I read the Connecticut Post as soon as I wake up each morning. That’s how I found the insightful article, “Truth on Lieberman’s voting record.” After analyzing senate voting records the Post discovered that:
When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.
This record stabs Lamont’s claims that Lieberman “too often is willing to undermine the Democrats, be it on issues of war and peace like the war in Iraq, or be it on a variety of other issues.”
You can check out Lieberman’s complete voting record yourself at the Washington Post.
According to ProgressivePunch, a database that ranks how “progressive” congressmen are, Lieberman ranks as the 39th most progressive senator. Further, he ranks as the most progressive senator on “Housing” and “Education, Humanities, & the Arts” votes. The Connecticut Post article claims that if it weren’t for Lieberman missing multiple votes during the 2000 Presidential election season he would be ranked as even more progressive.
Martin Peretz, EIC of The New Republic, makes a good argument in the WSJ for why Lamont will be a horrible, Deanesque move for Connecticut Democrats:
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove’s dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.
In yet another great WSJ op-ed, Lanny Davis argues that assaults on Lieberman are just as pathetic, callow, and unsubstantiated as attacks made by folks on the right like McCarthy, Coulter, or Savage:
Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard — that it’s not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side’s versions of Ann Coulter do.
Davis even makes a strong case that latent anti-Semitic or anti-Israel views motivate many Lieberman haters.
Mr. Pierce’s argument appears nuanced, in many ways it is. However, he falls into the same trap that Ned Lamont has set for primary voters. Lamont has convinced people that this election is about one issue: The Iraq War. The Senate might not cast any major vote on the Iraq War again, yet Lamont’s entire campaign resides on it. By judging him on one issue, Lieberman-haters are about to deprive themselves of a consistent liberal in favor of a guy who finished third in a 1990 race for state Senate. He might sound conservative on the war, but not on almost anything else.
While Brian’s analysis is excellent, he fails to see that no matter how “liberal” sounding Lieberman is about his support for the war it will not matter. Lamont is attacking his support for the war, not his nuanced reasons for doing so. Rabid and starved primary voters don’t have time for nuance.
Loony Al Gore chose him as his 2000 Presidential running mate, how conservative could he be?
PREDICTION: Lieberman will lose today’s primary by 6%. He will then file as an independent. Both Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger, will be incredibly weak general election candidates. Lieberman will proceed to pummel and trounce Lamont and Schlesinger, respectively (but I hope not respectfully). According to a July 20th Quinnipiac University poll:
Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.
Sorry Lieberman haters, he’s here to stay.