow Iran to acquire the bomb”, so Lieberman now supports the DOD "frankly" considering and planning for Iran. Will Schumer and Clinton support Lieberman? Will the DLC stand by and watch their party become the voice of the Anti-Bush/Anti-War movement? Every day North Korean threatens the US with nuclear attack is another day Rove chuckles. What idiot thinks global situation is not becoming more threatening for the reasons Rove and company pointed out shortly AFTER 9/11? Think of the world in November of 2006. Yes, Democrats, shoot your Bob Kerrys, your Clarkes and Clintons and field someone worse than Kerry: if you do I will finally not vote Democrat.

By some reasonable measure of centrism, the Democratic Party WAS the more centrist American party of the last one hundred years. That changed a bit with Carter, though he personally did not intend the collapse of the Liberal Consensus, which Viet Nam spawned. Centrism implies support for racial equality, pro-democracy, Individual Rights, responsible government, equal justice AND WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC HEGEMONY. Read your history books and I don’t mean Zinn’s. These principles run deep beneath the present moral pretense of the Democratic Anti-Bush wing. The Far Left was not welcomed in the Democratic party under Clinton. And boy did they hate him. Perhaps now they can really kill the Democratic Party by convincing Democrats to hang Clinton and company . Rove may just die laughing…….

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 3, 2006 09:07 PM

For anyone who thinks Democrats want to elect a Democrat over a DINO on the Iraq war alone haven't been paying attention.

Tort Reform - Lieberman Yea.
Medicare Part D - Lieberman Present, not voting.
USA PATRIOT-ACT - Lieberman Yea.
USA PATRIOT-ACT Reauthorization - Lieberman Yea.
NAFTA - Lieberman Yea.
CAFTA - Lieberman Present, not voting.
Defense Of Marrage Act - Lieberman Yea.
Confirmation of Alberto Gonzales - Lieberman Yea.

Plus there is Lieberman's puritanical support of the Lynn Cheney/Tipper Gore PMRC assault on free speech by attempting to get the FTC to regulate what lyrics and visuals could be in music, films, and video games!!

[This entry edited by the thread originator to remove large number of texted URL's that indicate the comment author is unable to use the {a href} tags for embedding same, despite the example at the bottom of this page.]

Posted by: ascap_scab at July 3, 2006 11:19 PM

I wonder if any of these self-proclaimed "real Democrats" are actually under the delusion that, with Lamont rather than Lieberman, they would actually hold on to the Connecticut Senate seat. My guess is, yes; but I suppose some of them may just be more interested in an intra-party power grab than in power in the Senate. If Lieberman _isn't_ in the fall election, what a nasty surprise it will be for them -- and what interesting contortions they will go thru to explain away the results.

Posted by: wj at July 3, 2006 11:42 PM

I wonder if any of these self-proclaimed "real Democrats" are actually under the delusion that, with Lamont rather than Lieberman, they would actually hold on to the Connecticut Senate seat.

Doubtful. And I see that I may have been too hasty in my description of the Party's loyalty to Leiberman. Schumer and the DSCC are continuing to back Leiberman in the primary, and are apparently willing to back him as an independent.

Schumer said that the DSCC "fully supports" Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. "You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader."

Schumer said he had neither sought nor recieved assurances from Lieberman that an independent bid would not ensue if Ned Lamont tightened the noose.

The Kossacks and Atriotes are apoplectic over both announcements, though that is admittedly their natural state, making the degree of additional apoplexy difficult to guage.

My current take favors Leiberman 5-1 to win the primary, 5-1 to win the general as the Democratic candidate, and 3-1 to win the general election as an independent. He currently leads Lamont by over 25 points among Democrats, though the independence announcement may cost him a few points.

Posted by: Tully at July 4, 2006 12:10 AM

I think you hit is correctly Tully. Anti-War thinks it can change fifty years of Democratic principle. Compare Clinton's record to Lieberman's. If the Democrats let the center leave, we will be under a Republican government for decades. These Democrats were the few who woke up on 9/11. I think that is why Schumer sees potential Lieberman's demise, not far away from his own. Time to make a stand or let the Kossacks chase a three peat.

And yes, Rove must be laughing.....

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 4, 2006 09:27 AM

ascap scab,
CT democratic voters favor the positions Lieberman took on those quoted votes. As far as free speech, Lieberman was heading off Congressional regulation of music videos/cds etc. Do you favor non-rated cds telling young children to "beat their bitches", "kill cops" and "pimp their sisters"? Please tell us such garbage should have no regulation. Lieberman was standing in the center on these debates. From your vantage that "looks" Right wing. LOL. Imagine Carter, Kennedy or even LBJ on these issues. What you want is a Far Left Party. So go ahead and start one. Try to cripple the Democratic Party by using Iraq and Anti-Bush rage will only ensure a Republican government. Why not use a litmus test for abortion and gay marriage?

Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for VP in 2000. Now the Kossacks want him to get out of his Party despite the strength of his support in CT. Feel safer with no Patriot Act? Think you had a choice over Gonzales having blown the 2000 election? Does America presently favor gay marriage? (even Clinton?) You are against tort reform? Since when did you become the barometer of Democratic principle?

Go ahead....a three peat would be a fitting gift for those too dim to see the bigger picture and past failures. Tell me scab, do you support the use of force to prevent Iran from mounting nukes on their missiles? Do you favor a government-run universal health care system? Do you think conservation alone is our energy answer? How about blanket amnesty for illegals and no increased border control? Did you support our space program? Do you advocate cut and run in Iraq, or supporting Hamas? Perhaps you are confused about what the Democrats have stood for since WW2. Cable TV isn't the place to get the historical context. Truman wasn't well liked by Democrats, but now he is respected. Even Jimmy Carter does not support Kosworld, nor will millions of New York Liberals.......

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 4, 2006 09:49 AM

For anyone who thinks Democrats want to elect a Democrat over a DINO on the Iraq war alone haven't been paying attention.

One presumes that Lieberman's concern is that Democratic primary voters may or may not want someone with his views, but that the wider Connecticut electorate certainly do.

For the record, I'd like to note that if this spat gives the GOP Lieberman's seat, I called it first.

Posted by: Simon at July 4, 2006 01:56 PM

I keep noting that an elected official's primary duty is to their constituents--ALL of them. The partisan True Believers continue to insist that they own anyone elected under the party banner, and can dictate their positions to them.

Thankfully the voters get to make that decision, not the True Believers.

Posted by: Tully at July 4, 2006 02:13 PM

Tully,
Well said. And it is Independence Day of course.....Lieberman could have sunk Kerry in 2004.

And did you see Kerry defend Lieberman after boos during the convention? Kudos to Joe's civility. Bob Kerry defended McCain.

If this "spat" lands Lieberman in office as an Independent, it will send a shock wave to the True Believer Democrats as to their tact for 2008. If Lament and Joe both lose in CT, it still sends a message as to the True Believers (now including the Chomsky wing) as to what the center/left fracture means for a Democratic victory in 2008.

How this same Anti-Bush-at all-costs-crowd would hail McCain and other moderate Republicans should the extreme Republican base brush them aside. They would praise their principle over partisan loyalty. And yet they did boo McCain and Kerry at NYU.

It is amazing what power Bill Clinton has left in this great Left battle. Chavez and Iranian President call on Africa to reject Liberal Democracy and arm themselves against the West. Kimmie threatens to launch ICBMs at the US. Israel will go after terrorist sanctuaries in Syria.

Father Bill will be forced to lecture the Democrats eventually about the realities of the world, but he and his wife will probably hang low until after the election for this final Partisan battle to unfold. He could endorse Independents and even moderate Republicans. This mess might create a completely new ball game. Ironic, if Rove might one day be seen as the inadvertent progenitor of the New Independent Party. Well, so much for mindless speculation…

In any case, if the Lieberman "spat" is a preview of things to come, the Independent Party might have to become a force of its own. It is an “option” being used presently as a tactic. Unity08 is a similar creature. That is why I am curious about "centrist" criteria. The natural place for centrism is probably as the ideological core of the Independent Party. Where is the a Strategic Manifesto for dealing with the coming storms....????

Viva la Unbelievers!!!!

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 4, 2006 03:28 PM

I don't really want any form of "centrist" criteria. I kind of like the simple idea that I will not give my loyalty to any political party. I will vote for the person I believe has the better policies, or better represents the intrests of America. I accept that the person I vote for may not win and that is good because I am not always right. I am loyal to America. That is my personal idea for "centrist".

I may be confusing centrist for independant, I was not never any good at english class.

Posted by: Bernie at July 4, 2006 08:56 PM

Well said, Bernie. I agree.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 4, 2006 10:36 PM

I will vote for the person I believe has the better policies, or better represents the intrests of America. I accept that the person I vote for may not win and that is good because I am not always right. I am loyal to America.

That's a great short description of a democratic pluralist, Bernie. Which is a good a description of centrist as any.

Posted by: Tully at July 5, 2006 12:07 AM

Then I don't see why anyone would object to Unity08. I guess there is no centrist positions other than Independent ones........

And when they say a Presidenet was "centrist" they must mean he didn't follow any criteria. Plankless centristism.......interesting idea.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 5, 2006 08:06 AM

Good Old Lieberman. Full speed ahead.

I find the harder left's "don't be fooled, he's a dino" schpiel laughable. A. scab, for example, just doesn't seem to get that his constituents sure seem to like him fine.

The funniest part is that his cherry-picked list of issues where Lieberman supposedly voted "wrong" might as well be a list of examples of his proud "iconolasm when necessary" on behalf of his constituents. I mean, there's the disconnect right there, live and in color...that the harder left portion of the democratic party thinks the solution to the party's failure at the polls is to toe the line loyally.

Then those such as A. scab are prone to complaining that they "are being marginalized." Here's an alternative thought of how it works:
1. insist your views are the proper ones
2. ignore what the rest of the people think, dismissing their "improper" views
3.marginalize yourself

Posted by: bk at July 5, 2006 10:36 AM

Brian, I think A.scab's situation is that he thinks that a Senator from Connecticut is supposed to represent _him_ -- while Lieberman apparently harbors the quaint notion that he was elected by the people of Connecticut to represent THEM. How very odd. ;-)

Posted by: wj at July 5, 2006 12:08 PM

LOL. What wj said.

Posted by: Tully at July 5, 2006 12:31 PM

"I would love to see this happen in 08, but why does everyone always place Leiberman as the vp? Everywhere I see references to __ and Leiberman, I would much rather see him in the number one spot and I don't think it maters who he runs with."

I don't think he'd make it to inaguration day should he be elected President or Vice President. There are still people in far reaches of this country, sad to say, who would give up their own lives as "martyrs" to see that a Jewish person doesn't hold either office.

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at July 5, 2006 02:47 PM

I'm not convinced that there are many such folk or that Lieberman wouldn't make inauguration.

However, I am quite confident that were Lieberman a ticket-topping prez nominee, supporters of his opponents would find ways to successfully use "is now a wise time for our 1st Jewish president?" to cast doubts upon a Lieberman Presidency.

And honestly, it's a question that would have to be asked under the circumstances, because this is a democracy, so each voter gets to decide whether such a thing matters. I actually would relish the asking, because that would give many of us the chance to explain why America can't allow it be relevant. Given such a choice, America must choose the person who's best for the job regardless of whether or not he or she happens to be a Jew. Or a woman. Or an African-American. Or a Catholic. Or a homosexual. Or a Yankees fan. And if our enemies can't stomach that and our less stalwart allies can't understand it, too bad for them.

Posted by: bk at July 5, 2006 03:58 PM

Or a Yankees fan.

LMAO.

Posted by: Tully at July 5, 2006 04:35 PM

And what a joy it is that those things matter less as the years go by. I remember the time, a few election cycles back, when a conservative Republican senator from Texas made a try for the Presidential nomination, and if anybody was hysterical that his wife was Korean, it didn't make the papers. (Or course, the blog-sphere wasn't around then either.) But it was only a couple of decades previously that NO southern politician, let alone one in the national government, could possibly have existed if he was in a recially mixed marriage.

Although whether someone who admits to being a Yankees' fan (unless he is actually from New York) is really acceptable in the Presidency is still debatable, IMHO. But, admittedly, better that than a Raiders' fan/thug!

Posted by: wj at July 5, 2006 05:40 PM

Although whether someone who admits to being a Yankees' fan (unless he is actually from New York) is really acceptable in the Presidency is still debatable, IMHO. But, admittedly, better that than a Raiders' fan/thug!

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

Posted by: Tully at July 5, 2006 06:35 PM