One of the prices that Democrats will pay for trying to unseat Lieberman is that Joe will do everything to be a prick to his own caucus on Iraq.
Maybe you should be more precise in who you mean when you say that Democrats tried to unseat Lieberman.
If by Democrats you mean the Democratic voters of Connecticut and progressives all over the United States, then, yeah, sure, we all tried to unseat him.
But if by Democrats you mean Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Obama and nearly every Dem senator except Kerry and Kennedy, if you mean the Democratic Establishment and their Money Boys, then, no, they did not try to unseat Lieberman. In fact, they helped him win and gave him a standing O when he got back.
So, the question is, why Lieberman acts this way, on whom is he visiting his revenge? Connectcut voters? Progressive bloggers? People like me? No sir! He is taking his revenge on the very people who helped him hang on to his job.
I hope Reid, Schumer & Company understand that every single time Holy Joe sticks his finger in their eye, and if he does bolt to the Republicans, that they have only themselves to blame. Connecticut Dem voters, progressives all over the country, Wes Clark and Senators Kerry and Kennedy tried to do the right thing. None of us are to blame for this Lieberman situation.
NB - If I left anyone who helped Lamont off the list, please forgive me.
Posted by James E. Powell at November 15, 2006 09:14 PMWell, this could happen...unless Abramoff names Liebertard.
Posted by phidipides at November 15, 2006 09:38 PMSteve,
Lieberman was very much "in your face" before Dems in CT tried to vote him out. He's now taking that approach as an "independent". In that sense, he's weak and he's playing to the cameras to make people think he's strong. His taking Bush's side at a time when a great majority of the country dislikes Bush's policies will hurt Lieberman over time.
He's not someone worth taking seriously.
Posted by eriposte at November 15, 2006 09:44 PM"Maybe you should be more precise in who you mean when you say that Democrats tried to unseat Lieberman."
He means that we didn't nominate him for president in 2004.
Posted by Josh Yelon at November 15, 2006 10:26 PMJosh Yelon,
As juvenile as it sounds, as stupid as it sounds, I think there is something in Lieberman's stubborn refusal to be a mensch that grows out of the Democratic Party's rejection of Lieberman in 2004. If he had been a close second, he might have been able to salvage some pride, but he was a punch line. He may be just too prideful to deal with that.
Posted by James E. Powell at November 15, 2006 11:03 PMI don't think we should blame lieberman's behavior on anyone but lieberman. Frankly, he was obnoxious (in the old fashioned sense of the word) and hateful to the dems for the past two years. Was it the 2004 election? His feelings got hurt then, certainly, but the fact of the matter is he was rejected by nearly every democrat at that point because he had already been siding with bush, humiliating the party, and behaving erratically (qua dem) for some time.
Lieberman is for lieberman at this point, and he is an angry and bitter man. There is literally nothing the dems could do to bring him back to the fold. They should have gone all out to terminate him politically as soon as they had a viable alternative. That they didn't showed that they were stupid, as well as politically inept. Im sure its all in sun tzu, or in machiavelli--its certainly good advice that was on every left wing blog. When your enemy is drowning, throw him an anvil isn't said merely because its funny. Its said because if your enemy manages to climb out he will not only be dripping wet--he'll be very, very, angry with you. Taking him down once he starts being angry is simply the logical thing to do.
aimai
Posted by aimai at November 15, 2006 11:24 PMLieberman would've done it anyway, only with more subtlety.
So, all Democratic incumbents should be guaranteed uncontested primaries (at least while in the minority)?
In all seriousness, why even hold a primary? On this logic, why not make it a party rule that the incumbent is automatically the nominee?
Posted by Simplify at November 16, 2006 12:04 AMIn all seriousness, why even hold a primary? On this logic, why not make it a party rule that the incumbent is automatically the nominee?
And wouldn't that make a mockery of the idea that our representatives are accountable to us? Or perhaps democracy is just passe. It really is too bad that Lieberman refused to accept the Democratic primary and then Rove and crew decided to support him rather than their own Republican candidate. Lieberman is definitely a party of one, and will continue to represent that one to the utmost of his ability, while spitting in the face of those Democratic primary voters who questioned him.
Sad. Very, very sad.
Posted by Mary at November 16, 2006 12:34 AMTo take it a step too far (and I will) -- anyone who thinks that contested primaries are bad because then the candidate fares worse in the general... doesn't believe in democracy.
Freedom ain't free.
I want to see every primary contested. Even Russ Feingold should get a primary challenge. I'd want him to win, but I want to see him answer to his state party electorate like eveyone else. In a healthy democracy, the incumbent would welcome a primary challenge to prove that (s)he best represents the electorate. Someday...
Posted by Simplify at November 16, 2006 12:49 AMI agree everybody should have supported Lamont when he won the primary. Didn't happen. Been suggested Lieberman had too much on the big Dems, knew where too many bodies were buried. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what L says about Iraq or anything else. Right now the Dems just barely have the majority, therefore the committee chairmanships so they don't want him to flip or accept a cabinet job, which would result in a Repub being appointed to take his place.
Posted by howard hughes blues at November 16, 2006 02:37 AMLieberman, like another high-profile Democratic senator in the news recently for his inappropriate remarks, suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.
Like most narcissistic people, Lieberman comes across as grandiose, arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top.
Very much the same as his good friend, President George Bush.
Posted by Christopher at November 16, 2006 03:26 AM"I don't think we should blame lieberman's behavior on anyone but lieberman. Frankly, he was obnoxious (in the old fashioned sense of the word) and hateful to the dems for the past two years."
Aimai, how right you are, and it isn't going to change. I had hopes that he would be defeated, but with the help of Lamont and the Republicans, he was returned to the Senate. His 'payback bitch routine' will last for a while, but in the end he will lose. It is very sad that at a time in our Country when we need Democrats to pull together, we have to tolerate a bitter, revengeful, old man. Lieberman is like the rest of the Republican Party, a self-serving prick.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2006 03:42 AM"Narcissistic personality disorder."
Christopher, perhaps we need to require all politicians to take the MMPI Personality Test prior to running for any office.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2006 04:54 AMWhat a sorry-assed pathetic spectacle by everyone involved here. I'm with Mary, it's profoundly sad.
A country gone off the rails. It's a lame duck session, sure, but there should have been a sense of urgency.
For the life of me I cannot understand how they behave this way with soldiers dying every day. It's as if their DNA made them mutants to being human and the only way to find out is to become a US Senator in wartime.
Clueless, bumbling lying killers. In the hallowed halls of what was once a real country.
I still see no way out of this. We all say something must at the very least change with the 2008 Executive, but that may be a pipe dream.
Do you see Barack Obama having the talent to pull off the Iraq Retreat?
Jesus. Jesus Christ the death count has only started.
Posted by paradox at November 16, 2006 05:06 AM"Narcissistic personality disorder."
That's a very chilling truth. The problem we have is that I don't think Lieberman is capable of believing that he will ever be unloved, no mater what he does. I think it's entirely possible that, at some point in the next year, he WILL flip, because of insufficient respect on the part of his Democratic colleagues.
If he ever did that, it means ALL of the chairmanships revert to the Republicans. Not only would that be a devestating disaster for our hopes of progress on energy sanity, real government and critical checks on the last throes of the administration, there is very likely to be at least one more Supreme Court vacancy in Bush's future. If Leahy is not chairing the Judiciary Committee, the judicial system for a generation, maybe much longer, is toast.
I curse the venal stupidity of the DLC, Beltway Bastards mentality, that allowed this to come to pass. Unfortunately, the future of our country is literally at stake. No matter how despicable he is, the moronic leadership that gave him a standing ovation, instead of a 2 x 4 up the side of his head, MUST coddle his pathological personality, at least for this year. The way things are going, who the Hell knows what things will look like next year?
Posted by DeminNewJ at November 16, 2006 05:16 AMThey (and we) trapped in an abusive relationship with Lieberturd, with no way out---just like a prairie wife, circa 1887, tied to a deranged alcoholic husband. Lieberturd will be an irrational Frankenstein monster.
Plenty of blame to go around, from national Dem leaders to Democratic CT voters who foolishly refused to vote for the endorsed candidate.
By the way, what's the "profile" on the CT Dem voter who chose to stick with this nightmare idiot? What were they thinking?
Any of those hanging around here? Doubt it.
Posted by euzoius at November 16, 2006 07:44 AMI'm also interested in what democraphic made up the "Connecticut for Joe" vote. WTF were all those people thinking?
Posted by snark at November 16, 2006 07:50 AMWe made him the most powerful person in the Senate by going after a fellow Democrat before we had a majority in the Senate first
Disagree. Liebermen was a sanctimonious prick in 1998 amidst overwheleming support from the dems, hell, we nominated his sorry ass in 2000 as VP. Dems can do just fine in the senate w/50-50 split, just pass good things in the house and force the r's (& holy joe) to be on record as opposing. By hoping Lieberman will co-operate with the dems one is actually giving the sanctimonious prick more power, far better to make that SOB do the groveling. IMHO.
Posted by darms at November 16, 2006 08:01 AMGotta disagree with the going after a fellow Democrat part, Bloglord. Not because he's by definition not a Democrat, but because of the failure of the Democratic leadership, once again, to do the right thing as opposed to the calculated and cautious thing, we call it "Marty Ball" here in San Diego Charger land, playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
The progressives and blogosphere handed them Ned Lamont with lieberman's head on a silver platter, and they ran screaming from it. If they had stopped and thought, they could have knee capped him right off with a simple declaration that you run as an indy, you have all the seniority of your new party, but none with the Democrats.
Then all the leading Democrats, including those who backed lieberman in the primary, announce their support for Lamont, say that anything lieberman says that attacks the Dems is just desperation and a sore loserman attitude and not credible and Lamont wins.
And then the Democrats own Connecticut, win the close House seats there, and have an active and satisfied progressive base to mobilize to beat bush and his crony's time and time again, instead of a bitter and divided stateful of Democrats. Good job who ever game played that one, eh?!
It's like that line in Ghostbusters, when Bill Murray is trying to get the okay from the Mayor of NY.
"If we're wrong, we're wrong, you throw us in jail.
"But if we're right, well, then, Mayor, you have just saved the lives of m i l l i o n s of registered voters." Then he smiles at the uptight officialdom trying to shut the Ghostbusters down.
Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky, play to win, you win, play to nbot lose, you lose, every time.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 16, 2006 08:27 AMWho is this guy named Ned Lamont that you folks were trumpeting so loudly a few months past?
Hmmmm, a referendum on the war, huh?
(P.S. Who was it that posted a few months ago that Leiberman would win.......)
Posted by Bagley at November 16, 2006 08:24 PM