I know there will be a lot of pontificating on this race. Certainly the media has no idea what they're talking about when they cover this race, since most report on it from Washngton, DC, not Darien or Norwalk.
I spent the last 48 hours in Fairfield County, CT. I worked on the Lamont campaign. I went door-to-door, I sat for hours in the phone bank, I stood in front of Joe Lieberman's synagogue, Agudath Sholom, from 5:30 am till 1:00 pm, and got a sunburn to boot. Through all of this, I met a lot of Connecticut voters, and what I found was phenomenal.
First, those who supported Senator Lieberman were very angry and obnoxious to me. Many of his supporters came up to me and started yelling at me for supporting Ned Lamont. One supporter even told me that "you left-wing Democrats are what's bad for this country." Yes, that's right, not pollution, poverty, war, terrorism, or intolerance, but "left-wing Democrats" are what's worst for this country. I was appalled. I was disappointed in these Democrats. But I courteously tried to convince people that Ned Lamont was the right man for the job. And for Ned's supporters, including a whole bunch of very nice old ladies who adored me, Ned was the right man. One 84-year old woman from Stamford came up to me and told me she had never missed a school board, primary, or general election since 1944. She told me that while she didn't hate Joe, she really like that Ned Lamont, a fresh face, was getting into politics to change things.
Another woman I met, from Fairfield, told me that she hadn't seen Joe Lieberman since 1996. She told me shen hadn't heard of an event or a meeting with Joe Lieberman since then, ten years ago. This wasn't a nobody either. She was a Democratic committeewoman from Fairfield and has been very active in Fairfield and Connecticut Democratic politics since 1990. She said that most people she knew were never crazy about Joe Lieberman, especially because in his first election to the Senate in 1988, Joe Lieberman won by running to the right of Republican Senator Lowell Weicker. This woman told me she was thrilled to have a candidate who actually challenged Joe Lieberman for the first time in his career.
I met several hundred Nutmeggers during my time in CT. What I found was that people want change. It's not just "left-wing Democrats." People are tired of the cynical politics of division, fear, and half-measures. It's not left vs. center vs. right. It's about people who want to make this a better country by changing the way we do things vs. those who want to keep things the way they are.
Put me in the camp that supports change. I think Joe Lieberman has done a lot of good in his time in the Senate. But Ned Lamont won last night to change things. For the good of the party and the good of the country, Joe should accept that choice and support Ned as we work to change the system. Joe can choose to be a force for change or he can continue a quest to hold on to power. I hope he makes the right choice.
As soon as I got into the office this morning, I logged onto the Dems blog to see that Ben beat me to the punch. I can’t say much beyond Ben’s (very true) analysis, so I’ll keep it short.
Just a friendly reminder not to overanalyze the Amazing Race. A lot of pundits and bloggers have been using the Lieberman-Lamont primary showdown as bellwhether of events to come, so it seems prudent to remember that Connecticut is an overwhelmingly blue state—Joementum or not—and is in no way indicative of the nation as a whole. I would argue that it isn’t even representative of the national party, since moderate elements like the DLC aren’t going away any time soon, no matter what Markos Moulitsas might hope.
In the end, Nutmeg State politics are certainly interesting. But my advice? Don’t get caught up in the overblown netroots hype and draw conclusions from this (fairly unique) incident.
Joe Lieberman is about to have a political rendezvous with destiny. On August 8th, the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut will have their say as to whether Joe will continue to be the Democratic Senator from Connecticut or whether Ned Lamont will hold the Democratic banner in the upcoming general election.
This is the beauty of democracy. When asked by a reporter the other day whether Joe Lieberman ever faced so much opposition before in running for reelection, he recounted that he had "never faced a primary before." A United States Senator, representing nearly four million people, had never before faced a primary after three terms in the United States Senate? When Saddam Hussein ran unopposed for President of Iraq, we certainly did not call that a legitimate election.
But now Joe Lieberman is stunned, even angry that he has a primary opponent, who is causing him to raise all this lobbyist money from outside Connecticut and really have to work to be reelected this year. No Senator is entitled to be reelected, and when you lose touch with your constituents, you deserve a challenge.
Joe Lieberman is not a bad man. He has always been a Democrat and a pretty good one at that. His recent unabashed support for President Bush aside, Joe Lieberman has generally followed the Democratic line, and has fought for important liberal causes.
Democratic primary voters could probably be ok with Joe Lieberman's active effort to work with Republicans on issues. They could even excuse his very cozy relationship with President Bush, whom Democrats despise for good reason. They could even accept his moderation on a host of issues. The frequent Democrat-bashing that Joe does on FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may even slip by in the minds of Democrats. Joe Lieberman's opposition to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq may even be overlooked by primary voters come Election Day. Any one of the issues might cause anger among Democrats, but in the end, they should not cause defeat.
But for Joe, it is not just one of these issues that plagues him. It is all of them. The majority of Democrats find all of these to be problems, and significant ones at that, and if the Democrats in Connecticut find Joe unacceptable, they have a right to throw him out, just as they would have a right to throw a right-wing Republican out.
But all of these issues aside, many claim that Ned Lamont is running a single-issue campaign on the War in Iraq. Many claim that if it weren't for Joe Lieberman's support for the war, he would not be seriously challenged. Even if these things were true, and I'm not sure they are, Joe Lieberman supports, not just mildly, but wholeheartedly, a war that the vast majority of Democrats strongly oppose.
The War in Iraq registers as the most important issue in the country today in every poll, as it should be considering that we have lost 2600 brave men and women and lost enormous credibility, moral authority, and standing in the world. The war has done major damage to our country and Democrats overwhelmingly oppose this war, with 3/4's of Democrats nationwide calling for an immediate withdrawal, according to most polls. Democratic primary voters in Connecticut want an immediate withdrawal, and not only does Joe Lieberman oppose that, he opposes any timetable or change of course whatsoever. The man simply defers to President Bush on all issues regarding the war and has not even criticized the President's management on the war. Joe Lieberman supports the war even more than most Republican Senators. And Joe Lieberman has become a rabid neoconservative, noting that the war in Iraq "will help to spread freedom throughout the Middle East."
Neoconservatives have been discredited, and so has Joe Lieberman. For a United States Senator to disagree wholeheartedly with his home state Party's constituents on the most important issue of the day, that literally involves decisions of life and death, is worthy of challenge. If a Democratic primary voter opposes the war vehemently, and views the war as the most important issue facing our country, he or she has an obligation to vote for Ned Lamont, not to spite Joe Lieberman, but because in a democracy, we are supposed to vote on public policy issues. And in this primary, Connecticut Democrats have a chance to change the course on Iraq, by voting for Ned Lamont, and by telling Joe Lieberman that he is being thanked with his years of service, but it is time to retire.
I don't need to tell anyone reading this that 2006 is our chance to reverse six horrible years of Democratic losses. In less than five months, we may once again control the Senate, the House, or both. If not, we'll at least be much closer to a majority and much more able to influence policy for the better. Either way, 2006 will be a good year, and this is our chance to shine.
There are a lot of exciting Senate races this year where Democrats have a terrific chance to pick up seats. To find out which one has our party's activists are really excited about, I conducted a quick, non-scientific Google search on DailyKos in the past 3 months. Montana, with a great candidate in blogosphere-favorite Jon Tester? A search on "Burns" reveals 28,200 hits. What about Pennsylvania? Canine enthusiast "Santorum" gives 26,800 hits. And how about the nail-biting Rhode Island race? "Chafee" shows 9,550 hits. Well, those are the most exciting races; 28,200 isn't bad. Just for kicks and giggles, though, let's look at a little primary campaign in the Northeast. It's a safe Democratic seat, and the winner will be a Democrat no matter what, so there isn't a whole lot to be excited about as far as taking back the Senate. So how many hits does a search on "Lieberman" give?
45,500. Activists are more riled up about a Democratic incumbent in Connecticut than any Republican seat up for the taking in 2006.
Look, I follow Democratic blogs religiously. I know the arguments. Lieberman supported the war and still supports it whole-heartedly. Lieberman appears on Fox News and isn't always kind to other Democratic senators. Lieberman criticizes Bush less than he should. Lieberman is a centrist senator from a reliably progressive state. Lieberman runs absolutely God-awful campaign commercials against his challenger. All of these things are true, and none of them make me like Lieberman a whole lot (though the ad is... entertaining).
But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. And as hard as it may be to believe, he's a pretty damn devoted Democrat, even if he doesn't toe the party line as much as we'd like him to. Progressive Punch is a website that tallies all the votes of every elected official and determines how progressive they are. Their methodology isn't perfect, but take a look and I think you'll agree that it's close enough. With 100 being the most progressive, Joe scores a 76.46, more than 3o points above the nearest Republican. Yes, he's much closer to the center than we would like him to be, but in the grand scheme of things, he's solid blue.
Besides, Lieberman's Senate career isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. Remember the Climate Stewardship Act? Sometimes it helps to have a centrist who can rally some support from
the other side. It didn't pass, but that was because of the Republicans-- i.e., the people we should be spending our time and money beating. And what about the 2000 campaign? I might just be nostalgic after watching the incredible An Inconvenient Truth, but Lieberman was a pretty good and well-liked Democrat back then. He was a centrist, but people were okay with that; he was recognized as a good guy.
Lieberman still is a good guy. The war vote didn't change that. Unless you're single-issue voting on Iraq, there are much better things to worry about than Joe Lieberman. Once we take back a majority in the Senate, we can have vigorous primaries. Primaries are healthy and a great forum for intra-party debate. But right now, we have bigger races to worry about. Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee, for example.
Besides, as ridiculous as the "Joementum" incident may have been, it just doesn't compare to making fun of Rick Santorum. And he's the real problem here.
It seems there are a whole lot of people peeved at Chuck Schumer these days. As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, he broke with tradition to endorse candidates in the primary, alienating some prominent DNC fundraisers. I’m not sure I agree with that policy, I understand the motivation—Sen. Schumer, like all of us, wants to see a Democratic Senate next year and wants to make sure that nominations go to candidates most likely to win in the general.
But he’s gone a step too far this time. At a Wednesday press briefing, Schumer was asked if he would support Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn) reelection bid if he ran as an independent, and Schumer pointedly refused rule out supporting the conservative senator in a general election against Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger.
I don’t care for Joe Lieberman; I disagree with most of his political views, and in my mind, he’s basically Bush Lite. I don’t see him as much of a Democrat.
But he is an incumbent, and if I were voting in the Connecticut primary, I’d cast my ballot for Lieberman, for the sole reason that I think he’s the candidate most likely to ensure that his Senate seat remains Democratic.
Polling has shown Lamont gaining on Lieberman in the primary, now down only 15%, 55-40, in numbers from last week. My money is on Lieberman (literally—we’ve got a little pool going at the All America office), but Lamont’s gains have been impressive considering Lieberman’s name recognition. Adam informs me that Connecticut law would require Lieberman to declare his intention to run as an independent before the primary if he wants to appear on the ballot, meaning that if Lieberman and his pollsters suspect he has a chance at losing to Lamont, then it would behoove him to run as an independent. Polling on the race is interesting:
If Lieberman runs as the Democratic nominee against Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger, Lieberman takes the race 68-14.
In a two-way race with Lamont winning the Dem primary, he defeats Schlesinger 37-20, but with 34 percent still undecided (meaning the seat is far from a lock, despite the Connecticut's overwhelming blueness).
But in a three way race between Lamont, Schlesinger, and Lieberman running as an independent, Lieberman wins with 56% against both candidates.
Lieberman’s camp says that he has yet to make a decision, but he is reportedly said to be seriously considering a run for reelection as an independent.
But back to Schumer. Now, I understand Schumer’s desire to support a colleague, especially such a prominent one. But the man is chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Anyone in such a prominent position of power has an obligation to endorse the party’s nominee, no matter who it is. While Schumer’s endorsement of Lieberman would hinge on a guarantee to caucus with the Dems and vote for Harry Reid for majority leader, such an endorsement is still unacceptable. If Lamont gets the support of the majority of Connecticut’s Democrats, then he deserves the support of the party as well.
It’s this kind of action that causes disenchantment with the national party. The cogs and machinery of the party cannot operate so separately from the people they claim to represent. I know Sen. Schumer wants to win; so do I. We’ve just made a different calculation about what victory means—the ends don’t always justify the means. Even if Lamont seems likely to lose, if he is the choice of the people, then the DNC and its leadership are bound to support him. That's what democracy is all about, even intraparty elections.
Democrats should call on Schumer to support the party’s nominee, whoever that may be.
Recently, I've discussed with a number of people whom I know whether being a liberal or a conservative Democrat matters in getting elected. And I've mentioned that this misses the point. Well, let me elaborate.
I'm an Authentic Democrat (with a capital A). What does that mean, you may ask? First, it means standing up for Democrats, the Democratic party, and Democratic values. There are issues of conscience and there are issues of preference in politics, and when conscience is involved, you have an obligation to speak out, especially if your party is wrong on this issue. But on an issue of preference, where you merely prefer one policy or plan over another, shut up and sit back and don't condemn the rest of your political party for their views.
I am principally talking about Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman, while not the most conservative Democrat in our caucus by far, is the best when it comes to bashing the Democratic party on right-wing noise machines like FAUX News and talk (stupid) radio. When the media looks for a story about Democratic discombobulation on Iraq policy, all they need to do is source Joe Lieberman as example of a wing of the party that supports the President's stay-the-course strategy in Iraq. Except that Joe Lieberman is the only guy in this wing of the party. No other Senate or House Democrat has publicly stated that they agree with the President's strategy on Iraq. Not only have these members not done this because the President's strategy is most certainly failing, but because they do not want to undermine the consistency and unity of the Democratic message. Just as liberal Democrats who want to cut off funding for the war do not talk about it openly in public because they do not want to destroy the Democratic message, conservatives like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who probably agrees with the President, do not chastise other Democrats because they know it would hurt the party.
A lot of the cheap political hacks (they're sometimes called consultants and campaign staffers) in Washington who keep on losing elections say that this "attack" on Joe Lieberman is a "despicable" effort by "leftists" to defeat a "great" Senator. These people somehow believe that the primary process is merely symbolic; being renominated by your party if you're an incumbent Senator is an afterthought, voters should just fall in line. But they're wrong. The Democrats of Connecticut are tired of Joe Lieberman's undermining of the party message and his fantasyworld of Iraq that he's living in. Joe Lieberman is now being challenged by Ned Lamont because people are fed up and Joe Lieberman needs to hear the concerns of his constituents, whom he rarely sees because he spends the vast majority of his time in Washington. And we in the blogosphere don't just support Ned Lamont because we're anti-Lieberman, but because we're pro-Lamont. Ned Lamont will make a great US Senator, and I'm proud to support him.
This brings me to my second point about being an Authentic Democrat. Americans like politicians who stand for something, who have conviction, who argue their position of conscience, who mean what they say and say what they mean, and who tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. I'm one of those, and I only feel comfortable supporting candidates who are like this too.
Americans have a bullshit meter. They can detect a load of poll and focus group tested language a mile away. When a politician filters their views, an alarm goes off in people's heads. It's no wonder that everyone I talk to thinks that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, lie, cheat, steal, don't keep promises, and are corrupt. And no wonder that George W. Bush won.
In 2004, the country thought the US was off on the wrong track, Bush's approval ratings were 50-50, the country agreed with John Kerry's positions on almost every issue, and he still lost. Why? Because when John Kerry spoke, a bullshit meter nearly exploded in every voter's head. We need to stop picking candidates on so-called "electability," especially when there's no clear formula for winning an election in this country, and start supporting the Authentic Democrats in the race.
Montana Democrats did this last week when they picked straight-shooter Jon Tester over DLC hack and lying, scandal-ridden John Morrison. Virginia Democrats did it tonight when they picked veteran, former Navy Secretary, former Republican, truth-teller, and anti-Iraq war candidate Jim Webb over wishy-washy lobbyist, try to be everything to everybody Harris Miller.
And I believe that in Connecticut on August 8th, Democrats will pick the honest and straightforward and authentic Ned Lamont over Lieberman, who equivocates in the worst and most cynical type of way to win favor on the far right.
In the 2008 primaries for our Democratic nominee, vote for Authentic Democrats. If you're a moderate, vote for the candidate you think is honest and best represents your views. If you're a liberal, vote for the candidate who says what's on their mind and who believes in what you believe. And if you're a just like me, and while you proudly love calling yourself a liberal, you have a bunch of views that don't fit nicely in a box, then vote for the person you think will make the best President, because after all, that's what we're voting for in the first place.
