Senator Lieberman loses the CT Democratic Primary

[Max]

As many of you probably know, Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Primary this past Tuesday to ultra-liberal businessman Ned Lamont. Lamont defeated Lieberman by a margin of about 10,000 votes, and received 52 percent of the vote compared to Lieberman's 48 percent.

Obviously, the only reason why Lieberman lost was because of the Iraq war. (Lieberman supports the war, while Lamont is calling for a withdrawl of all troops.) Democratic voters completely ignored other important issues such as Lamont's complete lack of qualifications for becoming a Senator (polls showed that many Lamont voters didn't even know who he was), as well as having disregarded Lieberman's sterling personal integrity and his support of virtually every other issue that is popular among Democrats.

This election result is really sad, as it is proof that the Democratic Party has moved strongly to left; there is just no room in the party when it comes to disagreeing with the base on the Iraq war. Indeed, it was the far-left bloggers on moveon, dailykos, and other websites that completely fueled the defeat Lieberman effort. Now, before anyone says that Lamont is closer to the American mainstream than Lieberman when it comes to the war--since polls show about 60 percent of Americans oppose the war--please note that the majority of Americans are opposed to an immediate troop pullout in Iraq, which is what Lamont and the liberal bloggers are calling for.

(As an important sidenote, liberals have stated for years that the Republican Party has no room for those who don't completely adhere to ultra right-wing ideology. However, this is simply not true, as evidenced by a Republican Primary election in 2004. Two years ago, Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Arlen Specter--who, like Lieberman, is a solid moderate who often disagrees with the party's base--received a fierce primary challenge from a very conservative Congressman. However, unlike Lieberman, the Republican primary voters were tolerant of Specter's moderation and provided him with a victory. Indeed, based on this election, and other Republican primary elections as well, one can conclude that it is actually the Republican Party that is more tolerant towards moderates that don't adhere to a rigid partisan ideology.)

Now that the primary election is over, Lieberman has said that he will run as an Independent in the general election. (Note that because the Republican candidate in this race is a complete joke--even among Republicans--the general election will essentially be a two person race of the Democrat Lamont versus Independent Lieberman.) Unfortunately, despite what other analysts might say, I think that it is doubtful that Lieberman will win in November. The reasons why I feel this way are as follows: First, Connecticut is an extremely liberal state that hates Bush and is strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Second, the entire Democratic establishment is now committed to helping Lamont defeat Lieberman. And finally, Lieberman's campaign is virtually out of money (and, because he is an Independent, he will not be the receipient of the sizable amount of money that a major political party always provides to its nominee), while Lamont--who is extremely wealthy--will be able to pay for his entire campaign.

Before I conclude, I must point out a major case of hypocrisy when it comes to how the liberal Democrats view (and treat) Lieberman. Obviously, everybody is aware that liberals strongly hate Lieberman due to his support of the Iraq war. However, liberal Democrats conveniently forget--and never give him credit for--the fact that Lieberman is the reason why Gore did so well in Florida in 2000: Because of Lieberman's presence on the ticket, the large number of Jewish voters in Florida were extraordinarily mobilized (like they never have been before, and have never been since) when it came to supporting the Democratic ticket that year. Had Lieberman not been on the ticket, the historic level of support from Florida's Jews would not have occurred, and Gore would have almost certainly lost Florida by a margin of 50,000 to 100,000 votes or more. And, if Bush's margin of victory in Florida was that large, then there would have been no need for him to "steal" the election. Honestly, it just simply amazes me that liberals have completley forgotten the fact that Lieberman was the reason Gore "won" Florida, and instead are completely convinced that Gore's "win" in Florida was solely due to Al Gore alone. Additionally, it amazes me that almost nobody in the party is greatful towards Lieberman having been able to "win" Florida for Gore.

[Danni]

A lot of it also has to do with Lieberman being a part of the infamous Gang of 14.

[juniorz1]

Interesting viewpoint, thought I wouldn't go so far as to say that Lieberman is the reason that Gore technically should have won Florida. He may have been a contributing factor for some, but for myself and many other Floridians I spoke to in 2000, having Lieberman on the ballot was to his detriment. Gore ran a very conservative campaign then and putting Lieberman on the ticket was a big part of that. He was distancing himself from Clinton, which was so not the way to go.

I'm thrilled that Connecticuit finally wised up and booted Lieberman from this year's ticket. He's moderate on many issues- the war is just an example of one. As a democrat, he's weak on issues, he doesn't assert himself well, and frankly, he's left me scratching my head more than once.

[DaysFanJean]

I admire Lieberman and respect him however, he was not a good party man, imho, and I was surprised that after the 2002 elections, he had any clout left. Obviously his constituents thought so, too. He will have some influence in the future, however and continue his role model of a "good man".