August 08, 2006
Lieberman Looking For A New Team?
We're hearing that some members of the Lieberman braintrust have been quietly canvassing Washington in search of a new campaign team (staff and consultants); Dem campaign history is a must as the Lieberman team doesn't want any GOP consultants helping due to his need to keep the Dems he has already. While it's possible Lieberman can be talked out of the indie run, the person closest to Lieberman who shares his last name (hint hint) is pushing her husband hard to keep running. [CHUCK TODD]
We also hear that Sen. Chris Dodd has been tasked by his collegues with trying to convince Lieberman to not mount an independent bid. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 10:44 PM
Comments
Let Joe run, and be damned.
Brijen | 08.08.06 10:49 PM
 |
He should keep running. I doubt he will though. He'll bail. Senator Lamont...ugh.
Republican | 08.08.06 10:52 PM
|
If Lieberman runs an independent bid, it will end him in Democratic politics, even if he wins. Why not step down gracefully and run for Governor in four years (of course the uber-popular Republican Jodi Rell will win relelection this time) where his policies on Iraq won't be so relevant?
Kevin | 08.08.06 11:18 PM
|
Nothing could more energize Lamont's supporters than a Lieberman run as independent. And nothing could strip Joe of his clout in the Senate. Great idea, Joe.
Bill | 08.09.06 01:34 AM
|
Yes, I am so glad that Lamont won...there will be much pressure for Lieberman to step aside but somehow I'm not sure he will..............
ellen | 08.09.06 01:46 AM
|
Sean Smith is humiliated... The lieberman campaign was just atrociously bad, I mean SERIOUSLY bad. The Bear cub commercial? "No More Joe?" The campaign site going down...
It was just pathetic.
Matt Cockerill | 08.09.06 01:56 AM
|
Cheers everyone, we get to boot Bush's love child twice in the same year.
dem boy | 08.09.06 02:00 AM
|
I knew Haddasah Lieberman was a lobbyist for big Pharma. I didn't know until now that she's Lady Macbeth!
It's pretty ironic that it was Joe who accused Howard Dean of being "in his own spider hole of denial." Joe should try looking in the mirror some time!
Jim in Chicago | 08.09.06 02:01 AM
|
You think Iraq won't be relevant in four years?
Wishful, thinking, my friend. The effects of that war will remain profound for the rest of our days.
James | 08.09.06 02:06 AM
|
Even those that voted for him in the primary are not that likely to support a bid as an Independent. Remember, these are Democrats. Lieberman's selfish bid as an Indy, not honoring the primary, not respecting the voters choice all spell rapid loss of any residual support that may exist tonight. The guy must be totally selfish, arrogant and pathetically ethically challanged to even attempt this. It's like watching an ugly traffic accident.
xargaw | 08.09.06 02:09 AM
|
The outcome is a nightmare scenario for the Democrats. Lamont's narrow win (it's hilarious to watch Chris Matthews on Hardball try to spin it as a great victory, by the way), especially after all the funny business by his supporters, gives Lieberman every incentive to run. That both opens the door (just a crack, admittedly) to the possibility of the Republicans grabbing the seat, and puts the Democrats in the quandry of how to deal with Lieberman. They'll need the senator from CT voting with the Democratic caucus in pretty much any scenario in which they hope to gain control of the Senate, so they can't throw brickbats at him, since the polls show he'd probably win, but they're going to get great pressure from the Daily Kos crowd to do just that (Kos is already demanding Reid strip Lieberman of all his committees).
And the Republicans? It's manna from heaven for them. Odds are come January the Senate seat from CT will be status quo, with a slight chance more favorable to the Republicans, and the Democrats have engaged in a very vicious and very public purge of their ranks on the grounds that Lieberman wasn't sufficiently fanatical for some (and let's not forget some of the repulsively anti-Semitic comments some of the anti-Lieberman crowd was making in the final days). If the Republicans don't already have a groups of staffers making commercials portraying the Democrats as beholden to far left, weak-on-security nutjobs they don't deserve to hold onto Congress.
S.C. | 08.09.06 02:10 AM
|
Three days, max. He'll be gone by the weekend. I won't be surprised if it happens tomorrow.
Jake | 08.09.06 02:21 AM
|
After his buddy Rowland got in trouble for taking bribes, the ethics environment is probably not as permissive as Joe would feel comfortable with as governor.
There just wouldn't be enough room for the sort of quasi-legal bribery and pay-to-play corruption he and his wife have grown rich on during Joe's term in the Senate and his wifes concurrent term as a fat-cat lobbyist bringing business before... US senators.
moron | 08.09.06 02:29 AM
|
It doesn't matter if he actually runs or not. Lieberman was finished as a Democrat the minute he gave that "concession" speech.
Sharoney | 08.09.06 02:33 AM
|
People who hop about the Joe Lieberman's independent campaign will also see their stock in Democratic politics diminish pretty considerably.
matt | 08.09.06 02:37 AM
|
If Lieberman runs as an independent he will be spitting in the face of every democrat in this country.
Why on earth does he think he has a right to that office? Does he think he is Lord Lieberman for life? Is he taking King George as a role model?
The people have spoken, Mr. Lieberman. Your services are no longer required.
pleasedont | 08.09.06 02:53 AM
|
I admire Senator Lieberman, but he stuck up for his beliefs on Iraq which I believe are fundamentally wrong. He gave President Bush the bi-partisan crutch he needed to get us in the middle of this total mess in the mid-east that not only is destroying our economy, but is bringing chaos to that part of the world. Now he is saying he is an independent when yesterday he was a Democrat. Will his candidacy elect a Republican, or will he get elected and become an independent Republican. It's time for him to leave.
billiebob | 08.09.06 03:06 AM
|
I'm hoping he runs. This would be good place for him to start a run toward DC
jerry | 08.09.06 03:08 AM
|
Upon Lieberman's filing tomorrow, Minority Leader Senator Reid should inform him that all his committee assignments are forfeited. He cannot represent the Democratic Party on Senate committees while he is actively campaigning as an independant against the Democratic Party nominee.
Either honor the Democratic Party nomination process, or lose all your rights as a Democrat in the Senate.
In my opinion, there is going to be significant pressure on Lieberman to honor the voter's will. By November, he will either be a candidate who has been cast off by his party, or will be an honorable Democrat. It's his choice.
Longship | 08.09.06 03:08 AM
|
Joe is done. He already accepted help from Republican volunteers and strategists.
The Democrats have spoken: they don't want a Senator who is an enabler of criminals, and an appeaser to America's greatest enemies. The Republicans pose the single greatest threat to our nation and our freedom.
We have enemies within our gates, and REAL Americans will not stop until they are dealt with.
What happens in Iraq will not effect America one way or the other. But what happens in America will.
Vote freedom: Vote Democrat
The LieberMan | 08.09.06 03:14 AM
|
He will run himself into the ground and lose in a landslide in the general, because he can't help shooting himself in the foot. He is out of touch with the ordinary citizen and with the zeitgeist of politics. A Republican in Dem clothing using Rovian campaign tactics but not wanting Republican help? This type of pretzel twisting is going to have him destroying himself. He's going down.
Liberlman | 08.09.06 03:42 AM
|
Lieberman should run under the Republican Party, that way his support for Bush will be logical.
JSH | 08.09.06 03:50 AM
|
Say it ain't so Joe.
Patd | 08.09.06 04:04 AM
|
I'm so grateful for the all the Republican support for JoMentum, because in the end, that's what killed him... and if, and when he runs in Novemeber, it will ALL come crashing down around his deaf political ears!!!
The arrogance of a man who has not the humility to understand that he's no longer chosen to lead. Joe still thinks he should be VP... and as such, he probably sees himself as superior to the other 99 Senators with whom he's been forced to share "air time."
If he would retire with grace and digity, I would wish him well, but since that's not the case.... I wish Joe a costly and painful reality in the fall!!!
ConspiracyJake
ConspiracyJake | 08.09.06 04:08 AM
|
To think this man was once elected vice-president (until he wasn't).
God save the Supreme Court.
Joshua S. Rubenstein | 08.09.06 07:42 AM
|
Joe's loss is a win for repubican senate candidates in Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee. The cut and paste of the left-wing, anti-US, anti-troop blogs that fueled Lamont does not sit well in Middle America. The commercials are being made by Karl Rove now, and you can bet they will work. The Party of Surrender ala a frenchie name like Lamont is a goodbye for the dems.
Karen | 08.09.06 08:10 AM
|
Lieberman is done. The whole country will be voting on the war in November. That, combined with a real disdain for same old-same old incumbents, dooms Joe to run a strong second in November.
Even the Jewish vote deserted the warhawk for the waspiest wasp in all Christendom.
Joe can't win.
In the end done in by overweening pride and a perverse desire to suck up to the other side. Iraq, yes. But long before Iraq, Joe was pandering to the right. He is a very self-involved and cynical man. Bye, Joe. I cant believe I was so excited when Gore picked you. You let me down.
Mark Cohen | 08.09.06 08:14 AM
|
This is in response to SC:
The Lamont victory yesterday WAS huge. How many incumbent three-term senators can you name that have lost primaries? How many candidates have been able to overcome a 68-13 margin in the polls? Lamont's campaign was nothing short of remarkable.
"Funny business" by Lamont supporters. Oh please. How about some evidence? ANY evidence? My car won't start, maybe it was the Lamont campaign that did it.
The fact that Lieberman led in 3-way polls BEFORE the primary doesn't tell us much. That's before he LOST. Yes, he'll get some Republican support (hmm, maybe that's a reason more DEMOCRATS didn't support him), but he'll lose a lot of support from people who feel he doesn't respect the process. The vast Democratic establishment has already started abandoning him with endorsements from Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh and John Edwards early this morning.
A few people made anonymous anti-Semitic comments on line. That's unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with Ned Lamont or his supporters. The "anti-Lieberman crowd" includes conservative Republicans, no? Oh, maybe it doesn't, since they all support his candidacy.
Finally, the allegation that Lamont is far-left wing because he is opposed to the war in Iraq is laughable. Today's CNN poll indicates that SIXTY PERCENT of the country is opposed to the war. Guess that makes the majority of the country left-wing nutjobs?
bob | 08.09.06 09:37 AM
|
Joe collapsed in 2000 when the Dems needed him most (Cheney debate, post election), he collapsed in the current campaign, and he needs to collape this indy bid.
tom durkin | 08.09.06 10:00 AM
|
And the Republicans? It's manna from heaven for them. Odds are come January the Senate seat from CT will be status quo, with a slight chance more favorable to the Republicans
If this were even remotely true, the Repubicans & Fox News would have been supporting Lamont from the get go (financially and with favorable media coverage) in order to disrupt this race. See: Green party candidate in PA-Sen race.
No, they wanted Joe because he is one of them.
mmmm | 08.09.06 10:10 AM
|
You think Iraq won't be relevant in four years?
Wishful, thinking, my friend. The effects of that war will remain profound for the rest of our days.
James | 08.09.06 02:06 AM
Kevin said "where" Iraq won't be relevent, not "when". A state governor doesn't have much to do with international policy.
SkippyFlipjack | 08.09.06 11:03 AM
|
The cut and paste of the left-wing, anti-US, anti-troop blogs that fueled Lamont does not sit well in Middle America.
Lamont's win was fueled by the majority of the american people who think the Iraq war is a failure and want the troops home.
SkippyFlipjack | 08.09.06 11:05 AM
|
Lieberman's original premise for an indy run was that the traditionally low turnout for primaries meant that the primary would not be fully representative of the democratic party. As tortured as that logic was, it did at least provide an excuse for disregarding the results of the primary.
But...OOOPS!..... voter turnout among democrats exceeded 50% so the "logic" that Joe wanted to give the entire party a chance to have a say does not hold water.
Fact is, Joe, that you have been repudiated NOT by the lunatic fringe of the democratic party: you have been repudiated by the party. So what is your excuse for running now?
Can we just admit its to soothe your own ego?
foo | 08.09.06 11:08 AM
|
I'm not pooh-poohing the fact that an incumbent senator lost a primary election. But what I am pointing out is that he lost by about 4 points after being behind by 13 as late as last week. For once there really was Joementum, and had the election taken place a week later, I suspect that Lieberman might have won.
As for the notion that this is a slight gain for the Republicans in the Senate, well, simple logic bears this out. Lamont got 52% of the Democrats in CT, who make up about a third of the electorate. That's about 1/6 of the total voting pool. I have a hard time believing Lamont's going to be picking up any Republican support, which means he has to convert all the Lieberman supporters and a large chunk of independents, and I have my doubts about either of those prospects (the breakdown of the vote last night showed different demographic support for each, which point to fundamental cleavages that may make it hard for Lamont to win over Lieberman supporters).
As for the funny business issue, hmm, how about that blackface picture by someone Lamont knew (despite his claims to the contrary) for one thing? Or Lieberman's website being hacked? It doesn't matter if Lamont had nothing to do with them, they were done on his behalf and he's going to be tarred with that brush (George H.W. Bush had nothing to do with the Willie Horton ad but liberals still like to beat him up over it). As for the anti-Semitic comments, the posters at DailyKos were the most virulent Lamont supporters and guess where those anti-Semitic comments appeared? It's rather peculiar that those who want to find Lieberman guilty for his associations don't think the same will apply to Lamont.
As for the far left comment, well, Lamont has said we should negotiate with our enemies. I'm not hearing that on the far right (well, other than Buchanan, who, I sometimes suspect, would prefer that we ally with our enemies, particular if it's against Israel), but maybe you're right and it's not a far left position. Doesn't change the fact that it's a fundamentally stupid position, however: how do you negotiate with someone who wants to saw your head off? Offer him one of your ears and your nose? Or maybe they could have knocked down just one of towers on 9/11?
Yes, Americans are ticked off about the war in Iraq, but on a more fundamental level they do understand the need for a strong posture in the larger war we're engaged in, and you do NOT maintain a strong posture by cutting, running, and offering to negotiate (I've not seen any poll calling for cutting and running in Iraq, even though people don't like it). If the Democrats can figure that out before November they might win, but the Lamont win is a clarion call that they don't get it. Now the only question is whether the Republicans have the wit and skill to capitalize on the Democrats' stupidity and weakness.
S.C. | 08.09.06 01:10 PM
|
"'And the Republicans? It's manna from heaven for them. Odds are come January the Senate seat from CT will be status quo, with a slight chance more favorable to the Republicans'
If this were even remotely true, the Repubicans & Fox News would have been supporting Lamont from the get go (financially and with favorable media coverage) in order to disrupt this race. See: Green party candidate in PA-Sen race.
No, they wanted Joe because he is one of them."
Um, no. The Republican has only a narrow chance of winning (by most accounts I've heard, he's not exactly A team material). However, Lieberman, for reasons I've stated above, has a very good chance of winning. So at the very least the Republicans don't lose ground, and while Lieberman will probably revert to being a good little Democrat once reelected, maybe he won't be the 90% team player he's been, and instead drop to 85 or 80%. That's a gain for the Republicans, at least tactically.
As for strategically, the Republicans for years have said that under their tent you only have to agree about 80% of the time. That's apparently been quite satisfactory to the American public. Will the public be as accepting of a Democratic Party demanding better than 90% purity, as indicated by the Lamont win? I have my doubts.
S.C. | 08.09.06 01:25 PM
|
Joe's loss is a win for repubican senate candidates in Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee. The cut and paste of the left-wing, anti-US, anti-troop blogs that fueled Lamont does not sit well in Middle America. The commercials are being made by Karl Rove now, and you can bet they will work. The Party of Surrender ala a frenchie name like Lamont is a goodbye for the dems.
Karen | 08.09.06 08:10 AM
I do love reading other people's fantasies, even if I have to work a bit to figure out exactly what they're trying to say (and even if I'm still not entirely sure when I'm done). Yup, St. Karl's gonna kill us with his magic commercials. Gawd, I am so looking forward to November and the sound of wingnut heads exploding.
garryowen | 08.09.06 01:32 PM
|
By the late 70's the mainstream of the Democratic Party had abandoned serious opposition to Communism, allowing the Republicans to capture that issue, which in turn helped Reagan get elected and reelected. Now in the 21st century, the Democrats look as if they're on the verge of ceding serious opposition to the jihadists to the Republicans as well.
Like it or not (I tend to be in the not category), we can't just up and leave Iraq, because it will be interpreted by our enemies as a sign that America doesn't have the stomach for a long, hard fight. That's the lesson they got after we cut and run from Beirut during the Reagan years and from the actions of the Clinton administration ranging from Somalia to the Khobar Towers bombing, and it only encouraged them.
Bush and his minions deserved to be damned for not pounding home over and over and over how long, hard, and, yes, bloody the fight is going to be, but while their actions have been half-hearted, they at least understand that we're in a fight. With Lieberman's defeat, I'm not sure enough Democrats do.
There's an old saying: Never bring a knife to a gun fight. I'm not sure the Democrats even have a spork.
Edmund | 08.09.06 01:52 PM
|
Just a notes to those on both sides of this:
1. "Fact is, Joe, that you have been repudiated NOT by the lunatic fringe of the democratic party: you have been repudiated by the party. So what is your excuse for running now?"
Answer: Simple. The senator, having conceded defeat in the battle to represent his party will now take his case to the broader Connecticut voting community. He was elected by and ultimately answers to the Republicans, Democrats, third party affiliates, and independents of his state.
The Democratic primary voters chose Ned Lamont to fight and speak for their values in the general election and Washington. So be it.
Mr. Lieberman now offers the broader Connecticut community the same choice any candidate in the general election offers - his vision - which can be either accepted or rejected. The Democratic Party, independent leaning Democrat Senator Lieberman, the Republicans, and third party candidates have to make their case to the greater voting public.
Democrats, if Lieberman splits the Democratic vote and hands this election to the Republicans, well, blame the Democratic nominee for his failure to win over Lieberman supporters and Lieberman for his failure to win over Lamont voters or offset that by winning over enough moderate Republicans.
Republicans, don't blame Lieberman for splitting the hawk vote and giving the election to Lamont. Blame your candidate for his failure to make the case for our efforts in Iraq.
2. "In my opinion, there is going to be significant pressure on Lieberman to honor the voter's will. By November, he will either be a candidate who has been cast off by his party, or will be an honorable Democrat. It's his choice."
My response: Well, again, Mr. Lieberman ultimately answers voting public of Connecticut as a whole and not the Democrats, the Republicans he is accused of colluding with, or anyone else in particular. He will be pressured to honor the Democratic primary "voter's will" but please do not confuse this with the Connecticut "voters' will" which may still be up for grabs.
3. "The arrogance of a man who has not the humility to understand that he's no longer chosen to lead."
My question: What do you mean when you say Senator Lieberman was "no longer chosen to lead?" If you are talking about the primary election results you are right. The Democrats have chosen Ned Lamont but Senator Lieberman already conceded defeat in that race. No one was chosen to lead yet. That happens in November.
4. "The cut and paste of the left-wing, anti-US, anti-troop blogs that fueled Lamont does not sit well in Middle America. The commercials are being made by Karl Rove now, and you can bet they will work. The Party of Surrender ala a frenchie name like Lamont is a goodbye for the dems."
Response: Don't count on it. This may solidify Republican support in the south, Wyoming, Kansas and the prarie states but it may have the opposite effect in the northeast if Ned Lamont's victory in the Democratic primary is not overturned in Connecticut by the will of the greater voting Connecticut populace.
The Bush administration hasn't yet offered a Plan B (more troops, open military confrontation and/or increased pressure for more Iraqi political negotiations) in Iraq when polls and generals believe we are close to if not yet losing Plan A ("staying the course"). If the Republicans cannot offer an alternative course of action, voters might back the primarily Democratic-led Plan C (cut our losses, give up and withdraw).
Don't buy into the rhetorical talking pointss from either side. Think them through before either supporting them or rejecting them. I may not agree with the Democratic primary voter's choice but don't dismiss their logic. If one party has no plan and the other needs to offer a new plan to replace one largely regarded as a failure, why not punish the ones who created the mess? If we are now in the position of having no good choice (cut our losses and run v "stay the course") why not punish those who forced us into this predicament?
4. "And the Republicans? It's manna from heaven for them. Odds are come January the Senate seat from CT will be status quo, with a slight chance more favorable to the Republicans, and the Democrats have engaged in a very vicious and very public purge of their ranks on the grounds that Lieberman wasn't sufficiently fanatical for some (and let's not forget some of the repulsively anti-Semitic comments some of the anti-Lieberman crowd was making in the final days). If the Republicans don't already have a groups of staffers making commercials portraying the Democrats as beholden to far left, weak-on-security nutjobs they don't deserve to hold onto Congress."
Response: Wake up and smell the coffee. Northeastern state voters by far and large oppose the war in Iraq and even those who say we cannot leave believe we are not winning.
John | 08.09.06 02:13 PM
|
Liebermans' website wasn't hacked. He and his impoverished wife apparently could only afford a $15 per month low-bandwith site so it couldn't handle all the people trying to access it. Hence it crashed.
I think one of the biggest reasons he lost is the glowing endorsement from Mann Coultergeist. That really brought up a bolus of vomit. Yuck!
He should show some dignity and step aside. Be a gentleman but that won't happen since he's a "Born-again Republican". How sad that the GOP wouldn't even endorse the Republican candidate over Lieberman. And you NeoCons just can't understand why we don't the JoeCkSter anymore.
Ederlore | 08.12.06 08:42 AM
|
Poor Joe:
Not bright enough to realize that George W. Bush is illegally in the White House (brother Jeb removed thousands of voters from the Florida voter rolls), that he illegally brought us into this war through his lies to congress, and is deserving of nothing less than impeachment.
If Joe Lieberman had had political brains and a backbone, he would have been initiating impeachment proceedings against the "Frat Boy President", instead of kissing Bush's behind in the war effort. Had he done so, he would be heading for the general election as the democratic candidate.
gerrylong | 08.13.06 01:14 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
