if the voters of connecticut really want a change from the senator they have now, then they would have to vote for…a republican. lamont is only different because he opposes the war in iraq. while it’s true that lamont can claim outsider status, and that he is not tied to any special interest groups, on policy issues there’s not many areas where lieberman and lamont disagree. consider this sampling of groups that lieberman has supported (according to his voting record): planned parenthood, naral, aclu, nea, now, uaw, afl-cio, all the big ones. these groups don’t give endorsements out lightly, but lieberman’s record shows that he deserves those endorsements.
this may come as a shock to conservatives…but joe lieberman is not one of us, hannity’s endorsement not withstanding.
from california conservative:
Lieberman has voted either outright against every Republican initiative or, as in the case of Soc. Security reform, has hedged his bet but still on the negative side of the issue. Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.
In measuring Liebermans record, the American Conservative Union has given him a rating of 0? for calendar year 2004, only an 8? in 2005, and a low 17? for his lifetime in Congress based on his votes in the Senate. (By contrast, much as my Conservative friends may not like him, McCains ACU rating is 72, 80 and 83 respectively.)
He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alitos Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.
Lieberman is not a conservative Democrat. Its just that simple.
there are several objections to re-electing joe lieberman, and none of them are very convincing. the main objection to lieberman is not that he is too conservative, it’s that he’s not liberal enough. he doesn’t oppose bush enough for the liberal netroots. he supports the war in iraq…although he’s backed off somewhat from what he has said/written previously. there is also the unpardonable sin of condemning clinton’s actions during monicagate(which the former president has somehow forgiven him for doing).
i’m not going to predict what’s going to happen next, because anything could happen when the voters of connecticut ultimately decide this. it sure does seem that lieberman isn’t handling this challenge all that well. i watched some of the debate a few weeks ago, and even though lamont may not have had the best answers, this time it didn’t matter.
i don’t know what joe’s advisors have been telling him…but looking angry and defensive doesn’t work for him. he looked like some kind of angry dad, instead of someone who was confident about his record and willing to defend the positions he has taken. it was a side of lieberman that i certainly didn’t expect to see, and it was an ugly display. ned lamont may not have won the debate, but i don’t think lieberman helped his own case either.
there is no reason other than iraq that connecticut conservatives (especially republican conservatives) should give lieberman their vote. in my view, that single issue is still not enough to overlook his entire career record. he should be liberal enough for the rest of the state. it all depends on how much the netroots is willing to sacrifice to make an example out of joe lieberman.
tags: joe lieberman, ned lamont, connecticut, conservatives
Hey Lisa, sorry I’ve been absent. I went on about a 3 week vacation and did some traveling.
I think you are dead on with this analysis. I think this passage sums it up perfectly:
“there are several objections to re-electing joe lieberman, and none of them are very convincing. the main objection to lieberman is not that he is too conservative, its that hes not liberal enough.”
Joe is in a primary not a general and the battle is between the liberal wing and the moderates of the Demcoratic Party. If Joe makes it through the primary, I think he’ll be okay. For some reason, Clinton has been stumping for him and that has helped him tons. Though even Bill isn’t liberal enough for the wackos who oppose Lieberman. But Clinton could bring out more of the moderate Dems and independents which will offset that liberal fringe that Lamont will surely get.
The thing of the matter is, Republican conservatives are not going to be voting between Lamont and Lieberman. So really their views don’t matter. Hannity’s endorsement is merely to divert Dem primary votes away from Lieberman. Mainly because the Republican candidate stands no chance of beating Lieberman in the general, but a very good chance of beating Lamont. Hannity could careless about Lieberman. He just wants a Republican to pick up a senate seat. And Connecticut may be the only place the senate Repubs stand a chance of gaining any ground.
The Republican candidate, Schlesinger, is a gambling addict who has been banned from several casinos. And just recently was busted for gambling under a fake name. He’s also a card counter and publicly acknowledged his addiction to gambling and card counting.
I don’t see the neocon, or religious right, base supporting or making much to do about Schlesinger at all.
It’s probably safe to say that the Dem primary will be the only real race for senate.
Good to see you still writing!!
I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I did sort of wonder what happened to you, but I figured that you would be back eventually.
Clinton’s influence may be enough to pull Lieberman through this primary, but there’s no guarantee that will happen. I can see Lamont winning the primary. Lieberman’s done enough to screw up his own campaign that it wouldn’t be a total shock if he loses to Lamont.
I don’t know if Hannity is devious enough to damage Lieberman on purpose. I think your analysis is more or less accurate otherwise. If the Republican candidate is as weak as you say he is, why couldn’t Lamont beat him?
If I was a voter in Connecticut, I might just sit this one out. None of the candidates sound appealing to me. My point in writing this was that Lieberman is getting all this support from conservatives because of his stance on the war, and that this alone doesn’t save him from his liberal record.
Yeah…I’m still trying to keep this blog going. It’s harder to do with a full-time job, which I’m sure you know.
Vacations are good until until you get back to work and see all the work that has piled up. But I was due for a long vacation, and it was worth it.
You’re right. There is no guarantee that Lieberman is going to make it through this primary. Even with Clinton’s help, Lamont might pull off a giant upset. Personally, I want Lieberman to win. He has seniority and he is usually a pretty level-headed guy.
Hannity is nothing but devious though 🙂 He’s a loud mouth entertainer that likes to stir up controversy.
I’m not sure the Republican candidate is weak. He has a lot of money, unless he’s blowing it on gambling. The reason why Lieberman is so vulnerable right is because he’s become complacent. Most senators are not used to campaigns. Senate races are the most expensive to run. And when they get a challenge they usually appear flustered. Six year terms will do that to a person.
But Schlesinger will be a hard candidate to market. A known gambling addiction with ties to Indian tribes, Abramoff and on a number of occassions the GOP has pled with him to step down, all of this will make it very difficult for the GOP to do much. If Lamont wins the primary and faces Schlesinger in the general, I think it could go either way, only because there really is no way to measure how two no-name candidates will perform, especially when both have split their respective parties. Neither candidate will motivate a lot of people to get to the polls.
I think Tennessee will be the big senate race come November.
I do think you are absolutely right in your call of Lieberman and his problems.
I know what you mean about work piling up. It happens more now that I have what could be considered a real job. Believe it or not…I indirectly work for Rupert Murdoch. Bet you hate me now, right? LOL. (Actually, I work for Speed Channel, which is owned by Fox, so it’s not like I work at FNC. Maybe someday, although I think I would rather be working at the RNC.) But enough about me.
I’ve decided that I don’t want Lieberman to win. We disagree on so much on an ideological level. On the other hand, I really don’t want Lamont to win, because the nutroots will see it as some kind of validation for their POV.
Lieberman has become complacent. Most of the local analysis and a few rational posts at Daily Kos allude to this. I am just surprised at the bad advice he’s gotten so far. Defending your record is always a good idea, but I don’t like this combative Lieberman.
(On an unrelated debate note, I was amused by Lieberman’s defense of earmarks. It provoked one of a few “he said what?” moments I had watching that debate.)
I think the system works against challengers. My local guy Park Gillespie was totally snowed by Ralph Norman’s list of influential friends and bigwigs including Rove and Cheney. I think even Romney and Lindsey Graham did some fundraisers for Norman. How can challengers compete against that?
To be fair, Gillespie wasn’t ready for primetime and Norman is a better candidate. But even if that wasn’t true, it doesn’t change the reality that unknowns find it difficult to break into that exclusive club.
Re: Tennessee – I thought Ford had that wrapped up. Enlighten me. 🙂
I know I’m right about Lieberman. But I can’t vote either way, so it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Congrats on the job! Heck, I’d work for Rove if the money was right.
You are very right. The system totally and almost completely protects the incumbent. In the last 40 years the Congress has worked diligently to protect itself. Whether that means gerrymandered maps or big money, any challenger definetely has the odds against them.
The hardest thing for a known-name challenger to get is press. Or fair press I should say.
Nothing’s wrapped up for this November. Ford should win. But Tennessee is not the Democratic stronghold it used to be. I would say the safest pickup for the senate Dems will be in Penn, where Santorum will likely, and rightfully, go down.
But again, I think you are dead on with your post. Sometimes I like to make sure and tell the blogs I read that I agree with them. Because a lot of times it seems the only time I comment is when I disagree. Have a good week!!
I’m confused. I thought that only Republicans could be bought off. 😛 Everybody’s got a price, I guess. Working for Rove would be fun. But you are probably too busy advising Democrats to send a resume to Rove.
There are things we can do to reform this system. I read this book by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, and I think he’s got some great suggestions for this. I’ll probably post something about it later in the week. (Yes, I’m one of MSNBC’s handful of viewers…but I only watch for Tucker Carlson. Chris Matthews annoys me.)
Santorum’s running against Casey, right? The pro-life guy? I have to confess I’m not up on all of these local races. What’s the main problem that you see with Santorum?
I promise that I will get more partisan soon. Then we can have a knock-down, drag-out fight. That could be fun.
While it is certainly true that Joe Lieberman is far from a conservative, and that he is complacent (just like most incumbents) it is true that he ‘gets it’ when it comes to Iraq and the g.w.o.t., which makes him a rare Democrat.
Of course, this is not to say that I admire Lieberman or would vote for him if I lived in CT. He will forever be tainted in my mind as having been Gore’s running mate and he was complicit (by association) in all of the shenanigans and illegalities by the DNC in Florida in 2000.
To the extent that the choice is between having a Lieberman vote or a Lamont vote on military matters, I’ll campaign for Lieberman.
I’m sick about the PA race between Casey and Santorum. Casey doesn’t have a shred of decency if he can overlook and/or excuse the way his father was treated by the DNC in
’92.
Miracles notwithstanding, Santorum, last I looked, was down by nine. He could rally but it will be tough. Too bad.
It’s true that he gets it on Iraq. I’m not sure if that’s enough to vote for him over a Republican who is likely a lot more conservative. But, as I said before, I don’t really like any of the candidates in CT, so I probably wouldn’t vote.
I could be wrong in this, but I think Lieberman used to be much more conservative before he hooked up with Al Gore. That’s when he started making excuses for Al’s POV, and he totally lost me there.
Hey, is that my man Kent hanging around?? Now I know Lisa is doing some good stuff if Kent is amongst her readers.
I think to sum up some of the stuff on the post and in the comments, it’s to say that Lieberman is not a conservative. Joe would be the first to admit that. Of course that all depends on what a conservative is nowadays. It’s certainly not small government, fiscal responsibility and moral values.
Like Lisa mentions, his voting record does not side with much of anything the GOP takes issue with. I don’t think the Iraq issue is enough to justify someone as being a conservative or not. If that’s the case, then about 60% of America is not conservative at all and could be labeled as liberal. We all know that’s not the case.
I admire Joe because he speaks with conviction. Whatever his stance is on Iraq, and I do disagree with him concerning Iraq, I understand that he speaks from his heart and mind and has been consistent since day one. But in the process he sure has left his base far behind. Joe will have to deal with his constituency whether he wants to or not. I hope they all kiss and make up cause the Dems don’t need to be spending money on a general election in CT when they have so many other places they need to be.
RE: MSNBC, doesn’t MSNBC have higher ratings than FNC?? 😉
Santorum is a fruitcake. That’s enough reason for me. He’ll lose in November.
It’s always fun in here…
There’s one small thing you missed in your summary. DC “conservatives” don’t have much similarity with other conservatives. Scarborough writes about this in his book. It’s interesting to read about the behind-the-scenes machinations that happen that the average person never knows about. (I’m sure you know what I’m talking about, Chris…)
I think Lieberman is a squish on Iraq, meaning that yes, he supports the war…but he’s very reluctant to promote that view when he’s not in friendly territory. That’s my perception of it anyway. All he wants to talk about is how he’s the anti-Bush. If he was really proud of his record, and if he’s trying to get the votes of Democrats, he should be defending that record with more conviction. I just don’t see that with Lieberman.
I think I’ve said enough on that subject.
Re: MSNBC – That would shock me, especially because MSNBC has all these no-name hosts compared to FNC, and their programming (with a few exceptions)isn’t all that exciting.
If y’all don’t have much in common, then why keep sending them to DC?
Ohhhh….the behind the scenes crap got old real quick. I think I’ve said this on here before, but the senate is a gentleman’s club. I’m sure the house operates much the same way. It’s almost impossible to get anything done that people care about; or maybe it’s better said it’s impossible to get anything done that truly affects people’s well being.
I could probably go on all day about the behind the scenes garbage but I’ll spare ya. Just to get a parking spot takes some sort of a political action committee. I get fired up about that stuff…I should write a book 🙂
I think Lieberman will be okay…but I’ve been wrong before.
I think Fox has higher ratings than MSNBC. Though if you ask Bill O’Reilly, MSNBC is in the gutter. I don’t watch either stations, so I really have no clue who has the better lineup or hosts. I mainly read newspapers and journals. I’ll even read stuff like National Review and the WSJ. I get bored with television. It’s all the same…people yelling at other people for not sharing the same opinion as them. I’ll watch Springer if I want to see that crap.
I’ll have to pick up a copy of the book you mention.
You know the answer to this one. The answer is because a flawed conservative Republican will always be preferable to a perfect liberal one, and in most all cases, better than any kind of Democrat. 😛
I would definitely read any book you wrote…especially if I could get it for what I paid for Scars’ book. But you would send me a free copy, right? So I wouldn’t have to worry about that.
Lieberman will be fine, now that the Democrats’ knight in shining armor has arrived to save him. Or something like that.
I don’t watch FNC as much as I did before. The news depresses me, so I just read blogs and follow the news through RSS feeds. I don’t watch much TV at all. Most of the time I just watch sports and old sitcoms. Occasionally I tune in C-Span when Prime Minister’s Questions is on or Road to the White House.
I love National Review Online’s “The Corner” live blog. It’s fun to read. I don’t read the dead tree version of the WSJ, but I do occasionally find good post material at OpinionJournal.
It’s not surprising that Springer is a liberal or that he has a show on Air(head) America. Anyone who allows that kind of junk on TV during the day can’t possibly be conservative.
Re: the book – try WalMart’s bargain bin…that’s where I found my copy. It was only $5.
I know…but I still had to ask it. I’m the same way, but the opposite of course 🙂