Humorous Response to Pierce: Lieberman the Liberal?
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.
Comment by Jon Ozaksut on 8 August 2006 at 11:27 pm:
What Lamont’s campaign has been trying to get across to voters is not that it’s all about the war. What Lamont’s supporters have been trying to get across is that regardless of his voting record, Mr. Lieberman is primarily the most consistent and loud critic of the Democratic party within the Senate ranks (save Zell Miller, who isn’t fooling anybody), and secondarily an apologist for this administration even in situations where moderate Republicans such as Chris Shays will speak out against current policy. This has led to some incredibly embarrassing situations for Joe, such as being the only Democrat to loudly join in the Schiavo mess, voting for cloture on the Alito nomination, being the final Democrat to come around on Social Security, and so on.
As many others have tried to get across, this isn’t about ideology – Ned Lamont certainly doesn’t look like a loony to me, and recall that Lieberman’s campaign called him too conservative before they called him too liberal.
Incidentally, Anti-semitism is a term thrown around so loosely nowadays (by some accusers, a title extended to all who oppose Israel’s current counterproductive conduct in the war), that I’ve instated a personal moratorium on all accusations of anti-Semitism – I’ll wait a few months to judge. This has the unfortunate side effect of my not yet knowing that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, but then again, Mel Gibson makes a better case for Mel Gibson than a single commenter on a single weblog does for The Left.
I also am confused by your assertion that the Republican party is a bigger, more diverse tent than the Democratic party. Off the top of my head, I can think of several major groups:
-Civil rights liberals (i.e. minorities, homosexuals, feminists, The Dreaded ACLU)
-Labor liberals (unions, low income workers, those motivated by income inequality)
-Anti-war liberals
-Moderates/religious Democrats
With regards to the war (which is a large point of this debate), it should be very clear that even without Lieberman, there is much more diversity of opinion regarding Iraq in the Democratic Party than the Republican one. There are Dem Senators more conservative than Lieberman – even ones running this November, such as Sen. Nelson (D-FL). These more conservative Senators aren’t facing primary challenges. It’s not about ideology, it’s about partisanship. I’ll gladly refer to Lieberman as a Benedict Arnold. But not because of how he votes – because of how readily he will excoriate his own party on national television.
Comment by Anonymous on 8 August 2006 at 11:54 pm:
Joe,
Should Connecticut Joe be true to his party or true to his constituents? Polls, illustrated by BJM’s graphs, indicate that CT-Joe viewed favorably by the entire state. It is to them that he owes allegiance – not the nutroots, not the CT-Dems, not even the Dems on a national scale. Partisanship be damned, CT-Joe seems to vote his heart and mind (the same heart and mind of 60% of the people). He should be applauded for it.
If there will ever be a viable third party, it will be founded by men like Joe Lieberman and John McCain. And if they ever get around to it, that party will run the tables from state reps to the White House.
Comment by Jon Ozaksut on 9 August 2006 at 9:22 pm:
Anonymous,
Lieberman may currently be viewed favorably by the state, but you may notice that nearly all of his supporters in the Democratic party left him – overnight. If he stays in the race, he will continue to hemhorrage Democratic support.
Lieberman’s only hope for success is to win both Democratic and Republican support as well as a majority of Independents. Of course, for precisely the reasons he bemoans (too much partisanship), the likelihood of achieving that isn’t too high.
Lieberman is in an ugly position right now – his rhetoric’s been leaning right for years, then with the primary, pushing back to the left. Now that he’s not trying to win the approval of Democrats, he may go back to approving of President Bush’s conduct on the war (which, coincidentally, would put him at odds with 60% of the nation’s population.)
I’m looking forward to seeing Lieberman drop out within the next month (or possibly two). It’s looking like he’s on the way out.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 9 August 2006 at 11:32 pm:
I don’t think there’s a chance that he will drop out. Not with the poll numbers looking the way they do, as shown by the Excel chart that I posted. I personally believe very strongly in the middle as being the true majority in this country. I am happy at the developments because it means Joe will win as an Independent. That means he won’t have to answer to people who want him to march blindly with the Democrats. Since when has it become a bad thing to break from your party and vote the way you think best. Since when are U.S. Senators supposed to be so cowardly that they should only vote with their own Party?
When Peter Fitzgerald was in the Senate he broke ranks multiple times annd I respect him for it. John McCain continues to break ranks and I respect him for it. In fact, if a politician stops eating his Party’s soma I will appreciate it and respect it more than if he conforms, even when I agree more with the decision of the Party.
Lamont cannot win a general election against a moderate candidate. He has no serious political experience beyond the town library board and he is Howard Dean in a different suit. Lieberman will draw from the moderate right, the moderate, and the moderate left. It’s over.